TV History

Last night the BBC rolled out a new documentary on Anne Boleyn using
"experts" Phillippa Gregory, Hilary Mantel, Alison Weir and David Starkey.
Since when were novelists historical experts, and we all know how to
value Starkey's opinions in view of his recent behaviour?
They also used Professor George Bernard, the man who believes Anne did
everything she was accused of, alone amongst experts on the subject, and
clearly a man with no experience of life, or understanding of faith in
the 16th century. He is probably there in order to publicize his
controversial book claiming Anne committed adultery on a regular basis
including with her brother, which is as obscene as Hicks calling Richard
III a rapist.
Suzannah Lipscomb at least has studied Hampton Court Palace and the
period, though her degree is in Philosophy.
But why try to make a serious documentary and use fiction writers as
your experts?
Paul

Was this called 'The Last Days of Anne Boleyn?' It sounds like, or at least similar to a programme a few years ago. I remember Hilary Mantel and Philippa Gregory anyway. In this one PG was going on about how Anne was probably guilty of both incest and adultery, because she wanted a son. She didn't say anything worthwhile about why she thought this; it is just the plot of her novels of course! The lack of any distinction between historians and historical novelists on TV is annoying, and I agree with you that the lack of even some historians' ability to appreciate the role of faith in society 500 years is a real obstacle to their ability to understand the people they write about.
Nico



On Tuesday, 5 May 2015, 11:49, "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" <> wrote:


Last night the BBC rolled out a new documentary on Anne Boleyn using
"experts" Phillippa Gregory, Hilary Mantel, Alison Weir and David Starkey.
Since when were novelists historical experts, and we all know how to
value Starkey's opinions in view of his recent behaviour?
They also used Professor George Bernard, the man who believes Anne did
everything she was accused of, alone amongst experts on the subject, and
clearly a man with no experience of life, or understanding of faith in
the 16th century. He is probably there in order to publicize his
controversial book claiming Anne committed adultery on a regular basis
including with her brother, which is as obscene as Hicks calling Richard
III a rapist.
Suzannah Lipscomb at least has studied Hampton Court Palace and the
period, though her degree is in Philosophy.
But why try to make a serious documentary and use fiction writers as
your experts?
Paul

Philippa Gregory spins history because it sells, and sells some more. Her novel 'The White Queen,' adapted for TV is a complete joke. I watched the TV episodes out of curiosity, more than anything, and Margaret Beaufort, far from being a credible historical character, is more suited to the comedy or cartoon genre.If Anne Boleyn was that sexually promiscuous, then how could she keep Henry waiting, and sexually, I may add, for six or seven years, however long it was.

Oh Paul, what a "crock"! Too bad that BBC is encouraging this sort of tripe.



On May 5, 2015, at 5:49 AM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Last night the BBC rolled out a new documentary on Anne Boleyn using
"experts" Phillippa Gregory, Hilary Mantel, Alison Weir and David Starkey.
Since when were novelists historical experts, and we all know how to
value Starkey's opinions in view of his recent behaviour?
They also used Professor George Bernard, the man who believes Anne did
everything she was accused of, alone amongst experts on the subject, and
clearly a man with no experience of life, or understanding of faith in
the 16th century. He is probably there in order to publicize his
controversial book claiming Anne committed adultery on a regular basis
including with her brother, which is as obscene as Hicks calling Richard
III a rapist.
Suzannah Lipscomb at least has studied Hampton Court Palace and the
period, though her degree is in Philosophy.
But why try to make a serious documentary and use fiction writers as
your experts?
Paul

TV loves controversy, even if manufactured. It also thrives on speculation, the wilder the better. Historical facts are perceived as "dull" - and rumour is usually more "exciting" and appeals to the majority of viewers, who, in turn, buy the products advertised (i.e., the books), thus keeping the whole rapid-consumption wheel turning.
Judy

Loyaulte me lie


On Tuesday, May 5, 2015 7:23 AM, "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <> wrote:


Was this called 'The Last Days of Anne Boleyn?' It sounds like, or at least similar to a programme a few years ago. I remember Hilary Mantel and Philippa Gregory anyway. In this one PG was going on about how Anne was probably guilty of both incest and adultery, because she wanted a son. She didn't say anything worthwhile about why she thought this; it is just the plot of her novels of course! The lack of any distinction between historians and historical novelists on TV is annoying, and I agree with you that the lack of even some historians' ability to appreciate the role of faith in society 500 years is a real obstacle to their ability to understand the people they write about.
Nico



On Tuesday, 5 May 2015, 11:49, "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" <> wrote:


