OK. I’m just going to be brutally honest here. Very, very soul-bearingly honest. I would watch every minute of Suzannah reading a Latvian cookbook …. Soooo ….
I've always enjoyed history and that's why I've taken it for my A levels but normally my teachers get us watching boring lectures. Yes this could be seen as just that but this is so engaging and interesting 2 watch. I Love it!
Given the mention of dragons, I can't resist quoting from 'The Faerie Queene' Canto XL; by Edmund Spencer (a gentle knight has just speared a mighty dragon): The steely head stuck fast still in his flesh Till with his cruell clawes he snatcht the wood, And quite asunder broke: forth flowed fresh A gushing river of blacke gory blood, That drowned all the land, whereon he stood; The streame thereof would drive a water-mill: Trebly augmented was his furious mood With bitter sence of his deepe-rooted ill, That flames of fire he threw forth from his large nosethrill.
Funny how she glossed over the fact that Stanley was Henry Tudor’s stepfather. Also women inherited land in those days. Margaret Beaufort inherited land from her father and husbands. I found this lecture clownish with misinformation about those times.
I was thinking that same thing: why would a historian who undoubtedly knows that write "who knows why" into the bit about the moment Stanley joined Henry Tudor. When she said that, I'm sure several people in the audience were like, "Ummm..." And I doubt VERY seriously Stanley was holding back to see which way the battle would go before committing himself. As an experienced military man, he knew with Henry outnumbered 3 to 1, it would not make an impact to position himself with those forces from the beginning. By pretending to be temporarily neutral, he could position himself where his forces could make the most impact, and he would have waited until his entry into battle would have been decisive. Having seen what Richard did to those from whom he caught the faintest whiff of betrayal, he could not have hoped to survive his stepson's invasion even if he fought beside Richard. Throwing his weight behind Henry from the most optimal place at the most optimal moment was his only hope of survival.
Not one of her best presentations, but she did mention that she had just flown in (from a great distance, I'm guessing.) Really good audience questions, which given the presentation title is a bit of a surprise.
Give yourself thé gréât historians out there, Sussanah Lipscomb, Tracy Boorman, the Tudor scholars I imagine one would pass with flying colours and soaring interest.
I always thought Henry VI paralleled Tommen in many ways. Shows that kindness and piety weren't necessarily all that useful to medieval kingship at all. Both were kind and gentle, both terrible kings.
The thing which (at least in my mind) gives legitimacy to the Lancastrians is that Bolingbroke was the product of the union of the heiress to the duchy of Lancaster (who was sole heir to the vast and prestigious Lancastrian duchy) and was thus a descendent of Henry III’s *debated disabled first or more likely second born* Edmund Crouchback. This union with John of Gaunt united the two main branches of the Plantagenet dynasty. It was even suspected that since Edmund was disabled (scoliosis hence the name “crouchback”) he was passed over in the succession in favor of Edward I, the accession of Bolingbroke was a restoration of the main line of the Angevin dynasty post Henry III. That’s why I believe the Lancastrians have better claims to the throne of England. And with Henry V marriage to Katherine of Valois the throne of France was also tightly bound to the Lancastrians. The marriage of Edward of Westminster to Elizabeth of York would have made the blood of England’s monarch way more pure than the descendants of the Beauforts via descent from a female line. If Edward V of Westminster had taken the throne England would most likely have recovered France.
Some writers say that the Stanley's would have a son in ether camp, would like to know how much of that history and if that's just historian author Philippa Gregory?
Suzanna is a great teacher and speaker. She brings clarity and huge objectivity to historical mysteries. As one whom I consider to be a brilliant historian, however, the President Trump comment is beneath her. I get it; how could anyone say that Trump is a "good' man? How could ANY politician be a good man? But, he was our savior compared to what we have now. And, regardless of that issue, the comment was ridiculous and not in Suzanna's league.
Being British, bright, and educated, Suzanna can't be bothered to feign respect for America's ridiculous con artist - er, "savior"...and why should she? Be happy he's not incarcerated.
