วีดีโอ

50 years ago my history taught me exactly what Mathew says here, cross reference and understand who wrote it and why, she added that she had to teach me what the curriculum said, even if it was wrong, she was a wise woman, i still remember as a great influence

Love Waterstones!

I’ve hooked up with HISTORY AFTER DARK , now your podcasts 👍💕, I’m also a fan of Tudor dynasty, Tudor trail , I follow Gareth Russell , Liz Darcie , Tracy Bormann, Dr Liscomb, David starkly , love Tudor history ,Plantengents,Stewart’s , anything from 800, to 1700,,, so thank you for sharing your love of history as well 👍,,

I saw that documentary on the gentleman you speak of ,, a while back now ,, for some reason I think it was the Richard 111 society?

Claire Ridgway is incredibly knowledgeable. I've been listening to her for years. I highly recommend it.

This is such a Brilliant idea!!! Please tell me there are more videos in this series ?!! I’m an American that is a massive fan of HAD and all 3 of you ladies! ❤

Of course, the boys were murdered.

Brilliant this explains Swipinthruhistory that I accidentally came across both fabulous xx

So pleased I have found your chats and HAD marvellous xxx

What a fun knowledgeable interview fabulous xx

The reason Henry VIII was given the title "Defender of the Faith" by the Pope was because he defended the Holy Catholic Church against Martin Luther, and the reformation who broke away from the Church because they believed that the Pope, who sits in the "Seat of Saint' Peter" was the foundation, and Head of the Church. Henry, by breaking away, destroyed what the Church meant. Catholic means "universal" where the "Church" is ONE in every corner of the world, and was birthed out of the side of Christ on the cross when the spear pierced him in the side. The significance of the "water and the blood" which poured out represented the "Birth" of the Church. Christ is the Groom, and the Church - ALL of the people apart in the Church, are the ONE bride. This is what the Catholic Church means - in its definition. Henry, by breaking away from the "Church" was NO longer Catholic. That's it and LOST the title given to him by the Pope "Defender of the Fatih." Essentially, it is a joke that it is used by any Monarch today. They are Head of the Anglican Church, but NOT "Defender of the Faith." Henry destroyed monasteries, and burned priests, monks, nuns, and other Catholics alive. They were TRUE Catholics. Henry in no way, could ever be, unless he renounced his Kingship, his wives, entered seminary, or was appointed by the college of cardinals, as Pope. Then, he would be THE Catholic Head of the Church in the "Seat of Saint Peter." In Henry's mind, he may have been Catholic - sorry for him, he was not.

Edward, 17th Earl of Warwick was a Yorkist. So, he didn't have a "better" Lancaster claim to the throne than Henry Tudor (whose claim came from his mother's side) Edward did have a better claim to the throne however.

I've subscribed. Have you revisited this subject? I saw part 2 before part 1. Both were very good. I LOVED your questions to Matt. Very knowledgeable and insightful. Without your care, and research of these subjects, I don't think anyone would have thought to ask these questions? At least, I have not heard in any interview thus far? Matt is a spectacular guest. His mind does work like a detective/lawyer who knows his client's life is at stake if he doesn't find the answer. So, looks under stones no one has thought to turn over. I do hope you interview him again. You are both very good at your work. Much gratitude! P.S. I watched both episodes more than once so I would not miss the many details and information. All like treasure!

Anne's interest in modern times wasn't spurned upon by the need to learn about female figures of history - we'd think that due to common themes of today. However, it was the 1969 film "Anne of the Thousand Days" starring Richard Burton and Genevieve Bujold. It fascinated the world. You will find if you ask, women and men today "why?" are they so enamoured with the Tudors, it is that very film.

