Dan Snow's History Hit - Richard III vs Henry VII

Episode Date: December 28, 2022

We all think we know the story of Richard III and Henry VII, or do we? Richard III is often portrayed as a child-murdering usurper whose reign was brought to a bloody end by Henry VII at the Battle of Bosworth. It was a grudge match to decide who would become King of England, but how true is this story really? In this episode, we'll find out as we ask the big questions about Richard III and Henry VII. Did Richard kill the princes in the tower? Were the motives of Henry's supporters honest ones? Who was the better king and why did they both end up so unpopular? And, how did these two men end up fighting each other for the crown? Representing Richard III is Matt Lewis presenter of Gone Medieval, Chair of the Richard III Society and author of numerous books on Richard and the Wars of the Roses. Matt takes on Nathen Amin author of Henry VII and the Tudor Pretenders: Simnel, Warbeck And Warwick who represents Henry VII. They answer the big questions about these two controversial Monarchs and as you'll hear they might have more in common than you might think. This episode was first broadcast on 25 October 2021.If you'd like to learn more, we have hundreds of history documentaries, ad-free podcasts and audiobooks at History Hit - subscribe to History Hit today!Download History Hit app from the Google Play store.Download History Hit app from the Apple Store.

Welcome everyone. Welcome to Dan Snow's History Hit. Is he the most maligned man in British history? Richard III. Younger brother of the charismatic warlike Edward IV. Uncle of the princes in the tower. Was he also their murderer? It's right now on History Hit we're doing this. We're having the great Richard III debate. Who was better? What's going on? We're talking about Henry VII, his successor, the man who defeated him on the battlefield of Bosworth, and we're talking about Richard III. To do that, we've got our very own Matt Lewis. He's part of the History Hit family. He's one of the hosts of Gone Medieval, our smash hit podcast on medieval history. And he's also the chief Ricardian of the world. He's like a Freemason. There's the

Society of Ricardians, the fans of Richard III, the people who campaignian of the world. He's like a Freemason. There's the Society of Ricardians, the fans of Richard III, the people who campaigned long after he died to rehabilitate him. And good luck to them. So we've got him in the red corner, Matt Lewis. And then we've also got, in the other corner, we've got Nathan Amin.

He's a fan of Henry VII. He goes to a slightly more traditional critique of Richard III. He believes Richard was responsible for the death of his nephews. And he's more of of Henry VII. He goes with a slightly more traditional critique of Richard III. He believes Richard was responsible for the death of his nephews. And he's more of a Henry VII guy. Now, Nathan is from West Wales. I'm sure that's coincidental. He hails from a similar part of the world to the Tudor family.

He's written many books on the Tudors. He's been on TV. He's a great guy. It's a battle of the titans here. Nathan versus Matt. Richard versus Henry. Buckle up, everybody. Enjoy.

T-minus 10. The Thomas bomb dropped on Hiroshima. God save the king. No black-white unity till there is first and black unity. Never to go to war with one another again. And lift off. And the shuttle has cleared the tower. Matt and Nathan, welcome.

Welcome to the History Hit podcast. This is the showdown. Thanks for having us, Dan. Looking forward to duking it out with Nathan. Duking it out. Duking it out. Or kinging it out, maybe, rather. I was going to say, hang on a second.

I'm trying to work out the correct dynastic title there. But first of all, Matt, give me a nice second. Has Richard III been remembered harshly and fairly by posterity? Definitely. This is one thing I can do in under 90 seconds. I think he's the original victim of fake news. Throughout the 16th century, we get this building story of him becoming an increasingly monstrous, horrific figure culminating in Shakespeare's monstrous Richard III, which I actually think as a play is a work of genius.

The big tragedy of it is that it's ever been accepted as a legitimate version of history and the story of Richard III because it's so easy to pick apart. For me, Richard's story is one that spans the whole of his lifetime, not just 1483 to 1485 when he's king. If we look at him in the whole, it gives us a very different picture of the man that he was and perhaps the things that he hoped to achieve. And I think perhaps demonstrates why those things that he was aiming for were a threat to the status quo and a threat to the very people who would end up taking the field at the Battle of Bosworth against him in 1485 and subsequently blackening his reputation.

