What is it with adding a soundtrack over dialogue in a history program?! The music is so high in the mix you cab barely make out what the presenter is saying.
The Tudors benefited from the death of the princes, the boys were victims of Henry tudor his troops were all over the tower of London, Richard was not even in london at the time of deaths. I recommend, a great book by Josephine Tey, it's called " The Daughter of Time." It is well worth the read.
Henry Tudor was exiled in France (had been since childhood) when the Princes went "missing". The Princes' mother, Henry Vll mother and Margaret of Anjou all plotted (the latter two financing) Richard downfall.
@@lolazal1 exactly. His secret supporters had a hand in it. His mom was at court! She carried Queen Anne's train at her and Richard's coronation lol She was ideally placed
Henry Tudor only had an outside chance of a successful invasion because the general belief throughout England & Europe was that Richard had ordered the murder of his nephews. All Richard had to do was produce the boys & it would’ve heavily reduced Tudor’s support. For some reason he couldn’t do that. Henry Tudor should’ve shook Richards hand for paving the way to the English throne for him cos technically it was Richard that united Lancastrians & a lot of yorkist, they just united against him.
If I was Richard, is it really necessary to kill your potential next in line to the throne?. I don't think any kings would choose to do this since it's very risky unless they have betrayed and plotting with their enemy. Why would he kill the two princes in the tower if they already declared illegitimate?. He had his other nephew Edward, earl of Warwick the son of his brother George in his wife's care since his parents died and Richard did not kill him. Edward survived then later was imprisoned and killed by Henry VII instead.
Horrifically bad audio. Loud music and conflicting talk, shouting, over the narration. Who decides to make such a hash of a video with secondary noise?
MUSIC TOO LOUD!!! See how annoying that is? Richard wasn't a hunchback but did suffer extreme curvature of the spine and was slight in stature. This based on discovery of his skeletal remains under a parking lot. Being small would have been a disadvantage for the warrior king presented here. Also the story of his body being exhumed and the bones thrown away is now proven untrue. His body was right where it was supposed to be--no coffin, and hands possibly bound. He appears to have been brutally executed.
Excuse me, can you repeat that? The music is just a tad too loud 🤏 I'm sure it wasn't the intention to completely ruin this video but that's what happened 🔊📢
The original can be found on Timeline, nonetheless the entire documentary isn’t like that, it’s mostly ppl that can’t concentrate that complain and get thrown off so easily
@@chrisadlc1 You shouldn't have to strain to hear the speaker, after all that's why you're watching. It also doesn't help when you have a hearing problem like I do. And the cc is laughable.
This is like being at a heavy metal concert and having your drunk mate screaming at you over the music to tell you about his sister's eye operation... or something.
@@chrisadlc1 no, just severe migraines that make me highly sensitive to loud noises, and since I didnt want to puke violently and be down for the rest of the day and risk an ER trip that day I left the video
@@chrisadlc1 nah its throughout the video, when he talks they have background music, it's not that bad though, but if syndi really does have migraines then it is actually best she does not watch it.
Apart from the audio disrupting a Time legend speak it was good. I remember not long ago (2012/13) they found this kings remains under a carpark in Leicester City and they reburied him with a funeral fit for a King. Im assuming this was filmed before then as well... the curve in his spine is a base known fact now - he had scoliosis.
The soundtrack reminds me too much of Doctor Who. Which I love. However, if it is going to play louder than the narrator, then please bring in the T.A.R.D.I.S.
It does sound like Dr. Who. Unfortunately, the sound technician and editors should have made sure the music was an undertone and not the focal point 😕. But it helps me work on my ability to hear specific things, so it works. Lol
Yes, sadly someone's tv has uneven stereo. The tv in my bedroom did the same thing....the dialogue of people talking on a beach was drowned out by some enthusiastic seagulls. I threw the tv out.
Scoliosis dosen't necessarily mean a bunched back it depends on how bad the curvature of the spine was and if Richard was so hunched he couldn't possibly have been able to wield a sword with force especially on horseback. Having a raised shoulder does not constitute having a "hump'
But this was two years before Henry Tudor defeated Richard in battle. The chances of Henry Tudor becoming king at the time of the disappearance of the two princes was not taken seriously by anybody. Richard had more to gain in the short term by getting rid of them. He had already demonstrated his ability to get rid of anybody who got in his way. But there is no doubt that the Tudors also benefitted from the presumed murders and they did all they could to make him look worse than he really was.
