Monday, July 19, 2010

Henry Casting

If you can't tell, this is the stuff from the last Jezebel open thread. I also had something somewhat lengthy on Princess Victoria, but the next day I realized the source I had used was not the least bit reliable. I feel like there's probably stuff on this blog that's untrue, because as I never tire of saying, I wasn't there. But I think I should at least be able to stand by everything to the extent that I believe it's true and remember getting it from a somewhat reliable source.






Here is the Queen Mother, when she was young and pretty.

There is an evil going on in Hollywood, that I call Henry Casting, after Henry VIII. By the way, if they insist on making Henry VIII young and hot why haven't they tried Rupert Grint? At least he's tall and muscular with red hair.

Henry Casting is when you cast a ridiculously good looking actor who bears no resemblance to a person to play them in a historical film. I can understand getting someone of a similar type, but better looking.

But not this.

You see the lovely young Elizabeth in that photo? In two upcoming movies, she is going to be played by Helena Bonham Carter and Natalie Dormer. Fun fact: both of those actresses have also played Anne Boleyn, who looked nothing like young Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon here!

I can understand screwing up with Anne. All we have of her are portraits. But with Elizabeth here, we have a photograph so we know exactly what she looked like as a young woman.

She was a pretty girl, but short and not thin, with a rounded face and strong brow line. She was very pale, with dark hair and bright blue eyes.

Anne Boleyn, by the way, was described by contemporaries as being very thin, average height, flat-chested, and having an olive complexion and very dark brown eyes. Her features were also generally considered sharp rather than soft.

Their personalities were also a bit different, though both were absolutely fierce and not people I'd want to meet in a dark alley. I mean this in the best way possible. There's a certain red-headed Duchess who is still feeling the pain of having crossed the Queen Mother eight years after the latter's death. I wonder how those reality show applications are coming along...

Happy Belated July 17th, everyone!

Two very important events in the history of the House of Windsor took place on this date (July 17th) thirty years apart.

1. Ninety-three years ago, the House of Windsor was born. Most dynasties are founded by war or the end of a family line. Not this one. George V found himself in a pickle. He was at war with the Germans and trying to inspire his people. The problem was that George, and his whole family, were German. They were originally from the dynasty of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Their last name might have been von Wettin or something equally German, no one was sure. George knew something had to be done. He'd heard rumors that some people were doubting the loyalty of the royal family because of their German heritage. The attitude towards people of German descent in Britain during World War I was like the attitude towards people of Middle Eastern descent after 9/11. George couldn't change the fact that his bloodline was almost exclusively German. But he could change the name! So the House of Windsor was born. Windsor, like the castle, was also selected for the family's official new last name.

2. Sixty-three years ago, Camilla Shand was born. Better known under her married name, Camilla Parker Bowles, Camilla is the second wife, and former mistress, of Prince Charles. Camilla was born the great-granddaughter of legendary royal mistress Alice Keppel. When she met Charles, she allegedly joked "My great-grandmother was your great-great-grandfather's mistress, so how about it?" Whether she actually said that or not, it was love from the beginning. Charles and Camilla were, and still are, absolutely perfect for each other. Beyond belonging together, they also deserve each other. Very few people deserve the unique ball of "eccentricities" that is Prince Charles; Diana certainly didn't! Long story short, Charles and Camilla fell in love, his family said she wasn't suitable, so they broke up and both married other people, while still basically being in love with each other. Shortly after Charles married Diana Spencer, they realized nothing was going to keep them apart, and jumped into a full out affair. Camilla doesn't fit the bill of royal mistress; she's not the witty, stylish, or sophisticated type. Furthermore, despite what tabloids would have you believe, she has few royal ambitions. Charles and Camilla were just made for each other. They both loves the same stupid radio shows from the '50's. They both love the country. They both love unfashionable clothing.

