MovieChat Forums > The White Queen (2013) Discussion > Final Episode--Richard's death

Final Episode--Richard's death


I know he was portrayed in a "kind light" in this series, and that IRL he must have been a tyrant,but I actually felt sad for him in this.

I want to learn more about him and his reign, so there's one thing that came from this. Also I never realized how many people would benefit from the princes' deaths.

reply

I want to learn more about him and his reign


Well, there are boatloads of books out there about him.

reply

yeah no kidding. thanks for the tip

reply

One of my favorite historical fiction writers is Sharon Kay Penman. She has a book (one of many), called Sunne in Splendor, and it is about Richards reign. What I love about Sharon's books, is that in the back, she states when, what or where she has embellished in the book. Saves a lot of time googling, for the reader. I would highly suggest this read. It took her many years to write, and she states on the book cover, "King Richard III, a monarch betrayed in life by his allies, and betrayed in death by history."

reply

The OP said he/she wanted to learn about Richard's reign and that can't be done through historical fiction. As you note, Sharon Kay Penman is largely a FICTION writer. But you didn't mention that she's not a trained historian. She was an attorney.

There are actual historical accounts of Richard's reign. Some are written by actual historians - not tax attorneys.

reply

Seymour, (or any other knowledgeable poster),

can you recommend any good books on Richard's reign? I would like to read something historically accurate.

reply

Here is the Amazon page for the biographies on him:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_2_11?url=search-alias%3Dstripbo oks&field-keywords=richard%20iii%20biography&sprefix=Richard+I II%2Cstripbooks%2C121

If you want a really good book about how he actually ruled, then Richard III: A Study In Service is probably the best:

http://www.amazon.com/Richard-III-Service-Cambridge-Medieval/dp/052140 7265/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1382455532&sr=1-1& keywords=Richard+III+study+in+service

reply

thank you....checking these out now!

reply

If the OP is too lazy to search for an accurate book on his/her own, I suspect the OP is too lazy to read such a book. Yep, the internet is a wealth of knowledge, unless of course, you're too lazy to use it and just go to IMDB for answers.

reply

Quite. If the OP can't be bothered to do some research on their own (and an IMDB discussion board is probably not the most effective place to find recommendations on historical texts) then why should any of us bother to make recommendations.

Except I will make one; contact the Richard the Third society. I would imagine they would know some stuff.

reply

Seymour, (or any other knowledgeable poster),

can you recommend any good books on Richard's reign? I would like to read something historically accurate.

reply

Sure, given how Richard-show was, I felt for him bad when I saw his body being looted.

But I was disappointed by the battle in itself. They did not really show how Richard gamble with his life and charge directly at Henry Tudor.

reply

But I was disappointed by the battle in itself. They did not really show how Richard gamble with his life and charge directly at Henry Tudor.

They also didn't show the Battle of Bosworth FIELD on, you know, an actual field.

"To you, Baldrick, the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people, wasn't it?"

reply

They also didn't show the Battle of Bosworth FIELD on, you know, an actual field.


I know -- I found it really irritating the way they set every single battle in the woods for some reason.

reply

I think if they showed it in a field then they'd have to fill it with hundreds more extras and a battle set with costumes, equipment, horses, etc. or use special effects top compensate for the emptiness. Setting it in the woods with just the main action featured was probably due to budget. Also the book is more about the drama and intrigue surrounding the actual physical battles so the battles themselves were not so much the main focus of the piece.

reply

Yes, I think you're right - the staging of the battle scenes was likely due to budget constraints. It would have been very expensive to stage a battle in a field, because as you said, they would have needed lots of people. And CGI, especially when done on the cheap just looks terrible. Since the choice was really between a battle that isn't in the historically accurate setting and crappy CGI, I'll take the historically inaccurate but well-shot scene.

reply

To tell you the truth, they had an extremely realistic fifteenth century battle scene in Branagh's wonderful Henry V, -and that one was sufficient to last me a lifetime. Don't mistake me, it's a brilliant movie (I even own it) but wow, is it gruesome. I never thought I'd have the Gregorian Chanr Non Nobis ringing in my head for days!

reply

I've never seen it. Branagh tends to do very high-quality work IMO. I'm going to have to check it out!

That's a good point about the gore involved with a more realistic battle. STARZ wouldn't have had any problem with it (Spartacus was bloody), but the BBC probably would have.

reply

I've never seen it. Branagh tends to do very high-quality work IMO. I'm going to have to check it out!


