Some historians such as Ann Wroe have even gone as far as to claim that Warbeck was actually Richard, Duke of York, although this is not the general consensus.
I think this is incorrect. Ann Wroe's "Perkin" is a confusing book in some ways, but in my opinion it still stops short of claiming that Warbeck was actually Richard, Duke of York. It can be said to leave open reason for doubt, which is not unreasonable given the absence of firm evidence.
Wroe does make the case that Perkin Warbeck may not have been Perkin Warbeck (Pierrequin Werrbecque), i.e. that the identification assigned to this person by his enemies may have been incorrect as well, and his post-capture "confession" unreliable. This seems within the boundaries of the probable, but should not be confused with claiming that Warbeck actually was Richard of York.
(edit)
