Even so, the motives for Richard's actions in June 1983 though are still a matter of controversy, and until more evidence comes to light, no one will know why exactly Richard usurped the throne. Was it satisfy his own ambitions, or did he consider, after the discovery of the pre-contract, that a man experienced in warfare and administration would be better on the throne of a country just returning to prosperity, than a 12 year old child of questionable legitimacy?.
A matter which will forever have tarnished the reputation of Richard though is the disappearance of the princes. The elder of the two succeeded to the throne as Edward V on the death of his father in April 1483. Some six weeks later, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, uncle of the two boys, proclaimed himself king as Richard III. The boys were commented by Mancini as simultaneously "seen more rarely behind the bars and windows, till at length they ceased to appear altogether". This was believed by many, especially under Henry VII due to propaganda, as Richard's doing. On the contrary, I would argue that if they appeared no more at the Tower, this need not mean that they were dead, but simply that they were not there. At this point it would perhaps be relevant to consider the supposed bones of the princes, found in Westminster Abbey and different ones in the Tower. However, it cannot be proved that either of these were those of the boys, as the ages can be questioned as well as their location. .
These studied facts lead me to the following conclusion: Why should he, an intelligent man, not have seen the fatal damage to his reputation by their murder, beyond all possible gain? Such a scandal at the very outset of his reign, when he was on a triumphal progress, would have been the action of a lunatic, besides clearing the way for Henry, as he was probably aware of the Henry's hopes. In order to take every precaution therefore it is possible that he sent the boys abroad, which is why they disappeared from the Tower and Richard was silent in face of the rumours.