Dubai, Richard III - Princes In The Tower

Dubai videos | Buildings | Information | History | Emirates | View

1. The ultimate Qui Bono is that the traitor Henry Tudor murdered the boys.
2. Tudor propaganda
3. The two boys were known to be under Richards control .They simply vanished from the historical record, with no explanation.Surely, had they died of natural causes ( childhood diseases, etc) then there would have been no reason not to disclose that ,and bury them in the manner a high ranking person of the times would surely recieve.But, that didn't happen, the only real explanation is, you cant really display a body whose head has been removed and call it "natural" . The fact we know so much about this period but yet these boys simply " fell off the earth " just doesn't wash, there's just not a lot of doubt someone killed them and disposed of the bodies quietly and secretly, and no one but Richard would have had that much power, and opportunity.,he either did it or agreed to it being done and either way he is guilty.
4. I find henry VII to be more benefited by the death of the princes. Richard III has already become the king.
5. Wtf? 😂
6. He was 12 and he was blowing doors off. He was a threat to everything. Such a brilliant boy.
7. I don't know much about English history, but I don't think historic "facts" should be concluded from the writings of one person and a playwright by Shakespeare.
8. My main question is when the king and prince went missing what did Richard do? Was anyone questioned to find out what happen?
9. If Richard hadn't unseated those (vis-a-vis Woodvilles) who stood in his way or tried to fight his way through to Henry Tudor, he would have been branded a wimp and a coward. He was no Henry VI character. The usual quip is he was a murdering psychopath. He can't win. All historians agree the Princes were 'never seen again.' What does that prove? Zilch. This doc is wishy-washy.
10. no one will ever know for sure what atrocities they commanded. Richard, Henry, BLA.. what I'd give to be a fly on the wall back then lol lots of uncovered stuff to shit on too..
11. The stupid assertion that one can get an acquittal for this child murderer does not by any means that he didn't commit the murders. Richard confided to his close associate that he intended to do away with his nephews. No one else had access to them. He was the only one who could have done the deed. All these stupid attempts to whitewash, sterilize and sanitize this deformed animal's reputation are laughable. Cui bono? No one else had access, no one else benefited. Richard the turd had means and motivation. He is guilty as hell and he should be rotting there for all his treasonous, treacherous and murderous acts.
    And this woman with her wandering features and bulging eyes is fright.
12. I think the boys illegitimacy made them it easier for Richard to kill them. I think of Elizabeth I and the guilt she felt at killing Mary Queen of Scots. She never got over that because Mary was an anointed Queen she was executing. And she thought she would be judged by God for doing that. Richard was so loyal to the Anointed King. After his death yes he acts shady but was he going to kill the prince? It's not until their declared illegitimate the his actions take a dark turn. Like getting the younger brother. WHY would you do that? So you can kill them both. And yeah he would be a Child murderer but NOT a Prince Killer. Not someone killing a Child who will be a man chosen by GOD to Rule .... which is what they believed.
13. They have finally solved the mystery: Richard III kiled the princes. Actually I knew it even before I watched this documentary. lol.
14. Living in what some call the Age of Information, we have corporate media completely under the control of intelligence and national security agencies. There is 100% censorship on certain sensitive topics like 9/11 and nearly as much on the resulting War on Terror and all of its sinister motives and criminal abuses. There are myriad books published, magazine articles written, technical journal articles written and allegedly peer reviewed that are outrageous lies, deception and disinformation all supporting a preposterous and completely disproved government narrative and protecting criminals guilty of state-sponsored terrorism against their own people. So-called educational networks like The History Channel are nothing more than fronts for CIA disinformation.
    
