For early access to our videos, discounted merch and many other exclusive perks please support us as a Patron or Member... Patreon: www.patreon.com/thepeopleprofiles Buy me a Coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/peopleprofiles KZfaq Membership: kzfaq.info/love/D6TPU-PvTMvqgzC_AM7_uAjoin or follow us on Twitter! twitter.com/tpprofiles

A king, with severe scoliosis, lead a cavalry charge and died fighting. No matter what Shakespeare wrote about him, he earns every honor to be buried as king.

Richard III was clearly a man of his time when nobles fought and schemed against each other to achieve power and status. I also believe that nobody who was involved in the Wars of the Roses was entirely good or bad, including Richard. He certainly wasn’t the tyrant of Shakespeare’s play. Why did the the Tudors try to portray him as a coward at the battle of Bosworth when one of their own historians talked about how bravely he fought?

I was fortunate to work with someone called Dr P Stone . Phil had this niche interest in Richard the third . Indeed he became chairman of the Richard 3 society . So I was well versed in the history of Richard 3:long before his skeleton was found in Leicester . RIP Dr Stone - I am sure that he would have been happy with this telling . I find these presentations most excellent. Thank you .

So glad to hear that the narrative doesn't paint Richard as a horrible tyrant.

Crazy you just posted this. I just watched his recovery and reburial today and 4 hrs later you post this.

My god this is high quality content.

Thank you for a fair depiction of the times. Richard has always been portrayed as a most honourable man, obedient to his brother with love and respect. It just seems odd that all of a sudden he turned. I’m not trying to place blame here but most of the stories , all perhaps, are written by Tudor supporters. In my opinion, the Tudors had much more to fear from the boys than Richard ever did. I do feel that Richard has been a most convenient scapegoat. Brilliant book by Josephine Tey tells a good account. Thank you 👵👵👵🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺👍👍👍

Terrific Documentary about Richard III, narrated in a clear and crisp voice. Thank you very much for sharing. 🙏🇬🇧

Read the history of Henry VII -- who overthrew Richard's "tyranny" -- and you find yourself confused as to which the "tyrant" was!

The real villain was William Stanley, who I feel was an opportunist and a traitor. But he got his comeuppance when he backed Perkin Warbeck and finally had his head removed.

Finally, a thorough review of the most maligned king!

Richard the third's life really does play out like a classical tragedy, just not in the way William Shakespeare and other Tuder historians portrayed.

King Richard III in my opinion has simply been vilified by the Tudors only to legitimize the Tudor reign and project the image of "Saviors of the Realm". I think he could have become a great king based on the laws and entity he created during his short reign. There is a theory that Edward V died of illness hence why a doctor was apparently the last person who saw him alive and that the younger prince ( not considered prince anymore after being declared illegitimized ) was sent away. A theory has it that he became a very talented brick layer. I prefer this theory to the allegations of murder only because Richard loved his brother Edward very much. His silence was seen as guilt. He may had the feeling of guilt himself because he failed to protect them. But again it is a possibility also that he did it as during that time people eliminated their rivals and was not uncommon in that period. If I had a time machine , that would be one period I would go to to really find out how he was really like.

I think Richard III was one who gave no quarter & expected that none would be given him. He was a dangerous man in dangerous times. He however, through his establishment of a bail system, the translation of laws into English & an appellant means for common people left us with the basis of jurisprudence as it stands today🤔

He was a most maligned king...excellent explained...thanks for sharing

I never would of thought I would get so hooked on the Plantagenet saga… no matter who’s telling, I love listening. This and the Mahabharata I can’t get enough of.

Really impressed with these videos, thank you for a fair angle on Richard lll. Treachery reigned supreme in his times. I think the Stanley's got their reward though for that treachery. Peace be unto you.

I really like the guy, he had to be ruthless for his time but from the sounds of it he was the best of the bunch.

He was not the last Plantagenet heir. His nephew Edward, brother George and Isabel’s son was murdered by Henry VII in 1499. I always found that fascinating that popular history ignores that. No?

The phrase ‘maintenance of power’ most profound. (I’m watching this at night) I’ll have to study that now. Thank you.

I have always felt that Richard III has been rather erroneously cast as a villain. He was far more complicated than he is often portrayed.

He was by NO means worse then those who succeeded him.

I just live for the way the narrator says "however" and "moreover"

Wow, what amazing video of the Richard III, its generally so complete! Thanks for this

Outstanding work 👏. Thank you for these brilliant videos. 👏

The yorks were also descended from John of Gaunt by their mother Cecily (a grandaughter of his) so they were descended by 3 sons of Edward 3, lineage wise they were unbeatable, this highlights Henry Tudor's weak ass claim which was pitiful at best

A dude with severe scoliosis leas a fucking cavalry charge, and I’m here in my 20s watching about his life from my bed with a bag chips, falling down if I try to stand cause my legs ain’t cooperating.

