"Secrets of The Dead; The Princes In The Tower", on PBS; Nov. 22, Wednesday evening

Interesting!!! Thanks, Rebecca! I do love Richard III and his era!

Mardee, I hope you enjoy the program!
It should be very good.

Good notification, Rebecca. Our local PBS station is immediately following up the Secrets of the Dead episode with reshowing the Lucy Worsley Investigates “Princes in the Tower” program that was first aired in May of last year. An extra dose of intrigue and archaeological evidence.

I’m still fascinated that Richard III’s skeleton, curved spine and all, was discovered beneath a parking lot a few years ago. I’ve also thought that “Secrets of the Dead” was a weird name for a series that has had some very interesting episodes, albeit with an unfortunate title that could use a less-creepy, maybe more descriptive name.

Cyn, the Lucy Worsley program is very good and actually tells who did it toward the end of the program.
It was revealed in a document written by Sir Thomas More years after the event, which Lucy reads aloud in her program.
Unfortunately the Lucy Worsley program is not airing afterwards in my area.
But it is a "must see" for anyone interested in this mystery.
Thanks for that tip....hopefully a good many forum members will have that program immediately after Secrets of the Dead.
Thanks for adding an alert to the Lucy program.

It definitely will be interesting, although I have to admit I am skeptical. Evidently it's based on Philippa Langley's new book, which brings for some alleged new evidence that has surfaced about the Princes in the Tower mystery. She claims Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, two imposters who surfaced after Richard's death, were the two princes. But it's is an old story and I don't buy it. It was disproven at the time and many times since then.

But I will certainly watch it! I'm curious to see what she has discovered that thousands of historians over the years have not. I know my history prof at our local university will be tearing his hair out! 😊

It was revealed in a document written by Sir Thomas More years after the event.

Don't forget Thomas Moore (as well as Shakespeare) were writing for a Tudor audience, so they would have to paint Richard III in a black light. Let's face it, Henry VII's claim to the throne was decidedly dodgy...

I've watched both programmes and have to admit I was very disappointed in the Lucy Worsley programme which came across as being very one sided, quite lightweightfor her and lacking in rigor. I felt she was very dismissive of Richard III, relying entirely on what Tudor historians had written. However, I must admit I'm biased and have always felt that Richard was much maligned... Opinions of him are very polarised.

Philippa Langley had researchers delving into archives across Europe and its interesting what she has uncovered with evidence that both boys were alive well into Henry's reign. Don't dismiss her ideas out of hand Mardee!

If anyone is interested Josephine Tey wrote a book 'Daughter of Time' in 1951 which is well worth reading and makes a strong case in support of Richard's. Have a read of the article in wiki...

Mardee...hahaha....."I know my history prof at our local university will be tearing his hair out!"
Who knows if Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, the two imposters who surfaced after Richard's death, were the princes.....
There is some evidence that their mother had sent one or both of them to Europe to live until she felt the danger had passed.

wasleys, yes to this:
"Don't forget Thomas More (as well as Shakespeare) were writing for a Tudor audience, so they would have to paint Richard III in a black light."--So true.
Shakespeare was definitely playing up to his Queen when he wrote the play "Richard III". His patron was Queen Elizabeth I, a Tudor, and you are quite right wasleys.
It was difficult for Richard III to get a fair chance in public opinion after that play came out.
There were many people who had just as much to gain by murdering the boys; for example Henry VII and his mother Margaret.

"However, I must admit I'm biased and have always felt that Richard was much maligned"...I agree.
During the time period when Richard III was found under the carpark and leading up to the reburial, I was reading lots of articles at the website of the Richard III Society. They present a lot of interesting evidence that seems to point away from Richard. According to them, he was a very religious person, kind, generous, and not as portrayed by Shakespeare.

Thanks for mentioning 'Daughter of Time' by Josephine Tey.
I need to read it again.

Thanks for the heads up, I’ll check out my listings. Luckily we donate every year to PBS so we can see many shows on demand.