The only reason Camilla ended up in the mistress position was because Charles was both too weak to stand up to his parents and too weak to honor his marriage vows and put royal duty first. If you can't tell, I am firmly on Team Diana. But I don't blame Camilla; the whole thing was the fault of the royal family, and that includes Prince Charles, Prince Philip, and, to a lesser extent, the Queen. Of course, the worst offenders when it came to setting up this situation are both dead. The Queen Mother chose Diana as a royal bride and allowed Prince Charles to use her house for trysts with Camilla. Lord Louis Mountbatten encouraged Charles to marry a virgin and not Camilla and repeatedly warned him against rebelling against his family. "Uncle Dickie" as Charles called him, used both Edward VII and Edward VIII as examples for what Charles was to do. If he was like Edward VII, and married a suitable virgin and then cheated on her, he would have fun and parties and lots of sex and be remembered as a wonderful king and all around cool guy. If he was like Edward VIII and rebelled against his family and royal duty and married someone unsuitable, he would end up getting kicked out of the family and have to live in France, which to Prince Charles would be a fate worse than death. But personality wise, Charles had little in common with either Edward VII or Edward VIII; he was more of a George III type but slightly less crazy. So those examples had little relevance to his life.

Anyway, Charles and Camilla have been married five years now, and it seems to have worked out alright for them. That doesn't excuse their treatment of Princess Diana, but if Charles had just followed his heart and married Camilla in the first place the world would have never known Diana and William and Harry wouldn't exist. But I still don't really care for Charles.

The great historian and commentator Stephen Colbert described Camilla thusly:
"Oh, to be with Camilla. T'would be like making love to the chalky white cliffs of Dover."

On Charles and Camilla's relationship:
"It's the classic fairy-tale romance. Girl meets Boy. Girl loses Boy. Boy marries Another Girl. Girl becomes Boy's mistress. Other Girl dies tragically, and they all live happily ever after!"

Also, it was today in 1918 that the Romanovs were killed but that was just so horrid and unfortunate I don't feel like talking about it tonight.

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Wallis, Part 8





On the dark and stormy night of July 8, 1943, a man named Harry Oakes was murdered. He had been bludgeoned repeatedly on the head, and then set on fire. Harry Oakes was the richest man living in the Bahamas. He was a Canadian millionaire who had moved to the Bahamas to avoid taxes and exploit the locals. He was also known for his extensive charity work, but he was still definitely a colonialist type. There were stories he had been involved in some shady business dealings, but no one was entirely sure.

It was important the Governor be immediately informed. The next morning, Wallis and David were awoken with a knock to their door early in the morning. Wallis was still half asleep when her husband got out of bed to answer the door. She heard him have a conversation with his equerry in the door way. The only word she could make out was "murder".

The obvious suspect was Harry Oakes's son-in-law, Alfred de Marigny. Alfred de Marigny liked two things: money and teenage girls. He was born to poor French aristocrats, and used his charm to marry two wealthy women in quick secession and took money from them in the inevitable divorces. Harry Oakes had a daughter named Nancy, who was a pretty teenager from a wealthy family. When she was in her mid-teens, she and de Marigny had had a flirtation. He was in his late-thirties at the time. Her father had thought he'd put an end to it, but two days after she turned eighteen, Nancy ran off with him and they got married in New York before returning home to her shocked parents. Naturally, Harry Oakes was not happy about it. He tried to pressure his daughter into getting a divorce, and shortly before his death he'd sent her and her mother away to the United States to try and get her away from her husband for a while.

There were other suspects. Oakes's business partner, Harold Christie, was another possibility. But as Harold Christie was richer and more powerful than Alfred de Marigny, he wasn't as seriously considered at first. There was another issue; David, who in his position as Governor of the Bahamas had some authority over the investigation, hated de Marigny's guts. While Wallis was someone you definitely wouldn't want to cross, David was not a hateful person. Most of his worst behavior was motivated by selfishness or ignorance rather than a genuine desire to hurt anyone. Even people like Stanley Baldwin, Alec Hardinge, and Alan Lascelles, who really screwed him over, he never spoke of with much malice. His hatred of de Marigny went back to before Harry Oakes was killed.