So I think he's been a big victim of the original historical fake news. Nathan, is that true? I would probably take a far more measured opinion of Richard III. I think it's true that he has been the victim of some form of propaganda. You know, his reputation has been maligned. I think he is a king of unfulfilled potential, but the key word there is both unfulfilled and potential. Through his own actions,

he simply didn't survive on the throne. He was a failed dynast. And I think he has to take some responsibility for that himself. So we can sit and argue all day long about the potential of Richard as a king. We can look back at some of the good things he did as a duke. But ultimately, he failed. And he failed spectacularly. Whereas Henry VII, of course, we could argue is one of the most successful kings England's ever had.

And I would argue Henry learned from the mistakes of Richard. So was Richard a malign king? Yes, but not all of it has been undeserved, I would argue. Let's come on to Henry. As you say, an extraordinary king, really, who's unfairly overshadowed by his ridiculous son. Let's compare them both before they reached the throne. What's weird is that Richard was a remarkable, and he was everywhere. He was a hugely important, remarkable statesman and soldier in the late 15th century. And Henry was kicking his heels in France doing nothing. What do you tell me, Nathan? What was Henry doing? Exactly that, kicking his heels in frustration, I guess. Henry's story is certainly one of the

most interesting stories in English history, certainly one of the most unforeseen rises to the throne when he was born. He certainly wasn't born as meanly as some of his critics would have us believe. He was descended from Welsh, French, English and Bavarian royalty, but he was just another noble mouth to feed in the 15th century. You know, during childhood, he certainly was not a prospective candidate for the throne. Henry's rise, if anything, was made by the House of York. His being catapulted to the forefront of a prospective Lancastrian candidacy for the throne was only accomplished because Edward IV had wiped out most of the House of Lancaster

through his reign. And then, of course, in 1483, Richard, by whether you want to say he took the throne, he usurped the throne, he was offered it rightfully, wherever you come down on the great debate of Richard III, either way, him becoming king has opened the door for Henry Tudor, or Henry of Richmond, overseas, becoming a potential king. Now, Henry was ultimately just the right man in the right place, of the right age, and perhaps most importantly, unmarried with a somewhat claim to the throne.

He was made by dissidents from the House of York. An incredible rags to royal riches tale, as I always say. I always like the expression in naval history, it's a fleet in being. You don't have to go and fight a battle, you just keep your fleet in being, and that puts its finger on the scales of strategy. So Henry VII was just a claimant in being. He didn't have to do anything. He just had to sit in that castle in France, and that was enough for him. I mean, during the whole reign of Edward IV,

there's probably two schools of thought of what would have happened to him if he had returned to England. One would be that he would have been brought into the House of York, given a Yorkist wife, perhaps even Elizabeth of York, and had just would have been returned to his inheritance. Because Edward IV was, to some respects, a king who wanted to reconcile the wars and divisions in his land. Ironically, he probably ended his reign sowing greater seeds of dissension within his own House of York than he did reconcile both sides. The other school of thought is that Henry would have been brought back to England and quietly wiped out because he was one of these sprigs of the House of Lancaster.

So Henry is just ultimately stuck in what seemed to have been a permanent exile. stuck in what seemed to have been a permanent exile. There was no real prospect of him coming home to England because who knows what would have awaited him. Now there's a very interesting meeting that took place in 1483 just after Richard III had become king when Margaret Beauford, Henry's mother, met with Richard. We don't know what occurred in this meeting, but we do know that very shortly after this meeting, Margaret started to conspire against Richard III. I wonder whether she had asked Richard conclusively, can my son come back to England and just become the Earl that he was born into, you know, to take up his inheritance as the Earl of Richmond. I think Richard says no. I think Margaret goes to work.

And two years later, the Tudor dynasty arrives on the throne against all odds. Margaret, I think is definitely a key figure here. Go on, Matt, let's hear from you now. What's going on at the same time in Team York? Well, I think if that's the case, then Margaret, her patient runs out at a really unfortunate time because she has been working.

