This week Kiley takes a twisty trip up the Tower of London as she tries to uncover the mystery of two disappeared princes in a murder most royal.
Topic: The Death of King Edward IV, and the disappearance of his sons.
Music: "Another Day" by The Fisherman.
You can find us on Facebook, Twitter, and visit our website at www.halfwit-history.com!
Reach out, say hello, or suggest a topic at HalfwitPod@gmail.com
Support the show (https://www.ko-fi.com/halfwithistory)
This week Kiley takes a twisty trip up the Tower of London as she tries to uncover the mystery of two disappeared princes in a murder most royal.
Topic: The Death of King Edward IV, and the disappearance of his sons.
Music: "Another Day" by The Fisherman.
You can find us on Facebook, Twitter, and visit our website at www.halfwit-history.com!
Reach out, say hello, or suggest a topic at HalfwitPod@gmail.com
Support the show (https://www.ko-fi.com/halfwithistory)
time was in the half with history. I'm Jonathan and I'm Kylie, and this is a show where we talk about the upcoming week, but a long time ago
and sometimes not so long ago.
Yeah, so we're continuing our streak of doing every other week. So do we have any updates?
I don't think so.
Then let's get right into Kylie's seven pages of notes.
It's really like six and like a little tiny mini paragraph, but whatever. All right, so we're going to take a little trip in that Ah, lovely time warp and go back to 14. 83. And I'm going to put on a bit of my Agatha Christie hat today and see if I can solve a mystery. Mystery s a mystery. So on April 9th, 14 83 King Edward, the Fourth of England died, leaving his 12 year old son, Edward, now Edward, the fifth to succeed him. This abrupt death set in motion one of the greatest mysteries slash conspiracy theories in English history. Who yes, so news reached Edward the fifth of his father's demise on Monday, April 14th of 14 83 5 days after the actual death, Edwards will, which had not survived, nominated his trusted brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, as protector during the minority of his son. A que like the power behind
the throne, essentially of a child ruler. All right,
um, and that was fairly common practice back then. And honestly, probably now, if we and like anyone ended up with a child ruler, usually you have an adult to help them rule when they are not old enough to really make educated decisions.
We currently have a child ruler, and the higher playground is helping instead of an adult. So
shots fired. Okay. Anyway, so his brother is protection now, right? Um, this was probably the first mistake. Both the new king and his party from the West met Richard in the north, setting out for London. They met up in Stone East Stratford, Buckinghamshire. Having Edward meet up with Richard on their travels to London was probably the second mistake. They began the trip to London together, and on the night of April 29th they met and dined with Edwards, Uncle Anthony Woodville, the Earl of Rivers and Edwards half brother Richard Gray, who was his mother's son from her first marriage. But the following morning, the Earl of Rivers end Richard Grey, along with the king's chamberlain, Thomas Von, were arrested and sent north. The young king, reportedly pro, tested this, but the remainder of his entourage was dismissed and Richard escorted him to London with his own men. Earl Rivers, Richard Grey and Thomas Von were all subsequently executed on June 25th. And if this isn't starting to sound like a coup, I don't know what does. What will. This prompted Elizabeth Woodville to take her other son, Richard, Duke of York, and her daughters into sanctuary at Westminster Abbey, presumably for all of their lives. Upon their arrival in London on May 19th Richard Duke of Gloucester had his 12 year old nephew and King take up residence in the Tower of London, which was actually then the traditional residents of monarchs prior to their coronation. So at that point, all monarchs spent time in, like essentially lived in the Tower of London before they were crowned and took up residence like in like the king's chambers kind of thing. OK, but one could also argue that any time spent in the Tower of London was pretty much being imprisoned. It depends on how you look at it. Okay, Um, So on June 16th he's joined by his nine year old brother, Richard, the Duke of York. Um the Dowager Queen had been persuaded to hand him over to the archbishop of Canterbury so that he could attend his brother Edward's coronation, which was still conceivably planned for June 22nd. However, once Richard had the younger Richard in his clutches, the coronation was postponed indefinitely. And I'm definitely kind of painting a little bit of picture because I have my own opinions on this. Um, as one can imagine, child rulers could be very difficult, which is why an adult relative was frequently appointed as the protector. However, history has also shown that fairly frequently those adults who are appointed to help the child rulers sometimes decide they would make a better ruler than said child. Potentially. For this reason, Edward the Fists Council, presumably the same council that had served his father, had hoped for an immediate coronation, which would help avoid the need for a protectorate. There was precedent for this as well as Richard. The second was crowned king at the age of 10. And Henry, these six, whose protectorate which stay started when he inherited the crowd of nine months, ended with his coronation at the age of seven. So once crowned the child, King was like the ruler. And like he had counselors and such, but not a protectorate that essentially ruled for him. Okay, right. So Richard, however, repeatedly postponed the coronation, and it would appear that he was waiting for something. A clergyman is said to have been a fort to have informed Richard that Edward the forced marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, was invalid because Edward had already been contracted to marry the lady Eleanor Butler when he married Elizabeth Woodville, thereby rendering his marriage to Elizabeth Invalid and their Children together. Illegitimate. Oh. Yep. You see where this is going, right?