Barbara, I hope you enjoy the show.
And yes to supporting PBS...always a good idea!

However, I must admit I'm biased and have always felt that Richard was much maligned.

I'm with you there, wasleys. There is no real evidence to support that he was a bad king and I agree that a lot of the so-called history about him came from Richard III by Shakespeare. While I love Shakespeare, his plays did a lot to contribute to malignant misinformation about some of the British monarchs.

And yes to supporting PBS...always a good idea!

Yes, indeed! I give monthly to PBS and it's not a large amount, but every bit helps. Plus it gets you a Passport subscription to watch all the wonderful shows!

This is so interesting! When we went to the Tower this summer, I felt the visuals and video narratives about the fate of the Princes bent decidedly toward Richard causing their demise. Very little was lent to any other theories being valid. I wonder if there will be a change to how their story is presented at the Tower moving forward.

Looking forward to seeing this--will have to record as it's so late the night before an early morning drive over the mountains.

We enjoyed the Battle of Bosworth Museum and the Richard III center in Leicester when we visited in Sept.

"Yes, indeed! I give monthly to PBS and it's not a large amount, but every bit helps. Plus it gets you a Passport subscription to watch all the wonderful shows!"

Mardee, such a good idea! We rarely watch anything but PBS. Well, Sir David Attenborough's wonderful shows on Animal Planet, plus the History Channel and National Geographic Channel (good programs on Vikings, Stonehenge discoveries, British and world history).

Mustlovedogs, It would be nice to see an exhibit at the Tower of London someday explaining the complexities of the Richard III story. But I'm not counting on it.

CanAmCherie, wow, that is super that you went to the Battle of Bosworth Museum and the Richard III center in Leicester! Have you written a trip report yet? I'd love to read about your trip!

Wishing a safe journey to CanAmCherie and to everyone else traveling for Thanksgiving weekend.

Rebecca, I saw your thread the other day but was in a hurry and didn't read it. Now settled down with a cup of coffee (post grocery shop, lol) and a read. Thank you so much for being on top of these programs! I appreciate it!

I also appreciate everyone's input and knowledge! Rebecca knows that Leicester is on my never-ending "to-do" list of things to see in England. I'd forgotten when the cathedral was supposed to reopen from it's reno an I see it's next Sunday but it doesn't say when Richard III's tomb will be able to be accessed again.

And yes, Cherie, I would love to hear more about that Visitor Center. Safe travels...it can wait until you all are back home. Doesn't look like any nastiness over Snoqualmie until next week so fingers crossed it's clear sailing for you!

I'd let my PBS donation lapse but will re-up on Giving Tuesday which will make it easier to remember...?!?...so I can catch up on this program. It's on at 9 here which is past my bedtime, hahaha!!

Pam,

On the Cathedral website it says "We are delighted to announce that the Cathedral building will reopen on Sunday 26 November 2023. From the 10.30am Eucharist onwards, the building will be open for services, events and general visiting, including the Tomb of King Richard III."

Oh great! I missed that! Too bad I'm not there, though....

isn31c and Pam,
Thanks for that Leicester Cathedral reopening news!
This is VERY exciting!!!
It means I will be visiting Leicester Cathedral in the spring and the Richard III Center!
Then, hopefully, I will be able to find my way to Bosworth Field!

"Rebecca knows that Leicester is on my never-ending "to-do" list of things to see in England."
Pam, you know I have a long "to do" list for England, too!
Hopefully, I'll be able to get to about half (?) of these places on my next trip.

See my next post for some of the things on my "to do" list.

