29:55 Whoa, whoa, whoa....WHAT? Catherine Howard didn't die along with Cromwell right after the marriage with Anne of Cleves ended. Who checked the facts on this old video? Henry married Catherine Howard right after his marriage with Anne of Cleves ended and yes; she was eventually beheaded, but not along side Cromwell. Also, the pre-contract Anne of Cleves may have had wasn't considered valid enough to call off the marriage between her and Henry. There are so many inaccuracies in this video; it's quite frustrating when things like this are published, thus perpetuating people's misconceptions about the Tudor era. We might as well say the bloody disaster series called the "Spanish Princess" on Starz was all factually while we are at it. 31:13 Edward VI was NOT a sickly child; he was robust and perfectly healthy for the majority of his life. 🙄
For clarification: this video is actually pretty old, I´ve watched it 2 years or so ago, it´s just reuploaded. So, the mistakes are not this channel´s fault (or at least not now), but yeah. Not accurate.
In all the versions of the Tudors, this one was way better told in a well read & telling. Some people have the knack of making history much more fun to listen to & learn along the way! History teachers, the boring monotone ones, could really learn how to keep their classrooms awake by following the lead of our story teller here. JMO
I enjoyed the body language analysis doc. This case is fascinating but trusted among many other things. I do think giving Jodi credit for coming up with this program of parenting or whatever she calls it, is giving credit where it isn’t due as I do recall reading some transcripts or interviews with Latter Day Saints religious groups who testified and accused members of using the exact same method as far back as three generations that this particular person could attest to. Who knows how far it goes bsck but it makes sense a bit more how this was known about but not many people are willing to come forward. Organized religion scares me. 😅
Only the British could describe the reign of the Tudors as their own "sauciest dynasty". It's like Germany referring to Hitler as "an unexpectedly naughty ghost in the machine".
Listen to this in your life and before you know it you'll be obsessed with British history. Lol our brains absorb information while we sleep even. It's crazy
Being presently in the 21st Century, it is reasonable to apply Discernment regarding Henry VIII. Of a clear Textbook view, it is obvious that Henry, VIII demonstrated the traits and behaviors defining Narcissist Personality Disorder, and on a number of occasions with finality of the most toxic of applications. It is reasonable for those of Academic influence to present a Mature Minded, Diagnostic review and thus cease the "glorifying" of behaviors of the Kings/Queens, Generals, Dictator's, Emperor's, and even Pharohs where applicable. Be it their Wars against other Countries or to a lesser degree within their own Royal Court, the acts 9f Aggressions, Physically, Emotionally, Socially, Spiritually, Financially, of any aspect, the point being, it is not a worthy promotion to display heroism relative to a Human, as the subject of the act is aggression, and it is of the Human Lower Mind. Heroism is an act in defense and protection. That which deserves having a Profiling are the acts that represent the use of Wisdom, of the Higher Mind, aka Mature Mind, achieved with establishing a habit of being "Conscious in Thought" + "Applying Higher Mind." Ethics, Integrity, Honesty/Truths, Harmony and Wellbeing, Compassion, etc, represent the values of the Higher Mind. This represents the valid understanding of desired and respected acts and behaviors, with Discernment rather than in being Judgement of, for the latter is of the Lower Mind and a common trait of and around the Lower Emotional Development, a fact always found associated with "Narcissist Personality Disorder. Absence of this subject, of having Clarification regarding Henry, VII, is glowingly obvious, and the application of Higher Minded Discernment toward the History is most appropriate. ... and in the current, rather than later, 21st Century. Thomas Cromwell, also having the traits and behaviors necessary to a post diagnosis most obvious of "Narcissist Personality Disorder" is likely an easy place to start. Mass paranoia due to fear based ideology and covert acts the symptoms of the Victims and potential Victims. Noteworthy: Narcissist Personally Disorder, when demonstrated by a Leader can become a "copied Standard", the Public mimicking the behaviors (seen as preferred, as demonstrated by Ruler/Leader) tus it must be desirable ... This 8s observable in a number 9f Countries in History, possibly in the very recent History, even in the Present. Understand the necessity to establish Discernment, to establish Harmony and Wellbeing? Beth Bartlett Sociologist/Behavioralist and Historian Tennessee, USA
In an act called Titulus Regius, Parliament had declared Richard's nephews, Edward and Richard (and their sister, Elizabeth), to be illegitimate. Ergo, Richard had no need to have them murdered. However, when Henry Tudor wanted to cement his claim to the throne by marrying Elizabeth - well, he couldn't marry a bastard, could he? He had Titulus Regius revoked *unread*, so that his wife was no longer illegitimate. Only one problem: that also re-legitimized her brothers, giving them back their rightful claim to the throne over his. Well, he couldn't have that, either. So, if anyone had cause to do away with the boys, it was Henry Tudor. In light of the shifty dealings around the date of his coronation, it's just the sort of thing he would have done.
