While the author of the reading passage argues that there are three
theories why Richard III, a previous king of
England, eliminated his nephews, the lecturer opposes the reading’s assertion
with counter views.
First of all, the professor maintains that the claim about Richard the
third who easily accessed his nephews as a protector to killed them seems to be baseless since he did not have a reason to slay. To explain, they did not have a the right to
become a the king because they were
illegitimate children. This calls into question the reading passage’s argument
that the king of England murdered his nephews without difficulty by taking
advantage of kinship.
Additionally, the speaker mentions that a history play written by
Shakespeare representing the execution of the crown successors looks to be
controversial because the drama was not an independent work. To be more
specific, the Tudor family supported his novels and took care of his
livelihood. However, the Tudors hated Richard
III, making the dramatic script favorable to them. This contradicts the point
of the reading that the medieval act shows that
King Richard III took his nephews’ lives.
Finally, the
presenter contends that the opinion regarding skeleton evidences which are of
the young heirs in the Tower of London appears to be mistaken, owing to the
fact that a lot of people died in the structure at that time. Besides, the debater
(호칭이 너무 자주 바뀌면 혼란을 줄 수도 있습니다.) asserts that professional historians cannot so much as
figure out what genders of the sex of the
skeletons were. This goes against the idea presented in the article that
the skeletal remains in the fortress must be of the little princess who were (위 phrase에 문제가 몇 가지 있습니다. King = 남성인데, princess는 여성입니다. 또한 만약에 princess를 쓰려도 의도를 하셨다면, were이 아니라 was, 만약 복수이면 princesses가 맞습니다.) assassinated
by their uncle, Richard the third.