@@ladyv5655 I think Tudor was a threat considering Buckingham had betrayed Richard and threw his lot in with him. And a major point had Richard killed the princes at this point why not lay blame at Buckinghams feet?
The English seem to feel guilty about becoming protestant way back when, all English documentaries have very loud excessive Choral music. Choral music blasting from every orifice. You way overcompensate! Not because of this ridiculously loud music, but every documentary.
Exactly and the severity that it was curved may have definitely made him look like one of his shoulders was higher than the other. I have scoliosis that's not even close to being as bad and my hips are very noticeably crooked.
Actually, no. Because gloves, even thin ones, can limit dexterity, it can actually make it more likely to tear or damage the pages. Library of Congress only recommends gloves if the book poses a health hazard (toxic ink, mold, etc.)
@@JRLARNERthat's not true actually. The severity of the curve (which is not always defined as sideways btw) would definitely have made one of his shoulders sit higher than the other. I have scoliosis that is not even half as bad and my hips and shoulders are definitely not even. Most people can't tell unless I point it out but it's there.
As an osteopath, I know what the difference between a scoliosis and a hunchback is! I never said he didn't have any type of deformity, just not a hunchback which is correctly known as a kyphosis. You say your scoliosis doesn't show when you are clothed: Richard's would have been the same, which is why no one commented on it before his death, after which his body was displayed. He definitely wasn't a hunchback. @cassiecavataio2982
I argue that the biggest villain of the british monarchy was Henry VIII. There is just no smoking gun Richard had those kids murdered. If he did do it, he was following a long tradition of monarchs killing threats to their throne, so is he more of a villain than any other medieval or More modern monarch? And can we take the word of a man who was a story teller, 100 years after the fact as proof? Henry VIII’s tyranny however, is stamped all over historical texts.
Agreed. After all, Richard's older brother Edward IV had his other older brother (George) executed, and this sort of thing goes all the way back 300 years to the beginning of the House of Plantagenet. It's just the way they were in those days. Plus, there seems to be more proof that the murders, if they happened, were done by some nobleman rather than Richard (Duke of Buckingham? I forget). I think the thing with the nephews was Henry VII trying to convince Edward IV's daughter that her uncle was a criminal and it was right to take the throne from him. And then one of Henry's sons had two wives executed, and one of his granddaughters almost had her half-sister executed, and finally Elizabeth I had her cousin executed. None of these people was very nice by modern standards.
Sandra Zarembski yes, the reputed drowning in a vat of Malmsy wine - a nice bunch of people all round really. Henry VII, Henry VII’s mother Lady Margaret Beaufort, and The Duke of Buckingham are all just as likely to have had those kids murdered. We will never know. It will be a stain on Richards reputation forever.
@@Jesterjones9073 I still think it's possible Margaret Beaufort could have been involved in the murders. Or, maybe the boys died of disease. We will never know.
Very interesting and enjoyable. I do believe that his remains were found ( though I can 't remember the exact year) and he was found to have a mild case is scoliosis, which have made his posture slightly uneven, giving the Tudors an opportunity to expound on the issue and I believe that is why they chose to make him seem like a hunchback.
A documentary followup with a young man having scoliosis showed how the armorer would have designed his armor and how he would have trained to overcome his difficult spinal condition. Amazing.
@@dirremoire I agree. It looks horrendous when seen in skeletal form and while I have no doubt it posed tremendous challenges, from an outwardly visual stand point it did not appear significant nor did it affect his gait or ability to ride a horse or fight. If it had been truly as severe as the Tudors tried to make it seem, then he would have been deemed unfit to rule and thus would have had no foundation to stake his Kingship upon, in my opinion.
But he DID have scoliosis. That’s been scientifically proven. The Tudors didn’t make that up. They may have embellished it a bit, but they didn’t invent the fact.
I find it amazing that there is not one word about Eleanor Butler. It seems pretty well established that Edward lV was in a binding legal relationship with her and not free a free man at the time he met Elizabeth Woodville. His subsequent marriage to Elizabeth therefore could not be legal. Interesting to know at what point Elizabeth became aware of this situation. Edward's family was and Eleanor was retired to a convent as soon as possible, 'least said soonest mended.' What a situation!!
