Richard III Book

Seward would do anything just to demonstrate Richard was indeed the Shakesperian monster of the tradition.
The point here is not whether or not he murdered the princes in the tower. The point is: even if he did it (I'm personally sure he didn't tough) is it enough to mark him as evil, to make him the symbol of depravation and cruelty? The answer to me is: no. Henry IV killed Richard II, Edward IV killed Henry VI (and it was HIS will, the king's will, not Richard's to send Henry to his death, whatever Mr. Seward has to say), Queen Isabella killed Edward II, Henry VII and Henry VII killed the WHOLE Plantagenet dinasty, even woman and illegitimates sons, and Henry VIII also killed two of his wife. But they are not considered evil as Richard was (and still is according to Seward).
The author could have judged Richard guilty of the nephews' murder and yet write a genuine account, relying on reliable sources. But he chooses to base his slanders on Thomas More's book, a posthumous work, incomplete, biased, full of historical errors, written by a man who might be a saint, but was not omnipotent. He was 8 years old when Richard died, and based his account on Bishop Morton's tales, the latter being one of Richard's worst enemies. What more can I say?
I guess the readers are capable to judge for theirselves. These are Seward's sources... are they reliable?
A good biography must rely on verified sources, possibly contemporary sources, with a good validation. If you want read something like this, and get to know the REAL Richard, I suggest you the masterpiece by Paul Murray Kendall Richard III.