I really enjoyed listening to this podcast. Nathen makes such a calm balanced viewpoint, explaining about the pressures of making a TV show, and explaining exactly why this "New Evidence" is neither new nor evidence.
I am a staunch Ricardian,and have absolute respect for the amazing Philippa Langley and her discoveries.
One could equally well state the following (all points 1 to 4 are documented facts):
1. James Tyrell was completely trusted by Richard, and was given the task of bringing Richard's mother-in-law from sanctuary in Beaulieu to Middleham Castle ( a journey of 296 miles) after the Battle of Tewkesbury.
2. James Tyrell was entrusted with £3,000 to take to Flanders during Richard's brief reign. Archive documents state as purposed for a matter "greatly to the King's weel". This could have been money for the upkeep of the Princes and to finance taking them abroad for safety.
3. James Tyrell stayed abroad in Guisnes Castle (Calais) both before and after Bosworth until treacherously winkled out by Henry VII who promised a pardon and safety which was revoked immediately he was on board ship.
4. This happened very soon after the death of Prince Arthur when Henry VII's reign was at its weakest point ever, two male heirs now having died, only Henry (later Henry VIII) was left, then a child of nine. Henry VII was desperate to find out whether the Princes really had been taken to Flanders and protected by James Tyrell. James Tyrell is said to have made a completely undocumented confession that he murdered the Princes, and was tried and executed shortly after landing in England.
5. It might be said that Sir James confessed to a murder he did not commit (a) because he knew he was going to be killed anyway and (b) to stop anyone going looking for the Princes henceforth, and to stop any Pretenders coming forward. So that they could live abroad in peace.
All the above are true facts except the last, Paragraph 5, which is my supposition. If following the pattern of citing loosely linked documentary evidence and relationships as set out in the TV show, one would now be stating that points 1 to 4 are evidence that James Tyrell rescued the Princes from the Tower (as in fact Philippa's latest research suggests), took them to Flanders and protected them until he was himself executed. None is actual evidence, but it is at least as strong a circumstantial case as in the TV show.
John de Vere was a stubborn Lancastrian who had been imprisoned in the Hams garrison under the orders of Edward IV since 1475. On October 29, 1484, Richard III heard of a conspiracy to rescue him and ordered Oxford to return. However, James Blount and John Fortescue, the porter from Calais, defected to Henry Tudor and took Oxford with them. In December, Lord Darnham, the Governor of Calais, attacked and occupied Hams, imprisoning several people, including Brent's wife. In January 1485, Oxford and others returned to Hams to rescue them. In the ceasefire agreement, the Calais army allowed dissatisfied individuals to leave. They joined the ranks of Henry Tudor.
Harleian MSS 433 also records a sum of £3,000, calculated to be the equivalent of the annual royal budget, was paid out to Sir James at Calais upon assuming his post as commander of Guisnes in January 1485Towards the end of 1484,
Henry VII never announced the whereabouts of the prince, and in January 1485, shortly after the rebellion of the Calais army, Richard's money is more likely to be related to them.
I think you should just write a book, Nathen. I am absolutely obsessed with them but sometimes it gets to much, simply because its been so much in the news again at the moment. The majority of people on social media really haven't got a clue but they do have some passionate and interesting if contentious views. This latest documentary tbh was naff. There were good moments, but the reveal was not a reveal, it was known to other scholars, it wasn't discovered by Professor Tim Thornton. The will it talked about of Margaret Capell has been known and studied since 1826 so it isn't a new discovery. Having said that it is exciting because it mentioned a chain belonging to Edward v. My moan is this and it is a moan, is that there was no context, the mention in the response by Dr Tracy Borman to this alleged chain. It came across in the documentary as if it was a definite link between the chain of Edward V and James Tyrell. It suggested that it must have been taken from the murdered Edward V but there is a difficulty there.
For one thing we don't know if it belonged to Edward V.
There are many questions I would ask like who gave it to them, how did the family get it and when. I agree with Nathen, William Capell was a money lender and this could be colorectal for a loan. I could just imagine the scandal in 1522 if this really was the chain, rather golden collar of Edward V and would see this as a family story not a real piece of evidence in the mystery of the Missing Princes.
