Is Alison Weir a Good Historian?

by our100thcaller

I recently finished her book The Princes in the Tower and was really frustrated by the fact that it contains absolutely no footnotes (though it does contain a lengthy list of works consulted). Some of the things that she presents as absolute fact strike me as wildly specious and without notes to point to what she's using as a specific source for a specific piece of information it's difficult to differentiate between what's actually backed up by evidence and what's just speculation on her part.

Is this common in her non-fiction work (I've never read anything she's written before this)?

Isn't it considered bad practice in this type of non-fiction to not cite your sources when presenting something as a fact?

TinyDKR

As a follow-up, I've read her book on the Wars of the Roses. Her account of Henry IV's usurpation differs from that claimed by Ian Mortimer in his book on Henry. She writes that Henry IV claimed the throne by right of descent from Edward III, while Mortimer writes that he claimed it by right of descent from Henry III.

Who is right?