Just watched the rubbish that was the Monarchy. Talk about a biased view with so many ommissions. Dr Starkey never once mentioned the Kingmaker. He stated the Yorkists were brutal and intimated they were usurpers. He "forgot" to mention that the Tudor claim never was because they were illegitamate and agreed never to make a claim. There was so much he conveniently forgot, like the Stanleys who changed sides more times than they changed underwear. So much I could rant for days!
I am so sick of these programmes, when is someone going to produce a programme that is going to show both sides bad and good. Each side was brutal (it was a brutal time). Each side had resaons for doing what they did but it is always shown in the Lancastrian view. Lets see what really happened and not a biased view. Please!
He he! I like Starkey's programmes a whole lot, but I think he does suffer from a slight case of intellectual vanity and pomposity!
He is definitely of the old school that is for sure. I recall when he was talking about the barbarity of the upper classes in the middle ages, that he mentioned that such barbarity in the modern age was now really confined to "the lower orders"! I went off him a little after this! Not much, but calling working class people 'the lower orders' is like calling black people negros; it is at the least demeaning and is showing your prejudices. On top of this, he is, like many academics, trapped in his own worldview and probably cannot see beyond that, and I feel that when a person does have some kind of agenda, it becomes the basis of the subject and not the history or facts itself.
English history is political anyway; and like anything political, he who controls the facts controls the way we see to a certain point.
From a safe distance of 500 years or so he is fascinating. How did his physical health impact on his governing and mental health ? What will Starkey identify as the really lasting legacies from his reign ?
I agree with you totally. If I knew nothing at all about Medieval History I would agree that he is entertaining to watch. I also agree Dr S is vain and pompous in an adhering way. I also agree wiht veryberrycherry21 in that time constraints are a big factor into what goes into the programme.
However I feel that everytime I sit down to watch one of these programmes (with the excellent one done by the history channel), my heart sinks. A major player in the WofR was Earl of warwick (Kingmaker) if he hadnt switched sides 6 billion times then things might have been different (worth a mention Dr Starkey?). There were so many ommissions. He failed to mention the real reason Elizabeth Woodville went into sanctuary - she had stolen the treasury and wanted to rule herself. Liz Woodville only agreed to her daughters marriage on the promise that her daughter would be crowned immediately. Henry did crown her after she gave him 2 sons (she had a better claim than him!)
I could go on for pages. Yes the Yorkists were not angels but my point is lets see the other side as well please.
I was disappointed to see Starkey take such a traditional view of Richard III and the end of the Plantagenets. The old chestnut about him supposedly being the only other person in the Tower on the night of Henry VI's murder is surely not worthy of a reputable historian. The only person responsible for H VI's death was Edward IV. Regarding Warwick and his absence, I have always felt his position over-rated. Edward IV won his throne for himself; Warwick was bound to him through kinship and self-presevation, no more no less.
Having said all that, it is difficult to present a populist history programme in less than 60 mins and satisfy all tastes. The Wars of the Roses would be worthy of a serious history series on its own and it would be nice to think that Channel 4 might commission the same. Let's see what he makes of the greatest tyrant to ever sit on the English throne and the rest of the poxy Tudors.
I have read these comments, some of the larger posting, slightly skimmed. As a budding historian who has read widley on the tudors, although manly on Henry VIII onwards, but have tuoched on Henry VII, thruogh a book on the war of the Roses, and the Princes in the tower, also, the governance of Henry VII, and life both resource books in portsmouth University libary, Dr S, interpretation has not driffted far from the sources he has used. As the age old saying goes, the winner writes History, and that is what he has delivered, the victor's history. Yes I know Richard, and Henry were not greatly different in their brutalility, and he could have told every side,but as has been pointed, out there were difficulties.
1. the time constriant, trying to condence the latter war of the roses into one hour. 2. to make the show appealing to mass audiance, not just the historians, of this world. 3. It is channel 4 there has to be something of the american, bad and good guy.