@@cplmpcocptcl6306 Sorry, but I disagree. Since Parliament had declared the boys illegitimate, Richard had NO NEED to get rid of them, as they posed no threat. Just because they weren't seen in London doesn't mean they weren't living quietly at another castle or estate, of which the Crown had dozens. Henry, however, by relegitimizing their sister, gave them a *much* better claim to the throne than he himself had, and so had better cause to do away with them. In fact, there was a contemporary historian, whose name sadly escapes me at the moment, who debunked the Tudor account shortly after the Stuarts took over the throne.
@@patriciagerresheim2500 Oh for Christ’s sake! It was Richard. He seized the prince by force, imprisoned and executed boy’s legal guardian and uncle Rivers. Then he imprisoned the boy himself in the Tower. Postponed his coronation (why exactly? Well, he never wanted to crown him to begin with). Then he attacks his late brother’s council by publicly executing (Hastings) and imprisoning people who are against him. Surrounds Westminster Abbey with his troops, affectively making the dowager queen and her children his prisoners. And bullies her into surrendering the younger prince to him (again why? Richard has already got the heir in his clutches). The moment he gets the second boy, team Richard immediately push the parliament (what could they do? people were scared shitless for their lives after what he did to the King’s Council) to proclaim the children to be bastards. By the way, how convenient it is to Richard that the rumors became public right at that time. Amazing coincidence. Then he just crowns himself. And after that Richard has done you still think that he had his best intentions regarding the boys? He stole their crown, imprisoned the princes themselves, killed their uncle, holds their mother and sisters de-facto prisoners, attacked the King’s Council by killing or imprisoning several of the senior nobles. Richard was never safe as long as the boys were alive. He has seen himself how it had backfired in the past (when his brother spared Henry VI). People were completely aware that he just schemed his way to the crown. No paper would have protected him. There were at the very least 2 attempts of breaking the princes free from the Tower. One happened when the boys were still alive (it predates the alleged date they were seen for the last time). The boys had to go… And they did vanish. While the both were in Richard’s possession. Then he ordered the naval blockade of Brittany to force them to surrender Henry Tudor to him (to kill him too I would assume). People were terrified of Richard. Even his henchman Buckingham turned on him. After Richard killed him too, the Lancastrian supporters hid Buckingham’s son from him. Little Stafford was only was about 8-10 years old but he had some Lancastrian blood via maternal lines and had a potential claim to the crown (basically same as Henry and arguably a stronger one than Henry actually). So they were hiding him by moving him from household to household and disguising the boy as a servant or a squire or something like that. This just shows you how scared people were of Richard. People were completely sure that he will behead his 8-year old cousin. And that rumor that Richard poisoned his wife to marry his niece. Well this one is most likely not true. It was a later Tudor propaganda (to make Elizabeth like a princess in the tower and Henry a knight in shining armour who saved her from her crooked uncle). But It worked cos’ it was believable to people by end of Richard’s reign. It just fit in so much with Richard’s own actions. The Tudors kept Warwick, Poles, Stafford kid and even Perkin Warbeck alive (at least until way later on). Margaret was also the godmother to the younger prince. And she was a deeply religious person. She obviously loved her own son more. But still. She was a real believer. Tudors had the same motive as Richard I would agree on that. But all signs point to Richard. What looks like dog and barks like a dog is a dog. It was Richard.
@zenitrulit2 Sorry,but no. If you go back to primary sources, documents written at the time, you'll find that your scenario is totally inaccurate. Contemporary historians were putting the record straight as soon as the Tudors were gone. Besides, genealogically speaking, Henry Tudor had NO claim to the throne, as he was descended from illegitimate offspring on BOTH sides of his family. Ergo, HE was the usurper, not Richard.
It is a story of the influenced effects of "Narcissist Personality Disorder". Fully absent in the Human Higher Mind, which is necessary for One's sense of balance, of Harmony and stability. ... and considering these people were Rulers, their energy touched the whole of their Public.
