Hope you enjoyed guys! Let us know if you agreed or disagreed with Dan's views... 🤔 What do you think is the best portrayal of a British monarch in cinema history? 📽
Interesting to hear about Olivia Coleman's Queen Anne - I often wondered how dramatic that was .. how crazy to think it's one of the more accurate portrayals, hey?! Thanks Dan x
Henry V. A housemate said he hated Shakespeare but almost burnt the house down when he was fully engrossed in the film forgetting he had put food in the over. Can’t get a better recommendation than that
My dad (who was born in 1930) said that everyone was aware of the King's speech difficulties. His aunts would often comment after a radio address about how much the King's speaking had improved. They respected the effort and the courage of the King.
I think that’s a testament to the power of being likable, a contemporary example is Selena Gomez. Selena has Lupus, kidney disease and her physical appearance has changed greatly because of this, her voice as well- she even has visible tremors- and yet… she’s likable. Her being likable means this is not seen with derision but with sympathy. I don’t believe we’ve changed too much as a people when it comes to understanding to others disadvantages- especially when we like them
@@TIFFANYDlASlet’s not compare Selena Gomez the sheltered disney star that doesn’t do anything close to as unique and rare as to be a monarch of a country from darker times in history. Come on now.
@Jordizzan Selena Gomez grew up poor until her lucky break and hasn't been sheltered. She had to fight for her life against her illness, had her life turned upside down by it, abd continues to strive to be a good person. The king overcame his own disability for his people which is commendable but he was also born into a privileged, powerful family. Yes, don't compare the two but also don't put one down because you like the other more
My grandma remembered hearing King George's speech when she lived in England. She said they were all very proud of their king because they knew he wasnt born for this, his stammer was well known but still he gave such a powerful speech and was a strong figure during the war.
@DriftZ TwoSeven if he appeased the Nazis and the US couldn't use Britain as a staging ground to fight back, there could have been a global Nazi empire where all but the "Aryans" were murdered. At best Edward would have not been behind the troops and might have been able to stop Britain entering the war. No other country could have stalled them until the US arrived. If you think that would have been good then it brings your morality into question.
To have one miscarriage or child die in infancy is tragic. To have 17 because it was so so important for her to create an heir is such an unimaginable horror I can't even begin to fathom her pain.
As cruelly commented in Rob Roy: One might have hoped that a field so often ploughed might have yielded one good crop. In truth, I have seen healthier graveyards than that woman's womb.
Unfortunately… they weren’t all miscarriages. One son, Prince William, actually survived to the age of 11, until he died of pneumonia in the presence of his parents in early hours of the 30th July, 1700.
My Mrs and I suffered 2 and that was bad enough they affected me in ways I didn't think possible so I couldn't begin to imagine how she had as many as she did the toll it must taken on her mind and body.
I can just imagine that by the end of it she has dreaded her pregnancies. If there ever is a top 10 list of saddest people in history Anne has a taken place around the top. I looked her up, and after her death one of her doctors wrote this: "I believe sleep was never more welcome to a weary traveller than death was to her."
I'm really impressed that Dan Snow commented on the views of disability and its framing of evil characters in movies/literature, etc. Thank you for lifting that up and showing that we can move past that.
It's strange how superstitious people still are. Any decent person would feel sorry for Richard having such a disability, and admire the way he overcame it to become an effective warrior and leader, yet there still seems to be the assumption that a twisted body implies a twisted mind - yet we don't consider Stephen Hawking to be a bad person because of his medical problem.
@@dupplinmuir113And yet unfortunately, despite so much evidence to the contrary, too many across the globe still find little value in the lives of people with physical, mental, or emotional disabilities. Makes you wonder who the truly disabled really are.
Even if it isnt entirety accurate The Kings Speech is one of my all time favourite films. The writing and performances are superb and it deserved every award it won. ✌️🇨🇦
Hard disagree, it's a well made, but ultimately pretty standard Oscar Bait film that has largely been forgotten in a year with some incredibly strong picks. The Social Network, Inception or Black Swan would all have been better choices for Best Picture and Best Director. Heck even 127 Hours and The Fighter are arguably better movies.
@@edwisneski6548 I used to say that Liszt was my favorite composer, but recently I've decided Beethoven has taken over as my #1. It's just endless how much beautiful music he wrote. And he has such a stylistic range too - writing in both Classical and Romantic styles, and later in his life dabbling in Modernism (The Grosse Fuge) and even writing stuff that resembles jazz (Sonata 32, Movement 2).
Queen Anne has my sympathy. To lose 17 children she must thought of herself as a failure. Specially in those times were women had one major role in life - to have children (male). I think that must have been very difficult/depressing for her to go through this over and over and over again. Nobody cared that she was the ruling Queen.
To say nothing of how it must have wrecked her health, both physical & otherwise. They say the past is another country, but people of the past can be perfectly naturally relatable to us in the modern era- _without_ 21st century mores & ideologies being put in their mouths; they still loved & laughed, cried & mourned as we do - I know they didn't have all the modern understandings of things that we do (grief counselling for miscarriages & early deaths of children), but I think Anne felt the loss of children no less keenly than a modern woman, even without the added political dimension...
The chainmail armour observation is a good one. It's like a grown-up version of Bob the Builder wearing his tool belt and hardhat in the comfort of his own home.
Thing about armour is that it’s a lot less heavy than you think, having the weight be dispersed across your entire body (though with mail it was mostly just your shoulders and waist) and you were meant to fight in it, so it couldn’t be too restrictive. But it’s still around 30lbs of sweaty 😰💦hot 🥵 sexy 🫦😳metal on your body, and good luck taking a cozy shit while wearing it. That’s why you put it on right before a battle and take it off right after.
And this comes up in Game of Thrones when they are at basically a wedding reception and they find out the hosts people are wearing armor, indicating they are preparing to attack.
As a person with a stammer, I found the King's Speach moving because I can relate to the struggles. Now, I'm no royal, but I have no doubt that the pressures of speaking publicly will exacerbate this vocal affliction. I was envious of the King having Lionel Logue, and I found his methods so enthralling. Logue's approaches were ahead of their time.
An interesting fact about Lionel Logue was that King George VI made him a Commander of the Royal Victorian Order in 1944. This high honour from a grateful King made Lionel part of the only order of chivalry that specifically rewards acts of personal service to the Monarch. Lionel was with the King for every wartime speech.
You should have a fixed series of these kinds of videos, so like every Saturday one of these comes. Because I think I can speak for all of us and we love them and want more of them!
@Philip Zahn yeah you're right I don't know how long it takes. I'm just comparing(in my own mind) to corridor crew that does a "react" video every Saturday. That's why I said once a week.
I love that Alan Bennett's play is called The Madness of George III but the film had to be renamed The Madness of King George so American audiences wouldn't think they missed the first two films in the King George series.
Something left out is that Edward I was actually very involved and intimate with his family. Spending time with his children as they grew up and was close with them. He lost many children leading him to cherish his remaining ones, allowing his daughters to have imput on their marriages, some even marrying in secret, aswell as not allowing their marriages until they were of age. And he spent time with his children ahen they grew up, including his daughter who became a nun Say what you want of Edward Longshanks, but he was a man who loved his family.
Well yes and no. Edward also had a hair trigger temper with everyone including his family. There was an episode when dealing with Edward II's preference for Piers Gaveston (who was probably Edward II lover) when Edward I attacked his son beating him and even ripping out tuffs of his hair.
@DriftZ TwoSeven who booted out what tribe lol ? The old bastard died on his way north under the knowledge his domestic empire was crumbling & he was to frail to fight.. also the anguish of knowing his son was to much of a limp wristed rent boy & couldn’t win. Must have been horrible for him, leaving a crumbling army at the hands of a limp wristed rent boy like that. No wonder we absolutely slaughtered you 😂
Richard III is a hard character to get a lock on. He was loyal to his eldest brother all his life and yet he usurped his nephews and most likely had them killed. He was well respected in his northern power base and yet he was never really popular in London and towards the end of his life his behavior became increasingly erratic. I do think it’s important to remember that his father and one of his older brothers died in battle when he was only around eight years old and most of his youth and adult life were marked by battle, betrayal, and stunning reversals in fortune. When Edward IV died Richard likely felt threatened. The young Edward V made it clear that he would be loyal to his mother and his elder half-brothers, not his uncle. Richard’s lands and power had been given by the crown and could be taken away by the crown. He had seen firsthand what could happen to inconvenient members of the royal family and he had his own wife and young son to worry about. In the end I think Richard was a product of an unstable time and that while the Tudors were better at PR they were just as vicious towards anyone in a position to challenge their (very shaky) legitimacy.
very fair! I do think that Buckingham killed the boys rather than Richard, because it was just too convenient for him. However, Richard was a man of his time, and quite capable of ruthlessness. Nice summary there! I also think that when his wife and son died, Richard lost heart. He entered into negotiations to marry a Portuguese princess for political purposes, but I think by then he'd had enough.
I don’t think Richard killed his nephews. He loved his elder brother too much, unquestionably loyal to him beyond the end. Rumors of the time say he was to marry his niece, but he was deeply in love with his wife. I do believe their deaths affected him more than anything. He was not the leader Edward had been but I think he was determined to do his very best to carry on his legacy. He is the most misrepresented monarch. One reason I don’t particularly like Shakespeare.
@@lindseystein9676 more than likely other key political players of the time saw the advantage of removing and eliminating the princes. As they were in their uncles custody, nefarious souls sought to end their lives and lay the blame on Richard. And history is written. His death and that of his supporters means no one would stand up for him with a new king on the throne.
As a survivor of parental abuse, the "Kings Speech" reminds anyone that cruelty can be a motivator for service to others. I retired a disabled Navy corpsman, followed by Cardiopulmonologist. The hurtful deeds, words and projecting are mitigated by service to others, forgiveness and progressive acceptance. All the best. 🙂
@@Liusila As a result of being injured by those who 'should have' treated me with love, I became aware that my emotional injuries are improved by the service of others, rather than pursuing revenge. Revenge being anger based, denies someone the ability to consider healthy alternatives, thus a situation that 'worsens' each time employed.
at 4:30 you see King George VI wearing an Admiral's uniform - it wasn't uncommon for royals to wear military uniforms, as they often held nominal ranks, but he had more right to wear this one than most did! He was in a turret aboard HMS Collingwood during the Battle of Jutland.
@@peterthegreat996 In the modern age, not a requirement exactly, but it was very common. For the last several hundred years, this typically happened if there were two or more sons; the crown prince's life would not be risked on the battlefield but if there was a younger brother he would often go to war. King George VI for example was the 2nd son, he became king when his brother abdicated. Further back in history, you could say that it was an implicit requirement. Part of the expectation for the King was to lead his nobles to war on behalf of the people, so the King would almost always have his sons trained as soldiers and generals to fight alongside him, in preparation for the day when it would be his turn. This changed over time as military command started to be granted based on ability rather than noble rank, and the King's role became more political and cultural instead of military.
