Actually Parliament petitioned the Duke of Gloucester to become King rather than have them go through another child king which had led to disaster in the past. Also, the Bishop, Robert Stillington, showed up on the doorstep to reveal that Edward was not married to Elizabeth Woodville since he had married another lady years before. This, actually, was a common ploy of Edward’s. He was known to have slept with half the women of England. In fact, he bears an uncommon resemblance to Mr. Bill Clinton who also used ruses to get his BJs. Lastly, who says the kids were murdered? No evidence. The German diplomat, Von Poppelau said they were alive as late as 1485 - several months before Richard 3 himself died.
Anyone who thinks The Duke, appointed by his brother as Protector of the Realm in case of his death, had an easy or happy time of it in the spring of 1483, does not know the full story. I recommend historians John Ashdown-Hill and my pal, Stephen Lark, for the full story.
And the Tudors destroyed the evidence that supported Parliament’s move to make Richard king.
I have to admit a certain fascination with Richard III - he may be the most maligned monarch in British history.
Who had the most to gain by the death of Edward's sons? Who had the means to get rid of them? The majority of the people alive at the time believed that he murdered his nephews. He was not a popular King. I've never heard of Von Poppelau's claim in any of the books I've read. The boys were never seen again outside the Tower of London. There were pretenders but the truth of their backgrounds were discovered. The Royal Family will not allow DNA testing of the bones that were found beneath a Tower staircase in 1674. Maybe some day that will be allowed to occur.
Prior to his petitioning his Titulus Regius to Parliament...justifying his right to rule as King, Richard had eliminated many of the individuals who had opposed his claim to the throne, which left many absences in Parliament. Nothing sends the message of "support me or else," more than executing the Lords who refused to support your claim. One of his biggest supporters, the Duke of Buckingham had turned on him. He was hunted down and executed. Richard also confiscated monies, titles and estates from those Lords who had opposed him. He stripped Elizabeth Woodville of all the land given her by Edward IV, and then he rewarded his supporters. Once he got what he wanted from Parliament, he dissolved it. His only Parliament opened at Westminster on 23 January 1484 and sat for less than a month before being dissolved. Once Henry Tudor became King, Richard's Titulus Regius was overturned by Parliament.
There are plenty of theories on both sides regarding what happened to the Princes. I choose to believe, based on evidence presented in many of the books I've read, that he murdered his nephews. He had the motive, and the means. There is no proof that he didn't have them killed. It's been suggested that one of the reasons the Duke of Buckingham turned on Richard III was because of his plans to have the Princes murdered. Of course that's speculation, just like a so-called German diplomat's claims the boys were still alive in 1485. Having worked for 25 years in law enforcement, I'm more prone to believe that Richard of Gloucester was a low-down, murdering scoundrel.
If anyone, besides Edward V, and Richard, Duke of York had claim to the throne, it was Edward Plantagenet, George, the Duke of Clarence's son. George had managed to tick off his brothers by supporting the Earl of Warwick (his father-in-law) in rebelling against Edward IV. He was condemned, and put to death by his brother, the King. A Bill of Attainder against his succession was introduced by Edward IV to Parliament, which Richard, Duke of Gloucester could have petitioned Parliament to be reversed, but he never did. He wanted the crown for himself.