Hannah's royal history is a new channel I found recently and I really enjoy it. Great narration and accuracy. Just a suggestion. You might really enjoy it
@@Chipoo88 I just started getting into England's history about a year ago and love to listen to narration when I go to sleep. I do hear a lot of discrepancies on different channels and it bums me out. I'm from the encyclopedia days ha ha. Now people can say anything and put it online. Have a great day!
What? What is this rubbish laced spiel I'm watching?? So much of this 'history' is wrong! The Tudors are VERY well researched, How could the makers of this programme just decide to make their own version of 'history' as they went along, and actually be allowed to broadcast this nonsense?
Enjoyed the video immensely. Disappointed when it was over.
29:55 Whoa, whoa, whoa....WHAT? Catherine Howard didn't die along with Cromwell right after the marriage with Anne of Cleves ended. Who checked the facts on this old video? Henry married Catherine Howard right after his marriage with Anne of Cleves ended and yes; she was eventually beheaded, but not along side Cromwell. Also, the pre-contract Anne of Cleves may have had wasn't considered valid enough to call off the marriage between her and Henry.
There are so many inaccuracies in this video; it's quite frustrating when things like this are published, thus perpetuating people's misconceptions about the Tudor era. We might as well say the bloody disaster series called the "Spanish Princess" on Starz was all factually while we are at it.
31:13 Edward VI was NOT a sickly child; he was robust and perfectly healthy for the majority of his life.
🙄
For clarification: this video is actually pretty old, I´ve watched it 2 years or so ago, it´s just reuploaded. So, the mistakes are not this channel´s fault (or at least not now), but yeah. Not accurate.
Preach! A lot of this was off, but that 4 second summary of poor Howard had me dropping my forehead into my hands. Yikes.
"A very sexy widow." Excuse me?
let the man cook
In all the versions of the Tudors, this one was way better told in a well read & telling. Some people have the knack of making history much more fun to listen to & learn along the way! History teachers, the boring monotone ones, could really learn how to keep their classrooms awake by following the lead of our story teller here. JMO
Dayum, they really did Catherine Howard wrong in this one especially
Love your videos!
I wouldve enjoyed this more if there hadn't been so many ads
While the early part of the video is great, there is a gross mischaracterization of Catherine Howard that I just can't get past....
Owen Tudor is similar in historical standard to Guiseppe Princip of WW1 fame. Both relative nobodies whos actions resulted in great tragedies
Am i the only one who's picture seems off, blurry?
This video was quite blurry and distorted?
History ❤
I enjoyed the body language analysis doc. This case is fascinating but trusted among many other things. I do think giving Jodi credit for coming up with this program of parenting or whatever she calls it, is giving credit where it isn’t due as I do recall reading some transcripts or interviews with Latter Day Saints religious groups who testified and accused members of using the exact same method as far back as three generations that this particular person could attest to. Who knows how far it goes bsck but it makes sense a bit more how this was known about but not many people are willing to come forward. Organized religion scares me. 😅
When was this recorded? Seems like a very old documentary.
it's from 2014. Not that old.
Only the British could describe the reign of the Tudors as their own
"sauciest dynasty". It's like Germany referring to Hitler as "an unexpectedly naughty ghost in the machine".
Tbh, when im going to bed 🛌 i put this on tue person talking has a relaxing 😌 voice & the Info is kinda boring (but interesting)
Listen to this in your life and before you know it you'll be obsessed with British history. Lol our brains absorb information while we sleep even. It's crazy
How can something be both "kinda boring yet interesting"?
Thomas More was executed in 1535, a year before Anne Boleyn was in 1536 and not after
Being presently in the 21st Century, it is reasonable to apply Discernment regarding Henry VIII. Of a clear Textbook view, it is obvious that Henry, VIII demonstrated the traits and behaviors defining Narcissist Personality Disorder, and on a number of occasions with finality of the most toxic of applications.
It is reasonable for those of Academic influence to present a Mature Minded, Diagnostic review and thus cease the "glorifying" of behaviors of the Kings/Queens, Generals, Dictator's, Emperor's, and even Pharohs where applicable. Be it their Wars against other Countries or to a lesser degree within their own Royal Court, the acts 9f Aggressions, Physically, Emotionally, Socially, Spiritually, Financially, of any aspect, the point being, it is not a worthy promotion to display heroism relative to a Human, as the subject of the act is aggression, and it is of the Human Lower Mind.
