Loading summary
Transcript72 lines
- [00:01]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Want to walk the halls of Anne Boleyn's childhood home? Or explore the castles that made up Henry VIII's English stronghold? With a subscription to History Hit, you can dive into our Tudor past alongside the world's leading historians and archaeologists. You'll also unlock hundreds of hours of original documentaries with a brand new release every single week covering everything from the ancient world to to World War II. Just visit historyhit.com subscribe.
- [00:35]
Matt Lewis
We interrupt your regularly scheduled podcast with some breaking news. Millions of people are now playing the mobile puzzle game Royal Kingdom. This is not a drill. Royal Kingdom has thousands of levels and is incredibly fun. What's that? I'm hearing from my producer that it has no ads and it's it is completely free to download. What's next? You're going to tell me it doesn't need WI fi? This just in. Royal Kingdom doesn't need WI fi to play. We will continue to keep you updated as this story develops, but get it today and see for yourself. Download it on the Google Play or App Store today.
- [01:08]
Verizon Advertiser
This holiday, Verizon is giving you incredible gifts and savings you'll enjoy all year. When you Switch, you'll get four new iPhone 17 Pros. No trade in needed. That's right, get four lines for just $25 a line and the amazing iPhone 17 Pro. For save big this holiday, visit Verizon today. $20 monthly promo credits applied to account over 35 months with a new line on unlimited welcome in times of congestion. Unlimited 5G and 4G LTE may be temporarily slower than other traffic domestic data roaming at 2G speeds. Additional terms apply for phone offer. See verizon.com for details.
- [01:39]
Royal Kingdom / Blue Apron / Toyota Advertiser
So here's the thing with homemade meals. Eating them is great, but all the chopping and measuring and cleanup? Not so much. With new one Pan Assemble and Bake meals from Blue Apron, you get all the flavor of homemade meals with a fraction of the work. Just assemble the pre chopped ingredients, bake in the oven and enjoy shop. Assemble and bake@blueapron.com get 50% off your first two orders with code apron50. Terms and conditions apply. Visit blue apron.com terms for more.
- [02:13]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Hello, I'm Professor Susannah Lipscomb and welcome to Not Just the Tudors From History. Hit the podcast in which we explore everything from Anne Boleyn to to the Aztecs, from Holbein to the Huguenots, from Shakespeare to samurais relieved by regular doses of murder, espionage and witchcraft. Not in other words, just the Tudors, but most definitely also the Tudors, Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, were two young boys who never became what their father, King Edward IV, intended. In 1483, their paternal uncle, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, lodged the boys in the Tower of London in preparation for Edward v's upcoming coronation. But Gloucester then declared the boys illegitimate and himself acceded to the throne as Richard iii. The story of the two boys has become one of mythical proportions. The mystery of the princes in the Tower most popularly said to be murdered by their evil uncle. But history never stands still. And in the past couple of years, we've seen the reanimation of a story that circulated in the 1490s, intertwining Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, with a story of of the pretenders under Henry vii, those who made a claim to his throne. It's a story of twists, every bit as delicious as everything else in the long Tudor century. Were the pretenders actually the missing Edward V and Richard, Duke of York? And if so, was it Henry vii, not Richard iii, who was responsible for the demise of the boys so he could secure the new Tudor dynasty? Back in January 2024, I was joined on Not Just the Tudors by Nathan Ammon and Matt Lewis. Nathan is the author of Henry VII and the Tudor Pretenders, Simnel, Warbeck and Warwick. And Matt is an author and historian, co host of our sister history hit podcast Gone Medieval, and the outgoing chair of the Richard III Society. And I should add, there was little agreement between my guests, so be prepared for some excitement. I'm Professor Susannah Lipscomb and this is not just the Tudors from History Hit. Well, it is a treat to welcome you both to Not Just the Tudors. Thank you so much for being with me.
- [04:51]
Matt Lewis
It's a pleasure to be here. Thank you for having us.
- [04:53]
Nathan Ammon
Yeah, thank you very much for the invite.
- [04:55]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
The focus today is going to be on the so called pretenders to Henry VII's throne. So let's just talk about about the first important one of those, Lambert Simnel. Just to give a bit of context for those coming to this fresh who haven't been thinking about this forever. Henry VII became king in 1485. And in 1486, 87, a boy called Lambert Simnel was the figurehead of a plot to dethrone him. Now, if we accept for a moment the narrative that Simnel was pretending to be someone he wasn't, I'd like to understand who he was pretending to be because I've always understood that he was saying he was Edward, Earl of Warwick, the son of the executed Duke of Clarence, who was brother to Kings Edward IV and Richard iii. But in other accounts, rebels gathered in the name of King Edward, the lost Prince Edward V. So let's understand who he was alleging to be and then think about who masterminded the scheme to put him on a throne if he was a pretender.
- [05:59]
Nathan Ammon
I think I'd better take the question first because I'm gonna presume that Matthew is gonna try and rebut a lot of what I'm gonna say, which is obviously the traditional story. Who was Lambert Simnel? You're correct, obviously. Henry VII becomes King in August 1485. Shakespeare would have it that Henry had suddenly ended the wars of the Roses, but that simply wasn't true. He was never gonna get everybody on his side. During this period, there were always going to be a small cabal of dissidents, men who had lost all of their offices, all of their estates. After the depulsion of Richard III in 1486. We do get a small rebellion that starts off in the West Country. It's led by Francis Laval, who we can perhaps call Richard III's best friend, and two brothers, Thomas and Humphrey Stafford. Now, these Stafford brothers do seem to try to raise a revolt against Henry Tudor and they do so by chanting the Warwick name through the streets of Coventry. Warwick at this time was the other prince in the Tower, son of the Duke of Clarence and who himself had a fantastic claim to the throne. Now, young Warwick, 10 years old, was stepped over for the throne by first Richard III and then by Henry vii. The reason being that because his father had been attainted as a traitor, he allegedly had no claim to the throne. That's just a piece of paper that can always be reversed. But as it was, Henry VII had young Warwick locked up in the Tower, safely under observation. So this small rebellion led by the Stafford brothers, is trying to raise a revolt in the name of Warwick. The problem is they don't have a figurehead before them. So the rebellion very quickly gets depressed quite easily by Henry VII agents. Now the Stafford brothers. One of them gets executed and one of them slinks away into sanctuary. Now there's rumours of another rebellion once more being set up against Henry vii, but this time the rebellion centred around Oxford and some of the Oxfordshire estates of certain rebels, does have a figurehead. And in front of this army is now a 10 year old boy who is allegedly Edward, Earl of Warwick. Now with a figurehead in front of them, the rebels do draw much wider support than they did the year previously. What does Henry VII do when he finds out that There is a rebellion being set up against him in the name of Edward of Warwick, very simply has the real Warwick brought out of the Tower of London. He has him introduced to all of his nobles of the realm. He takes him to St. Paul's Cathedral and bids him to make his prayers, quite obviously in front of everybody, and then he returns him back into the Tower. The rebellion very quickly doesn't draw much support in England, because why would it? Everyone knows where the real Warwick is. So this conspiracy slinks away across the Irish Channel to Dublin. And Dublin is a very important breeding place for the conspiracy. And quite simply, it's because the real Warwick's father, the Duke of Clarence, was actually born in Dublin and Ireland was a staunchly Yorkist isle during the wars of the Roses. So very simply, the Irish see a small conspiracy turn up on their shores. They claim the boy ahead of them is the real Warwick, the true claimant to the English throne. And the Irish are all in. And there we have the start of the real attempt to depose Henry vii. So Lambert Simnel was a boy put forward, quite simply, to impersonate Edward, the Earl of Warwick.
