Richard III - English Monarchs Animated History Documentary

[@mbgal7758]

Henry Tudor’s link to the line of succession wasn’t through Catherine of Valois. She was a French princess and had no claim to the English throne. His claim was through Edward III, his great great great grandfather on his mother, Margaret Beaufort’s side. They descended from Edward III’s 4th son, John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. That’s why he was a Lancastrian. John of Gaunt was the father of Henry IV. Henry Tudor came through an illegitimate line that was legitimized and then later barred from inheriting but rules were made to be broken lol

[@Yaseenicus]

Well Henry Tudor's claim was a stretch no matter how you spin it, but he was legitimized through rite of conquest, and that's all that mattered in the end. I highly doubt it made the difference but the only reason why Henry Tudor was politically relevant was due to his grandmother, Catherine of Valois.

[@mbgal7758]

@@Yaseenicus Henry Tudor was really never politically relevant until Richard III took the throne. He had spent most of his formative years on the continent for fear of Edward IV and some of those years he was a guest/hostage/pawn of the Duke of Brittany to annoy Edward IV. Any relevance he had in England was through the efforts of his mother, Margaret Beaufort and her success in marriage, and had zero to do with his grandmother who had been dead over 40 years. His uncle Jasper Tudor raised him and kept him alive on the continent but if Catherine of Valois was the link to the throne then he would have been the successor since he was her son, it wouldn’t have skipped to his nephew. You are right about one thing, he won the throne through the right of conquest so it really didn’t matter if he was the son of the stable boy at that point. I was just pointing out the inaccuracy of saying his link to the English throne was his grandmother, the French princess rather than his ancestor the king of England.

[@BSdetected]

Thanks guys… interesting stuff. i usually have to research myself after one of these.

[@TomsOnUK]

Really enjoying these history of English monarchs videos

[@Diana-mu7pc]

Was looking forward to this video. Love your little animations so much

[@blackcat2628zd]

Richard was named Protector of the realm by his brother, king Edward. His job was to take care of Edward until he comes of age. Edward was placed in the Tower because it was the place where English kings were awaiting their coronation. Those days Tower was a very busy royal residence, prison was just a small part of it. Representatives of the 3 realm of the estate asked Richard to become king. After a couple of days Richard accepted the offer and on 26 June 1483 became king. And he was confirmed as King of England by Titulus Regius during his parliament in 1484. According to some medieval marriage laws was enough to declare the marriage invalid if done in secrecy. Which of course was the case of Edward´ s marriage not only to Eleanor Butler but also to Elizabeth Woodville.

[@WickedFelina]

The documentary of Philippa Langley's search for the fate of the missing princes has aired in Britain. It has yet to air in America. She has documented her findings, which are vast and thorough in her new book. The investigation was performed using a police detective specializing in missing persons. I have just listened to a podcast which she finally revealed important findings which, and it does seem as if her findings are sound, prove that the Princes did live, and in fact, yes, were sent away to live o the continent for their own safety. I am looking forward to seeing the full documentary, and reading her book. After all, she is the one who, with John Ashdown Hill, found the remains of Richard III after over 500 yrs.

[@WickedFelina]

Ahh, weren't the Tudors SO utterly refreshing?

[@sdl1ishappy]

I am so proud of Philippa, and I know Tudor apologists will never believe it, but I think she did a remarkable job.

[@WickedFelina]

@@sdl1ishappy Philippa is AMAZING! She has given us the inspiration to achieve many things under impossible circumstances. We need not believe the world is so lost. Per historians, Starkey for one, who has argued for the guilt of RIchard since his inception onto the historian greatness, will have to eat his words or, just ramble incoherently spitting out unintelligible curses, and one clear, loud cry of "NONSENSE!"

[@angelanapoleone7230]

I think I have listened to the same podcast and it blew my mind, really! Can't wait to read the book (I'm not sure the documentary will ever be available in my country).

[@karawigley6231]

Except skeletons of two children were found & are widely believed to be the two princes. Then one of the arguments in support of the boys living is that Richard had declared them illegitimate & they were no longer a threat to him. However, they were very much still a threat & he would’ve known this spending his life watching one king be overthrown for another & so forth. Furthermore, noblemen around him who disliked him would easily recognize the boys as their ticket to more favorable conditions & the fact Elizabeth who obviously would have ill feelings towards Richard was still living & plot to give her boys their birthright. I mean she ultimately played a role in his later downfall proving his hold on the throne was weak. So, the argument of Richard not seeing the boys as a threat holds no weight. There’s too many other factors that prove otherwise. I believe the Tudors may have over villainized him but more supports him having killed the boys for his own benefit than the latter.

[@vonzigle]

Among other reforms Richard Iii introduced was that legal proceedings be conducted in English and not in Latin….

[@blackcat2628zd]

Yes, and also the coronation speach was in English for the very first time.

[@tricorvus2673]

I very much enjoyed this video. It gave me lots to mull over. Thank you

[@JangianTV]

Great stuff as always! 👏 Love the dances at the end!

