I guess he was only awful to his immediate family then lol. To be fair it was a very brutal period in general, he was hardly much more ruthless than most powerful people of the time.
Richard III is fascinating, and I just read a book called "The Survival of the Princes in the Tower" that explores the idea that Richard stashed his nephews away rather than killing them. It isn't a slam dunk, but Richard does seem like a man who was ruthless enough to depose his nephews but pious enough not to actually murder them. He also didn't murder his brother George's son, who had his own claim. If so, then those boys would have been a huge threat to Henry Tudor, who did put George's son to death. My personal, Ricardian opinion, is that Edward V shot his mouth off to his ambitious and ruthless uncle, who had a lot of dirt on Edward IV, and Richard decided that he would not put up with playing second fiddle to a little kid who was more Woodville than Plantagenet. Richard was also married to his childhood companion, Anne Neville, who probably despised the Woodville family and likely blamed them for her father's death. Richard was also close to her father, as he was fostered by him. In any case, Richard was a ruthless man who lived in kill or be killed times and he was most certainly the target of Tudor propaganda who turned him into a cartoon villain, which he wasn't. I really would like to know what actually happened to those boys. I don't believe the bodies found later were them.
So, I'm also a fan of Richard's story and of trying to give him the benefit of the doubt/playing "devil's advocate". I'm a big fan of pointing out the at-the-time groundbreaking legal reforms he made. I always keep in mind the possibility that the boys were kept alive until Henry discovered them, and then removed very much the same as George's son. With that said, at the end of the day I still feel it's *most likely* that, even if he didn't personally order them killed, the boys still ultimately, one way or another, somehow died under his watch. Just my two cents.
@@yayhandles It's fascinating. Richard was loosely equivalent to an attorney general in the US and considered a fair and good one. He liked to use the law to get what he wanted. So it tracks that he would disinherit his nephews to avoid a puppet king. The aforementioned book deep dives into the idea that Perkin Warbeck was the real deal, having been sent to Richard's sister in Burgundy. But Richard WAS ruthless, and again, I think he probably was okay with being Lord Protector until he met his nephew and realized the boy was a puppet of the Woodville family and the Woodvilles were plotting to kill him. I read one historian use the metaphor that these men were like mob bosses. Richard didn't just have a wife and children (two were illegitimate) but a whole community of people who depended on him and they would have expected him to strike at their enemies. It also doesn't make much sense for Richard to have killed the boys without proof. He would have instead made it look like an accident like his brother did with Henry VI, a murder Richard very well might have been party to. Something happened. Maybe the boy's murder was so botched that the bodies couldn't be shown, whoever did it. Maybe one boy died and Richard sent the other to Burgundy. Or somewhere else. Maybe the boys' mother managed to spirit them away, thinking she could later topple Henry VII. It is a great historical mystery and fun to explore.
@@sdl1ishappy Loved the mob metaphor; it's one of of my favorite ways of illustrating the power dynamics (and failings) of feudalism. Just my two cents: Bear in mind Richard's profound and visceral grief when he learned of his own young heir's death; I feel this needs to be weighed in on when considering the likelihood of Richard personally ordering his own nephews' executions. I like to think the boys either died from mistreatment/malnutrition at the hands of their gaoler(s) without Richard's consent, or illness. The latter was an extremely common cause of childhood death (like, arguably more common than survival to adulthood), could have happened both suddenly and inexplicably, and could have easily spread from one to another if the boys were housed together. And no to their mother spiriting them away with the intent to supplant Henry with them; her daughter was already married to the guy.
@@yayhandles it’s true, that infant mortality was at 30 to 50% in the 15th century. However, life expectancy became longer after the age of 2 and considerably longer after the age of 5. The princes were 9 and 12 and highborn. So, their chances of reaching 18 was actually very good. I also have to wonder, if they were taken ill, why hide that? It was already known that they were in the tower. If they died of natural causes why not have a dignified burial for them? I can’t work that out. Hopefully King Charles will allow for the child skeletons found in the tower to have their mitochondrial DNA tested. It would be nice to put that to bed.
He didn't "depose" his nephews. His randy brother Edward IV was a bigamist and after his death a high-placed bishop ratted him out. Eddie could have prevented the bastardization of his sons with a bit of effort but he didn't bother. Bishop Stillington, testified to a meeting of the parliament, which petitioned Richard to take the crown. Took 5 days to talk him into it. One of the better kings of England, but all anyone ever chatters about is two boys who disappeared and no one knows what happened to them. King Charles needs to let the urn in Westminster containing their alleged bones be opened, carbon dated, and DNA tested and then we'll go from there.