For anyone wanting more information about King Richard III, here's the website of The Richard III Society:
https://richardiii.net/
Click on the tab "Ricardian Places" to see places in England with a connection to King Richard III and his life.
One of these places is Fotheringhay, with Fotheringhay Castle being the birthplace of Richard.
https://richardiii.net/ricardian-places/fotheringhay/

The page links to Middleham Castle (mostly ruined) where Richard spent time as a young man and met his future wife, Anne Neville.
https://richardiii.net/ricardian-places/middleham/

The Middleham Jewel:
Not mentioned on the above page is an important "find" on the property at or near Middleham Castle.
In 1985, a hobbyist who was metal detecting near the castle ruins found a medieval gold pendant with a large jewel imbedded in it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/J8DM8oZzS1iFXV3UaVAusA
A quote from the article above (all writing and photo credit to the BBC):
"The Middleham Jewel is a 15th-century pendant made by one of the finest medieval London goldsmiths, and unearthed by a metal detectorist near Middleham Castle. Only a wealthy and powerful person could have commissioned such a jewel. In fact, the owner may well have been royal or noble."

Richard and his wife Anne Neville were living at the castle in the mid-1400's, so this object could have easily belonged to one of them.

This object is now in the permanent collection of the Yorkshire Museum, York.
It was bought by the museum (from the finder) in 1992 for £2.5 million, using funds donated from several organizations, including the Richard III Society.
From March 2015 to January 2016 it featured in the exhibition 'Richard III: Man & Myth'.
A replica is on display at Middleham Castle.

I must admit, I have been to York several times and have yet to go to the Yorkshire Museum. Big mistake!! Next spring I will make the Museum the focus of my visit to York, mainly to see the Middleham Jewel.

Cheers everyone!
Enjoy the show tonight!

Rebecca, I just copied/pasted your entire post to my history fanatic girl who is currently chugging along on Amtrak. I also took a 30 minute catnap this afternoon so I could watch this with her tonight. May need a third cuppa, but I am determined to stay up till 11! Thanks for sharing!

"This object is now in the permanent collection of the Yorkshire Museum, York

I must admit, I have been to York several times and have yet to go to the Yorkshire Museum. Big mistake!! Next spring I will make the Museum the focus of my visit to York, mainly to see the Middleham Jewel."

What the heck? How did I miss this too? I opted to revisit the Castle Museum on my free afternoon there and now could kick myself, lol.

Note to self - list just got longer....again!

Then there are all the unanswered questions about the only son of Richard III and his wife Anne.... Traditionally he was thought to have been buried in Sherriff Hutton Church, a small village between York and Helmsley, although this is now disputed. If so, his tomb is forgotten and rather forlorn, apart from the artificial white roses......

wasleys, I've read that he might be buried in Middleham Castle, although the Richard III Society says it is "...perhaps in the collegiate church rather than the castle." There are so many unknown burial sites. If I could go back in time, I would love to back to the medieval and early modern era in Great Britain to see what really happened with these people.

This was a very interesting program. Obviously more scholarship will be required to verify these findings. If all of this is true, then who were the two children found in the tower? Perhaps DNA could answer some questions. The history of all this is something I was not acquainted with such as the English invasions by the two purported princes who may have survived the tower.

Queen Elizabewth wouldn't permit DNA testing of the two bodies, but peopole are more hopeful that King Charles may...

The program was quite interesting. The program opened with Philippa Langley questioning the conventional wisdom and story of the princes being murdered in the Tower by Richard III.

Philippa had asked Rob Rinder, a Criminal Barrister from London, to come along with her to look at some documents. She asked him to keep an open mind and give his opinion as to the validity of the trail they were following.
Together they went to Lille, France, and examined documents from the Archives Departementales that dated to 1487, the last year of the Wars Of The Roses. The document they examined gave substance to the fact that Margaret of Burgundy and Emperor Maximillian, King of the Holy Roman Empire, had provided weapons and troops to help one of the Princes mount an invasion of England to restore his crown.

Margaret of Burgundy was also known as Margaret of York, the sister of King Edward IV and King Richard III.
She hated Henry Tudor/ King Henry VII.
She was a relative of Emperor Maximillian, King of the Holy Roman Empire.
She claimed to have recognized the boy who came to her as her nephew, son of King Edward IV, so she believed the boys had survived and were not killed at the Tower of London by Richard III.

