Fun fact: "Richard of York" was actually an impostor posing as the york prince. It's most likely that the real richard was murdered along with his brother in the tower of London by their uncle so he can become king.
They weren't murdered, they disappeared and their bodies have never been found. Neither Richard III, the last Plantagenet king, nor Henry VII, the first Tudor king, said anything about them. Two of Richard III's subordinates (both of whom betrayed him to Henry Tudor's faction) had command of the Tower of London during the period when they may have disappeared. Richard was given the office of Lord Protector by his brother the king. As Protector, Richard was responsible for securing his nephew, the young king, and running the government executive. King Edward IV's marriage with Queen Elizabeth Woodville was declared illegitimate upon the revelation that Edward was previously and concurrently married to Eleanor Talbot. Robert Stillington (who received all sorts of favors during Edward's reign, including the office of Lord Chancellor) declared that he performed the marriage in secret prior to Edward's (also secret) marriage to Elizabeth. Since Edward was already married, his children with Elizabeth would therefore be illegitimate. The illegitimacy of Edward's children was accepted by the Church and by Parliament. Richard III didn't need to murder his nephews to remove them from the line of succession. It was already done. Murdering them would simultaneously make him look like a murderer and underscore his tenuous right to the throne.
@@renshiwu305 I've read somewhere that back in the 17th century, two skeletons were found in one part of the Tower, inside a wooden box. They were skeletons of two young children. They were buried at Westminster Abbey by King Charles II. But it can't be tested if there's any relation of both skeletons to the remains of other people, like King Edward IV, to confirm their blood ties with the Plantagenets and, therefore, their identity, because the Anglican Church, Queen Elizabeth II and the ministers forbid it, as it would lead to many intrusive investigations on theories about the English Monarchy. A pity, really. It annoys the fuck out of me that religion and power stand as an obstacle for knowledge, which is everyone's right. It isn't just about your fucking ancestors, is about a whole nation's History. Everyone has the right to know about their past. I just hope things change when William is king, because I don't see Charles allowing it either.
@@cringecat3614 Yeah, the bodily remains could be the disappeared princes. They could also be children unknown. A lot of people have been buried at the Tower. The Tower was erected after the Conquest, so it was 600 years old in Charles' time. Richard III had no motive to murder his nephews, and it would be totally uncharacteristic of him to do so.
Certainly, that particular allusion in the chapter regarding "the Sforza of Venecia" (sic) is a rare major mistake of factual script supervision made by the historical advisers of the series. In general, the very competent Teresa Cunillera, Enrique Aznar Pardo and Luis Sorando López occasionally missed a few very occasional blunders like this in an otherwide excellent work carried out along some very historically compressed scripts throughout the three seasons of the series (in fact what they had to leave out of them for production reasons would give for as many seasons). Here, what the character of Ambassador Fuensalida is exposing in this episode scene of the meeting with his kings Isabel and Fernando, in front of the royal councilor Gonzalo Chacón, are the negotiations of the "(Milanese Dux) Ludovico Sforza" "for" the creation of the antifrench "Venice League". At that stage of the war, March 1495, with Charles VIII and his army established in a Naples already conquered, Ludovico Sforza, "Il Moro", patron of Leonardo da Vinci, Dux of Milan after the death of Gian Galeazzo Sforza in October 1494 who had called the French and had cleared their way through Milan to Genoa, Florence and the Pope States, became aware of the extent and magnitude of the threat that French power began to represent and changed sides. He negotiated the alliance called the League of Venice, together with the Venice republic, the king of Romans Maximilian I (on the basis that Charles VIII had usurped imperial rights in Tuscany), King Ferdinand II of Aragon and the Pope. Along with the general rejection of the violence and looting that the French troops exercised in the occupied populations, the official pretext of it is that of "the defense of Christianity against the Turks." Its captain general would be Francisco II Gonzaga, Marquis of Mantua. In another episode of this same Italy war, the script misses another inaccurate historical fact when Ambassador Fuensalida is saying that (before the french attack) "Charles VIII has signed a peace treaty with Venice". Actually, in the preparations for the occupation of Italy the French king had already neutralized his neighbors with respective peace treaties with England (Treaty of Étaples), Aragon (Treaty of Barcelona), and Burgundy (Treaty of Senlis). The Republic of Venice actually "only" remained neutral in the advance of Charles VIII throughout northern Italy (along with Modena-Ferrara, Savoie and Montferrato), August and September of 1494, when in Rapallo the Duke of Orleans (the future Louis XII) and its 3000 Swiss mercenaries along with contigents of Genoese and Milanese allies defeated 4000 Neapolitans of Giulio Orsini. Which allowed Charles to march his army through the Republic of Genoa. (surviving inhabitanst of the Mordano's fortress massacred on 19 October), on the way to Florence, which resistance was weakened and finally defeated by an internal revolt incited by Savonarola, by the anti Medici faction favorable to France despite the benefit of the alliance with Naples for the silk trade and by Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere, enemy of the new Pope Alexander VI, that previously had also promoted the French invasion to dethrone his adversary. All of this left the open path to the French army to Tuscany and Rome (December 1494).