I love this narrator.

These are the best documentaries

10 minutes into this video and I have to take a break for a few minutes. So much information!

Genuinely fascinating.

It wasn't referred to as the wars of the roses until far later. Shakespeare invented the scene of them choosing white and red roses for York and Lancaster.

Excellent documentary on a so very complex figure. The narration is lively, the visual setting is encharming, and the scholarship sound.

Excellent documentary

I'm sorry but that picture on the thumbnail is misleading. Richard was 32 when he died

Enjoy these programs very much.

Love the episode, love the history, love the narrator!

I watched every episode in the Plantagenets. A most spectacular history told in what I believe to be the correct fashion, and very good. The complete legends from facts tied around the swirling wash of history. Myke Cole said in a documentary something that hit hard for me. Sucks that so often we have to throw our arms up and say "we don't know". Nobody wants to say it, but it is so often the case. Richard could be the monster, maybe had a redeeming quality. Image misconstrued and twisted to fit a frame he wasn't supposed to be in. I dunno You have my thanks you fine and illustrious men. You do history justice, and I spread the word of good people and their work

Very good and complete

I read that after Richard was killed, Henry Percy's men "fell upon him", calling him a "traitor." He did live to fight - or not fight - another day. I also read that Lord Stanley's reply to Richard, when told that his son, George, would be held for ransom to insure his support in battle, was, "I have other sons." I don't think revenge was in his mind. I think opportunity and maintaining his marriage to Henry Tudor's mother was his mindset. He was just waiting in the wings to see which was the battle was going so he could back the winner.

Outstanding

Thank you

The mother of Elizabeth Woodville was Jacqetta of Luxembourg, who was just about as high-born as you can get. Jacquetta's father was the Count of Saint-Pol, and her first marriage was to John, the third son of King Henry IV, making her Duchess of Bedford.

I'm obsessed with this man for reason I can't explain. Maybe stems from the 95 movie or my kingdom for a horse (isn't it Romantic?!) The fact based approach is nevertheless very much appreciated by this gal who became a scientist when she grew up 😊

I am now obsessed with the finger-flippy-ring-thingy!! I want to do that!! Now I have to figure it out!!

Richard didn’t want to marry his niece. He proposed to marry a Portuguese princess and in return his niece would marry a Portuguese noble.

Very well explained, thank you. Richard who grew up with violence all around him from his earliest age, schemes & plots and counter plots might have been lucky just to keep his sanity and mental health. I think he has been unfairly maligned and what we would call today 'character assassination' by the Tudors who history would prove were no better themselves. And interesting in this is the scheming women in the story! I am glad that his remains have now been found and that he has received the dignified burial he deserved. (PS I have wondered if anyone considered that the two Princes just might have died of natural causes?)

Fascinating documentary, but my god it's complicated,, sheer amount of battles, relationships etc etc.

King Richard the third to me ,was very unfairly judged, I will never figure out who killed the two princes, but indeed, king Richard was in a time that was very turbulent indeed thank you so much for the series.

Can't waitttttttt

Exceptional man

God Eternally Bless the Memory of His Majesty King Richard III

The more I hear the story of Richard III the more I'm convinced that much of what we know about him is based on Tudor propaganda

Question for all the Richard the third fans. Why did Edward IVs widow, take sanctuary with her family and mother in law except Prince Edward [ who Richard already had ] ? and this was before any Tudors where around. so no Tudor stories contrived this.

Elizabeth the First was most likely a patron of Shakespeare. It makes sense that Shakespeare poured on the artistic license with regards to Richard's story.

Hey can you make a video about Pompey the great

It is certainly disturbing to see Richard III portrayed on stage or film as some kind of freak. Thank you for this illuminating piece. My only complaint is the history itself; i.e, one slaughter after another.

Cousins War started with ending Richard II Ends with ending Richard III. I learn so much from you biographers and many more ❤🎉

My 14th great grandfather Sir William John Gardiner (Wyllyam Gardiner)is said to have been involved in death of King Richard III in battle stuck him with poleaxe and King Henry VII let his cousin Helen Tudor marry him , she was Illegitimate daughter of Jasper Tudor my 15th grandfather also related to Tudor side too…

Regarding the princes in the tower, I agree that if they had died upon Henry VII becoming king, he would have displayed their bodies and pointed the finger at Richard. But also, if Richard had them killed as potential rivals to himself, he also would have displayed their bodies to prove that they were dead and thus eliminated as rivals. They were under his control and he certainly had available to him means to secure their deaths that would not show. In addition, Richard had a long record of standing by his brother Edward IV, even though he had multiple opportunities not to do so. Therefore, the most likely scenario, by process of elimination, is that he had them removed from London to a secure location, and after Richard's death they disappeared by design. I do not believe Thomas More's account because what King would keep at court men who were willing to murder royalty, even under his own orders? No, such men would be eliminated.