Later, Philippa and Rob Rinder went to another location to look at a document that was supposed to be a recounting of his life up to that point, written by one of the Princes.
Rob Rinder went to great lengths to authenticate these documents with experts and at the end of the show, he and Philippa arrived at the conclusion that the boys had not died at the Tower of London at the hands of Richard III.

Perkin Warbeck was eventually executed by Henry VII. It is interesting to note that documents from the day said that Perkin Warbeck bore an uncanny facial resemblance to King Edward IV and King Richard III.
Before the body went on display for the public to see, King Henry VII (Henry Tudor)had the boy's face disfigured and bashed in with a rock to remove all resemblance to the dead kings.
Perkin Warbeck had confessed--after much torture--to being an imposter.
We all know that confessions extracted during brutal torture (with the promise the torture will stop with a confession) are worthless.

Research and documents indicate the other brother, Lambert Simnel, fought in the Battle of Stoke. He died there says Phillippa Langley. Other sources say he was pardoned by the king and lived out his life until sometime after 1534. He was not executed by the King.

There was a LOT more background; too much to adequately put into this post.
I would recommend watching the program and paying close attention to the second half.
Do take notes or you may not remember all that is said.
I may add more detail to this subject after a careful second viewing of the program.
I have hoards of people around me right now, and a Thanksgiving turkey I must take out of the oven! :)

It was a really fascinating show. We all think the most important evidence supporting her team’s claims is the accountant’s documentation from Maximillian about the stakes. And the fact that she’s found information on BOTH of them being alive in Europe. It’ll be interesting to see if more is done in researching. Several things we discussed: at the end when Richard was captured and brought back to the Tower, the program said the confession he signed was pre-written. How do they know that is was? Why would Edward have designated Richard as the boys’ guardian if he suspected Richard could be involved in something that could harm them? One of Richard’s son was named Edward, Edward named one of his Richard. Doesn’t that lend itself to the fact that the two brothers were rather close? Lots of fun “mystery talk” watching this!

Hope everyone who was celebrating had a wonderful Thanksgiving Day!

Rebecca, we watched this last night and I would be curious to know what YOUR conclusion was after watching. I am still not convinced. Why would Richard lll let the princes live? Obviously, they would then always be a threat to him being king.

But they were even more of a threat to Henry VII....

Exactly, wasleys!

To answer Mustlovedogs' post....you are exactly right that King Edward IV trusted his brother, Richard, to be the guardian of his sons and family, in case something happened to him.

Things happened in this way:
When Edward IV died in April 1483, Richard was named Lord Protector of the realm for Edward's eldest son and successor, the 12-year-old Edward V. Arrangements were made for Edward V's coronation on June 22, 1483. Before the young prince could be crowned, the marriage of his parents was declared bigamous and therefore invalid.
Now officially illegitimate, Edward and his siblings were barred from inheriting the throne. On June 25, an assembly of lords and commoners endorsed a declaration to this effect, and proclaimed Richard as the rightful king. He was crowned on July 6, 1483. Edward and his younger brother Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York, called the "Princes in the Tower", disappeared from the Tower of London around August 1483. Accusations were circulating that they had been murdered on King Richard's orders, even before the Tudor dynasty became the established rulers two years later.

King Richard III had NO reason to believe the boys were a threat to him.
The boys had been permanently declared out of the line of succession by what passed for Parliament in those days. The ruling was permanent.
King Edward IV had had another engagement and betrothal to another woman before he ever met Elizabeth Woodville, his future Queen. In the eyes of the law of that time, this made his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville invalid. The ruling made all their children illegitimate, knocking the two sons out of the line of succession.
The boys at this point were no threat whatsoever to Richard III.

Add to that, Richard III's own brother had made an account of his character and judged him trustworthy to be the guardian of his boys, just as Mustlovedogs said.
On the other hand, there was a character lurking in the shadows who was far more dangerous than Richard. Henry Tudor was, by all accounts, ruthless, cruel, sneaky and was determined to have the crown, with the help of his mother Margaret.

