What do you mean by "Richard III aplogists"? I still haven't read the play and my knowledge of English history isn't that vast.
so in the play, richard iii is a super evil awesome guy. and for a long time, that’s the way everyone saw him because sir thomas more and the tudor propaganda machine wrote the history book (who lives, who dies, who tells your story you feel me?) and shakespeare based his character on that book and more people know the play than the history.
however, josephine tey wrote a book called ‘daughter of time’ which my mother read as a young girl and procured a copy of so that her children would also read it and be correctly instructed that between historical documents and that one portrait where he looks kind of nice, richard iii probably wasn’t that bad, actually kind of a decent king who shouldn’t have been buried under a carpark. (i got mum sir thomas more’s account for christmas one time and she screwed up her nose and shook her fists at me, it was fun)
anyway, there’s a whole lot of people and societies devoted to making sure people know richard iii was Actually An Okay Guy and can get obnoxious about it particularly if you say you like the play richard iii and they’re all ‘did you know it’s just tudor propoganda’ and you’re like ‘wait, wut, shakespeare didn’t write 100% legit, accurate histories while exploring themes of kingship? my entire world view has crumbled, the end is nigh, please go away now’. the remains of richard iii are also buried in a badass pretty-looking tomb now that mum sent me a postcard of when they were in england last year.
this is a ramble that had a reading of ‘the alchemist’ happen halfway through it, so the tl;dr: richard iii was an okay guy despite what histories (and plays) written say and most people know that now so apologetics are not really necessary but they’re a part of my family fabric, so.