Richard III: Murderer or Tudor Smear Campaign Victim? | Richard III | Real Royalty
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 มิ.ย. 2024
- Tony Robinson sifts the facts from the fiction about one of Britain's most maligned monarchs, Richard III. Did he really murder his two young nephews before usurping the throne?
From Elizabeth II to Cleopatra, Real Royalty peels back the curtain to give a glimpse into the lives of some of the most influential families in the world, with new full length documentaries posted every week covering the monarchies of today and all throughout history.
Subscribe to Real Royalty: bit.ly/3tofGQL
Content licensed from Spire to Little Dot Studios.
Any queries, please contact us at: owned-enquiries@littledotstudios.com
![เก่งแต่ลับหลัง (FINSTA) - ส้ม มารี (Zom Marie) Ft. Punch 4EVE [Official Teaser]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Fvt0Wz1hfGY/mqdefault.jpg)
What is it with adding a soundtrack over dialogue in a history program?! The music is so high in the mix you cab barely make out what the presenter is saying.
I felt the same, turn down the music
I had to stop watching, I couldn't hear what was being said
YES!! YES!! totally inappropriate!
The documentary seems to be fascinating, but I'm about to give up. The background sound is no longer background, it's unbeatable. What a pity!
Music is too loud! Take away the music so we can hear the story
So badly engineered. The background music overwhelms the narration.
The original can be found on Timeline, nonetheless the entire documentary isn’t like that, it’s mostly ppl that can’t concentrate that complain and get thrown off so easily
@@chrisadlc1 You shouldn't have to strain to hear the speaker, after all that's why you're watching. It also doesn't help when you have a hearing problem like I do. And the cc is laughable.
This is like being at a heavy metal concert and having your drunk mate screaming at you over the music to tell you about his sister's eye operation... or something.
😆😆😆😆😆😆😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
So hard to watch! Hardly hear the narrator
Gave up after 2 min 35 seconds because you can't hear the narrator over the music. It's a shame because I really love this period of English history.
Why on earth would you have the legend that is Tony Robinson as your narrator and then drown him out with music throughout the video?!?!
Is there an adult version of this somewhere? One that isn't ruined by loud background noise.
*adult version* rightly said it should have one 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Apart from the audio disrupting a Time legend speak it was good. I remember not long ago (2012/13) they found this kings remains under a carpark in Leicester City and they reburied him with a funeral fit for a King. Im assuming this was filmed before then as well... the curve in his spine is a base known fact now - he had scoliosis.
Yes, but not a hunchback.
Background music is way too loud!
There have never been any instance in history when a king's body was treated as terribly and badly as the way Richard III's corpse treated by Henry Tudor.
Actually, James the IV of Scotland some thirty years after this, during and post the battle of Flodden got treated pretty awful. After circuitous journey wasn’t even buried in Scotland.
It wasn't done by Henry ,most of damage was done afterwards on the way to where he was buried. Henry actually paid for the funeral and even had a marker that said Richard lll King of England. All of this was lost during the dissolution of the monasteries during Henry Vlll reign.
That's cause he was a brute. All the Tudors were. No class.
We still don’t know what happened to Edward V. But he was more than likely buried like a dog
You clearly aren’t a student of history, making a ludicrous comment as such.
Music so loud I can’t hear narration.
Yes, I thought it was only my computer, but the background music is strangely loud! And what an odd choice!
The soundtrack reminds me too much of Doctor Who. Which I love. However, if it is going to play louder than the narrator, then please bring in the T.A.R.D.I.S.
It does sound like Dr. Who. Unfortunately, the sound technician and editors should have made sure the music was an undertone and not the focal point 😕. But it helps me work on my ability to hear specific things, so it works. Lol
You need to remix this. The music overcomes
Wouldn't it be fun to go back to view what actually happened, as well as get photographic proof?
The music is annoyingly loud. If it lasts too long, I will need to stop watching.
Edit: The music got quieter soon after I posted the above.
