The HEARTBREAKING Mystery Of The Princes in the Tower...And The Boys Who PRETENDED To Be Them?!

Añadido: 2026-05-04

[00:00:00]Hey guys, this week we're going to do something a little bit different. We're going to ponder a mystery. The most well-known mystery in medieval history, probably. The princes in the tower. I've had so many interesting discussions with so many of you about this. I thought it was time we decided to be armchair detectives. Now, hopefully you all know I like to see all sides of a historical argument. So, we're going to try and be as fair as possible and give all theories consideration.

[00:00:31]The princes in the tower were, of course, Edward V and his younger brother, Richard of Shrewsbury. Their father, Edward IV, died on the 9th of April, 1483, and his death left a bit of a problem as Edward V was still only 12 years old. This meant he would need a regent to manage his affairs until he reached the age of majority and his father had become king as a result of the chaotic wars of the roses. This meant their family's hold on the crown was wobbly at best and especially in the hands of a young boy. Edward V's mother, Elizabeth Woodville, understood that whoever controlled her son controlled the throne and therefore secured their own position. Edward IVth had asked before dying for his younger brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, to be his son's regent and Lord Protector of England. But Elizabeth feared what might happen if she allowed this. Richard and the Woodvilles had never got along, and they knew if he became regent, they would be removed swiftly from court, and they even feared Edward V would be turned against them. Elizabeth sent her brother Anthony Woodville, second Earl Rivers, and one of her sons from her first marriage, Sir Richard Gray, half-brother to the princes, to bring Edward to her in London, from where he was staying at Lello Castle. However, by this point, Richard III had heard about his brother's death and was probably more than a little bit ticked off that Elizabeth hadn't bothered to tell him, likely to buy her family more time. He set forth for London from Midham Castle in Yorkshire, meeting up with Edward V at Stony Stratford. Richard initially pretended to be fine with also meeting Anthony Woodville and Richard Gray before locking them into their rooms at the inn and later arresting them supposedly for their plans to kill the king and take power for themselves. The pair would later be executed by Richard further north. Young Edward must have been pretty surprised to meet with his uncle Richard, but even more shocked at the news that his family members were planning on apparently murdering him.

[00:02:53]The pair went to London, and Edward was placed in the Tower of London to await his coronation. All very traditional.

[00:03:01]But the coronation was postponed from the 4th to the 25th of May. And perhaps no one thought anything of it at first.

[00:03:09]After all, there was a lot to prepare, and Edward IV's death had been a sudden one. Elizabeth Woodville must have been horrified to learn what had happened to her brother and other son, and perhaps was nervous enough of keeping Edward safe that when Richard suggested Edward's brother, Richard of Shrewsbury, join his brother in the tower to keep him company, she agreed. Richard of Shrewsbury went into the tower with his brother on the 16th of June, and this was the last time Elizabeth would see either of her sons from her second marriage again. Things suddenly moved very quickly. On the 22nd of June, Dr. Ralph Shaw gave a sermon declaring Edward V and Richard Shrewsbury were illegitimate as their father Edward IVth had apparently been engaged to another woman before marrying their mother. This apparently made the marriage invalid. It didn't seem to matter that the woman in question, Elellanena Butler, was dead and so couldn't speak for herself.

[00:04:14]Richard's best mate at the time and right-hand man, Henry Stafford, second Duke of Buckingham, then addressed Parliament and suggested the only real choice for the throne was, drum roll please, Richard himself. The council and Parliament reluctantly agreed on the 26th of June and by the 6th of July, Richard was crowned as Richard III of England with his wife Anne as Queen Consort. Parliament would later ratify the decision the princes were illegitimate with titleless regious.

[00:04:50]From this point onwards, the boys would be seen less and less. Richard will have been very certain of how unstable his position was, and letting the boys go would have been impossible.

[00:05:03]Dominic Manchini, an Italian frier who visited London in the summer of 1483, reported that Prince Edward was apparently visited regularly by a doctor and that the young boy was sick and feared he was going to die. Some people said they had seen the boys playing together in the gardens of the tower and in July a failed rescue attempt was made to free them from the guarded fortress.

[00:05:31]After September, there were no more sightings of the princes. Rumors abounded of their deaths, and when Elizabeth heard about this, she was inconsolable.

[00:05:43]Their disappearance would remain uncertain until August 1485 when Henry Tuda defeated Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth and took the English crown, becoming Henry VIIth. He ordered the tower be searched for the boys, but there was no sign of them. It was widely assumed the boys had been murdered by their uncle Richard. And when bones of two young boys were discovered in 1674 in the White Tower, it was suggested those bones were those of the princes. In 1789, however, another pair of small remains were found by workmen carrying out repairs to St. George's Chapel in Windsor. They were found in an adjoining vault to that of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville and at the time were thought to be of their other children, George and Margaret, who both died young. But their coffins were actually found elsewhere in the chapel.

[00:06:43]And so far, no one knows the identity of the other two sets of remains. But what really happened to the princes and who was responsible?

[00:06:55]But all this is with the reminder of course that anything is conjecture and we'll never really find out what happened probably. But that's not going to stop us trying. Okay. So really there's only two possible explanations for what happened to the princess in the tower. The first is that they were indeed murdered. The second is that they were freed from the tower somehow. We're going to look at both of these possibilities and the possible reasons behind it. But first, we have to line up our suspects. The most obvious suspect is Richard III. He was the boy's uncle, but he had means, motive, and opportunity. The second suspect is Henry Stafford. Now, he was Richard III's right-hand man, but at some point, relations soured between them. He may have also had his own motives for doing away with the boys. The third suspect is Henry VIIth. He didn't really have the means or the opportunity, but he certainly had the motive. When he married Elizabeth of York, revoking Titus Regis would have meant the boys, if they were still alive, would come to the throne before him. And the final suspect, and probably the least likely, is Margaret Bowfort. Now, she was Henry VIIth's mother, and she would have done anything for her son, but there isn't really any evidence linking her to the crime. But we're going to go into that.

[00:08:21]So, let's start with our most obvious suspect first. Richard III was the only person who had access to the boys, and no one, including Edward V's doctor, went in or out without his say so.

