Professor Caroline Wilkinson, who made the facial reconstruction, was not told who the skull belonged to, and did indeed work from the bones and not from a picture.

​@@Richard3Society that's really cool, and actually i guess he did look more like his reconstruction as the tudors manipulated his pic to make him look evil. Plus he was 32 but they made him look 50 in his pic.

The man in the trench with the hard hat and glasses is Mathew Morris, one of the archaeologists.

@@Richard3Society Apologies, I always thought archeologists worked with trowels and hairbrushes, not with spades, but I suppose a spade is more delicate than a JCB.

Annette Carson has done work on this. Her book Richard Duke of Gloucester as Lord Protector and High Constable of England is hugely informative about this topic, and explains her view that Hastings was given a summary trial at the Tower under the Law of Arms. annettecarson.com/ricardian-topic#Lord-Protector

@@Richard3Society Thank you -- you beat me to it! We often see this kind of question from people who have not seen more recent research, and too many previous "historians" appear to have been either too lax to do the proper research, or simply left out critical facts such as the Constable's Court and Law of Arms. Annette Carson is worth ten of them!

@genghis ..., your sources?

@@Moose.-vy5ye The O'Neill was Lord of Tír Eóghain , The O'Donnell likewise of Tír Chonaill. They were the premier powers in Ireland, and were at war with the English through all this period. The " Irish nobility " could only be those who had recognised English authority, for obvious reasons, these two chieftains hadn't and weren't defeated until Kinsale in 1601. Neither had the O'Byrne in the adjacent Wicklow. My source is The Pale itself. One doesn't fortify against enemies already subdued. The fortifications existed then, the remnants of it still exist now.

So, you're talking about two chieftains amongst many. This does not disprove, at all, what is introduced in this video. Additionally, the most powerful lord in Ireland, Garrett Mor FitzGerald, supported him.

Why..? We know who Richard is..and if you’re suggesting comparing it to the two princes then we need THEIR DNA..which is at this moment not available…

@@Ionabrodie69 We know who Richard is. Well look at that, “It’s a wonder they did not flip royal coffin lids when Richard was tested”, Richard rode across that field for a big reason. A new DNA line moved in and cleared all in the way.

@@rogerharley8692Come back when you can make some sense..I won’t hold my breath..🤨

@@Ionabrodie69 A new DNA line moved in and cleared all in the way.

How do you mean rare, please could you explain to us?, Female or male descendant's surely would carry to same genetic make-up of Richard 3rd.

If by 'this woman' you are referring to Philippa Langley, then I have to tell you she is the least arrogant person I have ever met.

And yet the Tudors have always had the “ arrogant attitude that they are right “ don’t see you arguing with them..🤨

​@@Richard3Societyshe seem a very humble person just trying to get to the truth,not a shred of arrogance about her .Disgusting comment saying that she is !!!

@@teresathompson1114I think you’ve tagged the wrong person..😊

Not so much arrogant - just a zealot. No evidence was provided that could not be explained by the Simnel and Warbeck pretenders presence in Europe. You could drive a coach and horses through her logic. God save us from amateur "historians" lacking discipline and training.

I was incredibly disappointed to see the amount of traditional historians dismiss the discoveries before even looking at them - some people are just too entrenched in their own beliefs to be open unfortunately. All I can say about the contents of the documentary is - read the book. There is so much in there that could not possibly be covered by the documentary. As for Rob Rinder - he studied history at university and started this project as a hardline traditionalist. As for Edward of Warwick - yes you're correct there was only one and he was in the Tower. He had been put there by Henry VII when Edward was just 10 years old. When the uprising happened that led to the Battle of Stoke, the Tudors said that the boy crowned in Dublin had claimed to be Edward, Earl of Warwick, but that was not the case. Presumably it was an easy way for them to disparage his claim as they could show that they had Warwick in their custody.

@@Richard3SocietyYes I certainly intend to read the book…I like Phillipa a lot and just didn’t want people to be able to belittle her or her new evidence..…I wholeheartedly want to believe these findings and you’re correct it’s a shame that other historians wouldn’t examine the manuscripts..as it may have alleviated worries about bias… As to the Edward of Warwick point…the guy really should have done his research before making that claim …😂 Thank you for replying 😊👍🇬🇧

@@Ionabrodie69 No problem all - always happy to chat! To clarify though - the documents were examined by experts and authenticated. My comment about them being dismissed was about some historians on social media who have immediately dismissed them - without seeing them, reading Philippa's book (which let's not forget was embargoed until Thursday evening), or even talking to the people who have authenticated them. Surely the onus is now on the traditional historians to back up their claims with evidence, rather than rely on an account written some 30+ years after the event and which is littered with demonstrable inaccuracies?

