Kudos to Nathan Amin for standing his ground. I was underwhelmed by this "documentary" which seemed so biased towards the presumption of innocence for Richard whose every other action seemed to denounce him as a power-hungry psychopath.
I love your 15th century hat Sir, how does one get one of those?. I personally believe the boys were murdered in the tower in 1483, whether Richard III ordered the killing of them, we may never know but he is the prime suspect. I never thought that Perkin Warbeck or Lambert Simnel were the boys in the tower I think it is an interesting theory ,I am not knocking down Phillipa Langley about her theories as she is an amazing historian and academic it is just that I have a separate theory , Happy New Year from Elisabeth
You appear to misunderstand that the documentary was designed to be an accompaniment to the book, which you indicate thatyou haven't read. It was not a stand alone piece. It's also hypocritical to criticize Ricardian analysis of this period as being biased when we've been spoon fed Tudor fictionalizations of history for half a millennium and some authors still spew this propaganda in their works (Hicks, Weir, et cetera). Also, your dismissal of research by members of the Richard III Society as being biased is simply wrong. Firstly, that is not the mission of the group or of serious historians like Matthew Lewis. 'Oh, but Lewis is the president of the Society; so, his work doesn't matter' attitude is weak and amateurish. One does not debate the merits of something by outright dismissal, based on self-perceived compromises of an opposing view point. As far as the documents that the Project's 300+ researchers have found in its first five years is concerned, Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck were only addressed as such by Henry at the time. Henry barred his wife, Elizabeth of York, from seeing or interacting in any way with Perkin/Richard. Why? Prince Richard had three distinguishing birthmarks - two moles of which were on his face. This is why Henry had him disfigured before hanging him. The prince's former servants recognized him, as did his Aunt Margaret when she saw and conversed with him later. And so on.
It is a truism of TV criticism that, while other relevant material in the form of books, and articles might exist, a TV documentary has to be seen as a stand alone artefact, seen by an audience in the moment regardless of what prior knowledge they do, or do not, possess. In this case an artefact which presented the core essentials of a case regarding a contentious historical moment in quasi legal manner, talking about evidence in front of a Barrister, while using official sounding terms such as "proof of life". The format invited the response we made. It is also important to point out that the book did not exist except as a forthcoming publication when Channel 4 commissioned the programme. Although its existence as a project will have been factored into the publicity drive around Philippa Langley's book and vice versa regarding the documentary and its sales abroad, especially in the USA. That is how broadcasters and publishers think. Nothing wrong with that. I have been part of similar discussions between programme producers and a publisher. Regarding the research, the Search for the Princes project is an admirable piece of community based research and has highlighted some very interesting material, but objectively the documents cited in the programme are not proof of life of either of the Princes and the mystery has not been solved. A would also point out that, following the disappearance/execution of Tsar Nicholas II and his family in Ekaterinburg in July 1918, in the 1920's and subsequently some family members, former servants and associates of the Romanov's "recognised" Romanov Princess Anastasia Nikolaievna as having reappeared in Berlin. Controversy over this identification, which included the description of certain physical attributes the Berlin claimant was alleged to share with the missing princess, and political manoeuvring surrounding it, remained until DNA work revealed that "Anastasia" was almost certainly a working class Polish woman who had attempted suicide in a Berlin canal. In other words sometimes people see what they want to see out of loyalty, wishful thinking, or even political calculation. At this remove all we can do is be aware of possible motives and perceptions and factor them in with appropriate investigative rigor. We were also clear in talking about the "traditional version" of the mystery of the Princes without endorsing it, and posed at least come of the genuine questions which remain regarding the events involving the pretenders of the 1490's, and their identities, or perceived identities, such as why Richard/Perkin was able to be married to a senior Scottish aristocrat, Lady Katherine Gordon and her subsequent fate at the court of Henry VII. I hope we also emphasised the importance of asking the Who? What? When? Where? Why? questions of ALL the sources. As I hope I made clear in the show, my own view, as an interested non specialist, is that this remains a fascinating historical mystery and is a case which is likely to run, even if the contents of that urn on the wall in Westminster Abbey are ever subjected to a modern scientific examination.
without a time machine and video drone we will never know, but the point i think is that the name of a king was blackened with no substantial proof of guilt, in a court of law you cannot convict without substantial proof, therefore richard was a king, should be remembered as such, Richard 1 was far more malicious, yet in school i was taught what a great king he was, trajan has a victory column, a blatent celebration of genicide, can we judge? NO, but without definitive proof richard 111 should be cleared .
