I've always believed Henry VII innocent but were you to ask me why, I'd say it's a gut feeling or intuition, which is useful for a novelist, but doesn't really hack it in informed debate!

Do you know how much has been written about the death of Diana, late princess of Wales and how many people believe she was murdered. They cry in the streets about that. It doesn't make it true.[/quote]Dominic Mancini, an Italian observer with no ax to grind on behalf of the Tudors, wrote in 1483 that he saw men crying in the street at the mention of Edward V. Clearly, they wouldn't have been crying if they thought the boys were frolicking up in Yorkshire somewhere.
This rebellion was probably 'masterminded' by Lord Stanley and his wife. They had many reasons to hate Richard and did not want him to be king. It does not prove he murdered his nephews. He was mostly guilty of being seen as a northerner and a bit of a 'spoilsport' and of moving men he could trust into positions of authority.[/quote]The autumn 1483 uprising known as "Buckingham's rebellion" (a misnomer, because Buckingham was involved rather late in the game) is generally held to have begun as an attempt to restore Edward V to the throne and later, when it was rumored that the boys were dead, to put someone else on the throne (either Henry Tudor or, some think, Buckingham himself). Most of the men involved in the rebellion were men who had been loyal to Edward IV and to the Yorkist cause. They risked their lives, their property, and the futures of their loved ones by rebelling--it would have been a lot safer and easier for them to try to ingratiate themselves with Richard III. That they didn't, but chose instead to gamble on an unknown quantity like Henry Tudor, surely suggests that they believed Richard III had committed crimes so serious that they could not stomach him as their king.
Rumours circulate that the duke of Edinburgh ordered the death of Diana, princess of Wales. It doesn't change the fact that it is utter nonsense.Well before Henry Tudor's invasion in 1485, there were rumors circulating abroad that Richard III had killed his nephews.
Thanks - I've read them both, plus other accounts. My conclusions may not be the same as yours, but it makes for good debate.None of this proves that the boys were murdered or that Richard III was their killer, of course, but it does indicate that their disappearance was questioned at the time, and deplored.
Rosemary Horrox's Richard III: A Study in Service and Louise Gill's Richard III and Buckingham's Rebellion are excellent accounts of the period after Richard's coronation and of the unrest during this time.