More Thoughts on the Princes in the Tower with Nathen Amin
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 12. 2023
- Recent discoveries sponsored by the Richard III Society have opened new discussions about the Princes in the Tower. Nathen Amin weighs in about the likelihood the boys survived.
Carol Ann Lloyd
www.carolannlloyd.com
@shakeuphistory
patreon.com/carolannlloyd
The Tudors by Numbers, published by Pen and Sword
Nathen Amin
nathenamin.com
@nathenamin
Henry VII and the Tudor Pretenders: Simnel, Warbeck, and Warwick
The House of Beaufort: The Bastard Line that Captured the Crown
Tudor Wales
Creative Director: Lindsey Lindstrom
Music: History by Andy_Grey via Audio Jungle, Music Broadcast License
I could listen to Nathen for hours. Knowledgeable and balanced arguments
I love Nathen. I love how he speaks his mind. Thank you for bringing this interview to us.
I do too! And I also love that he respects the historians on the "other" side of the debate. He disagrees with respect. That's how we learn. 😀
Great show! Loved the topic. Nathan is an interesting and knowledgeable guest. 🎉
I'm so glad you enjoyed it!!
If he had always planned to seize the throne, he would have brought those troops with him when he began his journey to London, rather than ordering a requiem mass for his brother, and beginning to plan the prompt coronation of his nephew Edward V.
Really? He's come in clear for me...
Thanks for giving him his say too. It's hard to take anything seriously when it doesn't consider all sides.
🏰
Thank you. I agree--the only way to really understand is to hear all sides and then make a decision.
I also had difficulty hearing Mr. Amin. At times, he was very clear while at others he was barely audible. Regardless, it was a great discussion! I appreciate that Mr. Amin - unlike other historians - doesn't denigrate the Ricardian viewpoints or Richard lll. He seems to give a well-balanced opinion of events from the standpoint of an individual who believes the Princes were murdered. Thank you for having him on your channel! Are you considering having Matthew Lewis appear as well?
Good points and great suggestion. Having both on together would make for a very entertaining piece. I for one very much enjoy the good natured discussions between Nathen Amin and Matt Lewis.
Yes, Matt is also really interesting. He and Nathen often appear together. I especially wanted Nathen because his comments were cut from the US version of the television program going over the findings. I'll see if we can get Matt on too.
I always enjoy hearing Matt and Nathen because even though they disagree, they are so respectful. I always learn more!
That cat is the mvp of this discussion ❤
I just found this video, and am grateful. Thank you for featuring Nathan. His book on the Beaufort family is one of my favorites about this period in history. His views are measured and he is always careful to rely on well-researched facts.
I'm so glad you enjoyed it! I certainly agree about Nathen. I always learn so much from him.
Outstanding Discussion, Thank You!✨
I'm so glad you enjoyed it!
And Henry VII didn't claim that Richard III had killed his nephews 51:56 neither in his propaganda when he arrived in England in 1485 nor in his official claim to the throne. In fact, he required Parliament to repeal, UNREAD, the act of parliament making Richard king because parliament had declared the nephews illegitimate in that act. Henry's repeal made the elder nephew the de jure king of England. Now tell me who had the motive to kill Edward IV's sons...
BTW, it was a French army and the treason of the Stanleys (into whose care Henry's mother Marharet Beaufort had been placed) that decided the day at Bosworth Field.
Elenor butler's marriage disclosure came from Bishop Stillington's disclosure to Richard in late spring of 1483.
Thank you for this interview, I watched the PBS version and UK's longer one, I didn't get the impression that any clear conclusion was made at the end of the documentary...maybe PBS version might give a wrong idea to the viewers that the mystery was resolved? American audiences should be able to watch the complete version of the documentary!
I agree. I don't know why the US version was cut so the "other" side was not there. I'm glad you enjoyed the interview!
However, the purpose of the TV special was to present what the Missing Princes Project had discovered thus far, and which is explored in much greater details in the new book. It wasn't really set up for a debate on the documents found on the continent. That was to be for later, after experts who haven't seen the documents or read the book yet, had the opportunity for analysis.
The only thing the doc proved is that Phillipa Langley will do anything to 'prove' her boy is innocent (*spoiler alert* he probably isn't).
👑
I invite your attention to President Clinton and his behavior with women. King Edward IV was well known for similar behavior, whereas Richard III was known as loyal to his brother and yet uncomfortable with Edward IV''s behavior.
Thank you I agree with him🥰🥰
So glad you enjoyed it!
nathen is welsh,
LLoyd is a welsh surname...
american or canadian may not know this...
also royal tudor dynasty started in 1485 but the welsh dynasty ap tewdar started in 1299..