Henry vi is the Targaryan "mad" king. Eddard Stark is not really comparible to Richard Duke of York. Eddard Stark's father and older brother who get killed by the mad king are more like Richard and his eldest son who also get killed by the Lancasters. So Richards 2nd son Edward York then took over the fight. So Edward York is a little like both Eddard stark and Robert baretheon who take the throne from the mad king. But then robert of course becomes the king so he becomes more like edward york after that (and has the 2 brothers as well). So yeah you can definetly see the influence on game of thrones but the characters dont really match up so neatly and exactly.
Never heard that...but then my speciality is plagues and virus...i.will look into.that ...67 years in the field and never heard that....but i still learn things like very day...and now am.firm in my belief Shakespeare wasnt that strafford man...that is something i never thought i would say.
You could argue it’s because of different circumstances. Many nobles in England expected Edward V to be crowned the next official king, but Richard took over, declared his nephews illegitimate and had himself named the legitimate king. Henry Tudor took the throne by right of conquest, Richard had alienated some Yorkist supporters because of the Princes in the Tower, so they flocked to Henry when he landed. Plus, Henry was another descendant of Edward III, as his mother, Margaret Beaufort was a descendant of John of Gaunt (through a legitimatised bastard line).
@@aidanrogers4438 I know. What I meant by my comment was that usurpation by definition means to take power by military force. Something Richard III did not do, no matter his motive. The crown was offered to him by the three estates of the realm, representing parliament, and the mayor and representatives of the guilds of London. Whether the story of the precontract was true or not is anyone's guess, as is Richard's motive for taking the throne or whether or not he initiated parliament to offer the crown to him. It doesn't matter for the definition of the word. Richard III did not usurp because he used a different manner of claiming the throne (righteous or not... who knows, we weren't inside his head), Henry VII did, even Edward IV usurped the throne by military force. It's a matter of definition and I use usurpation neutrally, however in this video, by contrasting it with "taking" the throne, while Henry VII was actually the one usurping, it is not neutral and that is what I wanted to point out. Even Domenico Mancini, who wrote a report about the accession of Richard III, did not title this "De Usurpatione" but "De Occupatione", which has often been mistranslated. Besides, Henry VII's claim through lineage rather than conquest was flimsy at best. Yes, the Beauforts were legitimised, but still barred from succession to the throne.
@@medievalivy2488 of course. Everyone is always against Richard. Which is insane. Being how he was extremely loyal. And Edwards marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was always under contention due to Edward having married someone else. 🤷♀️ There's records of his marriage in a monastery. And Richard was all about education (founding England's first college and many libraries), as well as starting standards and laws that would eventually create the police. He fought and risked his life for his king countless times. As well as being exiled WITH Edward.
@@ashleyleonard8148 Richard III's reputation is 'made' by the people who came after him. However, there are several serious allegations against him which will probably be debated for as long as the allegations can be debated. His marriage in a monastery is an interesting fact, but that doesn't mean he didn't kill (personally or on his orders) his nephews.
Not the best Wars of the Roses history lesson here. While Game of Thrones is heavily inspired by the Wars of the Roses, there are just not a lot of direct parallels. Trying to explain the links to Game of Thrones basically ends up with a lot of "Well, it is kinda like this thing from Game of Thrones, but..." York and Lancaster, Stark and Lannister, they share most of their similarities in phonics, rather than historical parallel. Would be better to just tell the historical account of the war, and then stop to say "Hey, doesn't this sound kinda like this thing from Game of Thrones?" Rather than just try to say "Yeah, Margaret of Anjou is Cersei and the Duke of York is Ned Stark." Because York and Ned Stark don't really share much in common at all, least of all the degree of their culpability in the civil war, or their political aspirations. York was a schemer with designs on the throne that Ned Stark never had. That, and this lesson, despite its length, skips over quite a bit of the important historical contexts behind the fighting. Frankly, I've seen 10 minute long cartoons on RUclips that do a better job than this hour-plus lecture.
