21 November 2019 | mrsksnook
Seems more of personal opinion than fact, leaving vital clues out, seemingly for bias reasons. Very bias
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.