Difference between the Plantagenets and the Tudors is the former you have 300 years of death involving for the most part, war against a different nation. The latter is ONE brief dynasty of Monarchs you can count on one hand, who beheaded, and burned alive mostly, their own people. The only difference is that one is encrusted in riches, and fine fashion causing successive generations of wide-eyed historians and pseudo historians swimming in an intoxicating, eternal fascination with them. I say for blood and burnings, the Tudors get the prize. If they'd been 300 years, there would be no England to stick into a "Britain."

I believe the root of ALL the rumors re his nephews, and his wife's sickness and death is that people saw Richard as "less of a man" or "NOT a man" due to his disability, and slight (not masculine norm of his day). It must have been far worse at that time as compared to today when a female in charge is not just acceptable, but beloved (e.g. Queen Elizabeth II). It is unbelievable almost to conceptualize just how much RIchard was able to achieve in his short life enduring such an extreme disability. NOTHING stopped him in his duty to his father, his brother and his kingdom. He didn't allow himself to be overcome by what people thought of him. They cruelly ridiculed him for not being "manly" enough, and the great indignity his body endured after death in re the blow to his backside. So, sinkingly cruel! I believe, which I've not heard anyone take note of as of yet, is exactly why there was such a moving desire to jump on Henry's bandwagon? It might NOT have been because of any rumor that Richard "might" have done such a horrible thing to his nephews or, in fact that they did accuse him because he was not manly due to his disability, and that he was of slight, delicate build compared to the normative? It may be that they saw Henry as a REAL King because he was not disabled looking as the ideal "man" of his time i.e. ~ "People believe an effective king is one who looks like their ideal of a man." My grandmother had scoliosis identical to Richard's. Being full figured, may have added weight/imbalance to the extreme curvature, as well as enduring 10 child births (2 died in infancy and childhood) may have added additional pain? Prone to worry, and frequent migraines, she was aided by eating espresso grounds. Never took painkillers but there was none available to her in that period and degree of poverty. She didn't realize what she had exactly believing she had no shoulder blade due to one shoulder being lower pushing that side of her body in. In photos it is clearly visible and it's severity in the dresses she wore. Before my grandmother's death, she asked my mother to burn the imitation shoulder blade she sewed, swear to secrecy it existed, and her condition, to keep her dignity. Disabilities were severely frowned upon even in her day. We are not at that point even today, with the ability to look past them, and at the person's worth as a human being alone. My mother also had it, but not to the degree her mother did. My grandmother never stopped working. Sewing suits without patterns, making small, handmade pasta for her family and anyone who needed a meal being too poor to eat regularly, knitting in between everything else she did. She never stopped working. She died a painful death. It took a very long time. It killed her not to work feeling useless with no purpose anymore.

Wow! This must have been animated by a really cool guy ;)

Great

So happy to learn about your channel. I've been watching you on your History After Dark series and enjoy it so much.

This was wonderful to watch! What great historiographic analyses. Thanks!

Very excited I found you ! I've seen the history after dark flittering around my feeds since I gobble up any Tudor European early modern TH-cam channels. I had a lot of interest in Shakespeare in high school and had a natural knack for understanding and interpreting his work but always want to dive deeper just never had time. Just went to my first play Henry IV at our theater here in orlando Fl! So excited to be along the journey!! Thanks Dr Kat for all the great content 💓

Hi is this on this channel? I only see videos from 2 years ago? I would love to follow along as I love Dr Kat!

Hello catherine

I highly recommend Saccio's book. He's not only a prof, he's also an actor.

Just watched the recordings - this journey sound amazing! I am so jealous of all your trips, I love Shakespeare. Looking forward to coming “virtually” along with you.

Reference to engram is non-applicability. Respect. (-∆)Mike Ingram.°(-∆) Antiscientology expected.

Reference to engram is non-applicability. Respect. (-∆)Mike Ingram.°(-∆) Antiscientology expected.

Henry VIII: history’s gateway git 😂

Lovely! Just one question: what is a gimbal? 😁

Hi Catherine & Kat...I went to see Henry V111 at the Globe a few year's ago,which was fabulous. Enjoy your year!!