I believe it was more a case of Eleanor becoming fed up with Edward's continued sexual shenanigans and she retired to the religious community she supported. But the outcome was the same!
Edward 1v was better of the 2 kings. Doesn’t answer why they put off the coronation of Edward the fifth twice, and I do not believe he was illegitimate. That is my belief, because I am related to both Edward the fourth and Richard the third through their sister Elizabeth and I direct descendent married Elizabeth.
I don't think he killed the Princes in the Tower. Richard III was an intelligent man and knew that killing his nephews would be a public relations disaster. Besides, he's not the only one with the motive. I think it was either the Duke of Buckingham since he also had a strong claim to the throne or Margaret Beaufort since she was so obsessed in putting her son on the throne.
Completely agree. Not to mention it is false when he claims in the video that only Richard had access to the tower. Buckingham was Constable of England so he technically had unrestricted access. Furthermore, after Buckingham was executed, Margaret Beaufort's husband, Lord Stanley, was made Constable of England which gave him that same access. In my opinion either of these men had more motive than Richard to murder the princes. Personally I lean more towards Margaret and her husband plotting it. The murder of the princes would kill two birds with one stone; Tarnish Richard's name and make the people turn against him while making sure the favored princes were gone, thus clearing the way for Margaret's son.
And if the boys were illegitimate then he wouldn’t need to kill them because he could have the bishops testify, he had one saying that the boys were born out of wedlock anyway Also Elizabeth woodville may have backed the rebellion because she didn’t think they were illegitimate.
There have never been any instance in history when a king's body was treated as terribly and badly as the way Richard III's corpse treated by Henry Tudor.
Actually, James the IV of Scotland some thirty years after this, during and post the battle of Flodden got treated pretty awful. After circuitous journey wasn’t even buried in Scotland.
It wasn't done by Henry ,most of damage was done afterwards on the way to where he was buried. Henry actually paid for the funeral and even had a marker that said Richard lll King of England. All of this was lost during the dissolution of the monasteries during Henry Vlll reign.
It has actually been prooven that Richard III did have severe scoliosis when his bones were discoved burried under a Tesco parking lot and confirmed to be his through DNA testing. I'm not sure exactly when this doc was filmed but the whole segment trying to disprove his hunchback and claiming flat out that "he wasn't a hunchback" is a real cringe. The loud music also makes this doc almost unwatchable. This is a huge drop in quality for this channel.
WTF?!! While examination of his bones showed he had scoliosis, it was not nearly severe enough to call him a hunchback. in fact, the articles which I've read mentioned that his condition would have barely been noticeable. Methinks thou art a troll... Begone!
@@dirremoire pointing out a biological fact is not trolling. He's 100 percent correct. The term "hunchback" has nothing to do with the "severity" of the curvature of the spine. It's simply an outdated term born out of ignorance of the condition that was a product of it's time. My own mother had degenerative scoliosis and it's not an insult to point it out. More importantly, I would like to know who murdered two innocent children....
@SeabassFishbrains @David Dirre-Moire @Charity. Because commenters on this thread debated whether the video was incorrect when it stated that King Richard III was a hunchback I did some research. The term “hunchback” is considered a derogatory term to describe a medical condition called kyphosis. The simplest explanation is that the spine is curved front to back, a convex curvature. There are different types for different reasons and in different severity. Apparently when it’s at it’s worse in the upper spine it was called “hunchback.” You can read more in Wikipedia. Scoliosis, in simplest terms, is when the spine is curved from side to side. It also comes in different types and severity. It was not called “hunchback.” Interestingly, a granddaughter of Queen Elizabeth II had scoliosis for which she had corrective surgery. She has spoken about the condition publicly. It is said to be common. So was King Richard III a hunchback? No, he wasn’t but he did have scoliosis, a side to side curvature of the spine. Someone said that people of the Middle Ages were very superstitious about anyone with abnormalities. We’ve progressed a little. I guess we could say that William Shakespeare used poetic license in describing King Richard III.
The background music ruins this entire video. Most of the documentary is lost, or at least made more difficult to comprehend, by the overly loud music that makes it nearly impossible to even hear much of the commentary.
