So your saying Richard III could murder his nephews but not lie about it?! That is simply hilarious!! Also what an utterly amusing sense of morality. After all Isabela had zero trouble lying about murdering Edward II, and Henry IV had no trouble lying about murdering Richard II. I could also mention the story of Henry I and William II, hunting in the forest and William dying by a "hunting accident". A story that is, likely a load of utter crap. And of course their is the story of the death of Edmund Ironside put out by Canute, which was also a load of crap. Murdering political threats and then lying about it had a very long, established and "proud" royal tradition in England. Why Richard III would not be able to continue with this "proud" tradition is beyond me.

You say:

"People are odd and one's word meant something in those days."

Actually of course politicians in those, as in todays world, routinely lied, fabricated etc., for "reasons of state". The word of a politician was frequently, as today, worthless. Then has now one must weigh a politicians words with other evidence and the context in which the politician said something In order to evaluate its truth.

And of course Richard III was accused, probably accurately of fabricating a case against the legitimacy of his nephews, and one against his political enemies, Buckingham for one. Then Richard III was perfectly capable of lying for political reasons. And of course Richard III would only be continuing the "proud" royal tradition of political lying.

Richard III would be succeeded by one of the greatest royal liars of them all Henry VII who would continue the "proud" tradition of royal lying for "reasons of state".