You forgot the Queen Elizabeth Woodville had a part of Elizabeth of York marring Henry VII ...they plotted together for that to happen...the house of York had a stronger claim to the throne than the house of Tudor
Edward VI had the stronger claim to the throne Because he was parternaly and maternaly related to King Edward III 's third and fifth Sons ...Henry VII 's claim weak because he was from illegitimate line of Edward III ' S fourth son John of Gaunt as known as the Duke of Lancaster.....through his Mother Margaret Beaufort..So the only way Henry VII 'S claim was made stronger when he Married Elizabeth of York Daughter of King Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville..because Margaret Beaufort and Queen Elizabeth Woodville made some kind pact that if Henry became king he would Marry Elizabeth of York
Somewhat ironic that Henry's dreams of a dynasty in Prince Arthur were destroyed by the sweating sickness that some have attributed to the mercenary army that he used to seize the throne from Richard. Once that victorious army entered London, after Bosworth, it wasn't long before the first major recorded outbreak of 'The Sweat' hit England, killing thousands. It would come back to hit poor and rich alike for the next 66 years, including the twin sons of Henry's son-in-law, Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk (he who was also the son of Henry's standard bearer at Bosworth!).
I believe this program is geared to make History geeks such myself more familiar with the obscure Tudor. MUCH appreciated. Also..if you enjoy excellent dramatization of historical characters, Look up the series "The Shadow Of The Tower. Not only Henry VII is shown, but his mother, The Lady Margaret Beaufort; Elizabeth Of York, who became his Queen; his Uncle, Jasper Tudor; Sir William Stanley, who helped him triumph at Bosworth; and others who are named in this documentary.
The Tudors were the bloodiest bunch of vile monsters to ever sit on the throne. From bloody Harry VIII to Bloody Mary. Elizabeth I was pretty good but her virgin status gave Britain the equally useless Stewarts.
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 OH YES! I watch the entire available episodes at least once a year. The script-writing and CASTING are superlative! And everybody keeps their clothing on, too! lol😏
Let's not for get the Convertibles ruled before the Hatchbacks, which may I add, had a strong connection to Japan, creating havoc in not yet discovered America!
Henry VII was a descendant of Welsh Royalty and Edward I via Eleanor of England on his father’s side. Describing him as a mere servant suggests he was nothing more than a stable hand.
Actually,they shaped the world. It was only a tyrant like Henry VIII that had the power to go against the catholic church and at that time the catholic church was God. Of course that set in motion the English civil war and the downfall of absolute monarchy,if you can go against,and remove gods representation in the pope,then a king is no bigger matter.
What’s with the comments painting Henry & his mother as paragon’s of evil while Richard was this poor martyred saint? Richard had good qualities AND did shady things to take the crown. Margaret & Henry too. They were all ambitious, products of their times.
@@di3486 Oh yeah. But then there’s the Ricardians. Some are reasonable, but I’ve been called a “Tudor propagandist” & brainwashed … by Shakespeare the last few weeks. 😂Shakespeare’s legacy. Brainwashing.
@@t.l.1610 Imagine being brainwashed by Shakespeare. Wow, that’s the type of brainwashing that is worth having, not social media and starz brainwashing🤣
Which is why he refused to crown her until after his own coronation, to make it clear it was his own right both by his descent from John of Gaunt, and by conquest. His mother-in- law, Elizabeth Woodville, was packed off to a convent when she tried to interfere and backed Perkin Warbeck. She was only allowed to visit for Christmas in the grounds, "I have a mother and only need one mother-in-law..." which must be the earliest recorded mother in law joke.
@@janegardener1662 fair point, though it would still earn you the name Usurper if you were not seen as having a valid claim of lineage to even challenge a king in battle.
The Windsors are direct descendants of Henry VII's daughter Margaret and also the last 2 monarchs have also been descended from his other daughter Mary and possibly have an illegitimate descent from Henry VIII
I feel that this is a rather miserly account of Henry's achievements. Given the turbulence of the times, his paranoid autocracy was probably unavoidable. The alternative would have been continuing bloody and disruptive civil wars. His son and his grandchildren were equally brutal in securing the throne, so I for one don't judge him too harshly. But he should also be given credit for modernising the fiscal system, developing commerce and trade, reducing the disruptive power of the nobility and patronising scholarship and the arts. He also largely avoided ruinous entanglements in France. So he ushered in a period of relative peace and prosperity, creating the foundations of the modern centralised state.