@@uxiorabade2968 yes and in a previous episode, when Charles was celebrating how Venice opened its doors that is another historical mistake, since a) Venice was geographically on the north-eastern part of Italy, whilst the French were entering from north-west, with Milan in the middle, so how.could have Venice let the french troops enter its territory? B) as you rightly said, Venice was neutral during the initial phase of the conflict. It is a shame, for the series is well written, directed and acted, but the Italian wars were really badly tackled.
Easy, because Ferdinand is King of Aragon, so they take their father's kingdom for names, like lastnames. But Juana was Queen if Castile, so history remembers her as Queen Juana of Castile
Joanna was not only the Queen of Castile but also of Aragon. Inheriting the Kingdom after her father, Ferdinand's Death in 1516. She's the first Queen regnant of Spain though sadly she was confined in the Tordesillas and never ruled personally as she was deemed mad by those men in her lives who wanted her power and exaggerated her madness.
Both daughters were infantas of "Castile and Aragón", being in the Court of Castilla or vice versa, "Aragón and Castile" in the Court of Aragón, Catalonia, Valencia or Balearics . The true last names of both princesses (and also of their other 2 sisters and their brother, the prince of Asturias) correspond to the dynasty to which their parents belonged, the kings Fernando de Aragón and Isabel de Castilla: "Trastámara". Isabel, Juan, Juana, María and Catalina of Trastámara, prince and infantas of Castilla and Aragón.
Fun fact: "Richard of York" was actually an impostor posing as the york prince. It's most likely that the real richard was murdered along with his brother in the tower of London by their uncle so he can become king.
They weren't murdered, they disappeared and their bodies have never been found. Neither Richard III, the last Plantagenet king, nor Henry VII, the first Tudor king, said anything about them. Two of Richard III's subordinates (both of whom betrayed him to Henry Tudor's faction) had command of the Tower of London during the period when they may have disappeared. Richard was given the office of Lord Protector by his brother the king. As Protector, Richard was responsible for securing his nephew, the young king, and running the government executive. King Edward IV's marriage with Queen Elizabeth Woodville was declared illegitimate upon the revelation that Edward was previously and concurrently married to Eleanor Talbot. Robert Stillington (who received all sorts of favors during Edward's reign, including the office of Lord Chancellor) declared that he performed the marriage in secret prior to Edward's (also secret) marriage to Elizabeth. Since Edward was already married, his children with Elizabeth would therefore be illegitimate. The illegitimacy of Edward's children was accepted by the Church and by Parliament. Richard III didn't need to murder his nephews to remove them from the line of succession. It was already done. Murdering them would simultaneously make him look like a murderer and underscore his tenuous right to the throne.
@@renshiwu305 I've read somewhere that back in the 17th century, two skeletons were found in one part of the Tower, inside a wooden box. They were skeletons of two young children. They were buried at Westminster Abbey by King Charles II. But it can't be tested if there's any relation of both skeletons to the remains of other people, like King Edward IV, to confirm their blood ties with the Plantagenets and, therefore, their identity, because the Anglican Church, Queen Elizabeth II and the ministers forbid it, as it would lead to many intrusive investigations on theories about the English Monarchy. A pity, really. It annoys the fuck out of me that religion and power stand as an obstacle for knowledge, which is everyone's right. It isn't just about your fucking ancestors, is about a whole nation's History. Everyone has the right to know about their past. I just hope things change when William is king, because I don't see Charles allowing it either.
@@cringecat3614 Yeah, the bodily remains could be the disappeared princes. They could also be children unknown. A lot of people have been buried at the Tower. The Tower was erected after the Conquest, so it was 600 years old in Charles' time. Richard III had no motive to murder his nephews, and it would be totally uncharacteristic of him to do so.
@@renshiwu305 there were a lot of Victorian inventions at that time. Richard III's case and the execution place of Anne Boleyn are among them
The Sforza were the dukes of Milan, not Venice which was a Republic. Eugh. Great video anyway and thanks for translating this series for us!
