Wars Of The Roses - A Bloody Crown [DVD]

Excellent DVD for history buffs.

DVD series about the wars of the roses, Very, Very rare to find and in Exellent condition considering its a used DVD.I'm a massive King Richard III Fan and i love medieval documentaries especially about the The Plantagenet dynasty whom Richard III was a Plantagenet king in the 15th century. The Plantagenet dynasty after 300 years of ruling england fell out spectacularly and broke off in to two factions it split into two royal houses, The house of york and The house of lancaster. If your into this kind of thing its right up your street.I give it (10 out of 10).

This takes you from the usurpation of Henry Bolingbrooke in 1399, who as Henry IV of Lancaster replaced the faltering Richard II Plantagenet. But Henry IV's son, Henry V of Agincourt did not reign long and, instead bequeathed his realms of England and France to a baby son, Henry VI. But when Henry VI came of age, he proved as inept as Richard II. A struggle for power then began leading to the Wars of York and Lancaster in which, in the end, York won, and Edward IV came to the throne in 1461. His death should have made no difference to the Yorkist victory but for the murder of Edward V by his uncle, the Duke of Gloucester, who then became Richard III. This, once again, split the Yorkist side and many defected to a sprig of Lancaster, the insignificant Henry Tudor. In 1485 he defeated King Richard and became Henry VII. It is a complex history and this excellent video will help you to cut a path through it before you try to do so by reading any book.

Fascinating insights into the truth about what happened during this time in English history. A subject that has been of great interest to me for many years. Yea, the visuals used are from the adaptations of Philippa Gregory books but there's so much more that we can get from it