[00:08:37]Edward's doctor, probably a man named John Argentine, was one of the last people to see the young king to be alive. According to Manchini, Argentine reported back that Edward seemed like a victim prepared for sacrifice and that he sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance because he believed that death was facing him. Some people have interpreted this as being proof Edward suspected he might be murdered, others that he was ill, and still others who think the whole thing was nonsense. Richard was king only by declaring Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury illegitimate on the basis that their parents' marriage was invalid and as such the children of the union were bastards. This all rested on their father, Edward IV, being unable to speak up from beyond the grave, as was the woman he had supposedly been betrod to before Elizabeth Woodville, Elellanena Butler. However, while Richard declaring the boys illegitimate should have been enough, it was a bit flimsy. Firstly, no one can really have given the supposed betroal to Elellanena Butler any real serious thought. An engagement was not a marriage, and many betroals were broken off amicably and otherwise during the Middle Ages. But even if someone did subscribe to the idea of Edward and Little Richard being illegitimate, it still didn't actually prevent them from taking the throne. There were enough examples in history of the sons of kings and their unmarried lovers taking the throne to make Richard III nervous.

[00:10:27]Killing the boys off would have meant the way was free and clear for Richard to push himself in as main heir for the throne, and he certainly had the means.

[00:10:37]He was away in York when the princes disappeared, but he could have easily got someone else to do it for him. The main person put forward for this task is one Sir James Tur, who was a knight that had fought for the House of York on many occasions. He was arrested in 1502 by Henry VIIIth for trying to help another Yorkist claimment to the throne and under torture apparently admitted to the murder of Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury under Richard III's orders.

[00:11:10]Pretty cut and dry, right? Why are we even debating this Miranda? Well, there are some holes in this theory. The first obvious one is that the information from James Tur was obtained under torture. We know that any information under torture is suspect. Would you admit to anything to make pain stop? Of course you would.

[00:11:32]So while we have a confession, we have to consider one obtained under duress.

[00:11:38]The second problem is that Richard didn't actually have a totally clear route to the throne after the death of Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury in a manner of speaking. His older brother George Duke of Clarence had had two children, a daughter named Margaret and a son named Edward who was the 17th Earl of Warick. Now when George had been executed by Edward IVth, yes, his own brother, he was attained, which theoretically meant all of his lands and property were forfeit to the crown. His son couldn't inherit them, and therefore, Edward of Warick wasn't in line for the throne. However, an attainer could easily be reversed by Parliament after the death of the person attained and often was. So Edward could have had a shot at being king of England in theory. Added to this was the fact that Richard III actually treated his other nephew Edward of Warrick quite well, knighting him at York in September 1483.

[00:12:46]According to Manchini, he also had the boy placed in the household of his wife, Queen Anne, although there isn't much evidence surrounding this. Another hole in the theory of Richard as the murderer is the fact that simply making the boys disappear created more problems for him.

[00:13:05]If he knew the princes were dead from either a murder or illness, it would have been easy to claim they had died of a sickness. It was known Edward's doctor had visited the boys, and showing their lifeless bodies and arranging an elaborate funeral for them would have actually made everything easier for Richard. By keeping it secret, if that is what happened, rumors grew and allowed Henry Tuda to grow in popularity. The only way knowing the boys were dead and keeping them secret makes sense is if it was really murder and it was botched. It's not a nice thing to think about, but if the murder was particularly violent, this could be a reason for keeping their bodies secret. Although this seems to be less likely as well as there was no need for a violent death. Okay, so Richard III is still a suspect, but there are some problems with him being the murderer or the orchestrator of the murders. But what if someone close to him did away with the boys? This is where our second suspect comes in. Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham. Henry Stafford was at first Richard's right-hand man. During Edward IV's reign, the Duke of Buckingham was set up in February 1466 to marry Catherine Woodville, the youngest sister of Elizabeth Woodville.

[00:14:31]Now, at the time, Henry was only 10 and Catherine was eight and he would later claim he was forced into the marriage.

[00:14:40]He believed his wife was beneath him as she had only been gentry at the time of her birth. Despite this apparent dislike of his young wife, they had five children together, and Henry didn't say anything about the marriage until after Edward IVth was dead. Stafford then firmly hitched his wagon to Richard's cause and helped him ascend the throne of England. The two were pretty much best friends forever until around October 1483 when Stafford rebelled against Richard and switched sides to align with Henry TUDA and his mother Margaret Bowfort. The reasons as to why Henry fell out with Richard are very murky, but there is some suggestion they may have been connected to the disappearance of the boys. So Stafford himself had a link to the crown through being descended from John of Gaunt and Thomas of Woodstock, both sons of Edward III. And there is some suggestion he decided to have a go for the throne himself. Why not? Everyone else was doing it. He may have seen getting rid of the princes as a way to get a step closer to the throne. However, there are lots of problems with this. namely that best mate Richard was now king and the boys had been declared illegitimate anyway unless Stafford was planning on also bumping Richard off for which there is no evidence or he was acting on behalf of Henry VIIth. We'll look at that later as well. Alternatively, Stafford may have murdered the two boys to make himself look good in Richard's eyes if he thought it was something that would score him some points. This is posited as a possible reason for their falling out. That Richard found out the boys were dead on his return from the north and was furious with Stafford. But then why not go public about Stafford and clear his own name? The other possibility is that Henry had spirited the boys away to the continent. More on that later. And Richard was pretty mad that they weren't where he had left them. But either of these scenarios also presents a new problem. If Henry Stafford wanted Richard out of the way and he had successfully made the princes vanish through either means, why not publicly proclaim Richard a murderer?

[00:17:11]There were already rumors and it probably would have been enough to tip people against the king. But in support of the Stafford theory, he was placed in command of the capital in Richard's absence while the king traveled north.

[00:17:26]This meant that he had the means and the opportunity to get to the princes. And there is suggestion that he and James Tier, remember him, conspired to kill the boys together. Henry's later rebellion against Richard is also odd without context, as the two had got on well until that point. An interesting document was also found in the 80s in the College of Arms in London dating from the early 1500s in which it was written that the murder of the princes was the vice of the Duke of Buckingham.

[00:18:02]Unfortunately for Henry Stafford, his rebellion was a failure. He fled in disguise near Wem in Shroptshire but was discovered and brought before Richard III. With no trial, Stafford was executed on the 2nd of November 1483 for his treason and was no longer able to tell anyone if he did know anything. The theory of Stafford as the murderer, at least on his own valition, isn't widely accepted. However, it's possible he was acting on behalf of Richard III.

