I've started Richard III - The Maligned King by Annette Carson. It is, for once, a book that doesn't buy right of what some sources say. It asks, as every historian should do really, Who was this person writing for? Or Has this source a clear bias? And then she takes that in consideration. Most of them were writing under Henry VII and later Tudors and some were even funded by him. So she goes back to contemporary sources, the few that exists, with respect for the bias they may have, and tells the story from there. All the odd facts she puts forward and discuss, some of these facts often passed over by others because it doesn't fit the picture of Richard as Archvillain of english history. Some of her theories may be a bit farfetched but at least she discuss the issue in a serious manner. That is really needed. She may not be right, she says so herself, but the discussion needs to exist and not brushed aside. Also, she is not snubbing anyone whish i always finds so irritating. Too many books in the so called social sciences like history have a tendency to call difference of opinion for fools and incompetents. Not through it yet but it has started very promising. If you are interested in these kind of things it can be recommended.