Best of luck with recovering from that traumatic brain injury. We're all pulling for you. Regardless, my point was just a critique for those who might watch this. It's not very informative,and not a very good historical accounting of the Wars of the Roses. And it's over an hour long. If people want to learn about the Wars of the Roses, this is not a good place to do it. That's not mean, or cruel, or trying to hurt anyone. It's just a review of the value of this video.
More likely Edward IV. Took the crown from the ruling dynasty, great warrior, lived excessively when it came to alcohol and women. Died leaving the throne to young sons who would be declared illegitimate but with a mother that fought like a tigress on their behalf.
@@carinafourie9119 Sure, perhaps my 'primarily' is misplaced. But certainly he's a blend of the two kings. Henry VI because he was crap at ruling and had a wife who was a power behind the throne
The Tudor Dynasty is founded on illegitimacies. The Tudor (really the Beaufort - Henry VII's maternal lineage) claim to the throne is from an invalidated bastard descent from Edward III. Henry VII's father, Edmund, was probably a bastard himself. He shared his Christian name with another Beaufort, Edmund, Duke of Somerset, who was a bulwark of the Lancastrian regime. The elder Edmund was close to Catherine of Valois (mother of Henry VI as well as his half-brothers, Edmund and Jasper Tudor) and was speculated at the time to be romantically involved with the Queen Dowager. Is it likely that the daughter, wife, and mother of kings would deign to marry her Welsh chamberlain (and the laws at the time precluded such a scenario, to my understanding), Owen Tudor? Or is it more likely that she would marry a powerful nobleman, who was a pillar of her son's regime, and with whom she had a close relationship? Henry VII's wife was also a bastard, because her parents' marriage was not valid. Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville married in secret and their marriage was not announced until four months after the fact - when marriage negotiations were underway for Edward to marry a French princess. Edward's almoner, who was elevated to Bishop of Bath and Wells and later Lord Chancellor by Edward IV, was imprisoned for a time after corresponding with the Duke of Clarence, Edward's brother. The Duke of Clarence had betrayed the king twice - conspiring with his father-in-law, the Earl of Warwick, to overthrow the king's rule - but it was only at this time that Clarence was arrested and executed. Bit odd. Robert Stillington, the ex-Lord Chancellor, was the man who said that he had performed a marriage ceremony for Edward and a woman named Eleanor Butler (née Talbot) prior to his "marrying" Elizabeth Woodville. Eleanor Butler was alive when the second marriage took place, thus invalidating the latter nuptial. All the offspring of this marriage were illegitimate, as the _Titulus Regius_ document, proclaimed in Parliament, declared. Upon assuming the throne, Henry VII took care to destroy all copies of this document, save one, which was discovered at the end of the 16th Century. Of course, Henry VIII declared his own daughters to be illegitimate, while keeping them in the line of succession to the throne. Henry wanted to extricate himself from inconvenient marriages - meaning the marriages had to be invalidated, making bastards of his own daughters. Being an egotist, Henry wanted his offspring to inherit the throne, as opposed to his sisters' offspring. Why the people accepted bastards as queens, when their father bastardized them, is something I don't really understand. Henry also seemed to be angling for his unquestionably illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy, to assume the throne. Helpfully, Fitzroy died young. The Tudors were bastards right through.
Legitimacy is not required if one wins the crown by right of battle. William the Bastard later Conqueror set that precedent. Tudor won Bosworth. He was King by right of conquest. Not his Beaufort blood.
If Edward IV had lived longer the princes would not have never been locked up in the tower therefore Richard III would have never been king. No battle of Bosworth, no Tudors. What would the world be like if Elizabeth I never ruled? We'd still be in the dark ages.
The issue is who would gain the most from the murder of the Princes in the Tower. Clearly the Tudor dynasty which had a very weak , illegitimate claim to the throne. A Stanley was in command of the Tower at the time of the disappearance of the Princes, was later on Margaret Beaufort's husband and deserted to Henry Tudor at a key moment during the battle of Bosworth. Ruchard III had little to gain by their murder given he left no progeny and at least one other nephew survived him.
jiros00: Because the War of the Roses is factual history, “Game of Thrones” is fantasy entertainment. They are not related in any way but the makers of this video have invented an association to GoT simply to attract viewers, it’s facile.
