@dambram the French crown. Henry V only invaded because he was put up to it by the church, (who wanted to stop him taking their vast wealth). And the "war" DID NOT last 100 years! Some say more, some say less. Scholars are divided on when it ended, 15th century? some say 14th century. It depends on your point of view.
Now go away and let the grown-ups have their discussion.
@Apophisguard I think there's some understandable confusion between when Henry V ruled and two different war series. Depending on who you consult, the 100 years war ran from about 1337 to 1453, which overlapped Henry V's reign that ended in 1422. Henry V's only son was born in 1420 and inherited the title when Henry V died. The war that often gets confused with the 100 years war, is often called the Wars of the Roses, aka Cousin's War--1455 to 1485 (Battle of Bosworth) or 1487 (Battle of Stoke)
@dambram Go away and have a look at your history. The Hundred years war started because of Edward III's claim to the French throne. It wasn't a single war, but a collection of different conflicts, again all due to the kings of England and their legitimate claim on
In my opinion the middle ages were interesting and cool from the Dark ages til about the 12 or 1300s, also in my opinion the greatest king ever to live in the middle ages was King Henry V, he was just pure genius and would have won the Hundred Years War had he lived long enough.
I did a lot of research on this subject and I've come to the conclusion that the princes weren't murdered and may well have survived him. As for the crown, Edward's children were declared bastards by parliament and bastards couldn't inherit the crown. Richard was the next person who could inherit the crown and through Titulus Regius, parliament declared him king.
The idea does seems strange. A man who had spent his life being loyal to his brother to suddenly become a murderer doesnt add up. And if Richard did indeed murder them what would he have to gain from it? Nothing because he already knew he had a hard job of convincing the nobles that he was worthy and right to take the crown for himself to do that and be found out would have been a disaster for him.
I agree. I also think that if Richard had had the boys killed, he had more to gain by putting the bodies on display and making their demise public. That was standard operating procedure of the day.
You have just hit on the point i have been making for years. People keep saying to me he had them killed to keep rebellions being done in the princes names so what was the point of Richard doing it in secret and not making there deaths known. By October when Buckinghams rebellion was taking place people then had begun to talk but no one knew for certain what was going on. If Richard did have them killed when they are claiming he would have been far better to pin the blame onto Buckingham.
Also the whole confession by James Tyrell, from my point of view, was made up. Henry had spent years trying to turn the people against Richard so had Tyrell really confessed he would have brought him to trial or atleast made the confession more public. The princes were only mentioned in passing once Henry was King and the other people who were mentioned that were involed in the so called murder were either dead when the story came out or abroard and given money to stay away from England.
I actually think the princes survived Richard and that Richard of York made it to adulthood. There's a good chance that he was the man Henry VII executed with Edward, Earl of Warwick. However, Henry had reversed Titulus Regius--thus removing the impediment to the crown, which meant that if the man was not an imposter and was really Richard of York, then he'd have stronger claim to the throne than did Henry. Henry forced the man to claim he was Perkin Warbec to avoid committing regicide.
A lot of people did think that Perkin Warbeck was the true Richard of York. Another problem which people dont often see with Edward V was that he was too "Woodville" he had been brought up by them so he was going to be no friend to Richard III. I think Richard saw that to, he had made an enemy of them by speaking up for Clarence. And if Liz Woodville did suspect Richard of killing her sons why did she allow her daughters to enter Richards court and why did she not publicly speak out against him?
I think the whole affair with Perkin Warbeck further supports the theory that the confession story was made up and that James Tyrell was innocent. Perkin was finally killed in 1499 and the confession came about in 1501 with Tyrell. I think Henry didnt want anymore focus brought onto the boys he didnt want to know what had happned because I think it shows through his reign that he knew his claim to the throne was a weak one. So he made the story up to put an end to speculation.