OMG -- you've got to see Branagh's Henry V. The best film of the play, IMHO.

The cast is really incredible, and yes -- it is gory and realistic.

I've recently been impressed with the Henry V in the Hollow Crown series starring Tom Hiddlestone. I didn't like him nearly as much as Branagh at first, but I guess his performance has grown on me. He certainly is much handsomer than Branagh, when you get right down to it; Henry V is traditionally portrayed as a very handsome devil.

But no -- the Hollow Crown's Henry V will never be as good as Branagh's. His is a real classic.

However, Tom Hiddlestone's Prince Hal (the future Henry V) in the Hollow Crown's Henry IV part 1 and Henry IV part 2 is now my favorite.

And Jeremy Irons (Pope Alexander Borgia, lol) is excellent as always as Hal's dad Henry IV.

reply

I'm definitely tracking down a copy of Branagh's Henry V. I like the Hollow Crown series - it has a great cast. But Branagh's work always attracts A+ talent too and the clips Isolde posted look amazing.

reply

Glad you enjoyed it.....and hopefully I'll see you all on The White Princess page in about a year!!

reply

Oh, SeymourPats, you'll love this! Branagh is extremely anti-war and was determined not to have a 'pretty' or 'glorious' Agincourt.

Here's the Band of Brothers speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-yZNMWFqvM

The Battle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBH4hyiF1Lo

And, my favourite scene, right after the battle: Non Nobis. The long tracking shots are already legendary. If you can only watch one of these clips, make it this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1GDRx-F1C0

Footnote: the dead body King Harry is carrying was a 15 year old Christian Bale!

reply

my favourite scene, right after the battle: Non Nobis. The long tracking shots are already legendary.


OMG -- I know! Fantastic scene. Note the woman who rushes at Henry wanting to kill him, and has to be held off by the French herald.

Footnote: the dead body King Harry is carrying was a 15 year old Christian Bale!


Yep. I think that was the second time I ever saw Bale on film, after Empire of the Sun.

reply

Thanks for the links (and the suggestion)! I'm definitely going to check this out.

I can't believe this one completely escaped me - it looks so good!

reply


STARZ wouldn't have had any problem with it (Spartacus was bloody), but the BBC probably would have.


I doubt it - after the 9.00pm watershed pretty much anything goes.



I'm the clever one; you're the potato one

reply

I also did not have a problem that the final battle was set in the woods instead of a field bec I understood it was probably due to budget constraints.

reply

Setting it in the woods with just the main action featured was probably due to budget.


I'm sure that's true. When you see them setting battle after battle in the woods, it's pretty obvious that costs are being "contained."

reply

What about this august snow? :p

reply

I tended to overlook the population of armies, courtiers, oh, the population of London itself, due to budgetary restrictions. The drama was with the court, so the lack of masses of extras weren't something I held against the series.

reply

I wish they had showed how he died so heroically in battle wile Tudor stayed on his horse from afar.

reply

My intro to the Plantagenets in general were Thomas Costain's books; another author who actually has broken up the factions into separate works is Geoffrey Richardson (his books are good reads).

My fascination with all of this started when I was a freshman in high school in 1968 and we were assigned Katherine by Anya Seton. Yes, a fictional work - but it made me want to seek out the actual history.

Alison Weir also has written about the Wars of the Roses as did Antonia Fraser. Fraser also has another book about the Kings and Queens of England.

For a fun fictional take on Richard, there is always Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey.




English MA: Symbolism/my life. Truth vs the world - Boudicca of the Iceni

reply

The OP said he/she wanted to learn about Richard's reign and that can't be done through historical fiction


Sure it can. In fact, it's probably one of the best ways for the layman to be exposed to this type of material. So long as the fiction is historically accurate (for the most part) it can be used as a basis for learning. The viewer/reader would then need to commit to fact checking and supplementing via reputable nonfiction sources.

But you didn't mention that she's not a trained historian.


Must she attend historian school? A historian is really nothing more than a researcher with an interest in history. Many writers of fiction do copious research on the subject matter at hand.

reply

Terwyn,

Sharon Kay Penman is a very good writer of historical fiction, and The Sunne in Splendour is one of my favorite books by her.

Have a good day.

reply

Mine, too, -she (Penman) even sent me a beautiful postcard from Wales. For the record, her undergraduate degree was in history.