[00:18:38]Confused yet? It's possible Stafford was supposed to do away with the boys when Richard was away in the north in order to give the king an alibi and then Richard would announce their death by illness, give them a lavish and suitable funeral and move on. But what if something went wrong? What if, as mentioned above, the murder turned violent and the boy's bodies could therefore not be shown? It could also be a possible reason for Richard's anger with his previous best buddy. Okay, so we're down to two suspects now, and Henry Stafford is not off the hook, especially as he might have been involved with suspect number three, Henry Tuda, later to become Henry VIIth.

[00:19:25]Henry Tuda had not actually originally set out to be king. Exiled to Britany with his uncle Jasper Tuda, his mother Margaret Bowford had been petitioning on his behalf for his rehabilitation to England and his rightful title of Earl of Richmond through his father. She was adept at keeping herself neutral and on everyone's good side. And through four marriages and lots of knowing when not to speak, Margaret had got in very well with Edward IVth, Elizabeth Woodville, and their family. She was petitioning Edward IVth just before he died, and there was little hope of negotiating with Richard when he took the throne. As Richard distanced himself more from the nobility connected to the Woodvilles, Elizabeth Woodville, who was corresponding still with Margaret, suggested a marriage between her daughter, Elizabeth of York and Henry Tuda. This was only if he took the crown of England and reversed the titleless Regius. In exchange, Elizabeth would help with funds and men to fight for Henry's cause. Henry declared publicly on Christmas Day 1483 at Hen Cathedral that he was going to marry Elizabeth of York. This obviously also meant he was going to make a play for the crown. This was mostly going to be through the old crown by conquest route, but Henry did also have a weak claim to the throne through his mother who was a great granddaughter of John of Gaunt through his legitimized grandson John Bowfort.

[00:21:05]By the summer of 1485, Henry had gathered enough men and forces to invade England and he made his way through Wales first where he had support and then on towards Leicester. His forces met Richard III's near Bosworth on the 22nd of August and he was victorious. After claiming the crown, Henry bumped off a lot of claimments to the throne, including John of Gloucester, who was Richard III's illegitimate son. It has been suggested he decided to do the same with the princes in the tower to make sure they were gone before marrying their older sister. He didn't marry Elizabeth of York until the following year. And revoking Titus Regius would mean she was once again considered a legitimate daughter of Edward IVth. But that would also count for Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury. Henry wasn't able to get to the boys before 1485 personally. So either would have to do it shortly after becoming king or get someone else to do it for him like Henry Stafford. But again, there are big holes in this argument, too. If the princes really had been hanging out in the Tower of London for 2 years, why did Richard III never bring them out and show them off? it would have immediately quashed any rumors. The fact he didn't means they probably weren't there, however that happened. And so, if Henry Tuda was responsible for their deaths, he would have had to do it through a third party.

[00:22:43]But again, if he knew the princes were dead, why not publicly paint Richard as the murderer and make people throw open the doors to the empty room in the tower? Henry was also, unlike both Richard III and Henry Stafford, never mentioned by contemporaries or near contemporaries as a possible suspect.

[00:23:04]Henry Judah certainly had a motive for killing off the boys or at least making them disappear, but he didn't have the means or opportunity. He was too far away to attempt anything in England and he didn't have many people there who could do something on his behalf except for one person. And this brings us to probably the least likely of the theories and suspect number four, Henry's own mother, Lady Margaret Bowfort, Countess of Richmond. She was certainly Henry's number one fan and this idea has been popularized in historical fiction. Was she really the murderer? Let's take a look at the evidence. As mentioned, Margaret Bow was very close to the royal family of Edward IVth and Elizabeth Woodville and knew the children very well. She would have spent a lot of time with them as her fourth husband, Thomas Stanley, Earl of Derby, was steward of the household for Edward IV and a member of the king's council. This meant they were always at court and Margaret was made a lady in waiting to Elizabeth. She apparently got on well with both the new queen and the royal children. She would have seen them day in and day out and probably was fond of them. This makes it difficult to believe years later when Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury were in the tower that she would have given the order to kill them. However, there is the argument that she would have done almost anything to help her son Henry, but this does seem out of character. Aside from being known as a maternal figure who cared for the royal children, Margaret was also extremely religious and probably wouldn't have wanted to risk her immortal soul by partaking in the murder of two young boys. There's also the practical consideration that at the time the boys went missing, Margaret had no desire to help her son become king, only to return him home and to his title of Earl of Richmond. Making the princes disappear wouldn't have helped that at all. There's also no evidence of her part in events, no contemporary suggestion of it, and Margaret has no motive, means, or opportunity to be a real suspect. However, what if there was another more outlandish theory about Margaret? Before the prince's disappearance, people didn't just sit around and wait to see what would happen. There was at least one recorded rescue attempt in July of 1483 when several buildings around London were set on fire to keep the authorities busy while the boys were helped to escape from their confinement. Unfortunately, something went wrong with the plan and no rescue occurred. After this point, the boys were not seen again. But what if there was another rescue attempt? one that went very very wrong. It is possible that there may have been another attempt at rescuing the princes, probably before September when those rebelling against Richard III decided to throw their lot in with Henry TUDA.

[00:26:23]Something they would not have done had they thought the boys were still alive.

[00:26:28]Is it possible that a rescuers planned and went wrong? Maybe the princes were attacked by guards who didn't realize who they were in the dark. Perhaps they fell from a high wall while climbing over. In other words, was there an escape that ended in their accidental deaths? This would allow for their complete disappearance and also for Richard III to not have a clue where they had gone, hence his silence for 2 years on their whereabouts. But who would have funded such a mission and why?

[00:27:04]One possibility is Margaret. She was a wealthy woman by this point and so she had the means to pay for people to carry out the rescue. Also by this point she was sending letters to Elizabeth Woodville who was in sanctuary at Westminster Abbey with her daughters.

[00:27:22]Remember that the idea of Henry Tuda becoming king still wasn't formed yet.

[00:27:29]But Elizabeth needed as much help as she could get to ensure the safety of herself and her remaining children. The marriage of Henry and Elizabeth of York may originally have come with another condition that of getting Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury out of the tower.