An excellent précis and great to watch! Thank you for your work. I’ve been to the Richard 111 small museum in Leicester, with the facial reconstruction on display. It was quite fascinating to stand beside him and “meet” him. I’ve long been a lover of archaeology, and Richard 111 must be one of the biggest finds to date.
Wether Richard did or didn’t kill his nephews, he certainly was no worse than any other monarch of that period. I personally think the Tudors were far worse & far more likely to have murdered the boys. I’ve just never understood why Richard was so hated by history when he did far less despotic things than many other monarchs. I guess it was down to Tudor propaganda, & it would definitely have benefited them to blame him & not themselves for the disappearance of the boys.
I don’t think the princes were murdered at all. There is a mention in Margaret of Burgundy’s account rolls of payments for the raising of “Yorkist children. We know how most of the Yorkist heirs died, killed by Henry VII and Henry VIII. We Know that most of Europe, Scotland and Ireland believed that Perkin Warbeck was Richard of York. Contemporary portraits show a man with an uncanny likeness to Edward IV
I really admire any culture that has such a sense of respect for its own history. Whether they are just “ lookyloos”, or people who have honestly come to pay their respect to a former King, I think it’s cool to have a culture that somehow unites during an event like this one.
Saw this on the Smithsonian channel years ago, and this video was just as good, got to the point in less than an hour, and there was no confusing scene with the big Scottish lady crying, which was strange to see.
@@ahsanvirk130 No, I don't actually know but she is head of the King Richard something or other. Look man, I was thinking about how insensitive my comment could be viewed, but no she was overcome with emotion, as I would be too if suddenly the biggest part of my search, life, quest, just finding all of what you've been looking for being found all at once, under a parking spot with the letter "R" painted on it, like a bullseye, like destiny in the moment, at least It would have been heavy, but in a good way. Out of context it looks silly, and strange, but it's not. I'm not trying to explain myself, I just felt not so good about what I said, and by some stroke of luck here I am today.
Yes! I like YOUR long documentaries, since you get right to the point and waste no time in schmaltz. Please do one on John of Gaunt, and one on Katherine Swynford, later the Duke and Duchess of Lancaster. They are both fascinating and practically every royal in Europe is descended from them or from him.
@@danielyoung5137 Oh yes! I've read it so many times I lost count. There's a more recent book about her by Alison Weir, "Mistress of the Monarchy." Not as lyric but more factual, she had access to more recent discoveries than Seton.
I read recently a long historical novel on the War of Roses and the aftermath and I became very interested in Richard III.I think he was a great man of his times,imagine someone in his position staying loyal to his brother Edward all his life and faithful to his wife for the whole marriage.Also,having his childhood friends stay faithful to him till death.Dying the way he did adds up too to the portray of a man who was nothing of a freak plotting to murder children.
A couple of additional details- keeping the princes in the tower wasn't necessarily a punishment, as it was tradition for the Plantagenets to stay in the Tower before their coronations; Richard had achieved some important but relatively dull legal reforms in the north of England and thus maintained a significant power base there, which helps to explain his attempt at the throne; and the Royal family still refuses to allow this kind of genetic testing to be done on the random child skeletons they found on the grounds of the Tower a couple centuries back, so we don't know if they're the Princes (who were, unfortunately, hardly the only children of that age to die and be buried there).
There are more than one suspects for the murd3r of the princes ... Anne Neville, Margaret Tudor Stafford, The Duke of Buckingham.... history will never solve it. As I am descended from John of Gaunt and Katherine Swineford, I'm related to all suspects. Yes, one of my cousins is responsible. But which one?
I'm gonna say it...I like Richard III 🤷♀️ I have respect for him, and personally, I don't think he killed his nephews. He wasn't a villain he was a loyal man.
This was amazing! I sat watching with one eye, just enjoying your narration of a very, very wild history. I would strongly, if nine months late, support your creation of long documentaries now and then. Thank you!
It's also might be worth noting that when they tested Richard III DNA he is not his father's or grandfather's child (DNA testing can be tricky and they aren't exactly sure where in his lineage this happened)
I enjoyed this video very much! Long-form is perfect for me. I've listened to several documentaries about Richard III but I still learned a few new things in this video, too. Thanks!
Wow, no wonder I wasn't able to finish the book 'Bosworth', the sheer amount of ancestry, lineage, armigerous families and back and forth between acceding the throne is a mind numbing read 😂
He was a product of the time,who are we to judge when even today we find out what the upper echelons get up to.Also let's not forget henry7th's son was a psychopath.
@@rustomkanishka any man that would have two of his wives beheaded amongst thousands of death warrants on people when it suited him can only be a psychopath.
This could never happen in America; I mean, tearing up the parking lot on a “hunch” from a random lady. Although as an American I sometimes find it difficult to fully understand it, I love how the English revere their history, their kings and queens. Brilliant. I was excited about the find too.
