I thought it was all a bit meh quite honestly. This may come as a shock to many on this thread but I can't stand Lucy Worsley and I hate the fact that she is wheeled out constantly whenever there's a history documentary. I'm sure the fact that she's young and pretty has nothing whatsoever to do with it! I also wish she'd learn to pronounce her 'th's. I know she has a speech impediment which affects how she pronounces her 'r's but there is no excuse for pronouncing 'th' as 'f'. After her umpteenth mention of Caferine I was ready to throw something at the TV. And her predilection for dressing up gets on my nerves too, it doesn't make the documentary better just because she sticks on some medieval dress.
More importantly though she isn't well-versed in every corner of history and so essentially she's little more than a presenter reading stuff out. They try to add an air of authority to the programmes by using her but she is no more expert on this stuff than a lot of people and they might as well have used Fearne Cotton. Would it have killed them to use someone who actually specialised in Tudor history?!
Lightweight froth for the mouth-breathing masses presented by arguably the most irritating woman on television.
I won't be watching the next episode.
For anyone with half a brain, please check out Starkey's book, 'Six Wives', for a genuinely informative and erudite overview of the 'King's Great Matter'.
I thought it was all a bit meh quite honestly. This may come as a shock to many on this thread but I can't stand Lucy Worsley and I hate the fact that she is wheeled out constantly whenever there's a history documentary. I'm sure the fact that she's young and pretty has nothing whatsoever to do with it!
That's highly debatable. She's over 40. And I wouldn't call her remotely 'pretty'. More 'hobgoblin in a fright wig'.
She may feel an overwhelming urge to dress up like a ten-year-old from the 1950s but I've no idea why she has to talk to the viewers as if we're equally as infantile.
Lucy Worsley has been a curator at the Royal Palaces - including Hampton Court - for some time so she does know her stuff about Henry and his six wives rather than merely reading things out. She's an engaging presenter with a genuine interest in the subject she's talking about. It's also the first time anyone's been allowed to film Henry's actual letters to Anne which are kept in The Vatican, something David Starkey never got the chance to do. I know much about The Tudors and the story of Henry's wives but I still found the opener to this three part docu-drama a fresh and enjoyable watch.
If you're not keen on Lucy's presenting style that's one thing, but there's no need to be nasty about her. Also, if you already know you're not especially keen on her for whatever reason and you chose to sit through a whole hour of a programme presented by her then that's a fault of yours not hers.
It was all rather childish with her skulking in the background dressed as one of the characters. Does she always talk to viewers like she's telling a Jackanory childrens story?
It was all rather childish with her skulking in the background dressed as one of the characters. Does she always talk to viewers like she's telling a Jackanory childrens story?
Lucy has an animated and playful character. I'm glad she doesn't feel the need to suppress it in order to come across as a stereotypical stuffy historian with a monotone delivery.
And the "skulking" in the background dressed in Tudor style is a cheeky nod to how she loves dressing up.
Personally, I love how she's injecting her personality over all her work and if she's making history more engaging for the masses, then she's doing her job.
History can be presented in many different ways and depths, and everyone will prefer different styles. Personally I really enjoyed this. David Starkey isn't my favourite presenter of history, but if he floats someone else's historical boat, that's great, and I would have no reason to criticise him.
Lucy has an animated and playful character. I'm glad she doesn't feel the need to suppress it in order to come across as a stereotypical stuffy historian with a monotone delivery..
I'm now waiting for Mary Beard to appear in one of her programmes dressed as a Vestal Virgin. (And before anyone says it, I would never class her as a stuffy historian with a monotone delivery! Come to think of it, I can't think of an example.)
Lucy has an animated and playful character. I'm glad she doesn't feel the need to suppress it in order to come across as a stereotypical stuffy historian with a monotone delivery.
And the "skulking" in the background dressed in Tudor style is a cheeky nod to how she loves dressing up.
Personally, I love how she's injecting her personality over all her work and if she's making history more engaging for the masses, then she's doing her job.
And the Yanks, as this is going out on PBS. That explains all the froth and a whole hour to tell you very little. Michael Wood can engage viewers reading a book on a train about a subject. Enough of this drama-doc nonsense.
Lightweight froth for the mouth-breathing masses presented by arguably the most irritating woman on television.
I won't be watching the next episode.
For anyone with half a brain, please check out Starkey's book, 'Six Wives', for a genuinely informative and erudite overview of the 'King's Great Matter'.
That's ok for you but what would you recommend for me with a whole brain?
It was supposed to be a 6 part series but there were a couple of cuts lol.
Seriously though, I like this kind of thing but having just watched the Channel 5 series, I'm not ready for another one yet.
I'm now waiting for Mary Beard to appear in one of her programmes dressed as a Vestal Virgin. (And before anyone says it, I would never class her as a stuffy historian with a monotone delivery! Come to think of it, I can't think of an example.)
All the TV female historians seem to have a good sense of fund (in various styles) and all are qualified academics - some male non-academic TV history presenters get a battering from Amalgamated Union of TV Historians as they try to preserve their closed show.