It's so crazy how long the division lasts

I don't know for sure and can't say for sure that Richard had a part in the deaths of his nephews, but at the very least, he had to have known what happened to them. Unfortunately, I do lean towards the theory that he had them eliminated to take the throne, sad as that is.

Big fan, I. The last Plantagenet King was a social reformer.. Just take a stroll around the city of York, read the inscriptions and you'll see what I mean. There's no more evidence that Gloucester killed the boys than that Buckingham did.. Nice film! Happy Christmas. 🎄👍

I still have a problem with the children being put in the tower. If I were the king, I would have had them close to me so they would be protected. They were put conveniently out of the kings way or reach. Who would do that? Talk about the ultimate detective story.

Let go by what we know. Richard was a good warrior in his own right and was very loyal to edwasrd iv. The way he saw it his brothers wish to have him lord protector was the kings last wish. The woodvill's did not honor edward iv's last command and were trying to push him out of court. Killing the uncle of edward v for what he saw as treason against his brother put him in a bad spot. Elizabeth woodvill will always have her sons ear over him and would push the young king to have him executed. Also edward v grew up surrounded by his mothers family and knew nothing of richard he was like a stranger to him. At this point richard had to know that his life was in danger and the only way to save it was to take the crown himself. Richard 111 was not known as a monster in his time and during his reighn he put forth great building projects and reforms that helped all during a short 2 year reign. What he did was save his neck and im sure if the woodvill's had gone along with edward iv's wishes richard never would have had to do what he did

"Was Richard III a 'sinister villain' or the victim of Tudor propaganda?" My answer to that question is "yes!" The Shakespearean version of him is certainly exaggerated and rather silly, portraying him as badly deformed when he was actually a strong, brave and highly competent battlefield commander, and blaming him for things that there is no evidence of his guilt in, such as the death of his brother, the Duke of Clarence. On the other hand, it is equally inaccurate to accept at face value the overcorrections of organizations such as the Richard III Society, who portray him as some kind of misunderstood and heroic saint, something he was just as far from as the Shakespearean stage tyrant. There was much about him that could be cast as heroic or villainous, depending on the preferred position of the one assessing him. The reality falls squarely in between the two extremes. He was a ruthless, brutal man, but one who owed his very survival to that fact. There is no solid evidence one way or the other as to his having any involvement in the deaths of his nephews, but he did, in fact usurp the throne from his nephew, Edward V. His reign was thus illegitimate, but was not entirely bad, as demonstrated by his regard for the rights of commoners in the lone Parliament convened during that time.

Dear The People Profiles Henry Bollingbroke did not set the precedent of killing an anointed king to ensure succession of a more palatable person. Edward the 2 was killed a short time after he abdicated.

I like the narrator.

Loyaulté me lie Richard III, favourite monarch last Plantagenet king.

So many executions! The 15th century was bloody for sure. Never upset a Plantagenet

If anyone believes Richard iii was worse then his predecessors and successors need to a history lesson. He was a brave man of his times acting ruthlessly as he expected no mercy from his enemies.

Stanleys during the War of the Roses were fence-sitting turncloaks.

It was a murderous 'moment in time' - the early years of the English/British monarchy - but there's really very little reason to think that Richard III ordered the murder of his two young nephews. Whilst he did - as did many others - order executions during his short reign, the Tudors were far more bloodthirsty and ruthless, and it was far more like that family line to stop at nothing at all, in the quest for claim and family control over the Crown.

Stanley had a knack for choosing sides once the winner became obvious. Totally unscrupulous opportunist who knew how to survive an age of barbarians

Sounds like he killed those kids.

I do not know why Richard the Third had Hastings and Anthony Woodville and Richard Grey executed.

Richard would not have been believed no matter what he said about the princes. And Thomas More isn’t exactly an unbiased source.

Warrior king .

