Richard III's Death: Betrayal At The Battle Of Bosworth | The Man Who Killed Richard III | Chronicle 

👌🏻Love that!

I laughed harder than I should have.😂

Well... He didn't have the hump for you. Drum 🥁 symbol

😂

Don’t you mean cart?

Same. As an American we don’t get to learn about any of this. All we learn is Britain was mean and we revolted - the end. I absolutely love history but, specifically british

@@Nellsbells79 I had an eight grade history teacher who taught us six weeks of European history, it was the best six weeks o my public school life.

Agreed, I love this stuff

So true

And the time of the wars of the roses was a big mess, even if you have learned about it in school. All these Richards, Johns and Henrys😳 and there are several Elizabeths, too. And people changing sides, and being exiled and coming back...crazy.

Also Richard of Shrewsbury, the younger "prince in the Tower" was Richard, duke of York

That's haunting..

Did he not assume the title of Duke of York after his nephew disappeared? I was thinking about this after watching “The Crown”- there was a scene where Prince Andrew made a remark about how former Dukes of York killed the King to replace him….he named Richard III & I thought….but wasn’t he the Duke of Glouster ?

Richard III son of York, Richard of York, Richard of Shrewsbury Duke of York. It is all so very confusing. It's like the only names available back then were Henry, Richard, Edward, Elizabeth, and Margaret. If you've ever had to write a report on the Wars of the Roses, you understand how confusing it gets.

​@@juliancain3872 Don't forget Thomas and Mary 😂

Beet 🍠

I cannot imagine how hot that armor must be. I reenacted American Civil War for many years. Wool was hot enough. It provides a reason to fight at first light, or as early as possible. These were truly Metal Men!

Agreed. Makes it easier to digest the information

@@gabriellesmith5661 to the beetroot of their knowledge, in the olden days people associated beetroots with knowledge, the more beetroots you owned, the more knowledge you had.

An idea. Except for the missing mud, blood, body parts strewn across the field and horses crying upon death. Other than that it’s gives an isea

well said

Margaret did ultimately bring about Richard's downfall with her actions. Henry wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the crown without her help.

Facts. You're damn right. Imagine the exhaustion and the light headedness of wearing that armor and swinging that weapon around for hours.... You survive it all and slay many enemies, just to get your good arm cut off by someone's lucky swing before he gets his skull caved in anyway by someone else.... Now you have to live the rest of your life that way. How are you gonna farm your fields, ride a horse or defend your family.. etc etc etc..? I think about that stuff too. Brutal existence.

I can do 1 push up

Doubt they fought in contact for that long more like 5-10 minutes then step back to allow next rank in this way they kept up their strength, the change may have occurred several times over an hour.

These people had unimaginable hard lives compared to us they amaze me how tough they was . Richard deserved all he got a child killer Margaret was the most incredible women understand if u ask me . I would rather had a bastard on the throne than a tyrant like him . U had to make sure u was on the right side we should be thankful to wales . But I don’t think Margaret would have been proud how her Grandson turned out the biggest tyrant of them all Henry V111 . But proud of her Grandaughter Elizebeth 1 how history could have been so different if Richard had won the mind boggles great documentary 😊

They trained at such a young age this is one of my favourite period in history so many intelligent strong women through the reign of Plantagenet and Tudors !!!

He's my dad. Sad no one talks about him anymore.

Despite the scoliosis Richard wasn't going to run away - he fought in what would be considered valiant for a man in his position.

Fantastic to hear. Welcome!

Me

Same👍

Absolutely brilliant! I have read all of Philippa Gregory's books (and re-read many times) of the Plantagents and Tudor history and dynasty. This is remarkable information to add to that time in history and further my knowledge. Thank you.

It's great to be here and for you to join us on our journey!

Great to have you here 💚

He was a man.Doing his best in a pretty crappy time. He wasn't a saint, he did do some nasty things, but no more than people before or after him. It was his times He did, however do good stuff,which is forgotten.He was immensely loyal,which makes me doubt he 'usurped' the throne without good reason.There is No evidence that he killed the kids, or in fact Anyone did. They were more of a threat to Henry 7th than him.After all,he married their sis! If she was legit ,so were they,and his Very tenuous link to the throne was blown straight out of the water. We will never know,but I think Richard was a good man, who maybe lost it a little after the grief of losing his son and his wife and dealing with the stress of kingship and everyone conspiring against him. I think he really did believe the kids were illegitimate, which left him the only heir. If you look at Richard's story everything he did to that point was honourable By their standards Why would he suddenly turn? This guy, by comparison,sounds like a POS .

@@hogwashmcturnip8930 I would agree, except for the part where he feared for his four year old son being held hostage. That muddles things in two ways, one for the child and the other in that it showed a heart-breaking lack of trust. In a way, Richard III did it to himself, driving this guy to betrayal with his own paranoia.

