Richard III and Henry VII

A thoughtful reader responded to my post, http://gordonfeil.blogspot.ca/2017/02/kings-and-idiots.html, and his comments are to be seen at that link. I think they deserve a reply.  

I agree that the parsimonious Henry died rich, unlike his state when he took the throne. One of his first acts was a bill of attainder against dead Richard and those who had fought for York at Bosworth, under which it was legal for Henry to scoop all their property into his own empty pocket. His taxes are legendary: if you looked poor it must be because you didn’t spend much and could then afford to pay a hefty tax, and if you seemed well looked after, you must also be able to pay a high tax. 

Contrast this to Richard who, when Louis XI of France richly bribed Edward IV and the nobles with him to abandon their invasion of France, was the only one to refuse to accept any part of the payoff, asking what the world would think of English courage after that event. 

I agree that Richard did take the throne from his nephew, but it appears to have been after much thought and taking the pulse of the public. England was tired of boy kings. Richard II was still much in memory. For Richard III to take the throne probably prevented a war that likely would have occurred on account of national resentment over the influence of the Woodvilles upon the youth, Edward V.  

As to the fate of the two princes, Costain, in his The Last Plantagenets, makes a compelling case in favor of these lads having lived into the Tudor reign and meeting their demise under the watch of Henry VII.