The King

khasab Says:

Apr 8, 2012 - No it doesn't. look I really can't be bothered to go on about this any more it's just not that important. They don't know who the skeletons are and that's all there is to it. Now let's leave it at that.

ratuse Says:

Apr 8, 2012 - If you don't have time, why are you still replying. The glove fits. Two and only two boys of the same ages found buried under the floor of London tower. To ignore such evidence is to turn one's back on common sense. Now, you CAN stop when ever you want to, but I will reply every time you do. :p

khasab Says:

Apr 9, 2012 - happens every time. I thought I was having a reasonable conversation with someone but no, turns out they're another idiot who can't read. Or think very well.

ratuse Says:

Apr 9, 2012 - Reasonable conversations do not start with belittlement. You my friend, were trolling. :p

khasab Says:

Apr 9, 2012 - I was giving you some information. But obviously you are one of the many people who would prefer to remain uninformed. That's up to you. You can continue to be as ignorant and stupid as you like. I won't be writing any more here.

ratuse Says:

Apr 9, 2012 - Bloody conspiracy theorists. lol :P

OpenLoungeCast Says:

Apr 11, 2012 - This is such a good series. So happy to watch it on YouTube. Terry commented on the 500 year old mark, well, now we can watch it on YouTube in all corners of the world. Certainly amazing.

logick0 Says:

Apr 11, 2012 - omg what is happening to youtube. I got 20 minutea and the video buffers for 1 minute after 10 seconds of speech. It's incomprehensible now. I tried pausing the video for 10 minutes.

ThePredatorspredator Says:

Apr 13, 2012 - Stopped working for me too, about a third of the way through...AAAARGH--this sucks! Just when I was getting into it! YOu know, if it can't be downloaded for later viewing it's just a waste of time, IMO.

hammerofmariotos Says:

Apr 15, 2012 - While i am a fan of this and Jones, i have a few problems with his treatment of this subject--on the princes fate; skeletons were found, but we'll never know enough about them, so we have to deal with the evidence we have. Jones fails to mention the contemporary sources we have, the Croyland Chronicle, Great Chronicle of London, and the work of Polydore Vergil, all point out that Richard's own contemporaries believed he was guilty of the crime, whether or not he was innocent or guilty in fact

hammerofmariotos Says:

Apr 15, 2012 - On the sources that paint Richard as good- He mentions only sources from Richard's own native North England. Thomas Langton benefited greatly from his reign, and the city of York as well, so its really no surprise they mourned his death. Nothing is mentioned of what the South of England thought of him, and they usually disliked and distrusted Northerners.

hammerofmariotos Says:

Apr 15, 2012 - And Jones mentions that Richard was the victim of smear, but Richard himself used character assassination during the rebellion of 1483, pointing out the evils of his enemies, despite the fact that he had himself three acknowledged bastards.Anyways, if the contemporary sources were not wholly complimentary to him, the claim that his reputation is the result of Tudor propaganda is bunk, since the bad feelings began during his own reign, not in the time of the Tudors. he wasnt a monster though.

solicitr666 Says:

Apr 21, 2012 - "Two and only two boys of the same ages found buried under the floor of London tower."But in 1674, almost 200 years later. Assuming these were the Princes, there's no indication that they even died during Richard's reign. Myself I think Henry Tudor was perfectly capable of having them done in- he never shirked a murder if he thought his crown was threatened.

solicitr666 Says:

Apr 21, 2012 - Vergil isn't a trustworthy source: Henry VIII's court historian and writing about events that took place when he was a child anyway. Croyland (post-facto) says only "a rumor was spread" that the Princes were murdered. The only real source is Mancini, and even he reports no more than that rumors were rife in London.However, the Ricardians can't get by one fact: Richard, despite the rumors, never brought them out to be seen, even though were they alive it would have been the obvious thing.

solicitr666 Says:

Apr 21, 2012 - "Two and only two boys of the same ages"Err, no. Two skeletons of indeterminate sex and immature but uncertain age were found, 200 years later.

ratuse Says:

Apr 21, 2012 - I wouldn't put it past Henry, he WAS a royal A-hole.  But the two boys stopped being seen in the ramparts and windows long before Richard was lost. So it still seems more likely to me that it was his work.

solicitr666 Says:

Apr 21, 2012 - As opposed to the currently-fashionable "history" that tells us that the Indians were enlightened pacifist stewards of nature, living at peace with the environment and each other.  You gotta love the assertion that people who flayed captured prisoners alive with sharpened oyster shells, or ripped out their bleeding hearts by the tens of thousands, weren't "savages."

solicitr666 Says:

Apr 21, 2012 - "a war that was only beneficial to oil tycoons such as himself."Amazing the crackpot crap some people believe. Regard the Iraq war as a waste of money and lives, fine.  But to imagine Bush as an "oil tycoon" is beyond risible.

Z1aheart Says:

Apr 22, 2012 - It's my understanding that Native Americans were not one group of people but many tribes with their own traditions and customs. I think it's possible that you could find tribes in both ends of the spectrum and everything in between.

Amapola1981 Says:

Apr 28, 2012 - My favourite of the medieval lives series. I liked that they said something about the kings named Richard!

shiftyjake Says:

May 4, 2012 - The trouble with the "savage" narrative isn't that Indians weren't cruel, but that they were no more cruel than the Europeans or anyone else in the world for that matter. The "noble savage" is a newer, but no less belittling narrative IMO. But I guess at least it manages to subvert the "we're the bestest ever and ever and those jerks deserved whatever we did to them" narrative that uneducated populations the world over seem to naturally fall into.

SapphireCrusader1988 Says:

May 6, 2012 - After this, I have come to like Richard II and hate Richard I. As for Richard III, I have to admit he wasn't such a bad guy after all.

michaelccozens Says:

May 7, 2012 - Couple of things there. First, there's the hard political reality, still seen today, that responding to a rumour can sometimes give it legs. If Richard had produced the boys to quell the rumour, it could have legitimized the accusation. Rumour-quashing is a tricky business.Then there's the obvious fact that just being a child was dangerous in those times. Disease often kills the young and old, and the odds of making it to adulthood in that era were not great, even for the rich.

michaelccozens Says:

May 7, 2012 - That's a misunderstanding of statistics. Average life expectancy was low, but that's only because the death-rate of pre-adults was so high. If you made it to 15 or so, you could expect to live about as long in 100 or 1000 CE as 1900. We've really only tacked on 10-20 years to adult life expectancy in the last 70 years or so, and that's mostly down to antibiotics.

cittiavaticano Says:

May 27, 2012 - bad history, damn shame because Id expect more from the BBC, esb. when it came to english history proper.