The existence of past lives is one of those items that can neither be proved nor disproved. I agree that it seems highly unlikely (and if I ever presented a genealogy with a primary source of myself, I'd be chuckled out of the Maine Genealogical Society). But, in the lack of a source or evidence to the contrary, that door isn't closed.
Don't you think that it rather depends on your purpose for reading Shakespeare? If you are reading for beautiful literature, clever use of language, and deep empathy--he's your man. But if you are reading for historical accuracy, you are going to be disappointed.
Elisabeth was in a difficult position , married to a bastard both dynastically and mentally with the mother in law from hell
her family name was dragged through the mud , her family supporters hunted down
she had to bear it all with a poker face ,
Richard had been kind to her and had been a loving husband to his Neville wife ,in spite of her father treachery
she was with her mother in sanctuary , both came out after the murder of the princes under the word of honor of Richard ,
putting themselves under his protection
this would indicate that he had nothing to do with the murders , their mother seemed to think so
Her marriage to Richard is a Tudor smear , Shakespeare was brown nosing his way to the Tudor
His father was legitimized , as issued from a "secret" marriage
from his mother he came from a bastard of John of Gaunt , formally declared ineligible for the throne
having the heraldic "bendlet sinister" on both sides of his family didn't matter much
the Lancastrians were very short of claimants and during the wars , it's the armies which decided the finer points of inheritance law
Henry had to marry Elisabeth to buttress his claim with some real royalty
It provide some excuse for tepid Yorkists to swallow his reign and made him less dependent on the good will of Lancastrian lords
A Lancastrian smear perhaps, but not a Tudor one. Somebody alleged it at the time of Anne Neville's death and the rumour gained such currency that Richard had to issue a public denial, send her from court, and commence negotiations to marry her off to Portugal.
That's about the extent of the known facts. One could read almost anything into it, including that he was "messing" with her. I am no Ricardian, but I dismiss that allegation of sexual misconduct. They were closely related, so it would not be unnatural to associate with one another, and as Lord Protector and then King after his coup he had charge of his brother's children anyway. But it was not a private world, and when they would ever have found time alone to indulge in that sort of thing escapes me. I file this under not proved, not probable and not really plausible.