Was Richard III the ultimate bad boy of British history, or a victim of Tudor propaganda? Join Beefeater Bob Brown and curator Sally Dixon-Smith at the Tower of London as they debate whether the King killed the two Princes in the Tower.
Richard the III did not kill the princes he did not drown George Richard did not have a hunch back Richard did not Marry for money. HE IS NOT A VILLIAN HE IS A VICTIM! And im in luv wid him!
He was victim. It is said that he killed his nephews to become king but he didn't have to kill them to become king because the children were illegitimate. And he was too loyal to his brother to kill his sons.
He declared that they were illegitimate so he could claim the throne. And far from being loyal to his brother, he actually tried to marry his own niece to further his claim and put an obstacle in the way of Henry Tudor's claim.
I agree with the curator. I love her term "self interested". I think he was no worse than any other king. He grabbed his nephews and put them in the Tower, declared them bastards so he could have the throne and we will never know if he actually did what he was accused of. But I do think Tudor killed the boys so that Richard would be blamed and clear the way for him to take the throne by marrying their sister. There was no reason for Richard to kill those kids. He had them where he wanted them.
He is not a villain. He was no bad or worse than others of the time. Certainly no worse than the Tudor kings and queens who followed him. As for the princes in the tower (his nephews) others had a greater motive for killing them. Plus there is some documentary evidence of their survival until HenryVII - albeit flimsy! Richard had already declared them bastards and out of the running for throne, but Henry he would have felt threatened by them as sons of Edward V...
Richard did not usurp his nephew. Unless Stillington lied under oath, he performed the pre contract, plight troth, whatever you chose to call it, the boys WERE illegitimate. Stillington had been close to Edward and George but not with Richard. Richard rarely went to London.
Not so sure anymore - 1) he bullied the old Lancastrian dowager dutchess De Vere-Howard to give him all her estates, else she would lose her life, and kidnapped her (I can send you the historical proof). She died of shock after several of these brutal hearings, in which Edward IV was also complacent, because he gave Richard III a go. Both Lancastrians and Yorkists were against such a treatment. 2) He held hostage the children of the nobles who fought for him in the Battle of Bosworth. Were tehy to betray him on the battlefield, the children were ordered to be promptly executed. Lord Stanley famously told Richard - when R3 ordered Stanley to send him his son, Lord Strange - that if he really wants to stain his honor with a child´s blood, then he has many other sons. Quite a brutal retort, and I don´t sympathize with Stanley at all, because he was a famous turncoat on EVERYBODY, but Stanley didn´t meant it, I am sure; he was just politely telling the king to GF himself. 4) BTW, there is a historical evidence that Richard copied his elder brother Edward IV in many ways - even the bad ones. He infamously took over from Edward the habit of seizing the property of opponents and traitors. After Buckingham´s rebellion, he gave most of Buckingham´s estates to Lord Stanley, and gave him monetary "interest" in some of them. When Richard III wanted to marry off his illegitimate daughter Katherine, she had no dowry, so Richard took back some of the old Buckingham´s estates which he previously gave to Lord Stanley, and gave them to Katherine. I believe that this was the last straw for Lord Stanley. BTW, a man who bullies an old woman into giving him her property, causing her to die from fear afterwards, and who is capable of taking little children hostage for the purpose of ensuring the loyalty of his noblemen ISN´T A GOOD MAN. I was a proud Ricardian. Now I am not. Not anymore. Richard wasn´t innocent; far from it. Maybe he wasn´t a monster, and he was definitely a man of his time, and he definitely had many redeeming qualities, but generally speaking, HE WASN´T A GOOD MAN.
He was a victim There are only two people that he is historically proven to have disposed of, and one of them was in battle. Sir William Brandon, Henry VII's Standard Bearer at Bosworth and King Henry VI by order of his brother, Edward IV. There is no proof whatsoever that he murdered his nephews. His wife died of Consumption, not poison. And his brother George, Duke of Clearance was ordered executed by Edward, not him. Anyways, Look at many people did the Tudor Dynasty put to death.