There's a quote I remember reading once from David on de Marigny where he accuses him of being a horrible disgusting person who liked little girls. I can't find the exact quote so I won't try to guess at it beyond that, but basically David considered him to be a pedophile. It didn't help that he was rude and disrespectful to Wallis. It certainly went both ways. Alfred de Marigny is often used a source for books and documentaries trying to prove the Windsors were Nazis. Not only did he accuse them of Nazism, he also said they were involved with the Mafia in all kinds of illegal activities, and hinted that they were involved in killing Harry Oakes because he wouldn't go along with their plans. Alfred de Marigny also suggested they intentionally framed him for murder because he knew too much.

What made it impossible for the investigation to properly do its job was that everyone involved in the government and police believed Alfred de Marigny was guilty from the moment they realized it was murder. David's main mistake (beyond pre-judging de Marigny guilty) was when, instead of trusting the local authorities or calling in the Scotland Yard, he hired a Miami police officer who had once worked as his bodyguard to handle the case. David originally told him that he thought it possible that it might've just been a suicide (Oakes had seemed very depressed and irritable in the days before his death) and the fire was an accident. It was only after that theory was totally disproved that de Marigny was accused.

There's little evidence David intentionally set out to frame Alfred de Marigny. He really believed the man was guilty. He did have motive, means, and possibly (depending on who you believed) opportunity. But that doesn't necessarily mean he was guilty. It was certainly enough to convince David and Wallis at the time, though. His motives were clear; Harry Oakes wanted to break Alfred and Nancy up, and had even threatened to financially cut off his daughter if he couldn't. And while de Marigny probably wasn't the pedophile David accused him of being, he did like underaged (but not pre-pubescent or pubescent) girls and had a reputation for going after other teenage girls before Nancy Oakes. As such, David (and many other people) considered him thoroughly immoral. This was not entirely hypocritical; even in his wild younger days David had never gone after jailbait.

There was eventually a trial, and the whole story was a media sensation. It involved everything Americans love reading about: murder, exotic locations, impropriety, royalty, and lots of money. While it perhaps wasn't quite O.J. Simpson level notoriety (there was a war going on, after all), at the time it was a big deal. Alfred de Marigny was acquitted, with the condition that he leave the Bahamas and go live somewhere else. Apparently the jury was willing to buy the "pedophile" accusation but not the "murderer" one.

What got him off, and what is still the main bone of contention, was a fingerprint on a screen near where the body was found. The fingerprint belonged to Marigny, but some investigators and experts believed the fingerprint had been planted and pressed on to the screen off of something else. This is also the main evidence for a conspiracy. It seems like I am going on about this case, but it is pretty relevant, and I am not even going into half the conspiracy theories associated with it, or all of the different possible suspects. The whole thing is just a giant ball of WTF and the case is so weird I don't think anyone could make it up. It was the inspiration for a TV movie and several episodes of various crime shows over the years.

The theories that in recent years have been researched and have the most evidence are that either Harold Christie did it, or that Alfred de Marigny actually was guilty after all and only got off because he used his widespread unpopularity against the prosecution to convince people of a nonexistent conspiracy. Even if he was guilty there may have been some conspiracy; perhaps authorities weren't sure he did it or knew he was guilty but faked evidence because they couldn't prove it. Harold Christie was probably guilty, though, considering he was nearby when the murder took place and years later when asked about it at a party he didn't deny his guilt and simply refused to say anything. Either way, there may or may not have been a conspiracy. If there was, David may not have been involved with it at all. Both Oakes and Christie had had connections with the Bay Street Boys and were rumored to be involved in all sorts of unsavory business dealings. Christie wouldn't have needed the Governor to instigate a conspiracy. David had worked against the Bay Street Boys and made enemies in the process, so it's unlikely he would get involved in one of their conspiracies. Perhaps his dislike of de Marigny was manipulated by people involved with the government so he would unwittingly help the conspiracy. It's also been suggested, if he was involved, it was because criminals had threatened to harm Wallis if he didn't cooperate.

