King Richard III (1452-1485) - Pt 1/3

Episode 5 of the Channel Five series Kings & Queens, which looks at the life and reign of Richard III of England.
This was made in 2002, long before Richard III's bones were discovered.
The series looks at key monarchs in the history of England and gives some simplified facts about their reigns. This is a good series for those who have little prior knowledge of English history.

[@MedievalRichard]

Richard III was king at the battle of Bosworth and was so till he was slain that day despite what Henry had written! He spotted Henry Tudor from his vantage point at the battle, charged towards him killing Sir William Brandon (Henry Tudor's standard-bearer) instantly in his way, hacked loads more of Henry's army and nearly got to Henry VII in doing so! The ultimate way to go out like a king, a true king who was a victim to Shakespearean misrepresentation in years to follow!

[@charlienewell9900]

Shakespeare properganda was completley subjective towards richard to please Elizabeth 1st and to make the shakey tudor claim to the throme look more ligitimate by emphasising the tudor rose and what it represents

[@philsooty5421]

Absolutely correct I could not have said it better myself, none of the present day monarchy are entitled if history was law.

[@dobermangirl6549]

Charlie Newell Of course, Shakespeare's play was subjective! Granted he was keep Elizabeth I happy, but he's writing a PLAY. What kind of a story would it have been if he had written it as, RIII was a sweet guy, he was in love with his wife and didn't poison her and he's completely innocent of killing his nephews. What fun would that be? He wrote a gripping, exciting story that has a great villain with a withered arm and a giant hump, darling innocent boys being killed, a great battle and assorted snakey courtiers, treachery, bloody goings on. He's writing about people that died ages ago, writing a story guaranteed not to anger his monarch, and oh, by the way, he's got to sell tickets to an audience that wanted blood and gore and evil mustache-twirling villains -- the whole lot. Try to see it from his perspective. Of course, he was subjective. Do you think he cared about fair? I don't think Elizabeth was interested in the shakiness of the early tudor claim. Henry VII, Henry vIII, Edward VI, Mary I, had come and gone, then we come to Elizabeth. A lot of time had passed. She was reasonably safe on her throne. There was periodic trouble but nothing to do with Bosworth and Henry VII. It's a testament that a man who wrote a play over 500 years ago is still causing this kind of controversy. And people still want to see it

[@fredbarker9201]

Shakespeare’s history is hardly a reliable source. He was writing drama for Queen Elizabeth, the granddaughter of Henry Tudor. Of course he was going to portray Richard as a villain

[@fredbarker9201]

ngoc chau duong My comment says granddaughter of Henry Tudor. That is Henry VII. the monarch when Shakespeare was writing plays was Elizabeth 1 (and later James 1) Elizabeth 1 was from house Tudor. Her grandfather was Henry VII, known as Henry Tudor and Elizabeth’s father was Henry VIII. The Tudor monarchs include: Henry VII, Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary 1, Elizabeth 1. Technically both Henrys are Henry Tudor. But I was referring to Henry V11 as that is the one who beat Richard III, the topic of his video.

[@ShallowApple22]

He literally plagiarized ALL of Thomas Moore's account pratically word for word

[@pianiplunker1981]

You're absolutely right, we'll probably never know for sure but what little evidence there is does point to Richard much more than anyone else.

[@alexlefay]

Not even 1 min in and I know I'll finish this pissed off.

[@smithswoodrookie]

Alejandra Alvarez well said 😂😂

[@alexlefay]

@The Confederate Restoration Plan because most of the info, right from the beginning is bullshit and I know it.

[@kirstenwalstedt1620]

Team Richard here. Down with Tudor slander!

[@idontgiveafaboutyou]

Yes Yes Yes :) :)

[@idontgiveafaboutyou]

Paul Spittle How about you do since you believe in the lies anyway. I know my history.

[@idontgiveafaboutyou]

Spaz Modicus I've read the Wikipedia. How about you?

[@idontgiveafaboutyou]

Spaz Modicus Bringing up the two duke of Gloucesters before Richard isn't helping your argument. You clearly believe the propaganda.

[@idontgiveafaboutyou]

Spaz Modicus Yeah The Wikipedia is edited usually a lot, so what do you have to say about that?

[@2serveand2protect]

Very nice videos - big thanks for uploading!

[@BRUTUALTRUTH]

Thanks for posting.KZbin is normally full of rubbish but this series is excellent and informative.Cheers.

[@dwightschrute900]

Down with the tudor treachery, How Henry VII would be disappointed with his family. i'm going to put some dirt in Henry's VIII eyes.