Lady Margaret Beaufort was the mother of Henry Tudor (later King Henry VII).
She was descended from King Edward III, therefore she and her son felt that he had a claim to the throne.
They had always maintained that the Edward IV--Elizabeth Woodville marriage was a sham, and that their children were illegitimate.
Therefore, when the ruling that came from London agreed with them, Margaret and Henry went into overdrive in their campaign to get the throne for Henry Tudor.

Part of this campaign was to smear the reputation of Richard III any way they could. It was a ruthless campaign.
When Richard's wife, Anne, died, they spread the rumor he had poisoned her.
Lady Margaret Beaufort had had rooms for years at the Palace in London and had means, motive and opportunity to arrange for the disappearance of the boys.
Lady Margaret Beaufort and Henry Tudor had been quietly plotting to overthrow Richard III, and gathering an army. The head of one of these army factions, waiting in the wings for their time, was the powerful husband of Margaret Beaufort, Thomas Stanley.

Margaret knew that if her son could gather support and oust Richard III, there would soon be an uprising to install one of the young Princes as King instead of her son. She had to get rid of the princes before her son attacked and ousted Richard, whether Richard lived or died as a result.
The two Princes in the Tower had a much more clear right (if Richard was gone) to the throne if Parliament could be convinced of their legitimacy by their supporters......namely Margaret of Burgundy (their aunt) and Emperor Maximillian.

in August 1485, Henry Tudor and his uncle, Jasper Tudor, landed in Wales with a contingent of French troops, and marched through Pembrokeshire, recruiting soldiers. Henry's forces defeated Richard's army near the Leicestershire town of Market Bosworth. Richard was slain, making him the last English king to die in battle, and the last Plantagenet king of England.
Henry Tudor then ascended the throne as Henry VII.

The plot had been hatched by Margaret Beaufort's husband, Thomas Stanley.
He had played both sides of this game, pretending and promising to be loyal to Richard, but at the last minute, he and his men were for Henry Tudor at the Battle of Bosworth.
This turned the tide.

To blame Richard III for the disappearance of the young Princes served Margaret and Henry Tudor's cause very well. It painted Richard, the dead king, as evil, so his supporters would be dissuaded. It left Henry Tudor, the true murderer, blameless as he began his reign.

How convenient for them that the whole family was now dead.

The program and Philippa Langley's theories are extremely interesting and they have provided food for thought.
However, I still point the finger at Margaret and Henry Tudor, IF the boys were in fact murdered.

Mary from Reno wrote:
"This was a very interesting program. Obviously more scholarship will be required to verify these findings. If all of this is true, then who were the two children found in the tower? Perhaps DNA could answer some questions. The history of all this is something I was not acquainted with such as the English invasions by the two purported princes who may have survived the tower."

wasleys wrote:
"Queen Elizabewth wouldn't permit DNA testing of the two bodies, but people are more hopeful that King Charles may... "

The DNA testing of the two bodies found at the Tower, currently in Westminster Abbey, would provide the definitive answer to this mystery. It is essential to getting to the truth in this story.

If they match the DNA of their parents, it still doesn't tell us who killed them.

If DNA testing proves the two skeletons are not the princes, then we turn to two other possibilities.
Various areas in the City Of London were used as plague pits to bury the dead in medieval times. The skeletons could be from such a grave.
The other thought is that the skeletons might be Roman. During the time of Roman Britain, the City Of London was a Roman town, with walls around it. Outside the gates leaving that area there were Roman graveyards. It's not impossible that two children would have been buried in the area where the Tower of London would later be built. Much of the City Of London is built ontop remains of Roman buildings, temples, and a Roman graveyard or two.
For the best exhibits about Roman London, visit the Museum Of London, (EDIT) when it opens in its new location in 2026.

For the best exhibits about Roman London, visit the Museum Of London, now in its new location.