He was a victim in many ways, but not all. I am now going to repeat what I have written to somebody else here, but LOOK - I have got a point, and you can easily look it up, or give me your e-mail and I will give you all of my sources, if you like, but again, LOOK - AND READ: Richard wasn´t an innocent man. And he might have killed the boys in the Tower, because he was definitely ruthless enough. YES, EVEN IF he had just declared the kids illegitimate, and therefore had no need to have them killed, and YES, Richmond aka Tudor had much more to gain from the boys´ death. I am well aware of these facts. He has bad record with children of other people - and it´s pretty damn long. Look again at his character with eyes unclouded, and you will see the real Richard: 1) he bullied the old Lancastrian dowager dutchess De Vere-Howard into giving him all her estates, else she would lose her life, and kidnapped her (I can send you the historical proof). She died of shock after several of these brutal hearings, in which Edward IV was also complacent, because he gave Richard III a go. Both Lancastrians and Yorkists were against such a treatment. 2) He held hostage the children of the nobles who fought for him in the Battle of Bosworth. Were tehy to betray him on the battlefield, the children were ordered to be promptly executed. Lord Stanley famously told Richard - when R3 ordered Stanley to send him his son, Lord Strange - that if he really wants to stain his honor with a child´s blood, then he has many other sons. Quite a brutal retort, and I don´t sympathize with Stanley at all, because he was a famous turncoat on EVERYBODY, but Stanley didn´t meant it, I am sure; he was just politely telling the king to GF himself. 3) BTW, there is a historical evidence that Richard copied his elder brother Edward IV in many ways - even the bad ones. He infamously took over from Edward the habit of seizing the property of opponents and traitors. After Buckingham´s rebellion, he gave most of Buckingham´s estates to Lord Stanley, and gave him monetary "interest" in some of them. When Richard III wanted to marry off his illegitimate daughter Katherine, she had no dowry, so Richard took back some of the old Buckingham´s estates which he previously gave to Lord Stanley, and gave them to Katherine. I believe that this was the last straw for Lord Stanley. In short, a man who bullies an old woman into giving him her property, causing her to die abandoned and penniless in an abbey from shock afterwards, ISN´T A GOOD MAN. A man who is capable of taking little children hostage for the purpose of ensuring the loyalty of his noblemen, AGAIN, ISN´T AT ALL A GOOD MAN. I was a proud Ricardian. Now I am not. Not anymore. Richard wasn´t innocent; FAR from it. Maybe he wasn´t a monster, and he was definitely a man of his time, and he definitely had many redeeming qualities, but generally speaking, he has butter on his head. TBW, that´s a Czech saying, in case you might wonder - to have butter on your head means that you stink because you are guilty.
The Tudors were absolutely ruthless in their propaganda and the truth of anyone on the wrong side of them will never be known. I think Richard III's villainy is mostly fiction over fact. He also tried to crack down on noble self interest and support commoners. That's definitely a no no.
He was a victim of the Tudors, He did not have a reason to murder those Princes, after all based on the laws at the time his brother Edward 1V was supposedly married to another woman at the time of his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, and there were other who knew that, Since the children were considered illegitimate, making Richard by rights of birth the Heir. The person who had the most to gain by killing children was Henry Tudor v11, when he killed Richard and took the throne, he legitimized all of Edwards and Elizabeth children in order to marry their daughter, however in doing so, Edward v would have been the heir, So he had take him out as well as his brother.. By my reasoning.
It is very obvious that there is a reason, we was Lord Protecter of Edward V. He wanted power, with that said, he had power to convince certain people to kill those two Princes.
The Pretender Boy he didn't want the power. The power was handed to him and that's when he became king. When parliament had evidence of the alleged pre contract between Edward lV and lady Eleanor Butler, it made Edward V and he couldn't become king. Parliament handed the crown over to Richard but that doesn't mean Richard wanted the power and its not "obvious" that he killed the boys.
@@idontgiveafaboutyou Eleanor Butler died many year earlier. Both Edward and Elizabeth Woodville claimed their marriage was legal. The fact that the little princes were born several years after the death of Eleanor squashes any argument that they were illegitimate. As for if Richard III is a villain, or victim I am still researching both sides. If anyone has any suggestions to books/videos or articles by all means please post them below. This time period is quite fascinating.