[@alleynealisleem9777]

💯🥰🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@meesterperfect]

they left a lot out, but it was worth a watch. thanks uploader.

[@clifftrainor6774]

The guy playing Richard 3 looks really intense. If they ever make a full length feature he'd be perfect. He invokes a lot without even saying anything.

[@idontgiveafaboutyou]

he looks too old

[@alleynealisleem9777]

@@idontgiveafaboutyou I Agree 💯!!!

[@TheLadyPlantagenet]

Source for Clarence making that joke ? I’m curious , cause I never heard it before

[@KingAlbert19]

In the end, according to the last discoveries, King Richard DID NOT have a humpback, nor DID he have a withered arm.

[@alleynealisleem9777]

💯🥰😘🥳🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@vinzchannel01]

We all know Richard III is basically Lord Farquaad

[@alleynealisleem9777]

Oh My GOD!!!💯🥰🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@thufir1971]

On of the major weaknesses of medieval monarchies lies in the paradoxon, that every single knight was educated from childhood to cultivate highest ambitions, to fight at any cost for the highest possible position, but excluding the hightest possible position (the king) from this game. So we had a lot of lords fighting for their own concerns instead for the concerns of king and country. Nobody was really interested or even able to de facto subordinate to the common interests of the country. A lot of kings of England had brothers working against them and against England's concerns. When pomp and circumstance sucked of their people left over some farthings, the kings led their men to war, or lets better say to plagues like dysentery, wasting millions of lifes for nothing at all. Medieval gentry was the real scourge of humanity for centuries. Medieval knighthood was not better than dogs fighting each other for the biggest piece of flesh.

[@charlybear98]

I feel very sorry for Mary. She never quite got over what happened to her mother Katherine of Aragon. Katherine was a very brave and strong woman and I think it was very sad what happened to her. Mary had to say publicly that her mother's marriage to Henry VIII was invalid and she was a bastard in order to be received at court again... she never forgave herself for it. Her first act as Queen was to say her parents marriage was valid. Poor Mary had no chance at a normal life

[@angelgirl2248]

I don't know why they always have older men play Richard III. He was only 32 when he died and I'm sure people didn't age THAT badly in the middle ages lol.

[@lost2darkness]

The excavated skeleton confirms the hunchback. He had a serious case of scoliosis.

[@VRShow]

Depends on your definition of "hunchback" his degree of scoliosis would certainly qualify under most definitions of "hunchback".

[@sonofherne]

He had scoliosis. I can assure you that you pass people in the street every day who have this and probably never notice. I have a friend with it, and my own sister has an even worse spinal deformity (not only bent but fused and brittle) and neither of them are hunchbacks or freakish looking in any way. They stand a little strangely and the shoulders look rather rounded and maybe a bit uneven but that's it.

[@raceching]

Totally agree. He was not the villain history would have us believe. There is no evidence to suggest he murdered the princes in the tower.

[@Loyaultimilie]

@Weebetch Actually - there was no mention of them being murdered untill Henry Tudor was on the throne, then the whispering campaign started. They hadn't been seen but , don't forget the Tower was a Palace too and normal for Kings to be housed there prior to their Coronation. I think Richard spirited them off to Sheriff Hutton for their safety.

[@bobbest1611]

8:40 clarence's liquidation --- english humor

[@alexiswaller3065]

It was Edward who had the Duke of Clarence liquefied

[@markpettis2896]

Bob thank you for getting there first I was going to write it down great joke for morbid subject

[@dkwmorgan]

Remember who wrote the "history" after Richard's death - the Tudors, who had a very tenuous claim to the throne and had committed regicide. Plus Henry Tudor had married the sister of the princes, so if they weren't legitimate then neither was she - removing even more claims of Henry to the throne. (And historians know for certain that Edward IV was NOT the son of the Duke of York but of an archer, which was also a rumor at the time as well.) The Tudors were ruthless upstarts.

[@sonofherne]

The bone analyst said there was no kyphosis ( a hump.) His spine was crooked, he did not have a lump on his back. Many modern people have scoliosis, you know, it's not that uncommon.

[@user-gs9xw7eb2l]

Bro this is great

[@anomalousclouds]

Watching these is really making me want to play Civilization...

[@christinedarrock8486]

History has always been written by the victors.

[@MrPharaoh4]

While watching this segment on Richard III though providing some important details about his life, it fails to elaborate upon his achievements but legislatively and militarily for instance while governing the North. Edward IV trusted him with a number of offices and honors. At the same time he had grown up in the Neville household and may have known Anne as a child. Moreover her father had desired a marriage between his daughters and Edwards's two brothers.

