"Sketch a man in hideous colours, and you easily set the world against him." The smear campaign tactic summarized in this quotation has been used throughout history, but rarely has it been applied so thoroughly and lastingly as it has been to destroy the life and reputation of Richard III, King of England 1483 – 1485. To this day, Richard is regarded by most as an horrific monster, a hunchbacked coward who had his two nephews cruelly murdered so that he could usurp the throne. Rarely has this story of Richard been questioned, and yet, when one does examine the fabric of it, one finds that it is badly patched over, with huge, gaping holes that cannot be missed. Keeping in mind that history is recorded by the winners, one must ask, "Who told the story? Who profited from its telling? How can we account for the patches on it and holes in it?" Answers to questions about the motive behind and profit from sketching Richard in "hideous colours" are to be found in the perso!
             n of Henry Tudor, the historical 'winner' of the Throne of England, having defeated and killed Richard in 1485 at the Battle of Bosworth, thus becoming Henry VII, king of England, and established the Tudor dynasty.
             First, let us consider the source from which all later versions of the Richard the Terrible tales are derived: Sir Thomas More's History of Richard III, written expressly for none other than Henry VII. It is the most commonly read and most vehemently believed source of Richard's life and reign. This is most unfortunate, because it is one of the most error-filled pieces of hearsay ever written, and "may be good literature, [but] can scarcely be called history." The fact that it erroneously paints Richard so horribly may be to steer thoughts away from Henry's own guilt in the matter, or from the guilt of the men who helped him obtain his throne. The more this subject is studied...