Yes
Too loud
gave up in less than 3 min of watching....music WAY to loud
I'm 9 mins in and it gets better. I know what you mean though. My curiosity it's a lot stronger than this little issue so I'm still watching lol
You must be a child then, it’s obvious it was only for the intro to the video
@@chrisadlc1 no, just severe migraines that make me highly sensitive to loud noises, and since I didnt want to puke violently and be down for the rest of the day and risk an ER trip that day I left the video
@@chrisadlc1 nah its throughout the video, when he talks they have background music, it's not that bad though, but if syndi really does have migraines then it is actually best she does not watch it.
Chris De La Cruz If you have partial hearing loss background music like this makes it very difficult to hear what the narrator is saying.
he was not a hunchback - he had scoliosis!!
I'm here to ask one simple question, "why the hell is the music so loud? "
Everyone's complaining in the comments 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
dude, you have 12 ads on this video, that’s an ad every 4 minutes
Scoliosis dosen't necessarily mean a bunched back it depends on how bad the curvature of the spine was and if Richard was so hunched he couldn't possibly have been able to wield a sword with force especially on horseback. Having a raised shoulder does not constitute having a "hump'
It has actually been prooven that Richard III did have severe scoliosis when his bones were discoved burried under a Tesco parking lot and confirmed to be his through DNA testing. I'm not sure exactly when this doc was filmed but the whole segment trying to disprove his hunchback and claiming flat out that "he wasn't a hunchback" is a real cringe. The loud music also makes this doc almost unwatchable. This is a huge drop in quality for this channel.
WTF?!! While examination of his bones showed he had scoliosis, it was not nearly severe enough to call him a hunchback. in fact, the articles which I've read mentioned that his condition would have barely been noticeable. Methinks thou art a troll... Begone!
Well spotted! It has been definitively proven that he had scoliosis. Just goes to show even the best regarded "experts" can be wrong...
@@dirremoire pointing out a biological fact is not trolling. He's 100 percent correct. The term "hunchback" has nothing to do with the "severity" of the curvature of the spine. It's simply an outdated term born out of ignorance of the condition that was a product of it's time. My own mother had degenerative scoliosis and it's not an insult to point it out. More importantly, I would like to know who murdered two innocent children....
@Budom That is literally what I just said man
@SeabassFishbrains @David Dirre-Moire @Charity. Because commenters on this thread debated whether the video was incorrect when it stated that King Richard III was a hunchback I did some research. The term “hunchback” is considered a derogatory term to describe a medical condition called kyphosis. The simplest explanation is that the spine is curved front to back, a convex curvature. There are different types for different reasons and in different severity. Apparently when it’s at it’s worse in the upper spine it was called “hunchback.” You can read more in Wikipedia.
Scoliosis, in simplest terms, is when the spine is curved from side to side. It also comes in different types and severity. It was not called “hunchback.” Interestingly, a granddaughter of Queen Elizabeth II had scoliosis for which she had corrective surgery. She has spoken about the condition publicly. It is said to be common.
So was King Richard III a hunchback? No, he wasn’t but he did have scoliosis, a side to side curvature of the spine. Someone said that people of the Middle Ages were very superstitious about anyone with abnormalities. We’ve progressed a little. I guess we could say that William Shakespeare used poetic license in describing King Richard III.
Richard was at the head of an army at 17, so not much of a cripple.
Can't hear you talk due to the loud music. Please stop the loud background music. Thank you.
Yes, sadly someone's tv has uneven stereo. The tv in my bedroom did the same thing....the dialogue of people talking on a beach was drowned out by some enthusiastic seagulls. I threw the tv out.
Watch the original on Timeline, this channel seems to enjoy stealing their videos lol but anyways the rest of the documentary isn’t like that
@@chrisadlc1 😂😂
it would be watchable without the soundtrack . too bad. maybe a video without music next time.