[00:27:48]Margaret knew the boys well and her son Henry was in Britany, a perfect place to send two small boys disguised as nobodies and keep them safe. And once Elizabeth Woodville knew they were safe, she could help with Henry's return to England. But when the rescue attempt went wrong, Margaret had to cover her tracks because if Elizabeth blamed her for the failed rescue, Henry would not get the help he needed. those who had been involved would naturally keep quiet to avoid being executed or worse. And Richard III was baffled. However, he still wouldn't have been able to say anything because the boys were under his protection and he was therefore responsible for them. So, that last theory was all conjecture with no evidence to back it up. But it is an interesting one to explain both the prince's disappearance and Richard's silence on their disappearance. But there is at least one other crazy theory going around, one that's only happened in recent years. The Missing Princes Project, a project set up to investigate the disappearance of the princes, claimed to have discovered in 2021 evidence that Edward V had lived out his days in a rural Devon village named Cauldridge. They found documents relating to a man named John Evans, who appeared in 1484, but was immediately given an official position and the title of Lord of the Manner. He also commissioned stained glass windows in the local church depicting Edward V and other Yorkist symbols around 1511 which was very unusual for the location. So had Edward V been found and if so why was he in Devon? And what happened to his brother? The idea of whether it was really Edward or not is more than a little shaky. John Evans could just as easily been a wealthy local who did well and became lord of the manor. And while it reads as he appeared in 1484, actually he could simply have not turned up in records until that time, medieval records are often patchy at best and missing at worst. And it could be that John Evans had lived in Culridge since his birth. He could also have come from a family of Yorkist supporters and felt it was safe in 1511 to publicly show this, but not before. But let's pretend it was Edward V. Why was he in Devon?

[00:30:31]Well, no answer really makes any sense.

[00:30:35]The boy was only in danger from those who supported Richard III. And as he was meant to be under his uncle's protection, moving him from the tower shouldn't have been necessary. It's also not likely that a boy of 12 who knows he is the king's son and rightful king of England would quietly go and live in Devon and never speak up about who he really was. And finally, the theory simply does away with Richard of Shrewsbury altogether, giving no ideas about why he wouldn't have gone with his brother. So, we come to the end of our armchair investigation. We still have four suspects, but where do we place them? There aren't really any wrong ideas, except maybe aliens did it, but most theories are still valid in view of the lack of evidence. But here's my conclusion. First of all, as much as my romantic heart wants to believe the princes escaped and ran off to have a life in Europe somewhere, it's not the most likely outcome. It's far more likely they died either through murder, illness, or accidental death. I don't actually believe Henry VIIth or Margaret Bowfort had anything to do with the disappearance for very different reasons. There is no evidence at all linking Margaret and she is only theorized due to the idea circulating in historical fiction. And if Henry VIIIth had done anything, he surely would have used this against Richard III. Equally, even if Margaret had helped the princes escape and this had ended in disaster, she still would have told Henry, who again would have used this to his advantage. It's not to say Henry wouldn't have been capable of it. He certainly proved he was ruthless at getting rid of rivals later on. I just don't think he had the opportunity.

[00:32:37]which leaves either Richard III or Henry Stafford. And controversially, I don't actually think it was Richard III directly, at least not on his own. Just like Henry VIIth, I think Richard was absolutely capable of killing off his nephews or ordering someone else to do it. But I don't think he would actually have been politically stupid enough to simply make them vanish. I believe he and Henry Stafford had an agreement that while Richard was away in the north giving himself an alibi, Stafford would kill the princes and make it look like they died of an illness. However, perhaps this is where things got messy.

[00:33:23]Maybe the boys woke up when their murderers entered the room and things moved too quickly for a careful killing.

[00:33:30]Maybe poison was going to be used, but they couldn't get access to give it to the boys. Something went wrong, and the boys' bodies could no longer be shown in public because it would have been obvious they were murdered. They couldn't even risk saying these bodies were contagious because their mother or someone else might have wanted to see them anyway. So, the only option left was to hide the bodies and tell Richard on his return. Richard was furious that the boys were dead and he couldn't pretend their deaths were natural. So, he had no choice but to stay quiet on the subject and he and Stafford fell out. Why didn't Stafford say anything?

[00:34:13]Well, he was involved, too. So, that's my personal opinion, but like I said at the beginning of the video, everyone's opinions are valid until proven otherwise. But I still think the suspects are either Richard III or Henry Stafford or both of them working together. And ultimately, whatever actually happened to the princes in the tower, Richard III was responsible for their welfare. Hopefully, one day in the not tooistant future, DNA testing might be allowed for the two sets of skeletons that have been found and we can get a step closer to the truth. But until then, it's an enduring mystery which still captures our imaginations over 500 years later.

[00:34:58]The Wars of the Roses were characterized by a confusing conveyor belt of monarchs usurping, winning, and retaking the English throne. But this eventually ended with Henry VIIth defeating Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth and becoming the first monarch of the Tuda dynasty. But that was far from the end of the matter and at least two figures would go down in history as pretenders to the throne. The first was a young boy named Lambert Simnel, although his name was actually most probably John. His origins are obscure, but he was probably born sometime around 1476 in Oxford. His father was Thomas Simnel, who could have been a carpenter, an organ maker, or even a cobbler. We don't know who Lambert's mother was, or if she was even around. And all of this is not unusual for someone who was a commoner in the 15th century, except this was someone who was about to place themselves as a king. However, it must be remembered that most information known of Lambert Simnel comes from the later TUDA regime and they needed to show that they knew a lot more than they probably really did.

[00:36:17]Therefore, much of his story may have been tweaked and changed even before it went on record about 500 years ago. The first real mention of Lambert is in Dublin in the winter of 1486.

[00:36:32]It became known that a young boy was claiming to be Edward Plantaginet, Earl of Warick, the last surviving male of the House of York and the son and heir of George, Duke of Clarence. Some accounts even state that Lambert first pretended to be Richard of Shrewsbury, the younger son of Edward IV, but then changed to the Earl of Warick. The thing was Edward Plantaginet was still alive and held by Henry VIIIth in the Tower of London. So what was going on? When Henry VIIth took the English crown, having disposed of Richard III on a battlefield near Bosworth on the 22nd of August, Henry proved shortly afterwards how ruthless he could be by eliminating many of those who had a claim, however weak, to the throne. Luckily for Edward, Henry instead decided to simply place him first in Sheriff Hutton Castle and later in the Tower of London where he could keep an eye on him. There were some rumors that the Duke of Clarence had planned to send Edward to Ireland to keep him safe while putting a different child in his place. There was nothing to suggest this had ever actually happened, but going through the walls of the roses had made everyone suspicious and ready to believe anything. By 1486, a plot was underway to put Lambert forward as a king. The story goes that it was a priest either known as Richard Simmons or William Simmons who educated Simnel not only in academic subjects but also courtly manners and etiquette.