No, I don't. Oh, okay. It's all foggy, all right. I don't know anything about old monarchies.
You have not spent nearly as much time as I have studying like inheritance. And like English
succession, I honestly don't even know what the importance of the Tower of London is. You sit like a prison all the time, and I have no idea what that means.
Oh, it Uh, okay, um, so the Tower of London was now it's like a tourist attraction. But back then, in, like, medieval and Renaissance times, it was essentially where nobles were held. Went imprisoned because they couldn't. Nobles had different standing than commoners. So, like they couldn't technically go to jail, but like they could be imprisoned. So the Tower of London, London was basically a like luxury prison. OK, but a lot of people died in the Tower of London. Um, EDS. Where and Bolin stayed lived Blake for until she was beheaded. Um, it's where Catherine Howard lived before she was beheaded. Um, it's where Elizabeth of first was actually held during her sister Mary's reign because her sister Mary couldn't decide if she wanted to behead her sister or
not. Essentially. Okay, so it's where rich people kill rich people. Yes, yes, but at
it's usually reserved for, like the high and mighty. And those who, like, are conceivably above the law. Okay. Yeah. So the identity of said informant, um, note only through the memoirs of the French diplomat Philippe de coming was Robert stilling turn the bishop of Bath and wells. So on June 22nd a clergyman named Ralph Shop preached a sermon declaring Edward the Force Children, bastards and Richard as the rightful king and just what he was waiting for. If the boys were illegitimate than Edward had no claim to the throne making Richard the rightful king. The Children of his older brother, George, Duke of Clarence, had been barred from the throne by their fathers. Attainder, um, and in English law and attainder was a metaphorical stain or corruption of blood, which arose from being condemned for a serious capital crime like felony or treason. It entailed losing not only one's life, property and hereditary titles, but it also eliminated the right to pass those any that those titles on to your heirs. So basically, if your father was attained, you had no standing anymore,
It like destitute id entire families. And if you were like, ah, cousin or like a sibling, it ruined you two. It was pretty much a way to just wipe out an entire noble family in one go. Once attained, a noble was essentially a commoner, and they could be tortured and then put to death. So in the case of the Duke of Clarence. He was executed for treason against his brother Edward, the fourth during the wars of the Roses, and on June 25th and Assembly of Lords and Commons declared Richard to be the legitimate king. And that was later confirmed by the an act of parliament called the titlists Regis, which, like, was necessary for this kind of thing. So the following day he ascended the throne as King Richard the third. So now that we have the concrete events in place, let's talk a little bit about what happened to the brothers breakdown. Yeah. So Dominic Manzini was an Italian who visited England in this in the 14 eighties and witnessed the events leading up to Richard's claiming of the crown. He reported that Edward and his younger brother, Richard, were taken into the inner apartments of the tower, and then we're seeing less and less until the summer, the end of the summer of 14 83 when they disappeared from the public view altogether. During this period, man senior work records that Edward was regularly visited by a doctor who reported that Edward quote, like a victim prepared for sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance because he believed that death was facing him. Edward and his brother Richard's fate after their disappearance remains unknown, But the most widely accepted theory is that they were murdered on the orders of their Uncle King Richard the 3rd 0 yeah, so their nest may have occurred sometime in 14 83. But apart from their disappearance, the only evidence is circumstantial. Like there they don't even know, like they haven't even definitively identified bodies or anything like that. It's just a mystery. So as a result, several hypotheses about their fates have been proposed. There are reports of the two princes being seen playing the tower grounds shortly after Richard Joint joined his brother, but there are no recorded sightings of either of them. After the summer of 14 83 there was even an attempt to rescue them in late July, but it failed. Many historians believe the princes were murdered, and some suggest that the act may have happened towards the end of the summer. Maurice Keen argued that the rebellion against Richard in 14 83 initially quote aimed to rescue Edward, the fifth and his brother from the tower before it was too late, but that when the Duke of Buckingham became evolved, it shifted to support of Henry Tudor because, quote Buckingham almost certainly knew that the princes in the tower were dead. It's very possible that Richard felt his position was too unstable with two other viable heirs sitting in the tower and then had them killed. Another historian, Clements Markham's, suggested the princes may have been alive as late as July 14 84 pointing to the regulations issued by Richard the third's household, which stated quote The Children should be together at one breakfast, However, James Gardner, another historian, argues that it's unclear to whom the phrase the Children alludes, and it might not have been a reference to the princes at all. The instructions were for Richard's household, and he actually had several Children that were in his care. Okay, um, Edward, the Earl of Warwick, who is the son of the Duke of Clarence. So his other nephew, Um, and Edward, the forced two youngest daughters, Catherine and Bridget, were all living under Richards route care at Sheriff Hutton and at this time, so conceivably it meant them and not the two princes who Theoretically, we're living in the tower this whole time so they wouldn't have been part of his household. So despite the wide belief that Edward and Richard were murdered beyond their disappearance, there's no direct evidence that they had been murdered. And there's no reliable, well informed, independent or impartial sources to, like, collaborate any sort of theory. Uhm, nevertheless, rumors quickly spread that they had indeed been murdered, and only one contemporary narrative account of the boys time in the tower exists that of Dominic Mancini. However, Mancini's account was not discovered until 1934.