[@karlemata3275]

Henry VII actually based his claim to the throne, through his mother Margaret Beaufort, since she is a descendant of John of Gaunt, the third son of Edward III.(through his legitimized son, John Beaufort)

[@Apollo1989V]

If Edward IV had married previously, Warwick was pretty stupid for trying to arrange a marriage alliance for Edward. Also, conveniently, the woman in question, Elizabeth Butler, was also dead. It seems extremely unlikely that Edward could have kept a supposed first marriage secret for so long.

[@Moose.-vy5ye]

Apollo1989, Edward IV was a known letcher. He secretly married Eleanor Butler (nee, Talbot), who was still alive and was still his wife when he secretly married Elizabeth Grey (nee, Woodville). The officiant at Eleanor's wedding is the one who came forward after Edward IV's death, which freed him up to warn Richard of his brother's bigamy. This caused a constitutional crisis because all children of a bigamous marriage were bastards. As such, Edward V was not legally allowed to inherent the throne. Bishop Stillington was grilled by the Three Estates, the London City Council, and the best legal and theological minds in England. It was their decision to ask Richard to accept the crown. Richard was not involved up to that time. There's evidence available to support this.

[@afsmapping6092]

@@Moose.-vy5yeWhat is the evidence?

[@DarthDread-oh2ne]

Man, I don’t care about your evidence. All cure British royals are Direct descendants Of Edward-Not Richard.

[@Ssstone3.14]

A week between videos? Nice! 👌

[@onagaali2024]

When it showed the Tudors at 31: seconds, And it shows all of them from Henry VII to Elizabeth I, it says "Edward IV" instead accurately showing Edward VI. Edward IV was next to the last of the Plantagenet Kings from the House of York. Richard III was Edward IV younger brother.

[@universemadeofcreativity5820]

well i'll say i think ricard the thrid is a complex man who stuck in a hard place with him becoming king & maybe it's possibly that richard didn't want harm to his late bother's family or he at least didn't want the kids to suffer it's possible even by putting the two heirs in the tower of Londen he may have been actually trying to keep them safe from other supporters in his party i don't know unlikely to be the case but it's hard to be sure if richard wanted the two boys to die or ... at least it could have been his last choice that he didn't want to do & maybe put it off as long as possible but one of the reasons why i mention richar could have been serious about keeping the boys safe in the tower of londen after all their will in his own party who wanted him to stay the king & those supporters may seen the children of the elizabeth woordvile removed completely from the bloodline even if comes at the cost of young children even maybe removing elizabeth woodvile's daughters as well a plot to kill off anyone in the royal family even if they aren't the right heirs to the throne is still a serious plan & Richard may have had reasons to keep keep the boys in the Tower of londen that could be one of those reasons if anyone could get remove any details that would reveal that kind of plot to kill the two young princes it would be richard during that but it's not impossible unlikely or too risky without the right elements to pull it off just right but that's the problem if someone else did it why wouldn't he said something about it or it's possible he didn't do it & well he could have messed up as a king & didn't want anyone to panic & start up more drama & more likely if those young boys could have been killed under his watchful eye & it happened who's he didn't do it & it would have made him look weak & more important It would have given other ideas if someone could be killed under all that protection then he isn't that powerful & god has chosen someone else & Richard could be killed even with all his Protection & someone Else could take the Theron by Force but i feel like maybe that could be possible but ... who would have done it? i think if richard did it was something he may not liked it & he was putting it off until his to make choice or realize all his options but knowing he didn't like Elizabeth Woodville & he didn't want to kill off Her kids unless it was a last choice or at least male heirs had to go & he may have not cared enough to not be bothered by it i don't see him completely heartless but history does really love painting him as the bad guy who kill anyone who gets in his way

[@tylermorrisofficial]

Yes! Keep going!!

[@Mygurlist]

I may be biased but I believe he was a good king that loved his family

[@OmerGiladi]

why biased? do you have platagenet blood?

[@Apollo1989V]

He hated his in laws. The forging of marriage pre contract to keep his in laws from power. Executing them without trial. The disappearance of his nephews and seemingly murder. Richard and his men were the only ones to be able to do the deed. His men wouldn’t have acted if Richard said not to. Support shifted to Henry Tudor after the princes vanished from sight.

[@blackcat2628zd]

And beloved ruler of the North.

[@multipipi1234]

Ah..bless.

[@jamellfoster6029]

True. And Richard III was kind to his friends. His true friends.

[@sarapanzarella97]

Richard III was certainly a complex character. While I think he did some good things as king it seems a bit of an oversight to leave out how he ordered Edward V’s uncle killed on their way to London and the murder of Hastings and other nobles.

[@HistoryBoxChannel]

That’s referenced in my video on Edward V - for this video I made an editing decision to cut that👍

[@Moose.-vy5ye]

Does your video include River's attempted coup on the Lord Protector 's life? Or, is it just as lacking in proof as this video?

[@danieldeclue1466]

I remember one of my friends asking me why losing gascony put Henry in a coma😂 just the way he asked it was hilarious, although it is understandable. The annual revenue from gascony outstripped all of England so losing it must have been a huge huge hit to the wallet

[@WickedFelina]

Innocent until proven guilty. Richard III came up with that one which also helped the poor.