There are too many questions in most of the theories and that can be applied to any historian involved in this ongoing mystery. It isn't proof of murder but its interesting as it talks about a chain which may belong to Edward V. I have read several things to do with Professional Thornton so knew a few days beforehand what the new evidence was but didn't expect it to be seen as proper evidence in the documentary. I don't agree, I think it's interesting but its not proof and really we have to ask many more questions.
Nobody has solved the mystery. I lean more towards Team Survived, the evidence from Philippa Langley is compelling, but I would ask lots of questions about those documents as well. Her book contains far more information. Always interrogate the evidence, always ask questions. I don't believe Richard killed the boys but am open to the possibility. There are several theories on the Missing Princes, many books, many documentary programmes, some naff, others very good. There are several academic studies on Thomas More open access online and Professor Thornton is doing new research. We need an accessible but academic written study on his work.
There were good bits on the documentary. Nathen spoke on the pre contract and tired to keep it balanced and Matt Lewis spoke on the life of Edward V at Ludlow. The filming in St Paul's and Westminster was amazing and some of the context came across at times. However, William Shakespeare was quoted a lot as if he was an official and contemporary source which we know he isn't. There is a very good book Richard iii and Shakespeare which I recommend. It is a few years old but contextual.
The bit with Prof Turi King was excellent as she explained Richard's injuries and the human story at the centre of this should always be returned to. We mustn't lose sight of the fact that 2 young boys went missing, presumed dead sometime between July and October 1483. We don't know what happened to them and maybe we never will. It's OK to believe something, to write what you believe, but we should try to remain open about other theories. That's your duty as a historian to remain balanced. It all adds to the debate. For me it's case unproven and two young boys whose fate remains a mystery.
Richard was the High Constable of England and Lord Protector which gave him the right to try people for treason and it's actually a crime against the state. Richard was the state, ruling on behalf of King and Council and so treason was against him and the state.
Mancini records that Hastings was immediately taken out for execution after being convicted of treason, leaving only time for prayer. The anonymous sequel record states' no trial '. Both sources believe that Richard executed innocent Hastings for his ambition without evidence or trial. Mancini recorded that during the official announcement after his execution, many people knew that Richard had fabricated this conspiracy (they may not be true, but they are more credible than hundreds of years later)
Mancini wasn't an eye witness either and didn't speak much English. It is doubtful he understood the role of Richard as High Constable of England. It is a source which is at least contemporary and straightforward without the elaborate nonsense of More. I know what it says, thank you very much, I have read it several times. You obviously don't understand the role of High Constable. Also other sources tell us that Buckingham presented evidence to the Council. Hastings wasn't innocent, he was conspiring with others, that's also made clear. Richard had powers to hear evidence, to question Hastings which he did and to pass sentence. The fact that he had arms in the Council chamber is also noted in Crowland and there is a newsletter in the Cely papers telling us that beforehand there was a disturbance and unease. In other words there was an atmosphere of tension. Historian Matt Lewis believes that Richard acted under his power as High Constable and at the Council convened a Court Marshall. It wasn't the same as a trial as we would know, it was using Oyer and Terminer, to hear and determine. You didn't need a full trial under the law of arms, you only needed to see the evidence, which Richard already had seen. You also only have to take a traitor who is armed, hear if they are guilty or innocent and make a determination. It was perfectly legal. We don't know the full order of things because much of the evidence is missing. Evidence was shown to the Concil by Buckingham after Hastings was taken out. I think he was actually then grabbed by the overly excited mob and executed. He probably should have been questioned again.
