Medieval Conspiracy & Betrayal: The Man Who Killed Richard III | Timeline 

I get your point but don't you think it's being a bit hardcore ! Hahaha !

I like the way your brain works. And I shall take up this banner. Also, can people please stop saying, "I could care less"?

But how do you know for a fact that Thomas wasn't actually a time traveler sent back after scientists from the year 3027 discover the exact point where the chain of events leading to planetary collapse started, back in the Battle of Bosworth? HUH?

Technically it changed both

@@yellowfellow7246 get off the meth & the crack-cocaine 💉👀

It was made after. You didn't watch it properly.

At 15 mins: "Here at Bosworth the Richard III Society, which played such an important part in his reburial.." Played a pretty important role in his finding, too.

Remember Richard III likely had killed the two princes (just young boys and his own nephews) to gain his crown. Richard III was no innocent. The body humiliation injuries were likely after death. It was a brutal time.

Nope. In combat, you hit someone till they fall over, then you KEEP hitting them until they stop moving. There's a VERY good documentary on Towton where the frequent multiple injuries on many of the skeletons from the discovered grave pits show just these sort of repeated blows. There was a similar conclusion "mutilation", until a New York police forensic pathologist came along and pointed out that individuals today suffer similar injuries from attacks. Hollywood shows us a "one hit, one kill" myth of hand to hand combat, and I think that's why we don't really appreciate the sheer, repeated savagery of combat in this period.

Exactly how and who carried out the killing remains shrouded in mystery. Having seen his battle line collapsing under a flank attack by Breton troops. Richard charged Henry Tudor and his bodyguard. He immediately killed William Brandon, Henry’s standard bearer. The standard crashed to the ground only to be picked up, according to Welsh tradition, by Rhys ap Maredudd (Rhys Fawr).Broken bones and weapon marks consistent with historical accounts of Richard III’s death have been identified on the skeleton suspected to be the remains of the medieval monarch.Researchers from the University of Leicester used CT scanning to piece together the king’s final moments at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. Among his injuries were several blows to the head, which suggest that Richard lost his helmet near the end of the battle. The blows were inflicted from above indicating that they were delivered by a halberd, the weapon favoured by Welsh men-at-arms. Adding insult to injury, there were also several injuries to the body, including a long stab wound through the right buttock. Scientists believe that they were probably inflicted after his death as the armour he wore during battle would have defended against such injuries.This is in line with historical accounts that describe how Richard III’s naked body was slung over a horse after his death and subjected to further injuries.

Richard was indeed not as bad as is portrayed. But, Elizabeth Woodville wasn't either... She did what any worried mother would do; why would she kill Edward? Stop demonising her; yes she was one of Richard's enemies; but she is all too often unfairly condemned; for something that any mother and wife would do. I'm not her fan, I am a Ricardian; however, demonising Elizabeth and other mothers is not the way to save Richard's reputation. We don't have to see one or the other as "bad" but doing whatever they had to do to survive in the Wars of the Roses. Yes, I'm fed up of the demonisation of Richard III; but I'm also fed up of the demonisation of all the mothers who acted for the well-being of their sons in a time when they had few rights.

@@marinatebbenham4011 I agree with you re Elizabeth Woodville's undeserved reputation.....but there can be little doubt that she made a serious error when she tried to take control of the recency following her husband's death. Her family had no right to rule. She should have trusted Richard to do as his brother had ordered. Richard was a known leader. Elizabeth essentially tried to usurp the crown. She may well have forced Richard to behave as he did. I guess we'll never know what their true characters and intentions were.

@@leanie9660 I think she let her maternal urges get the better of her; she being from a low-born family perhaps didn't understand mothers can't be regents. She and her family did some rash actions, which may have forced Richard to take drastic action on his part.

@@marinatebbenham4011 She was twice a widow, and the first time around she took charge of ensuring her husband's (Sir Richard Grey IIRC) lands were there for her sons by him. She had the experience that if her children were to receive their due "rights" she was going to have to go to bat for them, because no one else was going to do so. That was her experience, I can see why it informed the actions she took and did what she did.

@@Salamon2 Yes. Exactly. Elizabeth Woodville was acting as a mother, trying to ensure her sons' safety as well as her family. It just happened to put her at odds with Richard. As a Ricardian, I am a proponent of rehabilitating Richard III's image; but at the same time I do not think demonising Elizabeth Wooville or Lady Margaret Beaufort and putting them as the "babbies" is the way to go. They just happened to have interests that conflicted with Richard's. No one here is the baddie; just people struggling for their interests, coming, into conflict with eachother.

