I studied Tudor history, and it seemed to be that Thomas More offered a decent account of why and how it was carried out. However, I'm currently listening to a Radio 4 program where two Richard the Third fanatics are insisting that it couldn't have been Richard, as he more to lose and little to gain, having already become the anointed King. Is there any evidence to back them up?
it seemed to be that Thomas More offered a decent account of why and how it was carried out.
More's history is anything but "decent", remarkable more for its literary skill and adherence to classical precepts than for its historical accuracy. He notes that Richard was born fully grown with hair and teeth. Now, I don't know vast amounts about human biology but I do know why that can't be true.
More had reasons to discredit the Plantagenet dynasty, as well as the royal tyranny as a whole, and he ad the perfect platform to do so.
The main question to be asked is "why". Why on Earth would Richard have his nephews killed? They were no threat to his ambition to get on the thrown, and even if they were as Lord Protector he'd have all the power of the kingdom anyway for at least ten years. Id recommend the following as key reading on the topic.
D. Seward, Richard III: England's Black Legend, (New York: 1984) - Very very much behind the traditional view, and is so bias you begin to doubt the historical accuracy of what is being said. BUT what he does do is evaluate More well and rip it to shreds.
A. Carson, Richard III: The Maligned King, (London: 2009) - A bit too far the other way perhaps, but it too rips More apart and proposes other suspects for the murder of the princes. Such as Henry, who would have had a great problem had they remained alive.