I will call this questions on historical research part B.
Would a good historical researcher of the Tudor era use primary sources plus works of previous historians? For instance, if someone was a respected authority would you go ahead and use some of their material? (no use in reinventing the wheel type of thing) or- would you feel you must verify what they have written? Is there a general consensus on who is a "respected authority"?
How likely do you think it is for new (new to us that is) Tudor related documents to be discovered? I'm imagining a written documents version of the Cheapside Hoard. Also, are there known materials in existence that researchers are not allowed to access?
Sorry for going on about this topic. There seems to be such a fascination and much debate about what did and did not really happen during the Tudor time period. I know there are good and bad resources out there and I'm trying to understand the process that leads to the reliable resources.
[ed note - accidentally cut off the end of Joan's question... fixed now!]