- [09:42]
Matt Lewis
That's the traditional story. And I guess what bugs me so much about it is that it all seems too perfect that all of these Yorkist rebels choose a random boy from Oxford with a slightly odd name, get him to pretend to be a guy who is demonstrably a prisoner in the Tower of London. And then we get accounts of a 10 year old boy leading an army at the Battle of Stoke in 1487 and being captured. And Henry gets to be the magnanimous king who spares him because he's being used by the rebels and puts him to work in the kitchen.
- [10:12]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Would the general populace have known that he was a prisoner in the Tower of London? Is that sort of information that would have been in the public realm, or is it going to only be known by those close to the court?
- [10:24]
Matt Lewis
I think it would have been fairly well known. Warwick was held in Richard III's reign in the North. He was part of the Council of the north, he was nominal head, and then he's moved from there down to London and placed in the Tower. And we get then this moment when Warwick is displayed in London, which is Henry making it clear to everybody that Warwick is his prisoner, which is an attempt to make a farce out of this plot in Ireland, which is said to be in favour of Warwick. My view on this is, is that this is Henry using smoke and mirrors, who says that this uprising is in favour of Warwick, really, it's just Henry VII who says this. If we look at lots of the sources that escape Henry. And again, it's interesting that we know he will burn all of the records of the coronation, he will burn all of the records of the 1487 Irish parliament, which suggests to me that it says something he doesn't want the public to see, so something potentially at odds with his official story. And we do have documentary evidence that talks about this being an uprising in favour of a son of Edward iv. So the most prominent is probably Bernard Andre, who is a Tudor court poet. He writes a biography of Henry vii. He's very much in the Tudor camp, he's not a Yorkist rebel. But when he writes his account of 1487, and he's clear earlier on that Richard III has murdered the princes in the Tower and that the princes are dead. But when he writes his account of 1487, he talks about the plot in Ireland being in favor of a son of Edward iv, and he says this three times, that it's a son of Edward IV and that people go to fight for a son of Edward iv. We have Polydore Virgil, who will write his account of this and talk about it being an attempt to restore Edward to the throne of England. The only Edward who can be restored to the throne is Edward V, because he's the only one who's ever been king. If he's still alive in 1487, it's difficult to see how he's describing Warwick as being restored when Warwick has never been on the throne and removed to be restored. We have an Irish account in the Annals of Ulster which describes this as an uprising in favor of a son of the Duke of York, and that the last Duke of York before the younger of the princes in the Tower was Edward iv. Maybe he's being described in Ireland as the Duke of York because they're not quite clear about how they should talk about. York is kingship in the wake of its fall and the Tudor arrival on the throne. And then we get this new piece of evidence that the missing princes project has turned up, which is a receipt on the continent for emperor Maximilian buying 400 pikes. And it's described as being for a son of King Edward who has been expelled from his dominion. And again, this is quite a dry financial receipt that's meant to be filed away in a book. It has no propaganda benefit to it. And then as late as 1526, we get an account in Henry VIII's state papers where he's clearly having some issues with Ireland. It seems like he's asked for a one pager to help him understand what's going on in Ireland. And they talk about the Geraldines and the butlers in Ireland are quite similar to the Houses of York and Lancaster in England. They come of one stock and they're constantly fighting each other. But it suggests that because Henry VIII represents the unification of the Houses of York and Lancaster, he'll be better able to rule Ireland because it's always been a seat of rebellion against the Tudors. And it says, as was seen in the days of the King's father, when a boy named Lambert Simnel came out of Ireland claiming to be a son of Edward IV. So again, in 1526, we have someone explaining the Lambert Simnel affair to Henry VIII in terms of a son of Edward iv. And so I wonder to some extent whether this means it's a fairly open secret at the Tudor court that they pulled the wool over everybody's eyes, that they came up with this idea that you say it's in favour of a commoner, you give him a slightly odd name, a weird background, you make a bit of a joke of this threat to the throne, and in 1487 it worked. And we'll see Henry VII roll out almost exactly the same template in the 1490s when he faces the second pretender. So we have documentary evidence that points towards the possibility that this was always about a son of Edward IV. And that for my money, then, the 10 year old boy, Lambert Simnel, is an absolute red herring who was never anything to do with this uprising at all. And there are some other interesting elements to it. I fought in 87, Edward V would have been 16 and a half years old. So that's the same age as the Black Prince was at the Battle of Crecy. It's the same age as Henry V was at the Battle of Shrewsbury. It's only a few months younger than his father, Edward iv was when he started his military career in the wars of the Roses. We're told that this boy, this figurehead of the army, was on the battlefield at Stoke. So are you really following a 10 year old boy into battle? Is a 10 year old appearing on the field of battle? Warwick is 12 at this point. So even if you think he's a 12 year old, are you really following a 12 year old? Or are you going to follow the 16 and a half year old son of the greatest warrior king in living memory who is emulating people like the Black Prince and Henry V and Edward iv. And then we also have the people who are promoting this uprising. So the most prominent amongst these. We could talk about Lovell, we could talk about Elizabeth Woodville, the prince's mother, perhaps the most interesting is John de La Pole, the Earl of Lincoln. So he is the senior Yorkist male heir in 1485. So after Richard III's legitimate son dies, he is considered heir presumptive to the Yorkist throne. In 1487, he is in Ireland attending the coronation of someone that we are told is a 10 year old random lad off the streets of Oxford who undergoes a coronation, which is one of the most sacred rites that you can undergo. If you undergo a coronation, you become a king. Whoever and whatever you were before, at the moment that you're anointed, you become a king. Lincoln, we're told, stands in Dublin Cathedral and watches this random 10 year old boy being crowned as King of England as the senior Yorkist male heir, when in fact that's a position that he holds. So my question with Lincoln is, what makes him set aside his own perfectly good Yorkist claim to the throne? And why do people follow a 10 year old boy instead of a grown man in the Earl of Lincoln? Why follow a boy who is representing a person who is demonstrably a prisoner in the Tower of London instead of a grown man who clearly is the Earl of Lincoln?
- [16:31]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Okay, so let me ask Nathan about this. Then we have people from Ireland and Europe and England backing Simnel or Edward V if it is him. Why should we accept that so many significant people were won over by a duke?
