Marrying them so young was considered a legal technicality , they would continue to live the normal lives of privileged children until they were older .At least little Anne wasn't in danger of sexual assault by her husband for a reasonable number of years because he was simply too young .It was horrible anyway but child brides are still a fact of life in certain parts of the world and females are most definitely treated as commodities .The fate of little Anne and her mother would bring tears to ones eyes ,not least the agony the little girl would have suffered from ingesting something arsenic .As for the mother noble women who were widowed fled to convents ,it was a place of sanctuary

Royal medieval marriages or' promised' were sometimes already held in infancy to ensure treaties and lands. These were formal declarations signed and witnessed by the nobility or wealthy merchants and sanctified by the Church.. The consummation of that marriage would only take place at a more appropriate age. As to consanguinity, for a goodly sum, the Pope would dispense permission to marry even if closely related. The only true taboo was between siblings which even the Church could not over ride.

Rich people used their children to breed much the same as their hunting dogs. Royal families were the worst. Just look at the Hapsburgs. Not to mention Egyptian pharoahs and Roman emperors.

I do, too. Eyes got damp when I saw her small coffin on that lovely hearse-cloth. One star-crossed girl, three times interred. I hope she now, really, rests in peace where she belongs.

Ceremony is everything in England.

When I was studying Anne's life, I was shocked to find out how Henry VII destroyed the chapel she was buried in, which was only 20 years old and built by Elizabeth Woodville, and disinterred Anne's remains, making no move to re-inter them in the abbey, which left her mother to take them elsewhere.

It's a good question. I'd hope that they'd be left as they are, no matter the outcome. Either the princes get their recognition, or two unknown boys, identities lost in history, continue to be a compelling mystery.

@@sweptashore Agreed. Leave them in the Abbey, and if they prove to be unknown, as a memorial to the princes, and to all the children who died much too young in that day and age.

Yes!

That would be a freat idea!

Here in the UK, King Charles III has not objected to the investigation into 500-year-old "Princes in The Tower."

There is no actually evidence, however, that the bones in the urn are his. Never dated, never sexed, found so low they would be in the Roman layer (there was a Ro man cemetery nearby).

There is no proof that the bones in the Urn are actually those of Prince Richard. Not dated (potentially Roman) and not sexed...it could even be a girl.

Very likely not him, but some forgotten ancient child. We don't even know the sexes of the bones in the urn.

Just to let you know HONOUR in English is spelt that way. Honor is the american spelling

@@barbaradyson6951 I am an American, living in the United States, and so the spelling as I posted it is the correct usage where I am located. Having a university degree in English Literature, I am aware of the differences in the spellings of many words between what is common usage in the UK and what is common usage in the USA. Most linguists concur that this is a simple matter of national preference, and not necessarily an issue of "correct" or "incorrect" spellings. Of course, feel free to disagree.

We often venerate the dead more than the living.

​@carolineculbertson878 I love her, she's so funny and intelligent with a great attitude.

@@carolineculbertson878I love her! Because I watch her videos I asked to have viewings of my grandparents on my mom’s side when each of them passed. My family hadn’t thought of doing that and getting to spend some time with each of their bodies was really healing. My mom and my uncles actually thanked me for asking for that. I also took a lock of my grandmother’s hair that I keep in my wallet because of Caitlin’s videos.

And most of her inheritance greedy king as if hes no got enough sickin 😢

It still happens often...in Muslim areasa

@@billybeveridge9172 Which is a timely reminder for those people without family to inherit to make a Will so that whatever they leave does some good in the world (please don't bequest it to the big charities). Friends or good neighbours would be very pleased to receive something, whereas, otherwise, it goes to the "Crown". Nothing much has changed in 500 years and the Cabal is planning on taking everything we have once again, returning us all to serfdom, if they get their way ...

Considering that she died as a young child that really isn't all that surprising. Plus, females did not have a public life in the Middle Ages.

If u know ur history u know this is typical. It’s nothing new

She died at like ten yrs old u know.

We still do not know whether or not the skeletons found n the 17th century were the princes or not. Many bodies, some of children, have been found at the Tower. There is simply no evidence that Richard had them killed. If he had, the smart thing to do ( and Richard was a very smart man) would have been to announce their deaths of one the many illnesses affecting children and arrange for a public burial.

The lead and arsenic likely was administered to her as a cure for some illness she may have had. Whether she died of the illness or the cure will remain a mystery. Of course today we now that this cure is no help, to put it mildly. 😖

Well, we don't really know about the one in the Tower. Many people thought he was still alive.

No actual evidence that the princes in the Tower were dispatched and if they were, it is just as likely to have been on the watch of the Duke of Buckingham, who clearly wanted to take the crown himself.

Of course she wouldn't have been (and we don't even know who the skeletons under the stairs are , what date or what sex) Plantagenets didn't kill women; that became a Tudor thing.