That's a while,
yes, of the Wild, and that's a very long time for a lot of theories to emerge. So it was in the municipal library and Lil, um, and just somehow ended up there. But then again, especially in Europe, people are finding really, really hold documents all the time that have just somehow, Ben, like, shoved together with other stuff in, like where you would least expect them to be.
What happens when you have a very long and conquest in history? Yes, exactly.
There's a really long period of time for rumors and different theories to run amok later, accounts were in after the accession of Henry. A session of Henry Tudor are often claimed to have been biased or have been influenced by Tudor propaganda, especially because Richard the third's death ultimately ended the wars with roses. And Henry, the seventh, a. K. Henry Tudor, was crowned king as the victor. So you know the victories, the history, do you? So who knows? Basically what this all means, that there is a lot of mystery and bias is going on. Generally speaking, most historians believe that the princes were murdered, and the most likely culprit was Richard the third, although it probably wasn't directly by his hand. Although the princes had been eliminated from the succession by, like law Richards hold on, the monarchy was very insecure due to the way in which he had attained the crown a k a coup leading to a backlash against him by the Yorkis establishment. The tutors. It's important to remember here that the wars of the roses had been fought on and off since about 14 55 so any insecurity in his position was extremely dangerous and in the same context, having a child ruler with House of Lancaster looking for any crack was also dangerous. Additionally, that attempt to rescue them only made it clear that they would remain a threat to Richard thrown as long as they were alive. So despite Richard protestations of the rumors that he murdered the princess, he never attempted to prove that they were alive by having them seen in public, which strongly suggests that they were, in fact, dead. At that point, he also failed to open any investigation into the matter, which would have been in his best interest if he was not actually responsible for their death because it would have helped prove that he
didn't do it. It seems like bad people like toe just kind of hide things. That would be very clear proof.
Yes, yes, they dio Ah, lot like all throughout history. So at the time of the princes disappearance, Richard was away from court on procession, so if they were murdered then he couldn't have physically done it. However, they were under guard in the Tower of London, which was controlled by his men, and access to them was strictly limited by his instructions. He could therefore have dispatched one of his retainers to murder the princes on his behalf, but it's unlikely they could have been murdered without his knowledge. And it bears reasoning here that he was also the one with the most to gain from their deaths. So plausible. Yeah. Take that as you will. Um, this is the version put forward by Thomas Moore and Polydor Virgil who both name James Tyrell as the murderer. I keep wanting to say Tyrol like, um, house Tyrell. Um, it could be Tyrell. We're gonna go with Tyrell because I can say it better. Um, Tyra was arrested by Henry the seventh sources in 15 02 for supporting another Yorkis claimant to the throne shortly before his execution, Tyrell said, is said by Thomas More to have admitted under torture, which is not the best way to get someone to actually admit the truth, because most of the time they'll say whatever you want them to. But he admitted, under torture to having murdered the princes on the behest of Richard. The third more wrote the history of King Richard. The third, circa 19 5th 1915 13 e. I don't know what data does. It's fine. It's quarantine. Um, which is The only record of this confession is what he wrote of what he heard. Um, again, to the victor goes the spoils in it. More wrote that during his examination, tyro made his confession as to the murders, saying that Richard the third ordered their deaths. He also claimed that the princes were smothered to death in their beds by two agents of Tyrol. But he there was one source that suggested who they were. But I don't I couldn't really find any, like affirmative stuff. So, like, it's all hearsay at this point. I mean, this whole thing is hearsay at this point. Um, so despite further questioning, however, he was unable to say where their bodies were, claiming that they had been buried. Quote at the stair foot. Meet Lee deep in the ground under a great heap of stones. Um, but he also said that they were later disinterred and buried in a secret place. Eso This version of events is accepted by some historians, and Michael Hicks notes that his successful career and rapid promotion after 14 83 is consistent with his alleged murder of the princess like a k Tyrell because he what leaps and bounds ahead of probably where he should have ended up. Right? Um, so conceivably, it was a little bit as compensation for keeping Richard Secret. However, the only record of Tyrell's confession is through more, and there are no actual ring down confession to be found anywhere else. Other historians cast doubts on the accuracy of Moore's accounts, suggesting that he may have elaborated on circulating rumors or even have fabricated the story entirely.
