, the more evident it is that Richard had no part in his nephews' deaths, and it was just a convenient plan to make him look bad, and to make Henry look good.
             It would be amusing that More's History is taken so seriously if it did not have such horrible consequences for Richard's character. There are innumerable historical mistakes in this document, some which may be attributed to the fact that More was born in February 1478 - a mere five years before Richard's accession to the throne! Richard was dead before More was eight years old. Therefore, all that More had written in his 'history' was based on rumours and gossip he had heard growing up. Some historians, such as Sir Clements Markham, even suggest that More was not even the original author of the work. It could be that he had only rewritten a document that had been originally written by Bishop Morton, a man known for his opposition to Richard.
             Whoever it was who inspired or first wrote this story clearly had many grave misconceptions. The most blatant of these is More's proclamation that Edward IV was married to Elizabeth Lucy. This is most certainly untrue. In every official document it is clearly stated that Edward was in fact never married, but plight-trothed by the Bishop Robert Stillington to Eleanor Butler, widow of a son of Lord Butler of Sudeley and daughter of the first Earl of Shrewsbury. More's next most tainted fact is that Sir James Tyrell was first knighted by Richard as a reward, and then executed by Henry Tudor as a punishment, for the murder of the two princes. This is also untrue. The truth is that Tyrell was knighted long before the princes were ever thought to be dead, and, after seventeen years of being in Henry VII's good graces, he was executed on May 6, 1502 for conspiring against the King and for no other charge. There is no evidence to suggest that Tyrell was even involved in th!
             e...