I think a wider history does need teaching for a nation with a such a rich history it is always the same few topics. Also I think other histories need to be explored especially like here in Wales where very little Welsh history is taught and there are so many important aspects to it.
plus I did find that this programme had covered a lot that had been covered on others elsewhere.
He was very matter-of-fact, with no gimmicks, exactly like a history programme should be.
Yes, Robert Bartlett was brilliant. None of that distracting "look-at- me" self-conscious style of presenting you get from Betthany Hughes (the Nigella Lawson of history) or even Thomas Ashbridge in the recent William Marshal documentary.
In many ways, we were somewhat short-changed by this only being a three part series.
With so many strong personalities and masses of incident, this could easily have filled 6 hours of screen time if not more.
It was clear, well-constructed - but did rush through lots of material that I would have loved to have seen explored in more detail.
I so agree with this. The Plantagenets have always been my favourite area of history, but this was just so rushed and there could have been so much more to it.
I think it gets ignored as so little is really known about it, it really is the darkest part of the "Dark Ages", though that term is out of vogue now and its more commonly called "Early Medieval" by historians. Actually it was covered a little on "Border Country: The Story of Britain's Lost Middleland" on Sunday.
Thanks, that was good. I think he overdid the comparisons with Afghanistan but it was a nice reminder as far as Britain is concerned that nationalism of any region is something which is constructed by people and is not natural or something that has always been. History can easily undermine the attempt of politicians to use nationalism as a means to gain more power for themselves, but most people are ignorant of it unfortunately.
I watched all 3 parts today and found it fascinating. I'm not very familiar with the history here of the royals so I may watch it again. It was good to put names that I've only heard through films into context such as Richard the Lionheart and Edward Longshanks. Yes, I am aware that Hollywood rarely depicts historical figures accurately and not to rely on them too much. I think they can serve as starting points to get people interested though.
It ended there because Henry 7th was not a Plantagenet. Actually he was an upstart nobody who got lucky.
Landing with an inferior force and taking on an incumbent warrior king some might say is hardly luck. But as Harry Hill might say I like Richard the third and I like Henry Tudor but which one's best.
Landing with an inferior force and taking on an incumbent warrior king some might say is hardly luck. But as Harry Hill might say I like Richard the third and I like Henry Tudor but which one's best.
.. and winning. I would say that is the very essence of luck. From a logistical point of view, Richard should have won that day - superior forces, superior ground - but Tudor had the luck that his mother was married to the guy who rushed in at the last minute to help him out. Made it with about 20 seconds to spare otherwise Henry would have been a gonner instead of the incumbent king.
.. and winning. I would say that is the very essence of luck. From a logistical point of view, Richard should have won that day - superior forces, superior ground - but Tudor had the luck that his mother was married to the guy who rushed in at the last minute to help him out. Made it with about 20 seconds to spare otherwise Henry would have been a gonner instead of the incumbent king.
As far as the treacherous Stanley is concerned I would agree luck was with him that day
But is winning all down to luck?
I watched the last part this morning on catch up..........terrific !
What a refreshing change to have a documentary where the presenter just told us the story of the subject without the story of the subject being the background to telling us about the presenter......
Yep, agree with all the above comments - great series, the presenter was engaging, without being more obtrusive than the story he was telling; I really enjoyed it, and like others, wish it had been longer, so it could've been covered in more depth.
I find this historical period quite fascinating but have had difficulty gelling with this particular series. It seems very rushed and the presenter, although clearly knowledgeable, appears to lack the facility to bring the stories to life and give depth to the characters.
Oddly his section about Edward II concentrated on salacious gossip and homosexual goings on and missed out the mundane fact that the contemporary hatred of Edward's chums was based entirely on greed as they were getting all the lucrative positions.
As far as the treacherous Stanley is concerned I would agree luck was with him that day
But is winning all down to luck?
Perhaps not in every case - at least not down to that one single factor.
But in this case I'd say that Henry Tudor was very fortunate that Stanley decided at the last minute to come in and help him out. That seems to me to be an arbitrary parameter. Without that, Henry would not have been victorious that day. Just think, no Henry VIII, no Reformation (at least maybe not), no Gloriana... wow.
Someone help me please in this. I swear Robert said there were 15 Plantagenet kings but I can only count 14. It's driving me nuts who the other one is.
I have Henry 2, Richard, John, Henry 3, Edward 1-3', Richard 2, Henry 4-6', Edward 4-5 and Richard 3
I really liked this show but started to get bogged down by episode 3 of who exactly was who. I think I'll need to watch it again to get the full picture. Professor Robert was very good though. I thought he made a great presenter.
I really enjoyed this series as well, but wished it was longer as there were some things that were dealt with in a few sentences. I found myself looking up additional information on Wikipedia after the show.
Not knowing much detail about the history I found myself understanding quite a bit more about the lineage. It was especially interesting regarding Edward I and Wales as I didn't really learn that at school (or if I did, it hadn't sunk in).