Another point that is rarely brough up was that Richard had control over a third nephew (another Edward), the son of George, Duke of Clarence, who would have been next in line if Clarence had not been attainted and executed for treason against Edward IV. After Richard's own son Edward died, he removed the impediment against Clarence's son and name him heir to the throne. Henry Tudor executed that Edward in 1507 (?) along with a man who claimed to be Richard of York, the younger prince.
I think he realised what a lot of other people had been fearing that Edward of Warwick would be a puppet king by all accounts he was suffering from some for of learning dis so Richard chose his other nephew. Henry did his best to off any member of the house of York that would pose a threat to his crown.
Interesting that Richard gets the bad rap where there is no supporting records of what happened to the princes--I believe he got them out of harms way and that they survived him--but Henry VII suffered no ill repute for having executed Clarence's son, Edward and Perkin Warbec who many at the time believed was Richard of York. I think he may well have been,. If not, he was probably Edward's son, but not Elizabeth Woodville's son.
Exactly and no one mentions the nerve of Henry naming the date of his reing to the day before Bosworth so he could execute all those who had been fighting for their righful King. Richard had, since the age of 17, Been a loyal servant to the house of York and stood by his brother through exile and fought by his side against the Earl of Warwick who Richard had lived with at Middleham. Because, I believe, Richard had a stong sence of what was right. I think thats why he took the crown.
The only thing that goes against Richard is the Hastings execution. The connection that no one seems to see is that Morton who was a loyal lancastrian had been spending lots of time with Hastings. Morton was arrested and placed in the custody of Buckingham who went to the Lacastrian side in oct. This is the part I dont understand. Buckingham was second only to the King he had power, lands and wealth under Richard. What more could he gain under Tudor? Or was it he fancied himself as a kingmaker?
I just read 'Richard III and the Murder in the Tower' by Peter Hancock where Hancock posits that on the morning of the council meeting of June 13, 1483, Richard learned of his brother's consummated precontract with Eleanor Butler and that Hastings knew about it. Hancock postulates that Richard learned about it from Catesby, not Stillington and that he saw Hastings, a man whom he thought was his friend and ally, betraying him. Once he got confirmation from Stillington,
Richard flew into a rage and had Hastings executed without the benefit of due process. Whether you agree with Hancock or not, I like that he doesn't cherry pick his facts and what has been written about the event.
BTW, I don't think this is the only execution with which Richard should be held accountable. I'm not so sure he was right in executing Edward's chancellor (Vaughan) or to a lesser degree, Rivers, Grey, and Haute.
The main problem we have is that little documentation exists today. The crowland chronicler, who even a gave detailed account of the events at Stony stratford even though he wasnt there, only metions the inncident in passing. We do know that on June 10th Richard sent word to York claming that his life was in danger. The extra reinforcments wernt quick to arrive suggesting that the plot had been taken care of.
The other odd thing is if Richard truly had Hastings un justly killed in a manner that both shocked and apalled the people surrounding this matter then why, 3 days after the event, did Elizabeth Woodville allow her other son to be given over to Richard? She could have stood her ground and forced Richard's hand. If Hastings hadnt done anything but refuse to allow Richard to claim the throne for himself then that surly would have set alarm bells ringing in Liz Woodvilles mind about Richards plans.
You are right Edward of Warwicks sister did live through most of Henry VIII's reign but was sadly executed in 1541. And that really was the end for the Yorkist line. I also think what you said about Perkin being the son of Edward but not Liz Woodville quite possible.
Also, Henry's son, Henry VIII executed Margaret Pole, the duchess of Salisbury and sister of Edward, Earl of Warwick. It seems that the victors really do get to rewrite history.
I take it that you consider shakespeare to be a historical commentator and not a tudor propagandist then! The ideas of the princes being murdered were first alledged by a faction at war with Richards family, so why would they care for the princess or ride to their rescue.
Put it this way- if the princse were still alive after the battle of bosworth they would have been murdered soon after! The idea that any king has to be removeed because of murder means that no king would have ever reigned. They all have blood on their hands!
its funny that everyone thinks Richrd should have not inherited the crown due to 'murder'. How many people did the Yorkists kill to put his brother on the throne!
