Added: 1 year ago
From: animegirlUK
Views: 12,515
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (42)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Richard the Lionheart was not evil remember this is one mans opinion we were not there 600 years ago all we have is someone opinion on this personally i berlive nothing i here on television

  • I didn't know Richard the Lionheart was so evil

  • I take issue with some of the claims here: Richard of Gloucester was not primarily responsible for the death of Henry VI and there is doubt that Henry was actually murdered - \he suffered from recurring dementia and this may have led to his death by accident. Richard was not responsible for the death of Anne Neville, I think she died of smallpox. As for the Princes in the Tower - Henry Tudor had more to gain from their deaths than did Richard, so why would Richard do it?

  • /watch?v=R6JczvS1PL4 fuck you sheakspeare!!!!! he is not a bady

  • He was a naughty cutie.

  • And how would Shakespeare know he was a bottled toad?

    The William Shakespeare who grew up in a illiterate family, in a muddy little place miles from London. Did he really know anything about Richard of York ?

  • king richard was a cunt!!

  • @chykim1 alot of the information we know about Richard was mostly propaganda not much supports even one of the claims of Shakespeare Shakespeare wasn't even around Richard was, he was just sucking up to to queen Elizabeth after all she was a Tudor the family enemies of Richard.

    .

  • @philessexuk so did he not have his nephews murdered...because that was the main reason i felt the way i did about him...and if it didnt happen, id gladly stand corrected.

  • wait...is this program claiming he had Anne Neville poisoned? That's not true.

  • Watching these is really making me want to play Civilization...

  • don't cloud your mind with the scandalous rhetoric from that monarchist cock-sucking arsehole Shakespeare

  • @sockington1 You really need to understand the difference between fiction and history. To confuse the character of Richard III with the real man is to confuse categories.In R III Shakespeare was creating a stage character out of the makings of history, the fact that this play is still as entertaining as it was when it had more historical impact shows that the factual content is secondary to the imaginative construction. To keep a writer to the facts of history is to jail his imagination.

  • @kevinastraw ..and the difference between history and propaganda.The Shakespeare works presented the previous Royal family in pro-Tudor fashion,i.e. as monsters and degraded characters.Richard was a very loyal Lord of the North,and quite respected in this role by Edward IV and the realm,thus his headquarters as Duke of Gloucester.None of these martial actions were outre for the time.Henry was considered weakminded and unfit for rule.No one killed more political rivals than the Tudors,bar none.

  • Richard fell in the Battle of Bosworth Field, the last English king to die in battle (and the only king to die in battle on English soil since Harold II, at the Battle of Hastings in 1066).

  • In August 1485 there was another rebellion against Richard, headed by Henry Tudor, 2nd Earl of Richmond (later King Henry VII) and his uncle Jasper. Henry Tudor landed in Pembrokeshire, his birthplace, with a small contingent of French troops, and marched through Wales recruiting foot soldiers and skilled archers.

  • There were two major rebellions against Richard. The first, in October 1483, was led by staunch opponents of Edward IV and most notably by Richard's former ally, Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham. The revolt collapsed and Buckingham was executed at Salisbury near the Bull's Head Inn.

  • The following day Richard III officially began his reign. He was crowned on 6 July. The two young princes were not seen in public after August and there were subsequently a number of accusations that the boys had been murdered by Richard.

  • However, before the young king could be crowned, Edward IV's marriage to the boys' mother Elizabeth Woodville was publicly declared to be invalid, making their children illegitimate and ineligible for the throne. On 25 June an assembly of lords and commoners endorsed these claims.

  • When his brother Edward IV died in April 1483, Richard was named Lord Protector of the realm for Edward's son and successor, the 12-year-old King Edward V. As the new king travelled to London from Ludlow, Richard met him and escorted him to London where he was lodged in the Tower. Edward V's brother Richard later joined him there. Arrangements began to be made for Edward's coronation on 22 June.

  • Richard III (2 October 1452 - 22 August 1485) was King of England for two years, from 1483 until his death in 1485 during the Battle of Bosworth Field. He was the last king of the House of York and the last of the Plantagenet dynasty. His defeat at the Battle of Bosworth Field was the decisive battle of the Wars of the Roses and is sometimes regarded as the end of the Middle Ages in England. He is the subject of an eponymous play by William Shakespeare.

  • i don't think richard 3 was truly evil i think he took anne to protect her as one of the theory goes and i do alos believe he meant to protect his nephews in the tower although putting them in was a misquided choice

  • actually he didnt feel any guilt thats why he was doing that to let the world know he was evil. hehehe. wat a pussy.

  • were you there? kus i was lol.

  • HeDIDNT kill his brother - Edward did that. He didnt kill Henry VI nor his son. He loved his wife and his son's death may have given him the suicidal bravery to almost kill Henry Tudor himself against overwhealming odds.

  • This series saved my homework

  • Richard did kill them, after they went missing he didn't defend himself or make something up like they had died of illness, instead he kept quiet which means guilt.

  • @Weebetch Actually - there was no mention of them being murdered untill Henry Tudor was on the throne, then the whispering campaign started. They hadn't been seen but , don't forget the Tower was a Palace too and normal for Kings to be housed there prior to their Coronation. I think Richard spirited them off to Sheriff Hutton for their safety.

  • @Loyaultimilie ummm no, Richard wanted the throne. They would have been safe without the help of Richard. Their bones were found in the tower of London in the 1800s

  • @Weebetch We have no proof Richard wanted the throne - he was happy in Middleham as Lord of the North...they would not have been safe as Buckingham and Henry Tudor had their eyes on the throne and the bones have never been proved to be those of the Princes. The last test on them was in 1933 and the Queen refuses any more investigation for some reason. Even Edward lV was a bastard and should never have been King ..his father the Duke of York was away on campaign when he would have been conceived.

  • Thanks for posting.Youtube is normally full of rubbish but this series is excellent and informative.Cheers.

  • John, Richard II, and Richard III will always be my three favorite English monarchs.

  • God save king Richard!!!!! Greetings from Finland.

  • I'm 45 minutes in and I'm already disgusted at the bias

  • Pfft we all know Richard did kill the princes

  • @Medusa0999

    your ignorant and horribly misinformed.

    I don't know what your teachers have said but they did you no favors...

  • @ccipollini1984 It was sarcasm. This program was so overblown with their accussations and bias, it's laughable. Don't worry I'm a richardian

  • @Medusa0999 ....and how do you KNOW this as there is no proof....have you considered Margaret Beaufort Henry Tudor's mother?????? We don't even KNOW if the Princes were killed at all as their bodies have never been found. .... and yes, I do think Perkin Warbeck was the younger prince.

  • @Loyaultimilie Check my later comment, I was being saracastic

  • @Medusa0999 Sorry, that didn't show up until I clicked 'show all comments' ...... dangerous waters accusing Richard of killing the princes and not really a very loyal thing to say if you are a Ricardian......Loyaultimilie don't forget :-))

  • @Loyaultimilie lol everyone knows he would have gained nothing from killing the princes. They were bastards and children, no threat to him which is why I find it so stupid that people to this day believe he did it. I also agree Beaufort was the mastermind behind the princes murder. Her husband was their main carer, her son would gain from it and she could have gained Buckingham's support by killing them.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more