I really do think to some extent it is very likely that Henry VII was haunted by the memory of mercilessly killing a weak man who did not die easily and may have laid there suffering and cut all over, bloodied, him being strong and sure despite his body, his fate, and he, Henry, being treacherous and insecure. He knew which man was born to be king and it was not him and he could not let it go. This appeared even more so in his son. Leading to the belief in tudor curse, from all the blood spilled for him. It also could have been him- or his mother- who killed the boys in the tower to clear the way to the throne, Richard merely sequestering the boys for the moment as they were not old enough to rule yet so they were not a threat to his regency at the moment, nor a threat on his life. The boys not being related to him as they were to Richard and all standing in his way now being a physically deformed man. And then killing anybody who was or may be his wife's own brother for threatening his rule. That's ice cold. Although it may be at that point to protect his own sons from being killed to make way to the throne just like he did, that's definitely a hard decision. I heard that Edward IV killed the mad king Henry in his sleep but I really would not have felt as bad about doing so as his life was a suffering and it was a sort of mercy and did not cause him pain. At least the joining of the houses led to the end of the English wars, I can surely say that for Henry.
These videos really make my day. 👍 I have a one suggestion for you! Make a video about the crazy story which has been made to game, Kingdome Come Deliverance! They say its true story and i would love to see u do a video about the history behind the madness of that situation. Sigismund of Luxembourg, Born 1368 - 1437 Died.
According to The Black Adder, the British comedy, Richard III did die by having his head chopped off, but the reign did not transfer to Henry Tudor, but to Richard IV instead, who then "ruled for 13 glorious years". I like this version of the history much better. 🙂
2:18 Richard II did not die under mysterious circumstances- he DID die of starvation 3 days after his imprisonment 6:09 Edmund Tudor died BEFORE Henry’s birth in 1456. 10:03 John Rous is not a reliable historian- he wrote in favour of the Tudors after writing in favour of Richard. 19:03 we don’t know what actually happened to the princes in the tower- there’s no evidence to suggest they were murdered. 20:58 Richard III did not have a hunchback- it was scoliosis.
I have serious issues with these Ricardian apologists who flat out ignore the evidence of history (as well as the simple dictates of common sense) to make Richard look like (at least) a kind of hapless bystander being used by others around him resulting in his sort of bumbling his way to the throne, and (at most) a noble, upstanding guy with the best of intentions doing slightly distasteful things to protect both himself and the nation. This interpretation of Richard's actions prior to his taking the throne misrepresents or just outright falsifies the historical record. Richard knew well that his Woodville in-laws had no love for him, nor he had for them. If they took over and ruled through Edward V, Richard could expect to be totally excluded from government, and quite possibly find himself on the wrong end of trumped-up treason charges when the Woodville's felt they had consolidated their position. As a military commander, he knew that you don't wait for your enemy to pick a time and a place of their choosing for a reckoning. If it's coming to blows, you are much better off striking the first blow. As soon as Edward IV died, the clock was ticking on those two boys (the princes in the tower) and their Woodville kin. Everything he did, both out in the open and under cover of darkness, was toward one end: To place Richard on the throne.
This is exactly what I think. I think Richard III and the Woodvilles had no love for one another and all of his actions after Edward IV's death suggest to me that he was trying to protect himself and his interests from Woodville influence and interference.
….This was just the latest in a series of scientific discoveries based on word-of-mouth “legends.” The historic/archeological communities really need to stop dismissing similar long-held beliefs as “folk tales”
LOL, same here. I enjoyed the video, but had a hard time keeping up with all the names, places and titles. I still can't believe they found his remains!
The fact that Richard actually did suffer from real life, physical deformities, makes many think that, possibly, the other things said about him were not, just “Tudor, propaganda“ either. If King Charles has given the go-ahead to test the mitochondrial, DNA of the child skeletons found in the tower. Maybe we will finally find out if Richard III was a child killer or not
If Richard was a child killer so was Henry Vll; he took a small boy, Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick locked him in the tower, and then at the age of 18 chopped his head off when he tried to escape. It was even said that the boy was an innocent, a simple minded young man, but Henry Tudor was so afraid that Richard's friends would put him on the throne that he made escaping from the tower an act of treason.
Wars of the roses, not war. Tower was descibed "bloody" during the Tudor era. Death of Henry VI. is clearly on E4. He was the king, he was the only person who could order the killing of a former king. Richard definitelly didn´t have eyes on the throne for himself. About intercepting Edward V, please, read a brilliant article by Annette Carson "The Mysterious Affair at Stony Stratford". Only after reading this you will understand what happened next. Everywhere Richard and Edward went, everyone was ordered to swear allegiance to the new king Edward V. It´s a very serious matter and Richard being very pious didn´t take it lightely. Edward was accommodated in the Tower because it was a usual place where kings were waiting for their coronation. Tower was a very busy royal palace, even the mint was there. Edward IV´s sons were declared illegitimate byt the Parliament and it was the same institution who asked Richard to take the throne and confirm his succession by Titulus Regius in 1484.
