THE WARS OF THE ROSES // Let's Talk History
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ม.ค. 2021
- Become a supporter through the brand new VTH Patreon for exclusive supporter rewards - / vth
If you want to see more of this, make sure to hit LIKE, SUBSCRIBE, and leave a comment! And if you'd like to have more input into the future of the channel, consider joining my patron team. Thank you in advance!
Check out History Guy Gaming (my strategy gaming channel) - / @thehistoryguy
Updated link for Discord - / discord
Twitter - / thehistoryguy25
For business inquiries contact: thehistoryguy25@gmail.com
Special Thanks to Graham Brown who is an official sponsor of this channel.
Instead of capture the flag, the Wars of the Roses was capture the Henry.
For anyone who wants to learn more about English royal history, I recommend Dan Jones' books: The Plantagenents, The Wars of the Roses, and The Magna Carta.
His documentaries on Timeline also, Britain's Bloodiest Dynasty and Britain's Bloody Crown are the best for this type of thing
Just picked them up on audible.
Dan Jones is the man
@@bobbydeuce6486 I have also
I swear i wish you were my teacher back in highschool. I would have come and chill out in your class during my lunch. I feel like youd be that teacher who was teaching us real life stuff in the parking lot while were were stoning out. Love ya bro.
IN reality, Edward 4 almost certainly knew exactly what he was doing when he married Elizabeth Woodville. One, he effectively undermined Warwick, who was getting far too powerful, and Two, it was a way of healing the breach with the Lancastrians.
considering the AGOT angle: Edward IV seems inspired by Robb Stark. He married Jeyne Westerling, daughter of a bannerman of the Lannisters (even the name seems a throw-back to the Lancasters). He did so because he got her pregnant and thus the child wouldn't be a bastard - it was the noble thing to do. Those are the official reasons though. We never get a POV (point-of-view) chapter with Robb, so we actually know nothing of his actual thoughts and can't but speculate. Maybe it really was to impress the enemy's side and show mercy awaits...
23:47 they sort of gloss over it, but Henry Tudor’s claim to the throne is actually razor thin. The amount of royal blood running through the Beaufort - John of Gaunt - Richard III line is so remote. Plus there are no records that Owen Tudor and Catherine of Valois were even married at the time either Edmund (father) or Jesper Tudor (uncle) were born.
It's not the amount of blood. John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster was the 3rd son of Edward III. The only problem with the Beaufort line is that it wasn't supposed to be in line due to the children being John's bastards (though that isn't necessarily a disqualifier on its own al á William the Bastard). By the time we get to Henry VII and Edward IV both are female line descent as I think York starts out as the 4th son of Edward III but marries the sole heiress of the 2nd son in like the second generation. That said I agree York is the stronger claim as it's 100% legitimate, never disinherited, and no weird claim through half brothers of a King...but, a King is forged not only by legitimacy, but strength and religious recognition (religion is the huge difference between Monarchy and dictatorship)
My daughter: Why was Henry VI overthrown?
Me: well you see his French wife thought the best way to calm the English down was to use her father's traditional allies in Scotland to secure armies to suppress the English, so I mean...why wouldn't the English hate her?
Elizabeth Woodville
When I was a child and first learned about the Wars of the Roses one of my favorite things was the Tudor rose of red and white that Henry VII created to visually symbolize the unity of the Houses of Lancaster and York, and of course as you stated at the end of the video that unity of the two houses was embodied in Henry VIII.
So apparently Edward of Westminster, the son of Margaret and Henry VI, was the model for Joffery Baratheon in GoT.
He was reportedly a cruel youth, and, according to a Milanese ambassador, "talks of nothing but cutting off heads or making war, as if he had everything in his hands or was the god of battle or the peaceful occupant of that throne.”
Edit: also his mother was Ceresi Lannister and Edward IV was Robb Stark.
I would advise you to take a grain of salt on that as there is only one source about that and that source HATED Lancasters
A lot of Game of Thrones was based on the War of the Roses, not just the one battle. GRRM took a lot of his inspiration from these wars and the houses involved in them.
Tell me another inspiration except for that one battle then.