Huge effect on national finances after ruinous civil wars. Left Henry VIII lots of money to waste and then dissolve and loot the monasteries. But also origin of a deeply ghastly murderous police state for next 100 years
My interest of William I to Charles III.. I have come to the conclusion that Henry VII is arguably the biggest reason that England became the powerhouse that dominated the world. 130 years of wars and he cleaned it all up (relatively). He sorted out the monarch/army’s dependence on the parliament. He made the crown wealthy in its own right. He gave relative peace and raised crown funds from mostly the wealthy. He wasn’t spending silly amount either but he did jump on paying for things such as reaching the Americas 2nd after Spain. Forward thinking yet conservative. Also importantly and what distinguishes him from say Henry 2nd or Edward 3rd or Henry 8th.. Henry 7th nailed succession and gave decent chance of first properly English dynasty without creating a situation of immediate infighting or ridiculous wars In my mind Henry Tudor is the king who made England into the power it became more than any other single monarch. Henry VII Edward I William III Elizabeth I is my current Mount Rushmore of monarchs that made England and Britain successful in relative terms to other monarchies.
@@Chief_Brody He’s written four paragraphs, a couple of which are one sentence long. If that’s long-winded then many you’re a bit short of patience, reading ability or both
As he was dying, Henry VII was obsessed with a guilt about something so terrible that even on his deathbed he couldn't confess it. He kept asking the Archbishop of Canterbury if he would enter Heaven if he died without confessing everything that he had done.
The Tudor name is Welsh. This is where the dynasty originated. The Welsh are a Celtic people. However, all of the Tudor monarchs spoke English as their first language and had a great deal of Anglo-Saxon and French ancestry in their genealogies.
I’m quite a fan of Henry VII, and many of the Tudors. For the first time in history,he seemed to actually bring a sense of stability, dedication and a great organization to Britain.
Wonderfully presented. The lessons of this dynasty resonate both forward and backward in time; a chill ran up and down my spine as I was watching this.
People can say what they wanna say about this king but obviously he was very intelligent and business minded. He knew just how to deal with the rich and wealth of england when they got out of hand......ATTACK THEIR POCKETS!!!!🤷😎
I did not know of the extent of Henry’s ruthlessness. I’ve re-thought my opinion of him as a king. I can understand why he was such a suspicious man. but not extorting money from the nobles and even worse from his hardworking subjects. Thank you.
Where Henry VIII would go after your head (there is a disputed claim that he signed 77,000 death warrants in the course of his reign), his father Henry VII would go after your wallet. The father terrorised the English establishment more than the son.
Thank you. I love this period of history. You have presented each person with his/her own personal wants/desires, yet not giving in to suppositions, or ideas not supported by facts. Most excellent research and narration. Loved it.
I have been saying for years that Henry Tudor is far more a great man in history than his son. He was the last English King to take the crown in battle. It's like Edsel Ford being lorded and forgetting about Henry, the father of modern motoring.
It was necessary for Henry 7 to be the first Two Door king, because his younger son, the most memorable in English history, extended his circumference in his later years. This most memorable king, Henry VIII, fathered England's most memorable queen, Elizabeth 1.
They were both ambitious. Look what a firm grip Henry had during his reign. That happened just bc mum was ambitious? Not a chance. Margaret was a remarkable woman in her own right btw, but not the sole reason Henry was successful.
Even if he did not hunger after the English throne, Henry had to struggle just to keep from being killed. The cast in his eye was probably genetic because Henry III supposedly had one two. Significantly, Perkin Warbeck, the so-called imposter, also had a cast in his eye.
After losing his land and titles I think It got to the point where he knew he was a dead man walking so his best and maybe only options was to try and become king. Die fighting for the ultimate glory or stay and live a life of isolation in France. I’m sure it was a easy decision to make really
Henry VII's life was infinitely more fascinating than Henry VIII's. Henry VIII was a spoiled, petulant brat, born into unimaginable privilege. Henry VII put his life on the line in the most literal sense, against all odds, to take the crown.
This is so interesting and well done! I never knew about Henry VII. He looks like----well, I wouldn't cross him! At the same time he seemed to have truly loved his wife and son whereas Henry VIII was a complete psychopath. And I admire anyone who makes beautiufl buildings. The presenter is extremely enjoyable! Great storytelling!
Fabulous! Thank you - what a great presenter, much more my style..this fella knows how to tell a story. I didn't know that about the date change, I'd still turn out for Richard the Third, I love that Duke of Gloucester.
Check out "The Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey, the story of Richard III in the guise of a detective novel. She specifically mentions the date change, also the fact that there's no evidence Richard murdered his nephews, let alone imprisoned them as stated by this narrator.
Saying "Henry VII ...never knew a moment's peace..." is nonsense. Henry was in a happy marriage, had several children who lived to adulthood, and had the courage to take what he believed was his birthright.
You've got that wrong. His 2nd son was the most sinister and his 1st granddaughter was more sinister than her grandpa. And Henry VII killed off the murderous and ruthless Richard III. And Henry was stingy but left the Monarchy in good fiscal shape. So he may have been ruthless and sinister, but not the most. And you had to be brutal to be a monarch anyway.