This documentary is a bit old. It was proven once they found Richard’s body that he did have a curved spine
Yes, but he was not hunchbacked. His legs and arms were perfect. He was not a "misshapen creature" as Shakespeare and many others described him.
Richard may have had scoliosis of the spine which is often unnoticeable. My brother has it and you can't tell it.
@@CCult-iw4xk Blame the hunchback imagery on Shakespeare.
I really wanted to watch this one too 😩but once again the music was so loud I couldn’t hear anything else 🤷🏼♀️
This was obviously before they found his crooked skeleton in a parking lot, or as you say, a car park...
Well yes. because we PARK CARS THERE...SIMPLE...
@@Ionabrodie69 no it’s where cars play together because it’s a car PARK
It is still true that he wasn't a hunchback - his spine had a scoliosis, a sideways curve, which would not have been visible when clothed.
Re the loud music, it does go away after about 10 mins.
Anne's MS Chronicles no, it continues intermittently further into this otherwise good video.
No it doesn't
Richard didn´t make himself Protector, his brother Edward did. About Hastings - even later Tudor chroniclers seem to concede the Lord Hastings was up to something behind Richard’s back. Polydore Vergil wrote that even before Richard arrived in London, Lord Hastings ‘called together unto Paul’s church such friends as he knew to be right careful for the life, dignity, and estate of prince Edward, and conferred with them what best was to be done’. Hastings was still receiving money from the French which was a bit odd after Edward´s death. Richard was very generous to Hasting´s family. No attainder issued, they could keep all their possession and status. It wasn´t Richard´s idea to become King. He was asked to take the Crown by the representatives of 3 estates of the realm. Edward and Richard were illegitimate not only because of the pre contract but according to some medieval laws it was enough to be illegitimate because of the clandestine marriage. Richard was the rightful heir. Rumours about Richard killing the boys originated in France.If Richard killed them and didn´t produced them, didn´t show everyone that they are dead and can´t be use as figureheads for whatever, that would be totally stupid. He could kill them and blame Buckingham,, sweating sickness, plague....easy. So why he didn´t do it? Richard had another 16 nieces and nephews why he didn´t kill them if he was such a monster? They could be a big threat too. Plantagenet blood and all....They all lived after Bosworth. Elizabeth W. never accused Richard of killing her sons after Richard´s death. Even though it would be beneficial for her. Even Henry didn´t blame Richard for killing the boys. And he tried hard to find as much dirt as possible on Richard. And then there are the pretenders.....
Simple, motive, opportunity, outcome
When there is a king in the way and you end up king, well nuf said.
While I do think he had the princes killed, I don’t think he set out to do it. He was trying to fulfill his brother’s wishes but in the meantime he angered many of the Woodvilles. That meant when Edward V became king, the Woodvilles would have gotten power which would be Richard’s death. They would have killed Richard without a second thought. I think him usurping the crown was the only way he could prevent his demise.
Gloves should be required to handle historical artifacts. I cringed when I saw the Richard III books touched with bare hands!
Actually, no. Because gloves, even thin ones, can limit dexterity, it can actually make it more likely to tear or damage the pages. Library of Congress only recommends gloves if the book poses a health hazard (toxic ink, mold, etc.)
I find it amazing that there is not one word about Eleanor Butler. It seems pretty well established that Edward lV was in a binding legal relationship with her and not free a free man at the time he met Elizabeth Woodville. His subsequent marriage to Elizabeth therefore could not be legal. Interesting to know at what point Elizabeth became aware of this situation. Edward's family was and Eleanor was retired to a convent as soon as possible, 'least said soonest mended.' What a situation!!
Idk if it mentions yet; but Edward is most likely illegitimate as he was conceived when his father was at war🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
Edit: Edward IV. Not his son Edward lol too many double names
I believe it was more a case of Eleanor becoming fed up with Edward's continued sexual shenanigans and she retired to the religious community she supported. But the outcome was the same!
Wish I could hear the narrator. The background music is so loud it over plays with the narrator is trying to say
I wish someone would tell movie maker the same. It is difficult to hear actors.