- [16:46]
Nathan Ammon
I think it's very important to consider that during this period, Europe, it's like a Game of Thrones scenario going on. We have a group of rulers all essentially trying to get one up on each other. First and foremost, Henry vii, Henry Tudor. Henry of Richmond was never supposed to truly be a king of England. He was essentially sent over by the French to annoy Richard III for their own benefit. The fact that Henry VII somehow stumbled his way onto the throne was incredible. But the problem is, once you've made a king like Henry vii, why not simply make another one? We have this with the Perkin Warbeck scenario, where it does seem that he was sent over by the French once more to unsettle England. With Lambert Simnel in particular. He did seem to gain support from Margaret of Burgundy, his alleged aunt. Whether he was Edward V or Edward of Warwick, Margaret of Burgundy would have been Edward, his alleged aunt. Now the Burgundians and the English are in Something of a flux during this period. They are constantly in an economic trade war. There is benefits to the Burgundians to have someone on the English throne who is far more friendly to them than Henry Tudor is. We have a very personal dynastic issue as well at play. Margaret of Burgundy despises Henry Tudor. This is the man who is killed, her brother, the man who has deposed her dynasty. She is going to do whatever she can to try and defeat Henry Tudor before the end of her days. I think Margaret of Burgundy is quite a tragic figure as well at this point in time. She is the Dowager Duchess of Burgundy. Her husband has died, she is childless. The stepdaughter that she daughtered on has also passed away. She is a lady who's away from home, she's getting on in age and she is alone when she suddenly is presented with the opportunity that one of her nephews may be alive or may be free and is available to her. I'm still not sure whether she was willing to exploit somebody or whether she truly believed these were her nephews. That is something I'm not entirely sure of. But either way, there was an opportunity for the Burgundian court at this time to go at Udur, England, and they were going to take it. We also have at play as well her stepson, Maximilian, the Holy Roman Emperor. Now, that was one ambitious ruler, if there ever was one. As somebody who, it's often forgotten, does actually have his own claim to the English throne. Maximilian was a descendant of the House of Lancaster himself. We do know that he did later try and place himself in a hypothetical alternative line of succession. So he definitely has his own ambitions to see Tudor England for, because he could always be put in as a backup. Everyone has something at play during this period, and I think that's very important, personal ambitions of each individual party.
- [19:42]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
I think this leads us to a broader question. As I understand it, we've got two sources. I'm thinking of the great Chronicle of London, Dominic Mancini, the boys in the Tower in the summer and autumn of 1483. If Edward V has been expelled from his dominion, as one source puts it, do we have any other evidence that the princes are actually alive? Or by contrast, is there compelling proof that, having been in the Tower, they were dead?
- [20:09]
Matt Lewis
I would say that there is a growing weight of evidence that the princes survived. I know Nathan will disagree with that. So we have sources that allude to the potential for their existence during Richard III's reign. So particularly we get Nicholas von Popolau, who's a Silesian knight who visit Richard III's court. And he makes this kind of cryptic sideways mention to the sons of princes being kept at Pontefract Castle under very close custody. That could be referring to Edward IV's legitimate sons. His illegitimate children were being held at Sandor Castle in a nursery there. So quite close by is there two separate nurseries being set up very close to each other, right in the heart of Richard's stronghold as Duke of Gloucester when he was ruling the north. We have a couple of references to the Lord Bastard, which we're not quite sure who that refers to. It's been suggested that could refer to Richard III's own illegitimate son, John of Gloucester, but he was never a lord of anywhere, and nowhere else is he described as a lord. When Edward V is deposed, we do have him described in the records and we have evidence of material being bought for him to attend Richard III's coronation. It seems that he was intended to attend Richard III's coronation, but it's not clear that he did. But when that material is being bought for him, he's described in there as the Lord Edward. So the Lord Edward becoming the Lord Bastard is a possibility, once he's become illegitimate, that he could be described in that way. So there are these kind of sideways mentions that you can twist to be about Edward V if you want to, if you're like me and you believe that they survived. One thing about Henry VII is that we know he destroys a lot of evidence and paperwork. I mentioned that he burned the records from Ireland. We know that he destroys evidence of the illegitimacy of Edward IV's children because sources mention that illegitimacy. And when Henry becomes King, he repeals the act of Parliament that made them illegitimate. And none of the evidence that was examined in 1483 survives. And we know that he will go on to destroy all sorts of other bits of evidence all over the place, too. So it's possible that there was more evidence that hasn't survived, which is a lovely get out of Jail Free card for me in believing that they survived. But we do then have these mentions throughout the 1480s. This kind of new evidence that's turning up as part of the Missing Princes project is adding to that idea that people at least believed one or both of the Princes were still alive to be championed after Richard III had fallen. Whether they're right or wrong, we maybe don't know, but there does seem to me to be clear evidence that people believed they were still alive or they could be still alive to be championed.
- [22:47]
Nathan Ammon
I think the key problem with this whole case is obviously that we don't have any smoking gun. We don't have any smoking gun to prove that they were murdered, but also we don't have the smoking gun that they survived. It's very much why we even you're discussing the case. And ongoing. We do have some interesting but vague references. In Crowland Chronicle, for example, I think that there were rumors that they were put to death. There was the reference by a chap called Robert Ricard who said that there was a suspicion they'd been done away with. And we have Dominic Mancini who said that men burst forth into tears every time they yield of the princes because there was the suspicion they had died. So we have all of this talking around the fact of what happened to them. When we consider near contemporary chronicles, obviously later on into the Tudor reign, there's plenty of material that is more grounded in the fact that they were murdered. But we have to perhaps try and dispense to them if we want to try and get to the heart of the case.
- [23:45]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
The Great Chronicle of London, doesn't it say they were put to death in there as well by the fires of the Duke of Buckingham?
- [23:50]
Nathan Ammon
It said that they were shooting a plane on the garden of Tower and then certain it was that they were departed from the world. The reference to the Vice of Buckingham comes from a later document about 1487, I think it was discovered, although I would suggest Buckingham probably does have a lot to answer for in this case. But it's often told true, if that. Because there is no true, solid smoking gun written from the reign of Richard III to suggest that he had killed the princes in the Tower. Then a lot of the accusations leveled at him must be put down to Tudor propaganda. I would counter that by simply saying we know that history is written by the victors. We are told it quite often in regards to this case, between 1483 and 1485, Richard III was the victor. So I think it's very unlikely that we would have sources emanated from within England, certainly during this period, that Richard had killed him. As soon as he's out of the way, a lot more discussion is made of this. I don't think we can always put that down to simple Tudor propaganda. Quite simply, I think it's the most likeliest option that he would have done as king during his period. But that's obviously just a personal suggestion, not solid hardcore proof.