@@michaelmontagu3979 There's something nice there. It's tragic that Anne died so young, & sadly we can't change that, but her story has drawn people to Mediaeval history, & at least one has become a historian & writer- that's down to your hard work, of course, but Anne didn't get a chance to do a lot in her life, & I like that she's sort of been able to affect & contribute to the world after her death, 500+ years later.

Very much obliged 😊

Theirs was a tragic story. Glad you appreciated the video.

Yes. She was 13, right? I heard it was considered scandalous at that time that the marriage was consummated when she was that young.

@@user-od5fh3gn4dshe was 12

Glad you appreciated it.

Amazing that the vault she was in survived the Blitz!

Glad you appreciated it.

During that time in history she might have bred as many as twenty children, and died as a young woman from the trauma of being used as a breeding machine.

Probably very similar with at best her at least being at least somewhat close to adulthood before being married off to secure daddy dearest's wealth and estates, who knows she may very well have been married off into the nobility at their level of prestige.

Glad you enjoyed it.

It was unusual even then - Edward was determined to bring the Norfolk landholdings into the family. He even changed the law disinheriting Anne's own heirs, so that the lands would remain in the royal family.

​@@allanbarton Hmmmm. If a king can self-inflict lese-majeste, Edward did. Nothing compared to the greed of, say, dissolving the monasteries, but I hope he at least become fond of his ward and daughter in law. It all came to ruination, anyway, with the regicidal greed of the Duke of Gloucester.

It brings to mind Margaret Beaufort -- not only married at 12, but impregnated. It's appalling how "valuable" children were used as traded goods.

@@jeffcampbell1555 But we are not sure that Richard killed the boys. I think Henry Tudor had as much reason to do so as York.

​@@reinadegrillos as did Margaret Beaufort! She certainly had motive.

Yes, Anne had missing premolar teeth, like the two partial skeletons labelled as Edward, Prince of Wales and Richard Duke of York. All three also share an unusual developmental variant in the bones of the skull. As an osteoarchaeologist, I was asked (years ago) to comment on them for a tv programme. I had not believed that the bones of the 'Princes in the Tower' could really be them, but given that they are the correct age and these shared traits with Anne, I'm now more on the side of them being the princes.

@@melelenath Apparently the dentition is in question and one of the doctors who originally examined them had to admit the tooth may have been lost rather than never present. Also wasn't it the wormian bones that were present on all? The thing is, wormian bones do appear more often in older remains than modern ones; they are not as rare as was made out, as you probably know.

@@sonofherneone of the doctors who examined Anne's teeth, or those of the Tower skeletons? There are excellent xrays of the skeletons from the Tower, so it is possible to see that the premolars (maxillary; I can't remember right now whether it was first or second premolars, though I have the xrays somewhere) were never present. Wormian bones are indeed common, but the Tower skeletons had incomplete symmetric bipartite Inca bones!

Great to hear, thank you!

Glad you appreciated the video.

Glad you appreciated it.

I don't think the whole area was excavated, they appear to have found the vault just by chance. It is highly likely that Duchess Elizabeth is still buried under the site, which is now covered in office blocks.

@@allanbarton sad just Richard III n the parking lot

@@JiminPalmSprings not dissimilar, so many of the great nobles and royals of England who were buried in monasteries are now under grass or concrete due to Henry VIII.

Hi Terry, glad you enjoyed it!

So glad you're enjoying my channel, thank you!

It's more suspect he was killed by his uncle, looking to be king.

Richard III gave the duchy of Norfolk to John Howard, who would have actually been Anne's legitimate heir had Edward IV not married her to his son and made a barely-legal land-grab. Normally if Anne had predeceased her husband, her lands would have gone to her heirs; Edward essentially disinherited those heirs.

Thank you very much!

Glad you enjoyed it!

Glad you appreciated it.

Thank you very much, glad you enjoyed it!

Glad you enjoyed it!

Thanks, glad you enjoyed it!

Glad you enjoyed it, thanks for watching!

Glad you appreciated it.

Thanks very much, glad you enjoyed it!

My pleasure, glad you enjoyed it!

Glad you appreciated it.

Thank you very much, glad you're enjoying my channel!

Glad you appreciated it, thanks for watching.

Glad you appreciated it.

Thank you very much, glad you're enjoying my videos!

Glad you appreciated it!

Thanks very much, glad you enjoyed the video!

Glad you enjoyed it.

My pleasure!

Poor Margaret Beaufort was only 13 when she gave birth to Henry VII, only 12 when she conceived.

@@MsFlamingFlamer Yea, and we had a family member who was 11 when she gave birth. Doesn't even seem possible and I had to go look up more records about her, and it was legit. But yea, royals and other upper class familes were marrying off their kids. Another family member I feel like she must've felt like a dog in a breeding facility. She had like 7 kids when with her last child she died giving birth or soon after.

​@MsFlamingFlamer My ancient ancestor is Margaret Beaufort, she may have started life as a child bride forced to have a child while she was still a child but became the founder of the Tudors and way more important than anyone thought

@@greenghoul157 oh yes, she grew up to be one of the most formidable women of the time. Henry the VII wouldn’t have made it to the throne without her

Age of consent was 12 but in reality mostly they were marriages on paper only and the couple didn't live together for several years.heck those family trees again, the chances of an 11 year old giving birth and surviving then were remote.