What an operator, a Welshman, major alliances, married Elizabeth of York and building up cash reserves and providing stability in the dawn of the age of exploration and humanism of Erasmus
I always thought that Richard lll got a bad press regarding the “princes in the tower” because Henry Vll had just as good a reason for wanting them out of the way as did Richard! Remember, history is written by the winning side, not the losing side.
@ - What’s more interesting is that the only person to repeatedly call Richard lll a villain was Shakespeare, not history and if it had not been for Shakespeare and the semi-comical portrayal of Richard by Laurence Olivia, emphasising the hook nose and hunch back (of which there is no evidence other than a “slight deformity”), nobody would think too badly of him. If you want a real villain who was a total waste of space and a vicious S.O.B. as well, look no further than Henry Vlll.
The Tudors were megalomaniacs…just like all royalty back then. I find it odd that we should be upset about Henry VII having a less ‘legitimate’ claim to the throne. As if being born a son of someone was any great way to choose a leader, or in any way resulted in good governance.
I am unfamiliar with this presentator but he does seem intent on portraying Henry VII in a bad light. Especially vs Richard III. And he doesn’t present enough sources for his information. So much of history depends upon the perspective of who wrote it down.
Conquest is a legitimate claim to the throne. Richard III had the princes in the tower overshadowing his reign. In the game of thrones, you win or you die.
pretty much, with his very few and illegitimate drops of royal blood, he had the biggest motive to dissapear those 2 kids to establish his own (and horrific) royal line
I always thought that Henry VIII was "England's most sinister monarch." Wasn't he the one who was killing anybody who looked cross-eyed at him, especially his wives?
How is Winchester "the legendary seat of Camelot"? Never heard that before. Camelot was Camelodenum, the original Roman capital of Britain - and its in Essex. Apart from that, a great video.
@@cambs0181 He might have been born Anatolian, but he was definitely ROMAN. That's what it was all about - restoring the Pax Romana. And the historic and symbolic capital of Roman Britain was Camulodenum. Hence Colchester is definitely Camelot. All other theories are random garbage that ignore the historical context.
There is a bit of time discrepancy of Hampton Court Palace the great hall and adjoining rooms shown in this video was not built until 1514 for Cardinal Wolsey 5 years after the death of Henry VII. Then in 1529 Wolsey gavel the palace to Henry VIII. So Henry VII never set foot in this building as shown in the video. Yes palaces were built as described room after room and I’m sure he is correct in stating that the closer you got to the king the more important you were.
The man who was the protector of Arthur Prince of Wales is entombed in St Bartholomew's Church in Tong Village, Shropshire, Sir Henry Vernon. The death of the royal heir was under his watch. How unfortunate.
He was a talented battle commander and an excellent administrator. He sorted the kingdom out after years of civil war and left his son a lot of money. He might have had the weakest claim but he certainly was probs the most competent out of the bunch
they got inside the cage of the winter king's tomb. that doesn't just happen for anyone. I am of the opinion that the paranoid, mercurial fragility of mind that all the Tudors displayed was the result of a previous melding of two rival families. the Lancastrians and the Valois. Hank7's great-grandmother, Catherine, was the daughter of the Valois king who thought he was made of glass. this fragility was also on full display in his numerical predecessor, Hank6.
Superb material and presentation from Thomas Penn ... he should perhaps lash out and buy a new pair of shoes, although they do look very comfortable (8:45)
I love Toby and his work with Todd at Todd's workshop. I always thought it was hilarious that an American is in charge of the of the wallace collection. stick it to the brits
When kings were leaders who demonstrated grit on the battle fields. Henry VII with Lancastrian blood had the potential for the role that he came and took by stealth and sword!
You are the only historian I have heard acknowledge the fact that the illegitimate Beauforts were barred from inheriting the throne. Even Edward IV and Richard III’s grandmother was a Beaufort. However the Yorkists lineage was through two of Edward III’s progeny whereas the Lancastrians was from the usurpation of Richard II’s throne by Henry IV. IT IS VERY SELDOM THAT THIS POINT IS MADE. Fantastic documentary, however seeing you in those archives in Westminster worries me. In these volatile times in which we live where history seems not to be valued, I worry that those beautiful manuscripts of our history could so easily be destroyed, especially by fire.
What I found most interesting is that Henry VII changed the date of the Bothwell victory by making it one day earlier. Thus allowing everyone on Charles side in the battle to be charged with treason. Eliminating almost all of his enemies in one simple day.
Henry had no legitimate claim by blood. William I actually had a blood claim to the throne, whereas Harold had a rich daddy and friends in high places. Both battles (Hastings and Bosworth) were decided by the death of the king.
My question is how weak was Richard the Thirds reign that one battle could decide the issue. Yes if he died in battle that's bad...but a strong monarchy with succession could have overcome that....what was different here?
