There was a documentary a few years back on BBC TV about the legitimacy of Richard's sucession. Contemporary accounts from France proved that Edward was indeed, illegitimate. With Clarence's attainment, Richard was the legitimate heir.

I did read 'The Daughter of Time' but I also read other books as well.

I'm disappointed by people such as Simon Scharma, Christopher Lee (not the actor, the historian and author of 'This Sceptered Isle') and others who persist in refusing to look further than their own noses or observe with the detatchment of a referee.

And that's not the only example in history. History is (or was) recorded by the winner. All down the ages, the winning side has written and rewritten its own version. Take the actions of certain ethnic/religious groups in the last World War. There are still people who believe certain attrocities did not happen because that's what they were taught, despite masses of evidence to the contrary. These days, with internet access being what it is, it is so much easier to corrupt or tweak or bend the truth that one should never trust anything that doesn't come from at least 3 independent and material (rather than virtual) sources.

LTS