As far as I am aware, the Museum is not re-opening at Smithfield until 2026. The current location, in Docklands, is a satellite site, which opened in 2003. The Docklands site concentrates on the Docklands- the trading part of London's history. To the best of my knowledge (I may be wrong) they don't have anything of the Roman stuff there.

isn31c, you're right. None of the Roman stuff is at the Museum of London Docklands.
I have seen exhibits on mudlarking, slavery, shipping, the tea trade, and other things there, but never anything Roman.
https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/museum-london-docklands
Oh darn, I had high hopes the Museum of London would be settled into their new location by next spring. Oh well...
when it's open, it is definitely worth going to.
I really liked their old location, right on the Roman wall and Roman fort.
isn31c, thanks for that correction!

An apology for all the long posts above, but I felt if I stated my opinion about some aspect of English history, I should explain WHY I have that opinion. That I should give facts and some background, too.
I guess I will leave this thread for several more days, and then take it down, because not many forum members are as interested in this subject as I am.
Any few interested parties will have read it already.
I felt I was just droning on and on.

I guess I will leave this thread for several more days, and then take it down…

Rebecca, please don’t remove this thread.
The history is fascinating. Although a lot of this is not new to me, you have done such a nice job of clearly summarizing the information, I would hate for it to disappear. And I have learned some things from you that I didn’t know. I think this thread would be of interest to more people than you may think, and would be helpful to people traveling to England who are interested in Richard III.

I've been reading with interest. Good thread imho.

Rebecca, don't delete this thread! Here are my thoughts:

But they were even more of a threat to Henry VII....

As wasleys said, that is very true. Rebecca noted above that Richard was a true Plantagenet, and definitely had a legitimate claim to the throne. Of course he was no angel. He was the appointed protector of young Edward, but because of Edward's connection to the hated Woodvilles, Richard was able to seize the crown from him, send Edward and his younger brother to the Tower, and had Parliament depose Edward as a bastard.

Henry VII, on the other hand, had much shakier ties to the throne. It is true that his mother, Margaret Beaufort was a descendent of Edward III; however, the Beaufort line was descended from John of Gaunt's relationship with his mistress, Katherine Swynford. After John and Katherine married, their descendents were legitimized BUT barred by Parliament from any succession to the throne. Because Henry could not use a line of descent to hold onto the throne, he argued that he had taken it through force, which God had approved by granting him a victory. But it was still a shaky argument.

Henry resolved a few issues by marrying Elizabeth of York, Edward IV's oldest daughter, but when the two claimants appeared, it was a blow to him. There is no denying that he had a hand in the death of Perkins Warbeck (he had earlier pardoned Lambert Simnel, but made him a scullery boy in the royal kitchen). One major reason for this was that Henry was trying to marry off his son, Arthur, to the Spanish princess, Catherine of Aragon. The Spanish king and queen refused to permit the marriage until "not a drop of doubtful royal blood" existed in England. Henry lured Warbeck and his benefactor out of the Tower, then eventually had them executed.

This is probably way more info than you all wanted to know but I do find this fascinating. I wrote a paper on this era last year for a class I took and loved researching it. One thing I thought was interesting though. One of the sources I used for my paper, "This Realm of England: 1399 to 1688" by Lacey Baldwin Smith, mentioned this philosophical thought.

No matter where the ultimate responsibility lies, the timely
disappearance of the two princes proved once again the inadequacies of
a political system in which murder supplied the only answer to an
ineffectual monarch.

Oh no!! Please leave it up! It’s such a good reference thread!!! Just because people aren’t posting doesn’t mean it’s not being read!

GerryM and samaudd, thanks! OK, I'll leave the thread.

Mardee, many thanks for your wonderful addition to the story!
"Because Henry could not use a line of descent to hold onto the throne, he argued that he had taken it through force,"
Yes indeed, as many kings did in England. Another example of this being William The Conqueror.