Hi. It's not so easy to describe how Richard III was exactly, but as it was mentioned in the story, he obviously did things that weren't at all expected and required of him by beheading people that I don't even think his late older brother King Edward IV ever told him to get rid of by brutally executing them. But it's even more difficult to know if he did a good job of looking after and protecting his older brother's 2 vulnerable young sons as ordered to or not. As no one seems to know what happened to them, but knowing what Richard was capable of doing, there's a 50/50 chance that he may or may not have killed his two nephews or ordered them to be murdered. It's fair to say he was a bit of a dodgy king who probably didn't always know what was good for the country. I have no idea how different things possibly would have been had his eldest brother lived quite a few years longer. I think it was a bit like a cat and mouse game, as a lot of people were trying to find the two young royal princes after they vanished mysteriously but they were nowhere to be seen at all. So there is a possible chance that their uncle had them killed so that they wouldn't be in his way of getting to the throne. Despite his unpredictable way of nature and behaving, he did clearly enjoy some successes and joys of victory whenever he participated in battles with his eldest brother, Edward IV. In some ways, he wasn't the type of king everyone wanted. Especially as he had to face rebellions during and between his time as uncle and regent of his nephews and his own death. He could be portrayed as a villain, but as we weren't around in those turbulent times, we can't be too sure. It is possible that he did kill his brother's sons, but it's unlucky that no one has proved that very successfully. I believe there are rumours that he had two men hired to kill the boys by suffocating them with pillows one night whilst fast asleep. It can't be proved if the men were innocent or not when ordered to kill the boys in the Tower of London together. If he had refused point blank to tell people where the boys were, then I'd assume they all thought he had a rather guilty look on his own face. As it's been 541 years since they both disappeared from view at their prison windows, I can't be too sure myself if he did it or not, but it'll take a lot of fun but very difficult investigating to take a very deep look into the skellital remains that were found hidden in a wooden box in the Tower of London in 1674. I suppose the only way to identify who the remains belong to, would be to take swabs from their teeth and try to compare them. Richard wasn't the best and most popular of Kings to ever sit on the throne for 28 months, but he probably did some good and bad things, though not clear and can't be clarified. In the end, I reckon Henry Tudor (28.1.1457 - 21.4.1509), just decided to take natters into his own hands, kill Richard at the battle of Bosworth Field on 22 August 1485, after a 30 year and 3 month long struggle. Henry's reasonably small army was very similar in size to king Richard's army. Henry had 8,000 men behind him and his step father William Stanley had 4,000. And by adding them together, his army totaled 12,000 men which is the same size as Richard's following really. It would have been a full all out fight if the royal force had participated. It's unknown why they refused to move down the hillside to join the bloody fight altogether. Hope to hear from you shortly. Robert 16.5.24

Given how treacherous and violent the entire Plantagenet Dynasty was, Richard III was one of the milder ones. Of course Shakespeare had to make him the villain to avoid offending the granddaughter of Henry Tudor.

Richard's brother was not "Clarence", but George, Duke of Clarence.

The documentary is very well-made, especially in retaining the atmosphere of the time. The commentary is A+. Lately, scholars have claimed that they have found proof of Richard's direct involvement in the disappearance of the princes, that is, he got them killed.

Brilliant. Thank you I just subscribed. I'm here because I just finished reading Shakespeare's King Henry VI. And can't wait to read King Richard III.

In my head I always compare Shakespeare's depiction of Richard ||| with the depiction of Richard in the very first Blackadder episode (which tries to portray the exact opposite just for laughs. It has a great introductory line: "But the truth is that Richard was a kind and thoughtful man who cherished his young wards.") and then try to come up with a depiction somewhere in the middle of those two.

Isn't this the exact same doc you posted 3 years ago? Or am I having a stroke?

Incidently what happened to richards son middleham?

Your videos are very concise and factual, although I get bogged down with much of the genealogy and family trees a bit, I am beginning to understand the parentage of Richard III and forward on to the Tudors, I just have to keep studying so I keep starting over from the withdrawal of the Romans… The history of Britain is fascinating to me!

King Richard III was my 1st cous 17xrem...

The artists are not painting the true likenesses of King Richard and the others. They did not look the way they were portrayed. They were darker than the way they are portrayed in the above video. I do know that Cromwell destroyed most of the authentic paintings of the Kings, Queens, and noblemen and women of that time in an attempt to whitewash the true dark complexion of those people.

😊😮I don’t believe what Shakespeare wrote about him - not one thing He was a man of his age and you can’t judge him with people do today. I think with many others that he did what was necessary To be done and ruled a good and honest king

Richard hated songbirds. He killed every bird even smashed the eggs. He would scream,"no more CHIRP CHIRP"!!!!

That photo is not of Richard the iii..King of England.

As the DNA of Richard the third haplo g2a3b1 Is the same family DNA as Henri and Louis of France G2a3b1* Then a full length film could be made, For Richard ancestor was Hugues du Perche, Count of Gâtinais, A French noble man and his father can only be Robert I (1011 - 21 March 1076) Duke of Burgundy To explain the DNA match.

One of the most famous rulers of england , probably best known for being named after the cockney rhyme and slang for going to the toilet 💩

Death leans to death! nor shall your vigilance Prevent him from whate'er he would possess, Nor, brother, shall unfilial peevishness Prevent you from the grand inheritance. Al-ma'rri

Tudor propaganda painted Richard with an unfair brush. No doubt Edward de Vere helped propagate this libel.

Probably both.

Richard III = Tricky Dicky III

I was surprised to learn through my DNA that King Richard III was one of my ancestors and a few other famous people.