[@Vesnicie]

All of the efforts to exonerate or at least somewhat to rehabilitate Richard's image are all very touching, but so very many details point straight at him.

[@balthiersgirl2658]

There was no reason whatsoever to kill the boys he had already made them illegitimate I believe Margret Beauford killed i.e had them killed he was not even at the palace at the time

[@TexasGrandmaRosie]

This video says Richard wasn't crippled. Maybe not. But his remains have been found and he definitely had spinal deformities. it is admirable that he didn't let it slow him down. But despicable that he locked two young boys in the Tower never to be seen again. By the way, the gentleman is a distant cousin. LOL

[@Pgcito]

He just had scoliosis which was not even evident when wearing clothes or armor.It has been demonstrated it didn’t impede his movements or ability to ride and fight. The “deformity” was Shakespeare’s invention to please the Tudors by putting the Yorkists in bad light.

[@TexasGrandmaRosie]

@@Pgcito My youngest child has a very similar condition of the spine. I wonder what other lesser known members of this ancient line may have had spinal problems. Today's technology has shed a lot of light on our past.

[@deborahwhitney837]

My youngest son has scoliosis. But he looks perfectly fine. I only found out when he kept complaining about back pain, and had to have a x ray.

[@balthiersgirl2658]

The tower in Richards day was actually one of the safest places plus the tower was not a prison then many royals had lodging in the tower plus there was no reason for him to have the boys killed as he had already made them illegitimate I honestly believe the only person to have a reason was Margret Beaufort for her son Henry to easily take the throne also Richard was not even there when the boys went missing

[@Lizmik1980]

For my article on the anniversary of Richard III's ascension to the throne and some of the misconceptions of his reign, please click: www.crackedhistory.com/june-26-1483-richard-plantagenet-duke-gloucester-proclaims-king-richard-iii-england/

[@billijomaynard9081]

I do not think Richard is responsible at all for the deaths of his nephews, In fact i think that they did not even die in the Tower, I believe that The younger of the two, Richard, Duke of York was Perkin Warbeck and was killed on the order of King Henry VII. I can not see Margaret of York helping Perkin if he was not really Richard, her brother. Why should she? It does not make sense otherwise.

[@VRShow]

Of course it is not uncommon. My second paragraph still stands..by the time this got to Shakespeare...the crooked back became a bulge...my point being there was a basis of truth for Shakespeare's material. Shakespeare based his Humpback on contemporary accounts of a physical deformity. You are correct in that it didn't necessarily bulge out but those in frequent contact with the King would have noticed he had physical deformities for the talk to have started in the first place.

[@saferain1]

We all should read "A Daughter in Time" by Josephine Tey (1951). The best account that exonerates Richard 3.

[@alleynealisleem9777]

R.I.P Lancastrians!

[@lb40713]

God save king Richard!!!!! Greetings from Finland.

[@Ryandohc.]

The recent Documentary proved that he did have a hunchback

[@TheLithiumFlower]

You cannot be so sure. It has been proven he didn't have a withered arm, but he did have a hunchback. As for the third, no one can tell.

[@arabella1827]

Actually, they found his skeleton did have a badly deformed spine. And if he didn't kill his nephews outright, he ALMOST suredly had the last say in their deaths. If you are mincing words, he did not kill them, but he is responsible.

[@dustinprewitt]

Im glad this was made back when history still mattered and wasn't decided on by pop culture whims and the public opinion of twitter mobs.

[@DevilSurvivor69]

Have you seen Starkey's Monarchy series? He puts on a much better picture of Richard III there.

[@InnannasRainbow]

I'm American yet I know much more about English history than American history.

[@garethdevlin8756]

I am sorry I should have said you don't have to dig them up as they are already chatolics

[@katelynnprosser3949]

this is my topic

[@jajanesaddictions]

Richard III was not "hunchbacked". That is not even a medical term. He had scoliosis. which is a curvature of the spine.and does not give you a "Notre Damn Hunchback". One of his shoulders may have been higher than the other and his back would have curved to one side, but no big hump or hunch on his back. and I believe Margaret Beaufort, Henry's mother, killed those boys. She had access to the tower and would visit them often. She had the motive and the opportunity. She needed to get them out of the way as they were the rightful heirs to the throne upon Richard III's death. She was a crafty one.

