Monarchy by David Starkey

David Starkey is informative and has a true knowledge of the monarchy history. I enjoyed watching and have bought the videos and watch it often. I am not to clear on the vikings, but from the war of the roses onward it is really good.

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.

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 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.

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.