Although this video cleared up a lot for me and explained the War of the Roses my head still swims trying to follow the family trees and lines of succession.
The bottom line is this: Henry IV, V, and VI are descended from Edward III's fourth son, whereas Richard Duke of York was descended on his mother's side from Edward III's second son. I actually have a very extensive family tree drawn up, someday I'll put up a video to explain it in detail. It's easy to forget that of all the highest-born participants in this fight, they were almost all related. That would have been a very interesting family Thanksgiving dinner.
@@tomservo75 The Lancaster line were descendants of the 3rd son and the Yorkist line were descendants of both the second and fourth sons of Edward III.
I'm glad the medieval kings were able to keep track of their family trees and succession rights. I'm trying, but after a few generations I get lost in the branches somewhere.
I had no idea that Henry Bolingbroke justified his claim from some bogus notion of Edmund Crouchback being the actual eldest son of Henry III, how bizarre! It makes sense that he would have to, considering English Common Law would indeed favor the Mortimer claim at the time. He could have derived it via Salic Law, but then of course the Plantagent themselves would never have been able to come to power by Empress Matilda. Also, Henry VII could not be king in his own right in Salic Law considering his claim came from his mother.
Yes, I agree...the "rules" are quashed whenever it suits the winner. The Beaufort's were descendants of an affair, and were therefore illegitimate. The children had been legitimized, despite the fact that they were born during the time when the father was producing legitimate heirs through his wife....but they were NOT entitled to the crown...Edmund Tudor's legitimacy was questionable, as Owen Tudor may never have married Catherine of Valois, and he might have been the bastard child of Edmund Beaufort anyway....so...less right to grab the great chair, and Margaret Beaufort was illegitimate (as mentioned above) Only George (the guy who drowned in the Mamsey) had a heir with a claim
yes , progéniture is not ruled by gender...the eldest or elder child, and direct descendant does seem to hold the most wait. I think that the power of certain powerful rulers like william the conqueror, gave a great deal of power to mathilda his granddaughter as his only surviving direct heir.. and although she was female, she was related to alfred the great, direct descendant by both her father henry i ( through his mother mathilda of flanders) and her mother, mathilda of scotland. ( her parents were cousins, no surprise and no surprise that she too was called mathilda ! ) also, she was direct decendant of malcolm iii of scotland, which also gives her extra standing. but the choice to give her progéniture causes powerful precedent, impossible to ignore, for future generations, especially with the fame of william the conqueror. he was a giant in history.
you make an excellent point about the plantagenet line having legitimacy only because of progéniture being passed through female heir... i never thought about that
I'm onmy first year history degree at present with the War of the Roses as one of the main areas that we are focussing on. This is a complex period. This video has been very helpful. Thankyou.
Wow just found this. Thank you so much. You describe all the links so clearly and make it all sound so interesting. Your voice and pace is perfect. Glad to have found you. Now I’ll look to see if you’ve done other videos. 🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
Thank you for this great video! You must be a professor. I like these videos. I hope that sometime you will consider a video on The Kingmaker and the Neville Family. :) Thank you!
Listening to this was reminiscent of loading up a Crusader Kings campaign a year or so after you last played it and delving into a stupidly complex family tree trying to remember who is related to who from where xD But no, informative stuff, nicely done.
i see a lot of comments about anne mortimer being a female, therefore some think that lancaster should have precedence. lancaster york and clarence are all house of plantagenet, the surname of a french dude, a prince actually who married mathilda or empress mathilda, granddaughter to william the conquer, and all of these people that we are discussing would not be born or inheriting anything if not for mathilda. the female heir can indeed pass the crown onto her heirs. Her cousin Stephen took the crown for awhile claiming that the previous king had willed it to him, but she and her supporters fought him and eventually her son Henry ii, considered one if the greatest kings if england, won the crown. both of Mathilda's parents are actually direct descendants of alfred the great. her grandfather william the conqueror claimed the crown on the legal grounds that his wife , was also direct descendant of alfred the great. legal precedence being set... edward iii, who gave birth to the five boys who spawned all these squabbling family lines in the War if the Roses, is her direct descendant and would not have been king if not for Mathilda. as king, Edward iii set up huge fortunes, and large properties for his boys, as is referred to in this doc, which gave his heirs the power to squabble and make large scale war, instead of just quietly seething at home, wishing they were kings. henry iv , the first lancaster who took over did have problems getting support for his reign from clergy and parliament, had many rebellions and plots against him throughout his time. in light of legal precedence, Henry vii , henry tudor has more weight through his marriage to elizabeth of york , direct descendant of anne mortimer, direct descendant of duke of clarence, second son of edward iii. doubt henry vii s claim, but his son henry viii, has a stronger claim through elizabeth. of york ( great grandmother to yet another female, the great Elizabeth I ! The Tudors. including the great Elizabeth I, daughter of henry viii, claim precedence through their relationship to Elizabeth of York. Elizabeth I, sovereign in her own right, and much later, queens anne, victoria and present day, elizabeth II !
