I understand this is a subject of considerable contention, but my opinion is that the evidence suggests that Richard III was behind the apparent murder of Edward V and Richard, Duke of York. The strongest pieces of evidence for this are 1) the fact that when accused of murdering his nephews throughout late 1483 and into 1484 and 1485, Richard did not immediately produce them from the Tower, demonstrating that they were alive, which indicates that either he no longer had possession of them by that time (unlikely, given the extreme security precautions taken around the Tower) or that they were dead, and 2) Richard never tried and convicted anyone else for the crime, which is indicative that there was insufficient evidence, or he was unable to fake sufficient evidence, to convict anyone else of the crime, and in addition those who he might have accused were privy to incriminating evidence against him. In the end, I must conclude that sometime in August 1483, Richard ordered the deaths of his two nephews in order to secure his throne.
However, this security proved illusory. The rumor that the King had murdered, or ordered the murder, of his nephews spread quickly, and did much to undermine Richard's popularity and legitimacy. What if he had been subtler?
The idea occurs that it would not have been excessively difficult to deliberately expose and infect Edward and Richard of York with one of the communicable diseases so prevalent in Yorkist England at that time. Typhus, tuberculosis, smallpox, the plague--any of these could have been introduced into the princes' household, thus infecting them and bringing them to an early grave. What's more, such a method would allow their deaths to be very public--supporters of Edward V could be brought in to see the two boys and witness their deaths, thus removing many of those insidious rumors from later in Richard's reign. If the boys seemed likely to recover, poison could be surreptitiously given to them to ensure they did in fact expire.
Suppose Richard III did choose to use this more devious method. What would the consequences be?
However, this security proved illusory. The rumor that the King had murdered, or ordered the murder, of his nephews spread quickly, and did much to undermine Richard's popularity and legitimacy. What if he had been subtler?
The idea occurs that it would not have been excessively difficult to deliberately expose and infect Edward and Richard of York with one of the communicable diseases so prevalent in Yorkist England at that time. Typhus, tuberculosis, smallpox, the plague--any of these could have been introduced into the princes' household, thus infecting them and bringing them to an early grave. What's more, such a method would allow their deaths to be very public--supporters of Edward V could be brought in to see the two boys and witness their deaths, thus removing many of those insidious rumors from later in Richard's reign. If the boys seemed likely to recover, poison could be surreptitiously given to them to ensure they did in fact expire.
Suppose Richard III did choose to use this more devious method. What would the consequences be?