Anything, The Savior Neck.
Yeah, well, it's also pertinent to recognize that more was, um, one of the very close confidence of Henry the eighth for a long time. Okay? And he actually ended up being Lord High Chancellor, which was a very, very prominent position. Um, so 15. 13. He was working on his ascent to this position of loftiness. Yeah, so it's Ah, it stands to reason that there's a little bit of, like, um, sucking up going on as well. And I mean, no one knew. So what harm did you to point fingers? Additionally, the only known contemporary account wasn't known at the time. Mincy needs records so more really wasn't working with great or potentially any firsthand accounts. So his history is generally based on secondary sources and rumors. And if there's one thing I've learned is a historian and archivist, it's primary sources are very important. Um, so, yeah, so something based entirely on rumors and second, secondhand stories. Really, I
don't think ounces a history personally.
Eso Richard's guilt was widely accepted by his contemporaries. George Celie, dominant Manzini, John Rue, Fabian's Chronicle, the crowl and Chronicler and The London Chronicle all noted the disappearances of the disappearance of the princess and all except for Mancini, who noted that he had no knowledge of what had happened. All repeated rumors naming Richard as a murderer. So, like it was a widely circulating that Richard had killed his nephews like no one was making a secret that they believed it like it was, like so hard of a rumor that it was essentially fact at this point. Ah, yeah, it was like there was no proof, but everyone believed it. The chancellor of France named Richard as the murderer to the estate general in tour on January 14 84 urging them to take warning from the fate of the princes as their own King Charles. The seventh was only 13. So, like he was warning them to watch out because the same thing could happen here. So, like, don't let his older like don't let his uncle take care of him. Wink, wink could end poorly. Several international reports stated that Richard had the princes killed before he took the crown. However, they were already after Richard's death and may have had some biased agendas. It also appears to have been the belief of Elizabeth Woodville, their mother, who would go on to support Henry Tudor in his campaign against Richard. The third one possible motive for Elizabeth Woodville, making peace with Richard later on and bringing her daughters out of sanctuary could be that Richard had to swear a solemn oath before witnesses to protect and provide for her surviving Children, which would make it much less likely that they could be quietly murdered as it had been believed that their brothers had been
just thrown in the tower and forgotten about
Yeah, yeah, very much like that. Public entrustment of them made it much more made it more safe honestly, for them, Um, also like at this point, I don't remember if they had other sons But I know he had, like, there were, like, 45 daughters or something like that. So I mean, the girls weren't a threat at all, theoretically, But like not definitely not in the same way that the two, like oldest boys would have been right. So the girls were probably safer in general. May be the one time it was better to fi occur. Uh huh. Um, so there was no formal accusation against Richard, the third on the matter, The bill of attainder brought by Henry This seventh made no definitive mention of the princes in the tower. But it did accuse Richard of quote the unnatural, mischievous and great perjuries treasons, homicides and murders in shedding of infants, blood with many other wrongs, odious offenses and abominations against God. And man, that sounds way
worse than the first thing you said. Yeah,
well, so the shedding of infants blood that's part of that may be an accusation of the princes murder because, like, to my knowledge, like there were no other the thoughts that he murdered kids, the leg, This probably would have been the only Children that he could potentially have had a hand in their deaths. So it wasn't like a direct accusation, but it was pretty heavily implied. But I mean, by the time Henry the seventh put out this bill of attainder, Richard
was dead. So, like it didn't matter or yeah,
really. It mattered everyone else potentially. But it did not matter to him, so Oh, God. Um, One historians speculated that it was a reference to speeches made in parliament condemning the murder of the princes, which suggested that Richard's guilt had become common knowledge or at least common wisdom. So everybody knew. However, there are other theories, and one other theory is that Henry Stafford, the second Duke of Buckingham, murdered the princess. Prior to October 14 83 Buckingham had been Richard's right hand man. However, he appeared to have had some sort of falling out with Richard because in October he joined with Henry Tudor. Ah, yes, which size abruptly. Um, so he, with the help of Henry Tudor and you know, a whole host of other men, um, led a rebellion against Richard. But he was executed for treason by Richard on November 2nd,
lots of heads rolling,
so it was a very short lived and unsuccessful campaign, Um, for Buckingham to have been responsible for the princes murders. It would have had to have happened prior to his beheading, because I don't think a beheaded man can kill Children. Are you sure? I mean, maybe his ghost push tomato winner, who knows his motivation could have been from very for various reasons. Buckingham was a descendent of Edward, the third, through John of Gaunt, the first Duke of Lancaster, and Thomas Woodstock, the first Duke of Gloucester on his father's side, as
through John of Gaunt, again through John Buford, son of John of Gaunt on his mother's side. Sorry, there's a lot of, like first generation intermarry and going on in here, too. So I had double. I'd double check and I saw John. I've got multiple
times as they do in yield times.
