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both before and after Bosworth until treacherously winkled out by Henry VII who promised a pardon and safety which was revoked immediately he was on board ship.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.
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.
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
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.