Glad you enjoyed the video.

It seems to have been only in recent eras that children became something other than just a thing to exploit or use - I read recently that in Roman times babies were just routinely left out in the wild to die if they were not wanted, there was no attempt to rescue them by anyone, regarded as just a big nuisance to be disposed of, and not recognized as people until they grew up to be adults - so hardly surprising that in the middle ages children were still treated as unimportant & manipulated for whatever use came to mind ! Life was so brutal in so many places !

Thank you, glad you enjoyed it!

Glad you appreciated it.

I remember the coffin bring found...the excitement....but I never did know the outcome. Thank you for telling us about it.

Glad you appreciated it.

It's a very sad tale, children like her were treated terribly despite living in a gilded cage.

Glad you appreciated this account.

Before the 16th century there were no protestants. The Anglican Church split from the Catholic Church ultimately because Henry VIII wanted to get a divorce. At first it was just political with no religious change but at the time a movement of Protestantism on the continent began to influence people at the English court. The English court imposed Protestantism on the population as an excuse to seize church properties and give them to a new class of gentry. It took many decades for the doctrines to change in practice and there was a lot of resistance as in the pilgrimage of grace and underground catholics. Protestants do not believe in the authority of the Pope who Catholics believe to be the successor to Saint Peter as a minister in the Davidic kingdom of Christ. Catholic also believe in Transubstantiation and sacramental confession Protestants rejected some books in the Catholic Bible. Protestants believe in scripture alone and faith alone while Catholic believe in faith and cooperation with grace for salvation and authoritative tradition and scripture for doctrine.

Research Martin Luther and the Protestant reformation.

So, Pope Julius II wanted Michelangelo to be his personal propaganda machine, so he paid him tons of money he didn't have, bankrupting the Vatican and forcing his successor Pope Leo X, to rank up the selling of indulgences (which he did *not* start). Basically, you could pay the Vatican to reduce your time in purgatory for sins (they believed everyone went to purgatory (Hell lite) before going to Heaven, if they weren't already checked off for Hell. A lot of people, especially those too far north of Italy to ever see the new things they were building in Rome, thought this was horribly offensive and irreligious. What was also horribly offensive -- the violence of Julius (the "Warrior Pope"), Leo X's lavish pampering of his pet elephant, and the nepotism heaped on the illegitimate children of all the cardinals (not just the Borgias -- the reason for the bad reputation of that family are all due to xenophobia and Alexander VI's personal rivalry with Julius, who had all positive mentions of his predecessor destroyed). So Martin Luther, a monk in Germany, posted a statement condemning the Vatican -- but not initially proposing breaking away from it. But that is eventually what happened. Then Henry VIII of England (who had actually been kind of close with Leo X apparently?) wanted to divorce his Spanish royal wife Catherine because he was into Anne Boleyn, so he asked the pope (then Clement VII, Leo's cousin), but Rome was currently being sacked by Catherine's nephew Charles V, and Clement was hiding out in the Castel Sant'Angelo (he survived thanks to fortifications built by Alexander VI actually). So, Clement was not going to let Henry cast Catherine (and their daughter Mary) out like that, and not just because of Charles. So Henry decided to become protestant. But he didn't want to be like the Germans and get rid of all the fancy things in church, and he wanted there to be a head priest, he just wanted it to be himself. So he created the church of England. Then that male heir he'd been doing all that murder and divorce for died young and the Catholic Mary succeeded him, and... Sorry long, but you should see the tangents I *didn't* include. Leo and Clement were from the Medici family of Florence, by the way. Lorenzo the Magnificent's son and nephew, respectively. Look up any of these names and have a few fun hours in the wiki hole!

I beg your pardon your grace..... It is very true that I lack some basic knowledge about this great religion, so I just asked for it to someone whom I believe may give me an answer... And by lack of education I didn't knew that Preachers charge for preaching ...... Or perhaps that's the reason for all that splitting in the past...... Well thanks dear.... for reminding me of the real world

One of the main differences is transubstantiation which is the Catholic church believes the blessed bread and wine actually becomes the body and blood of Christ ,, whereas the Protestant faith is happy to see it in a more symbolic sense. Catholics are all about the Virgin Mary and saints while Protestants think that worship should focus on the trinity God as Father, son and Holy spirit and not get tangled up with all that confusing other stuff which diverts attention away from the simplicity and purity of christian worship and can, steer people towards idolatry. Oh yeah also Protestants wanted to study and worship in their own language whereas Catholics looked to their priests to deliver the message principally in Latin

Hello, thanks for your message. Could you drop me a message with your details at antiquarymagazine@gmail.com and I'll be able to sort any issue out. The copies are sent out automatically using a mailing list.

​@@allanbarton Will do Alan, thanks. I received your special Coronation edition by post, it's very good🙂.