@@chriscornish1341 Getting people interested in history is a good thing. Whether it might be a tenuous comparison is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned.
@@chriscornish1341 I don't agree. I think it gets more people interested in history. They aren't two entirely different audiences. I bet loads of historians have watched GoT.
I’ve never seen a worse historian reasoning! Margret Beaufort was pious? Something her son could ensure was chronicled? Wasn’t she Stanley’s wife? Didn’t Richard repeatedly spare her and that’s the reward he got from her? And this woman says she was pious? Lol what a joke!
@@camhamster3891 I know a bit about the WotR. I know Martin borrowed from there. He borrowed even more from Scottish medieval history. The Scots are entertaining.
Stupid thing to say at the start "It's a bit shameful. First time in Singapore. Isn't it?" Spoken like a true metropolitan elite bubble dweller. Singapore is a dreadful place of governmental authoritarianism and parochialism. Lipscomb wouldn't be calling it a "splendid place" if she actually had to live in it for life. They're very narrow in their outlook and uncritical of themselves. Like all non-white people. Women historians are obsessed with sex, aristocracy, conspicuous wealth, royalty, mistresses and women in history. Their banality, unoriginality, facile observations are stock in trade. Yes, there are exceptions. The reason women love this sort of stuff is because it's easy. Strategy, economic rationales, etc. are not their forte (in general). I can't help noticing that a lot of women historians are younger than their men equivalents when they get the plum jobs (i.e. TV series and punditry, etc.) and they make very safe and unchallenging conclusions.
And this is what happens with a liberal arts degree...you know just enough about everything to piss everyone off. Lol. Tying historical events to a modern hit television show/books/etc is to try to get people interested in history again. It wasn't the greatest lecture but I've seen and heard worse.
@@susanharris7410 awww. tRump is hated ‘round the world. Might have to learn to accept it and perhaps consider just why that is. History is all about politics.
Suzannah Lipscomb is very engaging.
Because Edward was pre-contracted to Lady Eleanor Butler not The Princess Bona of France!
OK. I’m just going to be brutally honest here. Very, very soul-bearingly honest. I would watch every minute of Suzannah reading a Latvian cookbook …. Soooo ….
She is beautiful, well-spoken, engaging, and absolutely brilliant!
Susanna Lipscomb is incredible.
I've always enjoyed history and that's why I've taken it for my A levels but normally my teachers get us watching boring lectures. Yes this could be seen as just that but this is so engaging and interesting 2 watch. I Love it!
THE TUDOR / STUART PERIOD IS WITHOUT A DOUBT MY FAVOURITE PERIOD OF ENGLAND / SCOTLAND ' HISTORY. BEEN DEVOURING IT SINCE I LEARNED TO READ.. CR.
Tudor has welsh blood wales is not Scotland red dragon welsh white dragon english
Given the mention of dragons, I can't resist quoting from 'The Faerie Queene' Canto XL;
by Edmund Spencer (a gentle knight has just speared a mighty dragon):
The steely head stuck fast still in his flesh
Till with his cruell clawes he snatcht the wood,
And quite asunder broke: forth flowed fresh
A gushing river of blacke gory blood,
That drowned all the land, whereon he stood;
The streame thereof would drive a water-mill:
Trebly augmented was his furious mood
With bitter sence of his deepe-rooted ill,
That flames of fire he threw forth from his large nosethrill.
May the Gods bless you! Thank you so much.
As a big fan of history AND Game Of Thrones this is delightful and, yes, educational. I love it.
To me the question is not one of whether Richard III did or did not usurp the throne, but was he wrong to do so.
Thank you very much.
Stanley's decision might have been influenced by the fact that his wife was Margaret Beaufort, Henry Tudor's mother.
Yeah i wonder why she doesnt say that. Margaret probably influenced Stanley to fight for her son, and he would become the king's stepfather
It undoubtedly was.
