[SunkenCiv]

Thanks SteveH.

The human remains found a few centuries ago, during the digging of a foundation for renovations at the Tower of London were saddled on as those of the missing princes. Because of the 20th century autopsies done on the remains, it is clear that the remains are not those of the princes (at least one is definitely not), unless the princes were too old to have been done in at the time claimed, IOW couldn't have been killed by Richard III (and that's not surprising, since he didn't do it or have it done). Even an authoress who's a foaming at the mouth pro-Tudor nut rejected the remains as inauthentic, without stating the obvious reason -- that if they were authentic, Henry VII would have to be the killer (and he was). Search hits of possible interest.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Josephine Tey's book The Daughter of Time, although written in the form of a novel, is a powerful presentation of the case that Richard III didn't kill the princes (and Henry did).

[wagglebee]

Good post.

I remember reading "The Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey in high school and it was excellent.

We will never know who killed the princes or even if they were killed.

What we do know is that all of the Richard III as villain stories began after his death.

And we also know that Henry Tudor had far more to gain from their deaths than Richard III. Richard had been made king by act of Parliament. Tudor's claim to the throne was through the illegitimate Beaufort line of the Lancasters. The princes were the rightful heirs of Edward IV and that made them a threat to the Tudor claims.