Hahaha, I had a prof at uni who said the near EXACT same thing about the Georges. “There’s so many of them, and I know it’s hard to keep them all straight. Just remember that they HATED each other.” 😅
It's amazing how close Olivier looked to the reconstructed face of Richard after his discovery. English history is incredibly interesting, hard to keep track of but infinitely interesting. Who did what to who, when? 🙂
I just love that Anne's favorite, Sarah Churchill, is the great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother of Winston Churchill, and also the great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother of Princess Diana. So, Queen Elizabeth II and Ann, both descendants of James (VI and I) would be literally surrounded by Churchills, as her (QE2's) PM and her daughter-in-law were both Churchills, and all her grandchildren and her extended royal line, would be descended from Churchill/Spencers.
I was lucky enough to see the production that the "Henry V" movie was based on at Stratford with Brannaugh, as well as Emma Thompson and Ian McDiarmid . It was amazing-I remember it vividly.
I would LOVE to see more modern media interpretations of the life of Richard III. His life and (short) rule was overshadowed by the fact that his death ended the Wars of the Roses and the beginning of the Tudor dynasty, and Tudor propaganda really gave the guy a shit deal. Now is the winter of my demand for more Ricky content!
@@laurelmalinowski1676 Henry Tudor also had the same motive, it's true, but the deed was almost certainly done by the time he came along. No effective medieval king would usurp the throne then leave the job half done - and if that were the case, Richard would have produced them to scotch the rumours. Occam's razor.
But, actually, his death did not end the Wars of the Roses: Plantagenet candidates and/or pretenders threatened the Tudors throughout their reign, notably with Henry VII and Henry VIII. Henry Tudor fought two battles against Yorkist supporters, and executed the son of George Duke of Clarence, and also William Stanley (brother of Henry VII's father-in-law) because William Stanley admitted that if Perkin Warbeck proved to be Richard of York, he'd support him. While, after Henry VII's death, the conflict didn't erupt in pitched battles, it went underground, poisoning security of succession, confidence of the present, a degree of policy both domestic and international, and encouraged lack of trust. It's true that the realities of Richard III, his life and rule, were overshadowed by his defeat, I'd say Henry Tudor's victory came at a high cost to himself, his descendants, and to some degree, his kingdom.
Have we ever had a movie about William the Conqueror? Because I don't think I've heard of it if there was, which is odd to me considering how consequential a monarch he was 🤔
If it is made in England, most likely he will end up as the snarking villain and Harold Godwinson as the eternal legitimate king of England. That would be fun.
Nigel's performance as George is one of my all time favourite portrayals of an historical figure of significance. He was also the king that oversaw the settlement of one of the finest modern nations. New South Wales that would be the cornerstone of Australia, and I'll ad New Zealand.
The movie braveheart is An absolute hit piece on Edward. He was the first king to rule under the Magna Carta and even expanded it. He set in place a lot of the reforms that led to the current democratic institutions. He was a brutal conqueror. But he was the first king that ruled anywhere in the world under the notion that the king is NOT above the law and could not just make any laws up as he went.
"He was a brutal conqueror" Something we Scots know all too well. Shame his schemes came to nothing in the end. Like the Romans before them, the English couldn't hold Scotland for that long.
Two of the screen's great mavericks clashed, but McGoohan was the runaway winner. Gibson was like someone out of The Last of the Mohicans. McGoohan conveyed the shrewdness as well as the steeliness of Edward.
My favorite portrayal of an English monarch is Glenda Jackson's Elizabeth R , a TV series produced by the BBC in 1971. If you haven't seen it, you might want to.
@@iamcarbonandotherbits.8039 I agree with your comment although I think the BBC had a very restricted budget, for instance using graduate robes with glue as jewels for bejeweled aristcrats' robes
You're absolutely right about the dance scene in The Favourite--bears no relation to the dance of that period. It would be great if HH did a video of dance in period drama vs Historical dance as reconstructed from original sources.
It’s not meant to. It’s deliberately anachronistic a la Sophia Corolla’s Marie Antoinette. The costumes were beautifully made in correct silhouettes but many of the fabrics were made from modern fabrics like denim, neoprene and minky (stuffed animal fur) I generally hate this but in this case I don’t mind because it’s not because of a low budget or lack of research, it’s a deliberate choice by the director
@@FlyingTigersKMTyup. I enjoyed that movie, and it was also deliberately anachronistic. I can’t completely hate on this since it may lead to some people to seek out the true history
A modest correction to the Henry V segment: "Cry God for Harry, England and St George!" isn't part of the Band of Brothers speech but the climax of the battlefield speech at Harfleur that also includes "Once more unto the breach dear friends". Other than that, great stuff. Thanks Mr Snow
In the movie, I also enjoyed the end of Harfleur scene, when Bardolf and his friend stand safely in front of the town's gate ... until Captain Fluellen comes right behind them and sends them running to the attack.
What I like about the discovery of the remains of Richard III is the sign some wag posted in the carpark. It said something like do not dispose of your dead monarchs here. I think the use of the term hunchback was because those late Medieval people did not have a word for scoliosis. His lack of physical perfection had to have made people of the time uncomfortable as the monarch was expected to be strong and beautiful. Richard was probably talked about during the year following his death up until Shakespeare's time.
Not to mention that Richard the III's body was stripped naked and thrown on the back of a horse and paraded about the battlefield. Which would have left no one in any doubt as to scoliosis. And remember back then that people thought outer disfigurement was representative on an inner moral failing... it's very easy to see how people would have thought him villainous even without the Tudor propaganda to aid it along.
it doesn't help his older brother Edward IV was considered a staggeringly good looking man dripping with charisma, where as Richard was short, slight, and lacking in some of the finer social skills.
Richard III was also accused of killing Queen Elizabeth I’s great uncles. He would have been smart to portray Richard as a plotting, disfigured villain
But no mention was ever made during his lifetime about him having a "hunchback". It wasn't until he was stripped naked after his death that people knew. There's a young man named Dominic Smee that has an almost identical twist to his spine as Richard, and unless you see him with his shirt off, you would never know. They actually did a program where Dominic trained in horseback riding and combat to see if Richard was capable of fighting, and he was. Dominic didn't have the years of training that Richard did, and he actually did very well. As nobility, and then a king, Richard's clothing and armour would have been tailored to disguise the scoliosis. Very few people would have known, and no one spoke of it.
Great! I think Brannagh's Henry V is a truly brilliant film, I've seen it many times and enjoyed every moment. You've only got to look at the cast list to get an idea of what a classic it really is. Nice one Dan! 🌟👍
@@eoinocnaimhsi2598Can we reconstruct the accents of either the 15th or 16th century? We can understand the modern theatrical and, frankly, that means a lot.
@@eoinocnaimhsi2598 At the time of Henry V, English would have been very similar to Chaucerian, middle-English. (Chaucer died only a decade or so before Azincourt.) That in turn, is much closer to the language of the North of England and Scottish Lowlands than some folk might be prepared to admit. It's very, very complicated but by the time of Shakespeare, due to constant warfare, the axis of English pronunciation shifted - massively to the south during the 15th and early 16th centuries.
@@alecblunden8615 Plimouth-Pautuxet (Plimouth Plantation formerly) does recreate the accents of the 17th century, so I would imagine it could be done.
I REALLY wish you did John Adams meeting king George the third from the John Adams miniseries. It is, without exaggeration, one of the best scenes ever filmed
Excellent piece! You should add Keith Michel's Henry VIII in the t.v. series, the Six Wives of Henry VIII and the followup, Glenda Jackson's magnificent Elizabeth in Elizabeth R.
Dan Snow is just a gem! So much fun to watch (easy on the eyes too, though I have t-shirts older than him!), and just dynamic. One of my fave channels on TH-cam.
What a fantastic video. Informative and humorous reactions. Thanks Dan and History Hit. You inspired me to look into the history of queen Anne and her life.
Richard the III was maligned by the Tudors and their propaganda. Henry VII knew he had a weak claim to the throne and was forever paranoid about it. He’s part of the reason people have the wrong impression of Richard.
I agree and Shakespeare didn't help. I tend to think he wrote the play about Robert Cecil who served under Queen Elizabeth I time and also served under King James I of England. He was a hunchback and wasn't well liked at court.
Then there’s the whole murdering his nephews thing. Unless you think he really put them in the tower for their safety, had them declared bastards just cuz and they vanished into thin air. He was a tyrant
@@JoeKerr420 back then the Tower had Royal apartments that Kings and Queens would stay in a few days before their coronation. While they were in the Tower Richard started having coins minted in Edward's likeness and also had him fitted for his coronation gown. It wasn't until a Bishop Robert Stillington approached a few members of Parliament reporting to them about the marriage between the former King Edward IV and Eleanor Talbot that reportedly happened before the King married Elizabeth Wydevill, that their illegitimancy came into question. I've studied him for years and I don't see the ruthless tyrant you do. When they were declared illegitimate then Richard would have had no reason to kill them.
I have often thought perhaps Shakespeare was inspired by Elizabeth I's famous speech to the troops at Tilbury. The St. Crispin's Day speech has many of the same qualities. And that version of Henry V is absolutely amazing all the way through.
It's a great pity that such a leader like Henry V screwed it all executing his prisoners at the end of Azincourt, he threw away all his aura engaging in a rarely seen by then war crime that took all honours out of him, and the money. Tremendous mistake.
@@Trebor74 In theory that's possible, but Elizabeth's Tilbury speech would have been in 1588. We know his plays were performed for her, but I have doubts that Shakespeare would've been well enough known at @22 to warrant the Queen's hiring him to write that speech.
@@dominiquecharriere1285 I'm afraid that lamentable though that action was, it was likely a matter of simple military expediency. Having thousands and thousands of prisoners, being guarded by weary and injured troops with the constant fear of them uprising and negating the hard won victory, is something no victor would want and executing the prisoners is unfortunately something any prudent commander of that age, would do.
The bit which really ground my gears in Braveheart (well, even more so than all the other stupid inaccuracies) was when the narrator refers to Edward I as the "heathen" King. The Catholic church had massive influence in medieval royal politics. There was absolutely no way an openly heathen Prince would ever have been allowed to become King, and if a reigning King just suddenly decided to commit apostasy, that was one of the very few reasons for which rebellion and usurpation was considered justified. On top of that, he was recorded as being actively Christian. Contemporary writers occasionally make reference to him attending church, or praying. He even went on a Crusade, for Christ's sake.
I think this criticism would be fair if Braveheart made itself out to be a historically accurate film, but i don’t think it really does. Literally the opening line of the film is the narrator saying “I will tell you the story of William Wallace. historians from England will say I’m a liar, but history is written by those who’ve hanged hero’s” clearly acknowledging that narrator is telling a story from his perspective, and it’s going to depart from historical fact. Now that hasn’t stopped idiots across the ages interpreting it as factual, but the film itself is really just a semi historical epic/revenge flick. Like Gladiator. Roughly inspired by true events, but you’d sound silly complaining about the fact Commodus didn’t really kill die in the arena but instead was poisoned or that Marcus Aurelius wasn’t killed by Commodus. If you’d like a historically accurate film from the same period I’d really recommend Outlaw king. Very close to history, gritty, even mentions Edward going on Crusade with Robert the Bruce’s father.