- [25:04]
Matt Lewis
And I think I'd agree that we shouldn't be expecting to find evidence from during Richard III's reign that he'd murdered the princes simply because you don't say that about a king. One of my arguments about the whole bigamy story around Edward IV is that people say it's too convenient. That emerges after Edward's death. And my challenge to that is, who's the person who's going to go to Edward IV while he's alive and tell him that his marriage is bigamous and all of his children are illegitimate because this guy's executed his own brother? You simply don't say things like that about a king while he's still alive. I think part of the problem here on my side of this debate is that we shouldn't expect to find strong evidence that the boys were dead during Richard III's reign, because nobody would write that.
- [25:42]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
So let's ask one more question about Simnel then, before we move on to think about Perkin Warbeck. Does his fate help us to work out whether or not he was a pretender? So the story of Lambet Sinor comes to an end with the Battle of stoke Field in June 1487. And thousands of men had taken up arms for this man, whoever he was, and were beaten by Henry VII's forces. And the story goes that he was captured and put to work as a turnspit, then a falconer. Now, if the boy and his supporters, or the young man and his supporters managed to rally a multinational army, why was Henry so lenient? Does it prove that Simnel really was a pretender? Or is Henry's mercy Tudor propaganda to cover up the reality that this whole affair had been a major threat by a real prince?
- [26:32]
Matt Lewis
I would argue that Lambert Simnel is a later creation as a figurehead for this. I don't believe that any 10 year old boy was ever crowned in Dublin or led the army onto the battlefield at Stoke. I think what Henry does is find a 10 year old boy, perhaps from round Oxford, perhaps from amidst the army, the people that were traveling with it, and then he sets this boy up to say to everybody else, this is the guy they were following. Isn't it a joke? They followed a 10 year old onto the field of battle who was just a randomer from Oxford who had absolutely no claim to the throne. What a pathetic joke of a plot all of this was. And that also gives him the opportunity to display his mercy. It'd be easy to find a 10 year old boy and say, would you like a cushy job in the royal household? All you have to do is pretend that you were set up as the leader of this army. I would find it incredibly odd that if Lambert Simnel had been at the head of a plot against Henry VII that was convincing enough to lead thousands and thousands of people to invade Henry's kingdom and lead to a battle, he must still be a dangerous person to leave on the loose. We know that he imprisons the Earl of Warwick on the basis that he might one day be a threat to him. And he will spend 24 years in prison and then be executed without ever seeing the light of day because of the threat that he might pose. Henry's leniency is incredibly odd for me. I wouldn't have been surprised if this boy had spent his time in prison and locked away, because if he was that convincing once, what's to stop him being that convincing again when he's an adult? I think it's just smoke and mirrors and an opportunity for Henry to say, look what a great guy I am. I can deal with these threats and I'm comfortable on my throne, I'm secure, I don't need to panic. I can let this lad go and work in the kitchens.
- [28:16]
Nathan Ammon
I think there's sometimes a tendency to try and project the end of Henry's reign and his personality onto the start of the reign. He ruled for 24 years and his reign did end quite dark and miserable for a lot of the people of England. But at the outset of his reign, it's a different Henry that's ruling. I think we're perhaps giving him a little bit too much agency and perhaps a bit too much of a mastermind role here in how he's trying to handle his kingship. Henry VII at the outset of his reign, was quite a magnanimous person. He was a lot more of a sympathetic character. When Lambert Simnel comes into his control, he judges that this was just an innocent lad who was too young to have committed any offence himself. Now, when we put that into the context of Henry's own life, up to the age of 28 years old, when he finally becomes king, he has spent his entire life the pawn of others. He was taken into the control of an enemy family at the age of 4 years old. He had spent his entire life, in his own words, living like a prisoner. I believe that does have quite a lot of impact on how he treated young Lambert Simnel when he came under his control. It Wasn't this young 12 year old's fault that he had been used, exploited by the various figures around him. So I think that does answer a lot of why Henry VII did put him to work in the royal kitchens. And eventually Lambert Simnel becomes trainer of the King's horse, which is a lofty position for those days. I do wonder, was Lambert Simnel perhaps even hanging around the King during these hawking expeditions? And I'm sure he wasn't having a chat with the King, but he certainly would have been, perhaps in the King's presence. We know that Lambert Simneau lives deep into the 1520s, and this is of course, during the reign of Henry VIII. I'm not sure Henry VIII, certainly after the execution of Buckingham in 1521, was perhaps too keen to keep around any potential threats whatsoever in his kingdom. If there is any doubts about their true identity, and if the facultamber Simmel does live into middle age under the Tudors, is a key point as to the fact that he was a pretender. I also take issue sometimes with the idea that Lambert's Simnel, the name is an eccentric name. If you just go through the chancery rules for the 15th century, we have plenty of references to the name Lambert and we have plenty of references to the name Simnel. 1484, for example, there's Lambert Fosdyke, who is the Abbot of Crowland Abbey. The Simnel name exists, I do believe. In the 1970s, somebody found a reference to a Thomas Simnel who was renting property from Osney Abbey in Oxfordshire. Now, in the investigation of Henry vii, during the days after Simnell conspiracy, his father was named as Thomas Simneau. This is a true historic figure who we found in the records. I simply think Lambert Simneau was a boy put up to it by a very small Oxfordshire conspiracy. The principal plotters in this conspiracy who were exposed, Francis Lavau, John de la Poole, the Abbot John Sant, Ofington, these were all Oxfordshire figures and they found a boy, the son of Thomas Simnel from Oxford. It's a very simple conspiracy that failed.
- [31:39]
Matt Lewis
I'd only answer that by just saying briefly that I think if you're Henry VII and you're trying to make this look like a conspiracy, it's not difficult to go to Oxfordshire, find Thomas Simnel and offer his son a job at court as a royal turnspit and a nice, comfortable life. And by this point, a much more powerful person in Oxfordshire is someone like Jasper, who has inherited lots of Lovell's lands. Jasper Tudor, the Duke of Bedford. So we're actually talking about Henry's uncle's lands here. When we think about Oxford and the Earl of Oxford who is Henry's.
- [32:11]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Foreign.
- [32:20]
Verizon Advertiser
This holiday, Verizon is giving you incredible gifts and savings you'll enjoy all year. When you Switch, you'll get four new iPhone 17 Pros. No trade in needed. That's right, get four lines for just 25 a line and the amazing iPhone 17 Pro for everyone. Save big this holiday. Visit Verizon today. $20 monthly promo credits applied to account over 35 months with a new line on unlimited welcome in times of congestion. Unlimited 5G and 4G LTE may be temporarily slower than other traffic. Domestic data roaming at 2G speeds. Additional terms apply for phone offer. See verizon.com for details.
- [32:50]
Nathan Ammon
Stand clear of the closing doors, please.