Certainly, that particular allusion in the chapter regarding "the Sforza of Venecia" (sic) is a rare major mistake of factual script supervision made by the historical advisers of the series. In general, the very competent Teresa Cunillera, Enrique Aznar Pardo and Luis Sorando López occasionally missed a few very occasional blunders like this in an otherwide excellent work carried out along some very historically compressed scripts throughout the three seasons of the series (in fact what they had to leave out of them for production reasons would give for as many seasons).
Here, what the character of Ambassador Fuensalida is exposing in this episode scene of the meeting with his kings Isabel and Fernando, in front of the royal councilor Gonzalo Chacón, are the negotiations of the "(Milanese Dux) Ludovico Sforza" "for" the creation of the antifrench "Venice League".
At that stage of the war, March 1495, with Charles VIII and his army established in a Naples already conquered, Ludovico Sforza, "Il Moro", patron of Leonardo da Vinci, Dux of Milan after the death of Gian Galeazzo Sforza in October 1494 who had called the French and had cleared their way through Milan to Genoa, Florence and the Pope States, became aware of the extent and magnitude of the threat that French power began to represent and changed sides. He negotiated the alliance called the League of Venice, together with the Venice republic, the king of Romans Maximilian I (on the basis that Charles VIII had usurped imperial rights in Tuscany), King Ferdinand II of Aragon and the Pope. Along with the general rejection of the violence and looting that the French troops exercised in the occupied populations, the official pretext of it is that of "the defense of Christianity against the Turks." Its captain general would be Francisco II Gonzaga, Marquis of Mantua.
In another episode of this same Italy war, the script misses another inaccurate historical fact when Ambassador Fuensalida is saying that (before the french attack) "Charles VIII has signed a peace treaty with Venice". Actually, in the preparations for the occupation of Italy the French king had already neutralized his neighbors with respective peace treaties with England (Treaty of Étaples), Aragon (Treaty of Barcelona), and Burgundy (Treaty of Senlis). The Republic of Venice actually "only" remained neutral in the advance of Charles VIII throughout northern Italy (along with Modena-Ferrara, Savoie and Montferrato), August and September of 1494, when in Rapallo the Duke of Orleans (the future Louis XII) and its 3000 Swiss mercenaries along with contigents of Genoese and Milanese allies defeated 4000 Neapolitans of Giulio Orsini. Which allowed Charles to march his army through the Republic of Genoa. (surviving inhabitanst of the Mordano's fortress massacred on 19 October), on the way to Florence, which resistance was weakened and finally defeated by an internal revolt incited by Savonarola, by the anti Medici faction favorable to France despite the benefit of the alliance with Naples for the silk trade and by Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere, enemy of the new Pope Alexander VI, that previously had also promoted the French invasion to dethrone his adversary. All of this left the open path to the French army to Tuscany and Rome (December 1494).
@@uxiorabade2968 yes and in a previous episode, when Charles was celebrating how Venice opened its doors that is another historical mistake, since a) Venice was geographically on the north-eastern part of Italy, whilst the French were entering from north-west, with Milan in the middle, so how.could have Venice let the french troops enter its territory? B) as you rightly said, Venice was neutral during the initial phase of the conflict. It is a shame, for the series is well written, directed and acted, but the Italian wars were really badly tackled.
What about Benjamin IV of Novia Scotia ! Of king Edward IV of England?!
What about them?
Edward IV was dead at that point.
I HATE Richard III 😡 he uspered and then, killed the rightful king.
Does anyone know why one daughter was of Castile , but another was of Aragon ?
Easy, because Ferdinand is King of Aragon, so they take their father's kingdom for names, like lastnames. But Juana was Queen if Castile, so history remembers her as Queen Juana of Castile
@@vyotuong6115 That makes sense. Nice to know you, Vy.
nguyen anh tuan thx. Is is a rlly ridiculous question, but from the way ur name is spelled, I'm guessing ur 🇻🇳
Joanna was not only the Queen of Castile but also of Aragon. Inheriting the Kingdom after her father, Ferdinand's Death in 1516. She's the first Queen regnant of Spain though sadly she was confined in the Tordesillas and never ruled personally as she was deemed mad by those men in her lives who wanted her power and exaggerated her madness.
Both daughters were infantas of "Castile and Aragón", being in the Court of Castilla or vice versa, "Aragón and Castile" in the Court of Aragón, Catalonia, Valencia or Balearics . The true last names of both princesses (and also of their other 2 sisters and their brother, the prince of Asturias) correspond to the dynasty to which their parents belonged, the kings Fernando de Aragón and Isabel de Castilla: "Trastámara". Isabel, Juan, Juana, María and Catalina of Trastámara, prince and infantas of Castilla and Aragón.