I personally would love to go back in time to Richard's England and warn him the Stanley's would betray him at Bosworth, then he would possibly have won the battle and those overblown, pompous wrecks the Tudors would never have fouled the throne. Thumbs up or down, I don't give a shit. Richard III forever!
I don't think that would have helped, ijustlovetea. Presumably his generals advised him to leave the battle in order to fight another day. And based on what I've read, Richard suspected the Stanleys would probably betray him. He held Thomas Stanley''s son, Lord Strange hostage and sent a message to Thomas Stanley that he'd execute Strange if Thomas didn't commit his troops to Richard's side. Stanley replied that he had other sons and didn't commit his troops to Richard.
Oh, so not only was her a traitor, but a lousy dad. Nice.
Thank you for the imput, though. I love to talk to Richard III fans. i myself went to a London meeting of his society and they are a fascinating group of people.
Or go back to Shakespeares time and stop him r-writing history in general. Or stay in your own time and tell all that will listen that Shakespeare is a medicore propagandist whose greatest talent was toadying up to the power of his day!
Shakesphere was a literary genius, but yes, I agree, he defiantly kissed some Tudor ass with that play. Can't really blame him though. Elizabeth I was on the throne, so if he had tried to de fame her grandfather, Henry VII (boo) then there might have been some grave remifications.
Shakespeare takes the same liberties with history and historical characters that hollywood does. It doesnt just happen in this play but many others..Macbeth springs immediately to mind.
I suppose the fault does have to be placed on either but on those that take their history from theatrical witers. I would love to see Richard the thirds story told on the big screen without the Lancastrian bias. In my view he was the last monarch to care enough for his right to the thrown to gamble all in the thick of the action. Godwineson was another! Both maligned by historical untruths!
I think its also safe to say that Shakespeare got a lot of his information from Thomas More. Thomas More himself was only a small child when Richard died at Bosworth so he got all his information from Morton.
Morton was a piece of crap traitor to Richard. He played a pivotal role in helping Margaret Beaufort and the Stanleys. Thomas More was misinformed. I've always been very conflicted when it came to him because I'm in defense if Richard, but More was such a humanist and a great mind that I feel he should have seen through all the nonsense. When it comes to people to blame in terms of Rich's rapsheet-Morton. Hope he's in hell.
I feel bishop Morton was to blame for Buckinghams rebellion. Another vital point to the story was Robert Morton, John Mortons Nephew, became master of the rolls under Tudor so it would explain the lack of documents in this part of history. Its possible that eveidence proving Hastings betrayal was destroyed in order to make it look like a needless execution on Richards part. But I maintain if it was murder why, only 3 days later, did liz woodville give Richard of York over to Richard III?
@ijustlovetea You know what's creepy? The note that was anonymously written to John Howard right before the battle..warning him that King Richard would be betrayed!! (and it rhymed too!!) Talk about foreboding!! cheers.
i think the war is bad and worst thing at all. and to the war of roses:it doesn´t matter wheter Henry Tudor or Richard of Gloucester became a king of England-significant ist only one fact- too many innocent people had to die and this folly war lasted for too long...
I agree. I feel sorry for all those people who died for petty, stupid things. Power, land, religion (please) and all those overblown things we cling to so aimlessly.
Human lives are human lives and nothing justifies taking them. There are alot of people past and present I dislike, but I would never end their lives...
I love how people talk about uniting house of York and Lancaster into the "Tudor rose" likes it's some wonderful Disney ending. They were the mst effed up recklessly ambitious mess of ego maniacs ever to befoul the throne!
henry the seventh had an illegitmate father! and the beauforts were only legitimised (late in the day) to please john of gaunt and provided they never laid claim to the throne!!
still withouth henry tudor there would have been no elizabeth so at least the robbing g-t did something right!
hope henry "TY DWR" rots in hell! and the Percys and Stanleys too!!!!!!! "house of water" sums it up! only way Henry put any balls in the Tudors was by marrying Elizabeth!
w'in galli siarad Cymraeg ac w'in byw yngh Gymru! apologies for grammer have'nt been to Welsh classes for 8 years - all the kids are fluent and I TOTALLY love Wales just feel so much for King Richard!