I'm really looking forward to following your journey and learning more about Shakespeare with you. In Germany Shakespeare is pretty much only productions of Romeo and Juliet, so I'm very excited to expanding my horizon. 😊

It's always the Victorians 😅

You guys rock. 🧚‍♂️🧚‍♂️🧚‍♂️

Outstanding Discussion for both video parts, Thank You! 🌞

Sorry about this... woke in the night and this amused me. "If I could go back in time... I'd go back and ask Edward V 'who killed you'". Think about it. Great video by the way, really enjoyed it.

Okay I totally think differently about history now I mean not totally but I never thought much about George's son however if they did send away George's son and find some other child to put in his place and maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that this child had something wrong with him like he was retarded or or had some kind of mental problems so these kids were kind of not looked after very well you know back then anyway it could have found a child with a mental disability in an orphanage or somewhere and not felt very guilty to just then put him in the tower instead of George's son so Lambert could have very well been George's son it makes sense and if they were plotting to take George's son away and hide him I mean obviously then Elizabeth of Woodville would have thought of that when it came to protecting her sons or the people that were taking care of Edward in the castle where he grew up. And you're right the boys didn't grow up together and the older son was taken away very early so the mother wasn't very close to him so whether or not Edward the fifth was actually taken into the tower we don't know he could have been switched for another boy too but it would definitely make sense that Elizabeth Woodville would hide her second son especially since that's the sun she was probably close to that stayed living with her and she probably sent some other child to the Tower with Edward v if that was even Edward the fifth we don't know so Perkin really could have either been Edward or Richard and Lambert really could have been George's son and even though they produced George's son and they said oh we have him this is him that can't be gorgeous son if they found another boy and put them in the tower well that would make sense they had a boy just wasn't really George's son. So perhaps none of these children were actually the real children. Also it would explain why Elizabeth Woodville would never come to identify him and why she just receded to the background after her daughter married for many reasons I think she did but especially if her real son was alive and she wanted to live with him somewhere and protect him or just stay in the background ensuring his protection. Or the other possibility is after all the death her husband and both her sons if they did die she just was done she just wanted to just be done and have nothing to do with court even though her daughter was there she probably just was like I'm done. I do however believe that Margaret Beaufort was a very pious good woman and I think that she may have really protected the boys and convinced Elizabeth Woodville to let her daughter be Queen and then her grandson would be king and in exchange she would protect her boys if one of them really was her boys in the tower that makes perfect sense to me. Why wouldn't Elizabeth agreed to that it makes perfect sense if Margaret proposed this deal her sons would be protected and her daughter would be on the throne I think that's really the most plausible idea that happened I don't think Margaret was evil enough to have them killed I think she would have rather tried to have this plot go through and why wouldn't Elizabeth would really agree. I do think Richard III is evil enough to have killed them but I think that possibly none of these children were the real children.

Per historian Charles Ross, John Howard received French pension, too (Edward IV by Charles Ross pp 234). When Richard III made Howard Duke of Norfolk (and made Howard's son: Earl of Surrey), the reigning Duke of Norfolk was Edward IV's younger son, Richard.

I heard that Margaret Douglas the daughter of Margaret Tudor was thought to have an affair with Thomas Howard the son of Thomas Howard and Agnes Tilney.