Richard didn´t make himself Protector, his brother Edward did. About Hastings - even later Tudor chroniclers seem to concede the Lord Hastings was up to something behind Richard’s back. Polydore Vergil wrote that even before Richard arrived in London, Lord Hastings ‘called together unto Paul’s church such friends as he knew to be right careful for the life, dignity, and estate of prince Edward, and conferred with them what best was to be done’. Hastings was still receiving money from the French which was a bit odd after Edward´s death. Richard was very generous to Hasting´s family. No attainder issued, they could keep all their possession and status. It wasn´t Richard´s idea to become King. He was asked to take the Crown by the representatives of 3 estates of the realm. Edward and Richard were illegitimate not only because of the pre contract but according to some medieval laws it was enough to be illegitimate because of the clandestine marriage. Richard was the rightful heir. Rumours about Richard killing the boys originated in France.If Richard killed them and didn´t produced them, didn´t show everyone that they are dead and can´t be use as figureheads for whatever, that would be totally stupid. He could kill them and blame Buckingham,, sweating sickness, plague....easy. So why he didn´t do it? Richard had another 16 nieces and nephews why he didn´t kill them if he was such a monster? They could be a big threat too. Plantagenet blood and all....They all lived after Bosworth. Elizabeth W. never accused Richard of killing her sons after Richard´s death. Even though it would be beneficial for her. Even Henry didn´t blame Richard for killing the boys. And he tried hard to find as much dirt as possible on Richard. And then there are the pretenders.....
I'm getting very tired of over zealous musicians taking over interesting programs.Why don't The editors of these programs read the complaints about loud music destroying the whole show Wake up.
I am sure that is a wonderful history account of Richard the III. I just had to stop watching it. When the music came on, it overpowered the voice of the narrator and I could not understand a single word. And this was or is very irritating. Thanks anyway.
It’s difficult to understand how grown men and women can put these mortals on such a pedestal and adore them like gods .. Sir this , lord that , , it’s all b... s... and the sooner people stop supporting this backward type of adoration , the better for everyone
How old is this documentary? Today we know that Richard did have a deformed spine and the facial reconstruction demonstrated that the surviving portraits are fairly reliable.
Oh I do hope that's the actual title. If so consider it queued. Curious to know if the Queen has clapped back at the gauntlet thrown.😆 As if bloodlines were the biggest protest regarding the figurehead monarchs.
I am a fan of just about anything Tony Robinson does, but I have to say this audio track is a bit of mess. Did anybody listen to this before publishing? The back half has the music running over Tony's narration about half the time.
He was already king and they were definitely still alive and legally barred from the throne. They were no more threat to him than Edward of Warwick, George's son, who was barred because of his father's treason. And yet he treated him well and even knighted him. Henry Tudor had more motive as he re-legitimied them when he re-legitimised Elizabeth, their sister. That made their claim valid again.
All sorts of noises (including the background music) is WAY too loud in this particular video. I can't possibly watch this without the closed captions (and they aren't always helpful, but that's just cc in general). It gets better at times but still not pleasant, especially for someone with an auditory processing disorder. WERE THE BIRD NOISES REALLY NECESSARY???
Forget the bad audio, help me understand something. Why is Henry Tutor "unfit" and should have never been King? Kings lost their crowns in battle for 100s of years prior to Bosworth...so... why are people saying Henry had no right? His birth has nothing to do with it. He and his army beat the Kings army and killed him. It happened numerous times before so why the big stink about this one ? It's not Henry's fault the White and Red had been on the throne and fighting among themselves for years hashing it out and the throne flipping from one cousin to the next... So, just because he wasn't what they considered "one of them" license to claim his rule unjust? If it was so unjust and shouldn't have happened, WHY did the Tudors rule for SOOOOOO long? Surely someone would have unseated them , if by no other reasons than what they did to Edward and said he was illegitimate . Sounds like a bunch of sour grapes to me .
Everyone else had killed each other so he had the strongest claim. His mother was a very fierce, pragmatic politician and his wife could claim to be Queen in her own right as eldest daughter of a former King. He also bankrupted everyone else so no-one else could raise an army to overthrow him.