A summary execution was perfectly valid whether we like it or not. Richard knew the law and he always stuck to it. He may have acted too quickly here but in an emergency he could. Others were arrested but not executed, some because they were clergy and others because they were guilty in a lesser criminal sense. There is also dispute as to whether Lord Stanley was actually at the Council meeting. He is noted as being injured but only one source puts him there. Others don't. If he was, he was arrested for a short period and released before the coronation. We know he was conspiring with Hastings before the Council meeting. Richard had all of the conspirators together in the Tower Council meeting, while everyone else was at the main one elsewhere. Read the articles on this on Annette Carson website and her book on the roles of Lord Protector and High Constable. You can get it on Kindle. You can't understand what happened without understanding Richard's powers as High Constable. He rarely used them in haste, he was always measured in his use of his powers which tells you this was seriously dangerous. Unlike John Tiptoft who used the powers without blinking, a man I admire very much, Richard used restraint. It was not Richard who acted incorrectly here, it was Hastings and the others. Richard took decisive action to avoid disorder and to preserve his own life and keep the peace.
There is another theory here. Peter Hancock and his book Richard iii and the Murder in the Tower looks at all of the evidence, sources outside of the Council meeting that explain the background and the motivation of each person. He calls it Murder in the Tower as that's how many people view the execution because they don't understand the law. He doesn't think Richard was wrong but maybe hasty and he has interesting theories. His theory is that Richard had found out that Hastings held information regarding the legitimacy of Edward iv and Elizabeth Wydville's marriage and had hidden that knowledge. Potentially that made him guilty of concealing something dangerous which put Richard in danger. It's always assumed it was Bishop of Bath and Wells who raised the contract issue but Hancock suggested it was William Catesby who gave Richard the information and told him Hastings was also in the know and intended to hide the truth. Of course we can't be certain of the contract with Eleanor Talbot or if Richard made it up, but we know it was presented to the Council and experts and determined it was true. It remains debatable today. Hastings was not an honourable person in my opinion. Even though he had probably informed Richard of his brother's death, he had later acted against him. He had acted for his own reasons. Stanley was acting for who could reward him the most and actually it was Richard who had restored the peace. Hastings was causing trouble at the very least and had been conspiring with one lot or the other in a treasonable manner. Richard cut of the head of the snake.
However, Mancini and the anonymous sequel both stated that Hastings was executed without evidence or trial (Henry VIII's execution of Anne Boleyn was also legal)Henry had at least one 'trial' process, although we all know it was controlled
A very rational statement, I don't believe Langley's explanation, but I support your idea (and, I have seen your comments elsewhere, I want to explain that Hastings was executed without trial or evidence in the records of Mancini and the sequel, and Richard had the power to judge privately, but according to the two records, he didn't. The records are not as reliable, but more reliable than later speculations)
As High Constable of England Richard had the right to try Hastings and had held that right since 1469. It's not entirely clear what Hastings had done but at least one record shows him in conspiracy with others days prior to 13th and he was also in contact with the French. The late Mike Ingram in his book Richard iii and the Battle of Bosworth proposed his connections with France, his being in receipt of a French pension all led to his execution. He also came to the chamber armed.
If Richard did indeed hear evidence under his role as Constable then there was no appeal against his decision. He did have the power to order a summary execution. We are told evidence was made public. Others were arrested and later released. Everyone of them received a pension from France. I would suggest something more went on with Hastings. Unfortunately we just don't have enough information to know for certain. The records aren't sufficient. The Council Minutes tell us nothing because they are missing. The evidence is missing, there are very few details in the only reliable sober description. There, of course is Thomas More in which Hastings is accused of conspiracy with Queen Elizabeth and Jane Shore and has put a spell on Richard. It's here that he bares his arm and it's withered and then accusations of witchcraft and treason are put onto Hastings. This account is elaborated and we know that because Richard didn't have a withered arm. Nor does a suggestion that he had reactive arthritis explain it. Your arm doesn't wither from that. I know, I had it and it's a brief condition, very different from rhemortoid or ordinary arthritis. These are painful permanent conditions. I suffer from both. More is taking the basic details and adding some colour. Elizabeth was accused of witchcraft but in a very different setting, an Act of Parliament. Jane Shore was accused of a variety of things because she acted as a go between for Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Wydville. Hastings was supposed to have been her lover along with Edward iv. At least one source also connected her to Anthony Woodville.
The Hastings affair is something of a mess, lack of reliable information being the main problem.
I really enjoyed listening to this podcast. Nathen makes such a calm balanced viewpoint, explaining about the pressures of making a TV show, and explaining exactly why this "New Evidence" is neither new nor evidence.
