I can see that, yes. Only I think Sally has a bit more feel for what the people want. Social awareness, that kind of thing..


It drives me mad that she can't say her r's. It's not cute to all ears. I watch her programmes occasionally despite her. because they're interesting subjects.


nailed it.

You do know she's mostly reading from a script, don't you?

I think she's great. Iwouldn't mind her job, either

It would be silly to go into a three part series of one hour documentaries without writing out a script first or at least the outlne of a script as likely to get changed as they went along.

Some cynics seem to think a well qualified historian with a doctorate and a responsible job in heritage would just read parrot fashion a script written by someone else.

Nah - not all of 'em have rhotacism - mind you - I was watching "Immortal Egypt with Joann Fletcher" last night, and Prof. Fletcher's Barnsley accent kept making me think I was listening to Philomena Cunk

There is a kind of latent sexuality about her but she couldn't stop a pig in an alleyway.

Perhaps she does her own research, but I have reason to know that many of these well qualified TV historians get their research and scripts done by underlings. Sad, but true.

Why sad? These underlings are likely to have been taught and tutored by her and is no different to leading academics getting their post-grads to do the grunt work.

Nothing new about academics getting juniors to do specific bits of research for them. It could take many hours or even days of searching through an archive to find one fact so much better to get someone else to do it.

I doubt she did any of it.

She'll be in her element in the next episode in full Anastasia mode, flouncing around in white frock and floppy sun hat intoning the story of the very pretty but untimately very tragic Romanov daughters.

She's too ludicrous to take seriously, unfortunately. She should stick to prancing about with Len Goodman instead of tottering around Petersburg in an ugly dress like a latter-day Quasimodo in drag.

Compare her efforts with those of Joann Fletcher or Mary Beard, both of whom only present series on subjects in which they're expert and for which they receive writing credits. The trouble with Worsley is that she seems to think she's both the star and the chief point of interest. For me, she's neither, and her lack of knowledge only compounds the problem.

She should stay on BBC1 in future and leave BBC4 to serious historians and intelligent documentaries.

I'm sorry, but that is totally unfair. Shame on you.

I think what you meant to say was.....

Luckily , lots of people, myself included find her engaging,interesting and well informed on her chosen subjects.

I quite liked the red Russian influenced dress she wore, caertainly not ugly.

I don't see that 'hair and wig expert' Joann Fletcher and Classicist (so claims to be expert on everything) Mary Beard are any better except they insist on their name being on the credits even though as being university academics it is probably easier for them to find students to do the hard work of research as most university academics do.

Someone should ask her to confirm she writes her own words and books to end these ludicrous claims.

I should think that Dr Lucy Worsely would find that quite insulting....

Oh come off it, it was hideous. It looked a sort of shade of orange in some lights and the heavy black patterning did it no favours at all. Still, the lurid colour certainly got people's attention as she hobbled across Red Square which, presumably, was always the intention anyway. 'Look at me, I'm Lucy Worsley, a middle-aged woman who acts and dresses like a 10-year-old from the 1950s'.

I have no idea what people see in her. For me, she's a female version of Jeremy Clarkson i.e. someone whose mere appearance on the TV usually makes me change channel instantly. It's only the Russian subject matter that made me sit through this most recent effort. I'm not sure I can stomach the last episode, tbh.

I am not suggesting she does not research and write it herself but others are so the only way to stop the silly suggestions.

I know you weren't suggesting it I just think asking her to prove it because of a few internet nutters is extreme

It's only the one - with his bunch of unsavoury fantasies.

It's really depressing to see so many (borderline) misogynist comments in this thread. Perhaps Lucy Worsley lays herself open to them by being ubiquitous on the BBC right now and for having a penchant for dressing up, but there is nothing wrong about presenting history enthusiastically.

It seems that she's not to everyone's taste but it's very clear reading through this thread that she is being criticised partly for her sex. After all Dan Snow has his detractors (myself included) but criticisms of him stick to nepotism and his lack postgraduate education rather than his appearance and how his voice sounds.

I think it's clear Lucy Worsley is going to have a long career in television and that means being a more generalist history presenter but her programmes are usually very enjoyable and I don't think all of them would have been commissioned if she was not behind them. She's a genuine History TV star and I'm afraid you'll just have to put up with her just like I have to put up with Dan Snow and his GCSE level spiel.

A First at Balliol is hardly GCSE level. He has decided to into writing and TV programme production rather than bury himself in academia or making a fortune in the City. He brings history to the masses that seems to be of at least of equal value to someone who choses to be a teacher and bore the pants off a few dozen schoolchildren a year.

I think you're rather making my point here about how some history presenters have a marmite like quality. I think Dan Snow is a hack but I'm glad both he and Lucy Worsley exist as they get programmes made. He makes jolly, lightweight, straightforward programmes that are very low in history content vs the rest of the BBC historian roster but without him I suppose fewer programmes would get made.

As for his first at Balliol, an undergraduate degree is a baby step into a subject even a first. He's obviously intelligent but he pitches at a very general audience and he has less expertise than Dr Worsley. There is nothing wrong with that but I'm glad BBC4 make other programmes too.

We all know why Dan 'My dad's on TV' Snow got a job at the BBC...