- [32:54]
Royal Kingdom / Blue Apron / Toyota Advertiser
Stuck on your commute again. Bad wi fi, no signal, nothing to do. Time to make your ride a lot more fun with Royal Kingdom. It's a puzzle game that's relaxing, challenging and works perfectly offline. With no ads and amazing graphics, every level feels fresh and satisfying. Each round only takes a few minutes, ideal for a daily commute or wherever you have a little bit of time. So download Royal Kingdom now on Google Play or App Store. Protect your pet with insurance from Pets Best Plans start from less than a dollar a day. Visit petsbest.com Pet insurance products offered and administered by Pets Best Insurance Services LLC are underwritten by American Pet Insurance Company or Independence American Insurance Company for terms and conditions, visit www.petsbest.com Policy products are underwritten by American Pet Insurance Company, Independence American Insurance Company or Ms. Transverse Insurance Company and administered by Pets Best Insurance Services LLC. $1.00 a day premium based on 2024 average new policyholder data for accident and illness plans. Pets Age 0 to 10 Toyota Thon.
- [33:56]
Matt Lewis
Toyota Thon Toyota Thon is on oh what fun it is to drive a new toyot.
- [34:03]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Hey Jan from Toyota here reminding you Toyotathon is on.
- [34:07]
Royal Kingdom / Blue Apron / Toyota Advertiser
Make your holiday wishes come true with a new Camry RAV4 Tacoma and more.
- [34:11]
Nathan Ammon
All right, let's sing it together this time.
- [34:13]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Toyota Thon Toyota Thon Toyota Thon Dealer inventory may vary.
- [34:18]
Verizon Advertiser
Toyota Thon ends January 5th.
- [34:20]
Matt Lewis
See your participating dealer for details.
- [34:23]
Verizon Advertiser
Toyota let's go places.
- [34:36]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
What's so interesting about this is actually the overlap in what you both believe here, which is essentially in the end you both believe that Lambert Simul was a young boy from Oxfordshire and you're just differing, I suppose, on who is using him. But anyway, his trail is going to go cold. We're going to turn to the other prince now, Richard Duke of York, and we need to talk about Perkin Warbeck who caused significant trouble for Henry in the 1490s. So, Nathan, I'm going to ask you to start by briefly outlining Warbeck's story. I'd like you to tell us who supported him as well, please.
- [35:14]
Nathan Ammon
Perkin Warbeck surfaces in Cork island in November 1491. According to his later confession, at first people believed in he was a bastard son of Richard iii, before word then spread that he must have been the younger of the princes in the Tower. Richard of York, crucially in Ireland at this time, was two Yorkish rebels, one named John Atwater and one named John Taylor. They were two people who had refused to be reconciled to Henry VII's reign. They just happened to be in Cork at the time that Perkin Warbeck surfaces. Now, Perkin Warbeck claimed in his confession that they decided that they were going to put forward his claim to the English throne by making him impersonate the younger of the princes in the Tower. But they were unable to find much support in Ireland because the Irish had recently been destroyed in battle with Henry Tudor at the Battle of Stork Field. So they were invited by the King of France to cross over to Paris, where Perkin Warbeck says he was given a retinue as befitting an apparent prince of England, and the French were going to set him up against Henry Tudor. Once again, context is king. At this period that we're talking about, 1491, England and France were in fact engaged in a war. The French claimed that Henry VII had been ungrateful or ungracious to them for all their support in putting him on the throne because Henry had decided he was going to be a friend to Brittany over France. We have history repeating itself. We have the French in control of an apparent pretender to the English throne, and they were going to try and make another Henry Tudor. What Henry Tudor does is he decides to invade France at the head of the largest army amassed by a king of England during the 15th century, a century that obviously has Henry V involved in it. He crosses over to France and he quickly prints the French to the negotiating table. One of his main terms is that he will leave France if the French make Warbeck leave France. And that's exactly what the French do. They give up Warbeck. Warbeck crosses over to Burgundy and the territories of his quote unquote aunt. And the French, from there on in, completely abandon this conspiracy. They reveal to the English the origins of Perkin Warbeck. They reveal to the Scottish and the Spanish the origins of Perkin Warbeck. They claim he simply was related to a boatman and he was from Tonay. And we can then simply delve deeper into the tonne origins of Perkin Warbeck from there. Of course, he himself also spun a completely different story at this time, that he truly was Richard of York under the princes in the Tower.
- [38:11]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Now, Matt, I'm hypothesising here that you might think that's actually the case. What's your view on Perkin Warbeck?
- [38:17]
Matt Lewis
I do think that he was, more likely than not, the younger of the princes in the Tower. We're still at a point where we have no real evidence that those boys were dead. We seem to be at a point where an awful lot of people in Europe and crowned heads of Europe, believe that at least the younger of the princes in the Tower is still alive and available to be backed in a rebellion. And they will throw huge amounts of money at him, vast amounts of resource. And part of my issue with this is as much as there is all of this politicking on the continent, I think there's a real danger in crowned heads saying that the son of a boatman from Tornai can be a king if we say he can. Because if you do that to your enemy, what's to stop your enemy doing that to you? Tomorrow I'll go and pluck a boy off the streets of Wolverhampton, where I'm from, and I'll say, you can be the king of France. I don't think they have an interest in doing that. Nathan referred then a couple of times to Warbeck's confession. So after he's captured, he signs this confession, which I would argue was probably a document that was prepared for him and put in front of him with what Henry wanted it to be. It's remarkable how much this follows the exact template that had worked in 1487, of an obscure origin, a slightly odd name, a farcical uprising that was never a threat to Henry, really. He simply rolls out that system that had worked for him previously. But in that confession, Warbeck gives details that aren't consistent with the Warbeck family in Tournai, as far as we can tell. And lots of the archives in Tornay were destroyed in the Second World War, so there's a difficulty in tracking down some of the parts of this story. His story changes and morphs a little bit over time. He writes a letter to the woman who's supposed to be his mother, which is incredibly odd and doesn't make an awful lot of sense. But as part of his confession, for example, he says that he arrived in Ireland at the age of 16 or 17 in 1491, and was forced to learn to speak English. And then he speaks English with such a good command of the language that he fools not only crowned heads around Europe, but English people. Margaret, the Duchess of Burgundy and lots of people who were involved in Edward IV's court seem to believe that this guy was English. And I find it difficult to believe that a boatman's son from Tournai would pick up English with such a perfect accent and such a command of the language and such courtly manners from the age of 16 or 17 when he's forced to do it as well. The fact that crowned heads of Europe are willing to throw money at this person, but also that they're willing to hold him up as a rightful king, seems incredibly odd to me if they had any suspicion that he was just a boy from the streets of Tournai. Margaret of Burgundy, for me, is a very interesting person as well. And Nathan mentioned her in more detail in regards to the Lambert Simnel affair. And she's often portrayed as this person who is just viciously out to get Henry VII at any cost. I don't think that's what Margaret of Burgundy is about. She wants to restore the legitimate House of York, absolutely. But she doesn't do that by backing a boy from Oxford in 1487 and then a boy from Tornai in the 1490s. She has other nephews who are willing to rebel. So John de la Pole was her nephew who joined the 1487 rebellion. Why not back him if you want to restore the House of York? John de la Pole's brothers will enter open rebellion against Henry VII within a couple of years of the execution of Perkin Warbeck. Is that coincidental timing? Did they know that he was the real Richard, Duke of York, and they're waiting for him to be out of the way to begin championing their own claims. But the key idea for me is that Margaret had options of legitimate Yorkist male heirs to champion. And yet she focuses all of her attention, her money, her political effort, on this person, who we're told is just a boy from the streets of Tornai who is not related to her at all. That makes no sense to me.