Really interesting talk thank you 😊 What about the fact that York’s claim can through a female (Clarence’s daughter) rather than male to male? It’s that more to do with French royalty? Ultimately legitimate claims is not really how it works, it helps but most of the time it’s down to whether Nobles want you as their King or not. Kings ruled by consent.
that is an excellent point about ruling with consent, if the clergy or nobility or the people are against the king or queen, they had more difficulties... i heard more than once that henry iv had a lot of problems and struggles gaining support, and henry v fared better due in part to force of personality as well as being heir to henry iv who survived his difficulties and held onto throne. someone earlier made an excellent point as about grogeniture through female line , that the whole plantagenet line is descended though the female grand daughter of william the conqueror, Empress Mathilda, who married the first plantagenet, from anjou. that is why she is called Empress ! she was descended directly from alfred the great through both her father henry i and through her mother, mathilda of scotland ! so she had royalty to the nth power , i suppose, and the precedent for inheritance through the female was set. none of these guys lancaster or york or clarence, have any claim at all, if you don't respect female lines .
To be fair, Richard II willingly gave the crown to Henry IV and the Plantagenets followed agnatic succession, cause if it didn't then John Lackland would not be the rightful King when Duke Arthur of Brittany died. Also Edmund of Langley, the founder of the House of York, supported Bolingbroke when he returned to England.
In 1399, when Henry Bollingbrook usurped the throne from Richard II, the male line of Lionel, Duke of Clarence had died out.....Anne Mortimer was the only one in a direct line, so the third son's line were up at bat.
depends on your interpretation of law, .. empress mathilda, granddaughter of william the conqueror, was crowned and passed the crown onto her children, this set precedent.
OH MY GOODNESS. Ive been doing an essay on the Causes of the Wars of the Roses and I finished it a month ago. IT WAS SO HARD to find the causes. If only I found this video sooner XD
Hello Mark, loving your videos. I am curious, how contentious are the War of the Roses and the English Civil War among Britons today? Here in America, feelings are still pretty strong regarding our own Civil War among a pretty large segment of the population.
Darren Renna Hi Darren. They are not as contentious among the public as the US Civil War, especially not the Wars of the Roses. However they are contentious to people in local areas directly affected and among historians.
i thought it was interesting that now they believe the reason Stanley betrayed Richard at the battle of Bosworth field was Richards loyalty towards the Harringtons who had a long running dispute with the stanley's who Edward 1V had supported. Now all becomes clear get rid of Richard and their is nothing stopping them with their land grab and keeping what they already acquired from the Harringtons
Darren Renna Your civil war still draws upon ethnic tensions and is really very recent. Our latest civil war though, not the War of the Roses, is I suppose still somewhat divisive in a faint way, especially if your irish.
How serious was Richard of York's claim? Could it not be argued that Henry had the stronger claim as it followed a direct Male line from the third son, John of Gaunt? Was the female Mortimer lineage respected or seen as equal to that of a male line, despite being from the second son, Lionel of Anwerp? or was it respected only in combination with the 4th son's line, ie Edmund of Langley? I suppose there was such a vacum because of Henry vi and Somerset's and Margaret's manoueverings that eventually Richard had to claim the crown, or risk being attainded. Thanks for the vid. btw
@@fredbarker9201 Which Henry do you mean? Henry 4th was the son of John of Gaunt. Henry 6th was the grandson. Richard of York was decended from Lionel of Antwerp-2nd son of Edward 3rd. but through the female line.