Indeed, unlike many medieval monarchs Edward was faithful husband to both his wives, [building the Eleanor crosses to his first wife, Eleanor of Castile] and despite the age didderence inspiring the love of his much younger second wife, Margaret of France.
@@AlwaysAC Historians from Scotland will say the narrator is a liar as well, though. It's just a really *weird* film and interpretation of events. My chief criticism of Braveheart is that the actual stories and legends that come down to us of the primary figures in that war -- Wallace, the Bruce, the Black Douglas -- are already exciting and interesting. You don't need to want to make a purely "accurate" film, but viewing Braveheart truly made me wonder why Gibson wanted to do a take on those events that so heavily altered many of the parts that even the Scots had valued through the centuries. (Sorry, 25 years later and I'm still not over the Battle of Stirling Bridge, taking place in a wide-open field.)
Idk about that. I know Wallis’ life went rapidly downhill in terms of physical health and she suffered multiple chronic conditions in poverty until her eventual death.
I want to thank Dan for all the stuff he has lead me too, you and your father I first heard of with Battlefield Britain. History Hits is just awesome, thanks for all that all of you do with this. keep it up.
Thank you so much for the historical background. It certainly will enhance my viewing pleasure when I re-watch these films and points to some directions for future reading. Would love to hear your opinion of Peter Cook's portrayal of Richard III in Blackadder, or Miranda Richardson's Elizabeth I or Hugh Laurie's Prince Regent. Actually, an entire video dedicated to Black Adder would be a real treat.
17 children all dying as infants, holy hell is that hard to live with, i can also imagine her consorts didnt really care for her other than her title and that makes it even more sad. And i say this as a man
Fagerjord, Dan did say "...as infants or in childhood"; e.g., son, Prince Wm, Duke of Gloucester lived to age 11. Of course, most of the deaths were actually miscarriages and stillborns. Her only consort was none other than Prince George of Denmark -- yes, that "Prince of Denmark" -- as in "The Prince of Denmark March" (aka "Trumpet Voluntary") by Jeremiah Clarke (sometimes incorrectly attributed to Henry Purcell).
George & Anne did love each & got along well despite their tragedies. Both of them were just trying to ‘do their duty’ by providing England/Britain with a Protestant heir. He was easy going, neither very talented nor very ambitious (you don’t need to be when you’re a Prince)
7:35 Edward was pro-Nazi look no further than the glowing things he said about the Nazis on his tour of Nazi Germany in 1937. Yet, it is interesting to see the fact that British historians still have a hard time definitively saying that and insist on using the word "might."
Since finding his skeleton, they now say that Richard III's horse was bogged down in nearby marshland, and rather than giving a speech about losing his horse, he was dragged off and hacked to death, with the killing blow made by a halberd to the lower part of the back of his skull, and to make sure of him a dagger was thrust into the top of his skull.
@@tobiasbourne9073 Another thing they did was to strip him naked, slumped his lifeless body over a horse and shoved a speer or sword up his arse. The legend says as the horse was being led away his head hit the same stone on a bridge that his spur hit on the way out. As I said, I don't think they've proven the last bit, but they're certain about slumping his naked corpse over a horse and shoving the speer or sword up his arse. That last bit was done as a term of disrespect, because they knew he was dead by that point.
@@mijanhoque1740 More like the worst way. Raising multiple sons only for all but one of them to be murdered is pathetically wasteful. It could be the textbook example of squandered potential.
@@thomassaldana2465 Oh no sure yeah raise multiple of them I’m sure that won’t cause problems right? 🤡 oh wait except it gave us one brother killing the other in the woods aka Henry 1st and King William 2nd then Civil between brothers and imprisonment aka King Henry and Duke Robert. Then we had the whole Anarchy situation between relatives aka King Stephen and Matilda and after brother scheming against his elder brother aka Richard and Jon. Let’s not the forget 100 years war where Richard 2nd was usurpered by Henry 4th then decades later had another civil war aka War of the Roses where crown passed from Henry 6th to Edward 4th to Edward 5th to Richard 3rd to Henry 6th, the whole shit is laughable 😂. Face it mate the Ottomans did it the best and with the most practical solution deterring any civil war.
When I read Dan Jones' The Plantagenets and The War of The Roses last year, I came to the idea Richard the Lionheart and Richard the Third should swap places as Hero and Villain in British Kings...and then there's John who's the Milhouse of English Kings.
Dan Jones has a podcast on the Plantaganets. This season is Richard I. I asked him a few weeks ago on his newsletter on Substack if he thought Richard would have had to agree to Magna Carta if he lived longer or was John's incompetence the thing that saves Richard. Richard did use taxes in England to fund the Crusades and to fund armies to maintain French territories.
Enjoyable. I would have loved to have seen Glenda Jackson's portrayal of Elizabeth I reviewed. I know it's not a film, but her performance is outstanding and more historically accurate (although not 100%) than any other portrayal I've ever seen. (Also, a review of The Tudors would have been hilarious).
There is a film with Glenda Jackson as E.R. It's called "Mary, Queen of Scots" with Vanessa portraying Mary. The film came out about 1970-71. It takes some liberties, too, but I like it.
Its interesting that Edward Teach, AKA Blackbeard, named his flagship Queen Anne's Revenge tells a lot about the respect she had from the English/British (Act of Union happened under her reign)
I'm not sure if i would describe Richard III as having mild scoliosis. When they found his remains, his spine was quite severely malformed, but it was also thought it wouldn't have been clearly visible. Maybe one shoulder was higher than the other, but the spine looked rather rough to me.
There's a detail I remember from a documentary I saw a long time ago. And it was about his condition... Richard would have been ok riding and fighting on top of a horse, as his spine would have had less pressure on it, than on foot. Idk if Shakespeare would have known about this, but it really gave a new meaning to "my kingdom for a horse".
He was loathed in Nassau, partly for being an insufferable snob, partly for being Wally's whimpering lap-dog, and partly for being a crook. That last seriously interfered with the Bay Street Boys own grifts. Unforgivable!
It was because of Dan Snow that im now here and subb'd etc!...Yeah cant beat the Snows both Dan and his now ageing Father who you still see from time to time!...Ive grown up with both the snows so,it would be very strange to have a world without them imo.
"Cry 'God for Harry! England and St. George'" is the final line of the speech at Harfleur (the one beginning "Once More into the Breach"). Great video altogether!
King George may have inherited his mental illness, but i know from my own experience that stress or trauma make it worse, and can lead to severe episodes. I think perhaps that's what the film qas trying to portray.
I think the way Edward I is portayed in Braveheart is as outrageous as how the Dauphin Louis is portrayed in the King, 180 degrees away from the reality of who Louis was (a respected pious man who was not at Agincourt but with his father in Rouen, his father being ill). But i never heard any critics to the King, while Braveheart is obviously critized throughout all England, which is a comfort. Now seriously thhe best movie representing this era is the Outlaw King, where Edward appears as a true politician and not a sadistic psycho, and his son plays the role of Louis...
Tbf Edward was as much a cruel and vicious man as he was a shrewd leader. His treatment of Dafydd ap Gruffydd is ample proof of that, a tale that is nothing less than sadistic.
@@whensomethingcriesagain Sadism means to inflict pain on another animal because the perpetrator derives pleasure from the suffering of others. The execution of Dafydd was punishment for a crime. The manner of the execution was intended to send a very strong message: that high treason is the most serious of crimes. Sadism wasn’t the motivating factor there.
@therightarmofthefreeworld4703 For what crime? Being the Prince of Wales when Edward wanted to press an illegitimate claim? No, Edward wanted to send a message alright, but it wasn't about treason, he wanted others to fear him. And the sheer level of depraved creativity Edward displayed in the act is one that requires some degree of sadism to even come up with, let alone actually employ
Thoroughly enjoyed the historical critiques of film portrayals of English Kings and Queens. Wish you had time to review historical accuracy of The Lion in the Winter! As a previous comment mentions, it's a Christmas movie!
Interestingly Edward II was also over 6ft tall and considered by many sources to be a physically strong figure. Very much his fathers son in terms of physique. Far from the character portrayed in Braveheart
@@PhantomFilmAustraliavery little is actually known about Wallace so that's probably why they used a lot of artistic licence with him. But it doesn't excuse all the liberty they took with other people in the film who they know a lot about
Would love to see more of these. How about the Hollow Crown’s portrayal of Richard II, or Wolf Hall’s interpretations of Thomas Cromwell or the families of Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour?
There's so many phenomenal portrayals in TV & film. I honestly love Chalamet's portrayal of Henry V and if we count filmed plays David Tennant's Richard 2.
Slightly twisted spine? Richard III? I have a scoliosis and a kyphosis (which he may have had too) and im almost like Quasimodo. Richard III squeleton is twisted inmisericordesly, they must have spend months to manufacture his armour! Excellent review all together, very high quality comments of someone who truly knows and refrains to exagerate kings traits (like I maybe do)
There was actually a documentary about a group that made armor and a saddle based on R3s skeleton and demonstrated he could have been effective on a horse.
I don't know if it's the best portrayal of a British monarch in cinema history, but Dame Helen Mirren's portrayal of Queen Elizabeth II in _The Queen_ has to be in the top 5! I really enjoy your videos, and particularly enjoy the historical insights and "tidbits" you talk about. It might be nice to get your rating on a scale of 1 to 10 as to the historical accuracy of the movie. _Braveheart_ , while entertaining (sacked York... as if...), would probably be a 3 while _The King's Speech_ would perhaps rate an 8?
I've seen a couple of the documentaries about Richard the third's recovery in the parking lot and he did not have mild scoliosis. I have mild scoliosis and you can't even see it. He had severe scoliosis. It doesn't mean that he was judged by God it just means that he had a birth defect. Nowadays we can't even allow a disfigured man to be disfigured. It's okay he did amazing things despite his disability but he certainly had a disability.
@@michaeldoolan7595 regarded as the bloodiest battle on English soil, and it must have been a terrifying sight as the battle raged on for some ten hours in swirling snow. More impressive is that Edward IV was only 18 when he strode onto the battlefield and at an alleged 6’3 which even by today’s standards that is pretty tall, so back then he must have looked like a giant. My thoughts on Richard are a bit clouded, and I find the Richard III society a bit annoying as they seem to deny everything bad said about him. The fact that both Edwards sons were under his protection and just disappeared into thin air seems all too convenient for me, and yet the society tries to absolve Richard of all blame.
@@Tawny6702 The theory that Richard did away with two boys was propergated by Shakespeare, who was writingplays during a Tudor period, who were the victors at Bosworth, so as ever history is written by the victors. We will never know what happened.
I think Shakespeare's portrayal of Henry V was much more nuanced than Dan shows. The opening scene, after the prologue, shows the Church manipulating Henry to invade France, so they get out of taxes. When they later describe Salic law to Henry in the most confusing way possible, he obviously does not care about the details and just wants them to tell him he can invade France. One thing I like in the Branaugh version is, in the play, the three assassins seem more motivated by money than anything else and basically give up after they are captured, but in the movie even when they are caught one guy still tries to kill Henry. It makes the attack much more personal and raises the stakes for Henry's "another fall of man" line.