Yes, well, yes. So because of his direction, descendants E. From Edward. The third, he might have hoped to a seat to the throne himself. Another thought is that he could have been acting through an unknown third party or petition Richard's orders. Maybe that's what caused the falling out between them. A contemporary Portuguese document parties. Yeah. Um suggests that bucking him was the guilty party stating quote. And after the passing away of King Edward in the year 14 83 another one of his brothers, the Duke of Gloucester, had in his power the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, the young sons of the said King, his brother and turned them to the Duke of Buckingham, under whose custody is the said Princess were starved to death. So fingers have been a flying a document dated some decades after the disappearance was found in the archives of the College of Arms in London in 1980. So, like a long time later that said, it stated that the murder was the vise of the Duke of Buckingham, which led Michael Bennett, a historian, to suggest that possibly some of Richard's prominent supporters, like Buckingham and James Tyrone, murdered the princes of their own initiative. Without waiting for Richard's orders, Bennett noted in support of this theory quote after the king's departure, Buckingham was ineffective command of the capital, and it is known that when the two men met a month later, there was an unholy row between them, so they fought and they fought hard. So it's plausible that Buckingham killed the princess without Richards knowledge, potentially hoping, hoping to further secure his throne. Okay, so it could have been like, Well, you're keeping them alive and that's a danger to you. So if I just take care of the problem, you'll thank me for it later, but he did not get thing for it later. But I mean, it's also conceivable that Richard asked him to kill them, and he was like, The heck is wrong with you and switch sides. So who knows? There are a couple of pitfalls with this reasoning, however. First of all, if he were guilty of acting without Richard's orders, is extremely surprising that Richard didn't just lay the blame for their murder at his feet because he was disgraced and executed so Richard could potentially have cleared his own name by doing that. Secondly, it's likely he would have required Richard's help to gain access to the Princes, since they were under close guard in the Tower of London with Richard's men. Although again as noted, it's possible that as the constable of England, he might have been exempt from that like ruling of getting too close to them, so he could have been able to be like, Well, I'm the constable thing would let me in and the guards would have liked parted the way right? One possibility is that Richard didn't immediately disclose Buckingham's guilt if he was, in fact guilty. Because there's no possible way people would have ever believed that Richard wasn't also involved. However, it's extremely unlikely that Buckingham would have acted without Richards consent or at least the implication of consent. So, like maybe a hint dropped here or something set off hand that Buckingham went, You want me to kill
them? K done. I just want to strangle those boys. Well, got it. No, no, no.
This job help. That's not what I meant. I mean, I say I wanna strangle Bilbo all the time, but I would never do it.
Okay, Bilbo, She said here.
No. Okay, Buckingham, stop. You know, But when you're king thinks that off hand like that can be taken the wrong way. So when you're in a position of power, you need to think about what you say before you say it. Just saying that it started out there.
Absolutely not topical
So another theory is that Henry V. Seventh had the boys killed after he defeated Richard and claimed the throne. He had eliminated some of the other people who held a shaky claim to the throne. So it's quite possible he wouldn't have thought twice about murdering two Children because you know what's killing two kids after you've killed a whole heck of a time of people during wars? So, um, Henry was, however, out of the country between their disappearance in August and August of 14 85. So his only opportunity to murder them would have been after his coronation in 14 85 which would have meant that they would have been living for, like, 2 2.5 years or something like that in the Tower of London, with no one having seen them, which seems unlikely. Yeah, um, to shore up his claim to the throne, Henry married Elizabeth of York, who was the princes elder sister, not wanting the legitimacy of his wife for her claim as heir to Edward. The fourth called into question. Prior to the marriage, he had repealed the titlists Rijs, which had been the thing that declared the princes and Elizabeth as illegitimate, so he basically reinstated. Essentially, he heightened their claim to the throne. But at this point, they were gone, right? No one, like no one, had seen them in two years. So where's the danger? I guess, Um, this theory suggested the princes were executed by Henry's order, not Richard, who then began circulating rumors that Richard had killed his nephews before he was deposed by Henry. It also coincides with Henry's decision in early 14 87 to confiscate all of Elizabeth Woodville lands and possessions and to Hever confined to Bermondsey Abbey, possibly as a way to keep her silent suspicious. Most historians, however, agreed that Elizabeth likely removed herself there voluntarily because that was actually fairly common practice, especially like if you didn't really have any other means, which, like he's confiscated her Linda possessions. So it stands to reason that she would go somewhere where she would be safe, which and Abby, it's perfect place, especially when you're a woman and, like, at this point unmarried woman and former queen, so like being on your own, you're essentially a political pawn at this point, so the safest place is in the protection of the church, right? So Henry was also never accused of the murder by any of his contemporaries and not even by his enemies, which he likely would have been if there had been any possibility of his guilt, like people would have jumped on it, especially those who opposed him. So it seems pretty unlikely that Henry was actually behind their desk. There's another possible explanation. Illness that lead to death in the period before they disappeared from sight. Manzini records