Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
What Were the Wars of Roses? Explained in 11 Minutes.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 фев 2021
- What were the Wars of the Roses? How did this lead to the Tudor dynasty? Find out in 11 minutes!
Music: Renaissance by Audionautix
THE TUDORS
The Tudor dynasty was a series of kings and queens of England. This line of rulers started in 1485 and lasted until 1603.
The dynasty started when Henry Tudor defeated Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field. This was the final stage of the Wars of the Roses and made him King Henry VII of England. Arthur, Prince of Wales, was the oldest son of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. He married Catherine of Aragon. She was the daughter of Ferdinand II of Argon and Isabella I of Castle). Arthur died in 1502 and did not become King.
Henry VIII
When Henry VII died in 1509, Arthur's brother, Henry VIII married Catherine and became king.
During her marriage to Henry VIII, Catherine had six children. Only one of these children, Mary, survived. When Catherine became too old to have any more children, Henry divorced her (breaking with Rome and become the head of the Church of England himself), so that he could marry Anne Boleyn. Henry and Boleyn also had a daughter, Elizabeth. Anne Boleyn was executed in 1536.
Shortly after, Henry VIII married Jane Seymour of England. She had one son, Edward VI of England, who would later become king himself at the age of 9. Jane died in 1537. Her death was caused by medical problems caused by Edward's birth.
Henry married three other wives (Anne of Cleves, Katherine Howard and Katherine Parr) before his death in 1547. Edward, his only living son, became King after Henry died.
In 1553, Edward became ill. He created the "Device for Succession.". He said that his cousin, Lady Jane Grey, would be Queen after he died. Lady Jane lived for only nine days as Queen.
Henry's daughter, Mary I of England, was the next ruler of the Tudor dynasty. Mary was a strong believer in Catholicism. As Queen, Mary did many things against hundreds of Protestants. Because of all the executions while she was Queen, she was given the nickname "Bloody Mary", which is a name for a modern cocktail today.
After Mary's death in 1558, her half-sister Elizabeth I of England became queen. Unlike Mary, Elizabeth was a Protestant. Elizabeth never married or had children. Because she never married, Elizabeth is often called the "Virgin Queen". She was well liked by most of the people of England.
The dynasty ended when Elizabeth died. She had not named a person to be ruler after her death. When she died, James I became King of England. He was the son of Elizabeth's cousin, Mary Stuart. This started the Stuart dynasty.
#warsoftheroses #tudorhistory #keystage3 #education
I don’t know if it’s just because of the artist, but Henry VI and Edward IV look so much alike. You can even see Henry VIII in there.
This is an excellent recap. Very clear, and enjoyable.
Fascinating and precise. Well done!
The music tends to grate on one’s ears- perhaps a bit quieter? It is period, but a bit overpowering. The back and forth and loss of life was incredible. Subscribing! Thank you!
Very interesting and informative but background music ver annoying and distracting.
Excellent video. One of my favorite periods of English history. Well done.
Thank you for your kind comments. It was an interesting and confusing period for sure!
Thank God Henry Vii married Elizabeth of York and ended the bloody war of roses. Thousands of soldiers died in the feud of York and Lancaster. They should have united both houses long before the war started. But it was destiny, Tudor dynasty had to be born. Thanks for your narration.
I am enjoying your videos. Thank-you!
Fantastic!
Well done. Well described and illustrated. Wonderful way to get English history.
Thank you - that is so kind!
Well done, glad I didn't live in that time.🙏🙂
So sorry I couldn`t listen all of it for the disturbing back ground music. Music is okay, but it should be in the back ground. The topic would be interesting.
Weird take. Anybody could listen to her speaking without being so up tight and bothered about the music… unless you have a disability…🤣
Ball for brains for some people. 🤪
I love the paper crown thing. So perfect.
English History Rocks!!!🇬🇧🏴❤️🌹💕
What an unnecessary set of events. Thank you so much for making it easier to understand! ✨
I would suggest that it be mentioned that the role of Richard III in disappearance of the princes is quite contentious. Shakespeare's play is not a proof.
We know there is a lot of love for Richard III and that it would equally have suited the Tudor to have eliminated the princes, but as Richard was the king at the time and the most to gain, circumstantial evidence would point the finger at him. He was a ruthless medieval king after all !
@@tudorworldhistorychannel3955 Richard III was no worse than the others, and in some respects better. Look how the Lancastrians treated the defeated dead enemies, and how the Yorks did. And how Henry 7 disgracefully behaved in this respect. To be fair, at least a doubt in Richard's 'evilsomeness' should be thrown into presentations about this historical period.
