I presume you’re referring to the Telegraph article? I’ve written a response to this here, in which I also discuss Richard’s role in the disappearance, and the preposterous notion that Henry VII was somehow involved.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/rr4deg/the_telegraph_has_published_an_article_claiming/hqh0ku5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3

I’m happy to answer any follow-up questions!

But no, he wasn’t, nor is there a shred of credible evidence to suggest that his mother, Margaret Beaufort, was involved either.

Henry was in exile in France at the time, and had been since he was a teenager. Also, he would have gained absolutely nothing from them disappearing. Killing the Princes was in no way an existential threat to Yorkist supremacy. There were other Yorkists ready to take the throne. The line merely passed to Richard. If you examine the way Richard seized power from the Princes’ legal guardians once he made his way to London after his brother Edward V died, and the circumstances surrounding their disappearance, it’s fairly obvious that he played an active role in first removing them from public life and then, well, god knows what happened to them, but I’m sure it wasn’t pretty.