In terms of storytelling inspiration GRRM uses more Byzantine history than anything but the wars of the roses are also a big influence on his writings.
@@papapedro6980 Can you name 1 example of Byzantine history that GRRM uses?
@@joeboah6040 search for “HotD is actually byzantine history” here on youtube its like 20 minutes long and explains it better than I could here in a comment. But there are elements such as Viserys (Dany’s brother) being an (albeit unsuccessful) equivalent to Justinian II. The chain which guards the mouth of the blackwater is westeros equivalent of the chain used to guard the golden horn in Constantinople. The whole Targaryen aesthetic in general is very romaios. Wildfyre is just greek fire with a different name. The geography of King’s landing is pretty much a mirror image of Constantinople. Not to mention westeros is (was) ruled by the remnants of a powerful empire who go out of their way to mention they are the blood of old Valyria much in the same way the Byzantines were the remnants of the Roman empire and continued to call themselves “Roman” despite not controlling Rome
Catherine of Valois was Charlie’s VI’s daughter
It was Elizabeth Woodville
I recommend people read Wars of the Roses: Fall of the Plantagenets and rise of the Tudors ( The hollow crown in the U.K ) by Dan Jones , Lancaster and York: The Wars of The Roses by Alison Weir , and Blood Sisters by Sarah Gristeoood
3000 SUBS 5 MONTHS AGO. You deserve every one, content hasn't changed and you always dive deeper than anticipated.
Glad this came up in my recommended videos .
Love your channel! I first became interested in Tudor history when I was about 12 years old and the BBC Miniseries "The Six Wives of King Henry VIII" aired, followed a couple of years later by the miniseries "Elizabeth R". Since women's lib was really blossoming at this time, I just thought Henry VIII was just being a male chauvinist with his frenzied pursuit of a male heir. But when you see all the turmoil that had resulted from the various male Yorkist and Lancastrian candidates fighting for the throne during the preceeding centuries, I could better understand his perspective that it would take very little to fracture the country into turmoil again if he left 'only' female heirs. After all, no one ever proposed that Henry's own mother, Elizabeth of York, be considered to inherit the throne, even though she was the daughter of Edward IV, and her marriage to Henry VII was seen as a way to combine the York and Lancaster claims.
A similar situation to Edward III and Richard II happened when Alfred the Great became King of Wessex. Alfred's brother Athelwulf was King and died leaving two sons. Alfred had them set aside and he was proclaimed King. Two reasons. The first was that there had been an agreement between the Brothers that they would be each others heirs. Also, the Great Heathen Army was still in England and threatening Wessex so it was not a good time for the next King to be a child. Alfred still had to smooth things over with some nobles but it was largely accepted. By the time of Edward III, the Kingdom was not in Peril. Edward III's son's (the uncles of Richard II) also did a great job at running the country before Richard came of age. And the issue of inheritance had been fined tuned, so it was a different time and the much more stable England could afford to have a child King such as Richard II.
I know this is an old comment but I thought it would be prudent to also mention that, in the case of Alfred the Great, succession was not purely based on the relation to the previous king. While this was certainly a factor, and often the throne would pass from father to son, the deciding force in who was to inherit the crown was a group of nobles: The Witan. That makes it significantly different than in the case of the Plantagenets as, for them, succession was typically purely based on blood relation. Unless by right of conquest or technicalities in the law (such as Richard's trick with the Princes in the Tower), post Norman conquest no one really had any say in who the new monarch would be. The Anglo-Saxons, however, could determine for themselves who would be most suitable to be king, which came in handy during crises like, as you correctly noted, the invasion of the Great Heathen Army.
Excited for 3 and 5 thousand subscribers, just a year ago. :)
Richard was a child when he came to the throne, but so were Louis XIV, William the Conqueror (as duke of Normandy, obviously, not king of England) and, for that matter, Edward the III.
I have an Avalon Hill board game called Kingmaker that was my initial introduction to this time period. It's a fantastic way to spend an afternoon and learn about history including the unplanned events and deaths that so often changed the course of the wars.
I actually learned a lot of The War of the Roses because of the show “The White Queen”. Of course I do not take everything ther portray as facts but it does show what a complicated and fascinating time it was with all the betrayals and intrigues. It does not cover the whole period though, it only starts from the point where Edward IV meets Elizabeth Woodville, but it’s certainly a great way to get introduced into the topic.
