Where Do You Stand on the Richard III "Discovery"?

I didn't post much last week about the possible discovery of Richard III's bones, because so many other stories already beat it into the ground.  We did have some fun with the puns, though:

• To repeat, archaeologists are not 100% sure that this is Richard III - they only have a hunch.
• Somebody please tell me he was found on a Wednesday so we can call it Hump Day?
• You might think Richard III would have been great at the new "Gangnam Style" invisible horse dance, but he was partial to the Humpty Hump.
• Ironically, they found the bones of a horse right behind Richard.

You get the idea.  If you like them, they're mine, if they're awful they're Bardfilm's. ;)

Anyway, by not posting I realized that I was denying the Shakespeare Geek audience the opportunity to get together for discussion, so here be that post.  What are your thoughts?  Do you think it's him?  Where do you stand on the whole "Richard III wasn't really the bad guy he's been painted by history" angle?

As I've mentioned, I'm just plain not that familiar with the story of Richard III, so I have little opinion on the matter other to say that I make no connection between what Shakespeare wrote, and what reality was.   He could have been a saint for all I know.  Though probably not.

My favorite quote from the linked story, by the way:

"If Richard was the kind of plotter Shakespeare makes him out to be there are a lot of questions to be answered, like if he was so power-hungry why didn't he kill his brother King Edward IV?"

"Oh yeah?  Well what about all the people he *didn't* kill, huh?  How come nobody ever talks about that?"  That sounds like a line out of a Saturday Night Live skit.