I agree with you, tiredoldbag. *But* Richard knew the Stanley's were suspect--Lord Thomas was married to Henry's mother, Margaret Beaufort and he held Thomas' son, Lord Strange hostage because he caught him spying for Henry. There were a lot of strange politics going on that I only partially comprehend.
yeah it was odd he trusted the stanleys so much - do you think he had a deatwish after the death of his wife (anne neville) and their son??? - not to mention the death of his beloved brother -in such a short space of time?
I like the way a friend put it after I drew the parallel to death by cop that some of our disenfranchised youth attempt--she thought he left it to God. Since all evidence suggests he loved his wife and son, I can't begin to imagine what his state of mind was at the time--even though contemporary reports suggest he was eager to meet Henry on the battlefield. Indeed, he rushed into the battle when his trusted generals advised he wait. That doesn't mean they were right and he was wrong.
Not much of a turn out for the battle, there was more than that fighting 2200 in total.
steve4123456789 1 year ago
@dambram the French crown. Henry V only invaded because he was put up to it by the church, (who wanted to stop him taking their vast wealth). And the "war" DID NOT last 100 years! Some say more, some say less. Scholars are divided on when it ended, 15th century? some say 14th century. It depends on your point of view.
Now go away and let the grown-ups have their discussion.
Apophisguard 1 year ago
@Apophisguard I think there's some understandable confusion between when Henry V ruled and two different war series. Depending on who you consult, the 100 years war ran from about 1337 to 1453, which overlapped Henry V's reign that ended in 1422. Henry V's only son was born in 1420 and inherited the title when Henry V died. The war that often gets confused with the 100 years war, is often called the Wars of the Roses, aka Cousin's War--1455 to 1485 (Battle of Bosworth) or 1487 (Battle of Stoke)
uno4vids 1 year ago
@dambram Go away and have a look at your history. The Hundred years war started because of Edward III's claim to the French throne. It wasn't a single war, but a collection of different conflicts, again all due to the kings of England and their legitimate claim on
Apophisguard 1 year ago
@dambram are you barking queer?
Apophisguard 1 year ago
@dambram No, stating a fact!
Apophisguard 1 year ago
great song, whos it by
metaltom2233 2 years ago
In my opinion the middle ages were interesting and cool from the Dark ages til about the 12 or 1300s, also in my opinion the greatest king ever to live in the middle ages was King Henry V, he was just pure genius and would have won the Hundred Years War had he lived long enough.
WolfOfBloodAndBone 2 years ago
The Hundred Years War was well before Henry V, it was during the reign of Edward III I believe and didn't last 100 years.
Apophisguard 2 years ago
@Apophisguard I think it lasted about 119 years.
annie10103 9 months ago
i think richard got wot he deserved after all he did steel the crown and murdered two princes for it after being made protecter of them!!
solomonstemplers 2 years ago
I did a lot of research on this subject and I've come to the conclusion that the princes weren't murdered and may well have survived him. As for the crown, Edward's children were declared bastards by parliament and bastards couldn't inherit the crown. Richard was the next person who could inherit the crown and through Titulus Regius, parliament declared him king.
uno4vids 2 years ago
The idea does seems strange. A man who had spent his life being loyal to his brother to suddenly become a murderer doesnt add up. And if Richard did indeed murder them what would he have to gain from it? Nothing because he already knew he had a hard job of convincing the nobles that he was worthy and right to take the crown for himself to do that and be found out would have been a disaster for him.
HayleyLFC85 2 years ago
I agree. I also think that if Richard had had the boys killed, he had more to gain by putting the bodies on display and making their demise public. That was standard operating procedure of the day.
uno4vids 2 years ago
You have just hit on the point i have been making for years. People keep saying to me he had them killed to keep rebellions being done in the princes names so what was the point of Richard doing it in secret and not making there deaths known. By October when Buckinghams rebellion was taking place people then had begun to talk but no one knew for certain what was going on. If Richard did have them killed when they are claiming he would have been far better to pin the blame onto Buckingham.