Thank you for shining a light on this often ignored king. There must have been, if course, many rather dark reasons for his gaining of the crown. But I wonder if there were also some sort worthy impetus. Henry saved England from a bloody civil war, and he ruled with a degree of apparent caring of his country.
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for taking me places that I can never go.
Same
Well said
You can go anywhere you like, just set yourself free.
@@mariospanna8389 I love you positivity!
100% how I feel ❤️
As has been alluded to in other comments,his mother's story is even more extraordinary imo.
He states that in the intro. The entire point of this show is to inform us of Henry’s life in a more intimate way.
You've discounted the role of Henry's mother in bringing him to the throne and arranging the marriage with Elizabeth.
You forgot the Queen Elizabeth Woodville had a part of Elizabeth of York marring Henry VII ...they plotted together for that to happen...the house of York had a stronger claim to the throne than the house of Tudor
That is why I love "The White Queen" & "The White Princess"
Margaret Beaufort
Edward VI had the stronger claim to the throne Because he was parternaly and maternaly related to King Edward III 's third and fifth Sons ...Henry VII 's claim weak because he was from illegitimate line of Edward III ' S fourth son John of Gaunt as known as the Duke of Lancaster.....through his Mother Margaret Beaufort..So the only way Henry VII 'S claim was made stronger when he Married Elizabeth of York Daughter of King Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville..because Margaret Beaufort and Queen Elizabeth Woodville made some kind pact that if Henry became king he would Marry Elizabeth of York
@susanbrand7503 yes exactly
Somewhat ironic that Henry's dreams of a dynasty in Prince Arthur were destroyed by the sweating sickness that some have attributed to the mercenary army that he used to seize the throne from Richard. Once that victorious army entered London, after Bosworth, it wasn't long before the first major recorded outbreak of 'The Sweat' hit England, killing thousands. It would come back to hit poor and rich alike for the next 66 years, including the twin sons of Henry's son-in-law, Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk (he who was also the son of Henry's standard bearer at Bosworth!).
17:53 That painting is of young Henry VIII, not prince Arthur. The painting shown at 48:02 is Arthur. You've got them mixed up.
womp womp!
Bungalows.
It’s a shame that Henry VII is overshadowed by his son and grandchildren, if he hadn’t won Bosworth there would have been no tudors
I believe this program is geared to make History geeks such myself more familiar with the obscure Tudor. MUCH appreciated.
Also..if you enjoy excellent dramatization of historical characters, Look up the series "The Shadow Of The Tower. Not only Henry VII is shown, but his mother, The Lady Margaret Beaufort; Elizabeth Of York, who became his Queen; his Uncle, Jasper Tudor; Sir William Stanley, who helped him triumph at Bosworth; and others who are named in this documentary.
The Tudors were the bloodiest bunch of vile monsters to ever sit on the throne. From bloody Harry VIII to Bloody Mary. Elizabeth I was pretty good but her virgin status gave Britain the equally useless Stewarts.
@@katharper655Shadow of the Tower I indeed a great docudrama.
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 OH YES! I watch the entire available episodes at least once a year. The script-writing and CASTING are superlative! And everybody keeps their clothing on, too! lol😏
@@katharper655 I might watch it again.
Another fun one is "The Devils Crown" 1978 it's on daily motion
I’m not sure that Thomas More would agree that Henry VIII was an improvement over Henry VII.
Not eventually, no.
Don't think just about everyone henry vlll knew would
Henry VIII was a terrible King, yet he likely had the greatest influence on English history since William.
Yes. Cardinal Wolsey would also like a word
LMAO for sure.
The Tudors were quickly followed by the Fordors and then the Hatchbacks.
There it is!
"Henry Tudor- but how did he chew her?"
Let's not for get the Convertibles ruled before the Hatchbacks, which may I add, had a strong connection to Japan, creating havoc in not yet discovered America!
@@markblix6880 said Ann
Evidently you are a Bored of the Rings fan. And who isn't?
Henry VII was a descendant of Welsh Royalty and Edward I via Eleanor of England on his father’s side. Describing him as a mere servant suggests he was nothing more than a stable hand.
who cares
He was a descendant of an adulterous union between a king's younger son and his children's governess.
So a king bangs a servant and his offspring wants to rule…….
Did I miss something?
I'm not a fan of the Tudors, but you can't deny that they as a dynasty shaped England (and the UK) for centuries to come.
Actually,they shaped the world. It was only a tyrant like Henry VIII that had the power to go against the catholic church and at that time the catholic church was God. Of course that set in motion the English civil war and the downfall of absolute monarchy,if you can go against,and remove gods representation in the pope,then a king is no bigger matter.
They absolutely suck in an iconic way. Villains of the highest tier.
Every dynasty shaped England in some way
I deny it
@@majorgear1021How and why?