Richard III was in my humble opinion, having studied the war of the roses as part of my degree, a good king, would fight, lead from the front and was no more cruel and/or evil than the next man of his time. History written by the victors and fictional tales have damaged his reputation. As for Henry VII I’ll say nothing, as I’ll just look very bias in my humble opinions 😅
my understanding the Tudor line became prominent when Henry V's widow married Owen Tudor, and the resulting offspring were taken a legitimate to the Lancaster house. They became half-brothers to Henry VI. so not sure the John of Gault connection referred to here.
I don’t know if anyone can clarify whether flails would have actually been used at the battle of bosworth, because I keep hearing that they’re mostly fantastical weapons.
So the Stanley brothers are inspiration for Late Lord Frey in Game of Thrones, who only joined Robert's rebellion last second when he saw which side was going to be triumphant? 😂
WHY call historian David Starky “controversial?” Was that necessary? And, how so? Because he is (that rarest of rare) a conservative? The man is bloody brilliant-by any measure. Grow up.
Henry VI’s son died at the Tewkesbury not Westminster. When supposedly recounting the Wars of the Roses, please get the facts correct as this may be the only time a young person may actually hear about the battles of the Plantagenet dynasty. Also, you should have noted that Henry IV usurped his cousin Richard II’s throne. No doubt he did it to bring stability to the country. However when Richard III is accused of usurping his nephew, Edward V’s throne, he is despised. To the winner belong the spoils or history is written by the winners!
Yes, please make more of these longer videos in the future and keep up the good work!
Finding Richard's body is considered one of the greatest archeological discoveries of the decade.
One of the luckiest of all time
Especially considering they found him under a parking lot
@@theAverageJoe25 He was under a parking space with a big R painted on it! Very strange coincidence
What’s with Philippa’s physical reactions and eerie sense of standing near Richard’s remains?
Philippa is downright eerie.
Philippa Langley deserves the recognition.
I thought its philippa gregory lol. i wonder what happened to the series though.
Richard was not hated by ordinary people. He was considered a very fair king.
Wish people could get off the Tutor Propagabda bs
I guess he was only awful to his immediate family then lol.
To be fair it was a very brutal period in general, he was hardly much more ruthless than most powerful people of the time.
I quess most think so because of shakespeare. I wonder, if he knew the truth. I wonder if he had to portray him like that or if he really believed it.
@@Alexandros.Mograine He was writing for his patrons, the Tudors.
Richard III is fascinating, and I just read a book called "The Survival of the Princes in the Tower" that explores the idea that Richard stashed his nephews away rather than killing them. It isn't a slam dunk, but Richard does seem like a man who was ruthless enough to depose his nephews but pious enough not to actually murder them. He also didn't murder his brother George's son, who had his own claim. If so, then those boys would have been a huge threat to Henry Tudor, who did put George's son to death.
My personal, Ricardian opinion, is that Edward V shot his mouth off to his ambitious and ruthless uncle, who had a lot of dirt on Edward IV, and Richard decided that he would not put up with playing second fiddle to a little kid who was more Woodville than Plantagenet. Richard was also married to his childhood companion, Anne Neville, who probably despised the Woodville family and likely blamed them for her father's death. Richard was also close to her father, as he was fostered by him.
In any case, Richard was a ruthless man who lived in kill or be killed times and he was most certainly the target of Tudor propaganda who turned him into a cartoon villain, which he wasn't.
I really would like to know what actually happened to those boys. I don't believe the bodies found later were them.
So, I'm also a fan of Richard's story and of trying to give him the benefit of the doubt/playing "devil's advocate". I'm a big fan of pointing out the at-the-time groundbreaking legal reforms he made. I always keep in mind the possibility that the boys were kept alive until Henry discovered them, and then removed very much the same as George's son. With that said, at the end of the day I still feel it's *most likely* that, even if he didn't personally order them killed, the boys still ultimately, one way or another, somehow died under his watch. Just my two cents.
@@yayhandles It's fascinating. Richard was loosely equivalent to an attorney general in the US and considered a fair and good one. He liked to use the law to get what he wanted. So it tracks that he would disinherit his nephews to avoid a puppet king.
The aforementioned book deep dives into the idea that Perkin Warbeck was the real deal, having been sent to Richard's sister in Burgundy.
