I don't rely on Wikipedia. I've got plenty of non-fiction books on British history, the monarchy, and books on Richard III. David Starkey has stated that Sir Thomas More’s History of Richard III might have more truth to it than people originally thought. He bases his belief on the fact that in More's account, Sir James Tyrrell admitted his guilt in murdering the princes, and that Richard III ordered it. The reason Starkey gives credibility to More's account is because it is recorded that during Tyrrell's trial, Henry VII and Elizabeth of York were present throughout. Starkey concluded that it would have been highly unusual to have a King and Queen watch over such a trial, unless it was an extraordinary case. He theorises that this piece of evidence makes it more than likely that Richard III was the boys murderers.
The “proof on the record” is Titulus Regius. It was so much proof Henry VII took pleasure in destroying every copy (neglecting one) as well as any other positive proof of R3’s brief but fascinating reign. Thomas More was a Tudor toady and the protege of John Morton, the Bishop of Ely. Talk about a snake in the strawberry patch! Richard didn't execute members of the clergy but if he had, all of the trouble that followed in his brief reign might never have occurred. A born pot-stirrer who should have been minding his flock, not plotting against the realm. More destroyed the reputation of Sir James Tyrell based on nothing but smears of a dead man. We' ve now been at it for two days. We will never agree. I suggest we drop it.
I also suggest Paul Murray Kendall’s famous Richard the Third. While it is definitely a sympathetic view of the king, its research and footnotes are invaluable and much esteemed by British historians although Kendall was an American who never visited London to do his research. An absolute expert with a fine writing style.