Honestly, same. I had previously kind of glossed over the Wars of the Roses, but stumbled across the show and got curious. I have a tendency to watch period dramas about historical figures, then do a bunch of research about those people, and then watch it again to find all the consistencies and inconsistencies.
Some people find the inconsistencies distracting and ruin the experience, but I can still dig the shows and movies for the stories they're portraying, even though they ABSOLUTELY did not happen that way.
8:52 The York's stronger claim only derives from Richard of Conisburgh marrying into the Mortimer line (producing Richard Duke if York). It was the Mortimer's via Edwards second eldest son that had the stronger claim. Lancaster was third eldest and York was from the fourth oldest son.
So...Checkmate Tudorites!
Henry VIII quest for a son is a direct result of this era. Thus the English reformation never would have happened if Henry VI was a good king.
Yep! It's amazing how one part of history so directly impacts later, seemingly unrelated events.
The same is true about why all of Queen Elizabeth's advisors wanted her to marry and produce an heir. But I guess the saying is "the only thing worse than no heir is having more than 1."
Yes, they wanted her to marry but didn't want her husband to become powerful - she also had smallpox and that does affect fertility. And her spouse would become a magnet for yes-men whether or not he wanted to overthrow Elizabeth. She was better off not having a consort because she eventually would probably have to kill him to avoid her consort being put over her.
EdwardIV's wife was ELIZABETH Woodville
10k subs? As of this post, you have now hit 157k+ subs.
You deserve the love and here is to 150k more.
Soundtrack of the video is same as one in Witcher 3 (Novigrad) :) I love that game.
Love the war of roses. Roses wasn't in play until after the civil war. To help to distinguish between the sides.
Very similar to the time of troubles in Russia
And always the reds win
A lot of Henry VIII's conduct was driven by his desire to produce a successor. Dynastic weakness led to the Stuarts. That craziness staggered on the Battle of Culloden which one might call the last aftershock of the War of the Roses.
I love the witcher 3 gwent melody in the end lol
Very good and as an American you seem to know your stuff, I'm very impressed
It is really great that you can trace your line back that far.
For me, all known data for my specific line of "Gaither" can only go back to John Gater whose baptismal records say he was born 5 March 1599 to unknown parents. He would travel to Maryland, father his son John Gaither (here is the name change) and pass away "after 1652".
Hah. Watching this now for the first time, and hearing you say when ‘we hit 5000 subscribers’,and 1.5 years later you sit at 300 000. Incredible growth
Visit Warwick Castle near Stratford. It is phenomenal.
Katherine Woodville live in a village called Groby (pronounced G-ruby) in west Leicestershire, I am from Leicestershire, so all fascinating stuff. The Greys had property in Bradgate, now a park, gifted to the City of Leicester. The battle of Bosworth, used to visit, as a child, but some experts decided it was elsewhere. They were eventually proven wrong. A TV programme called Time Team which had experts on it found the locals were correct as artifacts were found on the site, also that firearms were used, as shot was found. The discovery of Richard 111 remains also found in Leicester. Fantastic co-operation between science, genealogy and archaeology raised lots more questions. Professor Turi King, does a good lecture on it, called solving a 500 years old cold case by The Royal Institution. Worth a watch.
For a quick side-trip into fiction you need to read Josephine Tey's "The Daughter of Time" (1951). A Scotland Yard detective who gets laid up in a hospital bed get's bored and decides to solve a murder, namely did Richard III kill the princes in the tower. It's relatively short but very well-written. The title comes from an old English proverb "Truth is the daughter of time."
Man crazy 9 months ago you hadn’t even hit 5000 subscribers now you’re over 200k the channel has just bloomed
This is near to me. I found out 20 years or so ago I am a descendent of Sir Richard Neville the Kingmaker
Is your last name Warrick? or is that just your username because of the connection
@@VloggingThroughHistory that is my last name
It's amazing that you have so many ancestral ties to so many videos you react to haha
For anyone interested in this period i reccommend the following books: David R. Cook, Lancastrians and Yorkists: The Wars of The Roses and David M. Loades, Politics and Nation England 1450-1660.