Either way, the Windsors' involvement in the case was overstated by the press. David did not have any absolute authority over the investigation and without getting a lot of people "in on it" he couldn't have orchestrated a conspiracy or gotten de Marigny charged. Wallis, for her part, had nothing to do with anything. But it's still relevant to my series of posts on her life, because the press did try to rope her into it. As she was already widely disliked, it was suggested by many (including de Maringy himself) that she had manipulated her husband into having him framed. There was even a bizarre theory that Wallis and de Marigny were involved in some kind of affair, and that Wallis ordered Harry Oakes killed and Alfred de Marigny framed to get revenge on him for choosing Nancy Oakes over her. Needless to say, all evidence directly contradicts that.

The whole unfortunate episode highly damaged David's reputation, even though his involvement in the case had been highly overstated. The press had wanted to sell papers; when you link a celebrity to a lurid murder case it makes the story even more interesting to the public. Wallis regarded the whole situation as unpleasant. She summed up the situation after the murder in her memoirs: "The sense of shock and horror sent through the colony by this crime and the mystery as to its perpetrator were never quite dispelled during the remaining time we were there."

During the time between the crime and the trial, life for Wallis continued as it had since their arrival. She did a lot of charity and war work to keep herself busy, and still tried to go to America every chance she got. On one trip to Washington D.C. there was a riot back in Nassau due to conflicts between the Bay Street Boys and the native population and David was forced to return early without his wife. Wallis was deeply concerned for him, but David's actions during the riot actually improved his press significantly. He had managed to significantly calm the rioters and had even gone into a burning building to help put out a fire and save civilians. But in the aftermath of the de Marigny trial that was pretty much forgotten.

There was also another major issue for Wallis during that time period. In spring 1944 she began to feel ill and suffered spells of dizziness and pains throughout her body. Wallis insisted she was fine. David suggested she go to New York to see a specialist, but she refused. She wrote to her Aunt Bessie: "The Duke is anxious for me to go but I can't bring myself to leave him in this awful hot depressing hole." When they finally went to New York in July, 1944, Wallis received an examination and it was determined she had stomach cancer. David and Wallis remained in America until September while Wallis had an operation and recuperated in Virginia. While there, Winston Churchill, who was also in America visiting President Roosevelt, met up with David to discuss his future role. David offered to go to Europe and do undercover work for the Foreign Office. He was turned down because of his unpopularity with the government and the fact he probably would have made a terrible spy. His knowledge of espionage came entirely from Film Noir movies, which he and Wallis were both obsessed with.

Churchill did offer to help him get Wallis received by the royal family. It was customary for the King and Queen to receive colonial governors and their wives for tea if they ever came to Britain. When the war ended, David and Wallis would be expected to at least pass through London and thus be invited to tea. Churchill figured this would be a good way to help heal the conflicts in the family as custom and tradition would require a reception and thus Bertie and Elizabeth would not feel as though they were betraying their feelings about Wallis. David desperately wanted any help he could get with that matter. Unfortunately, as Churchill wrote to the Windsors later, Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth were "inflexibly" opposed to such a meeting and not even Winston Churchill could change their minds.

Though her cancer was gone, Wallis still continued to feel ill, and couldn't stomach another summer in the Bahamas once 1945 came along. But once again she refused to leave without her husband. Churchill had told David in September 1944 that he could resign his position at his convenience. He announced his resignation on March 15, 1944, to take effect at the end of April. The war was coming to an end and his term would have ended on July 9th anyway. Despite claims he quit or deserted his post, terms for colonial governors were not set in stone and people often left early. It wasn't like an American office (like, say, Governor of Alaska) where you're elected to a term and expected to stay the course. By leaving early, beyond sparing Wallis another summer in the heat, he also did the British government a favor. They wanted him gone, but were worried about public backlash if his term came to an end and they didn't offer to renew it.