Elizabeth I tudor,,,
had welsh ancestery on both sides, maternal via queen ann boleyn & paternal via Henry VII tudor,....
as for elizabeth wydville or woodville, being viewed as a commoner..
or the marriage being scandalous & morganatic,
her mother was jacquetta the dowager duchess of bedford, also married into the HOUSE OF BEAUFOURT...,
from a cadet branch of the HOUSE OF LUXEMBOURG..anything but common or poor...
previously elizabeth wydville-woodville was married into the HOUSE OF GREY... welsh marcher nobility,
in a era of scandalous, shocking and morgantic marriages,
prince john of gaunt-ghent marriage to his mistress was viewed across europe as one of the biggest scandals in medieval europe..,
possibly pressure from the church & society, including the crown, made for a soap opera..
the birth of the BEAUFOURT DYNASTY, was viewed by some plantagenets and other nobility as shocking... the illegitmate line that captured the throne.....
long before elizabeth wydville was on the scene...
old nobillity like percy, nevilles etc viewed each other as unwashed and rivals...
They have a lock of hair from princes
Hopefully King Charles will give permission for the alleged Prince’s bones in the urn in Westminster Abbey to be tested, and if they can be linked to Plantagenets… Then that should solve it…
The smoking gun is DNA of the bones
DNA of the bones at Westminster Abbey would provide limited help with big picture. DNA could show bones belong to one or both princes but would not show how/when they were killed. If DNA is not conclusive or shows bones do not belong to either of the boys, that gives us no information about how/when boys died.
@carolannlloydshakeup yes of course, but if they ARE the bones of the princes, then we know that the imposters were actually imposters and not the real princes as many who are infatuated with Richard III would wish to rehabilitate that miserable "King". I don't single out Richard as pretty much all the monarchs of England were bad news, but by our standards so not a fair comparison. MY POINT is the speaker says there will NEVER be a smoking gun, but the bones do hold a small chance to find one.
@@forestgreenhobbit OK, yes, I see what you are saying. If the DNA is a match, the princes did not escape and go on to lead the rebellions--Simnel and Warbeck were Simnel and Warbeck, imposters. Got it. I think what Nathen means is that we still would not know who killed them.
@carolannlloydshakeup still great video. Thanks for the reply. If we did find out the bones were the princes' and they were 9 and 12 at time of death, then we know the "guardian" is pretty much to blame.
@@forestgreenhobbit Yes, I think if you put two children (who happen to be your rivals) in the Tower and they end up dead and you are in charge, you definitely have to take some responsibility.
Just because he can’t understand the science of dna doesn’t mean it should be dismissed.
Does a king have to make tough decisions? Personally I believe kings do so why wouldn't he go after Elizabeth Woodville, she and her family were a big threat.
I'm pretty sure he did execute other male members of her family.
They are hiding behind something
"I can't prove Richard murdered but that is my opinion and [my opinion should be treated as a fact].
Also Nathen:
"It is only her opinion that Richard did not kill his nephews. Her opinion is not fact"
Double standard s.
Carol is wrong in her statement that testing the bones will not prove anything.
The whole Tudor propaganda from Day 1 is that the bones WERE in fact the boys.
If DNA testing shows the bones are not the princes, then the whole story is revealed as Tudor lie.
Once you accept the Tudors lie then you have no alternative to accept that the precontract information (from a Bishop with no skin in the game) is in fact true.
The bones were discovered in 1674, nearly 200 years after Henry Tudor discovered the dynasty. I realize the DNA testing could prove those specific bones are or are not the remains of the "Princes in the Tower," but that is all. If they are the remains, testing would not prove how they were killed or by whom. If they are not the remains, we still don't know where the actual remains are, when/where/how the boys died, etc. DNA testing offers a specific amount of information, but in this case will not solve the mystery.
@roberthoward6590
0 seconds ago
Yup. Declaring all the Yorks illegitimate is way too convenient for Richard and no one killed or damaged more Yorks than Richard.
Unfortunately for Richard, he had mixed success in killing Lancastrians.
DNA 🧬 in the urn
Cannot hear the guy at all. Very annoying. 🙄
Maybe try earbuds if you haven't already😊
I'm sorry about that. I checked the audio on my end, and it sounds all right. If you would like, I can send another link to try.
@@carolannlloydshakeup Thank you, Carol. I tried again, but it remains the same. When I turn up the volume to be able to hear him, your voice gets too loud, and on the other hand if I don't, his voice is very quiet. I apologize to you for my first comment, I realize it was quite abrasive. I should have been more diplamatic about it. It's just that this topic really interests me, and I was disappointed I could not hear his answers to your excellent questions. Forgive me.
@@susyhtoontin2649 No worries. I am sorry there was a problem with the sound. That is something that is hard to control when we are both in our own studios. You might want to try listening on Apple (or anywhere else you like to listen)--I'm better able to control the sound in the audio-only version. Let me know if you'd like me to send a link.
@@pamelaoliver8442 I don't do earbuds. 🥴
His total lack of knowledge or interest in DNA science makes me question his overall credibility.
He has no credibility.