@@keddw thought you meant Henry Tudor. You mean who’s got the better claim out of York or Lancaster ? The answer to that is whoever has the better army :)
i see a lot of comments about anne mortimer being a female, so the lancaster should have precedence. lancaster york and clarence are all plantagenet, the surname of a french dude, a prince actually who married mathilda or empress mathilda, who inherited her grandfather, william the conqueror s throne, and all of these people that we are discussing would not be born or inheriting anything if not for mathilda. the female heir can indeed pass the crown onto her heirs. Mathilda is the mother of henry ii, considered one if the greatest kings if england, and both of her parents are actually direct descendants of alfred the great. so yes, she had a great deal of support probably from the people of england, or the clergy or nobility, but her situation set precedence, which is difficult to ignore. edward iii, who gave birth to the five boys who spawned all these squabbling family lines, is her direct descendant and would not have been king if not for her. as king, he set up huge fortunes, and large properties, as is referred to in this doc, which gave his heirs the power to squabble and make large scale war, instead of just quietly seethe and try to foment feeble rebellions like normal royal families do.....
@@kweejibodali7009 But the line through the female lineage was not as respected as the male lineage, Therefore Henry Plantagenet had to become King to start the new dynasty. Otherwise Matilda would have become queen earlier, uniting more factions. But, it was not possible.It was unprecedented Anyway, the main issues of the Wars of the Roses, it seems to me, are down to Henry the 6th unsuitablity to be king, Margaret's choice of advisors, bias towards French interests, earlier incompetence of leaders at conducting war in France, including overlooking Richard of York, and inability to balance factions properly at court. Henry the 5th had stablised the Lancastrian claim, and they should have been set, but for Henry the 6th and leaving direction of government to Margaret of Anjou and other opportunists
Max Myers: That’s fanciful and anachronistic. She was 15 when she married Henry VI in 1445. The war was decided in 1433 when Richemont ousted Trémoille, with Yolande of Aragon’s blessing.
Love the Red🏵 and White 💐 wars but at the end of it all.... those who command the most swords at the end of the day generally get to rule.... hence Henry 7th......
I've read the John Ashdown Hill book on The Wars of the Roses. His conclusion on Edmund & Jasper "Tudor"'s true parentage is very believable and Miles Mathis' article on Henry VII, where he talks about the "Cousin's War" being "staged" and 100% fake lines up with the book. That said, it sounds like a lot of these royals (who were all related in some way) were sex addicts and baby swappers. Extra-marital affairs seem to have been very common and mostly a power play. Have you ever noticed how much Richard III's portrait resembles Henry VII? I think he may have been Edmund Beaufort's son as well. I also doubt that Owen Tudor was even a real person. The Beauforts were a bitter, ambitious and dispossessed family, having been barred from the royal line of succession and Cecily Neville was a Beaufort herself. It doesn't make any sense that she would marry the lead Yorkist, nor does it make sense to me that the Duke of York would be Henry VI's heir. The whole thing looks like a big con.
The "Wars of the Roses" by these two Royal "Norman" lines at not time ever owned East Anglia (Iceni) because those lands were stolen lands originally by the Romans in 60AD & all other invaders to our lands the "Kingdom of Iceni lands" we inherited from King Prasutagus in 45AD Queen Boudicca's husband! Those lands in the laws at the time went to Queen Boudicca's brother in Scotland as King Corbred 2nd which we inherited down our Royal line in Ireland and Australia today! So the Wars of the Roses over these lands was their waste of time by the Tudors! And today we own those lands under law in Britain on inheritances of lands & the European laws! We are the one and only Britannia Royals since 1389BC and have not had any Surname changes in over 800 years!
INTERESTING!
Good job! Quite clear and straight to the point.
Thank You for this, Mark.
All the best everybody.
Although this video cleared up a lot for me and explained the War of the Roses my head still swims trying to follow the family trees and lines of succession.
The bottom line is this: Henry IV, V, and VI are descended from Edward III's fourth son, whereas Richard Duke of York was descended on his mother's side from Edward III's second son. I actually have a very extensive family tree drawn up, someday I'll put up a video to explain it in detail. It's easy to forget that of all the highest-born participants in this fight, they were almost all related. That would have been a very interesting family Thanksgiving dinner.
Kapitänleutnant .Thompson Same here.
@@tomservo75 The Lancaster line were descendants of the 3rd son and the Yorkist line were descendants of both the second and fourth sons of Edward III.
this is what happens when kings have too many sons and they are not wanting to share the power, the wealth, and the land.
oh and then the shrinking gene pool of later centuries so things get simpler and more clear cut .
Thank you. The best explanation I've heard and in such a concise manner. Excellent!
Lucid & gripping my gratitude
My grandmother was a Gilman-Grey and I never really understood this whole history thank you!
Hello Mark, I enjoyed your talk on this subject, thank you for sharing your views and knowledge.
Thank you so much for this video it's been a huge help.
I admire you for keeping all these characters straight!
