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!

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.

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.

Every programme Lucy Worsely has presented has been absolutely fascinating.

Why was Henry VIII a brunette in this?

Superb,and immensely watchable,as is everything Lucy does.

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.

Watch Vienna on BBC4 to see how to present these subjects properly.

Fine if it's not your thing but the time period is irrelevant when it comes interesting history.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

For the subject matter of Anne Boleyn I don't think you can beat Wolf Hall for a magnificent portrayal.

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.


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.


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.


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 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.


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.

You do know she's an historian and joint Chief Curator of the royal palaces - right?

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.

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.

So why does she have to act like such a dipshit?

Well obviously because she's not as well read as you.

The actress that played the supposedly ugly Anne of Cleves was in fact very pretty.

Yes, I thought so too.

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.

You're kidding, right? You really don't know that the Tudor period is her speciality?


That's just your opinion, which you are naturally entitled to hold, as for irritating, you may be confusing her with Sarah Millican.