I strongly prefer when popular historians are frank about ambiguous evidence and controversial interpretations, and give you a sense of why they do or don't give credence to a given piece of evidence or why they favor Interpretation X over Interpretation Y. (It's a more academically rigorous way to write history, not that this kind of rigor is the only value a history book can have -- but it is my personal preference.)

Examples of what I'm talking about:

Hunting the Falcon

A longstanding controversy surrounds this question: [Was Henry the reason Wolsey broke up Anne Boleyn and Harry Percy?] the problem is Cavendish's chronology. Proof of Henry's interest in Anne cannot be found before the winter months of 1525-26. Anything earlier relies on Cavendish's memory.

Young & Damned & Fair

The idea that Henry had syphilis was not suggested prior to an article published in 1888 ... Syphilis was a relatively new phenomenon in the sixteenth century, the cause celebre of early modern diseases, with the result that when it appeared it was hardly ever misdiagnosed and it was nearly always treated with mercury. None of Henry VIII's medical records, which survive intact, contain bills or lists of mercury.

Here are some books that strike me as especially good examples of this kind of frankness about interpreting the evidence:

• Young & Damned & Fair by Gareth Russell
• Hunting the Falcon by John Guy & Julia Fox
• Great Ladies & Ladies in Waiting by Sylvia Barbara Soberton
• The Wives of Henry VIII by Antonia Fraser

I'd be grateful for others that you folx can think of. Thanks!