[@millardfillmore1331]

She was a right tart. No doubt about it...fake pious old slag...burnin' in hell she is.... with Henry 7 and 8 and all the Tudors.....the most bloodthirsty arseholes ever to foul fine Brittania; they made the land run red with innocent blood. The curse is still upon the land even today.... .

[@idontgiveafaboutyou]

Millard Fillmore She was evil and a fake. I love Milliard Fillmore :) one of the best presidents of the US.

[@johannesbruellmann944]

What about Richard IIIs wife Anne Neville .She had a clear motive .The Woodvilles had caused her father Richard the Kingmaker to rebel and their family to downfall .She has also the connections of the Nevilles and better connections than Margaret Beaufort.She could have ordered the killing too like some finde her grandaunt Cecily to be the guilty one

[@muneermustafa8543]

+ja jane It's Notre Dame

[@jajanesaddictions]

john doe ya, i know. i was trying to be funny, but it got lost in internet translation. sorry.

[@faraheliza6315]

anyone here seen the white queen? puts a fresh and more believable perspective on him.

[@sether199]

The Wars of the Roses. WARS

[@canibeemoandpartofthearmy1321]

The other brother was drowned on my birthday, how lovely😌✌️

[@balthiersgirl2658]

Not by Richard by Edward

[@Himaryous]

This first chapter is fairly accurate and somewhat balanced. The last chapter is extremely biased in that it focuses only on the bad things Richard did or allegedly did, and none of the good things.

[@Loyaultimilie]

If Richard did murder Edward V - why would he not murder Richard also who would be just as much a threat?

[@donsarde]

Where does Henry VII come into history? He was also a Plantagenet but, he was born in Wales so, was he English ? What was his blood right to the throne of England ? Was Henry VII not a usurper ?

[@refiabozalan9721]

He was the first Tudor monarch, his right to the throne is by right of conquest. But the reason he could gather the troops in the first place is that he is descended from a legitimised branch of the royal house of Lancaster. So people who were in favour of Lancaster s supported him in the battle against Richard who was York descendant.

If the princes were illegitimate, why was there no trial to prove this rather important point. But just lock the up, and crown your self. Then they just vanished without trace. hmmmm ?

[@MichaelDeFeo18]

David Meyer everyone can say whatever they want but the fact of the matter is this Richard III was only ever supposed to be Lord Protector of the realm for his nephew but instead he stole the crown from him and discredited his line. Then he put them in the tower and even if it wasn't him who ordered their deaths it's just as much his fault bc he put them in that position.

[@craigmorgan3920]

If he had them killed why not lay blame at Buckinghams feet perfect chance to do so but chose to remain silent.

[@atomictiger4]

A lot of rulers did this and didn’t even get criticized,at least he did it quickly and swiftly instead of starting civil wars.

[@pianiplunker1981]

Richard I or Richard the Lion Heart lived closer to 800 years ago. (ruled 1189-1199) Not the same person.

[@coxchandler1]

5:32 henry the thixth

[@matthewhines9787]

bwahahaha! Dude, I can't even.

[@kisha1682]

Edward iv didnt get awsy with killing henry vi and his son you see what happened to his sons in the tower

[@idontgiveafaboutyou]

Edward lV ordered the murder for Henry Vl though.

[@ghostwriter74]

But he *did* institute a court for poor/common folk to have their grievances heard...created the practice of offering bail so accused people would not languish in prison (or have their property seized)...and founded at least 3 major universities.

[@jonson11122]

Actually, his skeleton was discovered (proved with DNA) that revealed he had scoliosis. It could be possible that since the common rumours was right about his appearance so was about his behaviour.

[@CornvilleCounsellor]

Interesting documentary but what in holy hell is that guy wearing?

[@kirstenwalstedt1620]

A stylish 70s jean jacket, of course.

[@kevinastraw]

@sockington1 You really need to understand the difference between fiction and history. To confuse the character of Richard III with the real man is to confuse categories.In R III Shakespeare was creating a stage character out of the makings of history, the fact that this play is still as entertaining as it was when it had more historical impact shows that the factual content is secondary to the imaginative construction. To keep a writer to the facts of history is to jail his imagination.

[@nunuloki]

I take issue with some of the claims here: Richard of Gloucester was not primarily responsible for the death of Henry VI and there is doubt that Henry was actually murdered - \he suffered from recurring dementia and this may have led to his death by accident. Richard was not responsible for the death of Anne Neville, I think she died of smallpox. As for the Princes in the Tower - Henry Tudor had more to gain from their deaths than did Richard, so why would Richard do it?

