Dubai, The Princes in the Tower - episode 1 part 1
Dubai videos | Buildings | Information | History | Emirates | View
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJqH3CRWpmM - part 2 The mystery surrounding the suspicious disappearance of the boy King Edward V and his younger brother Richard has been the cause of speculation and fascination for over five centuries. Eight years after they were presumed to have been murdered by their treacherous uncle, a young man appeared and told an astonished world that he was Richard, the younger of the two Princes. He had survived the attempt on his life and had come to claim his rightful place on the throne of England. Was he genuine and could he reveal what really happened in the Tower all those years ago? Or was he a brilliant imposter, trained to carry out one of the most audacious cons imaginable? This gripping drama is an account of the final interrogation of a man who sought to change the course of British history and whose identity has remained a mystery to this day.
Comments
-
We shouldn't discuss who killed them, because it might never be known, since it was done secretly and we were not there. We should discuss that greedy people fought over the English crown like ravenous hyenas and two little boys were killed in the process. RIP.
-
If there was a chance the boys were alive they would not have supported Tudor I know perfectly well they supported him because of the betrothed so re read what I wrote because you mistook it. I can't prove Richard guilty but recent attempts to rewrite history in favour of Richard at the expense of Margaret Beaufort as York fantasies
-
In regards to what? All you did was name drop without any facts. Starkey mentions the torture on numerous occasions. I know a great deal because this is part of the basis for my graduate thesis. History is a lovely topic and we historians debate with one another. I respect Starkey but any one who goes off on Alison weir and telling people they should read their books loses credibility with me on the sheer fact that the woman doesn't vet her sources very well.
-
I didn't know that you knew more than Suzannah Lipscomb and David Starkey. My bad. You should really send your work in to them, so they can learn something new.
-
his Plantagenet kinsmen, of whom he sent to the block, including an old woman who happened to be George Duke of Clarence's daughter, and Henry VIII's own second cousin Margret Pole.
-
daughter. Also, not many knew the boys were dead pre-Bosworth which was why Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck were able to gain armies willing to follow them and even able to get the support of not one but two countries eight years later, I'm sure most knew the boys were missing though. The only reason why The War's of the Roses didn't continue was because Henry VII married Elizabeth of York, had Henry wed someone else, it would have continued, even Henry VIII felt the need to rid himself of --
-
Tudor had Yorkist support because of Elizabeth of York being betrothed to him, which is not remote at all. Also, why does everyone quote More as though it is gospel, More said they were buried under stairs at the tower and then moved later, which is typical of the vagueness of torture confessions, he confessed so they would let him die, yes, they found bones near where the boys were kept. Also, some of the York support fell away from Richard when Anne Neville died, she being the Kingmaker's --
-
Yes, and then Tudor hired someone to help him escape so he could execute him. Henry VII's throne was not stable at the time, people also like to forget that he pardoned Lambert Simnel and made him a kitchen boy. My research leads me to believe that it was more than likely Buckingham and that the supposed 1484 date is very liberal since no one actually saw them, there is also a contemporary source which condemns Buckingham.
-
that torture was stopped in England officially. But throughout the Reformation Torture was used as a means of extracting "truth" from individuals, it was a legitimate way of questioning an individual during Tudor times. Also, minus the Manici account, I could be wrong on the man's name but that account aside contemporary sources say it was Buckingham who murdered the boys or ordered them murdered not Richard, and I am more inclined to believe that than the torture induced confession.
-
Women were forced to wear skold's bridles and parade through the street for speaking out of turn. Charivari was what would happen to a man who let their wife behave in such a manner. Those are both forms of torture as much as the rack, the pear or strappado. I will note that TV shows and Media tend to dial down the torture or have the wrong person getting tortured or executed. If you are truly interested in Tudor England, I would suggest Starkey over Weir any day. It wasn't until 1640's or so..
-
Yes, because Henry VIII didn't do anything like, torture women or nobility even though it was deemed illegal. Anne Askew just dislocated her own arms and legs before going to stake because it was fashionable. If you believe torture was not common during Tudor England you might need to read more than Alison Weir, and look a little closer at books dealing with the English reformation. Torture was common place, more so than what media shows us.
-
That is not to say that I believe that either of the pretenders were indeed the Princes. Though I do put credence behind the likelihood that it wasn't Richard who killed the Princes or had them killed. In fact, with the Woodville Marriage deemed null and void, according to primogeniture George's children would have had a stronger claim once the attainder was removed under Titulus Regius,
-
Have you ever read transcripts under torture? They tend to change, and by the end the people tend to agree to whatever the people torturing them said, because confessing even if false, would get them closer to the release of death. As for More integrity, let us not even meander down that road. More's execution had little to do with his integrity and more to do with religious fanaticism. Other Catholics were signing the oath and getting what essentially amounts to a waiver from the Pope after.
-
Yes, lets all forget that Alison Weir also gives credence to the Nicholas Sanders's slander in her Anne Boleyn book as well, she is not the most credible source... which is why I've had professors tell me not to use her books as sources on papers.
-
MOORE NEVER DENIED HIS ACCOUNT WAS 2ND HAND TAKEN FROM A CONFESSION of the suppossed killer. Children's bones and expensive cloth was found near where Moore said they were buried. The boys were clearly dead pre Bosworth given that Tudor received Yorkist supporthaving only a remote claim. Were the bones found the Princes ?? I KNOW rICHARDIANS dismiss Moore as fiction but it comes down to whether the confession was genuine from a man who was going to die either way on unrelated charges.
-
Wrong! John Da La Pole's claim was not as strong as Richard's and Warwick's claim was tainted by his father being done for treason. The most damning evidence against Richard is that he never denied it and no one else had the authority. When Tudor was accused of killing Warwick who was a huge threat to him he simply paraded him at church! Put actions in perspective too Warwick lived for 14 years under Tudor before he was executed that says alot!You make it sound like Tudor simply killed him
-
Is this the new version from Ch. 4? It's good which ever version it is.
-
There is also evidence that Richard did not murder his nephews that most people do not even see. If Richard was so afraid of being deposed by someone with a better claim why would he make, John Da la Pole, another nephew his heir after his son's death and he did nothing to Edward, Earl of Warwick another nephew, both son's of Richard's brother George, Duke of Clearance. In fact Warwick was executed on the order of Henry Tudor. both had better claims to the throne and both of them lived..
-
As his age suggests he probably wrote only based on what he heard, If Henry Tudor was Your King, Would you write a paper claiming that Richard III was innocent of murdering his nephews and therefore basically stating that your King had no right to be on the throne? He would have been beheaded for treason long before Henry VIII got to him.
-
Thomas More was born in 1478, When the Princes in the Tower vanished in 1483. He was 5 years old. When Tudor defeated Richard III at Bosworth he was 7 years old. How could he possibly know anything about either event? His papers were not fact but fiction, and his age at the time of Bosworth and The Princes disappearance proves this fact. I have never said anything about his integrity, I admire the stand he took for his beliefs, but his papers are Tudor Propaganda, whether he realized it or not.
54Rating