[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Victoria

There’s no evidence the boys were murdered. For example, they could have succumbed to a virus or infection. Children died regularly - Richard and Edward had several siblings that didn’t make it to adulthood. If it happened during an uprising, there may only have been a private funeral.

Private funeral? Their bones were found buried under the stairs; that's pretty private all right!

Quite convenient that they died at the same time. And did any of the revisionists find records of a doctor ever being called in to tend to them?

I agree with Catlady the Richard stole the crown. The claim of a precontract is very shaky, with Edward and Eleanor both dead and Stillington the only witness. Tey’s portrayal of Stillington’s news as so unexpected and shocking that that Richard and the Council were forced to change direction is bogus. Claims of a ’precontract’ were a dime a dozen, and the most convenient grounds used to petition the church for an annulment.

Maybe Richard and his supporters sincerely believed it was safer to take the throne than leave the country in the hands of an easily controlled child. Once the Titulus Regius was introduced, Richard may have felt the matter was dealt with, and the fate of boys could be unrelated.

Or Richard could have seized the throne and eliminated his competition. For me, Tey’s strongest card was that the victor writes the history. I found her other arguments weak, and sometimes frustrating

So I’m stuck on the fence. If the boys were murdered, Richard seems the most likely suspect in terms of means, motive, and opportunity. But there are definitely other people with equally strong motives, so without better evidence, there’s room for doubt.

I don't see how the fate of the boys could be unrelated to the usurpation of the crown. I don't believe in coincidence, and their disappearance is way too convenient. What reason would Richard have had to keep them alive when their continued existence was a potential threat to him?

Who are the other suspects? Henry Tudor? Well, since Tey/Grant cites the subsequent behavior of the princes' mother and sisters toward Richard as an exonerating factor, doesn't it follow that the marriage of a sister to Henry helps exonerate Henry?