[00:38:18]However, it's highly unlikely that a priest would suddenly decide out of nowhere to become a kingmaker.

[00:38:26]And it's highly suspect that Oxford was an area where two of the leaders from the ensuing revolt held their properties.

[00:38:35]One of these was John de la Earl of Lincoln and he publicly stated Lambert was the Earl of Warrick despite Edward Plantaginate still being alive.

[00:38:48]No doubt Richard Simmons was part of a much bigger plot engaged for his ability to teach the young boy the kind of education expected of nobility.

[00:39:00]Richard Simmons spread the rumor that the Earl of Warick had escaped from the Tower of London and was now under his care and he took him to Ireland. There there was a significant amount of support for the Yorkist cause. It's likely that there was already a plot underway to invade England and overthrow Henry VIIIth and this would have happened with or without Simnel. He was merely a figurehead. At the end of 1486, Lambert was well established in Ireland, backed by Thomas Fitzgerald, the Chancellor of Ireland, his brother Gerald Fitzgerald, the Earl of Kildair, and Walter Fitz Simmons, the Archbishop of Dublin. When news of these events reached Henry VIIIth, he sent a herald to question Lambert about his background and his story. The plot grew when Margaret of York, sister to Edward IVth and Richard III and now Daaja Duchess of Burgundy lend her support to Lambert's cause, publicly declaring him to be the Earl of Warick and sending funds to aid him. On the 2nd of February 1487, hoping to reduce the murmurings of Lambert being the Earl of Warick, Henry VIIIth released the real Earl of Warrick from the tower and paraded him through London. But despite this, and due to news traveling very slowly in the medieval period, this had little effect in squashing the rumors. On the 24th of May 1487, Lambert was crowned as King Edward in Christ Church Cathedral in Dublin. A parliament was held in his name and coins were struck bearing his image.

[00:40:50]Interestingly, in contemporary accounts, no regal number was given, but we'll come back to that later. Remember it for now. The city of Waterford, which remained loyal during these events, mocked Dubliners for choosing an organ maker's son as their king. It would seem no one was actually fooled by the story being woven about Lambert, but it didn't stop the Yorkists in their plan. This was also where John de la Paul got involved, fleeing to Burgundy to Margaret of York's side and declaring he had aided in Warick's supposed escape.

[00:41:30]While there, he also met with Francis Levelvel, Viccount Levelvel, who was in exile after supporting a failed uprising in 1486.

[00:41:40]He and other Yorkist courtiers traveled to Ireland to join the army being raised under Thomas Fitzgerald. On the 4th of June, with a force of around 1,500 German and Flemish mercenaries, 4,000 Irish light infantry, and a host of Yorkish supporters, Simnel and the Earl of Lincoln landed on Peele Island in Furnace, Lancasher. Simmons would later claim he had met with Lovevel in Furnace to discuss a suitable landing place from Ireland. Setting up camp from this fairly secure base, the Yorkist forces moved quickly east across the Penines into Wyale. While many nobles were reluctant to join them and kick off yet more conflict, there were some amongst the gentry who did join. This included John Scro, fifth Baron Scope of Bolton, and Thomas Scrope, sixth Baron Scope of Massim. And on the 8th of June, a letter was sent apparently from King Edward from Massam to York to announce his cause and to ensure the city of York would welcome him. Despite the two baron scopes leading their men to York's gates, the city remained loyal to Henry VIIIth even when they declared Lambert the rightful king at Booth. The rest of the forces, including Simnel himself, went south. However, support wasn't as forthcoming as they had hoped for, and few nobles decided to join them either.

[00:43:16]This may have been due to genuinely supporting the new TUDA regime, seeing that the Simnel campaign was going to fail or simply wanting to keep their heads down after years of conflict.

[00:43:30]Henry VIIth was prepared. However, this was partially due to a planned invasion of Ireland, but hearing about what was happening with Lambert had merely allowed the rightfully paranoid king to ready himself for what was coming. There was some unrest in London due to uncertainty over whether there had been a rebel victory or not, and a few Londoners took to the streets.

[00:43:55]Nevertheless, it made little difference, and by the 15th of June 1487, Henry VIIIth had left Nottingham with a large force of his own men, at least double that of the Earl of Lincoln's, around 12,000.

[00:44:12]They set up camp near Nottingham about 10 mi away, while Simnel and Lincoln's army made camp at East Stoke, a village nearby.

[00:44:22]The following day on the 16th of June, the two armies met near East Stoke between Rampire Hill and the River Trent. It was a brutal battle and is considered by some historians to have been even bloodier than Bosworth. At first, the Yorkist forces remained in a large unit on the brow of Rampire Hill, but soon found themselves assaulted with arrows from the king's archers. Instead of retaining the high ground, they decided instead to immediately go into the attack and try to break up the Lancastrian line. It didn't work and the battle went on for 3 hours in a bitter push from both sides. The German mercenaries had the latest in early handguns, but as these were slow to load, they were not a match against the many highly trained longbowow men against them. and the Irish soldiers lacked body armor, which meant they were quickly cut down. Lincoln's forces found themselves cornered by the Lancastrian army as the River Trent flanked the battlefield on three sides. Many of the Yorkist forces attempted to escape along the Trent and down a ravine, which even today is known locally by the chilling name Red Gutter, and were trapped and killed there. The Earl of Lincoln and Thomas Fitzgerald both fell in battle, dying while fighting. Lovevel managed to flee and was presumed to have escaped to Scotland or abroad, but there is no evidence of his having reached Scotland or his later fate. Simnel and Simmons were both captured in the aftermath of the battle. A herald present at the battle recounted that the lad the rebels called King Edward was captured by Robert Bellingham, a squire in the king's household. Simmons being a man of the cloth avoided execution but was still imprisoned for life. The Irish nobles who had supported Lambert mostly avoided any punishment at all as Henry VIIIth needed them to help govern Ireland effectively. However, he would later persuade the pope to excommunicate the Irish clergy who had aided the rebellion. In light of not being able to arrest Lincoln and find out the depth of the Yorkist uprising as he was dead, Henry instead decided to launch a series of investigations into the rebellion, which didn't throw up much information, and the outcome was few executions and many fines. This was in line with Henry's method of controlling the nobility by basically taking away their money and leaving them weakened as a result. But what about Lambert? Well, Henry knew the young boy had been nothing more than a figurehead. And so, Simnel was given a full pardon and a job in his kitchen as a spit turner. There are scant records on Lambert's later life, but there is a good suggestion he became a falconer and married. Not bad for a young boy from a fairly ordinary background. Henry's position was improved by his clemency towards Lambert, as well as quashing yet more Yorkist supporters both in the battle of Stokefield and afterwards. But there are a minority of historians who question the identity of Lambert altogether.

