DS Forums

 
 

Six Wives with Lucy Worsely


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-12-2016, 18:51
SepangBlue
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,519
I thought the channel 5 one was a repeat
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!
SepangBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 08-12-2016, 19:21
Daniel Dare
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 1,428
They used drama to highlight the points raised and in my view it gave a more intelligible insight than a load of waffle could have done. It was all in context.
That's one of the things I adore about Lucy is that she literally puts herself right into the action of whatever the subject is about.
She knows she's not an actress but she's game to get stuck in the parts and playing out scenes without taking things too seriously. Her approach makes a refreshing change from some stern academic professor talking-heads that then goes into a dull scene (not that there's anything wrong with that).
She seemed to relish the costumed roles in her A Very British Murder series, especially the 'Red Barn Murder' and 'Bermondsey Horror' cases.
I'm completely enchanted by her when she's on screen.
Daniel Dare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 20:58
DaveMBA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 189
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 will try everything once - except homosexuality and ski-jumping. Having seen the C5 version (the point really being - flogging - dead- horse), I shall not be bothering with any more of this fluff.
DaveMBA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2016, 00:43
QwertyGirl1771
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: London
Posts: 4,058
Every programme Lucy Worsely has presented has been absolutely fascinating.
QwertyGirl1771 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2016, 03:26
scintilla
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 255
Why was Henry VIII a brunette in this?
scintilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2016, 09:15
dsimiller
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London UK
Posts: 1,804
Superb,and immensely watchable,as is everything Lucy does.
dsimiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2016, 11:41
Horace Wimp
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 159
I usually like her tv stuff, but this is not my era, tudor stuff is too far back in time to be interesting .

I preferred her crime in literature series.
Horace Wimp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2016, 12:02
DaveMBA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 189
Watch Vienna on BBC4 to see how to present these subjects properly.
DaveMBA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2016, 16:24
Daniel Dare
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 1,428
I usually like her tv stuff, but this is not my era, tudor stuff is too far back in time to be interesting .

I preferred her crime in literature series.
Fine if it's not your thing but the time period is irrelevant when it comes interesting history.

Watch Vienna on BBC4 to see how to present these subjects properly.
I enjoyed Dr James Fox's presentation but there's no 'properly', it's just a different style and approach. That's the beauty of cultural arts and history, it can be accessed at different angles and if any one of them is a gateway for some people to learn more in-depth if they so wish, then all the more I say.
Daniel Dare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2016, 18:13
Makson
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,401
Must admit the second episode felt a little rushed and disappointing. The first episode was almost entirely dedicated to Katherine and then we had three deaths squeezed into the second episode! The pacing is off. I defintely felt more could have been told about Jane Seymour.
Makson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 02:06
Davonator
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,645
I'm a big Lucy Worsley fan but am a bit disappointed in this, although I respect the fact that this dramatic documentary hybrid is trying something new.

There seems to be a contradiction going on. Lucy states that the established historiography has made the wives one dimensional and not really fleshed them out or looked at new evidence and whilst that's true......she seems to give this exact one dimensional treatment to Henry, (the fat tyrannical monster etc. etc.)

Again much of that is accurate. But some modern scholars have suggested he was bipolar, or that he had suffered some brain damage In a jousting accident, which made him that way. That's interesting, worth investigating and puts things (his relationships) in a whole new perspective.
Davonator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 11:42
Smiley433
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Location: Location
Posts: 4,214
Must admit the second episode felt a little rushed and disappointing. The first episode was almost entirely dedicated to Katherine and then we had three deaths squeezed into the second episode! The pacing is off. I definitely felt more could have been told about Jane Seymour.
Perhaps there was more to discuss as he was married to Catherine for longer than the other marriages added together. But yes, I was kind of expecting a more even split - three each in the first two episodes and two in the final one with a recap of everything.
Smiley433 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 18:24
gomezz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Buckingham
Posts: 28,543
That makes eight?
gomezz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 19:16
Smiley433
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Location: Location
Posts: 4,214
That makes eight?
Yes, I was just thinking the same. Must be getting mixed up with Henry VI and his eight wives.