@@zvezdazvezda6735 I wholeheartedly agree, that Richard should have been given the benefit of the doubt whether he murdered his nephews or not (it's not even entirely certain they were murdered at all!), and also that there is a strong possibility of the two boys really having been illegitimate and not just a false claim made by Richard and that anyway, their removal from the line of succession was not decided by Richard, but by a makeshift parliament, since there couldn't be an actual parliament without a sovereign.
It is also faintly amusing to hear the presenter call Richard ambitious, the accusation obvious that he would do anything to get at the crown (which can definitely be argued), when Henry was at least as ambitious as Richard and had no legitimate claim to the throne whatsoever, seeing that his branch of the family had been barred from succession. But what has one to expect from a video, where the first sentence already contains a mistake?
The Wars of the Roses was not a civil war, but a dynastic one, that had pretty little impact on the common people. It was almost exclusively the nobility and, naturally, their retainers that were at each others throats. On top of that, what is completely left out by this video is, that the roots of this conflict are actually further back in time, starting with the deposition and possible murder of Richard II and the usurpation of the throne by Henry IV. Also, Richard of York, although he gave little reason to be mistrusted initially, had been basically denied any political influence he, as the most senior nobleman after the king, should have held due to the influence of the Duke of Somerset, with whom he had some issues. It was that (the influence he was due) which he initially tried to reclaim and which, due to both Somerset and Margaret, eventually escalated into what we now know as the Wars of the Roses.
However, I have to disagree in respect to the treatment of the defeated enemies by the Lancastrians. Displaying and even mocking their dead bodies was a common custom throughout the medieval period and beyond. Edward IV also displayed his dead enemies publicly, amongst others, most notably the Earl of Warwick, his brother John Neville, and Henry VI. And only in the latter case, it was done with some dignity. Especially the display of Richard's body, would've been absolutely necessary for Henry to have any security, and there is little doubt, that Richard would've done the same with Henry had he been the survivor. - If we rightly ask to cut Richard some slack, we have to do the same for the other side.
Zvevda... Shakespeare was just siding with the Tudors to whom he needed to show loyalty.
@@marinazagrai1623 I understand it, but many people absorb it as a reflection of real historical facts. And no opposite view publicly presented. This video supports 'one-sidedness'
3:10 It’s important to mention that Henry’s first catatonic stupor was in 1453, not in 1454 as they say here. This is important as His son, Edward of Lancaster was born during Henry’s bout of sidkness in 1453.
I understand this period a little better, but some details are still fuzzy - it has to do with names. Will have to watch this again. I have ADD and cannot just watch something (I also knit so I tend to not pay close attention once in awhile).
Hey guys . I'm lizzie
I'm surprised that the voice did not proclaim that Richard III's corpse was finally discovered -- underneath a parking lot -- and has since been analyzed. Yes, he really did have 'spinal issues.'
Even in his own time, he never had a clean explanation for the twin 'disappearances' of his nephews... from the Tower, no less. (!)
Being a sitting king, no-one at the time really wished to personally push the issue with Richard.
BTW, after his death, the city of York went into mourning. He'd spent Large improving York.
His most famous legacy is that every home was recognized as that man's castle; and that authorities may not breach his peace without a warrant issued by the (local) court having jurisdiction. This was an epic First in English law -- that is carried on in the US Bill of Rights. Prior to this Royal Edict, sheriffs just entered as they pleased... overwhelmingly to collect taxes. This reality is reflected in the legend of Robinhood... an out of control sheriff is central to the tale.
So, it's with irony that Richard the III has to be considered one of the biggest liberals in royal history. In his day, no monarch was remotely as protective of citizen's rights... anywhere in Europe. His edict stuck. Every lord and commoner could see the merit of keeping the tax-man at bay.
It wasn’t only York… I live near Barnard Castle in County Durham, and he is thought very well of here too. Also in Middleham Yorkshire.. We in the North don’t suffer fools and if he was loved ( as he was )it was because he was a a good king. Those in the South are easy to impress and fast to stick the knife in…🇬🇧
Great great uncle on my father's Uncle
I was fine with it right up until the part about Richard III. I quit listening after that.
I doubt anyone could have killed his nephews, while he was on the throne - except him!
@@tudorworldhistorychannel3955 Read THE DAUGHTER OF TIME by Josephine Tey.
@@annvictor9627 While suggesting a novel for getting a deeper insight into history is not the wisest thing to do (see Shakespeare's historical plays taken as historical fact!), there are many historians who come to the same or very similar conclusions as Tey does in her book, which, by the way, is great. And she does make a very good argument that sounds far more believable than one might expect from a crime novel. In fact, it makes near perfect sense.