- [42:07]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Let's talk about the evidence that has recently come to light. Philippa Langley's work, the Missing Princess Project, thinks about the Gelders archive in the Netherlands, and there's an account there, purportedly by Richard, describing his incarceration in the Tower and how he was freed. I'm going to give you one line which is Lord Howard came to me and encouraged me. At last he ordered the guards to leave and brought two other men to me. They were called Henry Percy and Thomas Percy. They swore by honor and oath to hide me secretly until certain years were passed. Now, I'm going to go to you with this first Matt. How can we be sure that this is legitimate? Either by kind of textual analysis or by the details of its provenance? And is this new information? Was this count known about before?
- [42:51]
Matt Lewis
So what we know about this document is that It's a genuine 15th century document that's written in Middle Dutch and it's written in the first person, but it's most likely narrated to a scribe in the Middle Dutch. And so we get odd things like Miles Forrest seems to appear in it. The person who Thomas More says is one of the murderers of the princes in the tower, he appears in this account, but he seems to be described as Milord Forest, which may be a difficulty of translating Middle Dutch to English and the way that it's written down. So we know that this is a genuine late 15th century document. The watermark, we're told, is consistent in the paper with the period. The language that is used is consistent with the period. What that doesn't mean is that it was definitely written by someone who was Richard, Duke of York. I think to get to the point where we can believe that, there are a couple of things to consider. So the level of detail that's involved and the names that are given are striking. If you are trying to build a lie and a fiction around all of this, you would tend to want to keep all of that information quite fuzzy and uncertain. What you don't want to do is give lots of specifics that you could trip yourself up with later names that you've got to remember, dates that you have to be able to pluck out of the air, a sequence of events that you have to make sure doesn't change, otherwise you'll expose yourself. So the level of detail that is in there, that can be corroborated. So this Thomas and Henry Percy, they're not related to the Earl of Northumberland Percy family. They appear to be from lands in Bedale, which is next door to Middleham, which was Richard III's sort of power base in the north. Bedale belonged to Francis Lovell. So is it possible that Francis Lovell gets two men from his lands up in the north to come down south and be the protectors for this boy? And we know that later on, Richard of England, Perkin Warbeck, will write A letter to the Queen of Spain, to Isabella of Spain, in which he says something very similar, and his confession says something very similar, that two men were tasked with looking after him and providing for him, and that one of them died and then the other one cast him adrift. And in this version of events, he says that these two Percy brothers look after him until one of them dies of the plague. And then in the aftermath of the Lambert Simnel business, the other one goes to England to visit his mother. So clearly he's sending word to Elizabeth Woodville to say, I'm still okay and I'm alive on the continent. So there is lots and lots of detail in there. And then we're told that when this one brother dies, he tells Richard to go to Ireland to claim his inheritance. So he says that's why he ends up in Ireland. It's not a coincidence that he's there. He's been sent there deliberately to out himself as Richard, Duke of York, and to begin this career throughout the 1490s of claiming to be the younger of the princes in the Tower. So we know it's genuine. Late 15th century. There is lots of detail in there which is suggestive that perhaps it's not a lie. But we can't be 100% clear that the person that dictated that document was really was Richard, Duke of York. He could just be someone who wants you to believe he's Richard, Duke of York, which is clearly what Perkin Warbeck would have done all throughout the 1490s. So it still does have that element of doubt around it, but for me, it adds to a weight of evidence that makes me believe he's more likely than not to have been the real Richard, Duke of York.
- [46:08]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Fascinating stuff. Nathan, what do you think?
- [46:11]
Nathan Ammon
I'm pleased. Matthew did say that there is still an element of doubt behind it, because obviously this document is being taken in some quarters as decisive evidence and proof of life that Richard of York did exist. It's a fascinating document. We were aware of much of the detail contained within from something called the Dendermont Letter, which was written at the same period. It effectively gives much of the exact same detail contained within, encoding the signature Richard of England, which is precisely what you're going to do if you're trying to claim that you are Richard of England. For example, there was a book written in 1991 by Diana Cline called Richard of England with that signature on the front. So this is not new discovery per se, it is containing information we were already aware of. What is fascinating about this Gelderland document is those names. It does have the names of Thomas and Henry Percy and it does have the involvement of Lord Howard. That wasn't contained within the Dendermonde letter. I don't know why. There were two different letters perhaps written removing names. What I do find very convenient is of those principal parties involved in this letter, Odd Howard, Thomas Percy, Henry Percy, they're all dead by 1493. So therefore they cannot be brought up and they cannot be questioned. Edward Howard, for example, famously dying at the Battle of Bosworth. You mentioned that somebody was going to lie. They were going to keep the details fuzzy. They were not going to outline every little detail such extensively as this document has. I would possibly argue the opposite. You're really trying to make your lie believable. You're going to need to go over everything in as much detail as possible to simply make it appear plausible. Much of the information contained within does corroborate Perkin Warbeck's own confession. He certainly doesn't say in his confession or his letter to his mother that he was forced to speak English when he went to Cork. Perkin Warbeck was brought up in quite a middle class family in Tonay. The idea that he was the son of a boatman has taken hold, but it's not accurate. As per his own words, he seems to have been the step grandson of the Dean of the Boatman's Guild. And throughout his teenage years he was sent away to certain parts of the Low Countries, such as Middleburg, to learn English and to learn Dutch. Now he does seem to have been quite a well brought up member of the mercantile trade. And those are details that are in both his confession as Perkin Warbeck and in the Galdaland document as Richard of York. He claims he was taken to a lot of these various places. It's a fascinating account. It is a witness statement. But if somebody wants us to believe they are Richard of York, Richard of England, this is exactly what you expect to find. I do think it's a fully authenticated document. I fully believe it was written at the time under Margaret of Burgundy's observation. The signature is authentic, but the hand that signed that, was he truly a prince of York? I don't think so. You think so and therefore it's not decisive evidence and not a smoking gun.
- [49:28]
Matt Lewis
I think the one other thing you did ask Susannah was about whether this was entirely new. And we do know that this document was discovered in the 1950s by a researcher who thought it was interesting, took it to a professor locally who dismissed it and said, oh, this is just about that Perkin Warbet nonsense. We already know about that. I'm not interested. Put it back. And so it was tucked back away in the archives in the 1950s, because no one was willing to even engage with the idea that Perkin Warbeck could have been anything other than an imposter in the 1950s. And I think it's maybe interesting how much the argument has moved on in the past 70 years that we're at least now willing to engage with these documents and say this tells us something. Quite what it tells us may be open to a bit of interpretation. And there is still the lingering question around who the person that dictated this document really was. But it's interesting how the argument has shifted to allow us to talk about that now.