I appreciate this perspective, the influence of Shakespeare in Britain's history was far more reaching than I thought. It makes total sense now that I think about it. I didn't know much about Richard III other that he was infamous for incarcerating the two young princes in the tower of London who then died under very mysterious circumstances.
Do some research: the princes weren't said to be missing and murdered by Richard III or on his orders until long after his death, the accusation or course made under the Tudors.
I loveBrian Blessed,he always looks as if he was born in armour,born to wear it. Branagh really brings Shakespeare alive..it was meant to be seen not read in a stuffy classroom!
I always root for Longshanks in Braveheart despite the historical inaccuracies. His character is so cold and efficient. I also love the scene where he throws his son's lover out of the window.
I think Richard's possible involvement in the murder of the princes in the tower could factor into his reputation too. If he did that (and I think personally that it's probable), then that's some cold sh*t. Was it Richard or Henry? Don't know, but the winner gets to write the history, and Shakespeare 100% worked for the Tudor propaganda dept.
Richard’s reputation is almost entirely based on Shakespeare’s History Plays and one other author of some very questionable reliability. the same author wrote a very flattering portrayal of Richard before he died, then after did a 180.
I think it's a toss up between the Tudors, Richard, and unfortunate circumstances. Richard technically didn't need to kill them he had their claim invalided by having their parents marriage declared illegitimate, which was weak argument but the reasons were there to cast doubt. Still, having them gone would shored up his and his sons claim. The Tudors on the other hand absolutely needed those boys out of the picture. Their claim was dubious blood wise and they couldn't use illegitimate argument and Elizabeth of York and Henry VII together. However, it would been a huge risk if it failed or word got out they would lose most the support English nobles they needed for conquest. It was tough world but powerful people tend to draw line at murdering their young children if only because they don't want theirs to be next. Third, illness and accidental death where much higher before modern medicine. Those kids could have died from a bad infection or virus easily. It also wouldn't surprise me if that is what happened to one of them and whomever had the other killed to tie up loose ends because plausible deniability.
@@bpax7119 Richard absolutely did have to kill them since there was an armed uprising to free Edward V and depose Richard only a few months after Richard declared himself king. (Buckingham's Rebellion)
It was not entirely due to Shakespeare. Richard had usurped his nephew's claim to the throne and by the end had managed to alienate most of the Yorkist supporters as well as those who supported the Lancasters. If Henry VII did do in the Edward IV's sons, it was something that had to be kept from his in-laws as he married Edward's daughter to consolidate both houses claims.
I need to thank Dan Snow for his measured words on King Richard III. I enjoyed his finely nuanced view on the matter very much. Shakespeare was a writer of fiction (with some historic background, we shall give him that), a creator of drama. He was certainly not a chronicler, and no historian as well. All his works speak highly of drama, and of his huge creative, inventive mind.
On the subject of sibling rivalries, I was hoping for a series of examples from different Robin Hood films, especially _Men in Tights_ and Disney's animated one with the animals! :P
Dan does seem to play down the brutality of Edward the 1st and Richard the 3rd. Edward the 1st massacred the civilian population of Berwick in a retributive slaughter that saw the "river run red with blood". While it is very strongly alleged that Richard the Third seized power through infanticide. Brutal men in brutal times of course but we should learn history warts n'all but their reputations were deserved and shouldn't be excused.
I think he is just alluding to how he was considered a respectable King but had a second part of his reign where he was considered a tyrant. There is speculation among historians that his first wife was a moderating influence and her death changed him.
Really excellent analysis! Just want to note that with mental illness, it doesn't have to be an either / or with genetics vs. environmental triggers. Most often, it's a combination of both (as depicted in "The Madness of King George." I wouldn't fault the script for "wanting to have it both ways." In fact, it's bang-on: genetic predilection, brought to life vis a vis environmental stress and trauma.
For a different perspective on Richard III, I would recommend the brilliant Sunne In Splendour by one of my favourite authors, Sharon Penman. It was she who ignited my in interest in, and love of British history. I abhor Shakespeare's ghastly version of poor old Richard III.
I watched The King’s Speech with my uncle who was there and knew the royalty. It was incredible to see it with him. I learned my uncle sailed across the Atlantic in a convoy during WW II and the ships in front and behind his were sunk.
I don’t know if it’s possible, but if it is would like to see different actors as the same king in other films at different stages of the reigns. How accurate is the growth? Great video.
Love that you tackled this!! I'm an American who is mad about British history!! Thanks for commenting on lords/kings/knights etc. wearing chainmail/armor "around the house" so to speak. That drives crazy!!!
Ironically, the closest portrayal we seem to have gotten of Richard III was in Horrible Histories. He definitely wins the trophy for "most maligned Englishman". By all accounts, he was a loyal and loving brother, with a mild temper, and head for justice. During his brief reign, he fought to improve the rights of the poor (including the right to be heard in court, even if legal representation couldn't be afforded), rejected the use of French in court declarations, made book-banning illegal, and advocated for literacy in all classes. I don't blame Shakespeare - he had to do what he had to do under Tudor rule, but he really screwed up the legacy of one of the few English kings who wasn't a total twat.
It should also be noted that Longshanks banished Jewish people from England, a ban that lasted until Oliver Cromwell rescinded it, roughly 300 years later.
Most kings who were centralizing powers feared independent groups with capital that could fund interests that go against their agendas. Philip IV of France, Isabella and Ferdinand of Spain, Edward Longshanks of England was hardly alone in that matter. Even monarchs that hated the Pope's influence over worldly matters still expelled Jews like no tomorrow, including Martin Luther of Saxony or Philip IV of France.
As an English major and teacher I totally don't care if Shakespeare and Branagh were accurate...I love Henry V. Oh, for a muse of FIYUHHH... But "God for Harry, England, and St George actually came from Act III when they were attacking Harfleur, which also gives us "Once more into the breach..."
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
Hope you enjoyed guys! Let us know if you agreed or disagreed with Dan's views... 🤔 What do you think is the best portrayal of a British monarch in cinema history? 📽
Interesting to hear about Olivia Coleman's Queen Anne - I often wondered how dramatic that was .. how crazy to think it's one of the more accurate portrayals, hey?! Thanks Dan x
Homophobic brain? So just portraying one is now a fear? I will never watch this channel again.
If this is about English Monarchs then why are George III and George VI being discussed. Neither were crowned as Kings of England.
Henry V. A housemate said he hated Shakespeare but almost burnt the house down when he was fully engrossed in the film forgetting he had put food in the over. Can’t get a better recommendation than that
@@OrganMusicYT - how have you theorised that, exactly?
My dad (who was born in 1930) said that everyone was aware of the King's speech difficulties. His aunts would often comment after a radio address about how much the King's speaking had improved. They respected the effort and the courage of the King.
I think that’s a testament to the power of being likable, a contemporary example is Selena Gomez. Selena has Lupus, kidney disease and her physical appearance has changed greatly because of this, her voice as well- she even has visible tremors- and yet… she’s likable. Her being likable means this is not seen with derision but with sympathy. I don’t believe we’ve changed too much as a people when it comes to understanding to others disadvantages- especially when we like them
That’s so sweet that they were so supportive 😭
@@TIFFANYDlASlet’s not compare Selena Gomez the sheltered disney star that doesn’t do anything close to as unique and rare as to be a monarch of a country from darker times in history. Come on now.
hahahahaha now i just imagine a tiny ols granny next to a radio being like "uhhh he did jolly good this time " XD
@Jordizzan Selena Gomez grew up poor until her lucky break and hasn't been sheltered. She had to fight for her life against her illness, had her life turned upside down by it, abd continues to strive to be a good person.
The king overcame his own disability for his people which is commendable but he was also born into a privileged, powerful family. Yes, don't compare the two but also don't put one down because you like the other more
My grandma remembered hearing King George's speech when she lived in England. She said they were all very proud of their king because they knew he wasnt born for this, his stammer was well known but still he gave such a powerful speech and was a strong figure during the war.
@DriftZ TwoSeven He wouldn't have been since he married a divorced American woman and had very unfortunate political leanings.
I'm sure if ww2 were today, people would just take the piss. That's just me being cynical lol
@DriftZ TwoSeven really ? I’m not so sure about
@DriftZ TwoSeven if he appeased the Nazis and the US couldn't use Britain as a staging ground to fight back, there could have been a global Nazi empire where all but the "Aryans" were murdered. At best Edward would have not been behind the troops and might have been able to stop Britain entering the war. No other country could have stalled them until the US arrived.
If you think that would have been good then it brings your morality into question.
So GB could align with Nazi’s? Yes, definitely better off 😳
To have one miscarriage or child die in infancy is tragic. To have 17 because it was so so important for her to create an heir is such an unimaginable horror I can't even begin to fathom her pain.
As cruelly commented in Rob Roy:
One might have hoped that a field so often ploughed might have yielded one good crop.
In truth, I have seen healthier graveyards than that woman's womb.
Unfortunately… they weren’t all miscarriages. One son, Prince William, actually survived to the age of 11, until he died of pneumonia in the presence of his parents in early hours of the 30th July, 1700.
My Mrs and I suffered 2 and that was bad enough they affected me in ways I didn't think possible so I couldn't begin to imagine how she had as many as she did the toll it must taken on her mind and body.
How could any woman survive that? I know nothing about Queen Anne, but this fact is depressing to me.
I can just imagine that by the end of it she has dreaded her pregnancies. If there ever is a top 10 list of saddest people in history Anne has a taken place around the top. I looked her up, and after her death one of her doctors wrote this: "I believe sleep was never more welcome to a weary traveller than death was to her."
The utter failure of not covering Blackadder
Testify brother!
😂😂😂
It was a cunning plan.
Best portrayal of Elizabeth 1 ever👌
@@LQOTWas cunning as a fox that's just been made professor of cunning at Oxford University?
I'm really impressed that Dan Snow commented on the views of disability and its framing of evil characters in movies/literature, etc. Thank you for lifting that up and showing that we can move past that.
It's strange how superstitious people still are. Any decent person would feel sorry for Richard having such a disability, and admire the way he overcame it to become an effective warrior and leader, yet there still seems to be the assumption that a twisted body implies a twisted mind - yet we don't consider Stephen Hawking to be a bad person because of his medical problem.
@@dupplinmuir113And yet unfortunately, despite so much evidence to the contrary, too many across the globe still find little value in the lives of people with physical, mental, or emotional disabilities. Makes you wonder who the truly disabled really are.
He shoehorns his politics in every video.
@@kulio1214how is understanding and having compassion for people remotely political?
@kulio1214 ah yes, the politics of thinking disabled people aren't evil incarnate
Even if it isnt entirety accurate The Kings Speech is one of my all time favourite films. The writing and performances are superb and it deserved every award it won. ✌️🇨🇦
Dan snow - Figment of someone imagination that never took place throughout movie😊😂
💯 agree with you!
Hard disagree, it's a well made, but ultimately pretty standard Oscar Bait film that has largely been forgotten in a year with some incredibly strong picks. The Social Network, Inception or Black Swan would all have been better choices for Best Picture and Best Director. Heck even 127 Hours and The Fighter are arguably better movies.