And by the way, Gregory has a PhD in medieval history, from Edinburgh. I've always been confused by the distinction between amateur and professional. I know someone with a PhD in astrophysics, who is yet described in newspapers as an 'amateur astronomer'. When I hear that phrase, I picture an accountant in their backyard with a $250 telescope and a copy of Carl Sagan!

reply

I didn't know that PG has a PhD in medieval history. Interesting!

To me, when someone is an historical fiction writer, an advanced degree in a related subject makes him/her more credible.

Maybe your friend is described as an amateur astronomer because he doesn't work/teach in the field? I would agree that the description doesn't fit someone with his qualifications, and I would picture an amateur astronomer as someone with a home telescope too!

reply

what were you expecting exactly? And maybe you should rethink the notion that he was a tyrant. Might not be true.

reply

Thank you for the Astronomy reply, SeymourPats.

One thing I was disappointed in was that they never mentioned Richard's only Parliament and some of the fine laws enacted therein at his insistence, -even though they'd raised my hopes by having him tell Anne all the things he was hoping to do when it convened. Francis Bacon judged him "A good lawmaker for the ease and solace of the common people." One act allowed the possibility of bail for suspected felons - that was new - and protected their property from seizure. And that one, many feel, was inspired by Elizabeth's father, who had convinced Edward IV that former London Mayor Sir Thomas Cooke "had Lancastrian sympathies" and while Cooke was in prison, Baron Rivers and his sons emptied out his elegant London townhouse ("looking for evidence" cough, cough) including a tapestry worth a small fortune.

He also passed a law that the statutes of the realm should be written in English and not Latin or French. (Charles Ross was not overly impressed with this, declaring only that it should've been done a hundred years earlier. )

reply

Thank you Isolde. See, these are the types of things I'm hoping to learn about him. He is interesting, good or evil.

Thank you.

reply

Yeah Isolde is right, love him or hate him nobody can deny his short reign was notable for the reforms which he introduced which benefited 'ordinary people' and the affection that 'ordinary people' had for him in return. I recently stumbled across some info on the website of a Leicester (of all places) solicitors firm called Johnson Astills, which was specifically about Richard III's legal reforms. Follow the link from their news page, and on, I think, the third page there's a link to the Richard III piece they've written which relates the reforms to present day legal practices. I also recently read an article by Chris Skidmore MP in which he quotes a letter from the Bishop of St Davids, Thomas Langton to a friend, in which he states that Richard "contents the people" with "many a poor man being relieved by him and his commands". It goes on to say "I never liked the conditions of any prince so well as his" and he added "God hath sent him to us for the weal of us all".
There's also the much recorded response to his death in the York city records, which was written by the city elders at great risk to themselves on hearing the news that their king "late mercifully reigning upon us.....was piteously slain and murdered to the great heaviness of the city".
There's loads of other stuff out there too which I won't bore you with, and the Paul Murray Kendall biography is very good if you haven't seen it yet....so happy researching!

reply

the Paul Murray Kendall biography is very good if you haven't seen it yet


Not everyone thinks the Kendall biography is good; I would suggest that the OP take a look at all the reviews of it -- including those on the Internet -- before they make up their mind.

The biography by Charles Ross is considered by many to be the best.

For the most comprehensive and well balanced analysis of his reign/rulership -- again, the following is considered the best:

Richard III: A Study of Service, by Rosemary Horrox

reply

Ha ha ha I'm sure not EVERYONE thinks the Ross or Horrox books are good either....that's the point of people putting their opinions on message boards!

reply

I'm sure not EVERYONE thinks the Ross or Horrox books are good either.


But their numbers may be in the majority.

....that's the point of people putting their opinions on message boards!


Exactly.

So let's let the OP make up their own mind, hmm?

reply

The Langton letter! I'd almost forgotten about that. A nice encomium, especially since it was in a private letter, rather than a public chronicle. Thank you, Teesgirl1.

reply

You're welcome Isolde!
I think these private documents or those written with no intention to curry favour are by far the most revealing. Sad so many have been accidently, or deliberately lost over the years!

reply

One act allowed the possibility of bail for suspected felons - that was new - and protected their property from seizure.

Eh. I certainly don't subscribe to the "Richard III was an evil dictator" school but this idea that he somehow invented the concept of bail - or even introduced it - (as the oh-so-reliable Wikipedia says) is a huge misconception. Bail had been a part of the English justice system as early as Edward III reign because, in short, it saved both courts and defendants alike a lot of trouble. Now, what Richard III did do was concede to the insistence of the Commons to extend Edward III's statute to include the Justices of the Peace as an authority to grant bail (previously, local courts were the ones with this authority). It's hardly a bad thing, but Richard III didn't exactly invent this 'groundbreaking new concept'. Like all people in positions of power who want to maintain power and legitimise their rule, what Richard did was to make a concession to the Commons for the sake of politics.