Heroism is an act in defense and protection.
That which deserves having a Profiling are the acts that represent the use of Wisdom, of the Higher Mind, aka Mature Mind, achieved with establishing a habit of being "Conscious in Thought" + "Applying Higher Mind."
Ethics, Integrity, Honesty/Truths, Harmony and Wellbeing, Compassion, etc, represent the values of the Higher Mind.
This represents the valid understanding of desired and respected acts and behaviors, with Discernment rather than in being Judgement of, for the latter is of the Lower Mind and a common trait of and around the Lower Emotional Development, a fact always found associated with "Narcissist Personality Disorder.
Absence of this subject, of having Clarification regarding Henry, VII, is glowingly obvious, and the application of Higher Minded Discernment toward the History is most appropriate.
... and in the current, rather than later, 21st Century.
Thomas Cromwell, also having the traits and behaviors necessary to a post diagnosis most obvious of "Narcissist Personality Disorder" is likely an easy place to start. Mass paranoia due to fear based ideology and covert acts the symptoms of the Victims and potential Victims.
Noteworthy: Narcissist Personally Disorder, when demonstrated by a Leader can become a "copied Standard", the Public mimicking the behaviors (seen as preferred, as demonstrated by Ruler/Leader) tus it must be desirable ... This 8s observable in a number 9f Countries in History, possibly in the very recent History, even in the Present.
Understand the necessity to establish Discernment, to establish Harmony and Wellbeing?
Beth Bartlett
Sociologist/Behavioralist
and Historian
Tennessee, USA
In an act called Titulus Regius, Parliament had declared Richard's nephews, Edward and Richard (and their sister, Elizabeth), to be illegitimate. Ergo, Richard had no need to have them murdered. However, when Henry Tudor wanted to cement his claim to the throne by marrying Elizabeth - well, he couldn't marry a bastard, could he? He had Titulus Regius revoked *unread*, so that his wife was no longer illegitimate. Only one problem: that also re-legitimized her brothers, giving them back their rightful claim to the throne over his. Well, he couldn't have that, either. So, if anyone had cause to do away with the boys, it was Henry Tudor. In light of the shifty dealings around the date of his coronation, it's just the sort of thing he would have done.
Except they weren’t seen for over 2 years before Boswell field.
Richard 3 absolutely, positively, no doubt killed them.
@@cplmpcocptcl6306 Sorry, but I disagree. Since Parliament had declared the boys illegitimate, Richard had NO NEED to get rid of them, as they posed no threat. Just because they weren't seen in London doesn't mean they weren't living quietly at another castle or estate, of which the Crown had dozens. Henry, however, by relegitimizing their sister, gave them a *much* better claim to the throne than he himself had, and so had better cause to do away with them. In fact, there was a contemporary historian, whose name sadly escapes me at the moment, who debunked the Tudor account shortly after the Stuarts took over the throne.
We know the 15th century's childhood mortality rate was very high.
Maybe they just died.
@@patriciagerresheim2500 Oh for Christ’s sake! It was Richard.
He seized the prince by force, imprisoned and executed boy’s legal guardian and uncle Rivers. Then he imprisoned the boy himself in the Tower. Postponed his coronation (why exactly? Well, he never wanted to crown him to begin with). Then he attacks his late brother’s council by publicly executing (Hastings) and imprisoning people who are against him. Surrounds Westminster Abbey with his troops, affectively making the dowager queen and her children his prisoners. And bullies her into surrendering the younger prince to him (again why? Richard has already got the heir in his clutches).
The moment he gets the second boy, team Richard immediately push the parliament (what could they do? people were scared shitless for their lives after what he did to the King’s Council) to proclaim the children to be bastards. By the way, how convenient it is to Richard that the rumors became public right at that time. Amazing coincidence.
Then he just crowns himself. And after that Richard has done you still think that he had his best intentions regarding the boys? He stole their crown, imprisoned the princes themselves, killed their uncle, holds their mother and sisters de-facto prisoners, attacked the King’s Council by killing or imprisoning several of the senior nobles.
Richard was never safe as long as the boys were alive. He has seen himself how it had backfired in the past (when his brother spared Henry VI). People were completely aware that he just schemed his way to the crown. No paper would have protected him. There were at the very least 2 attempts of breaking the princes free from the Tower. One happened when the boys were still alive (it predates the alleged date they were seen for the last time). The boys had to go… And they did vanish. While the both were in Richard’s possession.