But Richard WAS ruthless, and again, I think he probably was okay with being Lord Protector until he met his nephew and realized the boy was a puppet of the Woodville family and the Woodvilles were plotting to kill him. I read one historian use the metaphor that these men were like mob bosses. Richard didn't just have a wife and children (two were illegitimate) but a whole community of people who depended on him and they would have expected him to strike at their enemies.
It also doesn't make much sense for Richard to have killed the boys without proof. He would have instead made it look like an accident like his brother did with Henry VI, a murder Richard very well might have been party to.
Something happened. Maybe the boy's murder was so botched that the bodies couldn't be shown, whoever did it. Maybe one boy died and Richard sent the other to Burgundy. Or somewhere else. Maybe the boys' mother managed to spirit them away, thinking she could later topple Henry VII. It is a great historical mystery and fun to explore.
@@sdl1ishappy Loved the mob metaphor; it's one of of my favorite ways of illustrating the power dynamics (and failings) of feudalism.
Just my two cents: Bear in mind Richard's profound and visceral grief when he learned of his own young heir's death; I feel this needs to be weighed in on when considering the likelihood of Richard personally ordering his own nephews' executions. I like to think the boys either died from mistreatment/malnutrition at the hands of their gaoler(s) without Richard's consent, or illness. The latter was an extremely common cause of childhood death (like, arguably more common than survival to adulthood), could have happened both suddenly and inexplicably, and could have easily spread from one to another if the boys were housed together. And no to their mother spiriting them away with the intent to supplant Henry with them; her daughter was already married to the guy.
@@yayhandles it’s true, that infant mortality was at 30 to 50% in the 15th century. However, life expectancy became longer after the age of 2 and considerably longer after the age of 5. The princes were 9 and 12 and highborn. So, their chances of reaching 18 was actually very good. I also have to wonder, if they were taken ill, why hide that? It was already known that they were in the tower. If they died of natural causes why not have a dignified burial for them? I can’t work that out.
Hopefully King Charles will allow for the child skeletons found in the tower to have their mitochondrial DNA tested. It would be nice to put that to bed.
He didn't "depose" his nephews. His randy brother Edward IV was a bigamist and after his death a high-placed bishop ratted him out. Eddie could have prevented the bastardization of his sons with a bit of effort but he didn't bother. Bishop Stillington, testified to a meeting of the parliament, which petitioned Richard to take the crown. Took 5 days to talk him into it. One of the better kings of England, but all anyone ever chatters about is two boys who disappeared and no one knows what happened to them. King Charles needs to let the urn in Westminster containing their alleged bones be opened, carbon dated, and DNA tested and then we'll go from there.
We enjoyed this episode. We went to see the excavation site, now a heritage centre, and it was truly fascinating. We visited the cathedral as well.
An excellent précis and great to watch! Thank you for your work. I’ve been to the Richard 111 small museum in Leicester, with the facial reconstruction on display. It was quite fascinating to stand beside him and “meet” him. I’ve long been a lover of archaeology, and Richard 111 must be one of the biggest finds to date.
Wether Richard did or didn’t kill his nephews, he certainly was no worse than any other monarch of that period. I personally think the Tudors were far worse & far more likely to have murdered the boys. I’ve just never understood why Richard was so hated by history when he did far less despotic things than many other monarchs. I guess it was down to Tudor propaganda, & it would definitely have benefited them to blame him & not themselves for the disappearance of the boys.
Henry v11 took the crown off him by force so the tudors had to demonize him (sheakespeare didn't help either)
Propaganda. He probably was no different than the rest of his class vying for control. People aren't very nice today either
I don’t think the princes were murdered at all. There is a mention in Margaret of Burgundy’s account rolls of payments for the raising of “Yorkist children. We know how most of the Yorkist heirs died, killed by Henry VII and Henry VIII. We Know that most of Europe, Scotland and Ireland believed that Perkin Warbeck was Richard of York. Contemporary portraits show a man with an uncanny likeness to Edward IV
History is written (and rewritten) by the victors. Don't believe the Tudor hype 😉
Oh he did murder them.
Love the long form documentaries. Would definitely enjoy more
I really admire any culture that has such a sense of respect for its own history. Whether they are just “ lookyloos”, or people who have honestly come to pay their respect to a former King, I think it’s cool to have a culture that somehow unites during an event like this one.
I remember watching the dig in the parking lot, loved the R part... Mind blower.
I studied Early Modern history at A-Level which began with the reign of Henry VII, so this is like a prequel to me. Very good stuff as per usual.
I've heard this story many times, but learned some new things from your retelling. Nicely done!
