On Wikipedia:

A lot of people, upon reading stuff I post, may be encouraged to go on wikipedia to learn more. Please don't. Here's why not:

1. I have no issue with wikipedia. I use it often. But not for royal stuff. The areas where wikipedia are least reliable are things that are subject to controversy. Because of the controversial nature of monarchy in general, as well as the scandalous lives so many royals have led, this makes royal related articles some of the least reliable things on the site.

2. Wikipedia requires a source; not a good source. The Daily Fail is a source. All of those hack-job "inside stories" from royal hangers-on are also sources. I know of one article that uses one book as a source for the majority of its claims. That book does not properly cite its own sources. So what you're getting is information that's allowed on wikipedia because it has a source, but that source doesn't have one. So the author may have just made it all up.

3. The whole neutral point-of-view issue. As a great teacher of mine once said, "There is no such thing as objectivity." I can understand wikipedia not taking sides on issues. That really only makes sense. The problem is that the people who write these articles are not up front about their own point-of-view. The best historians, in my opinion, tell the reader what their opinion is. It's the ones who pretend to be unbiased who are misleading you; it's not possible to research something extensively and be interested enough in it to write a book and not have an opinion. To give an example, say two authors write books on the Princes in the Tower. Both believe Richard III killed them. Both books are similar in content; both present evidence Richard was responsible and attempt to debunk evidence he wasn't. One author introduces her book by saying she thinks Richard did it, and that with this book she is going to demonstrate why she has come to believe that. The other author introduces her book by saying she is trying to write an unbiased account of what happened to the Princes in the Tower based purely on historical fact. Both authors, based on their opinions, would be naturally inclined to promote and explain all evidence Richard was guilty, while at the same time discrediting evidence he didn't do it. But only one of them is being honest about it. Now, I suppose you can avoid bias when writing a paragraph on someone non-controversial. But it's a Catch-22. Short articles on boring people will most likely not be biased, but they also probably involved less research, and thus may not be as accurate about details.

4. Several internet groups, including Anonymous if I'm not mistaken, have been in the habit of editing some of the more obscure wikipedia articles and throwing in random untrue, but believable, facts and waiting around to see how long they stay up. Some of them have probably remained for years. I wouldn't be surprised if they even find "sources" for this stuff and bank on no one checking them out.

As a whole, my issue is not that anyone can edit wikipedia as much is that if the majority of people editing wikipedia believe something and can find some kind of source to back it up, it will end up there and be seen by anyone who's researching the subject in question.

So what do I recommend for research? Well, you can look at the sources on the wikipedia page, which might work a bit better, though you should know nothing is completely reliable. Check out your local library. For 20th century royals, Time, Life, and many other magazines and newspapers have archives going back decades. Contemporary sources are wonderful because even if they aren't accurate, they are relevant because what's said about a person during their lifetime impacts them even if they don't know about it. Also look for books that are no longer in copyright that can be read for free online.

Use google to find some detailed websites, usually run by my fellow internet historians who have been researching their topic for ages.

For Tudors, I recommend:
www.tudorhistory.org

Or google Tudor History or Tudor England for more links.

For Romanovs, I reccomend:
www.alexanderpalace.org

If you ever need any links, feel free to comment and ask me! Of course, all of the above is IMHO, and your experience may differ. Perhaps some of my beef with wikipedia has to do with me having been involved with an edit war over something incredibly stupid that I'd rather not think about. Plus I love Stephen Colbert and think wikiality is something that's incredibly relevant when it comes to royal history and how people are remembered.