What’s with the comments painting Henry & his mother as paragon’s of evil while Richard was this poor martyred saint? Richard had good qualities AND did shady things to take the crown. Margaret & Henry too. They were all ambitious, products of their times.
They all watch the starz series and think that’s historically accurate😂
@@di3486 Oh yeah. But then there’s the Ricardians. Some are reasonable, but I’ve been called a “Tudor propagandist” & brainwashed … by Shakespeare the last few weeks. 😂Shakespeare’s legacy. Brainwashing.
@@t.l.1610 Imagine being brainwashed by Shakespeare. Wow, that’s the type of brainwashing that is worth having, not social media and starz brainwashing🤣
I mean he probably killed his nephews and was trying to marry his neice... a great guy! 😂
It wouldn’t have been unusual for him to kill his nephews. Though whether he actually did is a matter of debate
His wife played an important role too, since her claim to the throne was stronger, their marriage strengthened his.
She was the older sister of the Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, the "Princes in the Tower".
Which is why he refused to crown her until after his own coronation, to make it clear it was his own right both by his descent from John of Gaunt, and by conquest. His mother-in- law, Elizabeth Woodville, was packed off to a convent when she tried to interfere and backed Perkin Warbeck. She was only allowed to visit for Christmas in the grounds, "I have a mother and only need one mother-in-law..." which must be the earliest recorded mother in law joke.
Her lineage was his ONLY valid claim to the crown.
@@fruitiusmaximus925 Right of conquest was still a thing in England at the time, so there's that.
@@janegardener1662 fair point, though it would still earn you the name Usurper if you were not seen as having a valid claim of lineage to even challenge a king in battle.
I love history, to know why things are like they are now, how the people before shaped what legacy we all live In today
I’m not a huge fan of the royal family. But I do like learning the history about them . We can’t change history but can learn from it
The Windsors aren’t related to the Tudors.
@@Liam_PeacockNo, they're not.
The Windsors are direct descendants of Henry VII's daughter Margaret and also the last 2 monarchs have also been descended from his other daughter Mary and possibly have an illegitimate descent from Henry VIII
@@therightarmofthefreeworld4703 they’re maternal decendants.
I agree with you fascinating
I feel that this is a rather miserly account of Henry's achievements. Given the turbulence of the times, his paranoid autocracy was probably unavoidable. The alternative would have been continuing bloody and disruptive civil wars. His son and his grandchildren were equally brutal in securing the throne, so I for one don't judge him too harshly.
But he should also be given credit for modernising the fiscal system, developing commerce and trade, reducing the disruptive power of the nobility and patronising scholarship and the arts. He also largely avoided ruinous entanglements in France.
So he ushered in a period of relative peace and prosperity, creating the foundations of the modern centralised state.
Huge effect on national finances after ruinous civil wars. Left Henry VIII lots of money to waste and then dissolve and loot the monasteries. But also origin of a deeply ghastly murderous police state for next 100 years
My interest of William I to Charles III.. I have come to the conclusion that Henry VII is arguably the biggest reason that England became the powerhouse that dominated the world. 130 years of wars and he cleaned it all up (relatively). He sorted out the monarch/army’s dependence on the parliament. He made the crown wealthy in its own right. He gave relative peace and raised crown funds from mostly the wealthy. He wasn’t spending silly amount either but he did jump on paying for things such as reaching the Americas 2nd after Spain. Forward thinking yet conservative.
Also importantly and what distinguishes him from say Henry 2nd or Edward 3rd or Henry 8th.. Henry 7th nailed succession and gave decent chance of first properly English dynasty without creating a situation of immediate infighting or ridiculous wars
In my mind Henry Tudor is the king who made England into the power it became more than any other single monarch.
Henry VII Edward I William III Elizabeth I is my current Mount Rushmore of monarchs that made England and Britain successful in relative terms to other monarchies.
Bore off mate
@@Chief_Brodyif you’re not interested, why even watch?
@tomben6180 I'm interested in the topic, not the long winded opinion of a bore.
@@Chief_Brody He’s written four paragraphs, a couple of which are one sentence long.
If that’s long-winded then many you’re a bit short of patience, reading ability or both
@atillathefun5900 Really good points. Thanks for taking the time to share. I really appreciate on topic, insightful comments.
They all wanted this power and fought to get and keep it but it seems every one of them ended up miserable in their life.
As he was dying, Henry VII was obsessed with a guilt about something so terrible that even on his deathbed he couldn't confess it. He kept asking the Archbishop of Canterbury if he would enter Heaven if he died without confessing everything that he had done.
@Kriyavas1 Absence agree with you. It would be interesting to be able to go back in time and see how things really were but only for a short time.
The Tudors were Welsh. The present Welsh flag is the Tudor family banner with a red dragon on it.