[@Moose.-vy5ye]

Exactly. Yet, he was never given the same consideration.

[@EnglishUbermensch]

@@Moose.-vy5yedoesn’t matter. He was king and those were his nephews. If he was not the one who ordered them murdered but they were, he did a piss poor job protecting his family AS KING and that definitely doesn’t help his historical legacy. Also no one got punished and there is no record for f an investigation being carried out to locate the boys. Richard III looks guilty as fuck outside and within the context of history

[@melanielynn104]

Very interesting tale, this one. Richard had always been loyal to his brother, the king, would he have suddenly turned on him and his family to be king himself?

[@happycommuter3523]

I don’t think he “turned” on Edward. During most of his life, he had his brother to protect him, but Edward’s death created a power vacuum that put Richard at odds with the large Woodville family. So there were two factions vying for control of the young king, and Richard won. The revelation of his brother’s first marriage pushed him into a position where he was the next York male eligible to be king, since all 3 of his nephews were legally barred from the succession. It’s not that Edward’s death made Richard a different or more ruthless man. It’s that Edward’s death thrust Richard into a completely different and very dangerous situation, forcing him to make choices he’d never had to face when his brother was alive.

[@sessionskeith]

Beautifully put.

[@archivesoffantasy5560]

@@happycommuter3523You’re correct. Edward IV’s will was short sighted. Richard to become the most powerful man in the kingdom and the notoriously power hungry Woodviles who have all the influence over the princes to go along with that? (They were all power hungry but I say that specifically about the Woodviles here for context that they probably wouldn’t work alongside Richard.)

[@peternesbitt]

It's obvious to me that Richard had the two nephews killed so he could become the king, he didn't launch an investigation after they went missing and never addressed their disappearance at all. He had the motive, opportunity and malice of forethought. He probably pretended to be a nice king because he was wracked with guilt and when he was cut down at Bosworth field it was karma. Shakespeare got it right.

[@sessionskeith]

And the victorious will always have history in their favour.

[@Pbandjacob87]

I've always felt Richard the 3rd got a bad wrap. He bailed out his brother numerous times, and i believe he seized the throne because his nephew wouldn't have been able to hold it. I always felt that hag Margaret Beaufort killed them.

[@Moose.-vy5ye]

Close. It was very, very likely that the hag's son, Henry-the-Usurper, who killed them. It is quite likely that Perkin Warbeck (a Tudor name. The young man only ever referred to himself as Richard Duke of York) was Edward IV's youngest son. The behaviour towards this young man of Elizabeth Woodville and, tellingly, Henry, is enough to point to his true identity. The Continental documents add tothe evidence.

[@noahjackson8174]

this was interesting. honestly he could have done both. until evidence is found, we will have to chose what we believe.

[@rogerharley8692]

Ever notice the DNA of Henri and Louis of France, Haplo G2a3 Now G2a2b2b1* formally G2a3b1* Now Richard the third has the same rare dna panel markers They share a common ancestor not to far back 800s. The fast moving DYS 385 (Louis and Henri) DYS 385 for Richards panel markers (13-14) All share DYS 438 (10) and DYS 635 (21). Me I am kit 165126 FTDNA.

[@maxsloan342]

Yeah, the boys were sent to live on a farm….. Just like my dog 🤪

[@BSdetected]

Quite a fair appraisal of a king deemed “evil” in our history, so it’s rare, i think. He may well have killed his nephews, but he would also have needed to be one hell of.a warrior to have been a warlord…. Im going to jump back to the John episode…. Sure as sheep john killed young Arthur of Brittany… so not an uncommon thing… Richard aethling was killed by Godwin… and im pretty sure that henry first had a lot to do with that hunting accident in the woods, as well.

[@syourke3]

He was just misunderstood! 😂

[@cindchan]

As the saying goes, "history is written by the victors". Henry VII had a LOT of gain by the death of the boys. Far more than Richard, in my opinion. Was Richard an innocent man? No, no one in that time. But I think he was wrongly accused of things. Still we will never really know the truth.

[@Apollo1989V]

Elizabeth would have never agreed to work with Henry’s mom unless she thought the boys were dead. A lot of former Yorkist believed the same. If the boys were alive, springing them out of the tower would have caused a major rebellion. Killing the boys might have seen like a good idea at the time. Richard probably didn’t think a rebellion would be launched around the weak blood claim of Henry Tudor.

[@blackcat2628zd]

If he wasn´t innocent, what was he guilty of?

[@haroldv730]

Promo-SM

[@chudneythomas8673]

A horse

[@maryannlockwood7806]

He is definitely a controversial figure. Did they confirm that was his skeleton found under the parking lot?🤔🩻

[@sdl1ishappy]

They did. Not only was the scoliosis strong evidence, but they also did a DNA test with known relatives. It was a match.

[@multipipi1234]

I love the way mediocre experts come crawling out of the woodwork in the comment section.