I was disappointed in her conclusions. She only provided evidence that supported her love of Richard III. She dismissed or ignored evidence to the contrary.
Yes, she cannot bear to think he was guilty of their murder. Personally I think neither king killed them. I think they were killed in that odd unsuccessful coup at the Tower. As for Warbeck, I think he was an illegitimate son of Edward iv, possibly conceived when Edward and Richard were in exile abroad after Warwick released the King.
I think the biggest problem that so many people have is the applying of modern sensibilities to historical situations. Ricardians are stuck on the idea that he couldn't execute his nephews because he was a good ruler in the north. The two aren't related! Especially in the past
I enjoyed this video. I definitely think that, overall, Richard III has been demonized pretty throughly over the centuries without doing any research or keeping Richard III in the context of his own time. That being said, whether or not he had the princes killed is really irrelevant. It certainly wasn’t the first the throne was usurped. It certainly wasn’t the first time contenders were killed. It certainly wasn’t the first time children were not killed in similar circumstances. Ruthlessness was part and parcel with kingship.
Hey. I remember coming across you channel a while ago when I was really into Philippa Gregory. I know that you talk a lot about the Tudor period but do you like other time periods of royal history as well? I have recently read and reviewed a book about King George VI and his wife Elizabeth. It was very good. It is on my channel. I am trying to read lighter books in order to get more subs. But my favorite narrator was reading it so I got the book on audible.
Then go to Andrew Lownie's books on this and the Lascelles memoirs. German foreign office material would be helpful and the Hesse family papers if they exist.
@@davidvoelkel8392 the problem is that in history there aren’t very many cast-iron facts. So well reasoned theorising is necessary to try and make sense of the past.
I'll tell you one: deposed kings has short life expectancies, eg Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI. Why should those who have seized power preserve the lives of kings they have overthrown and so provided present or future opponents with alternative monarchs ? Keeping Edward V and is brother alive was a permanent threat to the usurper Richard III. Moreover, as the uprisings of the summer 1483 and Buckingham's defection strongly suggested the weakness of Richard's position. QED,
I think P.L. is unprofessional and not credible. She doesn’t behave like an historian, she behaves like a fangirl. Her biases prejudice everything she does and frankly, she comes across as unhinged when she moons over Richard III. She was devastated when his remains showed signs of scoliosis, for example. She had convinced herself that the evil Shakespeare had made up his deformity to villainise him. She is convinced Richard was saintly and that isn’t balanced or fair and it certainly isn’t likely, based on evidence.
I found the documentary very sensational -all in the modern way with ugly music and so on. PL found the remains of Richard 3 so she has legitamy but the documentary was very disappointing
So these guys are critical that researchers might dismiss documents etc that they might think are not relevant to the subject they are investigating ? What a stupid comment !
I was disappointed in her conclusions. She only provided evidence that supported her love of Richard III. She dismissed or ignored evidence to the contrary.
Yes, she cannot bear to think he was guilty of their murder. Personally I think neither king killed them. I think they were killed in that odd unsuccessful coup at the Tower. As for Warbeck, I think he was an illegitimate son of Edward iv, possibly conceived when Edward and Richard were in exile abroad after Warwick released the King.
I think the biggest problem that so many people have is the applying of modern sensibilities to historical situations. Ricardians are stuck on the idea that he couldn't execute his nephews because he was a good ruler in the north. The two aren't related! Especially in the past
I enjoyed this video. I definitely think that, overall, Richard III has been demonized pretty throughly over the centuries without doing any research or keeping Richard III in the context of his own time. That being said, whether or not he had the princes killed is really irrelevant. It certainly wasn’t the first the throne was usurped. It certainly wasn’t the first time contenders were killed. It certainly wasn’t the first time children were not killed in similar circumstances. Ruthlessness was part and parcel with kingship.
R3 killed the E5 and his brother Prince Richard. Killing the King and the spare is unique.
If it really doesn’t matter then why do Ricardians get so cross about it?
Hey. I remember coming across you channel a while ago when I was really into Philippa Gregory. I know that you talk a lot about the Tudor period but do you like other time periods of royal history as well? I have recently read and reviewed a book about King George VI and his wife Elizabeth. It was very good. It is on my channel. I am trying to read lighter books in order to get more subs. But my favorite narrator was reading it so I got the book on audible.
@@blindbookworm8019 great. Yes we are doing some videos about the Abdication crisis soon
@ Heyare there 2 of you running the channel?
@ I (Gareth) run the channel but by erstwhile friend and collaborator James Taylor is working with me on lots of content, which is exciting!
Then go to Andrew Lownie's books on this and the Lascelles memoirs. German foreign office material would be helpful and the Hesse family papers if they exist.
I bet at their “R3 is great” meetings they break to talk of how the earth is flat.😊
Or discus the flight paths of pigs.?
😂
Facts matter, opinions are just that.
@@davidvoelkel8392 the problem is that in history there aren’t very many cast-iron facts. So well reasoned theorising is necessary to try and make sense of the past.
I'll tell you one: deposed kings has short life expectancies, eg Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI. Why should those who have seized power preserve the lives of kings they have overthrown and so provided present or future opponents with alternative monarchs ? Keeping Edward V and is brother alive was a permanent threat to the usurper Richard III. Moreover, as the uprisings of the summer 1483 and Buckingham's defection strongly suggested the weakness of Richard's position. QED,
Deductions are another matter and there is nothing to suggest that Edward V and his brother survived for long after the Richard's coup d'etat.
I think P.L. is unprofessional and not credible. She doesn’t behave like an historian, she behaves like a fangirl. Her biases prejudice everything she does and frankly, she comes across as unhinged when she moons over Richard III. She was devastated when his remains showed signs of scoliosis, for example. She had convinced herself that the evil Shakespeare had made up his deformity to villainise him. She is convinced Richard was saintly and that isn’t balanced or fair and it certainly isn’t likely, based on evidence.
Quite so, which is why she has to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
Richard confessed to having the princes killed.. Case closed.
I found the documentary very sensational -all in the modern way with ugly music and so on. PL found the remains of Richard 3 so she has legitamy but the documentary was very disappointing
So these guys are critical that researchers might dismiss documents etc that they might think are not relevant to the subject they are investigating ? What a stupid comment !
?