Editing Princes in the Tower (section)

===Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham===
The plausibility of [[Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham]], Richard's right-hand man, as a suspect depends on the princes having already been dead by the time Stafford was executed in November 1483. It has been suggested that Buckingham had several potential motives.<ref name="Richard III">{{cite book|last1=Kendall|first1=Paul Murray|title=Richard III|date=1955|publisher=Norton|location=New York|pages=487–489}}</ref> As a descendant of [[Edward III of England|Edward III]], through [[Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester]], on his father's side, as well as through [[John of Gaunt|John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster]], through [[John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset|John Beaufort]], on his mother's side, Buckingham may have hoped to accede to the throne himself in due course; alternatively, he may have been acting on behalf of a third party.

Some, notably [[Paul Murray Kendall]],<ref name="Richard III"/> regard Buckingham as the likeliest suspect: his execution, after he had rebelled against Richard in October 1483, might signify that he and the king had fallen out; Weir takes this as a sign that Richard had murdered the princes without Buckingham's knowledge and Buckingham had been shocked by it.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Weir|first1=Alison|title=The Princes in the Tower|date=2008|publisher=Vintage|location=London|pages=151–152}}</ref> A contemporary Portuguese document suggests Buckingham as the guilty party, stating "... and after the passing away of king Edward in the year of 83, another one of his brothers, the Duke of Gloucester, had in his power the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, the young sons of the said king and his brother, and turned them to the Duke of Buckingham, under whose custody the said Princes were starved to death".<ref>Álvaro Lopes de Chavez (ref: Alvaro Lopes de Chaves, [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Livro_de_apontamentos_1438_1489/s5wvAQAAMAAJ?hl=en ''Livro de Apontamentos (1438–1489)''], (Codice 443 da Coleccao Pombalina da B.N.L.), Imprensa Nacional – Casa da Moeda, Lisboa, 1983), private secretary to [[Afonso V of Portugal]].</ref> A document dated some decades after the disappearance was found within the archives of the [[College of Arms]] in London in 1980; this stated that the murder "be the vise of the Duke of Buckingham".<ref>College of Arms Collection, Queen Victoria Street, London, manuscript MS 2M6. The entire document containing the reference consists of 126 folios. It appears to have belonged to Christopher Barker whilst he was Suffolk Herald (1514–22), since his name, title, and a sketch of his maternal arms appear on folio. io6r. of the MS.</ref> This led Michael Bennett to suggest that possibly some of Richard's prominent supporters, Buckingham and James Tyrrell, murdered the princes on their own initiative without waiting for Richard's orders. Bennett noted in support of this theory: "After the King's departure Buckingham was in effective command in the capital, and it is known that when the two men met a month later there was an unholy row between them."<ref>{{cite book|last1=Bennett|first1=Michael|title=The Battle of Bosworth|date=1993|publisher=Alan Sutton|location=Stroud|page=46|edition=2nd}}</ref>

Buckingham is the only person to be named as responsible in a contemporary chronicle other than Richard himself. However, for two reasons he is unlikely to have acted alone. First of all, if he were guilty of acting without Richard's orders, it is extremely surprising that Richard did not lay the blame for the princes' murder on Buckingham after Buckingham was disgraced and executed, especially as Richard could potentially have cleared his own name by doing so.<ref name="The Life and Times of Richard III">{{cite book|last1=Cheetham|first1=Antony|title=The Life and Times of Richard III|date=1972|publisher=Weidenfeld & Nicolson|location=London|page=148}}</ref> Secondly, it is likely he would have required Richard's help to gain access to the princes, under close guard in the Tower of London,<ref name="Jonathan Cape"/> although Kendall argued as Constable of England, he might have been exempt from this ruling.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Kendall|first1=Paul Murray|title=Richard III|date=1955|publisher=Norton|location=New York|page=488}}</ref> As a result, although it is extremely possible that he was implicated in the decision to murder them, the hypothesis that he acted without Richard's knowledge is not widely accepted by historians.<ref name="The Life and Times of Richard III"/><ref>Pollard 123–124</ref> While Jeremy Potter suggested that Richard would have kept silent had Buckingham been guilty because nobody would have believed Richard was not party to the crime,<ref>{{cite book|last1=Potter|first1=Jeremy|title=Good King Richard? An Account of Richard III and his Reputation|date=1983|publisher=Constable|location=London|page=134}}</ref> he further notes that "Historians are agreed that Buckingham would never have dared to act without Richard's complicity, or at least, connivance".<ref name="Constable">{{cite book|last1=Potter|first1=Jeremy|title=Good King Richard? An Account of Richard III and his Reputation|date=1983|publisher=Constable|location=London|page=135}}</ref> However, Potter also hypothesised that perhaps Buckingham was fantasising about seizing the crown himself at this point and saw the murder of the princes as a first step to achieving this goal.<ref name="Constable"/> This theory formed the basis of [[Sharon Penman]]'s historical novel, ''[[The Sunne in Splendour]]''.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Penman|first1=Sharon|title=The Sunne in Splendour|date=1983|publisher=Macmillan|location=London|pages=884–885}}</ref>