He is accused - most famously by Shakespeare - of multiple murders, including those of his brother George, his king, Henry VI, a recent wife, Anne, and his two nephew princes(including the young Edward V), of being hideously disfigured, "Deform'd, unfinished, sent before my time...and that so lamely and unfashionable that dogs bark at me as I halt by them".

There is now a weighty corpus of opinion that sees this vehement opprobrium as hugely unjustified and largely stemming from the propaganda needs of the nascent Tudor dynasty of Henry, Earl of Richmond, Richard''s foe and victor at Bosworth, whose claim to the throne could be said to have been somewhat shaky.

Richard was born in 1452,the youngest living son of the third Duke of York, married to Cecilly of the Nevilles - Richard's cousin and tutor, Richard, was the 'Kingmaker' Earl of Warwick - and a strong contender for the Henry VI's crown.

With Henry militarily occupied in the north and Warwick's machinations in London, Richard's elder brother, Edward, was acclaimed King in 1461. His youngest brother, having proved to be both loyal and martially skilled, was amply rewarded, becoming the Duke of Gloucester, Governor in the north and the wealthiest of England's aristocrats.

In 1483, on Edward's death, Richard had the new king's guardian, Anthony, Earl Rivers, arrested and executed for attempted treason and 'hid' the princes in the Tower - in those times, a palace as well as a prison.

Then, in June of 1483, he had his own accession declared owing to the bastardy (a legal, not pejorative, term) of Edward V. He was duly crowned a fortnight later.

Although Richard is frequently and popularly regarded as the sole possible culprit any foul play involving the princes, this is erroneous. There are, in fact, quite a number of well-motivated suspects.

The assumption of culpability on Richard's part is, of course, wildly exacerbated by his total silence on the matter. Being merely Lord Protector during Edward V's minority, his right to the throne was tenuous, to say the least, and combined with a lack of any forensic action, his silence, to many, bestowed guilt.

Henry, Duke of Buckingham, also made (in)famous by Shakespeare, was Richard's 'campaign manager' and gofer(Richard is made to call him "My other self, my counsel's consistory, my oracle, my prophet.. ).

It might be suggested that the abrupt and (literally) dramatic nature of the falling-out between the two following Richard's coronation was an indication that Buckingham - who had, arguably, a stronger royal claim than Richard's - had done away with the princes against Richard's wishes. Also, as Buckingham later joined Richmond, he might have done this to strengthen Henry's weak position.

One of the many irregularities that occurred during this tumultuous time was the assumption by John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, of the office of Tower custodian.That the younger prince, Richard of Shrewsbury as the rightful Duke of Norfolk by marriage was, obviously, ample motive.

And, of course, there's Henry! His less-than-firm grip on the crown has already been noted - his marriage to the eldest Yorkist daughter, Elizabeth, to ensure the Tudor succession would have been meaningless if the princes lived - but he couldn't really have accomplished the dirty deed prior to his accession.

It should be noted here that the famous 'confession' of one of the alleged murderers, Sir James Tyrell, is(not to put too fine a point on it) full of holes.

Not only did 'sing' under torture, which mentioned by Tudor
sources (Sir Thomas More) as occurring after 1485, but he wasn't once able to recall where the bodies were!

By the bye, Richard makes it to the 2002 List of "100 Great Britons" (sponsored by the BBC and voted for by the public), along with David Beckham and Johnny Rotten! The BBC's History Magazine lists him under "doubtful entrants, based on special interest lobbying or 'cult' status", saying: "On the list owing to the Ricardian lobby, but a minor monarch"