Marianne
He is later executed for treason …he was plotting against Henry Tudor. He was just a spineless self serving character
Funny how she glossed over the fact that Stanley was Henry Tudor’s stepfather. Also women inherited land in those days. Margaret Beaufort inherited land from her father and husbands. I found this lecture clownish with misinformation about those times.
I was thinking that same thing: why would a historian who undoubtedly knows that write "who knows why" into the bit about the moment Stanley joined Henry Tudor. When she said that, I'm sure several people in the audience were like, "Ummm..." And I doubt VERY seriously Stanley was holding back to see which way the battle would go before committing himself. As an experienced military man, he knew with Henry outnumbered 3 to 1, it would not make an impact to position himself with those forces from the beginning. By pretending to be temporarily neutral, he could position himself where his forces could make the most impact, and he would have waited until his entry into battle would have been decisive. Having seen what Richard did to those from whom he caught the faintest whiff of betrayal, he could not have hoped to survive his stepson's invasion even if he fought beside Richard. Throwing his weight behind Henry from the most optimal place at the most optimal moment was his only hope of survival.
Not one of her best presentations, but she did mention that she had just flown in (from a great distance, I'm guessing.) Really good audience questions, which given the presentation title is a bit of a surprise.
Interesing, engaging lecture and thoughtful, provoking post lecture questions and answers. Pleasure to listen and delight to follow the arguments.
Thank you very much
Thank you very much really enjoyed ilistening to your speech ………..Kimberley 🇬🇧
Give yourself thé gréât historians out there, Sussanah Lipscomb, Tracy Boorman, the Tudor scholars I imagine one would pass with flying colours and soaring interest.
I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that Dr. David Starkey is a genius.
I agree but what does that have to do with this?
I always thought Henry VI paralleled Tommen in many ways. Shows that kindness and piety weren't necessarily all that useful to medieval kingship at all. Both were kind and gentle, both terrible kings.
Henry VI's mom wasn't an inbreeding, power hungry psycho
The thing which (at least in my mind) gives legitimacy to the Lancastrians is that Bolingbroke was the product of the union of the heiress to the duchy of Lancaster (who was sole heir to the vast and prestigious Lancastrian duchy) and was thus a descendent of Henry III’s *debated disabled first or more likely second born* Edmund Crouchback. This union with John of Gaunt united the two main branches of the Plantagenet dynasty. It was even suspected that since Edmund was disabled (scoliosis hence the name “crouchback”) he was passed over in the succession in favor of Edward I, the accession of Bolingbroke was a restoration of the main line of the Angevin dynasty post Henry III. That’s why I believe the Lancastrians have better claims to the throne of England. And with Henry V marriage to Katherine of Valois the throne of France was also tightly bound to the Lancastrians. The marriage of Edward of Westminster to Elizabeth of York would have made the blood of England’s monarch way more pure than the descendants of the Beauforts via descent from a female line. If Edward V of Westminster had taken the throne England would most likely have recovered France.
Some writers say that the Stanley's would have a son in ether camp, would like to know how much of that history and if that's just historian author Philippa Gregory?
Many people did this on the Scottish war for independence
It's very much true and not only PG said it. It's in history
Suzanna is a great teacher and speaker. She brings clarity and huge objectivity to historical mysteries. As one whom I consider to be a brilliant historian, however, the President Trump comment is beneath her. I get it; how could anyone say that Trump is a "good' man? How could ANY politician be a good man? But, he was our savior compared to what we have now. And, regardless of that issue, the comment was ridiculous and not in Suzanna's league.
Being British, bright, and educated, Suzanna can't be bothered to feign respect for America's ridiculous con artist - er, "savior"...and why should she?
Be happy he's not incarcerated.
@@stayclean777 You don't even have the guts to show your name, and you sound like a looney liberal. Get a job. Don't make me show you my credentials.
@@josephcollins6033 I'd share my name, address, and phone number but I'm too terrified 🤣
@@stayclean777 I don't blame you for that.