Just realized the feature history video is using witcher 3 soundtrack. Deliciously wonderful music
The correct name of Edward's (IV) Queen was Elizabeth not Katherine Woodville. The grandmother of Henry VIII. Katherine Woodville was her (Elizabeth Woodvilles) youngest sister and was later in her second marriage wedded to Jasper Tudor, the Uncle of Henry (VII) Tudor :)
I find it fascinating that a American can be interested in British history, to say it is a complicated subject is a bit of an understatement, I am of a Anglo Irish & Jacobite ancestry and am a loyalist/royalist
Love this new channel I discovered!! Love from Italy. How do we reasearch our family? like... is there a procedure or some agency you can suggest ?
familysearch.org has a fair amount of records for Italy, and it's free. That's a good place to start. Start with people you know something about, like your grandparents.
For temporal context, 1453 was the year Constantinople fell, end the shreds of the Roman Empire. Also, the printing press was invented in 1453.
I’m pretty sure also Martin Luther nails his 100 odd complaints with the Catholic Church on the Magdeburg cathedral sparking the second schism of the Christian church. That might of been +- a few years, but then 20 or so years later he translates the bible for the first time into German.
Tbh I really need to go to these areas sometime to explore, rather than just passing through, both Towton and Wakefield are within a 30 minute drive from me.
Now is the winter of our discontent; made glorious summer by this son of York...
I thought the end of the medieval era was the fall of Constantinople1453.
Some date it to that yes. Usually British historians date it to 1485 and the end of the Plantagenet dynasty.
It's like Pre-history vs History. As far as I know most historians consider Pre-History to be the time before writing. So Egypt started writing around 3,100 BCE. So before 3,100 BCE is known as Pre-Historic Egypt and it ends with the Early Dynastic Period. So when Egypt moved out of their Pre-Historic era, way over in England they were still in their Pre-Historic Period. The Medieval era could be seen as something similar. To me Medieval England ended at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485. The Tudors really did change the culture of England especially with the Nobility. Under the Tudors, the various Lords no longer had their own retinues or armies and the Tudors really did a good job at making themselves the focus and center of politics. So the battles between the nobles no longer took place on the battlefield, they would take place in King's or Queen's Court, and the battles would mostly be fought to gain influence with the sitting monarch.
We can disagree with whether or not Medieval England actually ended in 1485, but for me I prefer studying Pre-Tudor England. There is definitely a change in trajectory for English Politics and Society as a whole after 1485.
This is just my opinion though.
You have the best like to dislike ratio I've seen
Not to mention all that Shakespeare.
I have ancestry in that area traced back to the early 1500s they appear to be some Norman families and also people who were likely indentured servants from mostly Somerset and Warwick. Not sure if they were part of the York houses.
Not enough people have seen the incomparable Richard III with Laurence Olivier, a real treat of a performance showing the last years of the struggle.
Wasn’t this part of the inspiration for Game of Thrones?
Edit: Yep
you can try to make HGG cups or pins for the giveaway, maybe make a merchandise wed store for HGG
John Clifford’s dad fell at St Albans in 1455
3k subs 3 years ago. 2024... 409k!!
GoT pinches it's plot from both the WotR and the 100 years war(s).
Tywin Lannister was very heavily influenced by Edward I (Longshanks) too.
York/Stark Lancaster/Lannister... Hmm we are onto something here haha
Richard = Ned Stark
Margaret = Cersei
There are many more but those are the obvious ones.
@@flynnstone3133 So, true lol I am starting to thing ole George isn't so creative after all, but instead great at making historical fantasy parallels.
