Contemporary opinions on the legality of the reign of Richard III

I'm positive I've overthought this, so I need someone to straighten it out for me again.

In 1483, Edward V is declared illegitimate, Richard accepts the throne in June, is crowned in July, Titulus Regius is passed in very early 1484.

What would be the general contemporary view of the period from Edward IV's death until Richard's ascent? Was Edward V still viewed as the previous king, or was there a legal gap in the monarchy? Obviously, not every single person felt the same way, hence the rebellions, but I'm curious if there was a consensus opinion.

Additionally, when Titulus Regius is repealed in 1485, Edward V becomes legally legitimate once more (conveniently for Henry, so does Elizabeth) and enforced Richard's status as a usurper. With Henry claiming the throne by conquest, he recognizes that Richard was the head of the kingdom and the man he had to defeat, but did he view Richard as the king or something more akin to the role Oliver Cromwell fulfilled later?

I think I'm getting hung up on the on the technicalities more so than the actualities.