I can't think of a question, but I am excited to see the two of you together! You both have such passion and share your knowledge so genuinely! Can't wait!
With the recent discoveries surrounding the Princes in the Tower, especially the gold chain of Edward V, has Thomas More’s account of Richard III gained a little bit more legitimacy?
What are your opinions on the letter supposedly written by Richard Duke of York telling the story of his escape, discovered in the Gelderland Archive by Philippa Langley’s research team?
The Princes in the Tower has captivated many people and for some, it was their gateway into history. However, it appears to have also inspired a lot of conspiracy theories and bad history. For example, any online discussion will often involve at least one person promoting the conspiracy theory that Margaret Beaufort had the two princes murdered. There was also the claim that Edward V was hiding out in Devon as John Evans. Those behind this claim argued that the Ev in Evans stood for Edward V. This is the type of nonsense that you would expect to find in a Dan Brown novel. In general, I think people get so emotionally invested in this topic that it clouds their judgement and leads to poorly thought-out arguments. For instance, someone once tried to argue that Richard III probably did not murder the two princes because he did not kill all his nieces and nephews. To me this is a laughable false dichotomy. Considering all this, I am curious to know your opinion on whether the Princes in the Tower have a positive or negative impact on the study of history.
As Regent, what would have driven Richard to eliminate the Princes? If he was to oversee young Henry V's kingship, wouldn't that have been powerful enough for Richard?
Yes, especially considering the threat posed by his mother’s family. Edward V had been in the care of his maternal uncle for the whole of his life and would have hardly known his paternal family. It feels obvious who would have had the greatest influence over such a young king.
There is now a theory that Mancini's account of the conflict between the Woodville family and Richard III is false. There is evidence to suggest that they had a very good relationship before the death of Edward IV, and Edward IV's will may also be false... According to Mancini (who wrote his account in 1483), Richard claimed that he was appointed as a protector by Edward before his death, but as A J. Pollard pointed out that this may only be to support his demands for the office. Charles Ross simply said, 'We cannot be certain of (Edward IV's) intentions as his will and the appendices he added have not been preserved: it is likely, but not entirely certain, that these designated his brothers as protectors of the kingdom.'
Why would Richard III leave the fate of the princes a mystery when he could just as easily fake a semi-plausible ending for them? "Oh, no- they each caught a fever and died. What a shame! Now I'm the king."
Having attended several of your Princes in the tower talks with Matt and Nicola which were very enjoyable they gave me an insight into other viewpoints even if they didn't persuade me not to agree with Matt 😀. I would like to ask both of you what is most important when responding to people who don't agree with your views. Also what do both of you have planned for the future.
By close of 1483 seems Henry Tudor looking to become king. He’d promised to marry Elizabeth of York. But he must’ve known that he would have to re-legitimize her and her brothers if living. Doesn’t that suggest that Elizabeth Woodville knew by Dec. 1483 that her boys were gone? Otherwise Henry has no claim to the throne.
I’ve heard the suggestion that Richard felt he had no choice but to separate his Edward V from his Woodville relatives in order to be able to carry out his role as Protector. (As Edward was so much more familiar with and bonded to his maternal family, they had a degree of influence over him which would have undermined any other advisor.) Do you agree? In placing his son to be educated by the Woodvilles, but naming Richard as Protector, did Edward IV set up an inevitable conflict and a no-win situation for Richard?
There is now a theory that Mancini's account of the conflict between the Woodville family and Richard III is false. There is evidence to suggest that they had a very good relationship before the death of Edward IV, and Edward IV's will may also be false... According to Mancini (who wrote his account in 1483), Richard claimed that he was appointed as a protector by Edward before his death, but as A J. Pollard pointed out that this may only be to support his demands for the office. Charles Ross simply said, 'We cannot be certain of (Edward IV's) intentions as his will and the appendices he added have not been preserved: it is likely, but not entirely certain, that these designated his brothers as protectors of the kingdom.'
Really looking forward to this. Questions for you both? I have so many Maybe you could discus the many different theories brought up by Philippa Langley? Having read her latest book ( I’m sceptical but thought I needed to read it) I was impressed by the detail and research , however do you not think she throws up many different theories to “prove “ her belief , in the hope something might stick? I’d be interested in what you both think
I’ve just watched Lucy’s programme on the Princes in which she was shown coins thought to be minted during Edward V’s brief reign although that view has changed. What’s the significance of them being minted after Richard’s coronation instead? What did Richard hope to gain or was it some sort of ‘protest’ by the mint?
Oh no, dear Nathan. This is the 1 topic that I cannot bear to listen to you 2 speak about. Any other & I'd be there. I told you I'd agree to disagree. Have a great time & thanks for the opportunity🙋♀️
Hello all - for questions not asked, I'll try and do a video soon and answer a view!
That podcast was wonderful! You two were very interesting and as usual I learned a bit more from Nathan that I didn’t know before!
