Was Richard III INNOCENT of 'Princes in the Tower' murders? '

• Researchers have spent four years exploring clues as to what happened to the 'Princes in the Tower' in 1483
  
  
• Edward V, 12, and his brother the Duke of York, 9, were locked in Tower of London by their uncle Richard III
  
  
• Historians have always thought pair were murdered by Richard III so he could take throne instead of Edward V
  
  
• But now researchers believe Edward V may instead haver been allowed to live in secret under a false name
  
  
• Evidence suggests he was sent to a rural Devon village as part of a deal between his mother and Richard III
  
  
• There he may have lived as 'John Evans' and built a chantry at St Matthew's church in Coldridge, experts say
  
  
• Clues include a rare glass portrait of Edward V and royal Yorkist symbols that were found carved in the churc
  
  

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10352189/Richard-III-INNOCENT-Princes-Tower-murders-study-claims.html

I don't believe Richard 3rd had them killed.

He already had the throne and was secure.

Also, Richard's son had died and his wife was probably not going to have any more so it would have been pointless killing off the heir when he had no heir of his own.

He also loved his brother and was always loyal to him. He may have been duped into letting him go but I think it was more than likely either the Duke of Buckingham's supporters or, despite her being known as the most pious woman around, possibly Margaret Beaufort's supporters in order to make way for her son.

Richard 3rd had nothing to gain that he didn't already have so,,,,,

gelico wrote:I don't believe Richard 3rd had them killed.

He already had the throne and was secure.

The BIG LIE about Richard III was that, as younger brother of the Yorkist Edward IV, he was the only one who had incentive to remove the sons of Edward IV.  Richard did not “already [have] the throne”, as you state, gelico, but was only the regent for Edward IV's son, Edward V...with the title of Lord Protector.  In order to become king, Edward V would have to disappear, which is what Shakespeare seized upon to discredit Richard.

But Richard was not the only one who needed the boy king out of the way.  Indeed, it was of far more concern to the founder of the Tudur dynasty, Henry VI, who became king less than 3-years after Richard, and thus had the same incentive.  But, Henry was a boondocks Welshman – ie, not even a Plantagenet - who had a tenuous backdoor connection to John of Gaunt through John’s extramarital affair with Kathrine Swynford - ie, Kate became pregnant with John Beaufort, great-grandfather of Henry VII.  If you think Richard stood on soft ground, imagine how Henry felt!

It was Shakespeare who invented the BIG LIE, in his attempt to curry favor with Elizabeth I, also a Tudur.  However, Shakespeare had a twofold purpose: 1) to disparage Richard III; and 2) to strengthen the Tudur grip on the crown.  As to the first, Henry VII was far more hard-pressed than Richard III to gain legitimacy, as he was a Tudur, not even a member of the royal family.  His problem was greater: he had to establish a new dynasty.  Henry even tried to get his mother-in-law to marry the Scottish king, James III…as if the headstrong Elizabeth Woodville could be so manipulated.  However, Henry was successful in getting his daughter, Margaret Tudur, to marry the son, the Scottish King James IV.

This led to Margaret’s granddaughter, Mary, Queen of Scots, being the legitimate heir to the English crown, as Elizabeth was only a bastard.  Elizabeth’s bastardy was all the talk throughout her reign, and it even prompted the unsuccessful “Babington Plot” to assassinate her.  This led to Elizabeth committing the greatest regicide in history, murdering the legitimate queen (Mary Stuart) of (1) England, as well as (2) Scotland, and (3) the (former consort-) queen of France.

Proof is in who became king on Elizabeth’s death: James I Stuart, son of Mary, Queen of Scots.  Who else?  Isn’t this a return to Salic Law – first-born son of the legitimate monarch??  And wasn’t James the son of Mary, Queen of Scots?  Would Robert Cecil allow the son of an assassin to assume the monarchy, if the line through his Mary Stuart wasn't so compelling?