Then he ordered the naval blockade of Brittany to force them to surrender Henry Tudor to him (to kill him too I would assume).
People were terrified of Richard. Even his henchman Buckingham turned on him. After Richard killed him too, the Lancastrian supporters hid Buckingham’s son from him. Little Stafford was only was about 8-10 years old but he had some Lancastrian blood via maternal lines and had a potential claim to the crown (basically same as Henry and arguably a stronger one than Henry actually). So they were hiding him by moving him from household to household and disguising the boy as a servant or a squire or something like that. This just shows you how scared people were of Richard. People were completely sure that he will behead his 8-year old cousin.
And that rumor that Richard poisoned his wife to marry his niece. Well this one is most likely not true. It was a later Tudor propaganda (to make Elizabeth like a princess in the tower and Henry a knight in shining armour who saved her from her crooked uncle). But It worked cos’ it was believable to people by end of Richard’s reign. It just fit in so much with Richard’s own actions.
The Tudors kept Warwick, Poles, Stafford kid and even Perkin Warbeck alive (at least until way later on).
Margaret was also the godmother to the younger prince. And she was a deeply religious person. She obviously loved her own son more. But still. She was a real believer.
Tudors had the same motive as Richard I would agree on that. But all signs point to Richard.
What looks like dog and barks like a dog is a dog. It was Richard.
@zenitrulit2 Sorry,but no. If you go back to primary sources, documents written at the time, you'll find that your scenario is totally inaccurate. Contemporary historians were putting the record straight as soon as the Tudors were gone. Besides, genealogically speaking, Henry Tudor had NO claim to the throne, as he was descended from illegitimate offspring on BOTH sides of his family. Ergo, HE was the usurper, not Richard.
Since the discovery of the remains of richard3 examination by forensic scientis shows that he had sever scoliosis and other bone malformations
It is a story of the influenced effects of "Narcissist Personality Disorder".
Fully absent in the Human Higher Mind, which is necessary for One's sense of balance, of Harmony and stability. ... and considering these people were Rulers, their energy touched the whole of their Public.
more ancestors of mine on my mother’s side of the family
So many inaccuracies. The Duke of Clarence alone. There's a solid 30% of just blatant fiction. Nice to fall asleep too though.
Omg thank you! Unbelievable how so called historian's and documentaries can warp reality.
Rude.
Why can't they just say dynasty not way too confusing ❓
J.S.Bach to Tudor History????????
🙄 OH GEE!…. Yet another Royal Mess ‘ from start to finish ’ .
Another person who defines "real" as "fake"
Lots and lots of inaccuracies! Goodness me!
Hannah's royal history is a new channel I found recently and I really enjoy it. Great narration and accuracy. Just a suggestion. You might really enjoy it
@@stephanieribar5724 many many inaccuracies. Sorry I can’t enjoy that but thanks for your message
@@Chipoo88 I'm sorry. I thought Hannah's royal history was pretty accurate and interesting. Wish I could have been more help to you.
@@stephanieribar5724 no need to apologize 😊
@@Chipoo88 I just started getting into England's history about a year ago and love to listen to narration when I go to sleep. I do hear a lot of discrepancies on different channels and it bums me out. I'm from the encyclopedia days ha ha. Now people can say anything and put it online. Have a great day!
Early 40s not late 40s
“A very sexy widow”
I Ted Ed it’s version much better
🤨 Seems awfully slanted. I prefer to hear the facts and make up my own mind, rather than have someone draw erroneous conclusions for me.
Gah! Lambert Simnal was supposed to have impersonated Edward V, not Edward VI. 17:46
What? What is this rubbish laced spiel I'm watching?? So much of this 'history' is wrong! The Tudors are VERY well researched, How could the makers of this programme just decide to make their own version of 'history' as they went along, and actually be allowed to broadcast this nonsense?
Are you a history professor?
@@grtlyblesdno he was impersonating the Earl of Warwick, the son of the Duke of Clarence, not the Prince of Wales, who was the son of Edward IV
You don’t have a wife do you!
Thank you 😂😂
Okay okey ok. #🤣😂
😘💖🌳💖🫂🌴🤲
"promo sm"
Second lol
I stopped watching after they said clarence drowning was an accident
Fourth!
First!!!
third haha