Someone help me please in this. I swear Robert said there were 15 Plantagenet kings but I can only count 14. It's driving me nuts who the other one is.
I have Henry 2, Richard, John, Henry 3, Edward 1-3', Richard 2, Henry 4-6', Edward 4-5 and Richard 3
Could the missing one be Henry II's son, also Henry, who was made co-King while his father was still alive, but died before he could inherit properly as Henry III?
Could the missing one be Henry II's son, also Henry, who was made co-King while his father was still alive, but died before he could inherit properly as Henry III?
This sounds like the answer. Although he was King, he isn't Henry III because he died before his father.
I really enjoyed this series as well, but wished it was longer as there were some things that were dealt with in a few sentences. I found myself looking up additional information on Wikipedia after the show.
Not knowing much detail about the history I found myself understanding quite a bit more about the lineage. It was especially interesting regarding Edward I and Wales as I didn't really learn that at school (or if I did, it hadn't sunk in).
I don't know what historians have against the war of the rose's Simon Sharma dismissed it in 10 minutes as a falling out between overgrown school boys
Well, I was waiting to see how he would deal with that - these days you must be careful not to overload R3 with too much guilt. I think he was very measured about that part.
I was very disappointed with the section on Richard III to be honest, it did take the shine off what had been a very good programme. There was nothing about Titulus Regius, nothing about George, Duke of Clarence, nothing about the Parliament which asked Richard to take the throne because of the "illegitimacy" of the two Princes, just a basic rehash of the "two previous Plantagenet Kings had usurped the throne so Richard thought he'd have a go too" angle.
I like this period but I think it's been done to death on British TV. Maybe they could look at Norman or Anglo Saxon kings, or even better look at more social history which is a pretty big topic that doesn't get covered much.
I disagree, The Plantagents are usually overlooked in favour of their Tudor dynasty followers. It's only been in the last year or so that they've had a focus and a lot of that has been down to the discover of the remains of Richard III.
There has been a series on the Anglo-Saxons earlier this year and there was a huge series on The Normans either last year or the year before. The period which tends to get ignored is the Stuart Dynasty and into the Georgian period but there is a new series being presented by Lucy Worsley starting on The Georgians soon to mark the 300th anniversary of George I ascending to the Throne in 1714.
I think it gets ignored as so little is really known about it, it really is the darkest part of the "Dark Ages", though that term is out of vogue now and its more commonly called "Early Medieval" by historians. Actually it was covered a little on "Border Country: The Story of Britain's Lost Middleland" on Sunday.
Just halfway through the first episode of that, I'm enjoying it very much so far. Also really enjoyed The Plantagenets, they often get overlooked as a dynasty by their Tudor followers but they're my favourite of all.
I'd love to see someone have a proper in depth look at the War of the Roses and how the conflict affected the whole country, not just the ruling classes.
Someone help me please in this. I swear Robert said there were 15 Plantagenet kings but I can only count 14. It's driving me nuts who the other one is.
I have Henry 2, Richard, John, Henry 3, Edward 1-3', Richard 2, Henry 4-6', Edward 4-5 and Richard 3
The (crowned and annointed) Plantagent Kings are: Henry II, Richard I, John, Henry III, Edward I, Edward II, Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Edward VI and Richard III.
Edward V was never crowned although he was declared King on the death of his father and Henry the Young King never ruled as he died before his father but if you include those two, you get a total of 15
The period which tends to get ignored is the Stuart Dynasty and into the Georgian period but there is a new series being presented by Lucy Worsley starting on The Georgians soon to mark the 300th anniversary of George I ascending to the Throne in 1714.
Good news that there is to be a series about the Georgians but groan that it is to be Lucy Worsley as presenter.
I read a book about George II's family some time ago and it was fascinating; there was a dysfunctional royal family to equal all others.
How about a series on the origins of Parliament and the development of the party political system? I'd find it interesting to learn more about the early Prime Ministers.
I recall the big news about Richard III in Leicester but didn't fully appreciate the significance until I watched this series. I'm not a history boff but I thoroughly enjoyed it, very well presented. I even found myself browsing the internet for more information on the Plantagenets and Tudors after the show ended.
I recall the big news about Richard III in Leicester but didn't fully appreciate the significance until I watched this series. I'm not a history boff but I thoroughly enjoyed it, very well presented. I even found myself browsing the internet for more information on the Plantagenets and Tudors after the show ended.
That's the sign of a good history programme - it if gets people to learn more.
This programme was well-presented by someone who knew his stuff, and more importantly didn't bore the pants off me. Some presenters might be experts, but sometimes just don't know how to present.
I enjoy her programmes. She's so enthusiastic and knowledgeable.
That's the sign of a good history programme - it if gets people to learn more.
And not just factual history programmes. The White Queen for all it's many faults started my real interest in the Plantagenets.
I have always been fascinated in our Royal history but found that dynasty really confusing, who was who, who was related to who, who was for York, who for Lancaster. I am now a little more knowledgeable but not much...:)
Comments
plus I did find that this programme had covered a lot that had been covered on others elsewhere.