[@lynnetuplin7958]

Most of this is rubbish and has been shown to be flawed.

[@Weebetch]

@Loyaultimilie ummm no, Richard wanted the throne. They would have been safe without the help of Richard. Their bones were found in the tower of London in the 1800s

[@brontewcat]

He may not have had a withered arm or hunchback but it does not follow he was not responsible for the deaths of his nephews.

[@Weebetch]

Richard did kill them, after they went missing he didn't defend himself or make something up like they had died of illness, instead he kept quiet which means guilt.

[@callofdutyguy247]

well they might of just found his body, and they do say he had a messed up spine and shoulder

[@DevilSurvivor69]

She helped him because she wanted the Tudors gone. Most historians agree that Warbeck was not Richard. Two bodies were found in the tower a number of years later which are believed to be the two princes. If Elizabeth of York, his own sister didn't believe it was him, what else proves its him?

[@chykim1]

@philessexuk so did he not have his nephews murdered...because that was the main reason i felt the way i did about him...and if it didnt happen, id gladly stand corrected.

[@InnannasRainbow]

Richard III did not kill his nephews, did not have a withered arm, nor did he have a humpback.

[@-.Quantity.-]

Hi

[@alpspitz1]

Quote from Stalin " History is written by the victors " I don't think Richard is as bad as he was made out to be.....

[@janetp.reedman9618]

I don't necessarily believe this to be true exclusively. There are many histories written by the losers. Back then, only a small percentage of the population was literate, so you had the few writing the histories, usually for patrons. Historians still have an innate desire to record the truth. In Richard's case,even More did not entirely believe what he was writing, and there's the belief that he made the descriptions of Richard so absurd to actually not be true, and in fact being a description of his patron, Henry VII.

[@alpspitz1]

All historical records can be labelled as suspect because unless you were actually there, there's always going to be a problem if accuracy. You only got someone else's word for it ie: second hand evidence. Eg: did Jesus or Robin Hood or superman really exist ?

[@simply2ghetto]

DAVID LOCKWOOD Don't be silly David! Superman definitely exists!

[@flatlandrory]

Finally found,due a kings burial I think.

[@MaidenTrollBlood]

Did these guys get their material from the Tudor historians? lol

[@stephenblackwell8399]

was Shakespeare a real person

[@outline4545]

Stephen Blackwell yes he was

[@stefenski]

Yes, Shakespeare was thought to be Francis Bacon ( Queen Elizabeth's son, brought up by the Bacon's). Shakespere( different spelling) the actor, was not the writer... apparently

[@alleynealisleem9777]

Where Have You Been!!!💯🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@cleander180]

HeDIDNT kill his brother - Edward did that. He didnt kill Henry VI nor his son. He loved his wife and his son's death may have given him the suicidal bravery to almost kill Henry Tudor himself against overwhealming odds.

[@lizzymeister9846]

What a biased, one sided and utterly twisted display of history. It ignores so many facts, quotes Shakespear and rumours. I am impressed by the degree of falsehood and propaganda being presented as historical truth. It hurts to watch it, and it's even more disconcerting that people might believe such a portrait.

[@Iluha7tagil]

Lizzy Meister Would you please recommend something to watch about Richard III?

[@charlienewell9900]

Ilya Saschenko the white queen or lucy worsley wars if the roses! I think you can still find them both on KZbin still

[@charlienewell9900]

or there's also a documentary on the discovery of King Richards bones I'm sure you could find if you search for it

[@Iluha7tagil]

Thank you.

[@sonofherne]

What medieval king didn't have bastards? Very, very few. Richard's were born before his marriage, I believe, anyway...hilarious to hear someone condemning him for that when we live in an era where half the kids are conceived out of 'wedlock' and he lived in a time when there was no reliable birth control!

[@Happy_HIbiscus]

🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂

[@masonparker2672]

He is so mean.

[@lituttanmokko]

Mason Parker No, the crew found his bones and examined, according to them, he was a nice hunchbacked man, he was nice, the others tried to get attention.

[@idontgiveafaboutyou]

Augusta Langinbelik he had scoliosis, not a hunchback, which is kyphosis.

[@balthiersgirl2658]

Utter rubbish his motto was loyalty mi lie witch means always loyal such he was to Edward it had already been mentioned by George his brother that Edward had promised to marry another woman do the boys were illegitimate he was actually also very fair to the comman people

[@Loyaultimilie]

@Medusa0999 Sorry, that didn't show up until I clicked 'show all comments' ...... dangerous waters accusing Richard of killing the princes and not really a very loyal thing to say if you are a Ricardian......Loyaultimilie don't forget :-))

[@nowilltolive4123]

Why he built like lord farquad tho?