Henry vi is the Targaryan "mad" king. Eddard Stark is not really comparible to Richard Duke of York. Eddard Stark's father and older brother who get killed by the mad king are more like Richard and his eldest son who also get killed by the Lancasters. So Richards 2nd son Edward York then took over the fight. So Edward York is a little like both Eddard stark and Robert baretheon who take the throne from the mad king. But then robert of course becomes the king so he becomes more like edward york after that (and has the 2 brothers as well).
So yeah you can definetly see the influence on game of thrones but the characters dont really match up so neatly and exactly.
Someone please tell him, Its nothing to do with Yorkshire and Lancashire.
He was joking - being facetious if you like - as a light-hearted intro to the main event.
Originally known as The Cousin's War.
Really?
Never heard that...but then my speciality is plagues and virus...i.will look into.that ...67 years in the field and never heard that....but i still learn things like very day...and now am.firm in my belief Shakespeare wasnt that strafford man...that is something i never thought i would say.
Nothing like keeping it in the family!
An interesting lecture to listen too during lockdown 3.0 🇬🇧 style 😁👍
Funny enough that she said Richard III usurped the throne while Henry VII merely "took" it.
You could argue it’s because of different circumstances. Many nobles in England expected Edward V to be crowned the next official king, but Richard took over, declared his nephews illegitimate and had himself named the legitimate king. Henry Tudor took the throne by right of conquest, Richard had alienated some Yorkist supporters because of the Princes in the Tower, so they flocked to Henry when he landed. Plus, Henry was another descendant of Edward III, as his mother, Margaret Beaufort was a descendant of John of Gaunt (through a legitimatised bastard line).
@@aidanrogers4438 I know.
What I meant by my comment was that usurpation by definition means to take power by military force. Something Richard III did not do, no matter his motive. The crown was offered to him by the three estates of the realm, representing parliament, and the mayor and representatives of the guilds of London. Whether the story of the precontract was true or not is anyone's guess, as is Richard's motive for taking the throne or whether or not he initiated parliament to offer the crown to him. It doesn't matter for the definition of the word. Richard III did not usurp because he used a different manner of claiming the throne (righteous or not... who knows, we weren't inside his head), Henry VII did, even Edward IV usurped the throne by military force. It's a matter of definition and I use usurpation neutrally, however in this video, by contrasting it with "taking" the throne, while Henry VII was actually the one usurping, it is not neutral and that is what I wanted to point out. Even Domenico Mancini, who wrote a report about the accession of Richard III, did not title this "De Usurpatione" but "De Occupatione", which has often been mistranslated. Besides, Henry VII's claim through lineage rather than conquest was flimsy at best. Yes, the Beauforts were legitimised, but still barred from succession to the throne.
@@medievalivy2488 There was an “addendum” to them being barred from the throne, that was added later. So…
@@medievalivy2488 of course. Everyone is always against Richard. Which is insane. Being how he was extremely loyal. And Edwards marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was always under contention due to Edward having married someone else. 🤷♀️ There's records of his marriage in a monastery. And Richard was all about education (founding England's first college and many libraries), as well as starting standards and laws that would eventually create the police. He fought and risked his life for his king countless times. As well as being exiled WITH Edward.
@@ashleyleonard8148 Richard III's reputation is 'made' by the people who came after him. However, there are several serious allegations against him which will probably be debated for as long as the allegations can be debated. His marriage in a monastery is an interesting fact, but that doesn't mean he didn't kill (personally or on his orders) his nephews.
Not the best Wars of the Roses history lesson here. While Game of Thrones is heavily inspired by the Wars of the Roses, there are just not a lot of direct parallels. Trying to explain the links to Game of Thrones basically ends up with a lot of "Well, it is kinda like this thing from Game of Thrones, but..."
York and Lancaster, Stark and Lannister, they share most of their similarities in phonics, rather than historical parallel. Would be better to just tell the historical account of the war, and then stop to say "Hey, doesn't this sound kinda like this thing from Game of Thrones?" Rather than just try to say "Yeah, Margaret of Anjou is Cersei and the Duke of York is Ned Stark." Because York and Ned Stark don't really share much in common at all, least of all the degree of their culpability in the civil war, or their political aspirations. York was a schemer with designs on the throne that Ned Stark never had.