I am a staunch Ricardian,and have absolute respect for the amazing Philippa Langley and her discoveries.
One could equally well state the following (all points 1 to 4 are documented facts):
1. James Tyrell was completely trusted by Richard, and was given the task of bringing Richard's mother-in-law from sanctuary in Beaulieu to Middleham Castle ( a journey of 296 miles) after the Battle of Tewkesbury.
2. James Tyrell was entrusted with £3,000 to take to Flanders during Richard's brief reign. Archive documents state as purposed for a matter "greatly to the King's weel". This could have been money for the upkeep of the Princes and to finance taking them abroad for safety.
3. James Tyrell stayed abroad in Guisnes Castle (Calais) both before and after Bosworth until treacherously winkled out by Henry VII who promised a pardon and safety which was revoked immediately he was on board ship.
4. This happened very soon after the death of Prince Arthur when Henry VII's reign was at its weakest point ever, two male heirs now having died, only Henry (later Henry VIII) was left, then a child of nine. Henry VII was desperate to find out whether the Princes really had been taken to Flanders and protected by James Tyrell. James Tyrell is said to have made a completely undocumented confession that he murdered the Princes, and was tried and executed shortly after landing in England.
5. It might be said that Sir James confessed to a murder he did not commit (a) because he knew he was going to be killed anyway and (b) to stop anyone going looking for the Princes henceforth, and to stop any Pretenders coming forward. So that they could live abroad in peace.
All the above are true facts except the last, Paragraph 5, which is my supposition. If following the pattern of citing loosely linked documentary evidence and relationships as set out in the TV show, one would now be stating that points 1 to 4 are evidence that James Tyrell rescued the Princes from the Tower (as in fact Philippa's latest research suggests), took them to Flanders and protected them until he was himself executed. None is actual evidence, but it is at least as strong a circumstantial case as in the TV show.
and cite them as "evidence" .
Thank you for listening
John de Vere was a stubborn Lancastrian who had been imprisoned in the Hams garrison under the orders of Edward IV since 1475. On October 29, 1484, Richard III heard of a conspiracy to rescue him and ordered Oxford to return. However, James Blount and John Fortescue, the porter from Calais, defected to Henry Tudor and took Oxford with them. In December, Lord Darnham, the Governor of Calais, attacked and occupied Hams, imprisoning several people, including Brent's wife. In January 1485, Oxford and others returned to Hams to rescue them. In the ceasefire agreement, the Calais army allowed dissatisfied individuals to leave. They joined the ranks of Henry Tudor.
Harleian MSS 433 also records a sum of £3,000, calculated to be the equivalent of the annual royal budget, was paid out to Sir James at Calais upon assuming his post as commander of Guisnes in January 1485Towards the end of 1484,
Before Henry deceived James, he betrayed Henry and helped Edmund escape
The fourth paragraph is obviously your guess (please indicate)
Henry VII never announced the whereabouts of the prince, and in January 1485, shortly after the rebellion of the Calais army, Richard's money is more likely to be related to them.
I think you should just write a book, Nathen. I am absolutely obsessed with them but sometimes it gets to much, simply because its been so much in the news again at the moment. The majority of people on social media really haven't got a clue but they do have some passionate and interesting if contentious views. This latest documentary tbh was naff. There were good moments, but the reveal was not a reveal, it was known to other scholars, it wasn't discovered by Professor Tim Thornton. The will it talked about of Margaret Capell has been known and studied since 1826 so it isn't a new discovery. Having said that it is exciting because it mentioned a chain belonging to Edward v. My moan is this and it is a moan, is that there was no context, the mention in the response by Dr Tracy Borman to this alleged chain. It came across in the documentary as if it was a definite link between the chain of Edward V and James Tyrell. It suggested that it must have been taken from the murdered Edward V but there is a difficulty there.
For one thing we don't know if it belonged to Edward V.
There are many questions I would ask like who gave it to them, how did the family get it and when. I agree with Nathen, William Capell was a money lender and this could be colorectal for a loan. I could just imagine the scandal in 1522 if this really was the chain, rather golden collar of Edward V and would see this as a family story not a real piece of evidence in the mystery of the Missing Princes.
