Monarchy by David Starkey

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.

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.

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.

I have been watching this series for three years already. Watched many chapters twice or three times. I find David Starkey to be a superb narrator, eloquent, dramatic, a voice one must listen to. It's incalculable how much I have learned. I am not British yet as a fan of History and documentaries, I am extremely impressed with these series. The visuals and the music are excellent, but Starkey's narration is often enough to hold my attention.

Monarchy is a multi-episode documentary outlining the history of the English Monarchy. I was really excited to stumble onto this series of the Netflix, primarily because I had never seen a thorough presentation of this fascinating subject.

The show, however, is a mixed bag. While on the one hand it is certainly informative, outlining the rich history in vivid detail, it also got on my nerves. Maybe it is my American prejudices, but it seems weird to me that Monarchy should be introduced (as this series does) as government by consent of the people. It seems like most of English history involves a parade of random personalities who acquire power mostly through military prowess and occasionally display synergy with the people themselves.

As for the presentation, it is dead serious, pompous and completely humorless. David Starkey seems almost a cliché of the earnest English historian, and the camera angles have him frequently looking at a downward angle at the audience. I felt like I was being lectured by the old-fashioned English school master/tyrant.

Still, it is educational, and if you can stand the style (or at least are not bothered by it) it is worth a look.