She almost got Henry home under Edward IV. and then with his untimely death you've either got the minor Edward V on the throne initially and a minority government is unlikely to allow a potential rebel and a threat back into the country at that time and then once Edward V is no longer going to be king and it's Richard III we're on the verge of a renewal of the Hundred Years' War. France is threatening to invade England at this point. Is he going to let someone who was being sheltered in Brittany and is, again, a potential dissident threat to his throne back into the country as soon as he becomes king? Margaret maybe needed to have a little bit of patience and was just unfortunate that she'd already got to the end of her line of patience and that Richard kind of caught the the end of her line of patience and that Richard

kind of caught the short end of the straw there with her suddenly deciding to move immediately into opposition. And I think, as Nathan said, Henry Tudor's story is a fantastic full-on Hollywood account of avoiding capture and always managing to escape just in time. But I think in terms of unlikely kings, Richard III is possibly just as unlikely if you follow the track of his life. He starts off as a fourth son of a noble family with probably no prospects, maybe even intended for the church. If we look, he had a really strong legal education and things like that. And then his life is much like Henry's, kind of tossed on the walls of the roses. And they end up being at opposite points of the Wheel of Fortune as it spins. Every time Henry's side is rising, it's because Richard's side is falling. And Richard

spends a period in exile in Burgundy with just his brother George when he's like eight years old, pretty frightening prospect. His family is attainted, they lose everything. And then he suddenly whisked back when Edward wins at the Battle of Towton and he's second in line to the throne, becomes a royal duke. And then again, 1470 to 71, kicked out of the kingdom back across to Burgundy as Lancastrian fortunes are revived. Could have lost everything, comes back with Edward. They managed to win the throne back and then he lives out 10 years or so ruling the north of England effectively. And then his life gets tossed upside down again in 1483 and I really don't see it probably comes as no surprise to anybody but I don't see Richard in 1483 as kind of driving events and desperately trying to get the throne

or even kind of blundering his way through I think he is confronted with an incredibly complex situation a really difficult set of circumstances and isn't left with much choice of how to act in those circumstances. So talk to me about Richard in that period as Duke of Gloucester with his cool title, you know, as Commander of the North or whatever it was. How effective is he? Is he as charismatic and impressive as his older brother, Edward? I think he is. He's very much in Edward's shadow, you know, both physically and in terms of reputation militarily. Edward was six foot four, you know, famously the tallest man ever to sit on the throne of England or Wales so far, and I think like an inch taller than Prince

William, so liable to hold that record for a little bit longer. And Richard, with his scoliosis that curved his spine, probably stood around five foot six-ish, maybe would have been closer to five foot nine, five foot ten if he'd been at his full height. So he was dwarfed by his brother, but ends up after they come back in 1471, marrying the younger daughter of the Earl of Warwick, the famous kingmaker. And he inherits all of that vast patrimony of the Neville family in the north of England and effectively rules the north for his brother for over a decade then. And in that role, he is incredibly successful. So militarily, he fights at the Battle of Barnet

and then the Battle of Tewkesbury in 1471 at the age of 18. That's his first and second taste of battle. And then he doesn't actually take part in another full-on battle until Bosworth in 1485. So we then get a 14-year gap in his actual military experience. He does take part in an invasion of Scotland in 1482, but at the time the Scots King is actually taken prisoner by his own nobles. So Richard is given this clear path into Edinburgh, holds the city for a little while, suffers no casualties, negotiates the best deal he possibly can and withdraws again. But

there's no fighting during that campaign because of circumstances in Scotland. But I think it's as a governor that Richard really stands out in the north. He develops this really strong reputation for good lordship. So this idea that he looks after those who he's responsible for, that he's a champion of equitable justice. I think we have examples and there are cases we could talk about, of Catherine Williamson, John and Lucy Prince, John Ransom, people who went to Richard for help against their social superiors, and he was willing to overturn these kind of social norms and support those lower down the social ladder against their superiors, and even against his own retainers,

which was incredibly odd for the period. And this meant that the North developed this real affection for Richard, which to some extent I think lingers today. If you go to Yorkshire, they will always tend to speak fondly of Richard III. And I think that's perhaps because they saw him over a 10 year plus period rather than focusing on the controversial two years of his kingship. And I think that this interest in equitable justice was what really scuppered Richard as king. So he tries then to carry those policies onto the national stage. And he threatens all of the middling gentry and lower nobility who have prospered under the corruption of Edward's regime that Richard is quick to complain about. And they're all the people who then head off into exile at Henry Tudor's kind of faux court

