The Tower was where ALL medieval kings went to prepare for their coronations which is why that is where Edward V went and why his brother was taken there.
Why would Richard ever think he would be King. His brother wasn't expected to die when he did so he was loyal - all his life - to his older brother (happens in many families you know).
The whole problem with claiming he killed the boys is why didn't he kill the girls as well?
The girls had a better claim than he did and allowing them to live means he didn't want to harm his brother's family at all.
Taking the throne the way he did was the only way to preserve the dynasty. After 150 years of war - with the previous 50 years caused by an underage King he and parliament knew that the Lancastrians would seize the opportunity to try for the throne again (they already knew that Henry Tudor was planning exactly that). Having an adult King was the best protection to stop Henry - it didn't work of course - but it was the best option.
No one will ever convince me that Richard III killed his nephews and some of the sources I have seen here are laughable given the bias of those sources - many very pro-Tudor or having never set foot in England and simply repeating hearsay information raised late in Henry VII own reign. Henry VII himself never accused Richard - and what a propaganda claim that would have been. Why didn't he - the logical answer is he knew who killed them and that was someone acting on his orders not Richard's.
Richard had nothing to gain by killing them once they were declared illegitimate. Henry had everything to gain as he needed to re-legitmise them, which he did almost immediately - and ordered the destruction of all the copies of the document that had declared them illegitimate in the first place (one copy turned up late in the Stuart period in a house where it had been hidden) - in order to marry Elizabeth. The parliament and people wouldn't accept their King married to someone who was illegitimate. Once he re-legitimises them then the boys have much better claims than he does and so they would have to go.
We will never know but reading a lot and learning the skills of an historian makes me convinced that Richard didn't kill them. Someone who has done an equal amount of reading and has equal or better skills will argue the opposite.
That is what makes history a fun study - the fact that there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answers - only opinions based on assessing the sources and even the chose of sources used.
Henry Tudor imprisoned the Earl of Warwick, but let his sister live and even marry. Girls could be married of to supporters. Girls couldn't lead armies. He was arranging a double marriage for him and Elizabeth with the House of Portugal. Portguese records show. Killing the girls would have blackened his name more.
A realistic look at history should be unbiased, and reviewing all the sources. Most historians think Richard did it.
I am actually not saying he did do it, but to say he had no motives to kill the boys, frankly suggest to me not looking at the situation realistically or in an unbiased way.
Parliament declaring the young boys bastards could easily be undone- and it was undone by Henry VII.
There is absolutely NO way those boys could room freely. They would become adults. They would become adults bent on revenge. Since he killed their family members and took their birthright.
The people rallied and loved Elizabeth of York. She was adored as Edward 1V's heir. Many people supported Henry Tudor just so she could become England's queen and at the very least her children would get the throne. Do you think they would have done this if they really believed the story's about Edward's Precontract?
If they were quick to support Edward 1V's daughter. Do you really think they wouldn't have supported Edward 1V's son?
Those two boys absolutely could not live or room freely and have Richard be secure on the throne. As soon as they got older, some discontented nobles would easily incite a rebellion to their cause.
If Richard III didn't plan those boys death he was an incompetent fool that didn't learn anything about what went down with Henry VI.
Not to mention, Richard never denied the accusations. He denied plans to marry Elizabeth, he cried over his wives death. But he never once saught to deny the rumors that he killed them or ordered their deaths. He also never sought to say someone else killed them.
And the final thing, after their disappearance he rewarded their jailor..
If Richard didn't kill the boys, why didn't he deny the charges?
I don't know if Richard killed them, I was not there. But to say he wasn't capable of killing them and no motive to kill them in my opinion means one's not discerning the time period correctly. The second he said yes to becoming King, he decided he was fine with killing his nephews.
As for a minority ruler means instability. Henry VI was a child king, the big rebellions happened after he came an adult.
Once again here's what I am not saying. I am not saying Richard III had no qualities. I am not saying he couldn't have inacted some decent laws. And Heck, I am not saying he might have convinced himself he was putting his country first by becoming King.... He may have felt peace worth more than two little boys lives.