Very interesting and enjoyable. I do believe that his remains were found ( though I can 't remember the exact year) and he was found to have a mild case is scoliosis, which have made his posture slightly uneven, giving the Tudors an opportunity to expound on the issue and I believe that is why they chose to make him seem like a hunchback.
Indeed...
They did find his body and studied it. But the curvature of his spine was very pronounced, rather than slight.
A documentary followup with a young man having scoliosis showed how the armorer would have designed his armor and how he would have trained to overcome his difficult spinal condition. Amazing.
Not "very pronounced", just pronounced. It certainly didn't diminish his skill as a knight.
@@dirremoire I agree. It looks horrendous when seen in skeletal form and while I have no doubt it posed tremendous challenges, from an outwardly visual stand point it did not appear significant nor did it affect his gait or ability to ride a horse or fight. If it had been truly as severe as the Tudors tried to make it seem, then he would have been deemed unfit to rule and thus would have had no foundation to stake his Kingship upon, in my opinion.
I was always sad about the Edward IV stuff, as he seems like - for the time at least - a fairly decent king and person.
Edward 1v was better of the 2 kings. Doesn’t answer why they put off the coronation of Edward the fifth twice, and I do not believe he was illegitimate. That is my belief, because I am related to both Edward the fourth and Richard the third through their sister Elizabeth and I direct descendent married Elizabeth.
Good documentary, pity about the poor mixing, music often is louder than commentary.
I don't think he killed the Princes in the Tower. Richard III was an intelligent man and knew that killing his nephews would be a public relations disaster. Besides, he's not the only one with the motive. I think it was either the Duke of Buckingham since he also had a strong claim to the throne or Margaret Beaufort since she was so obsessed in putting her son on the throne.
Completely agree. Not to mention it is false when he claims in the video that only Richard had access to the tower. Buckingham was Constable of England so he technically had unrestricted access. Furthermore, after Buckingham was executed, Margaret Beaufort's husband, Lord Stanley, was made Constable of England which gave him that same access. In my opinion either of these men had more motive than Richard to murder the princes. Personally I lean more towards Margaret and her husband plotting it. The murder of the princes would kill two birds with one stone; Tarnish Richard's name and make the people turn against him while making sure the favored princes were gone, thus clearing the way for Margaret's son.
And if the boys were illegitimate then he wouldn’t need to kill them because he could have the bishops testify, he had one saying that the boys were born out of wedlock anyway
Also Elizabeth woodville may have backed the rebellion because she didn’t think they were illegitimate.
Who gained from their deaths? Tudors!
But this was two years before Henry Tudor defeated Richard in battle. The chances of Henry Tudor becoming king at the time of the disappearance of the two princes was not taken seriously by anybody. Richard had more to gain in the short term by getting rid of them. He had already demonstrated his ability to get rid of anybody who got in his way. But there is no doubt that the Tudors also benefitted from the presumed murders and they did all they could to make him look worse than he really was.
@@ladyv5655 I think Tudor was a threat considering Buckingham had betrayed Richard and threw his lot in with him. And a major point had Richard killed the princes at this point why not lay blame at Buckinghams feet?
The English seem to feel guilty about becoming protestant way back when, all English documentaries have very loud excessive
Choral music. Choral music blasting from every orifice. You way overcompensate!
Not because of this ridiculously loud music, but every documentary.
That's silly
Their death was convenient for the Tudors, because it they had not died no one would have taken Henry VIII's claim seriously.
“Wickedness did show itself in deformity.” 😂😂😂😂 go off.
I don't think Richard was behind the deaths of his nephews. In fact, I think he wanted them to be safe in the Tower, even after he took the throne. He knew that he would be blamed if the princes (technically former princes) were killed. The problem was that everyone else knew it too, which gave Richards enemies incentive to kill the princes.
