Nonsense. Spivey uses Skakespearean propagandato describe that meeting. No one knows what problem Hastings offered but Richard would not have summarily killed him without reason. Besides, for a long time it had been recognized that a meer child could not hold a shaky throne. An adult male who could fight was needed.
Even before the King died, the Queen's family, the Woodvilles, loathed and feared Richard, and had raised "the Princes" to also fear & despise their Uncle. Before Edward was buried, the Woodvilles stole ALL of the Royal Treasury. They were out to destroy Richard, and grab his lands & wealth and power. I don't think he was the innocent victim his apologizers claim he was, but he had little choice in his actions, if he wanted to live.
The scandal and intrigue of those days is just fascinating. Surely he was guilty of at least knowing about the murder/who committed the murder if he didn't know the murder himself. All that wealth and power? Come on!
this really is trememdously awful, every known fact that might tarnish the angle of this programme has been edited out, its more suited to a scandal mag than a fellow of Cambridge!
its blind propaganda like this that makes Richard's name so enduring and motivates those who can think rationally about the whole sorry mess to really lok into this and fight to put it all right again. yes, hes been dead for 500 years, but god knows id rest easier if i thought someone might fight my corner for truth.
@gnomely1 I agree. Richard had every right to be king. Edward V deserved to be killed. He was too young to be king. England had already experienced great misfortune coronating kings who were children. As Protector Richard was doing what was best for England by killing young Edward.
@whpriol1 It's not even proven if he did kill Edward. Honestly, I don't think he had much to gain from the death of the boy king. He had him declared as a bastard, why risk his reputation by killing him? But also I can understand why he might have killed him if he actually did do it, he probably didn't want rebellions being raised in Edward's name.
@whpriol1 STOP! STOP! We don't know if Edward WAS killed! Let alone Richard killing him...he had them declared bastards as indeed they were as Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville were not legally married. This video should be banned as it's all based on the Shakespeare version (who lived in Tudor times) and not fact.
Nonsense. Spivey uses Skakespearean propagandato describe that meeting. No one knows what problem Hastings offered but Richard would not have summarily killed him without reason. Besides, for a long time it had been recognized that a meer child could not hold a shaky throne. An adult male who could fight was needed.
cleander180 3 months ago
why can't I download this one unlike parts 1 and 3?. No download menu appears in the top right corner.
porcelainish 3 months ago
Even before the King died, the Queen's family, the Woodvilles, loathed and feared Richard, and had raised "the Princes" to also fear & despise their Uncle. Before Edward was buried, the Woodvilles stole ALL of the Royal Treasury. They were out to destroy Richard, and grab his lands & wealth and power. I don't think he was the innocent victim his apologizers claim he was, but he had little choice in his actions, if he wanted to live.
kwillow12 6 months ago
The scandal and intrigue of those days is just fascinating. Surely he was guilty of at least knowing about the murder/who committed the murder if he didn't know the murder himself. All that wealth and power? Come on!
BDollScream 6 months ago
I can't believe people still buy into this hunchback murderer bullshit.
ccipollini1984 7 months ago
this really is trememdously awful, every known fact that might tarnish the angle of this programme has been edited out, its more suited to a scandal mag than a fellow of Cambridge!
its blind propaganda like this that makes Richard's name so enduring and motivates those who can think rationally about the whole sorry mess to really lok into this and fight to put it all right again. yes, hes been dead for 500 years, but god knows id rest easier if i thought someone might fight my corner for truth.
secretpigeon 7 months ago
LIES LIES LIES. Whoever wrote this biased nonsense should be shot.
cleander180 9 months ago
This series is very informative, but the script seems somewhat biased. I would like to see a series from the other point of view.
MrPilchardo 9 months ago
THIS IS ASTONISHINGLY THREADBARE AND INACCURATE.
gnomely1 1 year ago
@gnomely1 I agree. Richard had every right to be king. Edward V deserved to be killed. He was too young to be king. England had already experienced great misfortune coronating kings who were children. As Protector Richard was doing what was best for England by killing young Edward.
whpriol1 1 year ago
@whpriol1 It's not even proven if he did kill Edward. Honestly, I don't think he had much to gain from the death of the boy king. He had him declared as a bastard, why risk his reputation by killing him? But also I can understand why he might have killed him if he actually did do it, he probably didn't want rebellions being raised in Edward's name.
tiki8761 9 months ago
@whpriol1 STOP! STOP! We don't know if Edward WAS killed! Let alone Richard killing him...he had them declared bastards as indeed they were as Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville were not legally married. This video should be banned as it's all based on the Shakespeare version (who lived in Tudor times) and not fact.
Loyaultimilie 8 months ago
Good Video. But, I don't think it paints Richard in an unbiased light. After all,there are plenty of rumors and theories both ways....
BelloMente 1 year ago