RICHARD III reasons why he is innoncent!

Question

i have many ideas but i'd like to know some other poeples reasons why he was innocent

my argument so far is

1. he actually had a good character and was loyal to edward the IV

2. he did not have strong or serious motives

3. Mnay others like Henry Tudor and The duke of buckingham?! had stronger motives

4. accounts againts him are biased

please respond asap !!

THANKS :)

Answer 1

It's significant that Henry VII, upon taking the Tower a few days after Richard's death at Bosworth Field, did not proclaim that the sons of Edward IV were missing or accuse Richard of having killed them.  Henry did, however, order all that copies of the Titulus Regius, the act of Parliament ruling that Edward's children were illegitimate and thus barred from succession because Edward's marriage was invalid, were to be destroyed.  Only years later did a copy that had escaped come to light.

Sine Henry's claim to the English throne was weaker than that of any King since William the Conquerer, he had to strengthen it somehow, and blackening the reputation of the king he overthrew was one way to justify what he had done--by killing Richard, he had saved the country from a monstrous tyrant.  However, the city of York clearly didn't see it that way.  A few days after the battle, these words were written in the city records:  "it was recorded by John Spooner that King Richard, late mercifully reigning upon us, was piteously slane and murdered to the grete heaviness of this citie."

The argument for the case against Buckingham intrigues me, but I'm still not clear on what his motives would have been..    

Answer 2

Hold on,I have to check Andre Maurois' book.

He imprisioned and then killed his brother(HM King Edward IV) sons!

Answer 3

Well, one good reason is that the victors always get to write history and so the accounts we have of Richard III come from those who worked for the Tudors...something to think about.