If we were to totally exsamine his program there are huge holes, amongst it. He never covers what henry VII did in brittiany, just that he had french troops, Henry VII actual reign how he avoided war, and made the monarchy rich by raising funds for two wars that never took place, by playing the other countries off one another, by marrying his eldest son into the greatest, and most powerful ruling family in Europe at the time. So I agree there is much lacking but, as I hope I have argued well, there are ploausable reasons, and we should not expect any real depth from a one hour program.
So what did you make of Henry VIII last night? I thought that it was a surprisingly well-balanced portrait and it was refreshing to see it not focussing on his marriages - I don't think his last 3 wives were even mentioned. I thought he overstated his success and glory as a war-leader; in reality he achieved nothing and there is no evidence that he had any military or generalship skills, other than being a formiddable jouster as a youth. His religious writings were partly inspired by a desire to be awarded a title by the Pope to rival the Most Catholic King and Most Christian King titles awarded to kings of Spain and France. One gripe though - I found the characterisations/actors unconvincing and of little added value. When he said Henry was now 38 the actor playing him looked about 68! Next week, Elizabeth I who was of course recently voted Britain's greatest monarch in a TV debate amongts academics and celebrities. I'm no lover of the Tudors but I concede her as a Premier Division monarch whereas Henry I'd place in a lower tier - his notoriety springs from the break with Rome and his 6 marriages and is not a reflection of his achievements as monarch, unlike Elizabeth (but the Plantagenets are still way better!!)
Just a pedantic quibble - though I expect Dr. Starkey wouldn't object to nit-picking - he referred to Henry V as Henry VIII's "ancestor", which he was not; predecessor, certainly, but H5's line was exterminated at Tewkesbury (which strangely was omitted in the relevent previous programme - Dr. S. referred to the battle at some length, but never actually told us that the Prince of Wales died in it). H8's "ancestress" was H5's wife Catherine by her 2nd marriage.
When he said Henry was now 38 the actor playing him looked about 68!
That was terribly irritating. That one shouldn't have been used till the last few ones - certainly not with Anne ! I got the impression that his health really started to deteriorate after his jousting accident in 1536 and the famous Holbein portrait (hefty but just about with his own hair colour) was from about Jane's time ?
I finally got round to watching the prog last night!
I found it ok makes a change tohear about something other than his wives as everyone knows about them. However I did find it a bit heavily laden towards the beginning of his reign.
Interesting stance though. Im a bit worried about next weeks prog. The blurb said it was about Liz. I think everyonen knows about her. I hope Dr S is going to say a bit about Ed and Mary as well as Lady jane. Ive seen progs where jane is missed out totally. I think hers is such a sad story and deserves to be told. (Now theres a drama in the making!)
well I missed the first ten minutes of this episode, as i was getting dinner. I thought this episode was like the last, a good episode for those being introduced to this part of history. As the last episode and most probably Elizabeth's episode, will tell the story from the perspective of Elizabeth as a great monarch. if at all they touch on her childhood and fellow siblings it will be the Thomas Seaymor affair and how it changed her view, touching on 'that at this point Elizabeth became a woman and decided to remain a virgin.' if I remember the last Channel 4 show on elizabeth by Dr S.
ahh well all we can do is wait.
another Elizabeth show coinciding with 'Monarchy' is the starting of the Elizabeth I two part dramitisation, with Helen Mirrem, and Jermey Irons in it.
I like these shows. I am a complete layman but I love reading and watching historical works.
Starkey, shama etc appeal to me as they open the door to these areas and invite you to walk through it if you're interested in learnng more.
I would think it impossible to present the intricacies of any major historical situation or event in a 60 minute show and I guess they have to try to take a broad view. I do enjoy reading the comments on this forum after his, and other, history programmes as it is a vital source of finding out the detail that is missed in the programs.
I also find it, (respectfully), amusing that you hard core history buffs can seldom agree on anything so poor Starkey does'nt really stand a chance with you lot does he, he's bound to miss something that one of you thinks is important !!
I also find it, (respectfully), amusing that you hard core history buffs can seldom agree on anything so poor Starkey does'nt really stand a chance with you lot does he, he's bound to miss something that one of you thinks is important !!