@@Jennifer-2329in order to legitimize his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, Edward would have had to publicly confess to a mortal sin, do serious penance and remarry Elizabeth openly. He didn’t do it.
@@Jennifer-2329According to 15th century canon law the pre contract rendered the marriage bigamous and the children illegitimate. Edward never went through the process the Church required to legitimize the marriage. The death of Eleanor did not magically repair the marriage with Elizabeth.
Queenzflectch I think the part of this you are missing, that Queen Elizabeth and Edward 1V marriage were considered invalid, because Edward 1V married to Eleanor Butler who was still alive when he so called married Elizabeth Woodville, making all the children illegitimate, therefore unable to be in line for the throne.
Said this many many times in other threads related to this subject on other videos. VICTIM !!!! Richard was betrayed by Lord Stanley and it’s very possible that Stanley and Margaret Beaufort killed the two princes and framed Richard. Stanley waited during Bosworth to see who was winning and when he saw Richard was actually winning, he actually stepped in and helped Henry. He may have been payed off by Margaret. Henry would have gained more by them being murdered rather than Richard. Henry would have had two potential threats to his rule if they’d lived and let’s not forget that Lord Stanley was actually placed as their protector. Would Richard have placed his own two nephews in his care if he’d known that he would be betrayed by him ? By the time Shakespeare was born, it would have been like a game of Chinese whispers. Henry was the victor of Bosworth and history is written by the victors. Henry was an incredibly horrible king as history recalls. Cruel. Cold hearted and remorseless. According to letters that were written about Richard lll however.... he was actually quite popular. Described as a fair and just king. Shakespeare was the Tudor propaganda machine. I believe that Richard is a tragically maligned figure who i believe to have been framed by the Tudors. They always say that one dynasty always paints the previous one in a negative light.
I hate the Tudors but, be that as it may, I don’t think Henry knew whether the boys were alive or dead. I think Perkin Warbeck might well have been young Richard.
@@nbenefielI’m not saying that Henry himself knew about it, it could’ve just been arranged by Beaufort and Stanley and been kept quiet between the two of them. Henry need not know
Would be correct if self-interest would be associated with a corresponding self-responsibility for ones deads, which cant be relativated by comparing it to "other kings of his period"!
One thing that stands out to me about Richard III (besides evil) is that he was mocked and made fun of for being deformed and small. He was small and did haves scoliosis, but he had the heart of a warrior and for all his physical shortcomings when he saw a lane open up to Henry Tudor Dick just like Alexander the Great charged straight for Henry. Dick almost got him to before being cut down. If he had bodyguards like Alexander did riding with him I’d buy the house Tudor would of died and Dick lived that day. Dick didn’t even need to go on an all or nothing do or die heroic charge.
Nobody mocked Richard. He was the most respected general in England. He was head of Edward’s army and Navy. Near the end of his life, Edward was too obese to even sit a horse. Richard defeated the Scots for him. Richard was Lord of the North and one of the wealthiest men in England. He had no desire to be king but he was the only one left.
@@211212112 The only mention that the boys may have died comes from France. It probably originated with Bishop Morton, one of Richard’s biggest enemies.
What a pitty, that dimwitted shakespear could not be brougth to silence before occupiing rights he wasnt entiteled to, or should i say a what a tragedy? In any case: forgive the impudence of his unworthy epigones when they do likewise and put themself rather in the shoes of those who realy died without beeing asked before, than those who forgote to ask them or for their rights at all.
Richard was not behind the delegitimization of his nephews. Bishop Stillington was. I’ve always believed that Stillington told George and that’s why Elizabeth was so anxious for him to be executed. George was supposedly executed for “spreading rumors” about Edward. Stillington was imprisoned at the same time.
victim of 'his own making his was LOYAL until his brother died. maybe if the brother's sons was older and could take power sooner than maybe Richard could not been was compelled to take power but boy kings reigns were often unstable and most were controlled by regents who were in kings themsheles behind the king so Richard been the most powerful landowner and rich would have made him a target. the risks were too great.
"No better nor worse, than any other King of his period" - here speaks the historical school as Marx described it: the worse the rest of the world the better for whomever in the focus, everything and everyone is relative. From here its only a smal step to say that his period was no better nor worse than any other.