[@vi9393]

bruh

[@YooTuba]

Kind of weird that they talk about all these things he did like they're fact. The "Monarchy" documentary makes quite clear that he didn't kill his wife or his brother and it's not been proven that he killed the princes.

[@Medusa0999]

Pfft we all know Richard did kill the princes

[@iwanjones8196]

actually he didn't do any of that it it was all to please queen elizebeth i

[@VRShow]

Again depends on your definition as most people would see him clothed. I know of an individual with scoliosis and he definitely (sans kyphosis) appears to have a back that bulges out a bit much like this picture: Not the Notre Dam myth of course but you can see how with a bit of hearsay and propoganda that by the time this got to Shakespeare that there is a basis of truth.

[@vashna3799]

The simple evidence suggests that Richard III was responsible for the murders of his two nephews as he had the means and the motive, of course the thomas more biography and shakespeare play were written in tudor times so we know whose side they were batting for, he was neither a hunchback or a coward in battle, fighting to the the end and not saying my kingom for a horse.

[@alexscott7226]

no proof of Clarance's claim to drowning in wine - pure Shakespeare, pure Morton...

[@Nicollie1062]

wait...is this program claiming he had Anne Neville poisoned? That's not true.

[@WellsyBRNC]

King Richard lll is my cousin...we share the same Haplogroup J1C3 👸🏼

[@hobbldeyhoy9952]

Probably not

[@nahirlulu3710]

Long live your majesty Richard!!

[@mewingplace1115]

King richard the 3rd died in battle and so did his nephews, but he had tried to kill them his wife wasnt poisened either

[@idontgiveafaboutyou]

Dude theres no evidence Richard killed them but yet you clearly believe in the Tudor PR.

[@idontgiveafaboutyou]

Um, I believe in facts, no not traditional "facts" about Richard, the proven ones. You seem to believe in the fantasy of Richard being a cruel man, even though, all the actions he took to becoming King was common then. Killing your rivals and enemies was normal at the time, Richard shouldn't be considered any different. Also, how do you know Richard had "obviously" killed them? He may have, but we have no evidence. You must've been there.

[@mewingplace1115]

Wendy Hull why tf did you comment after 80 weeks?

[@idontgiveafaboutyou]

I can comment whenever I want to.

[@mewingplace1115]

Wendy Hull touché

[@johntennyson3043]

Savior of the Age of Aquarius' comment (ideas/fantasy): Thank God their savior was Christ, them being so evil and all. Aquarius was only heaven then, the feeling and sympathy of women as if joy guided anyone yet as at all indulging music (homosexuals were outcasts) - still centuries away as locked up within from speaking and instructing as education and rights. Evil is always desperate to "pay" one person to focus on a charring cross of absence - it doesn't mean a missing whirlpool of debt like mocking what shows its! less than equal lack of pride, as only relating to the constructive foresight of an even far far more world.

[@MisterTutor2010]

My KZbin channel for a horse :)

[@leanie9660]

I'd have been really happy to have been the fourth, fifth, even the sixth greatest landowner !! Who wants to be king (or in this case, queen) ? I'd rather be wealthy, healthy, and, of course, not-anywhere-near-the-court !!

[@idontgiveafaboutyou]

Neelia the funny thing is that he didn’t really want to be king, also he did stay away from court. The events of 1483 lead to him having no other option but to take the crown for himself.

[@giubbonegiubbino8439]

can someone make me a resume plissss?

[@alessio4389]

No

[@hobbldeyhoy9952]

Nooo

[@Jman926]

Is it just me, or does he look a lot like Gadhafi?

[@Loyaultimilie]

Ok then, I must have missed all the evidence as did all the historians who are looking for the proof...... can you tell me the links to the evidence you have? Also, can you tell me what evidence you have that they ARE dead? There are many professors, historians, authors etc who would LOVE to know.

[@Mike649foxx]

oopps, you've just been PROVEN wrong on the humpback issue. He did have a deformed spine.

[@hobbldeyhoy9952]

Yes , but it was scoliosis, not a hunched back which is slightly better

[@babybookworm003]

i don't think richard 3 was truly evil i think he took anne to protect her as one of the theory goes and i do alos believe he meant to protect his nephews in the tower although putting them in was a misquided choice

[@Medusa0999]

@Loyaultimilie Check my later comment, I was being saracastic