The longstanding mystery of the real fate that befell the Princes in the Tower has always intrigued me and I look forward to when the alleged skeletons are reexamined again in more detail to answer the questions so many are eager to know the truth about. Richard III's character and actions (dubious as they are) in the media produced about him 500 years later certainly presents a classical duplicitous, ambitiously conspiratorial and power-grasping psychotic villain- yet it does contrast with what contemporary sources and his discovered remains revealed. Yet I am open to the possibility that one or both princes may have been spirited out of the tower for their safety at Richard's discretion or by Elizabeth Woodville's planning and went into obscurity-however unlikely it may be given the political atmosphere of the time. However James Tyrel's confession on which Thomas Moore drew on for his History cannot be discounted, if it's true that is. It's no impossibility Richard assumed the reins of government without treacherous designs of usurpation in mind, operating as any savvy and intelligent man of his time would have done. If the Archer of Rouen theory was a credible motive for him, then maybe he or another (i.e. Buckingham or Henry VII) could have had the "illegitimate" boys eliminated on a dynastic not so much callously evil basis. I still would like to know the truth behind the skeletons said to be of the princes as would so many others taken with this engrossing mystery.
There’s a new book & documentary out by Philipia Langley about the Princes in the Tower. They looked for evidence on mainland Europe since the documents in rhetoric present UK seemed to be excluded, except maybe Scotland… She thinks there’s worthy evidence that Richard’s sister Margaret, the Duchess of Burgandy, took both princes in via close contacts of Richard and twice gave a small fortune for them to take the crown back.
I think Richard did kill the Princes in the Tower. But Henry Tudor was also a mass murdering bastard who went around and killed all the surviving Plantaganets after he seized the throne.
Henry Somerset, 12th Duke of Beaufort is a descendant of John of Gaunt. He has Plantagenet blood that's stayed in England for centuries, he isn't descended from German nobility lol
I agree with comments about annoyingly too loud music in this vid. I've often wondered why British shows do this it spoils the info by drowning it out with pointless music
Yup. He started out just wanting to stop the Queen's family, but he miscalculated when he took the dauphin into custody. Richard thought that he'd be able to control him, but then realized that the dauphin didn't know, like or trust Richard, and would side with his mother's family the moment he was crowned. Since he'd already committed himself against them, he was like "welp, in for a penny..."
@@Visplight Dauphin?? That's a French term, not used here. He started out just wanting to do his duty as Protector of the Realm, but the queen's family plotted against him - there are many suspicious things in their actions. I don't think they were murdered at all - I think he moved them to a secret location(s), which explains why he kept silent about their whereabouts and why no public mass was said for them. Aslo why the 'queen' never accused him, even after he was dead.
Is there a date of broadcasting of this documentary? There is another very well made documentary on the finding of the bones of Richard III on a parking lot in Leicester. This documentary shows the deformation of the spine, which is contested at the beginning of this program.
And Stanley was Captain of the Tower and husband to Margaret Beaufort. My money is on them, they had the most to gain with Richard's death as well as the death of the two Princes.
The littlest prince in the tower also had a half brother named Richard. His mother's first husband was John De Grey with whom she had 2 sons, Thomas and Richard. Both Richards died in 1483 the eldest by the order of King Richard III.
Well, they were both the half brothers of the Grey brothers. Richard Grey was executed for treason - agreed by Parliament at the time. There was almost certainly a plot to murder Richard (III, although he was then Richard of Gloucester) by the Woodvilles, the queen's family. However, after Richard became Richard III, he seemed to become reconciled with Elizabeth, the boys' mother. She actually wrote to her other son, Thomas Grey, telling him to return home and trust Richard - I think Richard proved to her that her sons were safe.
I can barely hear the talking over the stupid music! I keep having to stop what I'm doing, rewind the video, & try to listen very intently. I even put earbuds in to block out any, even slight, noise around me. You should check your videos after editing & before posting.
Well, with the biggest liar the planet came to know, at that time, Henry VII, not even accusing him of it, while happily rewriting history, it should be obvious this is more of a modern take...go figure.
I don't think Richard was behind the deaths of his nephews. In fact, I think he wanted them to be safe in the Tower, even after he took the throne. He knew that he would be blamed if the princes (technically former princes) were killed. The problem was that everyone else knew it too, which gave Richards enemies incentive to kill the princes.
More and more Tudor propaganda. The Tudors know that Richard the Third had a much stronger claim to the throne. They simply sought to to squash any other claims.