HayleyLFC85 2 years ago
Also the whole confession by James Tyrell, from my point of view, was made up. Henry had spent years trying to turn the people against Richard so had Tyrell really confessed he would have brought him to trial or atleast made the confession more public. The princes were only mentioned in passing once Henry was King and the other people who were mentioned that were involed in the so called murder were either dead when the story came out or abroard and given money to stay away from England.
HayleyLFC85 2 years ago
I actually think the princes survived Richard and that Richard of York made it to adulthood. There's a good chance that he was the man Henry VII executed with Edward, Earl of Warwick. However, Henry had reversed Titulus Regius--thus removing the impediment to the crown, which meant that if the man was not an imposter and was really Richard of York, then he'd have stronger claim to the throne than did Henry. Henry forced the man to claim he was Perkin Warbec to avoid committing regicide.
uno4vids 2 years ago
A lot of people did think that Perkin Warbeck was the true Richard of York. Another problem which people dont often see with Edward V was that he was too "Woodville" he had been brought up by them so he was going to be no friend to Richard III. I think Richard saw that to, he had made an enemy of them by speaking up for Clarence. And if Liz Woodville did suspect Richard of killing her sons why did she allow her daughters to enter Richards court and why did she not publicly speak out against him?
HayleyLFC85 2 years ago
I think the whole affair with Perkin Warbeck further supports the theory that the confession story was made up and that James Tyrell was innocent. Perkin was finally killed in 1499 and the confession came about in 1501 with Tyrell. I think Henry didnt want anymore focus brought onto the boys he didnt want to know what had happned because I think it shows through his reign that he knew his claim to the throne was a weak one. So he made the story up to put an end to speculation.
HayleyLFC85 2 years ago
Another point that is rarely brough up was that Richard had control over a third nephew (another Edward), the son of George, Duke of Clarence, who would have been next in line if Clarence had not been attainted and executed for treason against Edward IV. After Richard's own son Edward died, he removed the impediment against Clarence's son and name him heir to the throne. Henry Tudor executed that Edward in 1507 (?) along with a man who claimed to be Richard of York, the younger prince.
uno4vids 2 years ago
I think he realised what a lot of other people had been fearing that Edward of Warwick would be a puppet king by all accounts he was suffering from some for of learning dis so Richard chose his other nephew. Henry did his best to off any member of the house of York that would pose a threat to his crown.
HayleyLFC85 2 years ago
Interesting that Richard gets the bad rap where there is no supporting records of what happened to the princes--I believe he got them out of harms way and that they survived him--but Henry VII suffered no ill repute for having executed Clarence's son, Edward and Perkin Warbec who many at the time believed was Richard of York. I think he may well have been,. If not, he was probably Edward's son, but not Elizabeth Woodville's son.
Read my next reply for more.
uno4vids 2 years ago
Exactly and no one mentions the nerve of Henry naming the date of his reing to the day before Bosworth so he could execute all those who had been fighting for their righful King. Richard had, since the age of 17, Been a loyal servant to the house of York and stood by his brother through exile and fought by his side against the Earl of Warwick who Richard had lived with at Middleham. Because, I believe, Richard had a stong sence of what was right. I think thats why he took the crown.
HayleyLFC85 2 years ago
The only thing that goes against Richard is the Hastings execution. The connection that no one seems to see is that Morton who was a loyal lancastrian had been spending lots of time with Hastings. Morton was arrested and placed in the custody of Buckingham who went to the Lacastrian side in oct. This is the part I dont understand. Buckingham was second only to the King he had power, lands and wealth under Richard. What more could he gain under Tudor? Or was it he fancied himself as a kingmaker?