    Given how easy it is in 2016, with so much information readily accessible, for the corrupt, powerful and ambitious to spin recent history, telling lies that are the equivalent of "the Earth is flat" and not being widely challenged for those lies, what clear-thinking person would assume that sketchy records written by politically-motivated individuals 500 years ago would be trustworthy? I respect Starkey, whose knowledge of English history and in particular Tudor England is perhaps unsurpassed, but I think he puts too much stock in the alleged confession. We know they tortured people. Moreover, how do we really know he did confess beyond Thomas More's account? Many trials in that era were transparent show trials. Given More's principled stance in the face of Henry VIII, martyring himself in the name of his faith and conscience, he's more trustworthy than most, but this is still questionable evidence given by someone in Tudor England who would be loathe to have speculation continue that Henry VII had a hand in the murders. I understand the logic in speculation that Richard III was responsible, but I am not convinced of his guilt nor do I think this program sheds much real light on the death of the Prices in the Tower.
15. 'Shakespeare lifts More...Shakespeare lifts More.' Is Starkey that serious? The story about Richard's withered arm is got from More's account. That's how Richard was struck down at Bosworth...because he couldn't use both his arms to hold heavy weaponry and fight due to the scorcery practised by Hastings in collusion with his mistress, Jane Shore, lol!
16. only Richard could have ordered their death. the princes were heavily guarded all the time.
17. There is a conspiracy to make the reputation of Richard III look good. These so called experts giving their opinions do not seem to have control of their mental functions trying to force the issue that Richard III was not too greedy to take the throne. It is so simple and obvious, remove everything else and yet the motive stands bright and clear, he was the only one who stands to gain everything and anything when those two princes disappeared from the face of the Earth. Their mother needs them alive so it is useless that she plotted against them and the suspicious action of having the protectors of those two boys be thrown into jail. The coronation preparation was just a ploy to mislead people that he was not too greedy to get the throne. And suspiciously when the bones of the twins were found why were they not even studied thoroughly and no one made a big deal out of them unlike Richard. Well, karma came biting him back on the ass anyway since he only ruled for 2 years and was impaled by Henry VII. What goes around comes around
18. I think that they forgot one other suspect in this mystery... Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby... The mother of Henry VII... At that point Elizabeth Woodville, who I'm sure was desperate to rescue her sons, decided to join up with Margaret and Buckingham in order to carry out this "rescue"... Margaret obviously had a stake in the princes' lives as she tirelessly campaigned for her son to become king.. Henry Tudor's claim to the crown was very weak at best... So in order for him to claim his place/throne they needed to make sure nobody else had a stronger claim to it.. Even though the sons of Edward and Woodville might have been declared illegitimate, this could have been disputed and it was all too possible that they could have had their legitimacy back... The young princes' were a threat to her son, Henry Tudor's, being crowned... So why not act as if though she was genuinely wanting to rescue the princes, her and Buckingham might have used this to murder those boys and it was easy for them to pin that on Richard III... Then when all hope was lost for Elizabeth Woodville, Margaret suggested that her son, weak, ugly usurper, marries her beautiful (and fertile- if she was like her mother at all) daughter, which then helps their future children's claim to the throne... I've always thought that Margaret had some sort of responsibility for the princes' disappearance... She conspired and did EVERYTHING in her power to make sure that Henry became the king of England, like the vision she had long time ago.. Her only son (as she was barron after giving birth to Henry at a young age) becoming king is what drove her to marrying specific men- for their title and money which would fund Henry's exile in France and then the revolution, which they won in part to the soldiers provided by France, in which they promised so much that his reign started off in debt to France.. Without her Henry Tudor had no chance in hell to be Henry VII
19. The simplest explanation tends to be the best one. Who benefited the most from their deaths? Richard III. The concrete evidence may not be there but the circumstantial evidence is obvious.
20. A point I would like to make: at 22:22, the gentleman cites Richard's preparations for young Edward's coronation as proof positive that Richard wasn't plotting to have his nephews declared bastards and usurp the throne for himself. Seriously? Those "preparations" were nothing! Smoke and mirrors thrown up by a master manipulator to buy himself time to get all his ducks in a row before his masterstroke of having them declared bastards and mounting the throne himself. Richard was actually scheming to marry Elizabeth of York, his own niece, mind you. The nasty perv! But, the disgusting aspect of that plan aside, why would he marry an illegitimate girl, despite her beauty, unless such a step would only strengthen his claim on the throne? The gentleman who obsessively defends Richard III may be dreadfully naïve, but the rest of the world is not. Whether Richard Plantagenet killed the 2 princes or not is almost irrelevant when you factor in the slaughter of Lord Hastings, Richard's all too eager willingness to have the children of his own brother declared bastards; the probability that he murdered Henry VI... all speak of a genuinely bad man who deserved everything he got....including the censure of over 5 centuries.