Interesteg
What makes it different from others?
AboveDeepBuggy
Some things I liked some I did not.
SparkMore
n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.
TLMitch
It starts okay, just a quick overview of snapshots of history. This didn't bother me so much, as this is television. My problem arose when the narrator starts to outlined the War of the Roses. It's comical that a historian would use this phrase, but his use of the term perfectly illustrates the problem. The show becomes propaganda at this point, like he took all of Shakespeare's Richard III and quoted it verbatim, with the result being "Tudors good, Yorks bad." Even the actors who portray the Yorks are sensationalized. Richard is eighteen during this time but is portrayed by a man who looks to be in his mid thirties. Sorry, but if this is what Acorn TV considers a documentary, then I have to pass.
mingram2
I tried to get into this, but it started out the series by completely misrepresenting what a monarchy is in reference to other forms of government, so I don't really trust the rest of it. I mean, some facts, sure, I understand getting wrong, but "monarchy" is the concept of the show. Saying that the president of a modern democracy has the same powers as a medieval European monarch is so completely wrong. To simplify it as "one person is at least nominally in charge", ignoring how they achieved power, the limits on that power, etc is huge. Also, their definition of a monarchy is better suited to "autocracy". A monarchy always has a king or queen, an autocracy can vary. But really, if it's a show about the monarchy, I would expect them to correctly explain what one is.
Terrell-4
Think of a full-color CliffsNotes combined with one of those Monty Python spoofs of a BBC interviewer and you have a slightly unfair idea of Monarchy. In six episodes of less than an hour each Dr. David Starkey whips us along in a survey of England's...well, Britain's...no, make that the United Kingdom's...queens and kings. Sir David, as he is known in punctilious society, has given us an elegantly written and presented quick tour, sumptuously mounted. There are beautiful location shots of castles and palaces along with actors richly dressed to the purpose looking at us while Starkey tells us what they were plotting. The one great value of the series, to my mind, is the theme he gives his survey, and that is the continuing struggle between the sovereigns, on the one hand, to be supreme, and the barons, followed by the merchant class, on the other, to maintain a tight hold on the power of the purse. That struggle in one form or another gave us the Magna Carta, the grudging acceptance of shared rule along with kingly restraint, the concept of the rule of law, and the rise of the common man, even if, as in the House of Commons, the common man and woman wasn't represented all that well by the landed and mercantile classes who filled the Commons' seats. No matter how you look at it, England is a remarkable story for which the civilized world, which often includes the United States, should be grateful. But don't expect more from Monarchy than a barely scratched surface. In my view, Starkey did a reasonably fine though fast job of the tumultuous period leading up to Edward the Confessor and the Norman Conquest, the characters and issues of two of the Tudors, Henry VII and Henry VIII, and the issues that led to Cromwell. Everything else for me was a blur. British history is so rich and, because so much of the history of the United States directly draws from it, so accessible to most of us, that I have mixed feelings about Monarchy. For grandparents, it would make a great present for a precocious middle school grandchild. For those reasonably familiar with British history, it simply condenses too much. Starkey uses his theme to effectively frame what he gives us, but what he gives is so little and so without nuance that, for me, it quickly became something to watch while glancing through the newspapers. Starkey doesn't help things by his manner of presentation. He is deadly serious and absolutely without doubt, humor or skepticism. I'd love to see Eric Idle or Terry Jones interview him. With Starkey's reputation for rudeness, it would be quite a show.
hotspur95
This has been a cracking series.David Starkey is a good presenter, a lot more serious than Adam Hart-Davis - but that's the way we like it! This is serious history for serious grown ups! It goes into a great deal of detail on each of the monarchs and I have really enjoyed the recent run through the Stuarts, the four Goerge's and William the IV. My wife is Indonesian and is learning all this for the first time and asks lots of questions - but it shows how the good the series is when a complete history newbie is happy to watch an hour of this every Monday night.In essence each episode concentrates on one monarch (of England, and then the United Kingdom) and leads on to the next one. So for instance you will get a whole hour (more or less) of Charles II, leading onto James II and then the Glorious Revolution.Because of the depth of detail I have been learning a lot. Especially about how bloody and ruthless things were back then! I can't recommend it enough. It isn't as accessible as something like 'What the Roman's did for us' but I think anyone can watch this - not just history-buffs like me.