- [50:31]
Verizon Advertiser
This holiday, Verizon is giving you incredible gifts and savings you'll enjoy all year. When you Switch, you'll get four new iPhone 17 Pros. No trade in needed. That's right, get four lines for just $25 a line. And the amazing iPhone 17 Pro for everyone. Save big this holiday. Visit Verizon today. $20 monthly promo credits applied to account over 35 months with a new line on unlimited. Welcome. In times of congestion, unlimited 5G and 4G LTE may be temporarily slower than other traffic. Domestic Data roaming at 2G speeds. Additional terms apply for phone offer. See verizon.com for details.
- [51:03]
Royal Kingdom / Blue Apron / Toyota Advertiser
Today's trivia quiz is on mobile games. All right, I'm very excited about this one. I'm going to give you a few hints.
- [51:10]
Matt Lewis
Ready?
- [51:11]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Ready.
- [51:12]
Royal Kingdom / Blue Apron / Toyota Advertiser
This game has no ads and no need for wi fi to play. Wait, so does it cost a lot of money? Nope. It's completely free to play. What?
- [51:22]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
No way.
- [51:23]
Royal Kingdom / Blue Apron / Toyota Advertiser
It has amazing graphics and they recently added a bunch of new minigames. Hold on.
- [51:28]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Is that Royal Kingdom?
- [51:30]
Royal Kingdom / Blue Apron / Toyota Advertiser
Yes. Bingo. So if you haven't played Royal Kingdom yet, go to the App Store or Google Play and download it for free.
- [51:46]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
I wanted to move us on to think about another discovery made recently from the Austrian State Archive, which is an account written by a Frenchman present at a meeting between Richard, Duke of York and Maximilian I, the Holy Roman Emperor. And Richard reportedly told Maximilian he could show several signs by which those who knew him would recognize him, which were three marks that could not apparently be counterfeited on his mouth, eye and thigh. I want to ask you both, can we rely on this evidence?
- [52:18]
Matt Lewis
It's tricky. So we know that Perkin Richard claims to have these three marks throughout his time, claiming to be Richard Duke of York. What's never been clear is precisely what they were. So we have this sketch that's done of him in Burgundy, which seems to have an odd mark around the left eye. If you Google the sketch and look at it, and we know that a heavily lidded eye is a Plantagenet trait. So we know Edward I had it, Henry III had it. Several Plantagenets do have it. Margaret would have been aware of these marks. I think she visited England when Richard, Duke of York, was around about six years old. She visited her brother Edward IV at his court. She would have been able to be aware that he had this mark in his eye, this mark in his mouth, whatever that is, and some kind of birthmark on his thigh. It appears to be the third one. It's interesting that this sabbatical testimonies, which is a whole other topic that we get into, but they do talk about this perk in Warbeck, his father explaining that he has a funny mark in his eye and kind of thin, bandy legs. So there clearly is something around his face and his legs that people are interested in. We know that Margaret would have been able to identify those marks. There is a strong suspicion that Richard, Duke of York, goes to Ireland when he's appointed Lieutenant of Ireland as a small boy, again, so that Irish lords and Irish noblemen would also have seen those three marks. So that when he steps off the boat in Cork, that's a very easy way for him to be able to prove that he's the real Richard, Duke of York. They will be able to see these marks on him that they had seen on the young boy. And what strikes me most about these three marks is really that after this person is captured, Richard, or Perkin, whatever we want to call him, after he is captured, Henry has the opportunity. He's married to one of the Prince's sisters. All of their other sisters are still alive. He has the opportunity to say, the real Richard, Duke of York never had these three marks that this Perkin boy is talking about. And he could have got one of their sisters to say, this isn't my brother. Alternatively, he could have displayed Perkin and proven that he didn't have the three marks that everybody knew Richard, Duke of York did have. But for me, Henry conspicuously passes up the opportunity to do either of those things which maybe suggest that Richard, Duke of York had these three marks and this person we know as Perkin Warbeck had those three marks and Henry couldn't explain it away. And we have accounts from after his capture. Bernard Andre tells US that he was beaten black and blue after he's captured in the West Country. Later on during his captivity, the Spanish ambassador will talk about him being disfigured. So there's a sense that perhaps he was being beaten around the face to obscure his looks and that perhaps that's to cover up the fact that he has these two marks on his face that make it clear that he is the real Richard, Duke of York.
- [54:59]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Nathan, what do you think?
- [55:01]
Nathan Ammon
I think it's patently clear that Perkin Warbeck over in Austria and on the continent, he does seem to have had these three marks. Otherwise why would it even be mentioned? So I believe that this figure on the continent did have 3 marks. While we simply don't know, we cannot corroborate at this moment unless there's further discovery's made. It's independent authentication that young Richard of York, the real Prince of the Tower, did have these three marks. It's not solid enough to say Lagarde of York said that because she's obviously a biased involvement in this conspiracy. She's gonna say, in effect, what needs to be said to try and authenticate Perkin Warbeck. What we need is some sort of discovery that this shows the real Prince Richard of York, who disappeared at the age of nine years old, did have three marks. And I don't think we're going to get that, because was this boy walking around court showing off his thigh mark? It's a very difficult one to corroborate, and I don't think we ever will reach that point where we can say for sure that these three marks can be taken as definite proof, validation that Perkin Walbeck was Richard of York. Obviously you're correct in saying when Perkin Warbeck went to court, he did live around court for around 18 months before he was finally thrown into the Tower. Surely he could have just gone up to Elizabeth of York and revealed himself to be a brother. We don't know what occurred there. Maybe that did occur and Elizabeth went. Her little brother Richard didn't have any marks, so that's the end of that. Hence, Perkin, you are a fraud. That's the information. We simply don't know.
- [56:39]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
It's interesting that the stories of Simral and Warbeck have been made contingent upon what Margaret of York, Dowager Duchess of Burgundy, has to say about the matter. She's the sister of Richard III and aunt to the princes, and we can debate her motives for that. But there are two other women in this story that we need to consider. Other sisters. Sisters to the missing Princes, Elizabeth of York, Henry VII's wife and Princess Cicely. Do we have any evidence about what they have to say about the pretenders?
- [57:14]
Nathan Ammon
Nothing. With regards from Elizabeth of York, quite silent on the martyr. Which means that we can always then speculate either way what her thoughts were. I can only speculate that during this 18 month period when Perkin Warbeck was living around court, she must have encountered him at some point cause he was living around court, almost to be mocked by the Tudor court. But we simply don't know what she thought about this. Of course, by this period in question, she's a fully paid and bought up member of the House of Tudor.
- [57:46]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Well, perhaps more importantly by this point she has a son that's going to.
- [57:49]
Nathan Ammon
Inherit and she has to obviously be concerned about her son's future. She had three sons by this point, who all would have stood to inherit. She certainly wasn't going to disinherit her son's birthright. Even if Perkin Warbeck truly was her brother.
