Richard III was an innocent man

Alas and alack! Would that your history was as good as Iain Mur ray’s marvellous analysis, “Queen of Hearts won’t go quietly” (MW February 2).

As a serious Richard III anorak (yes, there are those thus afflicted), I take deep exception to the further blackening of his character, and am rushing to his defence.

Far from needing good public relations – by Buckingham or anyone else – Richard III relied on his own good character for his reputation.

Had he hired a public relat ions advisor, the poor, innocent man might today be regarded as a hero (as he was in York in his own day).

It was, in fact, Henry VII who was the master of the black arts of PR. Where there was absolutely no contemporary evidence that Richard murdered the princes, he manufactured it.

Not only that, he nailed the whole black crime on Richard some ten years later, getting his PR lackey Thomas More to write the definitive version of events, and conveniently hanging the man who knew the truth.

Henry’s other public relations triumphs were legion. His claim to the throne was more tenuous than Richard’s but after Bos worth, he dated his reign from the day before the battle, thus making Richard and his followers all instant traitors.

All those with claims to the throne better that Henry’s were publicly declared traitors, and executed. And Richard’s mother, who knew the truth, was conveniently shipped off to a nunnery – without a telephone. Not even The Sun could have got to her.

Maybe Jane Atkinson should model herself on Henry.

David Keighley

Keighley Stoddart

LondonW1