I believe Margaret Beaufort killed them
The Tudors benefited from the death of the princes, the boys were victims of Henry tudor his troops were all over the tower of London, Richard was not even in london at the time of deaths. I recommend, a great book by Josephine Tey, it's called " The Daughter of Time." It is well worth the read.
Henry Tudor was exiled in France (had been since childhood) when the Princes went "missing".
The Princes' mother, Henry Vll mother and Margaret of Anjou all plotted (the latter two financing) Richard downfall.
Agree. Daughter of Time is a great book.
Wikipedia about Richard III of England: th-cam.com/video/pO_jwEDvlBQ/w-d-xo.html
@@lolazal1 exactly. His secret supporters had a hand in it. His mom was at court! She carried Queen Anne's train at her and Richard's coronation lol She was ideally placed
Henry Tudor only had an outside chance of a successful invasion because the general belief throughout England & Europe was that Richard had ordered the murder of his nephews. All Richard had to do was produce the boys & it would’ve heavily reduced Tudor’s support. For some reason
he couldn’t do that. Henry Tudor should’ve shook Richards hand for paving the way to the English throne for him cos technically it was Richard that united Lancastrians & a lot of yorkist, they just united against him.
unwatchable due to the background soundtrack. Might want to fix it.
Would love to watch this but can not hear over the music. Is there any way the music could be removed?
Thanks
All I heard was music and occasionally I could make out a few words.
The longstanding mystery of the real fate that befell the Princes in the Tower has always intrigued me and I look forward to when the alleged skeletons are reexamined again in more detail to answer the questions so many are eager to know the truth about. Richard III's character and actions (dubious as they are) in the media produced about him 500 years later certainly presents a classical duplicitous, ambitiously conspiratorial and power-grasping psychotic villain- yet it does contrast with what contemporary sources and his discovered remains revealed. Yet I am open to the possibility that one or both princes may have been spirited out of the tower for their safety at Richard's discretion or by Elizabeth Woodville's planning and went into obscurity-however unlikely it may be given the political atmosphere of the time. However James Tyrel's confession on which Thomas Moore drew on for his History cannot be discounted, if it's true that is. It's no impossibility Richard assumed the reins of government without treacherous designs of usurpation in mind, operating as any savvy and intelligent man of his time would have done. If the Archer of Rouen theory was a credible motive for him, then maybe he or another (i.e. Buckingham or Henry VII) could have had the "illegitimate" boys eliminated on a dynastic not so much callously evil basis. I still would like to know the truth behind the skeletons said to be of the princes as would so many others taken with this engrossing mystery.
There’s a new book & documentary out by Philipia Langley about the Princes in the Tower. They looked for evidence on mainland Europe since the documents in rhetoric present UK seemed to be excluded, except maybe Scotland… She thinks there’s worthy evidence that Richard’s sister Margaret, the Duchess of Burgandy, took both princes in via close contacts of Richard and twice gave a small fortune for them to take the crown back.
He did not have a humpback. The Tudors and his enemies spread all those rumors. I don't believe he killed the princes.
But he DID have scoliosis. That’s been scientifically proven. The Tudors didn’t make that up. They may have embellished it a bit, but they didn’t invent the fact.
Sorry, can't watch it. Too much loud back ground noise. Can't hear what the man is saying.
The background music ruins this entire video.
Most of the documentary is lost, or at least made more difficult to comprehend, by the overly loud music that makes it nearly impossible to even hear much of the commentary.
The littlest prince in the tower also had a half brother named Richard. His mother's first husband was John De Grey with whom she had 2 sons, Thomas and Richard. Both Richards died in 1483 the eldest by the order of King Richard III.
Well, they were both the half brothers of the Grey brothers. Richard Grey was executed for treason - agreed by Parliament at the time. There was almost certainly a plot to murder Richard (III, although he was then Richard of Gloucester) by the Woodvilles, the queen's family. However, after Richard became Richard III, he seemed to become reconciled with Elizabeth, the boys' mother. She actually wrote to her other son, Thomas Grey, telling him to return home and trust Richard - I think Richard proved to her that her sons were safe.