Saw this on the Smithsonian channel years ago, and this video was just as good, got to the point in less than an hour, and there was no confusing scene with the big Scottish lady crying, which was strange to see.
i remember that too! so odd haha
@jeremycole1341 Probably a very distant relation to Richard III, must have gotten overly emotional seeing her ancestor properly laid to rest
@@ahsanvirk130 No, I don't actually know but she is head of the King Richard something or other.
Look man, I was thinking about how insensitive my comment could be viewed, but no she was overcome with emotion, as I would be too if suddenly the biggest part of my search, life, quest, just finding all of what you've been looking for being found all at once, under a parking spot with the letter "R" painted on it, like a bullseye, like destiny in the moment, at least
It would have been heavy, but in a good way. Out of context it looks silly, and strange, but it's not.
I'm not trying to explain myself, I just felt not so good about what I said, and by some stroke of luck here I am today.
Yes! I like YOUR long documentaries, since you get right to the point and waste no time in schmaltz. Please do one on John of Gaunt, and one on Katherine Swynford, later the Duke and Duchess of Lancaster. They are both fascinating and practically every royal in Europe is descended from them or from him.
There was a a novel about Katherine Swynford titled “Katherine” by Anya Seton. Seems romanticized but seton was known as a serious researcher.
@@danielyoung5137 Oh yes! I've read it so many times I lost count. There's a more recent book about her by Alison Weir, "Mistress of the Monarchy." Not as lyric but more factual, she had access to more recent discoveries than Seton.
Yes please make more of the longer style documentaries!
Longer videos are the best!! Thank you for the videos and keep up the great work!!
I vote for more long form videos. Well done you!
Tnis upload is the most truthful and balanced ive seen and ive seen many thank you so much xxx
If it hadn't been for Shakespeare trying to suck up to the Tudors, Richard would still be in the carpark.
I read recently a long historical novel on the War of Roses and the aftermath and I became very interested in Richard III.I think he was a great man of his times,imagine someone in his position staying loyal to his brother Edward all his life and faithful to his wife for the whole marriage.Also,having his childhood friends stay faithful to him till death.Dying the way he did adds up too to the portray of a man who was nothing of a freak plotting to murder children.
YES!!! The long documentaries put the hump on the camels back! Keep 'em coming.
I like the long form documentary style it’s long enough to listen to while working out or on a walk
I've read Phillipas book and recommend it to anyone. I loved this piece on R III❤
A couple of additional details- keeping the princes in the tower wasn't necessarily a punishment, as it was tradition for the Plantagenets to stay in the Tower before their coronations; Richard had achieved some important but relatively dull legal reforms in the north of England and thus maintained a significant power base there, which helps to explain his attempt at the throne; and the Royal family still refuses to allow this kind of genetic testing to be done on the random child skeletons they found on the grounds of the Tower a couple centuries back, so we don't know if they're the Princes (who were, unfortunately, hardly the only children of that age to die and be buried there).
Richard was a child-(and worse, a nephew) killer….All for…..power.
I don't think anyone is going to forgive Dick III for the princes in the tower.
Internal family drama had a nasty habit of becoming wars.
The genetic test has been done. It was Richard III.
There are more than one suspects for the murd3r of the princes ... Anne Neville, Margaret Tudor Stafford, The Duke of Buckingham.... history will never solve it. As I am descended from John of Gaunt and Katherine Swineford, I'm related to all suspects. Yes, one of my cousins is responsible. But which one?
No hunchback and I can’t stand it when they use this term.
I'm gonna say it...I like Richard III 🤷♀️ I have respect for him, and personally, I don't think he killed his nephews. He wasn't a villain he was a loyal man.
I really enjoy the longer videos. I hope to see more of them.
Very interesting video! Yes, I do like this longer format that lets you go into more detail
I knew a lot of this, but fascinating video!! 😊❤❤
Please do more of these longer videos 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
I like the longer format it gives you a chance to give more details
Great work!! Yes I like these longer videos😊
This was amazing! I sat watching with one eye, just enjoying your narration of a very, very wild history. I would strongly, if nine months late, support your creation of long documentaries now and then. Thank you!
That was my favourite one you've done! Fascinating
I recently discovered that I'm a descendant of Richard III. I'm excited to watch this documentary and learn more about him.
Loved this, not that I don’t love all your work but this was great, thanks
I was so engrossed in this wonderful grisly story, until you said: "War of the Roses Part 2 - Electric Boogaloo" 😂
It's also might be worth noting that when they tested Richard III DNA he is not his father's or grandfather's child (DNA testing can be tricky and they aren't exactly sure where in his lineage this happened)
They tested that there was a problem earlier in the family. Not that Richard was not his fathers child.
The break actually happened in the paternal line AFTER Richard III
Definitely like the longer format.
A great video! Please do more of these long form videos. Keep up the great work! CHEERS!