Yes, Robert Bartlett was brilliant. None of that distracting "look-at- me" self-conscious style of presenting you get from Betthany Hughes (the Nigella Lawson of history) or even Thomas Ashbridge in the recent William Marshal documentary.
I so agree with this. The Plantagenets have always been my favourite area of history, but this was just so rushed and there could have been so much more to it.
Thanks, that was good. I think he overdid the comparisons with Afghanistan but it was a nice reminder as far as Britain is concerned that nationalism of any region is something which is constructed by people and is not natural or something that has always been. History can easily undermine the attempt of politicians to use nationalism as a means to gain more power for themselves, but most people are ignorant of it unfortunately.
Landing with an inferior force and taking on an incumbent warrior king some might say is hardly luck. But as Harry Hill might say I like Richard the third and I like Henry Tudor but which one's best.
.. and winning. I would say that is the very essence of luck. From a logistical point of view, Richard should have won that day - superior forces, superior ground - but Tudor had the luck that his mother was married to the guy who rushed in at the last minute to help him out. Made it with about 20 seconds to spare otherwise Henry would have been a gonner instead of the incumbent king.
As far as the treacherous Stanley is concerned I would agree luck was with him that day
But is winning all down to luck?
I agree that it's a shame it wasn't a 5 or 6 parter.
What a refreshing change to have a documentary where the presenter just told us the story of the subject without the story of the subject being the background to telling us about the presenter......
Oddly his section about Edward II concentrated on salacious gossip and homosexual goings on and missed out the mundane fact that the contemporary hatred of Edward's chums was based entirely on greed as they were getting all the lucrative positions.
Perhaps not in every case - at least not down to that one single factor.
But in this case I'd say that Henry Tudor was very fortunate that Stanley decided at the last minute to come in and help him out. That seems to me to be an arbitrary parameter. Without that, Henry would not have been victorious that day. Just think, no Henry VIII, no Reformation (at least maybe not), no Gloriana... wow.
I have Henry 2, Richard, John, Henry 3, Edward 1-3', Richard 2, Henry 4-6', Edward 4-5 and Richard 3
Not knowing much detail about the history I found myself understanding quite a bit more about the lineage. It was especially interesting regarding Edward I and Wales as I didn't really learn that at school (or if I did, it hadn't sunk in).
Could the missing one be Henry II's son, also Henry, who was made co-King while his father was still alive, but died before he could inherit properly as Henry III?
This sounds like the answer. Although he was King, he isn't Henry III because he died before his father.
I don't know what historians have against the war of the rose's Simon Sharma dismissed it in 10 minutes as a falling out between overgrown school boys
I was very disappointed with the section on Richard III to be honest, it did take the shine off what had been a very good programme. There was nothing about Titulus Regius, nothing about George, Duke of Clarence, nothing about the Parliament which asked Richard to take the throne because of the "illegitimacy" of the two Princes, just a basic rehash of the "two previous Plantagenet Kings had usurped the throne so Richard thought he'd have a go too" angle.
I disagree, The Plantagents are usually overlooked in favour of their Tudor dynasty followers. It's only been in the last year or so that they've had a focus and a lot of that has been down to the discover of the remains of Richard III.
There has been a series on the Anglo-Saxons earlier this year and there was a huge series on The Normans either last year or the year before. The period which tends to get ignored is the Stuart Dynasty and into the Georgian period but there is a new series being presented by Lucy Worsley starting on The Georgians soon to mark the 300th anniversary of George I ascending to the Throne in 1714.
Just halfway through the first episode of that, I'm enjoying it very much so far. Also really enjoyed The Plantagenets, they often get overlooked as a dynasty by their Tudor followers but they're my favourite of all.
I'd love to see someone have a proper in depth look at the War of the Roses and how the conflict affected the whole country, not just the ruling classes.
The (crowned and annointed) Plantagent Kings are: Henry II, Richard I, John, Henry III, Edward I, Edward II, Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Edward VI and Richard III.
Edward V was never crowned although he was declared King on the death of his father and Henry the Young King never ruled as he died before his father but if you include those two, you get a total of 15
I hope it's not in German with sub-titles.
I read a book about George II's family some time ago and it was fascinating; there was a dysfunctional royal family to equal all others.
How about a series on the origins of Parliament and the development of the party political system? I'd find it interesting to learn more about the early Prime Ministers.
I enjoy her programmes. She's so enthusiastic and knowledgeable.
That's the sign of a good history programme - it if gets people to learn more.
This programme was well-presented by someone who knew his stuff, and more importantly didn't bore the pants off me. Some presenters might be experts, but sometimes just don't know how to present.
And not just factual history programmes. The White Queen for all it's many faults started my real interest in the Plantagenets.
I have always been fascinated in our Royal history but found that dynasty really confusing, who was who, who was related to who, who was for York, who for Lancaster. I am now a little more knowledgeable but not much...:)