[00:47:55]Could he actually have been someone more regal? There is a niche theory that posits that Lambert was actually Edward V. The nobles crowned him as he never received his coronation in London and this was why John Deppole supported him instead of going for his own claim to the throne. Now, this theory also means you have to believe that Edward V survived being in the Tower of London during Edward III's reign without a peep of noise as no one saw him and then he somehow snuck out before Henry VIIIth became king and went to Ireland or Oxford. This theory rests on the lack of evidence for a regal number in the records. Only after the events when it was being written up by TUDA chronicers was Lambert noted as being called King Edward V 6. But in fact there is nothing contemporary to corroborate this.

[00:48:54]However, there are a lot of holes in this. The first is the idea that a boy who was noted by contemporaries as being about 10 years old was actually the 16-year-old Edward V. While there could be some variance in age, not many 16-year-olds could pass as 10year-olds.

[00:49:14]Also, entirely unlikely, for a slew of reasons I go over in my video about the princes in the tower, that Edward V was alive in any fashion in the tower or otherwise until 1487.

[00:49:28]While the Tudtor were undeniable fabricators of the historical record and many records for the Irish Parliament were destroyed by Henry VIIth, this one seems a stretch too far. The main reason is this. If you were the 16-year-old Edward V, rightful ruler of England, who had been imprisoned wrongly by your uncle Richard III, and now the throne of England was claimed by a usurper, would you be quiet about it? A 16-year-old was considered a man, and one who had been raised to be royal would have no issue in raising noise, an army, and a cause against Henry VIIth. It's pretty clear that Lambert was trained in how to behave and everything about the rebellion was planned out by the adults around him. As for the regal number, while it is annoying it's missing from records, a lack of evidence is not evidence in itself. So, Lambert Simnel had began life as a commoner and did not become a king, but did at least end up in the royal household. Henry VIIIth rid himself of a few more bothersome nobles who were against him and bolstered himself financially with a few more fines. The country had also seen the last major battle that could be considered part of the Wars of the Roses. However, another pretender to the throne was waiting in the wings in the form of Perkin Warbeck. And this one wouldn't be thrown off so easily.

[00:51:11]By the close of 1487, Henry VIIIth had already seen off one pretender to the throne in the form of Lambert Simnel. Those who had attempted to lead a rebellion against Henry had been either executed, imprisoned, or taxed out of existence, while Simnel became a servant in the royal kitchens.

[00:51:33]Lambert was a mere boy led by a few Yorkish supporters grasping at straws.

[00:51:40]But a few years later in 1490, another claimment for the English crown would emerge. This time in the form of Perkin Warbeck.

[00:51:52]Perkin Warbeck's story is one of shadows and conflicting information. So, we're going to start with the version Perkin himself gave in his confession and then we'll come back to what other possible versions there could be. He gave his birth date as being around 1474 and stated that he was born in Torres, the son of John Osbeck, comproller of the town of Torres and Katarin Depero.

[00:52:20]Obeck is a variation of Warbeck and records found in the 19th century showed that her Pirquin Deerbeck was born to Yanderebeck, son of Derek Deerbeck and Perkin had also mentioned his grandfather Derek in his confession. So far so good. By the time Perkin was 10 years old in 1484, he was working for merchants across Antwerp, Bergen, Napzun, and Middberg, most likely in the bustling cloth trade.

[00:52:53]This was quite a cosmopolitan start for a kid from an ordinary working background, and it allowed Perkin to learn several languages. He moved on from here in April 1487 to work in the service of Lady Margaret Bowmont, wife of the Anglo Portuguese courtier and international trader Sir Edward Bmpton.

[00:53:16]Both were Yorkist supporters. While he was at Lisbon, Perkin then spent a year in the service of the royal counselor and explorer Peter Vazduna before being employed in 1488 by a Breton merchant present Menow. By this point, he would also have learned Portuguese to add to his Flemish. So, what does all this show? It shows that Perkin had ample time to study nobility at the Portuguese court, as well as probably picking up a few useful skills that would allow him to impress when needed. In December 1491, Warbeck sailed with Menow to Cork in Ireland in order to help him sell silks.

[00:54:01]Making use of his nice courtly manners and apparently trim figure, Perkin was set to work wearing his master's silks in a sort of advertisement for his employer's wares. People in Cork took notice. Many people in Ireland has supported the Yorkist kings and it was only four years previously they had got behind the first pretender to Henry VIIth throne, Lambert Simnel. And here was another possible candidate who looked good in fine clothes and could pull off looking like a noble. The mayor of Cork, John Atwater, and some other citizens wanted Perkin to declare himself as a son of George Duke of Clarence, but he denied this under oath along with being a son of the now dead Richard III. According to Warbeck's later confession, having denied these first two proposals, he then agreed to pretend to be Richard of Shrewsbury, the younger of King Edward IV's sons, who was presumed to have died in the Tower of London. He apparently did this only when he was given reassurance that he would have the backing of the S of Kildair and Desmond, who had also supported the Yorkist kings. He was taught English, which given his ability with languages, should have made it easier for him to pick up. On the 2nd of March 1492, James IVth of Scotland received letters from him as King Edward's son. Shortly after, he was invited to the French court by Charles VII. Was this really a monarch recognizing Perkins status?