I enjoyed this video very much! Long-form is perfect for me. I've listened to several documentaries about Richard III but I still learned a few new things in this video, too. Thanks!
Much appreciated video from the team 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
This was hella engaging to watch! Well done!
Some of these docs please. I love medieval madness.
Great video, I like the long format as well!
I vote yes for more longform docs!
Yes please make more!!! Very well done!
Wow, no wonder I wasn't able to finish the book 'Bosworth', the sheer amount of ancestry, lineage, armigerous families and back and forth between acceding the throne is a mind numbing read 😂
A fascinating and yet for some reason, a very British story
"..a hunch in the carpark". Pun unintended? 😅
Yes mate, longer videos!!!!
That is wild. Great video!
He was a product of the time,who are we to judge when even today we find out what the upper echelons get up to.Also let's not forget henry7th's son was a psychopath.
I'm not too familiar with Henry VIII , why do you call him a psychopath?
Also, there's a theory that he became awful after the jousting accident.
@@rustomkanishka any man that would have two of his wives beheaded amongst thousands of death warrants on people when it suited him can only be a psychopath.
Diggin' the long form format, but I have to say I'm a tad disappointed at the lack of mention of Richard's at-the-time groundbreaking legal reforms. 😢
This was very informative and interesting. Thank you.
This was fascinating! Thank you for this
That’s funny his motto is “loyalty that binds me “
Fascinating and informative. More, please
Excellent. Yes to more long form videos.
Love the longer videos 👍👍
Yes, I do appreciate the long videos
A great documentary! Excellent job!
This could never happen in America; I mean, tearing up the parking lot on a “hunch” from a random lady. Although as an American I sometimes find it difficult to fully understand it, I love how the English revere their history, their kings and queens. Brilliant. I was excited about the find too.
Thats so cool Michael designed Richards coffin
Kudos on the Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo reference 😂
Love a nice long form. More pls!
This was an excellent video, i dont know what the viewer statistics look like but i hope you give me another long one once in awhile😅
I really do think to some extent it is very likely that Henry VII was haunted by the memory of mercilessly killing a weak man who did not die easily and may have laid there suffering and cut all over, bloodied, him being strong and sure despite his body, his fate, and he, Henry, being treacherous and insecure. He knew which man was born to be king and it was not him and he could not let it go. This appeared even more so in his son.
Leading to the belief in tudor curse, from all the blood spilled for him. It also could have been him- or his mother- who killed the boys in the tower to clear the way to the throne, Richard merely sequestering the boys for the moment as they were not old enough to rule yet so they were not a threat to his regency at the moment, nor a threat on his life. The boys not being related to him as they were to Richard and all standing in his way now being a physically deformed man.
And then killing anybody who was or may be his wife's own brother for threatening his rule. That's ice cold. Although it may be at that point to protect his own sons from being killed to make way to the throne just like he did, that's definitely a hard decision.
I heard that Edward IV killed the mad king Henry in his sleep but I really would not have felt as bad about doing so as his life was a suffering and it was a sort of mercy and did not cause him pain.
At least the joining of the houses led to the end of the English wars, I can surely say that for Henry.
These videos really make my day. 👍 I have a one suggestion for you! Make a video about the crazy story which has been made to game, Kingdome Come Deliverance! They say its true story and i would love to see u do a video about the history behind the madness of that situation. Sigismund of Luxembourg, Born 1368 - 1437 Died.
According to The Black Adder, the British comedy, Richard III did die by having his head chopped off, but the reign did not transfer to Henry Tudor, but to Richard IV instead, who then "ruled for 13 glorious years". I like this version of the history much better. 🙂
2:18 Richard II did not die under mysterious circumstances- he DID die of starvation 3 days after his imprisonment
6:09 Edmund Tudor died BEFORE Henry’s birth in 1456.
10:03 John Rous is not a reliable historian- he wrote in favour of the Tudors after writing in favour of Richard.
19:03 we don’t know what actually happened to the princes in the tower- there’s no evidence to suggest they were murdered.
20:58 Richard III did not have a hunchback- it was scoliosis.
Excellent informative video, thanks
I have serious issues with these Ricardian apologists who flat out ignore the evidence of history (as well as the simple dictates of common sense) to make Richard look like (at least) a kind of hapless bystander being used by others around him resulting in his sort of bumbling his way to the throne, and (at most) a noble, upstanding guy with the best of intentions doing slightly distasteful things to protect both himself and the nation. This interpretation of Richard's actions prior to his taking the throne misrepresents or just outright falsifies the historical record.
