The Tudors: The Intrigue & Scandal Of Britain's Sauciest Dynasty | Kings & Queens | Real Royalty 

For clarification: this video is actually pretty old, I´ve watched it 2 years or so ago, it´s just reuploaded. So, the mistakes are not this channel´s fault (or at least not now), but yeah. Not accurate.

Preach! A lot of this was off, but that 4 second summary of poor Howard had me dropping my forehead into my hands. Yikes.

it's from 2014. Not that old.

Listen to this in your life and before you know it you'll be obsessed with British history. Lol our brains absorb information while we sleep even. It's crazy

How can something be both "kinda boring yet interesting"?

Except they weren’t seen for over 2 years before Boswell field. Richard 3 absolutely, positively, no doubt killed them.

@@cplmpcocptcl6306 Sorry, but I disagree. Since Parliament had declared the boys illegitimate, Richard had NO NEED to get rid of them, as they posed no threat. Just because they weren't seen in London doesn't mean they weren't living quietly at another castle or estate, of which the Crown had dozens. Henry, however, by relegitimizing their sister, gave them a *much* better claim to the throne than he himself had, and so had better cause to do away with them. In fact, there was a contemporary historian, whose name sadly escapes me at the moment, who debunked the Tudor account shortly after the Stuarts took over the throne.

We know the 15th century's childhood mortality rate was very high. Maybe they just died.

@@patriciagerresheim2500 Oh for Christ’s sake! It was Richard. He seized the prince by force, imprisoned and executed boy’s legal guardian and uncle Rivers. Then he imprisoned the boy himself in the Tower. Postponed his coronation (why exactly? Well, he never wanted to crown him to begin with). Then he attacks his late brother’s council by publicly executing (Hastings) and imprisoning people who are against him. Surrounds Westminster Abbey with his troops, affectively making the dowager queen and her children his prisoners. And bullies her into surrendering the younger prince to him (again why? Richard has already got the heir in his clutches). The moment he gets the second boy, team Richard immediately push the parliament (what could they do? people were scared shitless for their lives after what he did to the King’s Council) to proclaim the children to be bastards. By the way, how convenient it is to Richard that the rumors became public right at that time. Amazing coincidence. Then he just crowns himself. And after that Richard has done you still think that he had his best intentions regarding the boys? He stole their crown, imprisoned the princes themselves, killed their uncle, holds their mother and sisters de-facto prisoners, attacked the King’s Council by killing or imprisoning several of the senior nobles. Richard was never safe as long as the boys were alive. He has seen himself how it had backfired in the past (when his brother spared Henry VI). People were completely aware that he just schemed his way to the crown. No paper would have protected him. There were at the very least 2 attempts of breaking the princes free from the Tower. One happened when the boys were still alive (it predates the alleged date they were seen for the last time). The boys had to go… And they did vanish. While the both were in Richard’s possession. Then he ordered the naval blockade of Brittany to force them to surrender Henry Tudor to him (to kill him too I would assume). People were terrified of Richard. Even his henchman Buckingham turned on him. After Richard killed him too, the Lancastrian supporters hid Buckingham’s son from him. Little Stafford was only was about 8-10 years old but he had some Lancastrian blood via maternal lines and had a potential claim to the crown (basically same as Henry and arguably a stronger one than Henry actually). So they were hiding him by moving him from household to household and disguising the boy as a servant or a squire or something like that. This just shows you how scared people were of Richard. People were completely sure that he will behead his 8-year old cousin. And that rumor that Richard poisoned his wife to marry his niece. Well this one is most likely not true. It was a later Tudor propaganda (to make Elizabeth like a princess in the tower and Henry a knight in shining armour who saved her from her crooked uncle). But It worked cos’ it was believable to people by end of Richard’s reign. It just fit in so much with Richard’s own actions. The Tudors kept Warwick, Poles, Stafford kid and even Perkin Warbeck alive (at least until way later on). Margaret was also the godmother to the younger prince. And she was a deeply religious person. She obviously loved her own son more. But still. She was a real believer. Tudors had the same motive as Richard I would agree on that. But all signs point to Richard. What looks like dog and barks like a dog is a dog. It was Richard.

@zenitrulit2 Sorry,but no. If you go back to primary sources, documents written at the time, you'll find that your scenario is totally inaccurate. Contemporary historians were putting the record straight as soon as the Tudors were gone. Besides, genealogically speaking, Henry Tudor had NO claim to the throne, as he was descended from illegitimate offspring on BOTH sides of his family. Ergo, HE was the usurper, not Richard.

let the man cook

You're not a doctor.

Hannah's royal history is a new channel I found recently and I really enjoy it. Great narration and accuracy. Just a suggestion. You might really enjoy it

@@stephanieribar5724 many many inaccuracies. Sorry I can’t enjoy that but thanks for your message

@@Chipoo88 I'm sorry. I thought Hannah's royal history was pretty accurate and interesting. Wish I could have been more help to you.

@@stephanieribar5724 no need to apologize 😊

@@Chipoo88 I just started getting into England's history about a year ago and love to listen to narration when I go to sleep. I do hear a lot of discrepancies on different channels and it bums me out. I'm from the encyclopedia days ha ha. Now people can say anything and put it online. Have a great day!

Omg thank you! Unbelievable how so called historian's and documentaries can warp reality.

Rude.

Gah! Lambert Simnal was supposed to have impersonated Edward V, not Edward VI. 17:46

What? What is this rubbish laced spiel I'm watching?? So much of this 'history' is wrong! The Tudors are VERY well researched, How could the makers of this programme just decide to make their own version of 'history' as they went along, and actually be allowed to broadcast this nonsense?

Are you a history professor?

@@grtlyblesdno he was impersonating the Earl of Warwick, the son of the Duke of Clarence, not the Prince of Wales, who was the son of Edward IV

You don’t have a wife do you!