@@Richard3SocietyYes the onus is on them now.. I would have thought Starkey would be desperate to have a look so he could debunk them perhaps that in itself is telling..maybe he’s frightened it will blow his Tudor fan boy Hypothesis up in smoke .. 🤷‍♀️😂 Thank you again for engaging. 🙂

Who is arrogant?

Actual history is emerging from under centuries of Tudor propaganda. One of the facts noted is that Henry VII had his conquerors destroy most of Richard's personal correspondence and other papers not considered essential, even his letters to and from his wife Anne. Henry VII was a shameless power luster, egged on by his equally power-hungry mother, and that they have been so elevated for 500 years is a scandal.

It's showing on PBS on 22nd November as part of the Secrets of the Dead series.

@@Richard3Society thank you!!

@@Richard3Society Thank you from this American medievalist!

I’m sure you’ll get it over there eventually….it’s only fair we see it first. 😊👍🇬🇧

@@Ionabrodie69 lol obviously! We have had no publicity of it coming on pbs this week that I’ve seen so glad someone was here to tell when it was coming :) most Americans couldn’t tell you who Richard III was lol

If you watch the documentary tomorrow, you'll see that Rob Rinder doesn't authenticate the documents - they are sent to leading experts in the field to be checked.

@@MithrandirAKAGandalfWhat like the Tudor fan club..?🙄🇬🇧

⁠@@MithrandirAKAGandalfI’m certainly not emotional or irrational about it.. I do get rather fed up however of idiots ( not suggesting you’re one of them 🙄😂) who have never picked up a history book in their lives spouting “ oh Richard the third didn’t he kill his nephews” ..? Without ANY PROOF.. and when someone tries to get proof they’re ridiculed as being “ obsessive” ..see where I’m coming from ..? And like you I’m no historian, but I am really interested in early mediaeval history as well as this period and have read a lot ( factual not Phillipa Gregory before you say anything 🥴😂) .

I thought he - Rob Rinder deferred to a specialist on question of historical authenticity on the document.

Really you wud go ther

Me too and I will definitely be watching this!!

@jenrutherford6690 he killed Lord Hastings during his reign, but he was plotting with the Woodvilles against Richard and it was treason simple as, so he had the right to kill whoever was against him as king. People assume he killed Henry IV too... As to which there is no evidence, people also say he was partly responsible for his brother George's death. Again, there is no evidence. You can have the list go on but he was no worse than another king killing to keep himself and his rule safe 🤷‍♀️ I just think people forget all the good that Richard did too! He did away with the benevolence tax, he also brought in laws to protect buyers of land, he made major changes to the judicial system... the list goes on 🤷‍♀️

He did, but less people than his brother or his successor. It was a dog eat dog World then.

​@@jenrutherford6690Whom did he kill, beyond the legal trial and executions of a small handful of traitors? He didn't murder Henry vi, he didn't kill Clarence, nor his wife or brother, nor his child, nor Somerset, nor anyone else he was accused of by Shakespeare. Hastings was tried by Richard as High Constable of England for treason, Anthony Wydville for treason and same with Buckingham and Grey. The majority of rebels he pardoned. So where are the loads of people and who are they? Evidence for each one please.

@@jenrutherford6690 Actually, remarkably few people died so I'm not sure who you are referring to.

On other sites I am running into so many hidebound RIII haters who refuse to consider the new evidence because, they claim, Richard "must" had had the boys murdered, "would have been a fool not to", and other irrelevant and inaccurate objections which do more to reflect their projection of their own moral status about such things than anything else. It seems only the most irrefutable evidence will ever convince some of them of how history has been distorted for centuries. But I have every confidence that Philippa and her team and the RIII Society are up to that task. Their productiveness so far has been nothing short of inspiring.

Philippa has found proof of life after King Richard's reign for both boys. See richardiii.net/faqs/the-princes-in-the-tower/

Please let overseas.subscribers have access to full documentary.

@@kathleenmiller4587 Second that. By the way, it is so worth shelling out the cost for the new edition of Buc's history. There is an amazing compilation of material in there!

😎 Thanks Hotlinks ⚓️ I guess human emotion is difficult to define… maybe not linear as some may feel 🌈😊