@@PtolemyJones Fair comment. I have always thought we have 2 Richards. The loyal brother, who would follow his King to Hell and back if he thought it was right. The man totally wedded to the Throne the Country and his family.. Then when he actually has the throne in his own right he seems to break down. He lost both his son and his wife during this time, so who knows what the Man Richard was going through? King Richard, as you say ,becomes increasingly paranoid and makes enemies out of friends. It is almost like he was on a self destruct mission.He did not need to charge at Henry like that, for instance; it seems utterly futile, not to say suicidal That is not the Old Richard, the one who led his brother's Vanguard as a teenager,and knew every trick in the warfare book. It makes no sense whatsoever. Do I think he killed those kids? Most fervently NO. Anyone who has studied Richard as a human being, not a Shakespearian cardboard cut out, would see that he would be incapable of harming a child. What happens in the last few years of his life, I am not so sure. Rather like Henry VIII goes from Everyone's Bessie Mate to a total tyrant; something seems to have happened to Richard. Or maybe it is just the way the Chroniclers like to write things! I honestly believe that if he had lived, and been Old Richard, he would have been one of the Best Kings. Instead we got stuck with the Tudors and have been on a downward spiral ever since! Lol Not that we wereon an upward one before.Most Kings are pretty Horrible. Comes with the job. Maybe that is what drove Richard over the Edge. But then again,he was pretty Ruthless to start with. Battle of Tewkesbury? Not running around doling out bread and bandages there,was he? It's a cliche, but Different Times. Hell ,we hardly understand ourselves and what is happening Now; how can we sit in Judgement on someone from 600 years ago?

@@hogwashmcturnip8930 One thing for certain, people are more complex than can be possible committed to history, and when people with a reason to darken your legacy write the history, it's even worse. I've heard some suggestion the same thing happened to Nero.

There's a great deal of anti-Ricardian propaganda because Henry VII needed to justify his dubious and tyrannical reign. Henry Tudor had no blood right to the throne. His very tenuous assertion to the throne was through his mother, whose family, the Beauforts, were bastard descendants of John of Gaunt and thereby relations to John's son, Henry IV (who usurped the throne, mind). Henry did not want these half-siblings and their descendants to threaten his own son and heirs' claim to the throne, so he allowed for the solemnization of his father's relationship with his mistress, with the proviso that the Beauforts were not in the line of royal succession. Henry Tudor's father wasn't even a Tudor, probably, because that man's mother (Henry V's widow) was known to be close to Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset. Is it more likely that the daughter, wife, and mother of kings would involve herself with the pillar and stalwart of her son's throne or a Welsh groomsman of piddling status? Henry Tudor's father, was named Edmund, too. Was Edmund named for his true father? So, Henry Tudor's parents were both Beauforts (first cousins, in fact) and the Tudor Dynasty was founded on bastardy. Henry's wife was also a bastard, because her parents weren't free to marry: Edward IV was already married when he and Elizabeth Woodville were secretly married, as his former confessor and chancellor testified. Edward IV kept his marriage a secret for four months after the fact, when his councilors were already negotiating for a bride with the French court. Why would Edward keep his marriage a secret unless there was something wrong with it - or unless he was considering disowning the marriage? Henry Tudor destroyed all copies of the Titulus Regius, the parliamentary document detailing the flaw in Edward's proclaimed marriage. A lost copy was found around the turn of the 16th Century. There was no basis for Henry's assuming the throne. Right of conquest was how he justified it. However, if he was able to seize the crown by force, why couldn't someone else do the same? Damning Richard's memory was part of the effort to destroy the truth and solidify the Tudor regime. Those with an actual blood claim to the throne were killed in battle, like John, Earl of Lincoln (Richard's nephew and declared heir); executed in the Tower of London, like Edward, Earl of Warwick, Edmund, Duke of Suffolk, and Sir William de la Pole (all Richard's nephews); or exiled to the continent, like Richard de la Pole (Richard's other nephew). Furthermore, Yorkist females like Margaret, brother of the young Earl of Warwick, and Cecily, sister of Elizabeth of York, were married to low-ranking members of Henry Tudor's family - simultaneously diminishing their standing and enfolding them into the Tudor clan. It was so necessary to demonize Richard III, that the famous portraits of him were actually painted over to give him a non-existent hunchback and facial lines, to make it look like he was a worrywart or some kind of schemer. Edward IV wanted his brother to be the Lord Protector after his, Edward's, death. Edward IV's ambitious in-laws, who had raised Edward's heir, wanted to overthrow this will. Edward's wife allied herself with the enemies of her husband's house in pledging her daughter's hand to Henry Tudor. The Tudor narrative is that Richard usurped the throne and killed his nephews. Richard had been his brother's right hand. He had never shown himself ambitious, divesting himself of rich properties to his brother (George, Duke of Clarence, father of Edward and Margaret above) and refusing a pension from the French king, unlike other members of Edward's court (including the king himself). There is no logic to executing Edward's sons on Richard's part - it would have been viewed as a monstrous act (as was the implication that he had had them executed), and it would have further demonstrated that Richard was so insecure in his claim to the throne, that he needed to eliminate his rivals.