HayleyLFC85 2 years ago
I just read 'Richard III and the Murder in the Tower' by Peter Hancock where Hancock posits that on the morning of the council meeting of June 13, 1483, Richard learned of his brother's consummated precontract with Eleanor Butler and that Hastings knew about it. Hancock postulates that Richard learned about it from Catesby, not Stillington and that he saw Hastings, a man whom he thought was his friend and ally, betraying him. Once he got confirmation from Stillington,
continued....
uno4vids 2 years ago
Richard flew into a rage and had Hastings executed without the benefit of due process. Whether you agree with Hancock or not, I like that he doesn't cherry pick his facts and what has been written about the event.
BTW, I don't think this is the only execution with which Richard should be held accountable. I'm not so sure he was right in executing Edward's chancellor (Vaughan) or to a lesser degree, Rivers, Grey, and Haute.
uno4vids 2 years ago
The main problem we have is that little documentation exists today. The crowland chronicler, who even a gave detailed account of the events at Stony stratford even though he wasnt there, only metions the inncident in passing. We do know that on June 10th Richard sent word to York claming that his life was in danger. The extra reinforcments wernt quick to arrive suggesting that the plot had been taken care of.
more follows.....
HayleyLFC85 2 years ago
The other odd thing is if Richard truly had Hastings un justly killed in a manner that both shocked and apalled the people surrounding this matter then why, 3 days after the event, did Elizabeth Woodville allow her other son to be given over to Richard? She could have stood her ground and forced Richard's hand. If Hastings hadnt done anything but refuse to allow Richard to claim the throne for himself then that surly would have set alarm bells ringing in Liz Woodvilles mind about Richards plans.
HayleyLFC85 2 years ago
You are right Edward of Warwicks sister did live through most of Henry VIII's reign but was sadly executed in 1541. And that really was the end for the Yorkist line. I also think what you said about Perkin being the son of Edward but not Liz Woodville quite possible.
HayleyLFC85 2 years ago
Also, Henry's son, Henry VIII executed Margaret Pole, the duchess of Salisbury and sister of Edward, Earl of Warwick. It seems that the victors really do get to rewrite history.
uno4vids 2 years ago
HELL EYAH DUDE
JumpstyleFanatic 2 years ago
I take it that you consider shakespeare to be a historical commentator and not a tudor propagandist then! The ideas of the princes being murdered were first alledged by a faction at war with Richards family, so why would they care for the princess or ride to their rescue.
sugarraygras 2 years ago
Put it this way- if the princse were still alive after the battle of bosworth they would have been murdered soon after! The idea that any king has to be removeed because of murder means that no king would have ever reigned. They all have blood on their hands!
sugarraygras 2 years ago
its funny that everyone thinks Richrd should have not inherited the crown due to 'murder'. How many people did the Yorkists kill to put his brother on the throne!
sugarraygras 2 years ago
I personally would love to go back in time to Richard's England and warn him the Stanley's would betray him at Bosworth, then he would possibly have won the battle and those overblown, pompous wrecks the Tudors would never have fouled the throne. Thumbs up or down, I don't give a shit. Richard III forever!
ijustlovetea 2 years ago
I don't think that would have helped, ijustlovetea. Presumably his generals advised him to leave the battle in order to fight another day. And based on what I've read, Richard suspected the Stanleys would probably betray him. He held Thomas Stanley''s son, Lord Strange hostage and sent a message to Thomas Stanley that he'd execute Strange if Thomas didn't commit his troops to Richard's side. Stanley replied that he had other sons and didn't commit his troops to Richard.
uno4vids 2 years ago
Oh, so not only was her a traitor, but a lousy dad. Nice.