So perhaps two per episode. But even then, there's probably so much more to tell about his first marriage that it would take up a whole hour rather than spending a set 30 minutes on each of the six marriages and having to stretch some out to fit the time slot.
Smiley433 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2016, 11:17
Faust
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,098
For the subject matter of Anne Boleyn I don't think you can beat Wolf Hall for a magnificent portrayal.
Faust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2016, 12:12
*Sparkle*
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,937
Lucy is a national treasure on this forum and has her own dedicated thread here for her fans to post in so we can keep up with what shows she is working on next. Feel free to join us

As for this new series, I loved the first episode. Of course anything to do with Henry and his wives has been told many times but having Lucy on board really enhances this one.
And she can act too! Those tears when Katherine was making her emotional plea to Henry was Oscar worthy from Dr Worsley
I didn't know about the thread, but I love her. I heard about this series, and went searching the BBC4 section of iPlayer, only to realise it was, rightfully, on BBC1.

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?!
No-one is versed in every corner of history, but she's joint Chief Curator of the royal palaces, and spends much of her non-TV life at Hampton Court Palace. She's way more than a tv presenter, and if you didn't know that, you need to work on your own research skills.

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 thought it nicely represented that so much of what we know of those people and their relationships is what was recorded by people at court who were watching on and wrote it down or told someone else who wrote it down.

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!
I didn't see the Channel 5 one. The BBC can't assume that everyone has already seen every previous programme on the subject, or there wouldn't be much on.

I'm a big Lucy Worsley fan but am a bit disappointed in this, although I respect the fact that this dramatic documentary hybrid is trying something new.

There seems to be a contradiction going on. Lucy states that the established historiography has made the wives one dimensional and not really fleshed them out or looked at new evidence and whilst that's true......she seems to give this exact one dimensional treatment to Henry, (the fat tyrannical monster etc. etc.)

Again much of that is accurate. But some modern scholars have suggested he was bipolar, or that he had suffered some brain damage In a jousting accident, which made him that way. That's interesting, worth investigating and puts things (his relationships) in a whole new perspective.
I think she's been open about it being from the perspective of the wives. She's not dismissing his point of view, just redressing the balance a bit. I feel she's been fairly sympathetic towards him, and it's clear that he started off much more idealistic and loving than he ended up.

For the subject matter of Anne Boleyn I don't think you can beat Wolf Hall for a magnificent portrayal.
I was wondering if this is one of the reasons her story got a bit less attention. Despite what I said above, the BBC will know it was watched very widely.
*Sparkle* is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2016, 16:41
Faust
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,098

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?!
.
You do know she's an historian and joint Chief Curator of the royal palaces - right?
Faust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2016, 17:50
Versailles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,009
I adore Lucy Worsley, her programmes are so captivating and wonderful, their a delight to sit down to. She's one of those rare people who couldn't do a 'bad' job of something if they tried, everything she does is pure gold. I could watch her presenting a show about paint drying and still find it informative and an absolute enthralling joy to watch.

Haha, I feel like that when it comes to David Starkey
I think he is fantastic.

Lucy, not so much. I can watch her without getting too annoyed, but she is too childish for my taste.
Versailles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2016, 19:00
lundavra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 25,465
You do know she's an historian and joint Chief Curator of the royal palaces - right?
You might have thought that the "Dr" that she has in front of her name might have given them a clue, she is also a Visiting Professor.
lundavra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2016, 19:53
Horza's Drone
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Schar's World
Posts: 473
You do know she's an historian and joint Chief Curator of the royal palaces - right?
So why does she have to act like such a dipshit?
Horza's Drone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2016, 23:23
Faust
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,098
So why does she have to act like such a dipshit?
Well obviously because she's not as well read as you.
Faust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2016, 21:48
Jenny_Sawyer
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 5,362
The actress that played the supposedly ugly Anne of Cleves was in fact very pretty.
Jenny_Sawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2016, 22:10
Daisy_Duke
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 960
Yes, I thought so too.
Daisy_Duke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2016, 22:37
MaggieMcGee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,056
I've not paid much attention to the programme when it was on in earlier weeks but I really enjoyed tonight's show. I felt sorry for Catherine Howard and even before it was said I wondered if she had been sexually abused. Really enjoyed hearing about Catherine Parr in a different light and felt sad for her and her daughter that she died one week after giving birth.
MaggieMcGee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2016, 22:48
razorback Tony
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: London
Posts: 231

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. Would it have killed them to use someone who actually specialised in Tudor history?!
You're kidding, right? You really don't know that the Tudor period is her speciality?

Lightweight froth for the mouth-breathing masses presented by arguably the most irritating woman on television.
That's just your opinion, which you are naturally entitled to hold, as for irritating, you may be confusing her with Sarah Millican.
razorback Tony is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:00.