The Tudor name is Welsh. This is where the dynasty originated. The Welsh are a Celtic people. However, all of the Tudor monarchs spoke English as their first
language and had a great deal of
Anglo-Saxon and French ancestry in
their genealogies.
Llewellyn the Great's revenge on the Plantagenets!
Amen 🙏 🏴🏴🏴
Always loving these videos, well done lads, looking forward to dive into this one ❤
I’m quite a fan of Henry VII, and many of the Tudors. For the first time in history,he seemed to actually bring a sense of stability, dedication and a great organization to Britain.
A police state is indeed very stable, if you like that sort of thing.
Edward IV had already made England safe, Richard probably killed the Princes to make England safer
@@alexadelroy5522Well it's about the only stable state that you could have in those times
What a super presentation. Totally brings forth the reign and history of Henry VII, fascinating!
Excellent narrative. It goes to the heart of this king. I like it, when the historian reveals the core of a historical personality.
Wonderfully presented. The lessons of this dynasty resonate both forward and backward in time; a chill ran up and down my spine as I was watching this.
It's actually from a 2013 BBC series called : (The Tudor Court S01 E03 Henry VII Winter King). The series had four episode in total.
@@straingedays Thank you for the tip!! Happy New Year to you🥳
Very well said.
And yes thanks for the tip! to you the other commenter!
What a over exaggeration a chill ran up and down my spine 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@firesideshats ☺✌That's AN over exaggeration.
Sinister? Really? He showed more character than his son ever showed.
According to the narrator, Thomas More's words about a "happy life" were in fact fulfilled though briefly
People can say what they wanna say about this king but obviously he was very intelligent and business minded. He knew just how to deal with the rich and wealth of england when they got out of hand......ATTACK THEIR POCKETS!!!!🤷😎
The clock tower looks really magnificent after its restoration. I expected the dial to have a more royal blue color.
Hampton Court Palace was built by Cardinal Wolsey during the reign of Henry viii.
I did not know of the extent of Henry’s ruthlessness. I’ve re-thought my opinion of him as a king. I can understand why he was such a suspicious man. but not extorting money from the nobles and even worse from his hardworking subjects. Thank you.
Sadly, history has shown us over and over again, that it takes a ruthless autocrat to end a civil war.
At least he did not kill them in droves.
Where Henry VIII would go after your head (there is a disputed claim that he signed 77,000 death warrants in the course of his reign), his father Henry VII would go after your wallet. The father terrorised the English establishment more than the son.
Henry the 8th was worse 😂
Henry 8 went after women, so the men were fine with not being under scrutiny for once unlike life under his dad.
@@thaloblue Wouldn't surprise me. Women were just brood mares then.
Thank you.
I love this period of history.
You have presented each person with his/her own personal wants/desires, yet not giving in to suppositions, or ideas not supported by facts.
Most excellent research and
narration.
Loved it.
I have been saying for years that Henry Tudor is far more a great man in history than his son.
He was the last English King to take the crown in battle.
It's like Edsel Ford being lorded and forgetting about Henry, the father of modern motoring.
Owen Tudor was not simply a chamber servant
It was necessary for Henry 7 to be the first Two Door king, because his younger son, the most memorable in English history, extended his circumference in his later years. This most memorable king, Henry VIII, fathered England's most memorable queen, Elizabeth 1.
I don’t think he had a hunger for power, his mother had that hunger!
Right. But she had it so Henry had to have it too:-).
They were both ambitious. Look what a firm grip Henry had during his reign. That happened just bc mum was ambitious? Not a chance. Margaret was a remarkable woman in her own right btw, but not the sole reason Henry was successful.
Even if he did not hunger after the English throne, Henry had to struggle just to keep from being killed. The cast in his eye was probably genetic because Henry III supposedly had one two. Significantly, Perkin Warbeck, the so-called imposter, also had a cast in his eye.
They were both ruthless @@t.l.1610
After losing his land and titles I think It got to the point where he knew he was a dead man walking so his best and maybe only options was to try and become king. Die fighting for the ultimate glory or stay and live a life of isolation in France. I’m sure it was a easy decision to make really
Excellent program and I learned a lot too!
Henry VII's life was infinitely more fascinating than Henry VIII's.
Henry VIII was a spoiled, petulant brat, born into unimaginable privilege.
Henry VII put his life on the line in the most literal sense, against all odds, to take the crown.
Why wouldn't he be suspicious. Henry VII was just another plotter in a long series of plotters to secure the crown for themselves or their family.
This is so interesting and well done! I never knew about Henry VII. He looks like----well, I wouldn't cross him! At the same time he seemed to have truly loved his wife and son whereas Henry VIII was a complete psychopath. And I admire anyone who makes beautiufl buildings. The presenter is extremely enjoyable! Great storytelling!