Richard knew well that his Woodville in-laws had no love for him, nor he had for them. If they took over and ruled through Edward V, Richard could expect to be totally excluded from government, and quite possibly find himself on the wrong end of trumped-up treason charges when the Woodville's felt they had consolidated their position. As a military commander, he knew that you don't wait for your enemy to pick a time and a place of their choosing for a reckoning. If it's coming to blows, you are much better off striking the first blow. As soon as Edward IV died, the clock was ticking on those two boys (the princes in the tower) and their Woodville kin. Everything he did, both out in the open and under cover of darkness, was toward one end: To place Richard on the throne.
This is exactly what I think. I think Richard III and the Woodvilles had no love for one another and all of his actions after Edward IV's death suggest to me that he was trying to protect himself and his interests from Woodville influence and interference.
Excellent piece thanks
….This was just the latest in a series of scientific discoveries based on word-of-mouth “legends.” The historic/archeological communities really need to stop dismissing similar long-held beliefs as “folk tales”
Sorry, I lost track at Edmund IX, or maybe it was Robert XVI. Agh, I dunno, I'm just a stupid Yank. 😅
LOL, same here. I enjoyed the video, but had a hard time keeping up with all the names, places and titles. I still can't believe they found his remains!
To be fair, we haven't been particularly imaginative with naming our monarchs. Lots of Henrys, Edwards and Georges.
I love this content! It's great
The fact that Richard actually did suffer from real life, physical deformities, makes many think that, possibly, the other things said about him were not, just “Tudor, propaganda“ either.
If King Charles has given the go-ahead to test the mitochondrial, DNA of the child skeletons found in the tower. Maybe we will finally find out if Richard III was a child killer or not
If Richard was a child killer so was Henry Vll; he took a small boy, Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick locked him in the tower, and then at the age of 18 chopped his head off when he tried to escape. It was even said that the boy was an innocent, a simple minded young man, but Henry Tudor was so afraid that Richard's friends would put him on the throne that he made escaping from the tower an act of treason.
Wars of the roses, not war. Tower was descibed "bloody" during the Tudor era. Death of Henry VI. is clearly on E4. He was the king, he was the only person who could order the killing of a former king. Richard definitelly didn´t have eyes on the throne for himself. About intercepting Edward V, please, read a brilliant article by Annette Carson "The Mysterious Affair at Stony Stratford". Only after reading this you will understand what happened next. Everywhere Richard and Edward went, everyone was ordered to swear allegiance to the new king Edward V. It´s a very serious matter and Richard being very pious didn´t take it lightely. Edward was accommodated in the Tower because it was a usual place where kings were waiting for their coronation. Tower was a very busy royal palace, even the mint was there. Edward IV´s sons were declared illegitimate byt the Parliament and it was the same institution who asked Richard to take the throne and confirm his succession by Titulus Regius in 1484.
Most enjoyable, thank you
VERY MYSTERIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES!!!
What a great story
Like the longer video's. Yes.🎉
Very interesting story... 🙏👍
Interesting video
Richard III was in my humble opinion, having studied the war of the roses as part of my degree, a good king, would fight, lead from the front and was no more cruel and/or evil than the next man of his time. History written by the victors and fictional tales have damaged his reputation. As for Henry VII I’ll say nothing, as I’ll just look very bias in my humble opinions 😅
Prefer the usual short form videos, but both are fine.
Very interesting.
Richard was smeared by historians of his time. He was not the cruel or "evil" person he is claimed to be.
my understanding the Tudor line became prominent when Henry V's widow married Owen Tudor, and the resulting offspring were taken a legitimate to the Lancaster house. They became half-brothers to Henry VI. so not sure the John of Gault connection referred to here.
It's just bonkers 😮
I like the long form too.👍
I don’t know if anyone can clarify whether flails would have actually been used at the battle of bosworth, because I keep hearing that they’re mostly fantastical weapons.
So the Stanley brothers are inspiration for Late Lord Frey in Game of Thrones, who only joined Robert's rebellion last second when he saw which side was going to be triumphant? 😂
Love it ❤
As a Ricardian and great niece of Richard III I appreciate your non-Shakespeare/ Tudor propaganda video.
WHY call historian David Starky “controversial?” Was that necessary? And, how so? Because he is (that rarest of rare) a conservative?
The man is bloody brilliant-by any measure. Grow up.
Who is our narrator ? Sounds just like Glidus!
Henry VI’s son died at the Tewkesbury not Westminster. When supposedly recounting the Wars of the Roses, please get the facts correct as this may be the only time a young person may actually hear about the battles of the Plantagenet dynasty. Also, you should have noted that Henry IV usurped his cousin Richard II’s throne. No doubt he did it to bring stability to the country. However when Richard III is accused of usurping his nephew, Edward V’s throne, he is despised. To the winner belong the spoils or history is written by the winners!
Kythyrn Swinford is my ancestor.
this is an unreal video