This started promising, however, in the first fifteen minutes or so, multiple inaccuracies came up: according to the documentary, the duke of Bedford lead the peace-faction in England: WRONG - he fought in France almost all his time. Bedford's attempts for peace was not with the Armagnac but with Philip, duke of Burgundy, who he underestimated thinking if he keeps him satisfied Burgundy will remain an ally, and thus Bedford let go of every chance to ensure Burgundy's kept at bay.Bedford died in 1432 according to here: WRONG - died 1435, days after Philip duke of Burgundy left the English alliance, which is not mentioned here at all. the duchess of Bedford, Anne of Burgundy (sister of Philip) died in 1432.According to here, Richard duke of York was the son of Edmund of Langley, 4th surviving son of Edward III thus holding claim to the throne: WRONG. Richard was the son of Richard, earl of Cambridge, executed for the Southampton plot in 1415, and younger son of Edmund of Langley. The older son of Edmund of Langley, Edward duke of York died childless in the battle of Agincourt and thus Richard became heir to the duchy of York. Richard of York's claim was stronger than the Lancastrian through his mother, Anne Mortimer, who was descendant of Lionel of Antwerp, 2nd son of Edward III. When Anne's brother Edmund Mortimer (by no means a strong political character), earl of March died childless later, Richard of York also inherited the title earl of March.Then the same thought continues claiming York wanted the throne because he thought Somerset, Edmund Beaufort might want it. Somerset was an illegitimate descendant of John of Gaunt, 3rd son of Edward III and excluded from the succession by Henry IV, son of John of Gaunt who founded the house of Lancaster. It's claimed Somerset had an excellent military career in France, which simply is not true unless losing France due to fighting with no tactics at all is considered excellent. There are also two Somersets in the story, one (John, son of John Beaufort, earl of Somerset and eldest son of John of Gaunt by Katherine Swynford) having committed suicide as it was believed after losing France, and the title fell on his brother Edmund - the same Edmund Beaufort who wished to marry Katherine of Valois briefly in 1427. He backed out of it quickly once Gloucester pushed through an Act of parliament that the queen could not marry without the king's consent or the suitor's lands and titles became forfeit. Katherine named Gloucester one of the executors of her will later (Important since almost every source discussed how Gloucester had Owen Tudor arrested, and misses how he was trusted by her with this task.)Humphrey duke of Gloucester is painted here as one who fought for the war alone: WRONG - at the time Gloucester "founded" the war faction, Bedford was in England for the last time in his life, 1431-1432, discussing the future of France and Gloucester offered to replace Bedford. When Bedford died in 1435 - not 1432 - and Burgundy left the English alliance, ALL nobility was in support of the war, including Cardinal Beaufort and his house. In 1436, Burgundy had Calais under siege and Somerset and Gloucester relieved Calais, afterwards Gloucester tried to hunt down Burgundy in Flanders who ran away in the night leaving most of his army under Calais. But before Bedford died, Cardinal Beaufort attended a conference in Arras where he literally let go of any chance for peace, causing the Burgundy and Armagnac factions to reunite right there in Arras.Richard duke of York was born in 1411, and from 1426 he was the ward of Gloucester. Gloucester fought the release of the duke of Orleans in 1440 (not mentioned here at all), which was the first attempt for peace by the Cardinal. York was supporting Gloucester's war campaign, the peace campaign led by Beaufort and Somerset hoped for Orleans to secure the peace, when it didn't happen, the Cardinal retired from politics after a complaint filed by Gloucester that even mentioned Beaufort's previous crimes against Henry V (he was likely to counterfeit money in 1417, pardoned by Henry V but he had to resign the post of Chancellor, and in 1412 an assassin caught in Henry V's chamber claimed he was sent by Beaufort tho Beaufort was openly supporting Henry V, then the prince of Wales). Gloucester retired in 1442 when Beaufort's faction now led by Somerset and William de la Pole, earl of Suffolk, created a scandal trial accusing his wife of witchcraft which discredited the duke, and he resigned his office of first councillor (likely by the king's request.)Bedford was Henry VI's heir presumptive, when he died childless, this fell on Gloucester, when he died, also childless, York became heir presumptive until Henry VI had a son of his own.It's mentioned that Suffolk negotiated Margaret of Anjou's marriage, but not mentioned that Suffolk agreed secretly to give up Maine, thus the bride had no dowry. It's also not mentioned that Suffolk was released from French imprisonment previously to work on the release of the duke of Orleans which he agreed to. There was a two-year waiting time created by various treaties giving up further lands for time, which Henry VI agreed to, but in Parliament 1447 it had to be announced that Maine is lost as the French king commanded Maine. Gloucester's "treason" had no grounds, he was arrested and against the custom of the time, his servants all removed from him thus the murder stories arose, that he was poisoned or put between feather matrasses and suffocated (this is probably since the previous duke of Gloucester, Thomas of Woodstock, 5th surviving son of Edward III was murdered this way, upon the order of Richard II in 1397). It's not mentioned that king Henry VI and queen Margaret already dissolved Gloucester's lands and wealth, the documents granting these out were given the week before his death, thus the death planned - even tho he might have died before his own murder. He had to be silenced as he had a huge following in London where the king's favorites were not liked, plus he surely would have defended Maine in parliament. Richard of York was captain of Calais at the time thus not present in Bury St Edmunds.Suffolk was tried for treason in 1450 and the king changed his sentence from execution to exile - the Kentish sailors beheaded him on his way to France onboard a ship - it was believed he killed Gloucester, and Gloucester was Warden of the Cinque ports, the duchess of Gloucester was daughter of Sir Reginald Cobham, who's family was old Kentish gentry. This is not mentioned here. York also claimed when he started his own opposition that Gloucester was murdered, and he only started pursuing his own claim to the crown after the 2nd battle of St Albans, until then, he pursued the removal of the Beaufort party members from the king's side. His first public sign to show this change of mind is mentioned though, when he walked into the council chamber in Westminster and almost sat on the throne.The start also included scenes that I saw in other documentaries: the scene which is supposed to show Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou is exactly the same as used in another series (Kings and Queens of England) for Henry V and Catherine of Valois.The scene that is supposed to show the arrest of Gloucester is a monk praying in front of a cross, used in a documentary about life in Medieval England. Gloucester was arrested while he had supper at his lodging in Bury St Edmunds, on the eve of his arrival to attend parliament there.All in all, after all these corrections, in describing the battles, the documentary is enjoyable, there are even little bits like discussing the armours the men-at-arms wore that were interesting, as they go into the battles, that was entertaining. Information to those who know little of these battles, and easily described, also more accurate, e.g. they described why the forfeiture of lands was a huge thread, also how Edward, earl of March (son and heir of Richard of York) was so appealing to men at the time.I give 1 star to the start, 3 to the rest, and altogether I changed my 2 stars to 3 considering the lengthy documentary of all battles. Still, for someone who is familiar, the inaccuracies are annoying.

Excellent documentary, full of real facts and interesting explanations. It could (and probably should) have gone for double the amount of time without me noticing. This is the type of thing that should be done more often to promote the diffusion of history, well researched, correctly dramatised without constant repetitions to conceal that it was done cheaply, and presented without focusing on innuendos and sensational gossip, like a lot of the ones I have seen elsewhere.