But he killed an even bigger rat (Richard III) so…..

Richard held his family hostage, just like Thomas Stanley's son, Lord Strange. He wanted Brackenbury to deliver Hungerford and other hostages to Bosworth. Brackenbury let them go where they would go. Brackenbury fought for Richard. Hungerford and the others fought for Henry Tudor. Local politics. National consequences.

@@rtalbeau7965 you must be related to Gilbert Talbot. Well met!

@@alancoe1002 And Richard released Stanley's son, Lord Strange even though Richard knew he was betrayed by Stanley.

I’m one of his descendants. Rhys was a stud, unlike your ancestors

Isn't it funny how all Americans have ancestors who are nobility...as pre 1535 birth records were not compuslary I fail to see how Americans always trace their history back to the 15th century and before.

It’s amazing when you can trace your genealogy back that far!

Your family was traitors! The Howards never forget treachery lol also in America now still remember, we have a castle in York named after our family, castle Howard.

May family all fought for houses of York .Many died in service to our cousins Nevill Edward 1v in 1471 at Barnet . Richard at Bosworth . Richard 111 did not kill his nephews the Princes he was framed or how would Morton,his enemy, know where they where buried yours Sir Kevin Parr Bt

Richard the 3rd suffered 11 different wounds just to the head, cuts, blows, war hammer, halbard, sword and dagger. I doubt one man killed him.

@@benaveiga546 That is probably true.

@@benaveiga546 People aways tend to lean towards one individual to blame. Even nowadays when 2 people commit a crime there is always one who shoulders the majority of the blame, I think that's what happened here.i think you are right

Hello cousin!!! :)

@pentegarn1 Hi cuz! Are you maybe in America? I'm on the eastern side.

@@angelbulldog4934 Yes we're here in Virginia. I'm actually not sure if this is the right Rhys ap Thomas that I'm related to? Looking at our family tree is says Griffith Rhys Price II 1500-1525 (Wives as Lady Jane Stuart and later Princess Margaret Jane Stuart) and his father was Sir Knight Price (1473-1525) wife down as Mary Trevor. And his father was Sir Thomas Price 1449- 1525. But that doesn't really jive with the guy in the video's wiki page?

@@pentegarn1 I'm just down the road in North Carolina. Rhys was supposedly the original Thomas (surname). My dad's family comes from Christopher Thomas (another grandson of Rhys), who sailed to Maryland in 1625, then headed south not too many years after. I'm sure we're convoluted cousins in some way.

@@angelbulldog4934 Ohh nice! Yeah I often shop in Boone/ Seven Devils NC when gas isn't too high. Yeah I see the surnames spelled Rhys...Rice...and Price. It's very confusing. I notice all my family listed above are from the same area the guy in the video lived....Carmarthenshire, Wales. So they must be related somehow?

Im Brazilian but love English history and believe that Henry had no right to any claim to the throne. Seems like it was all just a bunch of revengeful Lancastrians trying to put any pretender there

Henry did not gain the crown by birthright. He won it by force of arms, so bloodlines didn't matter.

Conquest has little and less to do with birth claims. But it does make ruling the region easier when you have a claim and or marry the daughter of the last King.

Henry tudor was a usurper!!

Richard said he wold kill Thomas' son if he didn't fight for his side.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6URxbMmEMcw.html which calls into question your statement that he killed a king

Henry VII is my 16th great-grandfather, so thanks from my family to yours, I guess! Without your forebear joining the fight I wouldn't be here :)

@@veejdeej this interaction is the only correct way to dicuss medieval ancestry omfg

@@veejdeej Great scott! 😱

@Dawson Gilbert so am I! It also means you’re distantly related to Anne Boleyn and Elizabeth i as one of his grandchildren married in to that side of the family :)

And probably swallowed those balls when he went down

@@johnsrous1616 lol! No doubt

@wildheart And as a true King willing to die with his men... That's pretty rare

Maybe made it easier for his enemies though..

👏👏👏👏

lies and propaganda? Shakespeare took characters and tried to illuminate what humans were capable of, the basic evil and good in us and see how they react under pressure, he borrowed many stories and wrote very few totally original stories of his own but his genus was just that, to show us who we are, warts and all...

It’s the fact that they hate northern England and especially Yorkshire.