As for him "preventing the seizure of property", I'm pretty sure the elderly dowager Countess of Oxford would disagree. Here was an old widow, retired to a convent and left essentially defenseless upon the deaths of her husband and eldest son and the attainder of the second (John de Vere of Bosworth fame), who was forced out of the convent by Richard's retainers and dragged from place to place until she was coerced into selling her inherited lands to Richard at a much lower price than their worth. Seeing as this episode doesn't do anything for Richard's saintly image, I'd wager you probably won't see this in any of your Paul Murray Kendall books.

Look, I'm all for revealing the truth about Richard ("truth" being the key word here), but he was hardly the romantic, chivalric figure of modern creation. This was not a man who lived and breathed "liberté, egalité, fraternité" or "All Power to the Proletariat"; this was a medieval man living in the medieval times. So, if you want to excuse in such a way as to still maintain academic integrity, the best thing to do would be just to judge him on the same level as his contemporaries. None of this anachronistic rubbish.

"To you, Baldrick, the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people, wasn't it?"

reply

You know, you shouldn't have put such a spoiler in your thread title.
I just found out about this show and scrolled down to see if it's been cancelled or something and you spoil it for me. Well thanks a lot.
Please keep in mind not to post such things in a title, or at least without a warning; it would be much appreciated.

reply

Wait, you didn't know that Richard III was killed in 1485? And how long exactly should people wait until they're sure you've caught up with your viewing?



I'm the clever one; you're the potato one

reply

No, I didn't because our schools mostly focus on our country's history so I honestly don't know anything about Richard III. But anyway, thanks for the reply!

reply

Henry III?

reply

Richard, sorry. :) (I fixed it.)

reply

After reading up on Bosworth field, the final battle in this series was a tremendous letdown. Just reading the battle scenario from Wikipedia, and everyone would question "What the hell did I just watch?"


I expected to see two standing armies duking it out on an actual field and when Richard realized the guys he depended on most to secure victory for himself joined with Henry, Richard made a last ditch charge with his most loyal friends at Henry's little group but they got trapped in the marsh area and Richard had to leave his horse behind to continue fighting only to be mobbed and beaten down and killed but not before killing Henrys flag bearer and knocking John Cheyne off his horse. Also, what we now know of Richards injuries I expected one of Henrys soldiers to finish the job with a wild swing of a pole axe and cleaving off the back of Richards head which led to a profusely bleeding death.



Sure some of the stuff we know today about the battle might not have been known when they were shooting this episode, but god, how could they get so much wrong?

reply

god, how could they get so much wrong?


I think it was for the same reason they set all the battles in the woods: budget constraints.

reply

This is an international forum meant for an international crowd. A lot of people around the globe watch English films or shows, and this would be a nice introduction to the War of the Roses.

reply

The ending to this story has been spoiled since 1485.

"To you, Baldrick, the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people, wasn't it?"

reply

With all the changes to the story I was still expecting Richard to win at Bosworth forest :p

reply

Oh for pity's sake.....I would have expected anyone who had an interest in this subject to know Richard dies bloodily at the end....where do you think Henry VIII came from? There are no spoilers in recorded history. Richard's death is legendary.

reply

My parents were unaware of the events in this time in English history, and my father is a history buff. We're from the Philippines btw and I'm sure you would also not be familiar with another country's history. Why not let people appreciate the show and allow them to be introduced to English history without spoiling it for them?

reply

To get a more balanced view of Richard III I would read either Annette Carson's Richard III The Maligned King http://www.amazon.com/Richard-III-Maligned-Annette-Carson/dp/075245208 8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415463403&sr=8-1&keywords=annett e+carson+richard+iii or her other work 'Richard III: A Small Guide to the Great Debate http://www.amazon.com/Richard-III-Small-Guide-Debate-ebook/dp/B00EY9QS CW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1415463403&sr=8-2&keywords=annet te+carson+richard+iii

Both are balanced accounts and are highly readable and scholarly.

reply

A book entitled "Richard III The Maligned King" sounds about as balanced as Fox News.











reply

You have a point njgill. Nevertheless these works are scholarly studies, unlike some of the works written by so-called 'historians'. John Ashdown-Hill's books are good value too, sensibly written and extremely well researched. Dr. Ashdown-Hill is the man responsible for tracing Richard III's mtDNA sequence in 2004. I would recommend "The Last Days of Richard III and the fate of his DNA: the Book that Inspired the Dig" :

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Last-Days-Richard-III-fate/dp/0752492055/ref=s r_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415514180&sr=1-3&keywords=j ohn+ashdown+hill

reply

Add Alison Weir to the list too. I'm curious as to whether anyone likes her work or not.