"Henry resolved a few issues by marrying Elizabeth of York, Edward IV's oldest daughter, "
Yes. She was the sister of the Princes In The Tower.
Richard III was her uncle, but for a while, she was the object of his affection, and he wanted to marry her after his wife died.
Scandal.
Henry Tudor and his mother planned all along for him to marry Princess Elizabeth and thus cement his place as king, and ensure the rightful royal lineage for his children and grandchildren.

King Henry VII and Elizabeth of York were the parents of Arthur (oldest son) who married Katherine of Aragon, then he died.
Henry and Elizabeth were the parents of Henry VIII; he was their second born son.
He married Katherine of Aragon, his brother's widow, in order to cement the union of England and Spain.
The fact that Katherine had been married to Arthur before her marriage to Henry VIII was, in later years, used by Henry as grounds for divorce when pleading with the Pope.

And then the world was turned upside down in England when Henry did not get the divorce granted by the Pope, so he could marry Anne Boleyn.

If his brother Arthur had not died, none of this would have happened.

Mardee, thanks again for adding some more history to this thread!
"This is probably way more info than you all wanted to know but I do find this fascinating."
Oh no, I am enjoying it.
Few things are more fascinating to me than the history of England.

How very interesting that you wrote a paper on this era!
I am interested in reading the book you mentioned as one of your sources.
Well done, Mardee!
Thanks for mentioning John of Gaunt! I have a book about him.

Pam, I'm glad you are finding this thread interesting! OK, I will keep it.

Thank you for keeping this open.

We are at our daughter's---just finished watching the Lost King with her. (We had watched previously. Our daughter was with us in York and Leicester.) We hope to watch Secrets of the Dead soon---maybe even tomorrow morning before heading home. It will be interesting to hear our daughter's views on the program, as she is passionate about this history and has been providing us with info from her reading and research. She reminds us that Richard could have been a progressive and somewhat benevolent ruler while still capable of dark behaviour.

When you visit the Richard III museum, be prepared to drop a lot of $ on books, as we all did!

Julie, who is my go to in all things historical, is widely read on this subject and posits that it is entirely possible that two princes died of natural causes, citing that Richard’s own son died before reaching adulthood and life expectancies, especially for children, were much shorter than they are today.

But if not, she looks accusingly at Buckingham, who may have committed a ‘who will rid me of these turbulent princes?’ faux pas to curry favour with Richard.

I once bought Julie a book on the two princes, which theorised that the princes got away. I thought it might get bounced off the side of my head, but she dutifully read it and said it made plausible arguments, but….. The book suggested that one of the princes became a Essex bricklayer, which to my mind is good reason why he was never identified, I mean, have you ever tried to pin down a builder? It’s interesting, joking aside, that Langley comes to a similar conclusion (they escaped) and I’m not sure she would be given as much credence for her theory as she currently is other than against all the odds she was exactly right about Richard III’s burial place. Side note - if you haven’t seen the recent movie ‘The Lost King’, then may I recommend it. It is about Langley’s efforts to discover the burial place and while it may not be the entire truth, (Leicester University Archaeological Dept., hated it and protested loud and long about it as they are not portrayed in a very good light. Nevertheless it does have the ring of truth about it - methinks they doth protest too much) it is a good version of the story.

It’s also worth noting that the current version of the documentary that aired in the USA appears to be an edited version cut to fifty minutes from the original British version’s one hour and twenty minutes. Missing from the edited version are sections with historians disputing Langley’s theories. Whether that’s because we in Britain are contrarians or whether we still have a sense of fair play, is anybody’s guess.

Personally, I haven’t watched the documentary myself as yet, as I’m still jet lagged from our return from the far east and I’ve missed twenty minutes minimum of any TV programme I’ve tried to watch since getting home, so will watch with interest when I can stay awake through the whole thing!

Ian

I am interested in reading the book you mentioned as one of your sources.

Rebecca, I think you would really enjoy it. It was my textbook for the class in early modern English history, but is very readable and very interesting. It's been out of print for awhile but I found a used copy on AbeBooks. I'd be happy to mail you mine to read, but it's highly marked up and highlighted so it probably would not be a great reading experience for you. :-) But if you can't find it, let me know.

