Well, if Elizabeth really and truly did NOT trust Richard, surely she would have resisted as much as she could, even physically, but there's no evidence of that.
I don't know how trustworthy Strickland's books are - apparently they're very good, but she tends to romanticise. I'm sure Kim'll know!
IMHO I think you need to be VERY careful if you are going to use Strickland as a source. I quote; "Her writings are of no value for history but are full of interesting tid-bits of history". She was a Victorian Lady and a minor poet and I son't know of the veracity of her sources.
i do not use her as a source. however, i find it interesting that the part that i bolded is in her book used as a quote. that was not absolutely necessary, because if she left it without the "" it would simply have been interpreted as a interpretation of the actual words. so i tend to think that was a quote (unless she put it there on purpose to deceive us

). and i'd be most interested to find out where she found that particular quote, since there is no source mentioned.
as for elizabeth woodville's attitude... it's very hard to know everything that happened then. i'm sure she didn't want to give up her children, and i read she was quite a ruin in the last years of her life (which i believe testifies that whatever happened did not just pass by her and she was emotionally involved in everything).
and as for richard's attitude... i agree with elisabeth. i am still not convinced he killed his nephews, but i am convinced that he didn't have their best interest at heart and that not the care for his family's prestige made him take the crown rather than his own ambitions. he, of course wouldn't have been the first to do so, nor the last, but he most definitely was not that strong man of character that you yorkists tried to portray (imo). had he been that, he would have stood behind his nephews and defended their throne. and he would have also gotten some power out of it - he could have been a regent if he were smart.