Dubai, The Princes In The Tower 1483
Dubai videos | Buildings | Information | History | Emirates | View
Edward and Richard were Edward IV's 2 leg. sons. This highly fictitional documentary is entertaining. The saddest part isthat Tudor was a usurper - barred from the throne by both RII and HIV on grounds of illegitamacy; his anscestors derived from the unmarried union between John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford - subsuquently legitramized under strict condition those descenents never claimed the throne. Perkin Warbeck was probably not Richard but it is interesting his face was beaten beyond recognition before hanging. So he must have looked like a king. However, losing the battle (Stoke) was his and his royal supporters failure.
Comments
-
the Prince's cousin Edward the 17th Earl of Warwick was in the tower and executed in 1499 so those two persons Margaret showed them were probably the Earl of Warwick and Edward v so Richard might have been the duke of York and so to further torture him and make him lie and confess to a lie.
-
I guess I got the wrong Elizabeth.I never could figure out who got the impostor set up.I am going to check it out.
-
Elizabeth never wed, and wasn't Henry the 8th her father, Ann Bolin's daughter
-
The Princes were murdered, Elizabeth 1 never had a child the virgin queen
-
Henry VII's so-called "Tudor" rose was a sham, according to me. His so-called commitment to "peace" was just a smokescreen to cover his own ambition of gaining the throne and removing all threats to his dynasty.
-
Most people who place a lot of credence on Thomas More and Shakespeare do not have a convincing answer to the disputed authorship of Thomas More's account (which Shakespeare used for his drama). There is evidence that Thomas More did not really complete his work, but that the real ghost-writer of the work is John Morton, former Bishop of Ely and Archbishop of Canterbury. John Morton was a well-known Tudor "yes" man, an avowed enemy of Richard III. Besides, Thomas More and Shakespeare wrote in Tudor times, and it is well known that the Tudors were quick to remove any threats to their royal position. I would not trust Thomas More's work nor Shakespeare's. For that matter, neither can Hollinshed's work be trusted because it had to pander to Tudor sympathies.
That leaves the Croyland Chronicle, the continuity of which shows disruption and cannot be conclusive on the matter.
Having studied some of the documentaries and books on the subject, I would conclude that Margaret Beaufort had the best opportunity to do away with the children, though Richard's silence on the matter baffles me. The other thing that baffles me is the fact that people at the time did not really react strongly to Richard's so-called "usurpation", if usurpation indeed it was. Henry VII's behaviour is very highly suspect, because he did not order an inquiry into the disappearance of the children.
The other thing to keep in mind is that even today, there are Yorkist and Lancastrian sentiments and loyalties. So very many people cannot really be objective about whatever the truth could be. I sincerely believe unless proper forensic testing is allowed on the remains of principal protagonists in the story, the truth will never be known. -
such a sad story
-
So the man that they hung was Richard?
-
Edward longed to be a clown so the boys ran away to join the circus.
-
Lady Beaufort had a much greater motive than Richard III ever did. Richard didn't really need to kill them because they were declared illegitimate by the Church. after the curiously coincidental story about the daughter of one of the most ardent Lancastrians of the time, John Talbot, and also considering Elizabeth Woodville was previously married to the Lancastrian loyalist Grey family.
Henry Tudor not only needed Titulus Regulus repealed to legitimize his claim (as well as his would be queen, Elizabeth) but he also needed three people to be dead: Prince Edward, Prince Richard, and Edward of Warwick (declared Richard's heir after his son suddenly died. Warwick was held hostage from Richard III's death until Henry could confirm that the Princes were also dead. The name Perkin has to be one of the least common names in the English language, or all etymology.
Lady Beaufort was conveniently married to Thomas Stanley, Earl of Darby, Constable of the Tower of London. Thomas Stanley was previously married to the Kingmaker's sister. Stanley betrayed Richard III. "TREASON!" It runs deep in the Stanley family; his grandfather, John Stanley betrayed Richard II to Henry IV. -
Perkin Warbeck's character did a fantastic job at gaslighting. I would have been convinced for sure. The only trip was not recognizing John Argentine, but it had been 16 years and he was just a boy.
-
Henry VII had plenty of Plantagenet blood even ignoring his descent from John of Gaunt. His father Edmund Tudor had three lines of descent from Henry II, one through the Dukes of Bavaria and two through the Kings of France. His mother Lady Margaret had five lines of descent from Henry II through her grandmother Margaret Holland. They make him out to be some kind of bastard just because one great grandparent was barred from the throne, ignoring the other three who were Plantagenets.
-
and they tell us that the English are the most civilized people on earth!
-
They didn't do anything wrong except playing outside on the summer day the didn't have to trap them in the tower of londan
-
Margaret Beaufort had those little boys murded
-
Hmm, like Lion King.
-
I thought the people who lost the Battle of Stoke were the supporters of Lambert Simnel? John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, and Gerald FitzGerald, the Earl of Kildare, were the two biggest supporters of that movement.
-
intrigue it could have happened just that way. This was really good
-
Regardless if Perkin was an imposter or not, the way he died was sad :( RIP
666Rating