Too many adverts. At one point there was only one! Sentence between two adverts. Ridiculous
A fascinating period and well explained by the historian
Fabulous! Thank you - what a great presenter, much more my style..this fella knows how to tell a story. I didn't know that about the date change, I'd still turn out for Richard the Third, I love that Duke of Gloucester.
Check out "The Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey, the story of Richard III in the guise of a detective novel. She specifically mentions the date change, also the fact that there's no evidence Richard murdered his nephews, let alone imprisoned them as stated by this narrator.
Saying "Henry VII ...never knew a moment's peace..." is nonsense. Henry was in a happy marriage, had several children who lived to adulthood, and had the courage to take what he believed was his birthright.
You've got that wrong. His 2nd son was the most sinister and his 1st granddaughter was more sinister than her grandpa. And Henry VII killed off the murderous and ruthless Richard III. And Henry was stingy but left the Monarchy in good fiscal shape. So he may have been ruthless and sinister, but not the most. And you had to be brutal to be a monarch anyway.
Stanley betrayed Richard by switching sides at the last moment in return for lands and titles he had been promised by Henry's mum if he won
What an operator, a Welshman, major alliances, married Elizabeth of York and building up cash reserves and providing stability in the dawn of the age of exploration and humanism of Erasmus
Money which Henry 8th squandered
@willhovell9019 great summary ✅💯
Well he didn't deserve a moments peace because the throne wasn't rightly his/ house of York had a greater claim to it over the tudors who agrees ?
Please tell me there's a project underway to digitize all of the records in those boxes!
That was brilliant, really enjoyed that
I always thought that Richard lll got a bad press regarding the “princes in the tower” because Henry Vll had just as good a reason for wanting them out of the way as did Richard! Remember, history is written by the winning side, not the losing side.
Interesting observation!
@ - What’s more interesting is that the only person to repeatedly call Richard lll a villain was Shakespeare, not history and if it had not been for Shakespeare and the semi-comical portrayal of Richard by Laurence Olivia, emphasising the hook nose and hunch back (of which there is no evidence other than a “slight deformity”), nobody would think too badly of him. If you want a real villain who was a total waste of space and a vicious S.O.B. as well, look no further than Henry Vlll.
The Tudors were megalomaniacs…just like all royalty back then.
I find it odd that we should be upset about Henry VII having a less ‘legitimate’ claim to the throne. As if being born a son of someone was any great way to choose a leader, or in any way resulted in good governance.
I am unfamiliar with this presentator but he does seem intent on portraying Henry VII in a bad light. Especially vs Richard III.
And he doesn’t present enough sources for his information. So much of history depends upon the perspective of who wrote it down.
Conquest is a legitimate claim to the throne.
Richard III had the princes in the tower overshadowing his reign.
In the game of thrones, you win or you die.
Seems like a lot of royals are still that way
He had no legitimate claim. He was a usurper and a joke. He knee that he was a joke which is why he was so paranoid, he was a fraud
500 and something years of hindsight, revolution, evolution and change means we often find it difficult to truly understand our ancestors.
Henry VII, the usurper, is the person who had the very best motive to kill Edward V and his little brother.
pretty much, with his very few and illegitimate drops of royal blood, he had the biggest motive to dissapear those 2 kids to establish his own (and horrific) royal line
His son, grandson and granddaughters had a profound influence on English, British and Scottish History!
I loved this documentary. Well written and produced. Thank you so much!
I can't really concentrate with these short ads every five minutes. Get rid of them.
Get youtube premium... it's worth it
Nothing like the bloody and violent history of England to ease me into a good night's sleep
The best documentary , thanks to all of you ❤
I always thought that Henry VIII was "England's most sinister monarch." Wasn't he the one who was killing anybody who looked cross-eyed at him, especially his wives?
Like they said, H7 was absolutely neurotic but overshadowed by his son and his granddaughters.
I would argue that Mary was the worst of the Tudors.
It was an informative and wonderful historical coverage documentary about Henry VII monarch..in Britain 🇬🇧 from 1485 and going forward 👍🏻
England
Great story!
How is Winchester "the legendary seat of Camelot"? Never heard that before. Camelot was Camelodenum, the original Roman capital of Britain - and its in Essex. Apart from that, a great video.
Theres a few different theories. Winchesters, Cornwall, Wales. Some think he was Roman, others Celtic or Saxon.
@@cambs0181 He might have been born Anatolian, but he was definitely ROMAN. That's what it was all about - restoring the Pax Romana. And the historic and symbolic capital of Roman Britain was Camulodenum. Hence Colchester is definitely Camelot. All other theories are random garbage that ignore the historical context.
@@kubhlaikhan2015 Yeah, he looks Roman.
Now I Know Where The Author Of Game of Thrones Got His Ideas From.
