David Starkey is NOT an expert on medieval history - he is a Tudor expert. Historians do not place the Tudors in the medieval period, they place them in the modern period. Starkey can't even win a fake trial trying to debate R3’s guilt. He is a Lancastrian by nature and by interest. Plus, he impugns the morals and intelligence of anyone who disagrees with him in an embarrassingly unprofessional manner which undercuts his point of view. If you want a historian who deeply understands the period and is an expert on the Plantagenets and the House of York, look towards John Ashdown-Hill's The Last Days of Richard 3. He is the historian who found the DNA link to R's family and the body of the slain king. Even better, look to Annette Carson's The Maligned King, the best book written about the subject in 50 years. She follows the timeline of the king from the moment his brother died. I've interviewed Miss Carson for an historical blog that I contribute to and I can assure you that she is honest and certain in her subject. I like professional, courteous and truthful historians unlike both Starkey and that preening popinjay, Dan Jones. Even Charles Ross is preferable to those two.
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.