Tudor's very public pledge to marry her would suggest otherwise.
Male primogeniture was taken so overwhelmingly seriously that she meant nothing.
Male primogeniture was taken so overwhelmingly seriously that she meant nothing.
This is true, but it does nothing to bolster any of your claims.
Neither Elizabeth of York nor Elizabeth Woodville EVER suggested that the Princes were dead, nor did they suggest that the rightful claim to the throne would pass through Elizabeth.
Had Richard been the villain who murdered the princes wouldn't it have made sense to kill Elizabeth (and her sisters) so that any sons she had wouldn't have a claim to the throne? Keep in mind that Tudor's incredibly tenuous claim to the throne derived from his MOTHER'S semi-legitimate line.
It suggests nothing of the kind. She was not mentioned in the Buckingham rebellion at all.
Neither Elizabeth of York nor Elizabeth Woodville EVER suggested that the Princes were dead, nor did they suggest that the rightful claim to the throne would pass through Elizabeth.
Right: murdering your kids and stationing a garrison of armed thugs outside your door with the threat to do the same to you will tend to mute your responses to even the most outrageous crimes. Of all the "refutations" enjoined by Ricardians, this is the lamest.
By your same logic, why would she have married Henry Tudor? He was a "usurper" after all, and Richard had treated her relatives so well.