There is a bit of time discrepancy of Hampton Court Palace the great hall and adjoining rooms shown in this video was not built until 1514 for Cardinal Wolsey 5 years after the death of Henry VII. Then in 1529 Wolsey gavel the palace to Henry VIII. So Henry VII never set foot in this building as shown in the video. Yes palaces were built as described room after room and I’m sure he is correct in stating that the closer you got to the king the more important you were.
So many Henrys ! 🤯I cannot untangle them all ! It's a madhouse ! A MADHOUSE !
His determination is immense!
The man who was the protector of Arthur Prince of Wales is entombed in St Bartholomew's Church in Tong Village, Shropshire, Sir Henry Vernon. The death of the royal heir was under his watch. How unfortunate.
He was a talented battle commander and an excellent administrator. He sorted the kingdom out after years of civil war and left his son a lot of money. He might have had the weakest claim but he certainly was probs the most competent out of the bunch
they got inside the cage of the winter king's tomb.
that doesn't just happen for anyone.
I am of the opinion that the paranoid, mercurial fragility of mind
that all the Tudors displayed was the result
of a previous melding of two rival families.
the Lancastrians and the Valois.
Hank7's great-grandmother, Catherine, was the daughter of the Valois king
who thought he was made of glass.
this fragility was also on full display in his numerical predecessor,
Hank6.
He must have been conscious of money in ways most kings need not have been.
Threads of this past are running through the trumpet -who- wants- to- be-king
Sounds like Machiavelli would have loved Henry 7
Edmund Dudley, the executed extorting grandfather of Robert Dudley, favorite of Elizabeth I.
Very good. Thank you.
I want this guy to do a full history
Well done!
And he seemed such a nice fellow in Sir Lawrence Oliviers version of Richard the Third, heh!
I read years ago that Henry VII had been given the sobriquet "The Fox," but now I can't find any reference to that. Anybody know?
Superb material and presentation from Thomas Penn ... he should perhaps lash out and buy a new pair of shoes, although they do look very comfortable (8:45)
Your right..their trashed!
I love Toby and his work with Todd at Todd's workshop. I always thought it was hilarious that an American is in charge of the of the wallace collection. stick it to the brits
Henry was cunning and while a bad guy, he was no where near as bad as Henry VIII.
When kings were leaders who demonstrated grit on the battle fields. Henry VII with Lancastrian blood had the potential for the role that he came and took by stealth and sword!
Fantastic documentary. Thank you for posting this.
Truly excelent.
Enjoyed this story very much.
You are the only historian I have heard acknowledge the fact that the illegitimate Beauforts were barred from inheriting the throne. Even Edward IV and Richard III’s grandmother was a Beaufort. However the Yorkists lineage was through two of Edward III’s progeny whereas the Lancastrians was from the usurpation of Richard II’s throne by Henry IV. IT IS VERY SELDOM THAT THIS POINT IS MADE. Fantastic documentary, however seeing you in those archives in Westminster worries me. In these volatile times in which we live where history seems not to be valued, I worry that those beautiful manuscripts of our history could so easily be destroyed, especially by fire.
Thank you for clarifying the lineage and stating the fact that that *point is very seldom made.
They keep releasing this doco the book the winter King is awesome
They call Henry vii a usurper. It seems that whoever was the most powerful held the throne starting back to 1066, so how can he be a usurper?
What I found most interesting is that Henry VII changed the date of the Bothwell victory by making it one day earlier. Thus allowing everyone on Charles side in the battle to be charged with treason. Eliminating almost all of his enemies in one simple day.
@terri348 it was Bosworth not Bothwell and the opposing king was called Richard not Charles
Henry had no legitimate claim by blood. William I actually had a blood claim to the throne, whereas Harold had a rich daddy and friends in high places.
Both battles (Hastings and Bosworth) were decided by the death of the king.
I enjoyed that. Thank you.
Me in gym stopping workout and corner myself to check the output of the battle.
Fabulous content & narration!
Such a fantastic watch.
Really well told.
Thank you, i love the Tudor period. Very intersting video, i enjoyed its content immensely.
Beautiful doc, thanks.
My question is how weak was Richard the Thirds reign that one battle could decide the issue. Yes if he died in battle that's bad...but a strong monarchy with succession could have overcome that....what was different here?
Richard 3 did not have a clear successor. His only son and wife had died.
Does anyone know what is the piece of music used at 29.30? It's gorgeous.
His mommy connived it for him. 😂😂😂
Excellent video
Thank you for shining a light on this often ignored king. There must have been, if course, many rather dark reasons for his gaining of the crown. But I wonder if there were also some sort worthy impetus. Henry saved England from a bloody civil war, and he ruled with a degree of apparent caring of his country.
His mother was cray cray and obsessed with power
Being impregnated by her gold-digging husband at the age of 12 and undergoing agonizing and lengthy parturition at 13 might make anyone a bit mad.
Very good!