that Edward was regularly visited by a doctor. Um, as I mentioned before, the whole, uh, thinking that death was facing him thing, right? So it's very possible that Edward or Richard or both died from an illness or by the medieval attempts to cure an illness. Personally, I think either Richard or illness were what did them in. It's also possible that one of them died and the other one lived longer, and we'll actually get a little bit too, that in a minute, actually, right now it's the head turn page. So during the reign of Henry the seventh, there were two individuals who claimed to be Richard Duke of York, the younger brother. Um and they claim to have escaped the tower. One was named. Ah. His real name was Lambert seminal, who initially came to be Richard but then changed his story and claimed to be Edward Planted Plan. Tagine it the seventh Earl of Warwick. The other claimant was Perkin War Beck, who claimed to have escaped to Flanders after his uncle's defeat. So rich after Richard the third was killed, Um, and Henry ascend to the throne. Um and he was, he claims to have been raised by his aunt there. So Margaret of York, the Duchess of Burgundy and the sister to both Edward the fourth and Richard the third formally recognized war Beck as Richard. Um and actually, so did James, 1/4 of Scotland. So he had some pretty big prominent players who were actually supporting him. Margaret Richard, the third sister, an unrelenting opponent of Henry V seven, had previously recognized symbol as Richard, presumably before he changed his mind and claimed to be Edward Plantagenet. Plant tagine it. Jeez, I had a really hard
time with that name. You were? Yeah.
So Ah, war back showed up in Ireland calling himself Richard the fourth, but after a failed attempt to invade England. He was captured. He retracted his claims and was executed. Mom, however, there could one day be a bit of closure to this mystery. In 16 74 some workmen were remodeling the Tower of London and dug up a wooden box that contained to small human skeletons. Yeah, the bones were found buried 10 feet under the staircase leading to the chapel of the white tower. Remember how Thomas More wrote that Tyrell claim that the boys were buried at the stair foot? They weren't actually the first Children's bones to be dug up in the Tower of London, Surprisingly or
a short, surprising.
Not surprisingly, um, the bones of two Children had previously been found quote in an old chamber that had been walled up and could conceivably have also been the princess. The first set of bones were believed to be the princess. Because of Moore's claim hover. He also wrote that they had been moved to a better place which wouldn't match the with the first set of remains. So one anonymous report was that the two were found with quote pieces of rag and velvet about them and the velvet could indicate that the bodies were those of aristocrats because commoners wouldn't have had velvet, right. However, the Tower of London was pretty much reserved for noble prisoners. So, like it would stand to reason that likely most people who were held there would have had, you know, some sort of finery. Yeah, Um, So the bones were placed in an urn and on the orders of King Charles the second, they were interred in Westminster Abbey, where a monument designed by Christopher Wren marks the resting place of the supposed princess. Apparently not willing to let the mystery lie. In 1933 the bones were exhumed by the archivist of Westminster Abbey, Lawrence Tanner, a leading anatomy ist professor William right, and the president of the dental association, George Nor craft. So by measuring certain bones and teeth, they concluded that the bones belonged to two Children around the correct ages for the princes. Um, the examination discovered that many of the bones were actually missing, that they had been carelessly combined with bones of other animals like chickens and stuff. And the workman that had found the bodies had actually broken a lot of the bones well liked by, like, rough handling. And I mean, they had been buried for at least 200 years at that point. So, like fragile. Yeah, they probably weren't in the best condition, and probably the workmen did not care that much. So the examination has been criticized on the grounds that it was conducted under the presumption that the bones were, in fact, those of the princes. And it pretty much concentrated on Lee on whether the bones showed evident evidence of suffocation. Um, and any attempt to, like collaborate that opinion? Um, no attempt was even made to determine whether the bones were male or female. So, like, definitely like a very narrow target trying to be reached. Um, best practice would have been to be like we should identify who these are with no preconceived notions here. All the possibilities. Let's narrow it down rather than this is the princes. And we have to find any evidence of support set right. That's just bad science. So there have been calls in recent years to try to DNA test the bones, and an online petition was actually started, but it closed before reached the number of signatures required to go before Parliament. However, as several historians have pointed out, even if modern DNA and carbon dating proved the bones belonged to the princes, it would it would not prove who or what had killed them, right, so that would still be a mystery. So the other possibility in 17 89 workmen carrying out repairs at ST George's Chapel in Windsor rediscovered and accidentally broke into the vault of Edward the Fourth and Queen Elizabeth Woodville, discovering in the process what appeared to be a small adjoining vault. This vault was found to contain the coffins of two unidentified Children, and it was inscribed with the names of two of Edward, the fourth Children, George, First, Duke of Bedford, who had died at the age of two, and Mary of York, who had died at the age of 14. However, no inspection or examination was carried out, and the tomb was resealed. The twist is during the excavation for the Royal Tomb House of George, the third under the Woolsey Tomb House in 18 10 like between eight and 10 1913 to lead coffins clearly labeled as George Plantagenet and Mary Plant Agin it, which was like would have been like the family name for the the Kid. The kids who didn't have, like official titles, were subsequently discovered somewhere else in the chapel
on have two of the same dead kids.