The second movement of Beethoven's Seventh followed by Beethoven's second movement of Piano Concerto 5 are what made this movie so memorable for me.
@@edwisneski6548 I used to say that Liszt was my favorite composer, but recently I've decided Beethoven has taken over as my #1. It's just endless how much beautiful music he wrote. And he has such a stylistic range too - writing in both Classical and Romantic styles, and later in his life dabbling in Modernism (The Grosse Fuge) and even writing stuff that resembles jazz (Sonata 32, Movement 2).
My vote goes to Peter O'Toole as Henry II and Katherine Hepburn as Eleanor of Aquitaine in The Lion in Winter.
God yes that movie is amazing!
Absolutely. I'd go so far as to say it's a serious omission. At least he didn't try to pick apart any portrayals of King Arthur.
Yes! Plus Richard, Geoffrey and John also. Anthony Hopkins is magnificent as Richard.
I love that movie. It’s a Christmas movie! 🥴
Best one by far!!
Queen Anne has my sympathy. To lose 17 children she must thought of herself as a failure. Specially in those times were women had one major role in life - to have children (male). I think that must have been very difficult/depressing for her to go through this over and over and over again. Nobody cared that she was the ruling Queen.
To say nothing of how it must have wrecked her health, both physical & otherwise.
They say the past is another country, but people of the past can be perfectly naturally relatable to us in the modern era- _without_ 21st century mores & ideologies being put in their mouths; they still loved & laughed, cried & mourned as we do - I know they didn't have all the modern understandings of things that we do (grief counselling for miscarriages & early deaths of children), but I think Anne felt the loss of children no less keenly than a modern woman, even without the added political dimension...
The mere existence of the Queen Anne's Revenge told me she was a Badass. You don't have an Infamous Pirate Ship named after you for no reason.
The chainmail armour observation is a good one. It's like a grown-up version of Bob the Builder wearing his tool belt and hardhat in the comfort of his own home.
Thing about armour is that it’s a lot less heavy than you think, having the weight be dispersed across your entire body (though with mail it was mostly just your shoulders and waist) and you were meant to fight in it, so it couldn’t be too restrictive.
But it’s still around 30lbs of sweaty 😰💦hot 🥵 sexy 🫦😳metal on your body, and good luck taking a cozy shit while wearing it. That’s why you put it on right before a battle and take it off right after.
@@russellfisher1303sounds fun in a time when dysentery was quite common
And this comes up in Game of Thrones when they are at basically a wedding reception and they find out the hosts people are wearing armor, indicating they are preparing to attack.
Or a modern general going for a meeting with the president at the White House armed with a rifle.
@@OcylaShame that show ended how it did. They did such a great job adapting the book for the first few seasons, and the Red Wedding in particular
As a person with a stammer, I found the King's Speach moving because I can relate to the struggles. Now, I'm no royal, but I have no doubt that the pressures of speaking publicly will exacerbate this vocal affliction. I was envious of the King having Lionel Logue, and I found his methods so enthralling. Logue's approaches were ahead of their time.
An interesting fact about Lionel Logue was that King George VI made him a Commander of the Royal Victorian Order in 1944. This high honour from a grateful King made Lionel part of the only order of chivalry that specifically rewards acts of personal service to the Monarch. Lionel was with the King for every wartime speech.
That's a quote from "The King's Speech" it's also great that they remained good friends until the end.
You should have a fixed series of these kinds of videos, so like every Saturday one of these comes. Because I think I can speak for all of us and we love them and want more of them!
I think you underestimate how long this episodes take and how busy the creators are.
@Philip Zahn yeah you're right I don't know how long it takes. I'm just comparing(in my own mind) to corridor crew that does a "react" video every Saturday. That's why I said once a week.
It would be nice, indeed.
I love that Alan Bennett's play is called The Madness of George III but the film had to be renamed The Madness of King George so American audiences wouldn't think they missed the first two films in the King George series.
😄
George I: the begining, George II: the mad king rises, George III: the ultimate madness
Are you serious? I know my fellow countryman are horrible at history but didn't think they were THAT bad.. good god
@@gpersefone George IV: The Revenge
@@bishopthefoolGeorge V, the return of the king.
Something left out is that Edward I was actually very involved and intimate with his family. Spending time with his children as they grew up and was close with them. He lost many children leading him to cherish his remaining ones, allowing his daughters to have imput on their marriages, some even marrying in secret, aswell as not allowing their marriages until they were of age. And he spent time with his children ahen they grew up, including his daughter who became a nun
Say what you want of Edward Longshanks, but he was a man who loved his family.
Too bad that dude he threw out of the window wasn't a family member.
😅
Well yes and no. Edward also had a hair trigger temper with everyone including his family. There was an episode when dealing with Edward II's preference for Piers Gaveston (who was probably Edward II lover) when Edward I attacked his son beating him and even ripping out tuffs of his hair.
Probably why his son ended up a limp wristed rent boy, I’m sure he did…. Always been the monarchies way hasn’t it squire ?
@DriftZ TwoSeven who booted out what tribe lol ? The old bastard died on his way north under the knowledge his domestic empire was crumbling & he was to frail to fight.. also the anguish of knowing his son was to much of a limp wristed rent boy & couldn’t win. Must have been horrible for him, leaving a crumbling army at the hands of a limp wristed rent boy like that. No wonder we absolutely slaughtered you 😂
@@rocketraccoon1976he didn’t throw anyone out of a window. That man was murdered by the nobles after Edward died
Richard III is a hard character to get a lock on. He was loyal to his eldest brother all his life and yet he usurped his nephews and most likely had them killed. He was well respected in his northern power base and yet he was never really popular in London and towards the end of his life his behavior became increasingly erratic. I do think it’s important to remember that his father and one of his older brothers died in battle when he was only around eight years old and most of his youth and adult life were marked by battle, betrayal, and stunning reversals in fortune. When Edward IV died Richard likely felt threatened. The young Edward V made it clear that he would be loyal to his mother and his elder half-brothers, not his uncle. Richard’s lands and power had been given by the crown and could be taken away by the crown. He had seen firsthand what could happen to inconvenient members of the royal family and he had his own wife and young son to worry about. In the end I think Richard was a product of an unstable time and that while the Tudors were better at PR they were just as vicious towards anyone in a position to challenge their (very shaky) legitimacy.
very fair! I do think that Buckingham killed the boys rather than Richard, because it was just too convenient for him. However, Richard was a man of his time, and quite capable of ruthlessness. Nice summary there! I also think that when his wife and son died, Richard lost heart. He entered into negotiations to marry a Portuguese princess for political purposes, but I think by then he'd had enough.
I don’t think Richard killed his nephews. He loved his elder brother too much, unquestionably loyal to him beyond the end. Rumors of the time say he was to marry his niece, but he was deeply in love with his wife. I do believe their deaths affected him more than anything. He was not the leader Edward had been but I think he was determined to do his very best to carry on his legacy. He is the most misrepresented monarch. One reason I don’t particularly like Shakespeare.
@@ccdolfin I don't blame Shakespeare because he was only crafting a play out of what he knew. I don't regard him as an accurate relayer of events.
I agree. I doubt Richard personally killed his nephews, but I don’t doubt he very much implied (if not outright ordered) their deaths would be helpful
@@lindseystein9676 more than likely other key political players of the time saw the advantage of removing and eliminating the princes. As they were in their uncles custody, nefarious souls sought to end their lives and lay the blame on Richard. And history is written. His death and that of his supporters means no one would stand up for him with a new king on the throne.
As a survivor of parental abuse, the "Kings Speech" reminds anyone that cruelty can be a motivator for service to others. I retired a disabled Navy corpsman, followed by Cardiopulmonologist. The hurtful deeds, words and projecting are mitigated by service to others, forgiveness and progressive acceptance. All the best. 🙂
❤❤❤
Absolutely well said - and done.
What does that mean? If you’re treated cruelly you’ll want to serve people?
@@Liusila As a result of being injured by those who 'should have' treated me with love, I became aware that my emotional injuries are improved by the service of others, rather than pursuing revenge. Revenge being anger based, denies someone the ability to consider healthy alternatives, thus a situation that 'worsens' each time employed.
Very wise words. Continue in healing and happiness.
at 4:30 you see King George VI wearing an Admiral's uniform - it wasn't uncommon for royals to wear military uniforms, as they often held nominal ranks, but he had more right to wear this one than most did! He was in a turret aboard HMS Collingwood during the Battle of Jutland.
Didn’t all princes receive military training and have to serve ?
@@peterthegreat996 In the modern age, not a requirement exactly, but it was very common. For the last several hundred years, this typically happened if there were two or more sons; the crown prince's life would not be risked on the battlefield but if there was a younger brother he would often go to war. King George VI for example was the 2nd son, he became king when his brother abdicated.
Further back in history, you could say that it was an implicit requirement. Part of the expectation for the King was to lead his nobles to war on behalf of the people, so the King would almost always have his sons trained as soldiers and generals to fight alongside him, in preparation for the day when it would be his turn. This changed over time as military command started to be granted based on ability rather than noble rank, and the King's role became more political and cultural instead of military.
Hahaha, I had a prof at uni who said the near EXACT same thing about the Georges. “There’s so many of them, and I know it’s hard to keep them all straight. Just remember that they HATED each other.” 😅
😂 I’ve always gone with the horrible histories version to remember them. Fat, sad, mad and bad.
It's amazing how close Olivier looked to the reconstructed face of Richard after his discovery. English history is incredibly interesting, hard to keep track of but infinitely interesting. Who did what to who, when? 🙂
Olivier loved his makeup and costumes; were he alive today, he could be making TH-cam cosplay videos to rival Bukkit Brown and Miss Twisted.
I just love that Anne's favorite, Sarah Churchill, is the great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother of Winston Churchill, and also the great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother of Princess Diana. So, Queen Elizabeth II and Ann, both descendants of James (VI and I) would be literally surrounded by Churchills, as her (QE2's) PM and her daughter-in-law were both Churchills, and all her grandchildren and her extended royal line, would be descended from Churchill/Spencers.
I could listen to Dan talk about history all day. Great stuff!
I was lucky enough to see the production that the "Henry V" movie was based on at Stratford with Brannaugh, as well as Emma Thompson and Ian McDiarmid . It was amazing-I remember it vividly.
Lucky you! : )
How special!
Was Brian Blessed in it? I ask because in the film his portrayal of Exeter was always good, sometimes chilling when he spoke quietly.
I would LOVE to see more modern media interpretations of the life of Richard III. His life and (short) rule was overshadowed by the fact that his death ended the Wars of the Roses and the beginning of the Tudor dynasty, and Tudor propaganda really gave the guy a shit deal. Now is the winter of my demand for more Ricky content!
My thoughts too. Propaganda is everything.
But he did, almost certainly, assassinate his nephews, the rightful king and his brother. Shocking act even for the Middle Ages.
@@harpo345this has been highly debated.
@@laurelmalinowski1676
Henry Tudor also had the same motive, it's true, but the deed was almost certainly done by the time he came along.
No effective medieval king would usurp the throne then leave the job half done - and if that were the case, Richard would have produced them to scotch the rumours.
Occam's razor.