Because of the de Marigny scandal, his term was generally judged a failure by the British government. He had also managed to piss off everyone in the colonial government, and despite going beyond the call of duty with her charity work, Wallis was judged for her more Marie-Antoinette-like behavior. Ironically, even during the de Marigny trial, David's approval rating with the black Bahamians, who made up the majority of the population, rarely dipped below eighty percent, but given this was a colonial government that worked against him in the eyes of the British government.

Because of travel sanctions, the Windsors first went to New York to wait for the official end of the war in the Pacific. While there, they went shopping, partied, and "rewarded" themselves for surviving their time in the Bahamas. The war had aged them both significantly; photos show that though only five years passed between 1940 and 1945 both Wallis and David aged about fifteen. But life was getting better; it was the beginning of Wallis's new life as the most fabulous socialite in the Jet Set.

Think before you speak!

There's an awful lot of things, that if I were to reread them now, I'd say to myself: "Good God, I wish I hadn't said that!"
-Prince Philip

Outrageous royal quotes, or why people in the public eye must think before they speak:

In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.
-Prince Philip

My father was frightened of his mother. I was frightened of my father and I am damned well going to see to it that my children are frightened of me.
-George V

I wish nothing but good; therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor and a scoundrel.
-George III

One thing you have to say for this Hitler Johnny-he knows how to treat the nosey brigade.
-Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester

I've committed every vice in my life except murder, and I don't want to die without doing that too.
-Princess Elisabeth of Romania

This is the Duchess of Windsor! Are you the son of a bitch that sent this fucking trout up here?
-Wallis, Duchess of Windsor

I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of "Women's Rights," with all its attendent horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to "unsex" themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and digusting of begins and would surely perish without male protection.I love peace and quiet, I hate politics and turmoil. We women are not made for governing, and if we are good women, we must dislike these masculine occupations.
-Queen Victoria

I have lost my oldest son, but I was glad of it.
-George II

Which Queen are you refering to? My sister, my mother or my husband?
-Princess Margaret

Fucking is the greatest pleasure in life; the second is drinking. For all can drink but not all can fuck.
-Edward VII

Thursday, July 15, 2010

LadyTudorRose's boring homework... Romanov edition!

The Death of the Romanov Family

On July 17, 1918, at 1:30 am, Dr. Eugene Botkin was woken up by Yakov Yurovsky. He was told to wake up his employer, the former Tsar Nicholas II, and make sure that Nicholas’s wife and children were woken up and dressed. The Romanov family had been living in Ipatiev House in Ekaterinburg under house arrest for seventy-eight days. That night they were sent down to the cellar and told they would be photographed. Nicholas’s wife, Alexandra, asked for chairs for herself and her son, which were brought out (Massie 4). While they waited, they whispered to each other and Alexandra tried to talk to her daughters, Olga, Tatiana, Maria, and Anastasia, in English, the language the family used in private. Yurovsky then called in eleven men, armed with revolvers. He then told the confused family and their retainers that they were to be executed. Nicholas responded “What?” and Alexandra and Olga tried to cross themselves before the shots began. Thought they’d each been given individuals to shoot, all of the gunmen aimed at Nicholas before turning on the rest of the family. For decades afterwards, the killing of the Romanov family sparked debate, drama, and mystery. It led to increased tensions and conflicts within the European royal community, and helped cement the final end of Imperial Russia.