You want to talk with me, the writer of-Uncle,grandfather-this book, together-get him on-we will talk, and, matt get some answers-rich-3, four as well-me, the sixth-edward warwick-was, richard-edward,after his brother died-Maggie, always cousin-her children-couldn’t keep them off-the Barfoots, havershimm-thomas one of them-my man woosey-didn’t die like that-he had kid-who look like nigel-farraage-butcherboy-message, let’s talk-about, why ragandbone man-look like fat henry-tudor,in tennis-some other stuff,-to,-, richard-son not brother,-born-edward,forty three, years-not much battling,on the throne,warwick-nevielle-his cousin Uncle-nevielle-lord, warmaster-head general-at that time, and-did not die like that,exactly-as, died-after, Edward,fourth-grandpa-Wigplantagenet-message please,many things-we have been lied to about-

I'll be damned. NOW I really enjoyed this, as if hearing it for the first time- now that I know who Edward Plantagenet was! I think this video would be much better named as Who was Lambert Simnel impersonating- Edward V or Edward Plantagenet, son of George, Duke of Clarence. Even when I knew who E. Plantagenet was I was still confused at EXACTLY what you were trying to do here, the purpose, with all the FABULOUS scholarship and consideration of both sides. It is a wonderful video, but perhaps easier at first for the British. I get it now, the twins surviving or not and the outcome if Edward V survived, the impersonation. Thanks so much!

Ok, I need to listen to this in its entirety. So, this "Edward VI, Earl of Warrick, is George's son?!!!

Help!! Is this kid in the tower who is not one of the "two princes in the Tower" the son of The Kingmaker (Earl of Warrick)????? If so, why is HE there? Who is this kid whom Ireland wants to promote? You said a boy from Oxford??? Thanks.

So interesting! But who IS this Edward, Earl of Warrick, supposedly Edward VI? Who is his father? If Edward IV son is in the Tower as Edward V (one of the vanishing princes), then who is this Edward, Earl of Warrick who is hauled out of ST. Paul's? Were there THREE boys in the tower at one time?

The patriarch of the Tudor line Owen Tudor was a,nobody who got lucky with the dowager Queen of Henry v; so in the male line the Tudor had no royal blood whatsoever he had two sons Edmund and jasper Tudor ,Henry VI recognised them as half bros so gave them a leg up by giving them titles and also married off Edmund to Margaret Beaufort the daughter of John Beaufort the Duke of Somerset who was from a Bastard line from John of Gaunt so the Beaufort did have a royal connection thru the male line unlike the tudors. Margarets son HENRY Earl of Richmond claim was tenuous at best as the male line started with Owen Tudor and basically Henry VI married Edmund Tudor to Margaret Beaufort to basically parachute them into a position they were not born into .Henry Tudor had no position of political authority and was only seen as a figurehead after the lancastrian defeat at Tewkesbury in 1471 were the surviving lancastrian and yorkists who were against Richard III coalesced in Brittany were Tudor had fled in 1471 .Henry had no military or political experience whatsoever in leading men and there was a proviso that he had to marry Edward IV'S daughter Elizabeth to give him more legitimacy as a potential contender for power in England with the support of the surviving lancastrians and previous yorkists who fled to Brittany. The male line started with Owen Tudor so Henry VII'S claim was always tenuous which seemingly made the Tudor line a bit paranoid as there were other claimants to the plantagenet bloodline whose claim was actually a lot stronger than Henry Tudors in fact Tudors through the male line were not Lancastrians ,Henry Tudors mother was thru John Beaufort but as they were a bastard line had no claim to the throne Henry IV actually statedd that the Beauforts were barred from being contenders to the throne they were born illigitimately but got a papal dispensation to legitimise them which Henry IV Never recognised .

What is your name, dear lady? I enjoy your interviews and your style; you are so pleasant and easy to listen to. And, YOU are the one who introduced me to Matthew. Thanks. What is your name?

I know you are not a Tudor fan but Matthew have you ever thought of playing Henry VIII with your colouring and build, around the time he had begun to tire of Katherine and became enamored of Anne, before he really went to seed. Just a thought. Love your vids along with Nathen Amin and Dan Jones too.

Great debate

Very interesting! When you discussed RIII keeping his disability hidden with clothes, etc it reminded me that President F.D. Roosevelt was crippled from poilo and wheel chair bound, but that was well concealed, and not many people were aware of his disability. Thank you for doing these stories! Regards from Canada 🇨🇦