@@HernMasterPainHate is a strong term. What do you mean?

Shakespeare didn't write anything. He was actually illiterate and couldn't even sign his own name. Just another part of history we don't know the truth about.

Hi Etta, I'm sure Baldric would have something to say about it 🤗

His son wasn't taken hostage. Thomas Stanley's son George was.

The numbers after their names might have something to do with it 😂

Yieeee..."kingslayer" would not be a desirable title...anyway, Henry VII backdated his rule to preceed the battle, ergo, technically, Richard III was NOT the king at Bosworth.

SilenTHerO78614 jaime Lannister approved

In those days a King was supposed to have been right to rule from God (by grace of God) so killing God’s representative would have been considered the worst kind of sin, and something one would not wish to be widely known. What I found very disconcerting was that Rhys as Thomas’ motivation was supposed to be the welfare of his legitimate son (he had 12 illegitimate descendants) yet King Henry later had his grandson executed for treason.

@@JediJan eh 1 grandson out of how many aint bad.

@@leanie9660 yes but not predated fsr enough to make richard III not king

Doreen Boadu yes

Well spotted Doreen. It certainly is 🤗

I wonder what he did!!???

Allegri’s Miserere mei, Deus

Reverend Saltine I agree the re-enactments are cheesy. No blood, guts or mud!

Everyone's garb was so bright, clean, and laundered and half the participants were middle aged and portly. Both standard for most historical reenactment groups.

No that was earlier under Longshanks

Karen O Most Kings did not fight. He was the prize and his men would not risk him.

The Lancastrian heir if not Henry Tudor, it would be Charles Somerset, the ancestor of the current Duke of Beaufort and Baron Raglan.

@@janebeatty9472 Richard died on the battlefield. He died a warrior king.

Make your own video

Henry Tudor the coward.

There is a whole documentary around a young guy who had the identical handicaps that R3 had and they trained him to wear armour and ride a horse and fight - Richard the Third was a trained and fearless soldier, despite his slight build and scoliosis

The most Spastic Royal EVER!!!🤭🤣🤬

Same here! Lot quicker turnover!

Th whole point of having democratic political system is to avoid violence, lawlessness and anarchy.

Really?

You must be the 17th person to say that here in these commentaries.

but Richard was an honorable man and did not accuse someone of treason unless he had proof.

sometimes I wonder if Richard was just tired of it all and wanted to be with Anne and Edward.

Probably didn’t have time to do that and he needed every man for battle

@@mysticdragonwolf89 I don't find that explanation believable - a king would have had all sorts of servants and messengers in his service . He also would have had spies observing the progress of Tudor's march across Wales which Thomas had joined at a fairly early stage, so probably must have known Thomas had defected, well before the battle.

Rhys app Thomas didn't have to send his son after all because he pleaded his allegiance to Richard III in the note he sent. So Richard didn't have his son in his custody. Thomas Stanley's son, Lord Strange, (who was a adult) was in Richard's hands and he did order him executed (or so some say) right before the battle but his order was never carried out.

@@justhistoire why would Richard order Stanley's son executed before the battle? Stanley hadn't defected at that stage . I can't imagine Richard to place any faith in a note of allegiance from someone so likely to support HenryTudor, but maybe he did.

Prove it with written documentary evidence.

The Tudors were a Welsh noble family. He was born in Pembroke castle, though spent most his time being brought up by his uncle in France.

Yep, from then on he was known as 'Taffy Brownsword' throughout the kingdom.

Not exactly how it happened …

Oh bitter Tudor lover lol

I Agree!!!

No proof at all and Rudder almost certainly executed Richard of Strawberry the younger of the nephews under the fake name of Perkin Warbeck.

Plural of "nephew" is "nephews." Just FYI.

Probably, but we don’t know that for sure.

Henry's mother was Stanley's wife who was warden if the tower when the princes disappeared, she had motive and opportunity, nothing is proven positively. Anyway they all killed opponents blood or not.

@@lynnebarnes5645 Richard put those two kids in the Tower under guise of " protection ". They where never heard from again. Use your brain.

I Agree!!!!

Highly doubt that

Henry 7th, go read about his dynasty.

Then your wife is an idiot. Richard was one of the best kings England ever had. He did far, far more than his contemporaries to help the common people. Henry VIII killed two innocent wives too; yet no one calls him a monster.

Richard was an excellent leader and no monster.

I Agree!!!