Henry VI was advised by John Duke of Bedford and not York. When Richard II was deposed by Henry IV, Edmund Earl of March had a stronger claim because he descended from Edward III's second whereas Henry descended from the 3rd son. But Edmund was a child and they had already had a child king in Richard II, so Bolingbroke won the day by claiming his descent from Henry III, through Edmund Crouchback as well as drawing up legally drafted articles of depisition which would cement his claim by accusing Richard of basically being a tyrant, although the actual term was not said out loud, and declared unfit to rule. Had Henry V not died so soon, Henry VI might have been older, say 18 and might have been able to rule more in his own name sooner. This probably would not prevented his bouts of madness probably inherited from his maternal grandfather, Charles VI of France. He might also have been crowned in Reims and not Paris as was the case, which would have made his claim to France more secure. As for Edward III's claim to France, he did this through his mother, Isabelle de France, daughter of Philippe IV of France, whose three sons had died after each being king and none of them leaving any male heir. Since the French Salic law prevented women from inheriting the French throne, this did not fly in France, since Isabelle would never have been able to be Queen in her own right, hence the 100 years war which lasted from 1337 to 1453, just before the start of the wars of the Roses
5 months ago you were asking for 5K subscribers, now (7/2/21) you have 160K !
since its also one of your favorite topics in history, allow me to point towards a man called Dan Joens. A very good historian. He is an expert on medieval Britain. Wrote plenty of books about the monarchs(not just the ones in the wars of the roses). He is the narrator in the documentary series called (offcouse)"The wars of the roses". A very good 4 part documentary series, where they focus on key points of that amazing time in british history. If you would like to react to more from that period.
It should be that.
Its offcouse long(each part is about 45 minutes long), so its gonna take time, but its not something you will regret(:
Congratulations on your succes on the channel man(:
& on another note: They have made a similar documentary series about the plantagonists. The greatest dynasty in british history, where they focus on 4 of those kings. Dan Jones is again the narrator. Just in case you wanna go beyond the wars of the roses, because the seeds that would lead up to the wars of the roses(as this video here points out), started with there fall(:
I'm very familiar with Dan Jones. I've read a few of his books and seen all of his documentaries
@Vlogging Through History awesome(:
Edmund Mortimer the Earl of March was next in line to the throne after Richard I.
I assume you meant Richard II.
Henry VI likely inherited his illness from his grandfather Charles VI of France via his mother Catherine of Valois.
The King is dead! Long live the King!
This is not anything I know for a fact but can’t see how the death of prince Oberyn (shouldn’t you wear a helmet) is somewhat inspired by the death of Lord Clifford who took an arrow in the throat after not wearing his gorget. He had removed it due to illcomfort.
Allegedly I’m related to Simo Hayha, I have only been told this by my grandma and mom so I take it with a grain of salt
"Game of Thrones" was the Wars of the Roses with some magic and dragons thrown in for spice.
Im connected to the turders.
Did you ever play the wargame "Kingmaker"? That was how I learned about these wars.
I’d say the Medieval era ended at Agincourt.
Typically it’s dated to the middle of the 15th century. The fall of Constantinople in 1453 or even Bosworth field in 1485.
Also, Henry VII was a master of timing. He had basically became King then went to Parliament and had them acknowledge that. Note Parliament did not select him as King so the problems of the "Kingmakers" didn't exist and Henry VII didn't owe Parliament anything. He worked with them but they couldn't say "we made you King, if you don't rule like we want we will remove you." Also Henry VII didn't marry Elizabeth of York until 6 months after he became King. So any detractors couldn't say he became King because he married a York.
And they had his reign dated to the day before Bosworth, making those who fought for Richard the traitors.
@@VloggingThroughHistory By the way did you watch anything about Richard III when they found him in the carpark? That was a really interesting time. Also, just wanted to say I became a Patreon member a few days ago. I really appreciate what you're doing and I too have a passion for Genealogy. I have found that I am descended from Sarah Boone, the sister of Daniel Boone. Also most of my ancestors immigrated to America before the American Revolution and some actually fought for the Continentals and in the Militias. And like you I have several ancestors that fought in the Civil War but unlike you they fought for the CSA from North Carolina. My family has been in NC since the before the Revolution and we have never left. haha They lived in the Appalachian Mountains in Western NC and I don't know how to find out, if there is any way to find out at all but I think they were Conscripted into the Confederate Army because a handful of them entered service in late 1862 and in 1863. Governor Vance's Conscription program in NC was very efficient. Alright I got that off of my chest so I look forward to future videos and hopefully further discussions.