Happy new year! A we bit early for everyone, but a genuine bundle of joyful thoughts for all who read this 🥰 cheers everyone
Kudos to Nathan Amin for standing his ground. I was underwhelmed by this "documentary" which seemed so biased towards the presumption of innocence for Richard whose every other action seemed to denounce him as a power-hungry psychopath.
I love your 15th century hat Sir, how does one get one of those?. I personally believe the boys were murdered in the tower in 1483, whether Richard III ordered the killing of them, we may never know but he is the prime suspect. I never thought that Perkin Warbeck or Lambert Simnel were the boys in the tower I think it is an interesting theory ,I am not knocking down Phillipa Langley about her theories as she is an amazing historian and academic it is just that I have a separate theory , Happy New Year from Elisabeth
You appear to misunderstand that the documentary was designed to be an accompaniment to the book, which you indicate thatyou haven't read. It was not a stand alone piece.
It's also hypocritical to criticize Ricardian analysis of this period as being biased when we've been spoon fed Tudor fictionalizations of history for half a millennium and some authors still spew this propaganda in their works (Hicks, Weir, et cetera). Also, your dismissal of research by members of the Richard III Society as being biased is simply wrong. Firstly, that is not the mission of the group or of serious historians like Matthew Lewis. 'Oh, but Lewis is the president of the Society; so, his work doesn't matter' attitude is weak and amateurish. One does not debate the merits of something by outright dismissal, based on self-perceived compromises of an opposing view point.
As far as the documents that the Project's 300+ researchers have found in its first five years is concerned, Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck were only addressed as such by Henry at the time. Henry barred his wife, Elizabeth of York, from seeing or interacting in any way with Perkin/Richard. Why? Prince Richard had three distinguishing birthmarks - two moles of which were on his face. This is why Henry had him disfigured before hanging him. The prince's former servants recognized him, as did his Aunt Margaret when she saw and conversed with him later. And so on.
It is a truism of TV criticism that, while other relevant material in the form of books, and articles might exist, a TV documentary has to be seen as a stand alone artefact, seen by an audience in the moment regardless of what prior knowledge they do, or do not, possess. In this case an artefact which presented the core essentials of a case regarding a contentious historical moment in quasi legal manner, talking about evidence in front of a Barrister, while using official sounding terms such as "proof of life".
The format invited the response we made.
It is also important to point out that the book did not exist except as a forthcoming publication when Channel 4 commissioned the programme. Although its existence as a project will have been factored into the publicity drive around Philippa Langley's book and vice versa regarding the documentary and its sales abroad, especially in the USA. That is how broadcasters and publishers think.
Nothing wrong with that. I have been part of similar discussions between programme producers and a publisher.
Regarding the research, the Search for the Princes project is an admirable piece of community based research and has highlighted some very interesting material, but objectively the documents cited in the programme are not proof of life of either of the Princes and the mystery has not been solved.
A would also point out that, following the disappearance/execution of Tsar Nicholas II and his family in Ekaterinburg in July 1918, in the 1920's and subsequently some family members, former servants and associates of the Romanov's "recognised" Romanov Princess Anastasia Nikolaievna as having reappeared in Berlin. Controversy over this identification, which included the description of certain physical attributes the Berlin claimant was alleged to share with the missing princess, and political manoeuvring surrounding it, remained until DNA work revealed that "Anastasia" was almost certainly a working class Polish woman who had attempted suicide in a Berlin canal.
In other words sometimes people see what they want to see out of loyalty, wishful thinking, or even political calculation. At this remove all we can do is be aware of possible motives and perceptions and factor them in with appropriate investigative rigor.
We were also clear in talking about the "traditional version" of the mystery of the Princes without endorsing it, and posed at least come of the genuine questions which remain regarding the events involving the pretenders of the 1490's, and their identities, or perceived identities, such as why Richard/Perkin was able to be married to a senior Scottish aristocrat, Lady Katherine Gordon and her subsequent fate at the court of Henry VII.
I hope we also emphasised the importance of asking the Who? What? When? Where? Why? questions of ALL the sources.
As I hope I made clear in the show, my own view, as an interested non specialist, is that this remains a fascinating historical mystery and is a case which is likely to run, even if the contents of that urn on the wall in Westminster Abbey are ever subjected to a modern scientific examination.
without a time machine and video drone we will never know, but the point i think is that the name of a king was blackened with no substantial proof of guilt, in a court of law you cannot convict without substantial proof, therefore richard was a king, should be remembered as such, Richard 1 was far more malicious, yet in school i was taught what a great king he was, trajan has a victory column, a blatent celebration of genicide, can we judge? NO, but without definitive proof richard 111 should be cleared .