Thank you for the imput, though. I love to talk to Richard III fans. i myself went to a London meeting of his society and they are a fascinating group of people.
ijustlovetea 2 years ago
Or go back to Shakespeares time and stop him r-writing history in general. Or stay in your own time and tell all that will listen that Shakespeare is a medicore propagandist whose greatest talent was toadying up to the power of his day!
sugarraygras 2 years ago 2
Shakesphere was a literary genius, but yes, I agree, he defiantly kissed some Tudor ass with that play. Can't really blame him though. Elizabeth I was on the throne, so if he had tried to de fame her grandfather, Henry VII (boo) then there might have been some grave remifications.
foofwolf22 2 years ago
Shakespeare takes the same liberties with history and historical characters that hollywood does. It doesnt just happen in this play but many others..Macbeth springs immediately to mind.
sugarraygras 2 years ago
I suppose the fault does have to be placed on either but on those that take their history from theatrical witers. I would love to see Richard the thirds story told on the big screen without the Lancastrian bias. In my view he was the last monarch to care enough for his right to the thrown to gamble all in the thick of the action. Godwineson was another! Both maligned by historical untruths!
sugarraygras 2 years ago
My comments read back as though chaucer wrote them let alone Shakespeare, forgive me the errors!
sugarraygras 2 years ago
I think its also safe to say that Shakespeare got a lot of his information from Thomas More. Thomas More himself was only a small child when Richard died at Bosworth so he got all his information from Morton.
HayleyLFC85 2 years ago
Morton was a piece of crap traitor to Richard. He played a pivotal role in helping Margaret Beaufort and the Stanleys. Thomas More was misinformed. I've always been very conflicted when it came to him because I'm in defense if Richard, but More was such a humanist and a great mind that I feel he should have seen through all the nonsense. When it comes to people to blame in terms of Rich's rapsheet-Morton. Hope he's in hell.
foofwolf22 2 years ago
I feel bishop Morton was to blame for Buckinghams rebellion. Another vital point to the story was Robert Morton, John Mortons Nephew, became master of the rolls under Tudor so it would explain the lack of documents in this part of history. Its possible that eveidence proving Hastings betrayal was destroyed in order to make it look like a needless execution on Richards part. But I maintain if it was murder why, only 3 days later, did liz woodville give Richard of York over to Richard III?
HayleyLFC85 2 years ago
You wanna know something funny? I JUST watched the Olivier version of the play just now.
foofwolf22 2 years ago
Oh, but Churchmen are so honest!
lol
foofwolf22 2 years ago
@ijustlovetea You know what's creepy? The note that was anonymously written to John Howard right before the battle..warning him that King Richard would be betrayed!! (and it rhymed too!!) Talk about foreboding!! cheers.
Nicollie1062 4 months ago
i think the war is bad and worst thing at all. and to the war of roses:it doesn´t matter wheter Henry Tudor or Richard of Gloucester became a king of England-significant ist only one fact- too many innocent people had to die and this folly war lasted for too long...
Lusy81 2 years ago
I agree. I feel sorry for all those people who died for petty, stupid things. Power, land, religion (please) and all those overblown things we cling to so aimlessly.
Human lives are human lives and nothing justifies taking them. There are alot of people past and present I dislike, but I would never end their lives...
ijustlovetea 2 years ago
Even though I think you down thumbed me (HUMPH!) I agree. A rightious war is about as real as Santa Claus.
ijustlovetea 2 years ago
Christ, they're still using the main flags I made for them thirteen years ago!
Wingdoss 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Glad to see that usurping murdering bastard Richard III cut down like the DOG he was at Bosworth. KING EDWARD V YOU ARE AVENGED!!!!!!
uriahclark 3 years ago
Clearly ignorance isen't bliss.
You'd know that, woulden't you?
ijustlovetea 3 years ago
Comment removed
ijustlovetea 2 years ago
I wanna be in a medieval reenactment wen Im older Im joinin one it looks so awsome
KnightOfTheWolves 3 years ago
I love how people talk about uniting house of York and Lancaster into the "Tudor rose" likes it's some wonderful Disney ending. They were the mst effed up recklessly ambitious mess of ego maniacs ever to befoul the throne!
zenguy22 3 years ago
loyalte unto me...love live the white rose
nuttal 3 years ago
but KING RICHARD R.I.P !!!!!!!!!!!! Never to be forgotten!