But if not, she looks accusingly at Buckingham, who may have committed a ‘who will rid me of these turbulent princes?’ faux pas to curry favour with Richard.

Ian, very interesting and I tend to agree with Julie. I admit that I am skeptical of Philippa Langley's findings about the princes, although I give her full credit for the finding of Richard's body. I think it’s a big leap to assume that Perkin Warbeck and Lambert Simnel were the real princes. That said, I have not yet seen the documentary or read her book, although I did just check it out from the library. So I will be curious to read about her sources; especially the primary ones.

CanAmCherie, that's great that your daughter is so interested in English history! And that she got to go with you to York and Leicester.
"She reminds us that Richard could have been a progressive and somewhat benevolent ruler while still capable of dark behaviour."--True! "The Lost King" is great; it certainly tells the story of looking for Richard III very well.
"When you visit the Richard III museum, be prepared to drop a lot of $ on books, as we all did!"
Yes, I am prepared! I can't resist.

ianandjulie, you have come up with an interesting point. Yes, the boys could have died from natural causes. Yes, Richard III's son had died from what historians now believe was tuberculosis. Very contagious, and in those days, there would have been no treatment available.

"But if not, she looks accusingly at Buckingham, who may have committed a ‘who will rid me of these turbulent princes?’ faux pas to curry favour with Richard."
I think Julie is onto something here. Buckingham is named as one of the two killers of the boys in a document written by Sir Thomas More, an account of how the murders happened.

"I once bought Julie a book on the two princes, which theorized that the princes got away." It is interesting that she read it and did not discount the theory that they got away. Interesting that it proposed that one of the boys lived out his life as a bricklayer. Yes, that would have allowed him to melt away into the general public.

"Missing from the edited version are sections with historians disputing Langley’s theories."
I would love to see the unedited version!
That's what the program needed; some historians testing her theories and perhaps disputing some of the evidence.

Thanks for mentioning "The Lost King". A good reminder that I need to watch it again!

Mardee, thanks for the offer of the book! I will look for it at my favorite used bookstore.

Count me as another person a bit skeptical of Philippa Langley's findings about the princes.

I am currently reading "The Plantagenets; The Warrior Kings and Queens Who Made England", by Dan Brown. It is very good. (New York Times Bestseller)

It begins with the White Ship shipwreck and moves through the story of Empress Matilda. Then begins the story of the marriage of Henry II and his bride Eleanor of Aquitaine.
Henry II was the first Plantagenet king (and the first Angevin). He is the king who had Thomas Beckett, Archbishop of Canterbury killed, although they had been best friends for many years.
Canterbury Cathedral is where this took place. For anyone wanting to add a destination to their England itinerary, this is a good one.

Nick, yes that's true (and all that was mentioned above). I'm not condoning what Richard did, but if you look at the background, you will see that he did this because of his fear that Edward's reign would be infiltrated (and taken over) by the Woodvilles, which was unthinkable to him. And his actions were confirmed by Parliament, which gave him the crown, so there was no real need to kill the princes.

Also as noted above, Henry had a lot more to gain by their permanent removal since he had no legal claim to the throne. Richard's actions in removing the princes from power and mounting the throne caused the kingdom to view him with suspicion, so I think he felt that just leaving the two boys where they were was safest for the time being. But of course that's just my opinion. :-)

Rebecca, so glad you’re not deleting this thread. I am avidly reading and absorbing every fascinating comment. I just haven’t had time to post. Thank you for starting this thread. xx

Hello Susan! Glad you are enjoying it! Thanks for letting me know. :) :)

Thanks to everyone who has posted here.
It's been an interesting discussion.

I am reading this thread also as I find the topic fascinating.
And Ian:
“but….. The book suggested that one of the princes became a Essex bricklayer, which to my mind is good reason why he was never identified, I mean, have you ever tried to pin down a builder?”
LOL