But, actually, his death did not end the Wars of the Roses: Plantagenet candidates and/or pretenders threatened the Tudors throughout their reign, notably with Henry VII and Henry VIII. Henry Tudor fought two battles against Yorkist supporters, and executed the son of George Duke of Clarence, and also William Stanley (brother of Henry VII's father-in-law) because William Stanley admitted that if Perkin Warbeck proved to be Richard of York, he'd support him. While, after Henry VII's death, the conflict didn't erupt in pitched battles, it went underground, poisoning security of succession, confidence of the present, a degree of policy both domestic and international, and encouraged lack of trust. It's true that the realities of Richard III, his life and rule, were overshadowed by his defeat, I'd say Henry Tudor's victory came at a high cost to himself, his descendants, and to some degree, his kingdom.
Have we ever had a movie about William the Conqueror? Because I don't think I've heard of it if there was, which is odd to me considering how consequential a monarch he was 🤔
Have You seen "1066: a Year to Conquer England"? VERY good!!! I saw it on TH-cam - mavy it's still here!
If it is made in England, most likely he will end up as the snarking villain and Harold Godwinson as the eternal legitimate king of England. That would be fun.
Nigel's performance as George is one of my all time favourite portrayals of an historical figure of significance. He was also the king that oversaw the settlement of one of the finest modern nations. New South Wales that would be the cornerstone of Australia, and I'll ad New Zealand.
Dan Snow is a real treasure of the field. Love the work
Is it me or does he look and sound like Michael Bolton?
He really sounds more like his father when he becomes older.
The movie braveheart is An absolute hit piece on Edward. He was the first king to rule under the Magna Carta and even expanded it. He set in place a lot of the reforms that led to the current democratic institutions. He was a brutal conqueror. But he was the first king that ruled anywhere in the world under the notion that the king is NOT above the law and could not just make any laws up as he went.
"He was a brutal conqueror" Something we Scots know all too well. Shame his schemes came to nothing in the end. Like the Romans before them, the English couldn't hold Scotland for that long.
I doubt the people of Berwick would have held him in your such high regard.
Two of the screen's great mavericks clashed, but McGoohan was the runaway winner. Gibson was like someone out of The Last of the Mohicans. McGoohan conveyed the shrewdness as well as the steeliness of Edward.
Gibson is just a massive anglophobe, I wouldn't trust anything he says about England or its history
He was also an enemy of Jewish people as well.
My favorite portrayal of an English monarch is Glenda Jackson's Elizabeth R , a TV series produced by the BBC in 1971. If you haven't seen it, you might want to.
I liked when the Duc de Alencon' got out of bed completely Starkers, Willy flapping for all to see!
I agree, Glenda Jackson's interpretation of Elisabeth 1st was amazing. The script writing was also fantastic
Agree totally with Glenda Jacksons portrayal of ER1 thought the scenery was a bit Prisoner cell block H though 😊.
@@iamcarbonandotherbits.8039 I agree with your comment although I think the BBC had a very restricted budget, for instance using graduate robes with glue as jewels for bejeweled aristcrats' robes
Oh yes! She intimidated the living daylights out of me.
You're absolutely right about the dance scene in The Favourite--bears no relation to the dance of that period. It would be great if HH did a video of dance in period drama vs Historical dance as reconstructed from original sources.
It’s not meant to. It’s deliberately anachronistic a la Sophia Corolla’s Marie Antoinette. The costumes were beautifully made in correct silhouettes but many of the fabrics were made from modern fabrics like denim, neoprene and minky (stuffed animal fur) I generally hate this but in this case I don’t mind because it’s not because of a low budget or lack of research, it’s a deliberate choice by the director
Accurate like everything in A Knight’s Tale?
@@FlyingTigersKMTyup. I enjoyed that movie, and it was also deliberately anachronistic. I can’t completely hate on this since it may lead to some people to seek out the true history
A modest correction to the Henry V segment: "Cry God for Harry, England and St George!" isn't part of the Band of Brothers speech but the climax of the battlefield speech at Harfleur that also includes "Once more unto the breach dear friends". Other than that, great stuff. Thanks Mr Snow
In the movie, I also enjoyed the end of Harfleur scene, when Bardolf and his friend stand safely in front of the town's gate ... until Captain Fluellen comes right behind them and sends them running to the attack.
What I like about the discovery of the remains of Richard III is the sign some wag posted in the carpark. It said something like do not dispose of your dead monarchs here.
I think the use of the term hunchback was because those late Medieval people did not have a word for scoliosis. His lack of physical perfection had to have made people of the time uncomfortable as the monarch was expected to be strong and beautiful. Richard was probably talked about during the year following his death up until Shakespeare's time.
Not to mention that Richard the III's body was stripped naked and thrown on the back of a horse and paraded about the battlefield. Which would have left no one in any doubt as to scoliosis. And remember back then that people thought outer disfigurement was representative on an inner moral failing... it's very easy to see how people would have thought him villainous even without the Tudor propaganda to aid it along.
it doesn't help his older brother Edward IV was considered a staggeringly good looking man dripping with charisma, where as Richard was short, slight, and lacking in some of the finer social skills.
Richard III was also accused of killing Queen Elizabeth I’s great uncles. He would have been smart to portray Richard as a plotting, disfigured villain
But no mention was ever made during his lifetime about him having a "hunchback". It wasn't until he was stripped naked after his death that people knew. There's a young man named Dominic Smee that has an almost identical twist to his spine as Richard, and unless you see him with his shirt off, you would never know. They actually did a program where Dominic trained in horseback riding and combat to see if Richard was capable of fighting, and he was. Dominic didn't have the years of training that Richard did, and he actually did very well. As nobility, and then a king, Richard's clothing and armour would have been tailored to disguise the scoliosis. Very few people would have known, and no one spoke of it.
Well "Wryneck" was a known nickname at the time.
Great! I think Brannagh's Henry V is a truly brilliant film, I've seen it many times and enjoyed every moment. You've only got to look at the cast list to get an idea of what a classic it really is. Nice one Dan! 🌟👍
Would be nice to see it redone and Shakespeares speech done in the English accent of the time instead of modern theatrical English.
@@eoinocnaimhsi2598Can we reconstruct the accents of either the 15th or 16th century? We can understand the modern theatrical and, frankly, that means a lot.
@@eoinocnaimhsi2598
At the time of Henry V, English would have been very similar to Chaucerian, middle-English. (Chaucer died only a decade or so before Azincourt.) That in turn, is much closer to the language of the North of England and Scottish Lowlands than some folk might be prepared to admit.
It's very, very complicated but by the time of Shakespeare, due to constant warfare, the axis of English pronunciation shifted - massively to the south during the 15th and early 16th centuries.
Yes, love the soundtrack of the film too, fabulous.
@@alecblunden8615 Plimouth-Pautuxet (Plimouth Plantation formerly) does recreate the accents of the 17th century, so I would imagine it could be done.
I think this is a great format for learning about historical figures and how films and plays take liberties.
Patrick McGoohan genuinely scared me in Braveheart. He did a fantastic job.
Behind the camera he was a hilarious person.
Be seeing you
I REALLY wish you did John Adams meeting king George the third from the John Adams miniseries. It is, without exaggeration, one of the best scenes ever filmed
Excellent piece! You should add Keith Michel's Henry VIII in the t.v. series, the Six Wives of Henry VIII and the followup, Glenda Jackson's magnificent Elizabeth in Elizabeth R.
Dan Snow is just a gem! So much fun to watch (easy on the eyes too, though I have t-shirts older than him!), and just dynamic. One of my fave channels on TH-cam.
I would let Dan Snow do unspeakable things to me as long as he talked about British history at the same time.
@@Beautyonthebrain_ UH whatever floats your boat I guess
@@Beautyonthebrain_ I wholeheartedly agree 😅
What a fantastic video. Informative and humorous reactions. Thanks Dan and History Hit. You inspired me to look into the history of queen Anne and her life.
What I really like about "Henry V" is that Sir Kenneth Branagh was 29 years old at the time filming - same as King Henry V when he invaded France!
I'm pretty sure that he wanted it that way
What they doing having a ulsterman playing a English king🤮
Richard the III was maligned by the Tudors and their propaganda. Henry VII knew he had a weak claim to the throne and was forever paranoid about it. He’s part of the reason people have the wrong impression of Richard.
I agree and Shakespeare didn't help. I tend to think he wrote the play about Robert Cecil who served under Queen Elizabeth I time and also served under King James I of England. He was a hunchback and wasn't well liked at court.
Then there’s the whole murdering his nephews thing. Unless you think he really put them in the tower for their safety, had them declared bastards just cuz and they vanished into thin air. He was a tyrant
@@JoeKerr420 back then the Tower had Royal apartments that Kings and Queens would stay in a few days before their coronation. While they were in the Tower Richard started having coins minted in Edward's likeness and also had him fitted for his coronation gown. It wasn't until a Bishop Robert Stillington approached a few members of Parliament reporting to them about the marriage between the former King Edward IV and Eleanor Talbot that reportedly happened before the King married Elizabeth Wydevill, that their illegitimancy came into question. I've studied him for years and I don't see the ruthless tyrant you do. When they were declared illegitimate then Richard would have had no reason to kill them.
I have often thought perhaps Shakespeare was inspired by Elizabeth I's famous speech to the troops at Tilbury. The St. Crispin's Day speech has many of the same qualities. And that version of Henry V is absolutely amazing all the way through.
It's a great pity that such a leader like Henry V screwed it all executing his prisoners at the end of Azincourt, he threw away all his aura engaging in a rarely seen by then war crime that took all honours out of him, and the money. Tremendous mistake.
Have you ever thought that Shakespeare wrote her speech? They did perform for her,and who better then to write it?
@@Trebor74 In theory that's possible, but Elizabeth's Tilbury speech would have been in 1588. We know his plays were performed for her, but I have doubts that Shakespeare would've been well enough known at @22 to warrant the Queen's hiring him to write that speech.
@@dominiquecharriere1285 I'm afraid that lamentable though that action was, it was likely a matter of simple military expediency. Having thousands and thousands of prisoners, being guarded by weary and injured troops with the constant fear of them uprising and negating the hard won victory, is something no victor would want and executing the prisoners is unfortunately something any prudent commander of that age, would do.
@@dominiquecharriere1285 was'nt it done partly in revenge for the french killing the baggage boys
The bit which really ground my gears in Braveheart (well, even more so than all the other stupid inaccuracies) was when the narrator refers to Edward I as the "heathen" King.
The Catholic church had massive influence in medieval royal politics. There was absolutely no way an openly heathen Prince would ever have been allowed to become King, and if a reigning King just suddenly decided to commit apostasy, that was one of the very few reasons for which rebellion and usurpation was considered justified.
On top of that, he was recorded as being actively Christian. Contemporary writers occasionally make reference to him attending church, or praying. He even went on a Crusade, for Christ's sake.
I think this criticism would be fair if Braveheart made itself out to be a historically accurate film, but i don’t think it really does. Literally the opening line of the film is the narrator saying “I will tell you the story of William Wallace. historians from England will say I’m a liar, but history is written by those who’ve hanged hero’s” clearly acknowledging that narrator is telling a story from his perspective, and it’s going to depart from historical fact.