Mikhail, I started watching and discovered I couldn't hear the narrator because the music smothered his voice.
I really like these shows but the music gets so loud you can’t hear what’s being said
The music in the beginning washes out his narration
I agree with comments about annoyingly too loud music in this vid. I've often wondered why British shows do this it spoils the info by drowning it out with pointless music
How old is this documentary? Today we know that Richard did have a deformed spine and the facial reconstruction demonstrated that the surviving portraits are fairly reliable.
Love you, Tony. The background music is a bit too loud at times though, for us that struggle a bit with our hearing. Fascinating historical discoveries, especially that one at the cathedral of Rouen.
I think Richard did kill the Princes in the Tower. But Henry Tudor was also a mass murdering bastard who went around and killed all the surviving Plantaganets after he seized the throne.
Is there a date of broadcasting of this documentary? There is another very well made documentary on the finding of the bones of Richard III on a parking lot in Leicester. This documentary shows the deformation of the spine, which is contested at the beginning of this program.
Yes this was made clearly before!
I'm a simple gal. I see Tony Robinson, I click like.
I recommend watching The King in the Carpark. Much more informative...
Oh I do hope that's the actual title. If so consider it queued.
Curious to know if the Queen has clapped back at the gauntlet thrown.😆 As if bloodlines were the biggest protest regarding the figurehead monarchs.
@@maebandy Brilliant 🤣
I love this bec I love corrections and the explanations for them.
Reminder: fast forward to the end and restart the video for ad-free entertainment!
Could everyone please type a little louder? I can't hear the comments over the background music.
The Greatest Villain Of British Monarchy | Richard III. No. Charles I (by a long way), followed by William I.
Explain please.
I am a fan of just about anything Tony Robinson does, but I have to say this audio track is a bit of mess. Did anybody listen to this before publishing? The back half has the music running over Tony's narration about half the time.
All sorts of noises (including the background music) is WAY too loud in this particular video. I can't possibly watch this without the closed captions (and they aren't always helpful, but that's just cc in general). It gets better at times but still not pleasant, especially for someone with an auditory processing disorder. WERE THE BIRD NOISES REALLY NECESSARY???
*bird noises* 💀💀💀💀💀😂😂😂😂😂
Every time the odd music kicks in, it makes it impossible to hear the narrator.
I was so looking forward to this episode but the sound quality made it too irritating and I had to give up. Very disappointing!
What is up with the loud background music?
The music is way to loud I can barely hear. When they found a skeleton it showed that he did have a really big home so I think it shows wrong
Henry Somerset, 12th Duke of Beaufort is a descendant of John of Gaunt. He has Plantagenet blood that's stayed in England for centuries, he isn't descended from German nobility lol
The skeleton of Richard III shows he had scoliosis, not a hump. He also did not have a withered arm.
I absolutely love this channel but I get very frustrated with all the damn ads/commercials!
When the sound is more than the words
Lol but sadly true 😂
Forget the bad audio, help me understand something. Why is Henry Tutor "unfit" and should have never been King? Kings lost their crowns in battle for 100s of years prior to Bosworth...so... why are people saying Henry had no right? His birth has nothing to do with it. He and his army beat the Kings army and killed him. It happened numerous times before so why the big stink about this one ? It's not Henry's fault the White and Red had been on the throne and fighting among themselves for years hashing it out and the throne flipping from one cousin to the next... So, just because he wasn't what they considered "one of them" license to claim his rule unjust? If it was so unjust and shouldn't have happened, WHY did the Tudors rule for SOOOOOO long? Surely someone would have unseated them , if by no other reasons than what they did to Edward and said he was illegitimate . Sounds like a bunch of sour grapes to me .
Everyone else had killed each other so he had the strongest claim. His mother was a very fierce, pragmatic politician and his wife could claim to be Queen in her own right as eldest daughter of a former King. He also bankrupted everyone else so no-one else could raise an army to overthrow him.