She's written at least 2 books on Richard III, and The Wars of the Roses. I just bought a used copy of this one, but haven't read it yet...

https://www.amazon.com/Wars-Roses-Alison-Weir/dp/0345404335/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1477762170&sr=1-5&keywords=alison+weir



She also wrote this one...


https://www.amazon.com/Princes-Tower-Alison-Weir/dp/0345391780/ref=pd_sim_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0345391780&pd_rd_r=1Y0XYK5T0701XFGTR5J7&pd_rd_w=gxFLA&pd_rd_wg=CoVg6&psc=1&refRID=1Y0XYK5T0701XFGTR5J7








AVADA KEDAVRA!!!

reply

Sounds like Lisa Simpson's Jebediah Springfield: Super Fraud, which I gave an "F" because it was nothing but dead, white male-bashing from a PC thug. It's women like her that keep the rest of us from landing a husband.

reply

Is this the same Annette Carson who, while exonerating Richard III of pretty much everything he is accused of, accuses Elizabeth Woodville and William Hastings of poisoning Edward IV (on no evidence), blames Edward IV for his sons' disappearances (after he had already died), and says that the twelve-year-old Edward V should have "understood" kingship by 1483 and therefore "should have seen it coming" and fought back when Richard III usurped him?

Gosh. Such objective. Much balanced. Wow.

To you, Baldrick, the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people, wasn't it?

reply

Richard III did not usurp Edward V - Edward was a child at the time of Edward IV's death and the last thing needed at that time was a child on the English throne, especially after the disastrous reign of Henry VI who succeeded to the throne as an infant, causing much division and fighting among the aristocracy. It was Parliament which called upon Richard to take the throne. It wasn't a unique situation - the same thing happened when Edward VIII was considered to be unsuitable as King during the 1930s and Parliament called upon his younger brother Albert to take the throne instead, which he did, ruling successfully as King George VI. And nobody ever said that King George VI had usurped the throne.

And I would recommend that anybody interested in King Richard III's reign read Annette Carson's very scholarly work and judge for themselves, not rely on bits taken out of context as you have done.

reply

The fact that he was a child does not make taking his throne non-usurpation. RIII was entrusted with the boy king's safety, not asked to decide to take the throne himself to spare the country from further wrangling. If EIV had wanted Gloucester to be his heir he could have made him just that. He didn't. He made him Protector. And no one decided that a child king was a bad idea - not even Richard argued that; he came up with the hitherto unknown Butler pre-contract to bastardise Edward's children as his justification.



the same thing happened when Edward VIII was considered to be unsuitable as King during the 1930s and Parliament called upon his younger brother Albert to take the throne instead, which he did, ruling successfully as King George VI. And nobody ever said that King George VI had usurped the throne.


No, not the same; Edward VIII could not become king as head of the C of E because of his desire to marry Mrs Simpson, and he abdicated. He renounced the crown, he didn't have it taken away from him because someone decided the Duke of York would be a better bet.


I'm the clever one; you're the potato one.

reply

Any book you read is an author using his/her own creativity to bring a portrait or a woodwork to life. But what can be said with certainty was that the princes were unfortunate victims of the situation they lived in. The last legitimate Plantagenet king was Richard II, Edward the Black Prince's son who was by all rights the rightful heir to the throne after his father and grandfather Edward III. Henry IV, a son of John of Gaunt, Richard's uncle and Edward IIIs 3rd son, usurped the throne and created the House of Lancaster. When Henry IVs grandson Henry VI became unpopular, his cousin Richard, son of Edmund, Duke of York, who was John of Gaunt's younger brother, stepped up as an alternative and died in battle. His son was Edward IV. As you see, from the family history of backstabbing and usurpation, it was only a matter of time before the House of York had their own problems. The Yorkists were usurpers of usurpers. Treason was in their blood. When they broke the laws of succession, why should their successors be treated any differently?

reply