I'm glad the medieval kings were able to keep track of their family trees and succession rights. I'm trying, but after a few generations I get lost in the branches somewhere.
Excellent and well thought through summary
I had no idea that Henry Bolingbroke justified his claim from some bogus notion of Edmund Crouchback being the actual eldest son of Henry III, how bizarre! It makes sense that he would have to, considering English Common Law would indeed favor the Mortimer claim at the time. He could have derived it via Salic Law, but then of course the Plantagent themselves would never have been able to come to power by Empress Matilda. Also, Henry VII could not be king in his own right in Salic Law considering his claim came from his mother.
Yes, I agree...the "rules" are quashed whenever it suits the winner. The Beaufort's were descendants of an affair, and were therefore illegitimate. The children had been legitimized, despite the fact that they were born during the time when the father was producing legitimate heirs through his wife....but they were NOT entitled to the crown...Edmund Tudor's legitimacy was questionable, as Owen Tudor may never have married Catherine of Valois, and he might have been the bastard child of Edmund Beaufort anyway....so...less right to grab the great chair, and Margaret Beaufort was illegitimate (as mentioned above)
Only George (the guy who drowned in the Mamsey) had a heir with a claim
yes , progéniture is not ruled by gender...the eldest or elder child, and direct descendant does seem to hold the most wait. I think that the power of certain powerful rulers like william the conqueror, gave a great deal of power to mathilda his granddaughter as his only surviving direct heir.. and although she was female, she was related to alfred the great, direct descendant by both her father henry i ( through his mother mathilda of flanders) and her mother, mathilda of scotland. ( her parents were cousins, no surprise and no surprise that she too was called mathilda ! ) also, she was direct decendant of malcolm iii of scotland, which also gives her extra standing. but the choice to give her progéniture causes powerful precedent, impossible to ignore, for future generations, especially with the fame of william the conqueror. he was a giant in history.
you make an excellent point about the plantagenet line having legitimacy only because of progéniture being passed through female heir... i never thought about that
I'm onmy first year history degree at present with the War of the Roses as one of the main areas that we are focussing on. This is a complex period. This video has been very helpful. Thankyou.
Wow just found this. Thank you so much. You describe all the links so clearly and make it all sound so interesting. Your voice and pace is perfect. Glad to have found you. Now I’ll look to see if you’ve done other videos. 🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
Thank you! I really enjoyed watching this, it clarified lots of things and I like your style :)
Excellent video! I had a difficult time understanding this topic in my history course, but you cleared up a lot of things for me.
Loved this.
Thank you, that cleared things up a bit, but it is complicated.
Thank you for this great video! You must be a professor. I like these videos. I hope that sometime you will consider a video on The Kingmaker and the Neville Family. :) Thank you!
As well as he explained it, I'd say he probably isn't a professor. LOL :P
Listening to this was reminiscent of loading up a Crusader Kings campaign a year or so after you last played it and delving into a stupidly complex family tree trying to remember who is related to who from where xD But no, informative stuff, nicely done.
i see a lot of comments about anne mortimer being a female, therefore some think that lancaster should have precedence. lancaster york and clarence are all house of plantagenet, the surname of a french dude, a prince actually who married mathilda or empress mathilda, granddaughter to william the conquer, and all of these people that we are discussing would not be born or inheriting anything if not for mathilda. the female heir can indeed pass the crown onto her heirs.
Her cousin Stephen took the crown for awhile claiming that the previous king had willed it to him, but she and her supporters fought him and eventually her son Henry ii, considered one if the greatest kings if england, won the crown. both of Mathilda's parents are actually direct descendants of alfred the great. her grandfather william the conqueror claimed the crown on the legal grounds that his wife , was also direct descendant of alfred the great. legal precedence being set...
edward iii, who gave birth to the five boys who spawned all these squabbling family lines in the War if the Roses, is her direct descendant and would not have been king if not for Mathilda. as king, Edward iii set up huge fortunes, and large properties for his boys, as is referred to in this doc, which gave his heirs the power to squabble and make large scale war, instead of just quietly seething at home, wishing they were kings.
henry iv , the first lancaster who took over did have problems getting support for his reign from clergy and parliament, had many rebellions and plots against him throughout his time.
in light of legal precedence, Henry vii , henry tudor has more weight through his marriage to elizabeth of york , direct descendant of anne mortimer, direct descendant of duke of clarence, second son of edward iii. doubt henry vii s claim, but his son henry viii, has a stronger claim through elizabeth. of york ( great grandmother to yet another female, the great Elizabeth I ! The Tudors. including the great Elizabeth I, daughter of henry viii, claim precedence through their relationship to Elizabeth of York.