Greetings cousin! I'm descended from two of Daniel Boone's sisters! Sarah Boone Wilcoxson is an ancestor on my dad's side. I descend through her daughter Nancy who married Captain Benjamin Greer. Interestingly Captain Greer was a part of the party that captured and hanged my mom's ancestor Captain William Riddle at Wilkesboro in 1781.
YES! I loved all the info about Richard III being found. There are some great youtube videos on the search and discovery.
@@VloggingThroughHistory Really!? That's cool. Greetings!! Yeah Sarah Boone Wilcoxson is my ancestor, then through her daughter Elizabeth. That's really neat. Have you heard anything about the Boone/De Bohun link? It's claimed in the family history but from what I have seen there just isn't enough evidence to confirm that they are the same family. The earliest Boone I have found was George Boone and he was from Devon in England.
No wonder why the world had revolutions against their kings.😆
My family history mostly goes as far as I know to one dude in the 1300’s in Germany... At least that is what my Grandmother tells me. Though there could be other bits of interest in there... I have no real clue.
Oh yea, WAR OF THE ROSES
I descend from the Lancastrians through John of Gaunt’s daughter Joan Beaufort, and through the Yorkists through Edmund Duke of York’s daughter Constance
Isnt the underlying question though, whether parliament has the power to choose the king? In England they used to as the anglo saxon witan… and they were not bound by bloodlines at all.
Can you do the feature history’s video on the Texas revolution
The war of the roses began in 22nd may, 1455, when york combatted lancaster in the first battle of st. Albins, which york won and they improsined Henry VI
Warwick fled to calais in a fortress after henry was freed and ordered their arrest and retook london and kent. This resulted in the battle of northampton where warwick won against henry Vi
By this time york and warwick were more popular than the corrupt margeret and compliant henry VI.
Yorks claim to the throne was via edward III’s bloodline and lancasters was through Henry IV bolingbroke.
After the battle of northampton margaret was so pissed she went to scotland for an army and used said army to raise hell on the counties of england
That army was then used to kill york in the battle of wakefield, but york didnt even have to fight he left a fortified position to fight and got annihilated
After the second battle of st. Albin margaret won and refound her husband henry VI hiding under a tree
Edward IV, when margaret bargained for power in the north, proclaimed himself king among support of the crowd in London
He and warwick went to fight margaret in the battle of towton where 28000 men died in a blizzard in 1461, which margaret lost
Warwick, who is often called the kingmaker, then betrayed edward IV for the lancasters because edward IV sucked at politics and married a widow in secret
After margaret was imprisoned
Then after the war ended, edward IV suddenly died and Henry VI claimed that because edward IV secretly married a widow, all his kids were illegitimate. All the kids then conveniently dissapeared clearing the way for the tutor dynasty
*Elizabeth Wydeville
fun fact mind, whilst we're talking about claims to the throne Henry VII actually claimed the throne by right of conquest which was a legitimate claim since the Norman invasion.
It clearly looks as if the documentary you are reacting to is combining the century-long "Hundred Years War" with the 30 year long "War of the Roses?" The "Hundred Years War" between England and France began in the 14th century, ending in the 15th century. Merely grammatically, and in strict/correct definition it is officially entitled "The War of the Roses." It is more commonly referred to as the, "Wars" of the Roses."
There are many battles in a war (see the Revolutionary War, WWI, WWII & Civil War). The "Battle of Bosworth" which essentially ended the War on August 22, 1485 after Henry Tudor killed the last Plantagenet King of England, was begun by the vanquished King, Richard III's father in 1455.* The two Houses, Lancaster and York, were united by the marriage of Henry Tudor, (Lancaster on his mother, Margaret Beaufort's side), and Elizabeth of York in 1486 ending the 30 yr long civil war. In many of these YT documentaries, I believe somebody in some country (could be the USA) writes the script into a computer program, picks out the accent, and language. In this case, it is English with a British accent. Sometimes it is English with a French or, Italian (always fun) accent. Doesn't mean the person inputting the information is correct. The computer app/program isn't programmed to correct for historical accuracy, grammar or, proper pronunciation.