Last night the BBC rolled out a new documentary on Anne Boleyn using
"experts" Phillippa Gregory, Hilary Mantel, Alison Weir and David Starkey.
Since when were novelists historical experts, and we all know how to
value Starkey's opinions in view of his recent behaviour?
They also used Professor George Bernard, the man who believes Anne did
everything she was accused of, alone amongst experts on the subject, and
clearly a man with no experience of life, or understanding of faith in
the 16th century. He is probably there in order to publicize his
controversial book claiming Anne committed adultery on a regular basis
including with her brother, which is as obscene as Hicks calling Richard
III a rapist.
Suzannah Lipscomb at least has studied Hampton Court Palace and the
period, though her degree is in Philosophy.
But why try to make a serious documentary and use fiction writers as
your experts?
Paul

The “Tudor” Court season from spring 2013, indeed.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 05 May 2015 13:24
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] TV History

Was this called 'The Last Days of Anne Boleyn?' It sounds like, or at least similar to a programme a few years ago. I remember Hilary Mantel and Philippa Gregory anyway. In this one PG was going on about how Anne was probably guilty of both incest and adultery, because she wanted a son. She didn't say anything worthwhile about why she thought this; it is just the plot of her novels of course! The lack of any distinction between historians and historical novelists on TV is annoying, and I agree with you that the lack of even some historians' ability to appreciate the role of faith in society 500 years is a real obstacle to their ability to understand the people they write about.

Nico

On Tuesday, 5 May 2015, 11:49, "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" < > wrote:

Last night the BBC rolled out a new documentary on Anne Boleyn using
"experts" Phillippa Gregory, Hilary Mantel, Alison Weir and David Starkey.
Since when were novelists historical experts, and we all know how to
value Starkey's opinions in view of his recent behaviour?
They also used Professor George Bernard, the man who believes Anne did
everything she was accused of, alone amongst experts on the subject, and
clearly a man with no experience of life, or understanding of faith in
the 16th century. He is probably there in order to publicize his
controversial book claiming Anne committed adultery on a regular basis
including with her brother, which is as obscene as Hicks calling Richard
III a rapist.
Suzannah Lipscomb at least has studied Hampton Court Palace and the
period, though her degree is in Philosophy.
But why try to make a serious documentary and use fiction writers as
your experts?
Paul

Maybe this will help explain why production companies for documentaries do what they do. Per production standards, the foundation rules of any documentary made today are:

1. Get a current expert(s) who is "for" whatever you're covering.

2. Get a current expert(s) who is "against" whatever you're covering.

3. Get a current expert(s) who is "skeptical" about whatever you're covering.

4. Ignore all past experts, pretend they never existed or had anything to say. Let your current expert(s) cite past [historical or other] sources if/when necessary.

5. The experts you use should have products to promote.

#1-3 ensures the production company itself can't be accused of choosing a side, showing favoritism, or taking a stance. It also ensures their product (the documentary) appeals/can be sold to the widest audience.

#4 ensures you can lure current experts to participate in your program. It also ensures those individuals are seen by the audience as experts in their field because they're published and so have credibility...even if what they've written is controversial, fictional, or historically flat-out wrong. 99% of the audience won't know they're wrong. It's likely that the producers don't know they're wrong, either. But even if a producer knew, it wouldn't matter. See rule #6 below.

Unwritten rule #6 is "Superficiality sells." Truth has no place in this formula, because it often has nothing to do with selling the documentary or the experts' products. Truth also shifts from generation to generation, depending on how the research and conclusions shift on any given subject.

These rules apply to any documentary produced. It's the industry standard and has been for decades. It doesn't matter if the documentary is on the Wars of the Roses, the Dalai Lama, UFOs and aliens, or anything in between. Only rule #5 has been recently added.

Exception: if being "for" or "against" a topic (think Hitler) is politically correct, then the producers will collect experts "for" or "against" that topic -- again so as not to offend your audience, and to appeal to the widest audience. (But if it's a documentary about Hitler possibly escaping death and living peacefully in Brazil after WWII, the rules above still apply.)

All I can add to this is that Philippa Gregory, et. al. have access to a publicist, either through their publishers or through the institutions employing them. She's a household name as she's published historical novels for years, is an internationally successful author, and is a selling point for to promote the documentary. The producers think she can pull more audience internationally than another author writing in the same genre for years.

The unfortunate but eternal bottom line is, "Make money, and don't offend any part of the audience."




---In , <bale475@...> wrote :

Last night the BBC rolled out a new documentary on Anne Boleyn using
"experts" Phillippa Gregory, Hilary Mantel, Alison Weir and David Starkey.
Since when were novelists historical experts, and we all know how to
value Starkey's opinions in view of his recent behaviour?
They also used Professor George Bernard, the man who believes Anne did
everything she was accused of, alone amongst experts on the subject, and
clearly a man with no experience of life, or understanding of faith in
the 16th century. He is probably there in order to publicize his
controversial book claiming Anne committed adultery on a regular basis
including with her brother, which is as obscene as Hicks calling Richard
III a rapist.
Suzannah Lipscomb at least has studied Hampton Court Palace and the
period, though her degree is in Philosophy.
But why try to make a serious documentary and use fiction writers as
your experts?
Paul