Now that hasn’t stopped idiots across the ages interpreting it as factual, but the film itself is really just a semi historical epic/revenge flick. Like Gladiator. Roughly inspired by true events, but you’d sound silly complaining about the fact Commodus didn’t really kill die in the arena but instead was poisoned or that Marcus Aurelius wasn’t killed by Commodus.
If you’d like a historically accurate film from the same period I’d really recommend Outlaw king. Very close to history, gritty, even mentions Edward going on Crusade with Robert the Bruce’s father.
Indeed, unlike many medieval monarchs Edward was faithful husband to both his wives, [building the Eleanor crosses to his first wife, Eleanor of Castile] and despite the age didderence inspiring the love of his much younger second wife, Margaret of France.
@@AlwaysAC. Both Wallace and the Bruce came from Norman family’s so really it was all a family quarrel.
I think for me it was the fact that they depicted the Battle of Stirling Bridge in an open field... without a bridge 🤦♂😂
@@AlwaysAC Historians from Scotland will say the narrator is a liar as well, though. It's just a really *weird* film and interpretation of events. My chief criticism of Braveheart is that the actual stories and legends that come down to us of the primary figures in that war -- Wallace, the Bruce, the Black Douglas -- are already exciting and interesting. You don't need to want to make a purely "accurate" film, but viewing Braveheart truly made me wonder why Gibson wanted to do a take on those events that so heavily altered many of the parts that even the Scots had valued through the centuries. (Sorry, 25 years later and I'm still not over the Battle of Stirling Bridge, taking place in a wide-open field.)
From what I understand, the marriage to Wallis Simpson was not a happy one in the end.
It wasn't. She really didn't want to marry David.
Idk about that. I know Wallis’ life went rapidly downhill in terms of physical health and she suffered multiple chronic conditions in poverty until her eventual death.
I want to thank Dan for all the stuff he has lead me too, you and your father I first heard of with Battlefield Britain. History Hits is just awesome, thanks for all that all of you do with this. keep it up.
I’d go back to college and study history if this dude was my professor … I could listen to him talk about this shit all day
Thank you so much for the historical background. It certainly will enhance my viewing pleasure when I re-watch these films and points to some directions for future reading. Would love to hear your opinion of Peter Cook's portrayal of Richard III in Blackadder, or Miranda Richardson's Elizabeth I or Hugh Laurie's Prince Regent. Actually, an entire video dedicated to Black Adder would be a real treat.
I instantly thought of Peter Cook's Richard III as that segment started!
Old Will rarely let truth or (accurate) history get in the way of a good story .
17 children all dying as infants, holy hell is that hard to live with, i can also imagine her consorts didnt really care for her other than her title and that makes it even more sad. And i say this as a man
Fagerjord, Dan did say "...as infants or in childhood"; e.g., son, Prince Wm, Duke of Gloucester lived to age 11. Of course, most of the deaths were actually miscarriages and stillborns. Her only consort was none other than Prince George of Denmark -- yes, that "Prince of Denmark" -- as in "The Prince of Denmark March" (aka "Trumpet Voluntary") by Jeremiah Clarke (sometimes incorrectly attributed to Henry Purcell).
George & Anne did love each & got along well despite their tragedies. Both of them were just trying to ‘do their duty’ by providing England/Britain with a Protestant heir. He was easy going, neither very talented nor very ambitious (you don’t need to be when you’re a Prince)
Handsome, well-spoken, intelligent, British, speaks against homophobia?
Is this a perfect man? :-)
7:35 Edward was pro-Nazi look no further than the glowing things he said about the Nazis on his tour of Nazi Germany in 1937. Yet, it is interesting to see the fact that British historians still have a hard time definitively saying that and insist on using the word "might."
Since finding his skeleton, they now say that Richard III's horse was bogged down in nearby marshland, and rather than giving a speech about losing his horse, he was dragged off and hacked to death, with the killing blow made by a halberd to the lower part of the back of his skull, and to make sure of him a dagger was thrust into the top of his skull.
A contemporary said that Richard was offered a horse to escape yet refused to flee so he could die like a true king and an honourable man
Battles in those days were absolutely brutal affairs, horrendous, but Richard III never shirked the fight, a brave man to the end.
@@stonemarten1400 Exactly
@@tobiasbourne9073 Another thing they did was to strip him naked, slumped his lifeless body over a horse and shoved a speer or sword up his arse. The legend says as the horse was being led away his head hit the same stone on a bridge that his spur hit on the way out. As I said, I don't think they've proven the last bit, but they're certain about slumping his naked corpse over a horse and shoving the speer or sword up his arse. That last bit was done as a term of disrespect, because they knew he was dead by that point.
@@tobiasbourne9073Probably not the right decision in hindsight. 😂
The Ottomans knew what to do about sibling rivalry...
Lol
They sorted it out the best way possible. The English Monarchy definitely could have learnt a lot from them
Having your brother drowned in a vat of Malmsey was pretty metal.
@@mijanhoque1740 More like the worst way. Raising multiple sons only for all but one of them to be murdered is pathetically wasteful. It could be the textbook example of squandered potential.
@@thomassaldana2465 Oh no sure yeah raise multiple of them I’m sure that won’t cause problems right? 🤡 oh wait except it gave us one brother killing the other in the woods aka Henry 1st and King William 2nd then Civil between brothers and imprisonment aka King Henry and Duke Robert. Then we had the whole Anarchy situation between relatives aka King Stephen and Matilda and after brother scheming against his elder brother aka Richard and Jon. Let’s not the forget 100 years war where Richard 2nd was usurpered by Henry 4th then decades later had another civil war aka War of the Roses where crown passed from Henry 6th to Edward 4th to Edward 5th to Richard 3rd to Henry 6th, the whole shit is laughable 😂.
Face it mate the Ottomans did it the best and with the most practical solution deterring any civil war.
When I read Dan Jones' The Plantagenets and The War of The Roses last year, I came to the idea Richard the Lionheart and Richard the Third should swap places as Hero and Villain in British Kings...and then there's John who's the Milhouse of English Kings.
Richard the Lionheart was an utter waste of space
@@monkeytennis8861 it’s all that Robin Hood propaganda to raise him up in comparison to John..and being on crusade
Richard the Lionheart didn't even like England; he spent little time there.
Dan Jones has a podcast on the Plantaganets. This season is Richard I. I asked him a few weeks ago on his newsletter on Substack if he thought Richard would have had to agree to Magna Carta if he lived longer or was John's incompetence the thing that saves Richard. Richard did use taxes in England to fund the Crusades and to fund armies to maintain French territories.
@@JessCausey what was his reply or he didn’t reply yet?
Enjoyable. I would have loved to have seen Glenda Jackson's portrayal of Elizabeth I reviewed. I know it's not a film, but her performance is outstanding and more historically accurate (although not 100%) than any other portrayal I've ever seen.
(Also, a review of The Tudors would have been hilarious).
There is a film with Glenda Jackson as E.R. It's called "Mary, Queen of Scots" with Vanessa portraying Mary. The film came out about 1970-71. It takes some liberties, too, but I like it.
Its interesting that Edward Teach, AKA Blackbeard, named his flagship Queen Anne's Revenge tells a lot about the respect she had from the English/British (Act of Union happened under her reign)
Solzhenitsyn once said, "History is a wonderful thing. If only it were true."
I'm not sure if i would describe Richard III as having mild scoliosis. When they found his remains, his spine was quite severely malformed, but it was also thought it wouldn't have been clearly visible. Maybe one shoulder was higher than the other, but the spine looked rather rough to me.
It was severly curved but I think it was from right to left so not as noticable as if it would be front to back.
There's a detail I remember from a documentary I saw a long time ago. And it was about his condition... Richard would have been ok riding and fighting on top of a horse, as his spine would have had less pressure on it, than on foot. Idk if Shakespeare would have known about this, but it really gave a new meaning to "my kingdom for a horse".
There was armor made for a man with a nearly identical spinal curve, and it was (to my eye) far less notable in armor than in modern clothing.
@@gwirithil1 I remember seeing that! They made a saddle for him too I think(?) & he looked like a normal rider.
Joaquin Phoenix should play him
The Duke of Windsor, formely Edward VIII, was “dispatched” to be governor of the Bahamas during the Second World War, not Bermuda.
He was loathed in Nassau, partly for being an insufferable snob, partly for being Wally's whimpering lap-dog, and partly for being a crook. That last seriously interfered with the Bay Street Boys own grifts. Unforgivable!
It was because of Dan Snow that im now here and subb'd etc!...Yeah cant beat the Snows both Dan and his now ageing Father who you still see from time to time!...Ive grown up with both the snows so,it would be very strange to have a world without them imo.
The actor James Earl Jones also had a stuttering issue, someone helped him as well and looked at the awesome roles he has had.
"Cry 'God for Harry! England and St. George'" is the final line of the speech at Harfleur (the one beginning "Once More into the Breach"). Great video altogether!
I was about to point out the same thing.. Dan is a really great communicator, but I got a little kick out of spotting his error.
King George may have inherited his mental illness, but i know from my own experience that stress or trauma make it worse, and can lead to severe episodes. I think perhaps that's what the film qas trying to portray.
I think the way Edward I is portayed in Braveheart is as outrageous as how the Dauphin Louis is portrayed in the King, 180 degrees away from the reality of who Louis was (a respected pious man who was not at Agincourt but with his father in Rouen, his father being ill). But i never heard any critics to the King, while Braveheart is obviously critized throughout all England, which is a comfort. Now seriously thhe best movie representing this era is the Outlaw King, where Edward appears as a true politician and not a sadistic psycho, and his son plays the role of Louis...
Tbf Edward was as much a cruel and vicious man as he was a shrewd leader. His treatment of Dafydd ap Gruffydd is ample proof of that, a tale that is nothing less than sadistic.
They were all of their time. The problem is how people use history for bigotry in the present.
@@whensomethingcriesagain as were most kings and queens back then.
@@whensomethingcriesagain Sadism means to inflict pain on another animal because the perpetrator derives pleasure from the suffering of others.
The execution of Dafydd was punishment for a crime. The manner of the execution was intended to send a very strong message: that high treason is the most serious of crimes. Sadism wasn’t the motivating factor there.
@therightarmofthefreeworld4703 For what crime? Being the Prince of Wales when Edward wanted to press an illegitimate claim? No, Edward wanted to send a message alright, but it wasn't about treason, he wanted others to fear him. And the sheer level of depraved creativity Edward displayed in the act is one that requires some degree of sadism to even come up with, let alone actually employ
So glad to have found your channel!! I love everything I've seen so far! I have always loved The Madness of King George. Brilliant acting all around.
Thoroughly enjoyed the historical critiques of film portrayals of English Kings and Queens. Wish you had time to review historical accuracy of The Lion in the Winter! As a previous comment mentions, it's a Christmas movie!
28:50 Let's not forget also that Mrs. Fitzherbert was also a Catholic, which was doubly illegal for a Prince of Wales to marry.
My favorite "royal" movie is The Lion in Winter (1968). Shows four kings and one queen, all played by an all-star cast. Beat that!