There are too many questions in most of the theories and that can be applied to any historian involved in this ongoing mystery. It isn't proof of murder but its interesting as it talks about a chain which may belong to Edward V. I have read several things to do with Professional Thornton so knew a few days beforehand what the new evidence was but didn't expect it to be seen as proper evidence in the documentary. I don't agree, I think it's interesting but its not proof and really we have to ask many more questions.
Nobody has solved the mystery. I lean more towards Team Survived, the evidence from Philippa Langley is compelling, but I would ask lots of questions about those documents as well. Her book contains far more information. Always interrogate the evidence, always ask questions. I don't believe Richard killed the boys but am open to the possibility. There are several theories on the Missing Princes, many books, many documentary programmes, some naff, others very good. There are several academic studies on Thomas More open access online and Professor Thornton is doing new research. We need an accessible but academic written study on his work.
There were good bits on the documentary. Nathen spoke on the pre contract and tired to keep it balanced and Matt Lewis spoke on the life of Edward V at Ludlow. The filming in St Paul's and Westminster was amazing and some of the context came across at times. However, William Shakespeare was quoted a lot as if he was an official and contemporary source which we know he isn't. There is a very good book Richard iii and Shakespeare which I recommend. It is a few years old but contextual.
The bit with Prof Turi King was excellent as she explained Richard's injuries and the human story at the centre of this should always be returned to. We mustn't lose sight of the fact that 2 young boys went missing, presumed dead sometime between July and October 1483. We don't know what happened to them and maybe we never will. It's OK to believe something, to write what you believe, but we should try to remain open about other theories. That's your duty as a historian to remain balanced. It all adds to the debate. For me it's case unproven and two young boys whose fate remains a mystery.
In addition, treason is a crime against the monarch, and Richard was clearly not the king at that time
Richard was the High Constable of England and Lord Protector which gave him the right to try people for treason and it's actually a crime against the state. Richard was the state, ruling on behalf of King and Council and so treason was against him and the state.
Mancini records that Hastings was immediately taken out for execution after being convicted of treason, leaving only time for prayer. The anonymous sequel record states' no trial '. Both sources believe that Richard executed innocent Hastings for his ambition without evidence or trial. Mancini recorded that during the official announcement after his execution, many people knew that Richard had fabricated this conspiracy (they may not be true, but they are more credible than hundreds of years later)
Mancini wasn't an eye witness either and didn't speak much English. It is doubtful he understood the role of Richard as High Constable of England. It is a source which is at least contemporary and straightforward without the elaborate nonsense of More. I know what it says, thank you very much, I have read it several times. You obviously don't understand the role of High Constable. Also other sources tell us that Buckingham presented evidence to the Council. Hastings wasn't innocent, he was conspiring with others, that's also made clear. Richard had powers to hear evidence, to question Hastings which he did and to pass sentence. The fact that he had arms in the Council chamber is also noted in Crowland and there is a newsletter in the Cely papers telling us that beforehand there was a disturbance and unease. In other words there was an atmosphere of tension. Historian Matt Lewis believes that Richard acted under his power as High Constable and at the Council convened a Court Marshall. It wasn't the same as a trial as we would know, it was using Oyer and Terminer, to hear and determine. You didn't need a full trial under the law of arms, you only needed to see the evidence, which Richard already had seen. You also only have to take a traitor who is armed, hear if they are guilty or innocent and make a determination. It was perfectly legal. We don't know the full order of things because much of the evidence is missing. Evidence was shown to the Concil by Buckingham after Hastings was taken out. I think he was actually then grabbed by the overly excited mob and executed. He probably should have been questioned again.