The thing is, that it isn't even certain the boys were murdered at all. For all we know, they could have been relocated to live their lives in obscurity, or one or both could have died of natural causes. The two individuals buried at Westminster Abbey might have been positively identified in 1933 as being the two sons of Edward IV, however, the conclusions of the men doing so are not only biased, but have also since been called into question not only by historians but also scientists. In effect, what we know about those two sets of remains adds up to little more than nothing. There is debate about their age at their time of death, how long ago they have lived, and their gender amongst other things. At this point, there seems to be a bigger chance of those two individuals not being the two 'princes', though, of course, they also could be. And then, while they were at the Tower, there isn't really any definitive contemporary evidence suggesting that they were held as prisoners there. As the sons of a late king, they could hardly be expected to roam around London as they pleased, just as it still is today, by the way. Their movements being restricted to the Tower grounds, is a natural consequence of their status, and add political turmoil to that, Richard would've had every reason to restrict their freedom. Not doing so, would have been irresponsible and could have put the boys at risk, and yes, could also have posed problems for Richard, but that doesn't conclude that he wasn't also concerned for them. With how quickly Henry VII came out of the woodworks in 1483, it's not unlikely that he originally intended to take advantage of there being a boyking on the English throne only to then being confronted with Richard becoming king instead. He certainly was too much of a coward to take on Edward IV, and he did all he could, to discredit Richard to garner support, part of which could be spreading the rumours that the boys had been murdered by their uncle. How wide-spread those rumours really were, and whether they were widely believed, is impossible to determine now. Anyway, Richard was by no means unpopular with his subjects, but he wasn't exactly earning brownie-points with the nobility due to his legislation that restricted their rights in order to give more to the common people. Richard certainly wasn't a saint, but he does deserve the benefit of the doubt, which this video doesn't do. Not even in regards to the boys possible illegitimacy, which could be perfectly true, judging by what we know about Edward IV. Instead Henry, who was clearly very ambitious (likely more than Richard ever was) and didn't have any legitimate claim to the throne, is hailed by this video as the saviour of a country, which on closer inspection, was in no need of saving at all. Biased much?
And yes, admittedly I am biased in that respect, hands up, yet it is only such unreflected dealing with history (and not only in regards to Richard III) as happened here, that riles me up. Seeing that the creator of this video commented above that she's aware of the ongoing controversy, the more shame on her for going about it so one-sidedly. It's this thing of Ricardians going into a debate open about their bias, while traditionalists love to pretend they are not. Yeah, right! Ironically, I myself started out firmly believing in the traditional view that Richard was nothing short of a tyrannical murderer, only to realise, on closer inspection, that something wasn't adding up. These days, as said, I am firmly on Team Richard, and for me, it is clearly Henry VII who is the usurper and while I don't think he killed the boys either, he's got a lot to answer for regardless.
The boys mother, Elizabeth Woodeville, clearly believed that Richard had her son's killed. Otherwise she would not have allied with Marguaret Baufort to put her exiled son on the throne, kill Richard, and unite the houses by having Henry marry her daughter. If she believed her son's were alive, she would do everything she could to keep her son on the throne.
@@stephenferguson9756 That Elizabeth Woodville thought her sons to be dead in 1483 seems indeed evident, however doesn't necessitate this to be true. Since we don't know her motivations behind this agreement or even what was agreed on in detail, it could just as well be, that what she actually agreed to was to a marriage of her oldest daughter to Henry Tudor in return for the help of putting Edward V back on the throne, not to make Henry king and Elizabeth of York his queen. Besides, Elizabeth Woodville was in the unfortunate situation, where all the information she could get was second-hand at best and rumours only at worst. As a matter of fact, one of the few people who was allowed access to her was Margaret Beaufort, who undeniably had her own agenda. With the cunning spreading of rumours of the boys death/murder which could have reached Elizabeth's ears through servants or her physician (which she shared with Margaret!!!) and Margaret's supposed inside knowledge (from her husband) she would have been easy to manipulate into believing her sons to be dead. This or the other way, whatever she thought cannot be taken as any proof as to what really happened to the boys.
However, one has to also see what happens once Elizabeth comes out of sanctuary. Not only does she hand over her daughters into Richard's care, she also writes to her oldest son from her first marriage to return to England from his exile, assuring him, that he can trust in Richard and would be safe. Thomas Grey does indeed try to do so, but is intercepted by Henry's men and brought back to Henry's mock court against his will. Moreover, she never actually blames Richard for having murdered her sons, not even when Henry is faced with the first pretender and would've needed such assurance. Eventually, she is even banned to a nunnery by Henry, though as with everything in this case, we don't know the exact reasons why, her silence on the matter could very well play into it.
Her silence, though, makes sense if the boys were still alive and she wanted to protect them, not so much if they were both dead.
init history funny all those strugles and wrestling for nothing,thefore loves conquers all