Elizabeth I, sovereign in her own right, and much later, queens anne, victoria and present day, elizabeth II !
Brilliantly explained! If anyone ever asks me to explain the WOTR I will be recommending this video!
Very informative.
a fascinating insight thank you.
Thank you for sharing this with us. :-)
Really interesting talk thank you 😊 What about the fact that York’s claim can through a female (Clarence’s daughter) rather than male to male? It’s that more to do with French royalty? Ultimately legitimate claims is not really how it works, it helps but most of the time it’s down to whether Nobles want you as their King or not. Kings ruled by consent.
that is an excellent point about ruling with consent, if the clergy or nobility or the people are against the king or queen, they had more difficulties... i heard more than once that henry iv had a lot of problems and struggles gaining support, and henry v fared better due in part to force of personality as well as being heir to henry iv who survived his difficulties and held onto throne. someone earlier made an excellent point as about grogeniture through female line , that the whole plantagenet line is descended though the female grand daughter of william the conqueror, Empress Mathilda, who married the first plantagenet, from anjou. that is why she is called Empress ! she was descended directly from alfred the great through both her father henry i and through her mother, mathilda of scotland ! so she had royalty to the nth power , i suppose, and the precedent for inheritance through the female was set. none of these guys lancaster or york or clarence, have any claim at all, if you don't respect female lines .
Nice and clear, thank you.
Very good video, just found your channel and subscribed!
your take on the WOTR and Richard are the most logical i've heard yet.
To be fair, Richard II willingly gave the crown to Henry IV and the Plantagenets followed agnatic succession, cause if it didn't then John Lackland would not be the rightful King when Duke Arthur of Brittany died. Also Edmund of Langley, the founder of the House of York, supported Bolingbroke when he returned to England.
i had no idea, did he willingly make henry iv his heir or was he compromising or being coerced ? i have to read more on that.
In 1399, when Henry Bollingbrook usurped the throne from Richard II, the male line of Lionel, Duke of Clarence had died out.....Anne Mortimer was the only one in a direct line, so the third son's line were up at bat.
depends on your interpretation of law, .. empress mathilda, granddaughter of william the conqueror, was crowned and passed the crown onto her children, this set precedent.
This is great!
It always floored me... royalty... all about the breeding... like dogs.
I would like to see sources and documentation on things discussed in this video.
You are my doppelganger. Andrew Gill in Dallas,TX.
Very nice
OH MY GOODNESS. Ive been doing an essay on the Causes of the Wars of the Roses and I finished it a month ago. IT WAS SO HARD to find the causes. If only I found this video sooner XD
Hello Mark, loving your videos. I am curious, how contentious are the War of the Roses and the English Civil War among Britons today? Here in America, feelings are still pretty strong regarding our own Civil War among a pretty large segment of the population.
Darren Renna Hi Darren. They are not as contentious among the public as the US Civil War, especially not the Wars of the Roses. However they are contentious to people in local areas directly affected and among historians.
i thought it was interesting that now they believe the reason Stanley betrayed Richard at the battle of Bosworth field was Richards loyalty towards the Harringtons who had a long running dispute with the stanley's who Edward 1V had supported. Now all becomes clear get rid of Richard and their is nothing stopping them with their land grab and keeping what they already acquired from the Harringtons
Darren Renna Your civil war still draws upon ethnic tensions and is really very recent. Our latest civil war though, not the War of the Roses, is I suppose still somewhat divisive in a faint way, especially if your irish.
very useful run-down if you're in need of a quick reference
very good i like what i heard
Great TY
How serious was Richard of York's claim? Could it not be argued that Henry had the stronger claim as it followed a direct Male line from the third son, John of Gaunt? Was the female Mortimer lineage respected or seen as equal to that of a male line, despite being from the second son, Lionel of Anwerp? or was it respected only in combination with the 4th son's line, ie Edmund of Langley? I suppose there was such a vacum because of Henry vi and Somerset's and Margaret's manoueverings that eventually Richard had to claim the crown, or risk being attainded. Thanks for the vid. btw
Henry’s claim was considerably worse than any York or Lancaster as they are Plantagenet branch houses
@@fredbarker9201 Which Henry do you mean? Henry 4th was the son of John of Gaunt. Henry 6th was the grandson. Richard of York was decended from Lionel of Antwerp-2nd son of Edward 3rd. but through the female line.
