The Wars Of The Roses - A Bloody Crown [DVD]

This DVD gives a solid overview of the causes of the Wars of the Roses, the major engagements and the political allegiances, through to their conclusion at the Battle of Bosworth. It opens at the Battle of Towton memorial, a surprisingly little known battle given that it was the bloodiest battle fought on British soil, before tracing the origin of the conflict back to the sons of Edward III and the deposing of Richard II by Henry IV. It is historically very solid and provides an interesting summary of overview of the conflict, the main documentary lasting over two hours, with a supplementary looking at the evidence of the conflict at Towton provided by remains from the Towton graves. Much of the story is told through an interview format with two historians describing the key events.

The good points of the DVD are that it is about as well told and easy to follow as it is likely possible to make given the complexity of the conflict and the number of key players involved. It also brings out well the brutal nature of the warfare through examination of the injuries sustained through examination of skeletal remains, and the scenes where the weapons used in hand-to-hand combat are described and the techniques in their usage shown are well done. The only criticisms are that the format is a little dry and unexciting in places, especially parts of the historian interview segments, and there are some dramatisations which are filmed in a very hazy manner (actually at first I thought the TV had developed a fault!).

However, already a very solid and detailed documentary - a useful revision aid or for someone with a keen interest in the conflict.

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.

At the moment this DVD is the best on the market for the War of The Roses, it includes all the battles of how they were won and lost by the Yorkists and Lancasterians, the DVD is over 3 hours long and it also includes graphics of how the battles were fought out.This DVD is everything you need to know of the War of The Roses and I would recommend this DVD to anyone who is interested in history.The Wars Of The Roses - A Bloody Crown [DVD]