in Brittany and then France. And they're the ones who come back and fight against Richard. So I think he's perhaps the architect of his own downfall in that sense. But I would say it's for trying to do what we might think was the right thing. Nathan, I mean, that's a rosy picture of Richard, which I'm into. But what do you say to that? Believe it or not, I'm inclined to agree with most of what Matt said. Matt is the foremost expert on Richard III. I'm happy to take his lead on Richard's reputation as a Duke. I do currently live in York and I still have yet to really experience this wonderful praising of his name around the city. But I think that Richard, as Matt argues,

likely was a good duke, and he had the potential to be a good king. I always temper this idea that Richard would have been a good king for the remainder of his reign if he had reigned for a 24-year period like Henry VII. I mean, my basic reading of English history is that most kings die unpopular after they've been on the throne for a lengthier amount of time, just, you know, through taxation, through wars, through competing with their more popular princes coming up behind

them. We see this with Edward III. We see this even with Henry V. By the end of his reign, there were accusations from chroniclers like Adam of Usk that the people of England just couldn't cope anymore with this level of taxation. Henry VII, of course, Henry VIII. These are kings who came to the throne riding a bit of a public wave of popular opinion. And look what happened by the end of their reign. I feel if Richard had reigned for a 24-year period, I don't think the picture would have been all that rosy. The great thing about him reigning for only two years is that he will always be a king of potential and therefore we can perhaps paint a more rosy picture of him that perhaps isn't always warranted.

I'm not sure it's fair to say that just because Henry VII failed, Richard III would have as well. I think it's just based on all of the kings of England. I mean, if you can name any kings of England who reigned for a considerable amount of period and always did so in great popularity and doing the right thing for their people. I mean, look at Henry VII, let's just take him as an example. He came to the throne. This concept of reconciliation, of uniting a divided England, this isn't just concepts that Shakespeare invented. This was truly Henry's policy at the outset of his reign. But very quickly, those plots and those conspiracies against him

have worn him down. After 15 years on the throne, Henry VII was a broken man. You know, his wife had died, two sons had died, most of the people he had been in exile with had died, his inner circle had been depleted, and faced with constant threats and the wariness of just ruling the kingdom, you know, and he's the head that wears the crown kind of mentality. He simply had to start ruling with an iron fist. Just to take a modern example, let's look at the difference between Barack Obama during his eight years on the throne. You know, he came to the presidency in 2008 looking young and fresh, invigorated with great

ideas. By the end of his reign, he looked, end of his reign, end of his term, he looked a man almost beaten by the pressures of being president for eight years. I just don't think Richard, after 10, 11, 12, 15 years on the throne, would have perhaps been as enthusiastic in championing justice. You're listening to Dan Snow's History. We're talking about Henry VII and Richard III. More coming up. details, and latest groundbreaking research from the greatest millennium in human history. We're talking Vikings, Normans,

kings and popes, who were rarely the best of friends, murder, rebellions, and crusades. Find out who we really were by subscribing to Gone Medieval from History Hit, wherever you get your podcasts. Nathan, is it true that this kind of renegade faction within the Yorkist establishment

were key to bringing Henry over to Wales and eventually onto the English throne? Absolutely. In truth, I view Henry VII less as a Lancastrian claimant to the throne, as more of a Yorkist one. Henry does not become King of England without the support of Yorkist dissidents. These are Yorkist supporters of Edward IV. These would have been the Yorkist, his household attendants, his household officers, and the nobles that were more closely aligned with Edward IV and the Woodville faction during his reign. Those men, a lot of them believed, whether rightly or wrongly,

they believed that Richard III had killed the princes in the Tower. So when Edward IV died, these men had transferred their loyalties to Edward IV's son, as to be expected. When they believed that that son or sons had been murdered and Richard III stood as the accused, they've simply decided they can't no longer pledge their loyalty to Richard III. And that's when they've started to seek out an alternative. And that's where Henry Tudor comes in.