[00:55:47]Possibly. But also, Charles VII recognized he could use Warbeck, pretender or real, against Henry VIIIth.

[00:55:57]Charles had already sent an English exile, John Taylor, who now supported Perkins claim to Cork to distract the English king and English defenses. While France attempted to annex Britany, bringing Warbeck to France was more of the same. And when Warbeck landed at Half Flleur in March of 1492, it put him firmly into public view. In November, Charles made peace with Henry and so had no more use for Perkin, who escaped with his supporters across the border to Fllanders and the city of Meccalin. Here was where he would find his most powerful supporter. Meccalin was the adopted home of Margaret of York, Daaja, Duchess of Burgundy. She was the widow of Charles the Bold, but was a strong lady in her own right, who had raised his daughter Mary of Burgundy as her own and also helped raise her grandchildren after Mary's death. She was also importantly the sister of the late Yorkist kings Edward IVth and Richard III and she would happily have done anything to remove Henry VIIIth from the English throne as she saw him as the usurper to her family's hold on the crown. Added to this was the fact he had removed lucrative trading licenses from her reducing her income. Margaret immediately took Perkin under her wing and schooled him in all the information he needed to know about the Yorkist royal family, publicly declaring him as her long lost nephew Richard. She sent several letters to heads of state saying the same, enthusiastically stating he was the real deal. By July 1493, Henry had had enough and he sent an envoy in the form of Sir Edward Poings and William Waram to speak with Philillip, Archduke of Austria, son of Maxmleon, the German king of the Romans and stepgrandson of Margaret. He was only a boy of 15 and so the Burgundian Council spoke for him tactfully saying he wished to keep a good relationship with England but also that he couldn't prevent Margaret from doing as she pleased in her own daands. Henry probably feeling quite peeved at this response decided to therefore stop trade with Fllanders.

[00:58:36]This was a little bit like cutting your nose off to spite your face. And there were riots in London where the wealthy merchants dealing in cloth required easy trade with the Low Countries. Several higher members of the English court apparently also started to be pulled into events. Some of them deciding to support Perkin either publicly or secretly.

[00:59:01]Warbeck traveled to Vienna to meet Maximleian who was now Holy Roman Emperor, attending the funeral of his father Frederick III. By the summer of 1494, Maximleian brought Warbeck to his court and recognized him as King of England. Obviously, this was too much for the English monarch and Henry sent messengers to Meccalin to shout to the crowds that not only was Perkin Warbeck the son of a boatman from Tora, but that the English had proof. It didn't stop Perkin, who was in Antworp when Archduke Philip took his oath as Duke of Rabbant, from displaying the coat of arms of the Yorkist royal family above the place he was staying. plots and counterplots began. Henry offered pardons to two men who had supported Warbeck in Fllanders, and at least one of them took him up on the offer. One of these men, Sir Robert Clifford, jumped at the chance to return home, spilled all the tea about many of the English courtiers who were supporting the mission, including Sir William Stanley, and was paid handsomely for his efforts. William was actually the brother of Henry's stepfather, Thomas Stanley, and so it put him in a very awkward position. Hoping it would grant him leniency, William confessed all, and Henry was keen to grant him a pardon, especially as he had fought by his side at Bosworth. However, the mood was too tense and Henry's advisers pressed that keeping William alive would encourage more supporters of Warbeck to come forward. In January 1495, William was beheaded along with many other courtiers who had claimed to support Warbeck, although six more minor supporters were pardoned and fined. This was no longer a game of pretend, and Perkin prepared to go into action. In December 1494, he had signed a deed stating that once he gained possession of the English crown, he would restore Margaret's trading rights to her. And he promised Maxmillian future arms against France if it was needed. Both Margaret and the Holy Roman Emperor funded Warbeck in order for him to have a small fleet and a force of just a few hundred men.

[01:01:38]Perkins set off in July 1495 for Deal in Kent, certain he would be gladly welcomed by the people of England. Actually what happened is that people in deal were quite upset at the small invasion force and over 160 of his men were captured and a further 150 were killed. Instead of joyously riding to London and the English crown, Walbeg had to turn around and sail for Ireland. He met up with Morris Fitzgerald, the Earl of Desmond, and they laid siege to Waterford, still loyal to Henry VIIIth.

[01:02:18]Waterford remained steady, however, and so once again, Perkin had to change course, this time heading to Scotland.

[01:02:28]James IVth of Scotland wasn't really getting on with Henry at this point, so he was more than happy to welcome Perkin to his court as Richard of Shrewsbury.

[01:02:39]James IV certainly acted the part of believing Perkin was one of the lost princes. However, Warbeck was a guest over Christmas and on the 13th of January 1496, the Scots king married Perkin to Lady Catherine Gordon, a distant cousin of the king. This has been pointed to as proof of Perkins status being married to a noble woman. And yet many other historians point out that she was only a minor noble woman and not what would have been expected for a king. They were married in Edinburgh and a grand tournament was held in their honor at which James gave Perkin new clothes for the occasion and armor covered in purple silk. By September 1496, James was ready to get down to business and he and Warbeck prepared to invade England.

[01:03:38]Warbeck had promised Beric upon Tweed in exchange for help and they set off for North Thumberland. But despite all the preparation, the raid lasted only 3 days or so. Perkin had issued a declaration enticing all Englishmen to fight for him against Henry, but predictably they didn't. James wasn't about to prevent his forces from attacking, and Wbeck made the whole exercise look ridiculous by asking James to spare his future subjects. A few towers were knocked down, and everyone went home again. By 1497, James was getting tired of Perkin and his usefulness was moot as James now wanted to negotiate a marriage between himself and Henry's eldest daughter, Margaret Tuda. But events were about to turn in Warbeck's favor. In order to raise troops and artillery against the Scots, Henry had turned to taxing his citizens heavily, something no one was ever thrilled about. It sparked rebellion in Cornwall, spreading to Somerset and beyond. As the rebels involved planned to march on London, Warbeck seemed like the natural choice to lead them, and they invited him to join them in Cornwall as their leader.

[01:05:04]James IV had already provided a ship called the Cuckoo and a hired crew under a Breton captain to get rid of Perkin who had sailed to Waterford in disgrace.