A summary execution was perfectly valid whether we like it or not. Richard knew the law and he always stuck to it. He may have acted too quickly here but in an emergency he could. Others were arrested but not executed, some because they were clergy and others because they were guilty in a lesser criminal sense. There is also dispute as to whether Lord Stanley was actually at the Council meeting. He is noted as being injured but only one source puts him there. Others don't. If he was, he was arrested for a short period and released before the coronation. We know he was conspiring with Hastings before the Council meeting. Richard had all of the conspirators together in the Tower Council meeting, while everyone else was at the main one elsewhere. Read the articles on this on Annette Carson website and her book on the roles of Lord Protector and High Constable. You can get it on Kindle. You can't understand what happened without understanding Richard's powers as High Constable. He rarely used them in haste, he was always measured in his use of his powers which tells you this was seriously dangerous. Unlike John Tiptoft who used the powers without blinking, a man I admire very much, Richard used restraint. It was not Richard who acted incorrectly here, it was Hastings and the others. Richard took decisive action to avoid disorder and to preserve his own life and keep the peace.
There is another theory here. Peter Hancock and his book Richard iii and the Murder in the Tower looks at all of the evidence, sources outside of the Council meeting that explain the background and the motivation of each person. He calls it Murder in the Tower as that's how many people view the execution because they don't understand the law. He doesn't think Richard was wrong but maybe hasty and he has interesting theories. His theory is that Richard had found out that Hastings held information regarding the legitimacy of Edward iv and Elizabeth Wydville's marriage and had hidden that knowledge. Potentially that made him guilty of concealing something dangerous which put Richard in danger. It's always assumed it was Bishop of Bath and Wells who raised the contract issue but Hancock suggested it was William Catesby who gave Richard the information and told him Hastings was also in the know and intended to hide the truth. Of course we can't be certain of the contract with Eleanor Talbot or if Richard made it up, but we know it was presented to the Council and experts and determined it was true. It remains debatable today. Hastings was not an honourable person in my opinion. Even though he had probably informed Richard of his brother's death, he had later acted against him. He had acted for his own reasons. Stanley was acting for who could reward him the most and actually it was Richard who had restored the peace. Hastings was causing trouble at the very least and had been conspiring with one lot or the other in a treasonable manner. Richard cut of the head of the snake.
However, Mancini and the anonymous sequel both stated that Hastings was executed without evidence or trial (Henry VIII's execution of Anne Boleyn was also legal)Henry had at least one 'trial' process, although we all know it was controlled
A very rational statement, I don't believe Langley's explanation, but I support your idea (and, I have seen your comments elsewhere, I want to explain that Hastings was executed without trial or evidence in the records of Mancini and the sequel, and Richard had the power to judge privately, but according to the two records, he didn't. The records are not as reliable, but more reliable than later speculations)
As High Constable of England Richard had the right to try Hastings and had held that right since 1469. It's not entirely clear what Hastings had done but at least one record shows him in conspiracy with others days prior to 13th and he was also in contact with the French. The late Mike Ingram in his book Richard iii and the Battle of Bosworth proposed his connections with France, his being in receipt of a French pension all led to his execution. He also came to the chamber armed.
If Richard did indeed hear evidence under his role as Constable then there was no appeal against his decision. He did have the power to order a summary execution. We are told evidence was made public. Others were arrested and later released. Everyone of them received a pension from France. I would suggest something more went on with Hastings. Unfortunately we just don't have enough information to know for certain. The records aren't sufficient. The Council Minutes tell us nothing because they are missing. The evidence is missing, there are very few details in the only reliable sober description. There, of course is Thomas More in which Hastings is accused of conspiracy with Queen Elizabeth and Jane Shore and has put a spell on Richard. It's here that he bares his arm and it's withered and then accusations of witchcraft and treason are put onto Hastings. This account is elaborated and we know that because Richard didn't have a withered arm. Nor does a suggestion that he had reactive arthritis explain it. Your arm doesn't wither from that. I know, I had it and it's a brief condition, very different from rhemortoid or ordinary arthritis. These are painful permanent conditions. I suffer from both. More is taking the basic details and adding some colour. Elizabeth was accused of witchcraft but in a very different setting, an Act of Parliament. Jane Shore was accused of a variety of things because she acted as a go between for Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Wydville. Hastings was supposed to have been her lover along with Edward iv. At least one source also connected her to Anthony Woodville.
The Hastings affair is something of a mess, lack of reliable information being the main problem.