And Stanley was Captain of the Tower and husband to Margaret Beaufort. My money is on them, they had the most to gain with Richard's death as well as the death of the two Princes.
Exactly.
Unless you like music give it a miss as someone keeps talking in the background.
It's hard to see who else had motive, but he had access! If they were alive they would have been shown. Henry Tudor apparently learned that if you got them show them from what happened to Richard. People at the time seemed to blame Richard during his reign.
There were several who had both motive and access - Stanley, Henry Tudor, Margaret Beaufort, Harry Buckingham. You are assuming they WERE killed. Just suppose for a minute that he didn't kill them, but moved them elsewhere - there had been an attack on the Tower to try to get them just before they 'disappeared'. He wants them in a secret, unknown place. Is he really going to drag them out again to show them? Of course not! Ans there were rumours he had killed them, but there were also rumours that they were held elswhere.
There was an attempt to kidnap them. It is recorded, as well as RIII's -- authorization of the court that was held to prosecute the four culprits. The boys were separated and kept indoors, which launched the rumors -- at least six different theories of the manner of their demise -- that they had been murdered. (And buried on the grounds of the Tower complex, never mind the several hundred potential witnesses therein.) Please read up on some of the more recent research before assuming that you know what happened.
The music in this is way too loud, makes it hard to hear.
THE MUSIC LEVELS ARE TOO LOUD. WHO DID THE MIX? A TUDOR SOUND MAN?
😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆
I think perhaps Richard III started out with good intentions..along the way, ambition, greed, and jealousy over took him.
Yup. He started out just wanting to stop the Queen's family, but he miscalculated when he took the dauphin into custody. Richard thought that he'd be able to control him, but then realized that the dauphin didn't know, like or trust Richard, and would side with his mother's family the moment he was crowned. Since he'd already committed himself against them, he was like "welp, in for a penny..."
Didn't they all?
@@Visplight The Dauphin?!
@@Visplight Dauphin?? That's a French term, not used here. He started out just wanting to do his duty as Protector of the Realm, but the queen's family plotted against him - there are many suspicious things in their actions. I don't think they were murdered at all - I think he moved them to a secret location(s), which explains why he kept silent about their whereabouts and why no public mass was said for them. Aslo why the 'queen' never accused him, even after he was dead.
This video was amazing
Please take this down and fix the volume
gloria commenting; the Star Chamber was not just one room - it was an entire complex of law courts,living quarters, kitchens etc.
with lawyers and judges...and secret trials,secret verdicts.Raphael Holinshed states that both boys-together- were taken to
the Star Chamber and from there taken to the Tower,from whence they never emerged again.The Star Chamber was established
by Henry vII. During the reign of Richard III there was no Star Chamber.
The music wanted to say: "Sod off, Baldrick!"
Once again the music is louder than his narration. So loud that subtitles won’t even pick it up 🤦🏻♀️
If I was Richard, is it really necessary to kill your potential next in line to the throne?. I don't think any kings would choose to do this since it's very risky unless they have betrayed and plotting with their enemy. Why would he kill the two princes in the tower if they already declared illegitimate?. He had his other nephew Edward, earl of Warwick the son of his brother George in his wife's care since his parents died and Richard did not kill him. Edward survived then later was imprisoned and killed by Henry VII instead.
I love the part of history “just “ before the Tudors dynasty thank you
Late Plantagenet period or War of the Roses era.
Aaro Pajari thank you 🙏
As a Ricardian I love it, too. When I was younger all I heard about was KHVIII and his six wives. I'd studied about them for years, but started studying about the Plantagenets. The more I learned the more I wanted to know about them and Richard.
I prefer much earlier in history...circa 1100..but I do like Richard lll.
I argue that the biggest villain of the british monarchy was Henry VIII. There is just no smoking gun Richard had those kids murdered. If he did do it, he was following a long tradition of monarchs killing threats to their throne, so is he more of a villain than any other medieval or More modern monarch? And can we take the word of a man who was a story teller, 100 years after the fact as proof? Henry VIII’s tyranny however, is stamped all over historical texts.