That, and this lesson, despite its length, skips over quite a bit of the important historical contexts behind the fighting. Frankly, I've seen 10 minute long cartoons on RUclips that do a better job than this hour-plus lecture.
Best of luck with recovering from that traumatic brain injury. We're all pulling for you.
Regardless, my point was just a critique for those who might watch this. It's not very informative,and not a very good historical accounting of the Wars of the Roses. And it's over an hour long. If people want to learn about the Wars of the Roses, this is not a good place to do it. That's not mean, or cruel, or trying to hurt anyone. It's just a review of the value of this video.
welsh dragon vs English dragon ?
This must of been filmed before season 8.
Presumably Robert Baratheon is primarily Henry VI. She doesnt make that connection here.
More likely Edward IV. Took the crown from the ruling dynasty, great warrior, lived excessively when it came to alcohol and women. Died leaving the throne to young sons who would be declared illegitimate but with a mother that fought like a tigress on their behalf.
@@carinafourie9119 Sure, perhaps my 'primarily' is misplaced. But certainly he's a blend of the two kings. Henry VI because he was crap at ruling and had a wife who was a power behind the throne
You forgot that Elizabeth Woodville's power hungry relatives ignited the third phase.
EXACTLY. And that is why Richard is mainly crapped on. Because her family spread Richard killed Edwards sons after his death.
The Tudor Dynasty is founded on illegitimacies. The Tudor (really the Beaufort - Henry VII's maternal lineage) claim to the throne is from an invalidated bastard descent from Edward III. Henry VII's father, Edmund, was probably a bastard himself. He shared his Christian name with another Beaufort, Edmund, Duke of Somerset, who was a bulwark of the Lancastrian regime. The elder Edmund was close to Catherine of Valois (mother of Henry VI as well as his half-brothers, Edmund and Jasper Tudor) and was speculated at the time to be romantically involved with the Queen Dowager. Is it likely that the daughter, wife, and mother of kings would deign to marry her Welsh chamberlain (and the laws at the time precluded such a scenario, to my understanding), Owen Tudor? Or is it more likely that she would marry a powerful nobleman, who was a pillar of her son's regime, and with whom she had a close relationship? Henry VII's wife was also a bastard, because her parents' marriage was not valid. Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville married in secret and their marriage was not announced until four months after the fact - when marriage negotiations were underway for Edward to marry a French princess. Edward's almoner, who was elevated to Bishop of Bath and Wells and later Lord Chancellor by Edward IV, was imprisoned for a time after corresponding with the Duke of Clarence, Edward's brother. The Duke of Clarence had betrayed the king twice - conspiring with his father-in-law, the Earl of Warwick, to overthrow the king's rule - but it was only at this time that Clarence was arrested and executed. Bit odd. Robert Stillington, the ex-Lord Chancellor, was the man who said that he had performed a marriage ceremony for Edward and a woman named Eleanor Butler (née Talbot) prior to his "marrying" Elizabeth Woodville. Eleanor Butler was alive when the second marriage took place, thus invalidating the latter nuptial. All the offspring of this marriage were illegitimate, as the _Titulus Regius_ document, proclaimed in Parliament, declared. Upon assuming the throne, Henry VII took care to destroy all copies of this document, save one, which was discovered at the end of the 16th Century. Of course, Henry VIII declared his own daughters to be illegitimate, while keeping them in the line of succession to the throne. Henry wanted to extricate himself from inconvenient marriages - meaning the marriages had to be invalidated, making bastards of his own daughters. Being an egotist, Henry wanted his offspring to inherit the throne, as opposed to his sisters' offspring. Why the people accepted bastards as queens, when their father bastardized them, is something I don't really understand. Henry also seemed to be angling for his unquestionably illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy, to assume the throne. Helpfully, Fitzroy died young. The Tudors were bastards right through.