I love that period of history so when I found this documentary I could not miss it. I loved it. I found it very clear (I already know a lot of that time so that could help) and brought more knowledge on facts/dates that I didn't know/forgot. It starts from the origin of the Cousins War so decades before York and Lancaster starting fighting. If you like History, this is a good documentary. Hopefully you'll like it the way i did

One of the problems with documentaries is the format they use,some formats are not always to everyones taste.This one though I found very good.Over two hours long,gives the cause of the wars and carries on right through to Bosworth and is very detailed.The format they use is as follows=You have a narrative with voice over pictures and paintings,in between there are a couple of historians carrying the whole thing along also some combat experts talking you through the various aspects of medieval warfare.Overall I though the whole documentary was well presented and informative.

what a complicated story, worth viewing to better understand the monarchy that eventually led to western democratic states.

empfehlenswert für alle, die eine sachliche Darstellug der "Rosenkriege" wollen; gute Bebilderung und Kommentare der Fachleute, allerdings sind die neuesten Informationen nicht enthalten ( DVD stammt von 2011 )

New archaeological evidence, and extensive historical research, are featured in this thoughtful examination of the series of battles that consist of the Wars of the Roses. The specials on weaponry, combat techniques, forensics, and the archeological site of Bosworth Field are all well worth watching. You may want to turn on the subtitles; at times, the music overwhelms the narrative. The role of "The Kingmaker," Richard de Neville, Earl of Warwick, is explored: this powerful force of the House of York was centered at his Warwick Castle, pitted against the House of Lancaster and the weak Henry VI. After the devastating Battle of Wakefield (December 1460) Neville's father, the Earl of Salisbury, was killed, beheaded at the direction of Queen Margaret (while Henry VI was having another bout of mental issues). The Earl's son (and Kingmaker's brother) Sir Thomas Neville was killed in battle. Queen Margaret kept the Plantagenet rivalries going, family feuds gone viral; all were related to one another. Richard's brother, John Neville, 1st Marquess of Montagu, was later killed at another decisive Roses clash, the Battle of Barnett, April 1471; the family lines continued despite all this. No one mentions that one of the The Kingmaker's daughters was Queen Anne (married to Richard III), while her sister Isabel married a great-grandson of Edward III's, George Plantagenet, the Duke of Clarence.It would have been interesting if the backstory had examined how the powerful Plantagenet, Neville, and Percy (Duke of Buckingham, later Earl of Northumberland), and Beaufort families were all interrelated, with Scottish, Saxon, and various other lineages. This only makes the Wars of the Roses more perplexing. It isn't mentioned that Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, was the grandson of John of Gaunt, a son of Edward the III, King of England. Another of John of Gaunt's daughters was the grandmother of King Henry the VIII. I know those who, oddly enough, happen to be directly descended from pivotal figures involved in the Wars of the Roses; it's a long story from these conflicts to those who became American colonists who fought in the Revolutionary War. Anyway, if you enjoy studying history, I highly recommend this excellent, well-researched, and entertaining film.New archaeological evidence, and extensive historical research, are featured in this thoughtful examination of the series of battles that consist of the Wars of the Roses. The specials on weaponry, combat techniques, forensics, and the archeological site of Bosworth Field are all well worth watching. You may want to turn on the subtitles; at times, the music overwhelms the narrative. The role of "The Kingmaker," Richard de Neville, Earl of Warwick, is explored: this powerful force of the House of York was centered at his Warwick Castle, pitted against the House of Lancaster and the weak Henry VI. Neville's father, the Earl of Salisbury, was killed December 1460, as was Salisbury's young son, at the direction of Queen Margaret (while Henry VI was having another bout of mental issues). She kept the Plantagenet rivalries going, family feuds gone viral; all were related to one another. Richard's brother, John Neville, 1st Marquess of Montagu, was later killed at another decisive Roses clash, the Battle of Barnett, April 1471; the family lines continued despite all this. No one mentions that one of the The Kingmaker's daughters was Queen Anne (married to Richard III), while her sister Isabel married another son of Edward III's, George Plantagenet, the Duke of Clarence.It would have been interesting if the backstory had examined how the powerful Plantagenet, Neville, and Percy (Duke of Buckingham, later Earl of Northumberland), and Beaufort families were all interrelated, with Scottish, Saxon, and various other lineages. This only makes the Wars of the Roses more perplexing. It isn't mentioned that Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, was the grandson of John of Gaunt, a son of Edward the III, King of England. Another of John of Gaunt's great-granddaughters was the grandmother of King Henry the VIII. I know direct descendants from pivotal figures involved in the Wars of the Roses; it's a long story from these conflicts, to American colonists who fought in the Revolutionary War. Anyway, if you enjoy studying history, I highly recommend this excellent, well-researched, and entertaining film.

This film is a documentory, very instructive and entertaining. Respected historians and scholars provide expert analysis of the epic conflict between 2 rival families - the House of Lancaster and the House of York, using full scale reconstructions and recreation.

A good synopsis of this period and an especially enjoyable review in lieu of the recent reburial of Richard III. Well produced.