Replies

Richard III had nothing to gain by killing those boys in the Tower. Henry VII had everything to gain.

I have to disagree with your view. Even though "The Princes in the Tower" were officially disinherited by an act of Parliament, Royal History and Richard's prior historical action would tend towards Richard III having seen a necessity here. We are talking about the "War of the Roses" time, and no King's head could rest peacefully, no matter how legitimate (or not).

Edward V, was the recognized and legitimate successor to his father, until deposed by Parliament under the control of Richard, two and a half months later. By most accounts of likely death, he is the shortest lived King of England. As for Henry Tudor (Henry VII), he was in Brittany until his re-entry into Wales a year later and given that Richard would have been insane to not have assured himself that the 'Princes' were guarded by his most loyal men, it is difficult to see how he would have engineered their deaths UNLESS they were still alive when he emerged the victor at Bosworth Field in 1485. Since that was almost a year and a half since they were last seen alive, I deem it unlikely.

Interestingly enough, Richard III may again be following his nephews in history. In 1674, a wooden box containing two small human skeletons was found buried close to the White Tower in the Tower of London complex. The siting of the grave seemed to match where Sir Thomas More (Saint Thomas More RC) put it in his "History of King Richard III". Charles II had these bones placed in an urn and interred in Westminster Abbey. In 1933, these bones were examined and then reinterred. It was found that many bones were missing and the urn included some animal bones as well. Photographs of the bones indicate two individuals, 11–13 and 7–11 years old with nothing to disclose gender. DNA analysis could do so and if Richard III is so analyzed then there should be a strong match to such near kin, if that is who they were.