Of course, there was always the caveat with these people that they would only accept Henry Tudor as their man if he married Edward IV's daughter, Elizabeth of York. Now, Henry Tudor does not amass an army. He does not amass support in England. And he does not amass the credibility without these Edwardian Yorkists. So Henry is very much propelled to the throne on the back of this divide within the House of York. The fact he was of Lancastrian blood and had a claim to the throne

was great, but that in itself meant nothing without this support. Now you put all that together, you have the dissident Yorkists, you have the support of the French Regency Council, who simply want to cause a bit of trouble for Richard, and then you have a small smattering of Lancastrian diehards, you soon start to amass a modest force that can invade and perhaps cause a bit of trouble. But I don't think anyone was really expecting them to win victory over Richard's royal army at Bosworth. Matt, do you take exception to that? Is that a fair depiction of that schism within the House of York? I think it is, but I disagree with the reasons for it. So I agree that Henry VII could be characterised as almost the last Yorkist king,

really. When he comes to the throne, his government has a very Yorkist flavour to it, because he's surrounded by all those men who had worked for Edward IV. So Henry has no experience of government, he's not been trained for it, but he manages to surround himself with these people who had been in Edward IV's government for years and relies on them quite strongly. I don't know whether Nathan would agree, but I think those men very quickly find out they've got a lot more than they bargained for because Henry turns out not to be quite as pliable. Once he's got his feet under the table and he knows what he's doing, he starts to rule in his own way and get rid of some of that Yorkist influence, I think. But I would disagree that many of the table and he knows what he's doing, he starts to rule in his own way and get rid of some of that Yorkist influence, I think. But I would disagree that many of the people who took the

field at the Battle of Bosworth and fled to Brittany in 1483 seeking out Henry Tudor did it because they were concerned for the fate of Edward IV's children. We know that in England, nobody really knew what that fate was. There were a few rumours reported with no kind of clarity. The only early certainty for the fate of the princes in the tower comes from continental sources, so mainly from France. And as Nathan mentioned then, France was undergoing its own minority crisis. At the start of 1483, they'd been on the verge of reigniting the Hundred Years' War under Louis XI. He was preparing to invade England. He stopped paying Edward IV his pension.

Louis then dies just after Edward IV and leaves behind a 13-year-old son. So they have their own internal problems. And I think they view Richard as much more aggressive than Edward IV had ever been. So they're concerned about the possibility of Richard invading France. And I think that's why France is keen to paint Richard as an evil child murdering usurper, because it fits with their idea of opposing Richard and being concerned about his aims in France. But it also speaks to their own minority crisis about what happens if you murder young children on the throne, will you get this evil monster instead? So I think a lot of those people that abandon Richard do it because he immediately

starts this exercise of rooting out corruption in the regime. And so all of those people that flee, I think, are the ones who have been benefiting from that regime of corruption that Edward IV has allowed. And so that's the reason I think that they take to the field at Bosworth. The fate of princes in the tower becomes a convenient, honourable cover because no one is going to say, I'm fighting for my right to be corrupt and live off bribery and bully people. They're going to say, yeah, we're protecting those small young children. It sounds far more honourable, but I don't think it was true. Let's quickly just, the prince of the tower,

you've made podcasts about this on your brilliant podcast, you've made TV shows about this history at TV. Did Richard have those boys killed in the town? No. Okay, what happened to them, bro? I mean, I would argue, and I think this is where Nathan

and I will probably really diverge. I would argue that Richard probably most likely did not kill them in 1483 and never had any intention of doing so. So there are lots of reasons why I think this.

If I have to boil it down to one key point, it's really that if Richard murdered his nephews, and I would add at this point that there is nowhere in the 30 years prior to his becoming king, nowhere in his character do we see him killing anybody, bullying, murdering, any kind of that kind of activity in his character. If he killed his nephews in 1483 as the first

response to a crisis, which would be incredibly out of character, he did it to stop them being a threat to his throne, to stop them being used against him. But in order to stop them being that threat, he had to tell people that they were dead. People had to know that they were gone and couldn't be used against him. So we know, for example, that the potential continued existence of Edward II led to rebellions in the future after that. The same is true of Richard II. And we know that early into Henry VII's reign, he would face threats from particularly Perkin Warbeck, who claimed to be the younger of the princes in the tower. So without everybody knowing that those boys are dead, the threat doesn't stop. So if Richard kills them and keeps quiet, he's killed them for no gain. He's done it for no reason. And so if he killed them, he had to let everybody know that they were dead. Now,

yes, he's not going to go into the St. Paul's Cross at London and say, whoops, I've murdered my nephews. He could blame it on natural causes. He could blame it on an accident. After October, he could blame it on the Duke of Buckingham and his uprising. He had options for where to lay the blame. And it almost doesn't matter at that point whether people believe that story. They just have to know that the boys are dead and gone and can't be used against Richard. So his silence on the matter, which continues into the Tudor regime. So Henry VII never says anything about the fate of the princes in the tower, neither does their mother, neither do any of their sisters. That silence suggests to me that they weren't killed in 1483.