In March, 1917, Nicholas II abdicated the throne for himself and his son. He drew up a manifesto naming his brother Michael the next Tsar, but Michael declined to accept the throne. Nicholas was pressured to abdicate by the Provisional Government in the wake of the Russian Revolution. Nicholas felt he and his family would be safe if he signed away his rights (King and Wilson 84) and anticipated they would be able to find asylum abroad. King George V of Great Britain was a first cousin of both Nicholas and Alexandra. George and Nicholas had been friendly for years and even physically resembled one another. It was expected that the Romanov family would find safety in Britain. The British government was prepared to offer them asylum, but George prevented it. George had been worried about his own popularity, though he would later insist he had done everything he could to save them, as would his children and grandchildren (Edwards 310). That was not exactly the case, as George had had the option of offering them asylum when it could have saved them, and any other rescue efforts he may have been involved with (evidence is scarce either way) would have come once it was too late. Though George could not have known that they would die if they remained in Russia, he had little reason to believe they would otherwise be safe. Many of the family’s other relatives were in Germany, which was at war with Russia during World War I and would not have offered asylum to enemy royalty, regardless of family connections. Most of their other relatives in Denmark, Spain, and Greece, were not in a position to help the family. The possibility of them being sent to one of their overseas residences was also suggested, but arrangements were not made. Ultimately, when the Bolsheviks came in power in October 1917, it was no longer considered wise to keep the family alive in Russia where they would serve as symbol for Monarchists.

In late 1917, many in the extended family fled to Finland, Crimea, or other parts of Europe. Nicholas, his wife and children, and his brother Michael, were kept under house arrest and were unable to flee. Michael was murdered separately a month before Nicholas was killed (Perry and Pleshakov 194). The Soviets feared the possibility of Nicholas meeting up with Monarchist forces and being used a tool to fight the Revolution. Other relatives hid out to avoid being captured by the Reds. Nicholas may have at some point contemplated the possibility of his own execution, but it is unlikely he or anyone else in the family thought that Alexandra and the children would be killed as well (Massie 10). As a child, Olga Romanov had once told her tutor, after learning about Tudor England, she was glad to live in civilized times where she didn’t have to worry about being executed.
By 1918, the Soviet government became convinced the Nicholas was going to have to die. The problem was with what to do with his family. His wife, the former Empress, was incredibly unpopular, even more than her husband. She was believed to have German sympathies because of her German heritage, even though she considered herself more British than German. The issue was what to do with the children. Though had they known what was in store they probably would’ve changed their minds, the family did not want to be broken up. There was also the issue of where to send them, as George V had already proven unlikely to offer asylum and most of their other relatives were torn up by war. By spring 1918, when the family was moved to Ipatiev House, it was decided they were all going to die. The servants were considered irrelevant and it was decided they would be executed too if they would not leave the family. One of the kitchen boys was sent away before the executions so he would be able to survive.

The night before she died, the former Tsarina and “Empress of all Russias”, wrote in her diary that it was a cold night for July and that she had played cards with her husband before bed. A few hours later she, and her entire family, would be dead. Their deaths spawned anger, mystery, and even pretenders who claimed to be them. But ultimately, the family and their servants, were just a few deaths among many caused by the Russian Revolution, and World War I before it. But no other deaths during that time period caused quite as much mystery and controversy as the deaths of Nicholas, Alexandra, Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia, and Alexei Romanov.




Works Cited:
Edwards, Anne. Matriarch: Queen Mary and the House of Windsor. New York: W. Morrow, 1984. Print.
King, Greg, and Penny Wilson. The Fate of the Romanovs. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2003. Print.
Massie, Robert K. The Romanovs: the Final Chapter. New York: Random House, 1995. Print.
Perry, John Curtis., and Konstantin Pleshakov. The Flight of the Romanovs: a Family Saga. New York, NY: Basic, 1999. Print.



An old English assignment floating around my documents folder. We were able to pick our topic. Naturally, I got an A.

Monday, July 12, 2010

TheVictorianLady2: My new favorite person on Youtube!

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheVictorianLady2

Check out her channel right away! She has many cool royal and non-royal historical dramas you can watch in their entirety on her page.

So, waste an afternoon.

Right now I'm watching The Woman He Loved, which is one I'd actually never seen before.

I would recommend Firelight, which is an amazing historical romance film from the 1990's. No royals involved, but it's one of my favorite movies of all time. Really beautiful and romantic.


If you're looking for royals, she has:

The Lost Prince
The Woman He Loved
Wallis and Edward
Mrs. Brown

She says she will be uploading Victoria and Albert soon, so stay tuned!

She also has several Jane Austen adaptations if that's what you're in to.

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.