[01:05:17]He had had another go at a siege. This time one that lasted just 11 days before he had to race off to Cornwall chased by four English ships as the s of Kildar and Desmond were now happily supporting Henry VIIth. Perkin Warbeck did not know when to quit. When he landed in Cornwall at White Sand Bay, Perkin declared himself Richard IVth of England. And his force of about 300 men soon grew to 3,000 from Cornish rebels before growing to around 8,000 by the time his small army reached exit to put it under siege.

[01:06:01]However, it would appear Warbeck was more full of hot air than a balloon convention during a heatwave. as once he knew Henry VIIth's forces were on the way, he turned and ran away, taking only 60 men with him. They were soon ditched too, and Perking traveled with just three companions to be in Hampshire for sanctuary. They were recognized and had no choice but to give up and surrender themselves. But Henry didn't automatically send Perkin to the chopping block. The king had arrived by now at Taton where Woolbeck was taken.

[01:06:40]And when Walbeck arrived, he apparently made a full confession of his imposture.

[01:06:46]Perkins wife, Catherine, was brought before them both. And Henry made Perkins state his confession again in her presence, although who knows if she really believed it or not anyway. and Henry sent her to be a lady in waiting in the royal household of his own wife, Elizabeth of York. Everything seemed calm now, and Henry brought Perkin back to London with him, parading him through the streets on the 28th of November to the jeers and booze of the crowd. He was put into the Tower of London, but was shortly afterwards released and allowed to remain at court under close supervision. It seemed whatever had charmed Perkins supporters also had some effect on the English king who seemed to like him enough to keep him around.

[01:07:39]Warbeck was even allowed to be at royal feasts. And you might think that would be the end of the story for any sensible person, but Perin seems to have liked flirting with danger. So on the 9th of June 1498, Herkin tried to escape getting no further than the monastery at Scion and he surrendered once again to a pardon on his confession. As punishment on Friday the 15th of June, he was placed in the stocks at Westminster Hall and again on the 18th at Cheapside. He was ordered to write out his confession which was printed and distributed by Henry across the land. This time there would be no welcome at court or royal feasts and Perkin was shackled in the Tower of London a prisoner for life. However, while he was at first in solitary confinement, by 1499, he was later put in with another prisoner, Edward Plantaginet, Earl of Warick, thanks to Perkin charming his guards to allow him to speak with other prisoners. The Earl of Warick was the last surviving male heir of the Plantaginate line, son of George, Duke of Clarence, and he must have been an uncomfortable itch in Henry's side as the only real claimment to the English throne. Rumors were thrown about that Edward was simpleminded, but this could easily have been put out to prevent people thinking they could rescue him and have him as a leader. Putting Perkin and Warick together was not the best move as the pair soon began plotting to escape. It wasn't the world's best plan.

[01:09:34]They decided they would blow up the tower. Escape and place one of themselves on the throne. No, they don't seem to have considered how to blow up the tower, the king, his guards, his army, or lack of support from the English people. How involved either man was is unclear, but it wasn't long before the plot was revealed to Henry.

[01:10:00]Perkin had now proven he was not going to give up, and it left the king with no choice but to condemn him to death. On the 21st of November, the Earl of Warick was given his judgment and was beheaded at the tower. Some theorized his death was part of pressure from Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile, parents of Catherine of Aragon, who was to wed Henry's son, Prince Arthur.

[01:10:30]Having Edward alive was awkward when Arthur was due to inherit the throne, and Catherine's parents wanted to ensure their daughter would be queen. along with John Atwater, the previous mayor of Cork, who had been retrieved from his exile. Perkin Warbeck was brought to Tyburn on the 23rd of November 1499.

[01:10:55]He read one final proclamation that he was a fake and was hanged. Lady Katherine Gordon was humiliated by what had happened to her husband, but she was allowed to remain in England, marrying three more times over her lifetime and was given a pension and wardrobe allowance and grants of lands. Henry VIIIth had now rid himself of all potential claimments to the throne and would have no more serious threats to his hold on the crown in his lifetime.

[01:11:28]But even today, there are still rumors about Perkin Warbeck. Was his confession real? Was he really Richard of Shrewsbury?

[01:11:39]Or could he even have been someone else?

[01:11:43]There are some who believe that Richard of Shrewsbury somehow escaped from the Tower of London and was sent to Burgundy to be kept safe. And this really was perking Walbeck. But here's the thing.

[01:11:57]Even if we ignore all the likely evidence that Richard sadly died in the tower and decide he did escape to the Low Countries, why wouldn't he immediately say who he was? His aunt Margaret of York was there and she absolutely would have protected him and taken him in. And it's highly unlikely he would have been put with anyone else considering how powerful she was in Burgundy. The idea she recognized him is also nonsense since she had already left England before Prince Richard was born and had never actually seen him. But there is another interesting theory that is plausible enough that I can't actually bring myself to say it's definitely not true. When Edward IV was still alive in September 1470, he was briefly exiled as Henry V 6 was restored to the throne of England. While this restoration lasted only until March 1471, Edward spent his exile in the company of his sister Margaret of York and her husband Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy. Edward IVth was also well known for moving on to the ladies pretty quick and back in England had a string of mistresses and illegitimate children.

[01:13:20]Herkin Walbeck's supposed birth date is out by a few years, but this isn't actually a deal breakaker. In the 15th century, there were no birth records and so someone's year of birth could be worked out mainly from church christening records. And sometimes children were not immediately christened. This could be especially true if someone had an illegitimate child and either wanted to cover up the actual year of birth or adopted a child and christened them into their own family. It's only a small theory, but perhaps Perkin Warbeck really was a son of Edward IV, just not one that had grown up at court. His bearing and likeness to Edward IVth could be explained this way. And although we know Elizabeth of York, Elizabeth Woodville, and her other daughters all never recorded what they thought of Perkin Warbeck either way, perhaps it was because they knew he wasn't Richard of Shrewsbury, but he also looked an awful lot like their family and they knew what Edward IV had been like. It's another enduring medieval mystery that will likely never be solved to satisfaction, but it certainly has more unanswered questions than the story of Lambert Simnel. Whether Perkin Warbeck really was royalty or not, he still managed to persuade kings, nobles, and ordinary people to follow him. And had he not tried to escape from Henry's royal court, he might even have succeeded in joining their ranks.

[01:15:03]If you enjoyed this video, don't forget to like and subscribe so you don't miss any new documentaries.