Yeah, these removed into the adjoining vault of Edward the fourth, but at the time no effort was made to identify the two coffins that were already in the vault. Suspicious, if you ask me. In the late 19 nineties, work was carried out near and around Edward the Force Tomb. The floor area was excavated to replace an old boiler and to add a new repository for the remains of future deans and canons of Windsor.
And they found more copies of these Children
and no. Ah, But a request was forwarded to the Dean and Canons of Windsor to consider a possible examination of the two vaults, either by fiber optic camera or, if possible, a re examination of the two unidentified coffins in the tomb. Royal consent would be necessary to open any royal tombs, so it was felt that it was best to leave this medieval mystery unsolved for the time being. However, in 2012 the university of least er and
L E I C E S T R yeah, probably. Leicester Leicester, the University of last year and the Leicester City Council. In association with the Richard, the Third Society announced that they had joined forces to begin a search for the remains of King Richard. The third Experts set out to locate the lost sight of the former Grey Friars Church, which was demolished during Henry the eighth dissolution of the monasteries. You know, the whole break from the Catholic Church thing? Yeah, And to discover whether his remains were still interned there. Which is where Henry the seventh claimed they were. They found the church and they found a skeleton that was actually buried under the parking lot. Um, and it was situated approximately where Richard was believed to have been hastily buried.
Oh, I kind of remember hearing, uh, seeing a news article.
Yeah. Yeah. So on February 4th, 2013 the university of last year.
That's it. There you go.
The Leicester confirmed that the skeleton was beyond reasonable doubt that of King Richard the third. This conclusion was based on mitochondrial DNA evidence. It was tested against the d N A of the son of 1/16 generation great niece of the King, who is in the dirt. Same direct matrilineal line. Eso you need that like direct connection to have, like the most solid results and, like comparisons a smell, a soil analysis, dental tests and physical characteristics of the skeleton, which are highly consistent with contemporary accounts of Richard's appearance. Supposedly he had, like scoliosis a little bit, so one of his shoulders was actually lower than the other. Um, although some people there are some accounts that it was like, really obvious. And then the other accounts that were like I know one is shorter, but I don't remember which one. So, like it was something that you were like, Oh, like it's a little off cited. But it's not a big deal.
Humans like to exaggerate.
Exactly. Yeah, So this skeleton matched a lot of those presumptive things. This discovery prompted new and renewed interest in re excavating the skeletons of the two princes. But Queen Elizabeth, the second has not granted the approval required for any such testing of any interred royal. So because Richard the third, they weren't sure it was him, they could do it But if you've been, you know, buried in like royal vaults like tomb kind of thing, you need royal approval to Exume. So someday, maybe she or a future monarch will grant approval. And the mystery of the princes in the tower will be laid to rest once and for all. But for now, it all remains a mystery.
And what's your heart take? Which I think Richard did it. Do you think Richard did it?
I think I think Richard killed
is not coming for your Richard. Yeah,
well, he's long. I mean, it's to me is the most plausible because he had the most to gain and like the most to lose. Still like
high risk, high reward.
Exactly so like and like from like a practical perspective, I can I could conceivably see why, especially in that kind of situation, where, like everything's volatile, nothing is safe. Having a child ruler. It's not a great idea in like such a like, drastically changing world that's like, still at war, I I could see where the thought would come. Well, if I were in charge, everything would be a lot easier. And then you slip down a slippery slope into murdering your nephews.
I just find it funny that I I recently did an episode on barbarian kings and barbarian kings. Just said, child ruler, go to your house upstate will pay you cement allowance and just stay there. Which is honestly what Syrians didn't murder their kind. Yeah, but English nobility does.
Oh, Europeans, period. Did like that was not uncommon. That really would more civil. Surprisingly, I'm not surprised. Um, but yeah, I I think Richard did it. I I can't imagine anyone wanting like anyone having enough for a reason other than him to get rid of two kids who were already in the Tower of London like they were already in his control. They had nowhere to go like and want a rescue attempt. It already failed potentially because they're already dead.
Probably. That's a good thought.