- [58:04]
Matt Lewis
I think that makes it even more striking that she doesn't say anything, because for me this is the perfect way out of it for Henry and for Elizabeth who has this vested interest in Tudor rule to protect her own children, to say this is not my brother is dead, my brother cannot come back. And the idea again that Perkin Warbeck is kept in fairly loose custody at court for 18 months is incredibly odd when this is a guy who has spent years claiming to be the rightful King of England, he's invaded Henry's kingdom and three times and yet Henry just lets him live under loose house arrest at court. It's a very odd way to deal with someone who has tried three times to depose you with the help of Scotland, of the Holy Roman Empire of Burgundy and at France at one point too, is that because he is Henry's brother in law. A lot of what Emperor Maximilian writes to Henry is you can't kill your brother in law, a royal prince, it's not the done thing, you shouldn't be doing this. I find it incredibly odd that Henry wouldn't have gone straight to execution of a boy, a man who has invaded his kingdom three times and been such a pain to him for almost a decade during the 1490s. We know in 1499 there's a guy called Ralph Wilford who apparently starts claiming in the streets of London that he's the real Earl of Warwick and Henry just immediately executes him because he does appear to be an obvious imposter and fraud. So why does he deal so differently with people in the aftermath of the Simnel affair and the Perkin Warbeck affair? And I know Nathan will say that's because by this point Henry's had enough of it and he just wants to get on with it and get it done with. He's not putting up with any of this rubbish anymore and he's just gonna execute this boy. But the fact does remain that he deals very differently with someone who is an obvious imposter than he does with the two people for whom we can create questions around their true identity.
- [59:49]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
So we have these important people supporting Warbeck's effort and we have Henry VII himself going to great lengths to halt him, even if when he's got him, it has a sort of light touch. And what can we make of that? These are people risking reputations or trying to protect reputations. These are people who are throwing their lot in with Warburg's efforts. How should we understand this? You know, would they have gone to such lengths? I suppose for someone who really doesn't have a good claim?
- [60:18]
Nathan Ammon
I think yes and no. I think it could come down to both ways. It could be that people truly believed that these pretenders were truly princes, or it could come down to simple self advancement. There were people who lost their positions and lost their offices. When the Tudors came onto the throne, there was a lot of power to be gained from making a king. And we just look at the final conspiracy that brought all this to an end in 1499 and got the names of the people involved. There's men such as Thomas Astwood, for example, who had already been granted his life once for committing rebellion against Henry vii. He decided to go on and try and foment more rebellion by trying to free Warbeck and Warwick from the Tower of London.
- [61:06]
Matt Lewis
I would just counter that. I struggle to see crowned heads of Europe saying that a random boy off the streets can be a king. They have no interest in doing that, never mind throwing endless amounts of money fortunes behind this person and risking their own political capital on claiming that this person is real. But I think perhaps whoever this Richard of England, Perkin Warbeck was, whoever was at the head of that Lambert simnel affair in 1487, for me, the reactions of people on the continent and also people in England, Perkin Warbeck's business did have a fairly strong English contingent until it was betrayed. And many of them were executed, most prominently Sir William Stanley. What it tells me is that in the 1490s, people on the continent crowned heads of Europe didn't know that the princes in the Tower were dead, because otherwise they would have laughed this Perkin Warbeck out of their court and said, you can't be the real prince. We know that they were murdered. So we do have to allow that in the 1490s, there was a belief that at least one of the princes in the Tower could still be alive, could still be at large, and could be laying claim to his throne.
- [62:15]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Yes. The fact that we don't have their dead bodies is a bit of a problem, isn't it? Okay, so my final question for you is this. Why 500 years on, are we still fretting about the princes in the Tower and the pretenders? Why does it still matter?
- [62:30]
Nathan Ammon
It's got all of the elements of those great whodunits, except it involves children and involves royal children. As a people, we just seem to be taken by conspiracy theories. We are taken by whodunits. It's a tragic case of lost royal children that is going to tug at everyone's heartstrings and get people wondering what happened to them.
- [62:54]
Matt Lewis
And I would say the same. Why do we read Agatha Christie novels so much? We love a murder mystery. Why are we concerned about this? It has elements of a fairy tale to it. So we've got the kind of wicked uncle betraying his nephews and potentially murdering them to get the throne. It's a real trope of kind of fairy tale nastiness that appeals to something within us. But I think as a Ricardian, for me, there is an element here of thinking about whether someone's historical reputation is deserved or not. Richard has for 500 years been painted as a child murdering tyrant. I think there is plenty of evidence to show that he wasn't a tyrant in the way that he ruled. I would suggest there's plenty of evidence to suggest that he most likely didn't murder his nephews either. Is someone's reputation worth fighting over or arguing over after 500 years? I think it is. And I think it's interesting that there are people who are concerned by that kind of thing in the Tudor world. Why are we so obsessed with the idea that Amberlynn wasn't guilty of all the things Henry VIII accused her of? Henry VIII put out documents saying she did all of these things. Why don't we just believe that? Because we're able to question it. And it's right that we should think about the reputations of people who are no longer here to defend themselves.
- [64:05]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Yes, I absolutely agree that our role as historians is in part to bring justice to the dead. Thank you both for your efforts to do that today. You have different conclusions about how we do that, and it's been utterly fascinating to listen to the debate. And the fact that this remains a mystery is also, I think, perhaps one of the things that intrigues us most about it. Because try as we might, we can't quite square the circle. We can't quite make it work, and that makes it endlessly fascinating. You've both been brilliant. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you for listening to this episode of Not Just the Tudors From History Hit. And to my producer Rob Weinberg, we are always eager to hear from you, including receiving your brilliant ideas for subjects we can cover. So do drop us a line and Not Just the tutors@history hit.com and I look forward to joining you again for another episode. Next time on Not Just the Tutors From History Hit.
- [65:11]
Verizon Advertiser
This holiday, Verizon is giving you incredible gifts and savings you'll enjoy all year. When you Switch, you'll get four new iPhone 17 Pros. No trade in needed. That's right, get four lines for just $25 a line and the amazing iPhone 17 Pro for everyone. Save big this holiday. Visit Verizon today. $20 monthly promo credits applied to a count over 35 months with a new line on Unlimited Welcome. In times of congestion, unlimited 5G and 4G LTE may be temporarily slower than other traffic domestic data roaming at 2G speeds. Additional terms apply for phone offer. See verizon.com for details.
- [65:41]
Royal Kingdom / Blue Apron / Toyota Advertiser
Holidays mean feasting. From cheddar biscuits to French toast bakes, Herobread has you covered with 0 to 5 grams net carb and high fiber options to ensure your holidays stay delicious and balance their 3 grams net carb pain au chocolat. Herobread is offering 10% off your order. Go to Hero Co and use code fall25 at checkout. That's fall25 at HERO CO. All figures are per serving of HeroBread contains up to 17 grams of fat per serving. See the product nutrition panels on Hero Co for more information.