Great to have you here! 💚

Welcome!

Funny thing to waste a vision on - utube channel no virgin marys or angels with lottery numbers

Fantastic to hear 😊

Thomas Stanley knew the art of survival. He and his brother were often on 'opposite' sides. But they were always only on the Stanley side. Lord Stanley survived in the reigns of Henry and Margaret, Edwards IV+V, Richard and finally Henry Tudor. His brother kinda got into trouble with the last one. Clearly the wilder younger brother.

Margaret was the mother of Henry Tudor: her third husband was Lord Stanley... Who joined Henry just in the nick of time.

Truish. He was not “late” for the battle. He and his men were there. They stayed where they were and watched the battle unfold. He did not engage his men until Richard personally attacked Henry.

Welcome aboard!

Awesome to have you here!

Welcome aboard! Great to have you here 💫

Us too!

Welcome!

The Wars of the roses were between the Yorks and the Lancastrians. ...The “ Tudors only came to be known AFTER the Battle of Bosworth. ..personally I thought the Tudors were the Kardashians of their day. ..Tasteless and common. 🙄

Thanks for subbing!

Great to have you here!

Welcome aboard 💚

Welcome 🌎

Thank you! Great to have you here

Keep your eyes peeled!

but Bosworth was fought on the site known which cannot be said for Hastings.

Hi there!

Bannockburn!

@@alancoe1002 For Scottish people perhaps, and those interested in history, but the average person has no idea of Bannockburn, or Falkirk, or Louden Hill. If anything Stirling Bridge is the most famous of all the battles in the first war of independence

@@danielmoncaster3216 I see your point, and it's a shame that the battle was shown without even an attempt at authenticity in That Movie.

Agreed Bosworth wasn’t the most famous battle, and I’m from Leicester, and used to live nr king Richards road. In fact I even used the parking lot where they found him.

@@derrickstableford8152 I've only been to Leicester once, back in 1978, and I can remember being where I thought Greyfriars was, and went to Bow Bridge and thought, well, that's where they probably dumped him and who knows how many others. Couldn't believe it when they found him. Same with the battlefield. The Visitors Centre was closed and I was alone on Ambion Hill at sunset. Pretty cool, but now we know that's where he camped, not fought. But, yeah, the average person doesn't know/care about Bosworth.

Welcome!

Me too!

Hi!

Will do!

Great to have you here!

You have a point but still this was the battle that pinched out the plantagenet line. Though there was still some plantagenet blood that passed to Henry 8, Richard 3 screwed up the family line by killing his own nephews.

@@gerritpeacock3571 Got proof of that have you...? 😡

@@Ionabrodie69 proof of what? The nephews? Yes

@@Ionabrodie69 Got any proof he didn't?

💚💚💚

You mean he put his life and his family’s life over his oath

@@spoils2873 Yes, you are correct.

Thank you!

Actually Richard was a very nice person. Read something about his years as Governor of the North. He was loved and respected because he cared about all people not only the rich and powerful ones. He made some very progressive law changes and cancelled taxis on everything regarding printing and reading. Due to taxation he also supported/protected domestic trade. Records of his only Parliament were written in English (for the very first time in history) so everyone knows what the guys up there are doing. His passion for justice (see above) caused him his life at Bosworth.

Richard was inlove with chivalry and took idea seriously, why would he risk his own belief.

Maybe neither. There is much less known about the details of this battle than many, despite the many maps and scenarios by good writers. Dr. Glenn Foard's team of archaeological specialists and amateur metal detectorists found the actual site of the battlefield, and surmised more gunpowder was burned here than thought earlier. The mysterious paralysis of Northumberland seems to be simply guarding against Thomas Stanley at Crown Hill, who was, interestingly, the only one with the sun on his back. Apparently there was an exchange of artillery between these two forces, but as a mutual standoff. Unknown is when Wm. Stanley marched to join Henry's right and whether that spurred Richard's charge. Also unknown is when Norfolk died, before or after Richard. Most histories have said earlier, some even claiming that Oxford captured him and had him dispatched on the spot. The one eyewitness account that seems credible, Salazar's, is a confused account at best, Battles are a terrible chaotic thing. More will be revealed with time, I hope. We know way more than 25 years ago.

Exactly the Welsh got nothing from the Tudors only more stepping on.

Lancastrians did the same though, plus Tudor’s claim was really dubious, like he was a descendant of bastard lancastrians that couldn’t even legally hold the throne. Really Edward III fault for being a good dad and loving his sons, giving them a bunch of lands and making them powerful dukes