User Reviews

I have just watched Episode 3, "The Princes Must Die", and I feel so incensed that I must write this brief review. We see the two young 'Princes in the Tower', Edward and Richard. The older boy, Edward, who was only 12, looks about 16. Dan Jones's narration tells us that rumors were circulating that, among other things, the boys may have been 'drowned in a vat of wine'. ( That was the boys' uncle George, Duke of Clarence.) And we see Richard III at his coronation with short hair and a full beard. Richard had long hair and was clean-shaven. Has nobody involved with this production ever seen any of the surviving contemporary or near-contemporary portraits of Richard III? They've been all over the world ever since his remains were discovered in a car-park here in Leicester. (That was back in 2012. This series was made in 2015.) With enormous effort I resist the temptation to cry "Off with their heads!" But I wish that while the people responsible for this travesty still do have their heads they would open their eyes and use them.

There is so much left out of this series. Although I didn't at first dislike it. Not until they continually left out key people who played major parts/factors in the decades of the wars of the roses. When watching the "princes must die" is where my enjoyment of the series really wavered. I didn't like the way Mr. Jones mocked Richard III, rolling his eyes like, "Seriously?!" and continually called him a tyrant and that his reasoning was always ridiculous or his claims and justifications are "paper thin." Truly it wasn't, for it is more clear to anyone that the Duke of Gloucester stayed loyal to his brother king Edward to the end. They also add that, "it's almost certain he (Richard)had them (the Princes) murdered." There isn't any proof of this. And whoever wrote for the show is adamant to get the old age image of Richard back to being the tyrannical horrid usurper that the Tudors painted him to be. Lastly, to say that the one that benefited the most from the princes murders was King Richard is quite false. For in fact it was indeed Buckingham who would. I didn't dislike the show, as I've said but there was so much left out from the beginning of it. Things that are important to some of the key players case.

Found this doc on youtube. wanted a doc that would give you a jist of the wars of the roses, so this definitely did that. however, the acting and costume designs and cinematography were all pretty terrible and the hosts annoying jacket and V-neck were very distracting. it's like they were trying to make this doc for a bunch of bro's for a little history lesson after the game and a few brewskies

It's all a bit naff really. All the characters are portrayed in the most simplistic way they are either cartoon goodies or baddies. There's no subtlety or recognition that there are alternate theories or not everything is known. Amd the presenter is a bit of a snob, he refers to Elizabeth Woodville as a "chav".

History can be entertaining and not dumbed-down. This fails at both.