Shakespeare was at pains to taint the Plantagenets by blaming Richard III for the death of the boys, thus legitimizing the Tudurs.  It was actually Henry VII Tudur who did away with the boys (or perhaps exiled them, as the article suggests).    Shakespeare also named the controversy leading to these events: The Wars of the Roses.   He was totally aware of what he was doing, casting players, and writing plots:

As You Like It, Act II, Scene VII wrote:All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts…

Richard would have had the throne because of the claim that both princes were illegitimate due to their father's pre contract to marry Lady Eleanor Butler which was almost as binding as a marriage, which pre dated his marriage to Elizabeth.
I not sure I can see Richard who had always been more than loyal to his brother, the king, suddenly becoming a different character. Its true no one in those days was shy of doing away with rivals one way or another. I think there were as Gelico said more people with something to gain by removing rivals and at the same time blackening others characters. Margaret Beaufort may have been pious but I think she was more zealous and was convinced from the start that it was her son's god given right to be king. She proved herself to be calculating and made it look as though she 'changed sides' as was convenient while all the while plotting her moves towards getting her wish. I don't think she would be squeamish about seeing off a couple of children to gain her objective.

Edward IV’s impetuous marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, sister to Lord Rivers, certainly gummed up the works, including turning Warwick against him eventually.  But contracts to marry were not the equivalent of marriage, even in the 1400’s.  Besides, as Giles St. Aubyn in 1483 says,

“The most compelling reason for rejecting the story of Edward IV’s precontract is that there is not a shred of evidence to support it. It was based on a series of assertion, almost certainly invented, intended to justify the unlawful deposition of the rightful King.”

In the minds of his contemporaries, Richard’s alleged precontract was seen as a “palpable device” to give “colour” to Richard’s designs on the Throne.  https://edwardv1483.com/the-alleged-precontract/  It was just a good argument to bring up when things were uncertain.  Sure, anyone can raise the claim, just as today anyone can bring a lawsuit.  But, as I continually remind my own clients, bringing a lawsuit and winning a lawsuit are two different things.  That’s how I evaluate the claim that the boys were bastards due to some remote marriage agreement.

It's important to remember that these were arguments made a century later, during Shakespeare’s life (1564-1616), when they had lost all the context of passion or hostility.  The real reason the princes disappeared is that the Woodville’s were planning a coup against the Regency, and would surely have had Richard III killed soon thereafter:

Charles Ross wrote:“The first moves in the struggle for power were initiated by the Woodville group in London during the days immediately following King Edward’s death on 9 April 1483.  They evidently planned to maintain their position by force if necessary, by seizing the royal treasure in the Tower, putting a fleet to sea under Woodville command, arranging for an early coronation of the young king, bringing him to London at the head of an army controlled by Earl Rivers and his friends, and devising a form of interim government from which the duke of Gloucester [ie, Richard III] would be largely excluded.”  Ross, Charles, Richard III (1984), 65.

One has to put oneself in the position of Richard at the time.  He was in lawful charge of the government – on last command of brother, Edward IV - and here was an insurrection brewing.  The means of insurrection was the possession of the prince.

So, Richard might well have seized the person of Edward V.  There’s no question that the boys were seen playing games on the Tower lawn during the summer of 1483. What happened thereafter is anyone’s guess.  The Tudur apologists urge the boys were murdered by Richard.  It is just as likely the princes were housed in the Tower quarters, and murdered later by order of Henry VII.  Lord knows, Henry was obsessed with his own legitimacy vis-à-vis any Plantagenet survivors.

Or – happier thought – the boys might have been spirited off to a remote village, as the OP article suggests.  In any event, Richard III was not a bad guy, and he was invaluable in the administration of his brother’s reign.  It was Shakespeare, and the Tudur apologists, who turned him into a hunchback villain.  Imagine, if Hitler had won the war, what stories would now be told about George VI and his repugnant speech disability.

There was a bishop's testimony but then again bishops weren't always trustworthy.
Margaret Beaufort seems to have shown an incredible ability to use situations for her(her son's) advantage. I have read Richard was probably going to win the battle at Bosworth until Lord Stanley committed his troops to Henry's side. Lord Stanley, Margaret Beaufort's husband had a reputation for being adroit at changing sides as the situation warranted and was one of the few people who managed to keep his title, lands and head while favouring Lancastrian or Yorkist causes as and when he felt an opportunity arise, he also felt quite quite happy to serve the Tudors. Margaret chose very well when she offered him marriage as her third husband.