@@keddw thought you meant Henry Tudor. You mean who’s got the better claim out of York or Lancaster ? The answer to that is whoever has the better army :)
i see a lot of comments about anne mortimer being a female, so the lancaster should have precedence. lancaster york and clarence are all plantagenet, the surname of a french dude, a prince actually who married mathilda or empress mathilda, who inherited her grandfather, william the conqueror s throne, and all of these people that we are discussing would not be born or inheriting anything if not for mathilda. the female heir can indeed pass the crown onto her heirs. Mathilda is the mother of henry ii, considered one if the greatest kings if england, and both of her parents are actually direct descendants of alfred the great. so yes, she had a great deal of support probably from the people of england, or the clergy or nobility, but her situation set precedence, which is difficult to ignore. edward iii, who gave birth to the five boys who spawned all these squabbling family lines, is her direct descendant and would not have been king if not for her. as king, he set up huge fortunes, and large properties, as is referred to in this doc, which gave his heirs the power to squabble and make large scale war, instead of just quietly seethe and try to foment feeble rebellions like normal royal families do.....
@@kweejibodali7009 But the line through the female lineage was not as respected as the male lineage, Therefore Henry Plantagenet had to become King to start the new dynasty. Otherwise Matilda would have become queen earlier, uniting more factions. But, it was not possible.It was unprecedented Anyway, the main issues of the Wars of the Roses, it seems to me, are down to Henry the 6th unsuitablity to be king, Margaret's choice of advisors, bias towards French interests, earlier incompetence of leaders at conducting war in France, including overlooking Richard of York, and inability to balance factions properly at court. Henry the 5th had stablised the Lancastrian claim, and they should have been set, but for Henry the 6th and leaving direction of government to Margaret of Anjou and other opportunists
They wanted their rightful throne and usurpers took it. So why are they still there? I just want to know where Warwicks body is?
(1) Everyone supports a successful king.
(2) Henry VI “lost France”.
(3) France was “lost” because Arthur III de Richemont survived Agincourt.
what does he say at 3:19?? I cannot figure out what word he is saying?
Thank you!
Where do the symbolism of roses come from?
After Henry VII became King, he needed a symbol to show the unity of the two house's, hence the red and white roses and the combined 'Tudor' rose.
11:20
some say it was Henry (vi) French Queen who was a French Sabotage in the English courtto gain Territories back from England
Max Myers: That’s fanciful and anachronistic. She was 15 when she married Henry VI in 1445. The war was decided in 1433 when Richemont ousted Trémoille, with Yolande of Aragon’s blessing.
Love the Red🏵 and White 💐 wars but at the end of it all.... those who command the most swords at the end of the day generally get to rule.... hence Henry 7th......
I've read the John Ashdown Hill book on The Wars of the Roses. His conclusion on Edmund & Jasper "Tudor"'s true parentage is very believable and Miles Mathis' article on Henry VII, where he talks about the "Cousin's War" being "staged" and 100% fake lines up with the book. That said, it sounds like a lot of these royals (who were all related in some way) were sex addicts and baby swappers. Extra-marital affairs seem to have been very common and mostly a power play. Have you ever noticed how much Richard III's portrait resembles Henry VII? I think he may have been Edmund Beaufort's son as well. I also doubt that Owen Tudor was even a real person. The Beauforts were a bitter, ambitious and dispossessed family, having been barred from the royal line of succession and Cecily Neville was a Beaufort herself. It doesn't make any sense that she would marry the lead Yorkist, nor does it make sense to me that the Duke of York would be Henry VI's heir. The whole thing looks like a big con.
I'd love to go for a pint with you!
Il be one my way now,,,bye!
Say that again .
Hi god info
The "Wars of the Roses" by these two Royal "Norman" lines at not time ever owned East Anglia (Iceni) because those lands were stolen lands originally by the Romans in 60AD & all other invaders to our lands the "Kingdom of Iceni lands" we inherited from King Prasutagus in 45AD Queen Boudicca's husband! Those lands in the laws at the time went to Queen Boudicca's brother in Scotland as King Corbred 2nd which we inherited down our Royal line in Ireland and Australia today! So the Wars of the Roses over these lands was their waste of time by the Tudors! And today we own those lands under law in Britain on inheritances of lands & the European laws! We are the one and only Britannia Royals since 1389BC and have not had any Surname changes in over 800 years!
Well, good luck with that
We still own East Anglia since 45AD and that's got the UK Gov STUFFED!
See our video's on it?
BOOOOOOOOORING