tiredoldbag 3 years ago
still think Elizabeth Ty Dwr was the ultimate Monarch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Diolch!
tiredoldbag 3 years ago
R.I.P. KING Richard Plantagenet! foresworn, betrayed, and murdered by those he trusted;
supported by a brave few - never to be forgotten! 22/08/08.........
tiredoldbag 3 years ago
Hey guys--how about a little perspective? These events took place over 500 years ago and they're all worm food now.
uno4vids 3 years ago
henry the seventh had an illegitmate father! and the beauforts were only legitimised (late in the day) to please john of gaunt and provided they never laid claim to the throne!!
still withouth henry tudor there would have been no elizabeth so at least the robbing g-t did something right!
tiredoldbag 3 years ago
The Ty dwr Line of Kings/Queens were not robbers , their line stretched back to pre British Roman thrones not just to French Norman Bastards.
p.s i'm a republican any hows !! but a Welsh one lol!!
felixzs 3 years ago
hope henry "TY DWR" rots in hell! and the Percys and Stanleys too!!!!!!! "house of water" sums it up! only way Henry put any balls in the Tudors was by marrying Elizabeth!
tiredoldbag 3 years ago
very good !! yup thats the literal English translation !!
but that's Ty Dwr ...
felixzs 3 years ago
w'in galli siarad Cymraeg ac w'in byw yngh Gymru! apologies for grammer have'nt been to Welsh classes for 8 years - all the kids are fluent and I TOTALLY love Wales just feel so much for King Richard!
tiredoldbag 3 years ago
Cymru am byth!! hope that's right!
tiredoldbag 3 years ago
pretty weird as there all stills photos.
video would be nice, as its the coolest...long live the Welsh Tudors...
felixzs 4 years ago
the robbers!!!!!!!! only won because KING richard was betrayed by the stanleys and northumberland!!!!!!
tiredoldbag 3 years ago
I agree with you, tiredoldbag. *But* Richard knew the Stanley's were suspect--Lord Thomas was married to Henry's mother, Margaret Beaufort and he held Thomas' son, Lord Strange hostage because he caught him spying for Henry. There were a lot of strange politics going on that I only partially comprehend.
uno4vids 3 years ago
yeah it was odd he trusted the stanleys so much - do you think he had a deatwish after the death of his wife (anne neville) and their son??? - not to mention the death of his beloved brother -in such a short space of time?
tiredoldbag 3 years ago
I like the way a friend put it after I drew the parallel to death by cop that some of our disenfranchised youth attempt--she thought he left it to God. Since all evidence suggests he loved his wife and son, I can't begin to imagine what his state of mind was at the time--even though contemporary reports suggest he was eager to meet Henry on the battlefield. Indeed, he rushed into the battle when his trusted generals advised he wait. That doesn't mean they were right and he was wrong.
uno4vids 3 years ago
does anyone have actual video footage of the battle not just a power point with stills?
FinalFreek 4 years ago
I think you'll find videos of this reenactment by searching for Battle of Bosworth.
BTW, I used Movie Maker which allowed me to animate the slides and add music instead of Powerpoint.
uno4vids 4 years ago
oh cheers for correcting me and i did type in battle of boswarth and this is one of many that came up.
FinalFreek 4 years ago
but do you now where i can find an actual video of the day becuase i would like that very much and ifto what i should type in?
FinalFreek 4 years ago
A film crew taped it when I was at the reenactment in 2006. The actual reenactment took about an hour, IIRC.
Try Googling Bosworth Visitor Centre to see if they've made this video available.
uno4vids 4 years ago
should have used iPhoto, iMovie... or even keynote in iWork!!
last thing you want is "moneysoft" solutions for anything ....
felixzs 3 years ago
Great music
MrsGardiner 4 years ago
I hope no one has ever lost an eye or appendage at such an event. If not, then I applaud all of you for your self-control and long hours of practice.
hollywoodwerewolf 4 years ago
Hey, I'm ON this video! How weirds that?
Kalador83 4 years ago