Agreed. After all, Richard's older brother Edward IV had his other older brother (George) executed, and this sort of thing goes all the way back 300 years to the beginning of the House of Plantagenet. It's just the way they were in those days. Plus, there seems to be more proof that the murders, if they happened, were done by some nobleman rather than Richard (Duke of Buckingham? I forget).
I think the thing with the nephews was Henry VII trying to convince Edward IV's daughter that her uncle was a criminal and it was right to take the throne from him. And then one of Henry's sons had two wives executed, and one of his granddaughters almost had her half-sister executed, and finally Elizabeth I had her cousin executed. None of these people was very nice by modern standards.
Sandra Zarembski yes, the reputed drowning in a vat of Malmsy wine - a nice bunch of people all round really. Henry VII, Henry VII’s mother Lady Margaret Beaufort, and The Duke of Buckingham are all just as likely to have had those kids murdered. We will never know. It will be a stain on Richards reputation forever.
Sandra Zarembski I just clicked on your channel... your cats a GORGEOUS 😍😍
@@Jesterjones9073 Thank you!
@@Jesterjones9073 I still think it's possible Margaret Beaufort could have been involved in the murders. Or, maybe the boys died of disease. We will never know.
I am sure that is a wonderful history account of Richard the III. I just had to stop watching it. When the music came on, it overpowered the voice of the narrator and I could not understand a single word. And this was or is very irritating.
Thanks anyway.
Shame, I’d really love to watch this but it’s impossible. I’m going to search for a different copy instead
I'm getting very tired of over zealous musicians taking over interesting programs.Why don't The editors of these programs read the complaints about loud music destroying the whole show Wake up.
I concur with the commentary about the background noise - there's far too much of it and it is loud, distracting terribly from the interesting narrative which should be the primary focus of the video.
Interesting....if you could hear the narration! Music was way too loud.
I dont like the music in the background of this documentary.. i love what its about, but the music is to much
I know there are a ton of comments on here on if Richard really was a hunchback or not. But I just kept thinking that an official portrait showing him with no hunchback hardly seems like definitive evidence. As a royal, wouldn’t he have been painted in the best possible light? Glossing over any possible imperfections? Like Charles II (Hapsburg)’s portrait most likely not showing how severely deformed his jaw was. Or the famous portrait of Henry VIII, which was painted in the later years of his life not showing how large he’d really gotten by that point. It seems unlikely that Richard would have wanted a portrait done that made his alleged hunchback really obvious.
How's this for evidence - his bones!!! I am anosteopath so I can interpret this - he was NOT a hunchback! in fact rather than a forward curve (huchback - kyphosis), a scoliosis tends to bend backwards, so actually the opposite of a hunchback. It woud not have been at all visible when he was clothed. He wouldn't have needed to have a portrait 'doctored', the only thing visible might have been one shoulder slightly higher - which is very common for many reasons and would not have been obvious with the padded garments they wore. In fact it was the Tudors who 'doctored' the portraits of him to make it look like he had a hump AND they changed his mouth and eyes to look more evil.
MUSIC TOO LOUD! I REALLY LIKE TO WATCH THIS, BUT I CANT BEAR THE BACKGROUND MUSIC! SO AFTER 2 MINUTES WATCHING, I HAD TO STOP! 😐
But didn’t Edward IV gain the throne through conquest? If that’s the case, then it wouldn’t matter if he was illegitimate.
The background music is overtaking the narrators voice...to the extreme.
I have really enjoyed some of the other documentaries but this one is too difficult to follow with the music drowning out the commentary.
literally unwatchable. what is with the music? isn't what that dude is saying more important? who mixed this?
Real good documentation! But the background notices/music is quite loud and non native speaker (like me) have trouble to get what is said
I love this series, but please turn down the music.