*A skirmish arose in 1487 titleld "The Battle of Stoke Field" involving a Tudor deemed pretender a Lambert Simnel who some claimed to be either Edward V (the older son of King Edward V who it is believed, to be killed in the Tower by RIchard III) or, Edward, 17th Earl of Oxford, son of the executed brother of the late King Edward V, George, Duke of Clarence. A group of Irish nobles, with fidelity to the House of York, held a full, cathedral, Holy Roman Catholic coronation of "Edward V." Henry VII's forces crushingly prevailed at Stoke Field with a carnage total larger than the Battle of Bosworth. Technically, whether he was or was not the York King Edward V, we will never know. In this respect, an "*" is placed upon this battle as the last battle of the War of the Roses or, a bloody revolt. We will never really know. Bosworth is considered the end of the War of the Roses.
Queen Victoria's uncles were all deceased prior to her taking the throne. Her father Edward ,Duke of Kent and Frederick, Duke of York were the only two who were not a King. Being the last of the Hanoverian Dynasty, Victoria ascended to the throne after the last of her uncles, King William IV died. Her father died shortly after she was born. Frederick died 10 yrs before Victoria became Queen in 1837.
In Victoria's case, she was NOT the child of the Prince of Wales. After Princess Charlotte died, the heir to the throne, each son jumped on the bandwagon to produce an heir. Edward was the lucky one. Whoever was the next in line, would have been King. The order was thrown off in this particular case, in other words.
18:38 *Elizabeth Woodville
Will kahoot stream happen tomorrow or on sunday?
Tomorrow. Will announce time when I know for sure.
@@VloggingThroughHistory Great thank you
Elizabeth Woodville, not Cathrine.
*Elizabeth Woodville* - not Kathryn. I'm sure someone corrected that, but I like being a dick. :D
What's your view on the Princes in the Tower? I really don't see R3 as the killer. If he wanted them dead, it kinda defeats the purpose to do it and then hide the bodies forever. That's just a great jumping off point for some convenient rebellion in the little lads' names.. which is exactly what happened!
All I know is that my name means "free man supplanter son of will"
Everyone alive today are 500 million years old legacy.
So was Henry Tudor even related to the Plantagenets then if he was descended from Catherine of Valois?
Yes. His mother was descended from the Beauforts. She was a great great granddaughter of Edward III through his son John of Gaunt.
I see. Thank you so much@@VloggingThroughHistory
Is The King Movie on Netflix based on Henry V?
Yes it is.
I worry about you visiting the UK. You are so passionate about history, I worry that when your finally standing in the very buildings and even corridors where these events took place…your head is going to explode or something
Haha! Well don't worry I've been there twice and my head hasn't exploded yet. Getting ready to head there for a 3rd time in a few weeks.
Vlogging Through History: -so this would be a good short video to react to
Me: *The Video is literally 27 freaking minutes long*
Henry Tudor definitely did not kill Richard. Henry was not a fighter, he was a bean counter. Richard on the other hand was most definitely a fighter. His so called hunch back was in fact an injury from when he was a young lad tilting at the quintain.
Has anyone seen the Hollow Crown? The Shakespeare mini series on all of this? Lol
Yes! Loved it.
They made an anime about this
Elizabeth Woodville, not Catherine
I think it was actually Henry the 8th who killed Margaret Pole not his father. And from what I can tell he did it for no real reason.
It was. Did I say Henry VII?
@@VloggingThroughHistory I'm going to go recheck Incase I misheard or misunderstood when I commented.
@@VloggingThroughHistory No my bad I misheard. You were talking about Henry the 8th at the time.
So confused lol
3:34 Under English law sure, but under male only primogeniture not so much. I think the video made a mistake here. Philip VI was the Valois claimant, Phillip IV was dead hence the problem and all his children died young creating the succession dispute.
I hate to be that person, but it's Elizabeth Woodville that Edward IV marries not Catherine.
No you’re absolutely right. Thanks for pointing it out.
At the beginning the Welsh was hated by the English. They were still fighting Edwards for independence. At the end a Welsh was king.
Sooo phhhhhh. Lol
can you do family history research without my dna? Ill give you all names and dates of births that you need ranging for anytime but i dont wanna give my dna
I know nothing about my history.
bruh how you dont have any Finland related videos?