If you go to this link https://monthlyreview.org/2024/10/01/richard-iii-the-tudor-myth-and-the-transition-from-feudalism-to-capitalism/ you will find a long and detailed argument that the vilification of Richard III had a lot to do with the poor economic situation in Tudor England. Said vilification might have been a smokescreen, a diversion from the problems besetting the Tudor realm. In other words it was like modern political propaganda “….along the lines of: ‘If you think we are bad, look at the previous bunch who were in charge!’….”
Richard III isn’t alone in being on the receiving end of such treatment, because it’s pointed out that Richard II cops it as well, but it’s Richard III who receives the lion’s share. I think perhaps Richard II is in the firing line because the Tudors, usurpers themselves, needed to justify the usurpation of the first Lancastrian king, Henry IV. The Tudors had sprouted from the Lancastrians when Henry Tudor won the Battle of Bosworth. He claimed to be the heir of the House of Lancaster. The defeated Richard III had been the last king of the House of York.
You’ll have to read the article yourself to decide if you agree or not. But it is fair to Richard.
The New Murrey and Blue blog 
Leave a reply to Christine Kutlar-kreutz Cancel reply