Yeah, so who knows? So, yeah, I think Richard did it take, but I definitely came on strong in the beginning with, like, definitely some, like, side eye it, Richard from the
gecko's. Yes, it was a little off, even though I have no idea what you're talking about for a little bit,
I very clearly did not like Richard. Well,
I don't like
anyone who, like, usurp someone else, like, I don't know, especially someone who, like technically, they inherited the crown. Rightfully. And then you decided No, I want it more or I deserve it more. Get out of my way now. I'm gonna kill you.
Some would call that ambition.
This is why I am not a slithering. But yeah, that's ah, that is the princes in the tower.
I was actually very excited that we're that we're doing this like, back and forth every other because it meant that I could jump into a topic that I knew was gonna be a little heftier.
Yeah, South. And, uh, listeners like, if you like this better than us both doing a topic kind of like not half asked, Obviously, like half length? Yes. No, like Twitter or Facebook or email. Of which I'll get to leave pretty soon. Yes, but but give us feedback on this format because us doing, um, every other once we catch up, if we continue this, it'll give us each more time, toe do our research,
and that it'll also like be one of those things. Are like I won't have to skip over something I might really be interested in because I know it's gonna be too long or like I know there's gonna be too much to cover or like you might even do the same thing.
So I don't
know what your methodology is like,
but no, I This madness
I know I have purposely picked topics that weren't necessarily what I was like. Oh, that would be really fun because I'm like, that's going to take for, like that. That is not gonna leave enough time for Jonathan Toe also talk. So, like this one, I couldn't have done this in our other normal format.
I would have had to, like, condense it and leave out a bunch of stuff. And I mean, like, I left out stuff like there. There are other things involved in this. There's like Is English. History is fascinating and twisted and weird, and I love
it. All right, well, let's tell them how they can tell us if they like this format or not. Eso you find us on Facebook and Twitter at I almost said, failed Kritzer, I
say. I thought you were said you can find us on Facebook or Twitter at Facebook and Twitter.
What? No, I almost that are other show lulled, um, so you can find us on Facebook and Twitter at halfway history. You can find our website at www dot half wit dad history dot com. And you can send us an email to half wit pod at gmail dot com.
Yes. Oh, definitely. Let us know if you like this format or, you know, if you prefer the other format to like Gladys. No. Either way, um, we definitely would prefer to stick with whatever people like the
best. Yes, Um, that's the most important what you guys like rather than what we're doing.
Yeah. If there's definitely, like, a heavy preference one way or the other, we would much prefer to go with what you guys want more so than, like, what? Our flight of fancy is so on. But we
got a year coming up. So mine is well, think about how we could alter our format if, well, now that we've got a year under our belts,
yeah, especially if it's potentially a way to make everything better. So, yeah, I'm all on board for improvement. But also, if anyone has any suggestions for topics or any other sort of commenter feedback we would absolutely love to hear from you.
Absolutely. Ah. And if you want to give us feedback in the sense of helping us monetarily afford to do this all the time
A little bit of incentive,
little, a little bit of a driver Want to make some deals like some crazy old Englishman?
Yeah. Send us a ko phi. And then just like in a note, say, like, do this topic, please. And I will be like, Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. You got it?
No, uh, that's a quick way to our hearts and letting me quit my full time job.
Also, send me pictures of cats and dogs that'll make me really happy
to completely unrelated. But it will. Yes, it Well, okay. And you can find that at k o dash f i dot com forward slash half with history and thank you to the fishermen for the use of our theme song. Another day you confined their soundcloud down in our show Notes.
Yeah, Go check him out. It's pretty cool.
Yes, very good guy.
Lots of good stuff. Lots. Is it from by time?
It's fun. Fact time has I only got one, so I'm taking it.
You go first, bud.
So on April 8th of 1983 in front of a live studio studio in front of a live audience, David Copperfield makes the Statue of Liberty disappear.
Oh, I saw that. Well, I didn't actually see it. See it? But I
I saw that as a thing like, when were you alive in 80 six?
Audience like 20 people or something like
that. It was a small audio. Can't have a giant audience for something that is a point of reference illusion.
That is true. It's a very good point,
but still a very impressive illusion on the No. Yeah, that's
that's very cool. Um, okay, my fund factors from April 6 17 22. So I'm kind of keeping it in the same timeframe. Well, sort of. Peter the Great. The Czar of Russia ends the tax on men with beards, taxed herds, taxes for beard.
I gladly pay a tax to keep a beard.
My assumption is Peter the Great had a beard and therefore didn't want to pay a
tax on it. And that's my heart. Take on. Must be.
But yeah, you gotta pay a tax for beards.
Mine's getting pretty bushy in this quarantine era.
Imagine if you had to pay, like by the inch or whatever. So like, the longer your beard was, the more you had to pay for. It
wouldn't be the only industry you pay by the inch. Oh, who? What? Wow you anyway, like, as always, I've been your half wit,
and I'm your historian way.