I can't think of a question, but I am excited to see the two of you together! You both have such passion and share your knowledge so genuinely! Can't wait!
With the recent discoveries surrounding the Princes in the Tower, especially the gold chain of Edward V, has Thomas More’s account of Richard III gained a little bit more legitimacy?
What are your opinions on the letter supposedly written by Richard Duke of York telling the story of his escape, discovered in the Gelderland Archive by Philippa Langley’s research team?
The Princes in the Tower has captivated many people and for some, it was their gateway into history. However, it appears to have also inspired a lot of conspiracy theories and bad history. For example, any online discussion will often involve at least one person promoting the conspiracy theory that Margaret Beaufort had the two princes murdered. There was also the claim that Edward V was hiding out in Devon as John Evans. Those behind this claim argued that the Ev in Evans stood for Edward V. This is the type of nonsense that you would expect to find in a Dan Brown novel. In general, I think people get so emotionally invested in this topic that it clouds their judgement and leads to poorly thought-out arguments. For instance, someone once tried to argue that Richard III probably did not murder the two princes because he did not kill all his nieces and nephews. To me this is a laughable false dichotomy. Considering all this, I am curious to know your opinion on whether the Princes in the Tower have a positive or negative impact on the study of history.
As Regent, what would have driven Richard to eliminate the Princes? If he was to oversee young Henry V's kingship, wouldn't that have been powerful enough for Richard?
Yes, especially considering the threat posed by his mother’s family. Edward V had been in the care of his maternal uncle for the whole of his life and would have hardly known his paternal family. It feels obvious who would have had the greatest influence over such a young king.
There is now a theory that Mancini's account of the conflict between the Woodville family and Richard III is false. There is evidence to suggest that they had a very good relationship before the death of Edward IV, and Edward IV's will may also be false... According to Mancini (who wrote his account in 1483), Richard claimed that he was appointed as a protector by Edward before his death, but as A J. Pollard pointed out that this may only be to support his demands for the office. Charles Ross simply said, 'We cannot be certain of (Edward IV's) intentions as his will and the appendices he added have not been preserved: it is likely, but not entirely certain, that these designated his brothers as protectors of the kingdom.'
Why would Richard III leave the fate of the princes a mystery when he could just as easily fake a semi-plausible ending for them? "Oh, no- they each caught a fever and died. What a shame! Now I'm the king."
Having attended several of your Princes in the tower talks with Matt and Nicola which were very enjoyable they gave me an insight into other viewpoints even if they didn't persuade me not to agree with Matt 😀. I would like to ask both of you what is most important when responding to people who don't agree with your views. Also what do both of you have planned for the future.
By close of 1483 seems Henry Tudor looking to become king. He’d promised to marry Elizabeth of York. But he must’ve known that he would have to re-legitimize her and her brothers if living. Doesn’t that suggest that Elizabeth Woodville knew by Dec. 1483 that her boys were gone? Otherwise Henry has no claim to the throne.
I’ve heard the suggestion that Richard felt he had no choice but to separate his Edward V from his Woodville relatives in order to be able to carry out his role as Protector. (As Edward was so much more familiar with and bonded to his maternal family, they had a degree of influence over him which would have undermined any other advisor.) Do you agree? In placing his son to be educated by the Woodvilles, but naming Richard as Protector, did Edward IV set up an inevitable conflict and a no-win situation for Richard?
There is now a theory that Mancini's account of the conflict between the Woodville family and Richard III is false. There is evidence to suggest that they had a very good relationship before the death of Edward IV, and Edward IV's will may also be false... According to Mancini (who wrote his account in 1483), Richard claimed that he was appointed as a protector by Edward before his death, but as A J. Pollard pointed out that this may only be to support his demands for the office. Charles Ross simply said, 'We cannot be certain of (Edward IV's) intentions as his will and the appendices he added have not been preserved: it is likely, but not entirely certain, that these designated his brothers as protectors of the kingdom.'
Q: With R3 partisans roaming Europe for documents on which to put a Ricardian "spin", what evidence should Tudor supporters be looking for?
Really looking forward to this. Questions for you both? I have so many Maybe you could discus the many different theories brought up by Philippa Langley? Having read her latest book ( I’m sceptical but thought I needed to read it) I was impressed by the detail and research , however do you not think she throws up many different theories to “prove “ her belief , in the hope something might stick? I’d be interested in what you both think
I’ve just watched Lucy’s programme on the Princes in which she was shown coins thought to be minted during Edward V’s brief reign although that view has changed. What’s the significance of them being minted after Richard’s coronation instead? What did Richard hope to gain or was it some sort of ‘protest’ by the mint?
Oh no, dear Nathan. This is the 1 topic that I cannot bear to listen to you 2 speak about. Any other & I'd be there. I told you I'd agree to disagree. Have a great time & thanks for the opportunity🙋♀️
How likely is it that the Princes (like Richard III's son) died of natural causes? And if they did, would anyone have believed it in 1483?