Interestingly Edward II was also over 6ft tall and considered by many sources to be a physically strong figure. Very much his fathers son in terms of physique. Far from the character portrayed in Braveheart
The words " Mel Gibson" and "authenticity" are incompatible.
@@alecblunden8615 Blame Randall Wallace. He wrote the screenplay.
Love Braveheart, great entertainment, but my word, it’s utter trash from an historical perspective.
William Wallace was also described as a 6’6 tank of a man and he was played by 5’9 Mel Gibson 😂
@@PhantomFilmAustraliavery little is actually known about Wallace so that's probably why they used a lot of artistic licence with him. But it doesn't excuse all the liberty they took with other people in the film who they know a lot about
Would love to see more of these. How about the Hollow Crown’s portrayal of Richard II, or Wolf Hall’s interpretations of Thomas Cromwell or the families of Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour?
There's so many phenomenal portrayals in TV & film. I honestly love Chalamet's portrayal of Henry V and if we count filmed plays David Tennant's Richard 2.
Slightly twisted spine? Richard III? I have a scoliosis and a kyphosis (which he may have had too) and im almost like Quasimodo. Richard III squeleton is twisted inmisericordesly, they must have spend months to manufacture his armour! Excellent review all together, very high quality comments of someone who truly knows and refrains to exagerate kings traits (like I maybe do)
There was actually a documentary about a group that made armor and a saddle based on R3s skeleton and demonstrated he could have been effective on a horse.
I don't know if it's the best portrayal of a British monarch in cinema history, but Dame Helen Mirren's portrayal of Queen Elizabeth II in _The Queen_ has to be in the top 5!
I really enjoy your videos, and particularly enjoy the historical insights and "tidbits" you talk about. It might be nice to get your rating on a scale of 1 to 10 as to the historical accuracy of the movie. _Braveheart_ , while entertaining (sacked York... as if...), would probably be a 3 while _The King's Speech_ would perhaps rate an 8?
I've seen a couple of the documentaries about Richard the third's recovery in the parking lot and he did not have mild scoliosis. I have mild scoliosis and you can't even see it. He had severe scoliosis. It doesn't mean that he was judged by God it just means that he had a birth defect. Nowadays we can't even allow a disfigured man to be disfigured. It's okay he did amazing things despite his disability but he certainly had a disability.
@@michaeldoolan7595 I've seen toutain in many videos. A very important spot in British history.
I remember seeing photos of the spine and it did look pretty curved. Maybe they considered "mild" to mean "not obvious when wearing thick clothes"?
@@jpaulc441 there's just something going on these days we're a person can't be disabled. I don't know.
@@michaeldoolan7595 regarded as the bloodiest battle on English soil, and it must have been a terrifying sight as the battle raged on for some ten hours in swirling snow. More impressive is that Edward IV was only 18 when he strode onto the battlefield and at an alleged 6’3 which even by today’s standards that is pretty tall, so back then he must have looked like a giant.
My thoughts on Richard are a bit clouded, and I find the Richard III society a bit annoying as they seem to deny everything bad said about him.
The fact that both Edwards sons were under his protection and just disappeared into thin air seems all too convenient for me, and yet the society tries to absolve Richard of all blame.
@@Tawny6702 The theory that Richard did away with two boys was propergated by Shakespeare, who was writingplays during a Tudor period, who were the victors at Bosworth, so as ever history is written by the victors. We will never know what happened.
I think Shakespeare's portrayal of Henry V was much more nuanced than Dan shows. The opening scene, after the prologue, shows the Church manipulating Henry to invade France, so they get out of taxes. When they later describe Salic law to Henry in the most confusing way possible, he obviously does not care about the details and just wants them to tell him he can invade France. One thing I like in the Branaugh version is, in the play, the three assassins seem more motivated by money than anything else and basically give up after they are captured, but in the movie even when they are caught one guy still tries to kill Henry. It makes the attack much more personal and raises the stakes for Henry's "another fall of man" line.
I appreciate this perspective, the influence of Shakespeare in Britain's history was far more reaching than I thought. It makes total sense now that I think about it. I didn't know much about Richard III other that he was infamous for incarcerating the two young princes in the tower of London who then died under very mysterious circumstances.
Shakespeare is thought to have invented 1700 or so new words. I dont think its possible to overstate his influence on the english language
Do some research: the princes weren't said to be missing and murdered by Richard III or on his orders until long after his death, the accusation or course made under the Tudors.
Was hoping to see Charlie’s II the power and passion film…..you should do a part 2, there is much more to choose from
And Charles I from Cromwell ....
I loveBrian Blessed,he always looks as if he was born in armour,born to wear it. Branagh really brings Shakespeare alive..it was meant to be seen not read in a stuffy classroom!
Brian Blessed is an actor who other actors really need to watch closely, because if they don't, he'll blithely steal their scenes.
@@richardbale3278 and always make sure your voice is that one decimal or two higher than his as well.
I could listen to Snow talk about the history of cardboard boxes. He’s awesome.
I always root for Longshanks in Braveheart despite the historical inaccuracies. His character is so cold and efficient. I also love the scene where he throws his son's lover out of the window.
I never realized Gibson made Braveheart. Dude is talented
I think Richard's possible involvement in the murder of the princes in the tower could factor into his reputation too. If he did that (and I think personally that it's probable), then that's some cold sh*t. Was it Richard or Henry? Don't know, but the winner gets to write the history, and Shakespeare 100% worked for the Tudor propaganda dept.
Richard’s reputation is almost entirely based on Shakespeare’s History Plays and one other author of some very questionable reliability.
the same author wrote a very flattering portrayal of Richard before he died, then after did a 180.
Yeah, he probably did it and many of his rivals would have done the same thing in his position, you had to be ruthless back then to stay on top.
I think it's a toss up between the Tudors, Richard, and unfortunate circumstances. Richard technically didn't need to kill them he had their claim invalided by having their parents marriage declared illegitimate, which was weak argument but the reasons were there to cast doubt. Still, having them gone would shored up his and his sons claim. The Tudors on the other hand absolutely needed those boys out of the picture. Their claim was dubious blood wise and they couldn't use illegitimate argument and Elizabeth of York and Henry VII together. However, it would been a huge risk if it failed or word got out they would lose most the support English nobles they needed for conquest. It was tough world but powerful people tend to draw line at murdering their young children if only because they don't want theirs to be next. Third, illness and accidental death where much higher before modern medicine. Those kids could have died from a bad infection or virus easily. It also wouldn't surprise me if that is what happened to one of them and whomever had the other killed to tie up loose ends because plausible deniability.
@@bpax7119 Richard absolutely did have to kill them since there was an armed uprising to free Edward V and depose Richard only a few months after Richard declared himself king. (Buckingham's Rebellion)
It was not entirely due to Shakespeare. Richard had usurped his nephew's claim to the throne and by the end had managed to alienate most of the Yorkist supporters as well as those who supported the Lancasters. If Henry VII did do in the Edward IV's sons, it was something that had to be kept from his in-laws as he married Edward's daughter to consolidate both houses claims.
I will gladly watch any video with Dan Snow in it! Keep up the content!
Dan and the work on these videos are excellent!!
Loved this! Can't wait to see the Favourite! Thank you Dan!
I need to thank Dan Snow for his measured words on King Richard III. I enjoyed his finely nuanced view on the matter very much. Shakespeare was a writer of fiction (with some historic background, we shall give him that), a creator of drama. He was certainly not a chronicler, and no historian as well. All his works speak highly of drama, and of his huge creative, inventive mind.
On the subject of sibling rivalries, I was hoping for a series of examples from different Robin Hood films, especially _Men in Tights_ and Disney's animated one with the animals! :P
Dan does seem to play down the brutality of Edward the 1st and Richard the 3rd.
Edward the 1st massacred the civilian population of Berwick in a retributive slaughter that saw the "river run red with blood". While it is very strongly alleged that Richard the Third seized power through infanticide.
Brutal men in brutal times of course but we should learn history warts n'all but their reputations were deserved and shouldn't be excused.
I think he is just alluding to how he was considered a respectable King but had a second part of his reign where he was considered a tyrant.
There is speculation among historians that his first wife was a moderating influence and her death changed him.
Well, it was the Middle Ages. Brutality was par for the course.
Really excellent analysis! Just want to note that with mental illness, it doesn't have to be an either / or with genetics vs. environmental triggers. Most often, it's a combination of both (as depicted in "The Madness of King George." I wouldn't fault the script for "wanting to have it both ways." In fact, it's bang-on: genetic predilection, brought to life vis a vis environmental stress and trauma.
Epigenetics is a good lens: lurking until something sets it going.
Okay the dancing scene from The Favorite and Dan’s reaction 😂😂😂 I am CACKLING 😂
For a different perspective on Richard III, I would recommend the brilliant Sunne In Splendour by one of my favourite authors, Sharon Penman. It was she who ignited my in interest in, and love of British history. I abhor Shakespeare's ghastly version of poor old Richard III.
I love that book! It was my introduction to Penman (RIP). I've read everything she published.
I watched The King’s Speech with my uncle who was there and knew the royalty. It was incredible to see it with him.
I learned my uncle sailed across the Atlantic in a convoy during WW II and the ships in front and behind his were sunk.
16:00 Sophie Marceau, one of the most beautiful women to ever live.
I don’t know if it’s possible, but if it is would like to see different actors as the same king in other films at different stages of the reigns.
How accurate is the growth?
Great video.
Love that you tackled this!! I'm an American who is mad about British history!! Thanks for commenting on lords/kings/knights etc. wearing chainmail/armor "around the house" so to speak. That drives crazy!!!
Ironically, the closest portrayal we seem to have gotten of Richard III was in Horrible Histories.
He definitely wins the trophy for "most maligned Englishman". By all accounts, he was a loyal and loving brother, with a mild temper, and head for justice. During his brief reign, he fought to improve the rights of the poor (including the right to be heard in court, even if legal representation couldn't be afforded), rejected the use of French in court declarations, made book-banning illegal, and advocated for literacy in all classes.
I don't blame Shakespeare - he had to do what he had to do under Tudor rule, but he really screwed up the legacy of one of the few English kings who wasn't a total twat.
It should also be noted that Longshanks banished Jewish people from England, a ban that lasted until Oliver Cromwell rescinded it, roughly 300 years later.
nothing unusual for the time period... they were banished from a lot of places
Most kings who were centralizing powers feared independent groups with capital that could fund interests that go against their agendas. Philip IV of France, Isabella and Ferdinand of Spain, Edward Longshanks of England was hardly alone in that matter. Even monarchs that hated the Pope's influence over worldly matters still expelled Jews like no tomorrow, including Martin Luther of Saxony or Philip IV of France.
The Favorite is a fantastic movie and I highly recommend it to anyone that hasnt seen it yet
Don't forget Nelson used the "Band of Brothers" term at the Battle of the Nile.
As an English major and teacher I totally don't care if Shakespeare and Branagh were accurate...I love Henry V. Oh, for a muse of FIYUHHH... But "God for Harry, England, and St George actually came from Act III when they were attacking Harfleur, which also gives us "Once more into the breach..."