Susanna Lipscombe this morning reTweeted a picture of her in front of a portrait of Queen Elizabeth I with the caption "Filming one of the most powerful and ruthless women the world has ever known... and Elizabeth I."
And the Yanks, as this is going out on PBS. That explains all the froth and a whole hour to tell you very little. Michael Wood can engage viewers reading a book on a train about a subject. Enough of this drama-doc nonsense.
There are plenty of learned tomes and academic papers on history so why do you lower yourself to watch these programmes when you have such a low opinion of them?
I really enjoyed it, yes having done History at school and seen the films I feel I know the Katherine / Henry / Anne story, but I am looking forward to a whole hour devoted to Anne of Cleves - the cleverest of wives. Managing to stay alive and friends with Hentry?! How did that happen? Well, like I said, she was clever.
As Joint Chief Curator of Historic Royal Palaces, Lucy has massive insight to the history of Tudor times. She's an extremely well educated lady as can be found by reading her Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Worsley).
She's an enthusiastic presenter, quirky with it and, contrary to some posters, I like the fact that she dons the costumes of the time to illustrate certain facts.
For those who are concerned at the drama/documentary mix with this short series, believe me when I tell you that Lucy plays a very small role in the dramatized scenes, being more a court observer than anything. She's totally in context with the various scenes, which actually serve to draw you in to the Tudor period in a way that I've not seen before.
Of course we all know about Henry VIII and his six wives and, yes, there have been countless productions about the period but if, like me, history was never your strong point, programmes like this do help to clarify some of the background to the basic stuff we already know.
Stick with it, I'm sure the naysayers will find themselves being secretly pleased they stayed.
Annoyingly, people keep banging on about 'The CH5 one' .. which is all very well if you've actually seen it, but this thread is about 'The BBC one', so can we all stick with that, please!
Comments
According to artists of the time Henry had 'beady little eyes', the actor had quite large eyes.
More importantly though she isn't well-versed in every corner of history and so essentially she's little more than a presenter reading stuff out. They try to add an air of authority to the programmes by using her but she is no more expert on this stuff than a lot of people and they might as well have used Fearne Cotton. Would it have killed them to use someone who actually specialised in Tudor history?!
Oh and the drama stuff was pointless.
I won't be watching the next episode.
For anyone with half a brain, please check out Starkey's book, 'Six Wives', for a genuinely informative and erudite overview of the 'King's Great Matter'.
That's highly debatable. She's over 40. And I wouldn't call her remotely 'pretty'. More 'hobgoblin in a fright wig'.
She may feel an overwhelming urge to dress up like a ten-year-old from the 1950s but I've no idea why she has to talk to the viewers as if we're equally as infantile.
If you're not keen on Lucy's presenting style that's one thing, but there's no need to be nasty about her. Also, if you already know you're not especially keen on her for whatever reason and you chose to sit through a whole hour of a programme presented by her then that's a fault of yours not hers.
http://uk.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/860315/portraits-of-henry-viii-and-catherine-of-aragon-reunited-at
Lucy has an animated and playful character. I'm glad she doesn't feel the need to suppress it in order to come across as a stereotypical stuffy historian with a monotone delivery.
And the "skulking" in the background dressed in Tudor style is a cheeky nod to how she loves dressing up.
Personally, I love how she's injecting her personality over all her work and if she's making history more engaging for the masses, then she's doing her job.
I'm now waiting for Mary Beard to appear in one of her programmes dressed as a Vestal Virgin.
Especially children.
That's ok for you but what would you recommend for me with a whole brain?
It was supposed to be a 6 part series but there were a couple of cuts lol.
Seriously though, I like this kind of thing but having just watched the Channel 5 series, I'm not ready for another one yet.
All the TV female historians seem to have a good sense of fund (in various styles) and all are qualified academics - some male non-academic TV history presenters get a battering from Amalgamated Union of TV Historians as they try to preserve their closed show.
Susanna Lipscombe this morning reTweeted a picture of her in front of a portrait of Queen Elizabeth I with the caption "Filming one of the most powerful and ruthless women the world has ever known... and Elizabeth I."
There are plenty of learned tomes and academic papers on history so why do you lower yourself to watch these programmes when you have such a low opinion of them?
She's an enthusiastic presenter, quirky with it and, contrary to some posters, I like the fact that she dons the costumes of the time to illustrate certain facts.
For those who are concerned at the drama/documentary mix with this short series, believe me when I tell you that Lucy plays a very small role in the dramatized scenes, being more a court observer than anything. She's totally in context with the various scenes, which actually serve to draw you in to the Tudor period in a way that I've not seen before.
Of course we all know about Henry VIII and his six wives and, yes, there have been countless productions about the period but if, like me, history was never your strong point, programmes like this do help to clarify some of the background to the basic stuff we already know.
Stick with it, I'm sure the naysayers will find themselves being secretly pleased they stayed.
Annoyingly, people keep banging on about 'The CH5 one' .. which is all very well if you've actually seen it, but this thread is about 'The BBC one', so can we all stick with that, please!