The Instigator
Kylar
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
TheChristian
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

King Richard III of England authorized the killing of the Princes In The Tower

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Kylar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 921 times Debate No: 67069
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

Kylar

Pro

Hey it's your friend Kylar :). I believe that King Richard III of England ordered the killing of King Edward V and his brother Richard of Shrewsbury in the Tower of London aka The Princes In The Tower. I have reasonable proof of that claim and I love a good debate on it. I am challenging anyone to a debate on this royal and touchy subject. Shall we debate?
1st round opening statements of why you are con and acceptance
Good luck :). Have fun, and lets have a good debate.
Kylar
TheChristian

Con

Your reasonable proof is only historical error, just coincidentallyly occurring during his rule. I accept
Debate Round No. 1
Kylar

Pro

Round II is upon us and I thank my friend for accepting this debate. My opening arguments are as follows. King Richard III of England did authroize the killing of his nephews. The facts are very simple and clear, at least for this round. King Richard III killed the protectors of his nephews, without a trial. He then took ownership of the boys and proceeded to London, where he killed another of their friends without a trial. Then he locked his nephew's in the Tower of London, and they were never seen again. Therefore, they were killed by Richard.
Thanks for accepting the debate, I look forward to hearing your argument, my friend,
Kylar.
TheChristian

Con

While you make a good case, you fail to understand that he respected his brother, so killing his children is unlikely,and he was Catholic, so murder is unlikely. As for evidence to refute your basic claim,Richards successor criticized the former king when he first came into power, then later made murder allegations. That is my entire basic argument, i will elaborate in the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
Kylar

Pro

Thank you once again con for your arguments and the debate :). I will now post my Round III arguments.
There is no doubt in my mind that King Richard III was a devout Roman Catholic and respected his brother King Edward IV with great love and affection. However, King Richard III did superivise the killing of Edward IV's brother George, Duke of Clarence. He then proceeded to like I said, abduct his nephews and imprison them where they were never seen again. Key thing here...he had a knight in his command named Sir James Tyrell. Tyrell later confessed in 1502 that Richard ordered him to kill the princes. Tyrell goes on to say that he hired with Richard's help 2 of the boy's jailers. The jailers entered and smothered Edward V to death, and cut the throat of his 9 year old brother Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York. Then, they called Tyrell in to see their naked dead bodies. The dead princes were castrated, and buried under a staircase. If Tyrelll had his orders from Richard then there is no doubt that King Richard III ordered the death of his nephews,
Sources:
Royal Blood-Library book
The Princes In The Tower-Allison Weir
TheChristian

Con

What you forget is that he respected his brother after his death- Catholicism pure.net, and while he had a motive and timing which happened to occur during his reign, and the princes vanished. His sucessor, Tudor,was marrying the sister of the Tower Brothers, and declared her legitimate, but also causing her brothers legitimacy on accident, so he had them murdered, as the story goes. That story could be just as believed, so while i cannot prove you wrong,neither can you, me. Tyrell could have easily have been a liar and a fraud hungry for attention. Back to Tudor- he publicly criticized his predicessor, but after marrying into power, claimed yhe murder. Why not before?
Debate Round No. 3
Kylar

Pro

Thank you once again for a good debate so far my friend, I am enjoying this a lot :). I do not doubt in the slightest that King Henry VII of England may have had some motive in killing the princes. Indeed, according to the book The Princes In The Tower by Allison Weir, it leaves open the possibilty that Henry VII did the crime and that Tyrell was a liar. Just maybe perhaps, you are correct that Tyrell was a liar and wanted attention before he was beheaded for treason on Tower Hill. However, there is still a chance that King Richard III is truly the murderer. The fact is that on September 3rd 1483, King Richard III ordered Tyrell to go to London and obtain suitable garments for the investure of his son Edward as prince of Wales. The only way Edward of Middleham could be made prince of Wales is if the lawful one, the child King Edward V was dead. Therefore, it is probable that Richard III authorized their murder, so he could invest his son as Prince of Wales.
TheChristian

Con

The princes were in the tower, and as such it was possible to have been hidden their life from everyone, and as neither of us can be proven correct, we are both incorrect until proven otherwise, and once again, why not tell the truth of the matter the second your king? Why wait till you have married their sister? So they were kept in the tower until the king couldn't keep them illegitimate? That is more likely, as his throne was in question, when Richards wasn't.
Debate Round No. 4
Kylar

Pro

Thank you once again for the debate :). I believe that Richard's throne was in serious doubt. He usurped the throne, and while Henry Tudor did the same thing, Richard usurped the throne after killing his nephew's friends. That alone would stain his record as the true king. Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury were legitamate and therefore had a strong claim to the throne. Richard would have had to kill them to end the threat.
Thanks again for the debate my friend, this was a good one.
Kylar
TheChristian

Con

Ok, the princes were declared illegitimate, so they posed no threat. However, when Tudor declared his wife-to-be legitimate, he declared the brothers, which was an accidental result of this,so Tudor needed a claim, as not many liked him-Armchair Readers Amazing book of history,my usual source, and as such killed the princes,Other Armchair books. Thanks for the debate!
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by TheChristian 2 years ago
TheChristian
Im not asking for your vote, but please vote! I cant stand a tie!
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
Say that in a mock ghetto voice
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
@21MolonLabe, you are such a hater.
Posted by 21MolonLabe 2 years ago
21MolonLabe
ofTruth@Voice
You post a lot of random stuff on the comments section of debates. But the song is pretty cool.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
Here is a song I just listened to. I figured that whoever read this might like it:
https://www.youtube.com...

Yours To Hold by Skillet - Lyrics

I see you standing here
But you're so far away
Starving for your attention
You don't even know my name

You're going through so much
But I know that I could be the one to hold you

Every single day
I find it hard to say
I could be yours alone
You will see someday
That all along the way
I was yours to hold
I was yours to hold

I see you walking by
Your hair always hiding your face
I wonder why you've been hurting
I wish I had some way to say

You're going through so much
Don't you know that I could be the one to hold you

I'm stretching but you're just out of reach
You should know
I'm ready when you're ready for me
And I'm waiting for the right time
For the day I catch your eye
To let you know
That I'm yours to hold

I'm stretching but you're just out of reach
I'm ready when you're ready for me
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
I would accept too, but for the same reasons a Leo, I cannot.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
Good luck, Kylar. I wish you victory.
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
I would accept but I am not so knowledgeable about this particular subject.
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
Cool debate!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
KylarTheChristianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Tyrell later confessed in 1502 that Richard ordered him to kill the princes---due to this confession and cons poor rebuttal, I give pro arguments. Pro also communicated his points better.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
KylarTheChristianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Some small grammar errors from Con. Only source used by Con was a ".net" source. Pro used print sources, which are usually thorough and well-researched.