What happened to them? For my money, I believe that Edward V would have gone up to one of Richard's northern castles. So we've talked about his decade or more ruling in the north. He has these network of castles filled with men who are completely and utterly loyal to him. He could have put Edward V into one of those. And I think perhaps that explains why we get this big rush to York early in the Tudor regime. The younger of the princes in the tower, I think could have gone over to Richard's sister, Margaret, who was the Dowager Duchess of Burgundy and could have lived there. We're very often presented with this idea that the princes in the tower were a single unit. So

the Victorian portraits always show them clinging to each other, kind of waiting for their fate. But they've been brought up completely separately. They were almost strangers to each other. So separating them wouldn't have caused them any harm or distress, I don't think. So for my money, Richard could have sent one one way and one the other. And that might explain, as I say, the Tudors' early rush up to York. And then perhaps he makes it across to Ireland and we get the emergence in 1487 of a Yorkist plot in Ireland, known as the Lambert-Simnel affair, which for my money doesn't stack up. And then we obviously get Perkin Warbeck, who emerges on the continent, who could have been the genuine younger son of Edward IV.

Righty. Okay, I like it. Nathan, let's get your thoughts on Richard III killing those boys. What do you think? I'm very content to listen to all the theories surrounding the princes in the tower. I'm happy to listen, and I enjoyed reading Matt's work on how the Princes survived. I think there's some grounds to putting in other suspects, Margaret Beaufort, Henry Tudor, the Duke of Buckingham,

the Howards, whoever. The fact has to remain Richard III always must come at the top of any list of suspects to the Princes of the Tower. And I also would argue that their death has to always be the most likely outcome of what happened to those boys. We can entertain that first before we move on to all the other theories. Now, why does Richard III have to kill the boys history tells us he does now there is a precedent as Matt has argued very well that there were two boys previously in the century the Mortimer boys who arguably had better claims to the thrones than the fledgling house of Lancaster and they weren't put to death however in the case of case of Edward V, the eldest of the princes of the Tower,

he was widely acclaimed to be the new king. The Mortimer boys were never recognised as kings. Edward V was recognised as the king. Richard III, or Richard of Gloucester as he was, had even sworn an oath to uphold Edward V's claim to be king. He was king, therefore he had to be removed from that position. All previous usurped and deposed kings of England had met their deaths. Edward II, Henry VI, Richard II.

I'm Matt Lewis. And I'm Dr Eleanor Yonaga. Richard II. murder, rebellions, and crusades. Find out who we really were by subscribing to Gone Medieval from History Hit, wherever you get your podcasts. Now, we could argue that it wasn't the norm to put children to death during the medieval age, no matter how barbaric some people might think that age was, and that's certainly true. I think Richard has, in 1483, backed himself into a corner he couldn't get out. I don't believe Richard had any long-term ambitions to be king. I don't believe it was this evil usurping of the throne, as it's sometimes been portrayed. I think he simply got in too deep with the food, with the wood fills,

and it almost ended up on the throne by accident. But by doing that, he still has the problem of these boys. Now, Richard wasn't stupid by any means, and he would have been a student of the recent past. Rival claims are a problem. Edward IV knew this when he became king, his brother. Edward IV went out to do what one chronicler called crushing the seed. He took out as many of the rival Lancastrian claims as he could.

During Edward IV's reign, we have Henry VI murdered in the tower. We have his son, Prince Edward, killed on the battlefield. We have the entire male Beaufort line wiped out. And then we have Henry Holland, the Duke of Exeter, mysteriously drowned, coming back from France with Edward IV. And then, of course, you have Henry Tudor abroad. You have to kill the rival lines or you risk further problems. Richard at this time, something that's often overlooked,

when Richard became king, he had his own heir to think about. I argue that for Richard to be a good father, he had to effectively be an evil uncle. He was faced with, does he look after the future line of his son, Prince Edward of Middleham, or does he ensure that his nephews survive? Because if his nephews survive, in 20 years' time, Richard has a problem. The Wars of the Roses will simply continue into the 16th century. So I think Richard has had to take out the boys. And the sad fact is, apart from the Woodfill faction, the parents and the maternal uncles of the Princes of the Tower, there were

