I personally have always considered Richard III a much-maligned, beautiful soul. A violent man perhaps, but he lived in violent times--in some ways not unlike today.
I studied all the chronicles, wrote a factual book about him (not yet published) and am on with the second of a trilogy of novels covering the Wars of the Roses.
All of my studies point towards the fact that Richard did NOT kill Edward IV's sons, but that someone else killed them perhaps on his behalf, perhaps not, with their goal being to kill Richard and assume the throne himself. The nasty Duke of Somerset. There was quite a lot of political bumping off during the 15th century.
Richard died 527 years ago today--near Leicester--and has no grave. He has two kinds of follower: those who rever him, the others who loathe him and loathe those who rever him. It's been going on since the days of Hollinshed and Shakespeare.
I guess there's something of an irony there, and the fact that he did NOT kill those boys. Had he done so, I guess he might have been virulently defended by The Brady Bunch--that's the new name I've given to a certain bunch of lunatics who otherwise shall remain nameless and who, if it weren't for the fact that half of them have one foot in the grave (though they really should have two) would allow their pointless 'Wars of the Dozies' go on for five centuries too.