Britain's Bloody Crown

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

British royal history has been my passion for the past 40 years, so naturally I love anything like this & I have enjoyed Mr Jones work very much in the past, however this series, although quite engaging in parts, is a bit of a let down for many things, including accuracy. Firstly I enjoyed the historical enactments, although the costumes spoke more of Lord of the Rings as opposed to actual British history. The acting was good but the costumes lead a lot to be desired. Mr Jones narration is good also, but just occasionally he comes across as if he is giving his own version of events, rather than historically accurate ones. There is a fair amount of bias too which makes much of this series sound like his personal opinion. What really lets this series down is just how badly researched it was. For instance the events surrounding the poor Princes in the Tower. Jones states they were downed in a vat of wine, when it was the Princes uncle the Duke of Clarence (Father of Margaret Pole) who suffered this fate. To this day nobody knows what happened to those poor children imprisoned in the Tower of London & I was hoping to find some answers here, but not only are there no answers, it is as if Mr Jones is making it up as he goes along, which really lets this series down.

All in all old history hacks like me will find this series a rather irritating & frustrating ride. However, it is rather well made & apart from the lack of research, it has high production & entertainment values. If this series inspires the younger generation, & fires their interest in British royal history, then it has done a good job. Because British history today, the real version, has taken something of a battering by collectivists in the media establishment, which is so very sad. There are so many fascinating stories to tell, with strong moralistic warnings from centuries past. They are an education & we should learn from our ancestors, but there is a very fine line between reimagined collectivist myths & our genuine historical royal heritage.

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.

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.

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.