too many parties in England during that period who needed the boys dead. And that's a sad fact. Right. In that case, let's finish up by just saying a point that you've made to me, Matt, is that there was no personal animosity between the two, was there? I mean, they were both propelled to this point by the great sort of floating plates of English politics and history. then separates their stories. Both of them lose their fathers young. Henry's father dies before he's even born. Richard's dad dies when he's just eight. They're both kind of tossed around on the Wars of the Roses. So they spend periods in exile and Henry's is much longer than Richard's two spells in exile. But there's far more that they share in common, I think, unlikely kings. But when they get to the field at Bosworth, the two of them have never even really met. So it's hard to say that this is really about Richard versus Henry because they hate each other's guts

and only one of them wants to be king I think this is about them both being forced by circumstances to appear at Bosworth leading armies against each other so I don't believe that Richard hated Henry personally because he didn't know him. And I don't think Henry hated Richard personally because he didn't know him. Henry was representing a faction from the Yorkist court that disliked Richard, and Richard was desperately trying to fight for his throne and for the future of his dynasty. And so circumstances made them fight against each other. So I don't know that there was any kind of real hostility between the two. And I think it's striking that Henry never really badmouthed Richard throughout his reign. He never really goes out on a limb and says that Richard murdered the princes in the tower. And he does some fairly standard stuff about Richard being a bad guy in his first parliament.

But beyond that, he doesn't really slate Richard in the way which he could have done. But beyond that, he doesn't really slate Richard in the way which he could have done. And so I think there's a lot more to their story that they share in common than that separates them. And as you say, fate just made them end up on opposite sides of an army at the Battle of Bosworth. And speaking of killing children, let's give you that chance, Matt. What does Henry VII do to Richard III's young son, John, when he comes to the throne, buddy? Well, we don't actually know what he does to John. We know from Perkin Warbeck's confession that Richard's illegitimate son John of Gloucester is in the custody of Henry VII. And we don't know what happens to him after that. We know that Henry keeps George Duke of Clarence's young son,

the Earl of Warwick, in prison from 1485 until 1499 and then executes him. So he's effectively, you know, kept as a fatted pig for the slaughter. And I would also probably end with a point about the Prince in the Tower, that when Richard comes to the throne, if we ignore Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, for a second, he has 17 other nieces and nephews who are alive. And when he dies at the Battle of Bosworth, he has 17 other nieces and nephews who are alive. And when he dies at the Battle of Bosworth, he has 17 other nieces and nephews who are still alive. And one of those nieces, Elizabeth of York, is the focus of Henry Tudor's plot against him.

So if you believe Richard is ruthless enough to kill two young boys to protect his throne because they might be a threat, why would you think he wouldn't kill Elizabeth of York, an older niece who very definitely was a threat, why would you think he wouldn't kill Elizabeth of York, an older niece who very definitely was a threat to his throne and was at the centre of the plot to dethrone him? I think the key thing there is, again, that Edward V was a recognised king. He had already had legions of Englishmen and the flower of the nobility pledge their fealty to him. I think that's the key issue.

And as you say, it took Henry VII 14 years to execute Edward of Warwick. I think it's the one real black mark on Henry VII's reign. You could argue, however, it was judicially a well-done execution. There was grounds and evidence presented to the trial of conspiracies being launched against the Tudor crown and so on. But it took Henry VII 14 years to even reach that point. And that was under intense pressure from the Spanish monarchy. Richard only reigned for two years.

We don't know where Richard would have stood on this matter 14 years into his reign. So we can argue that, yes, he didn't get chop happy with all of the rival claimants to his throne at the time, but he simply didn't have time to. And that all comes down to the accusations and the belief of his contemporaries that he had killed the princes of the tower and i suppose as you've often said before at the end of the day it doesn't even matter if richard actually killed the princes of the tower or not enough people believe the rumors for it to cost him his throne thank you very much guys i want one day someone to do a giant family tree of all the descendants of john

of gaunt and still how many of them died in their beds. That's what I need from you guys. Very few. Because obviously Henry VIII keeps that tradition going. Anyway, right. Well, thank you very much, gentlemen. That was a fantastic debate. Thank you very much for having us. Thank you. you