Starkey's "Monarchy"

Starkey's "Monarchy"

2004-11-02 21:37:21
stephenmlark
Are you enjoying it so far? Richard will probably be mentioned in a
week or two.

Stephen

Re: Starkey's "Monarchy"

2004-11-02 22:37:43
brunhild613
--- In , "stephenmlark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> Are you enjoying it so far? Richard will probably be mentioned in
a
> week or two.
>
> Stephen

Bloody terrible, Sharma did it better, as did Wood. His delivery is
poor, his information so far has been inaccurate and taken little or
no account of recent scholarship (eg on Stephen) or has missed out
key points. He has invariably gone in last 2 episodes for
traditional views, and why just regurgitate that? Money in the bank
is all it amounts to, and I shan't be waiting up for the last
episodes! I personally find his scholarship dubious at times anyway
and his taste runs too far to the salacious.
Brunhild

Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Starkey's "Monarchy"

2004-11-03 22:21:13
Paul Trevor Bale
I think it Starkey's worst tv ever. Turgid and dull. A nice bit of
travel for David and the crew. Pity they forgot to try and make the
history interesting.
Paul

On Nov 2, 2004, at 21:36, stephenmlark wrote:

>
>
> Are you enjoying it so far? Richard will probably be mentioned in a
> week or two.
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
you're never too old to launch your dreams


Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Starkey's "Monarchy"

2004-11-04 17:56:01
brunhild613
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> I think it Starkey's worst tv ever. Turgid and dull. A nice bit of
> travel for David and the crew. Pity they forgot to try and make
the
> history interesting.
> Paul
>
> On Nov 2, 2004, at 21:36, stephenmlark wrote:
>
Pity they forgot to try and make the history accurate too!
B

Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Starkey's "Monarchy"

2004-11-04 20:30:44
Kirsten Lynn
> --- brunhild613 <brunhild613@...> wrote:

>His delivery is poor, his information so far has
>been inaccurate and taken little or no account of
>recent scholarship (eg on Stephen) or has missed out
>key points.

This is exactly the problem I've been having. I
watched the first episode but became utterly
infuritated with some quite basic (incorrect)
statements about Ango-Saxon England and switched off.
I shudder to think what he'll do with the Yorkist
period.

K





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Starkey's "Monarchy"

2004-11-05 11:46:46
Paul Trevor Bale
On Nov 4, 2004, at 17:55, brunhild613 wrote:

>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>> I think it Starkey's worst tv ever. Turgid and dull. A nice bit of
>> travel for David and the crew. Pity they forgot to try and make
> the
>> history interesting.
>> Paul
>>
>> On Nov 2, 2004, at 21:36, stephenmlark wrote:
>>
> Pity they forgot to try and make the history accurate too!
> B
>
>
Quite!
Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
you're never too old to launch your dreams


Re: Starkey's "Monarchy"

2004-11-14 21:52:48
Eric Thompson
--- In , "stephenmlark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> Are you enjoying it so far? Richard will probably be mentioned in a
> week or two.

Most disappointing.

Starkey is an expert on the Tudor court, and should stick to that.
I doubt if I shall bother to watch any more.

It's all too clearly intended to act as propaganda for the monarchy as
the saviour of the people - something I find rather hard to swallow.

I rather regret having bought the book, well produced though it is.

Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Starkey's "Monarchy"

2004-11-15 11:23:52
Paul Trevor Bale
On Nov 14, 2004, at 21:52, Eric Thompson wrote:

> Starkey is an expert on the Tudor court, and should stick to that.
Well he is in love with Elizabeth, and so believes her father one of
the greatest of all men if only for having fathered his heroine.
He is expert only if one takes what he says with a pinch of salt,
knowing of his obsession. As pro Tudor, as Weir is anti Yorkist.
> I doubt if I shall bother to watch any more.
I watched the Henry II and his sons episode and that was enough for me
to decide not to bother any more. The man has no idea about fairness or
impartiality, just drags out the old stories, the "sexy" ones, that are
basically the traditional tales.
There is also far too much of hi on screen lecturing to camera. It
isn't good television. It certainly is NOT good history.
Talking of which the Tony Robinson Shows are getting a repeat this
week. You know the one in which Tony does Richard, then chases off to
Australia to find the "real" king of England.
Lots of turn off tv time coming up!
Paul

you're never too old to launch your dreams


Richard III
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.