Legitimacy is not required if one wins the crown by right of battle. William the Bastard later Conqueror set that precedent. Tudor won Bosworth. He was King by right of conquest. Not his Beaufort blood.
dont care what everyone says, I loved this lecture
If Edward IV had lived longer the princes would not have never been locked up in the tower therefore Richard III would have never been king. No battle of Bosworth, no Tudors. What would the world be like if Elizabeth I never ruled? We'd still be in the dark ages.
If my history teacher had been that hot, I might have listened
aristochat3 Totally. Although to be honest, I would’ve been distracted to listen.
Was hoping I wasn't the only vulgar pleb who was caught up on this.
@@nzisobviouslydestinedtorul636 nope
The issue is who would gain the most from the murder of the Princes in the Tower. Clearly the Tudor dynasty which had a very weak , illegitimate claim to the throne. A Stanley was in command of the Tower at the time of the disappearance of the Princes, was later on Margaret Beaufort's husband and deserted to Henry Tudor at a key moment during the battle of Bosworth. Ruchard III had little to gain by their murder given he left no progeny and at least one other nephew survived him.
Richard is who
@@paloma4444 Richard III was the younger brother of the father of the two Princes. He was of the House of York line and the last Plantagenet king .
“As a Yorkshire man”
The Game of Thrones is as much related to Scottish history.
welsh not Scottish
Don’t associate The War of the Roses with a tv series simply to promote this lecture.
Why not?
jiros00: Because the War of the Roses is factual history, “Game of Thrones” is fantasy entertainment. They are not related in any way but the makers of this video have invented an association to GoT simply to attract viewers, it’s facile.
@@chriscornish1341 Getting people interested in history is a good thing. Whether it might be a tenuous comparison is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned.
jiros00: Who says promoting the video by a silly association with a tv series has got people interested in history? Two entirely different audiences.
@@chriscornish1341 I don't agree. I think it gets more people interested in history. They aren't two entirely different audiences. I bet loads of historians have watched GoT.
The War of the Roses was nothing to do with english counties.
I’ve never seen a worse historian reasoning! Margret Beaufort was pious? Something her son could ensure was chronicled? Wasn’t she Stanley’s wife? Didn’t Richard repeatedly spare her and that’s the reward he got from her? And this woman says she was pious? Lol what a joke!
Yes, she was pious. Are you brain damaged or just not know what words mean?
)
I'd plough that into the middle of next week. Then I would die happy
Long Live Richard III
One slight problem there ....................!
Nothing new here. Bye.
Ha! Maybe history isn't your groove.
@@camhamster3891 I know a bit about the WotR. I know Martin borrowed from there. He borrowed even more from Scottish medieval history. The Scots are entertaining.
Stupid thing to say at the start "It's a bit shameful. First time in Singapore. Isn't it?" Spoken like a true metropolitan elite bubble dweller. Singapore is a dreadful place of governmental authoritarianism and parochialism. Lipscomb wouldn't be calling it a "splendid place" if she actually had to live in it for life. They're very narrow in their outlook and uncritical of themselves. Like all non-white people.
Women historians are obsessed with sex, aristocracy, conspicuous wealth, royalty, mistresses and women in history. Their banality, unoriginality, facile observations are stock in trade. Yes, there are exceptions. The reason women love this sort of stuff is because it's easy. Strategy, economic rationales, etc. are not their forte (in general). I can't help noticing that a lot of women historians are younger than their men equivalents when they get the plum jobs (i.e. TV series and punditry, etc.) and they make very safe and unchallenging conclusions.
And this is what happens with a liberal arts degree...you know just enough about everything to piss everyone off. Lol. Tying historical events to a modern hit television show/books/etc is to try to get people interested in history again. It wasn't the greatest lecture but I've seen and heard worse.
@@susanharris7410 I completely agree. It seems nobody can have a conversation anymore without somehow dragging politics into the fold.
@@susanharris7410 awww. tRump is hated ‘round the world. Might have to learn to accept it and perhaps consider just why that is.
History is all about politics.
Trump rules!