It happened like this.  I found myself sitting next to him at a concert.  We were introduced to each other.  Conversation did not flow.  As regular readers of this blog will know, small talk is not my strong suite.

But I have at least read books on how to make conversation.  Rule number one always seems to be that you ask the other person about him or herself. So I had a go.

Me (bearing in mind that we were at a concert) …

So, Ian, do you play a musical instrument?

Ian Hislop …

No.

 Me (knocked back, but not yet defeated) …

What about singing, do you like to sing?

Ian Hislop …

No.

Me (scraping the barrel) …

- But you have come along to a concert, do you like music at all?

Ian Hislop …

Oh, I don’t mind watching a concert.

Me (quick as a flash) …

What, you don’t even listen?

Ian Hislop than gave a small, dry chuckle.  It was a proud moment.

Posted in A curator's life | Tagged | 9 Comments

Back in January of this year I had an embarrassing experience.  I was picked up, after filming, about 8.30 in the evening, by a mini-cab from St George’s Hospital in Tooting, on my way home after a long day.  (I think we had started at 7am at Westminster Abbey.)

I was clearly a bit tired, and my cab had been booked in the name of ‘Dr Worsley’. (The BBC love calling me ‘Dr Worsley’, but I promise you that I don’t call myself a doctor in normal life! Nothing could be further from the truth … actually I find it a bit embarrassing.)

Anyway, the cab driver was very nice, and very chatty, and was soon telling me how much he admired me.  ‘You doctors,’ he said, ‘saved my life’.  He then began to tell me all about his symptoms, and his operation, and how his life had been saved.

I quickly realized that circumstances had conspired against me.  He had picked up a rather tired-looking ‘Dr’ Worsley from a hospital in the evening … he thought I was a USEFUL doctor, the sort who might actually be able to save lives.

I’m ashamed to say that, sleepy as I was, I didn’t correct him.

In fact, I took the easy way out.  Instead of taking the honest, full-disclosure, open approach … I did the opposite.  I pretended to fall asleep.  And in no time at all, I did in fact genuinely fall asleep.

Anway, I got to thinking (if this blog were an episode of ‘Sex in the City’, you would now see Carrie’s fingers typing on her Mac), should I be ashamed of being such a ‘useless’ sort of doctor?

And, after reflection, I think, on balance, not.

We’d been filming at St George’s Hospital to cover the very exciting and interesting research of a team led by Dr Peter Garrard, who have concluded, by the analysis of his written output, that George III was, after all, suffering from a psychiatric illness, rather than the modish malady to which he is so chalked up: the physical metabolic blood disorder called porphyria.

Dr Garrard (a REAL medical doctor!) and team have proved, to my satisfaction at least, that George III’s written letters from the periods of his mysterious ‘illness’ show all the signs of a person experiencing the manic phase of a mood disorder: long sentences, repetitiveness, unusual vocabulary.  As Dr Garrard says, ‘the porphyria theory is completely dead in the water.  This was a psychiatric illness’.

The reason that I’m going on about all this is that I was recently with a group of friends who are art historians working in universities.  They seemed, on the whole, to be very gloomy, facing financial cutbacks, redundancies, loss of morale: you name it, they had it.  Science, they said, got all the money.  We can’t complete, they said, with the business of saving lives.

‘Why don’t you make the case’, I harangued them, ‘for the value of your discipline?  You may not save lives, but you contribute immeasurably to the pleasure and quality of lives that have been saved’.

They looked at me with sad faces. The morning after my embarrassing cab ride, I realized that I had made the same mistake that they had.  I had assumed that just because others do indeed save lives, my work is valueless.

This is not the case.

My work that day had been aimed at giving visibility to the work of a research team who have proved that a widely-respected and valued leader of the nation – George III – could do his job (because he is widely recognized as an effective king) even with a psychiatric illness.

I think that, in its own small way, is valuable.  If anyone, as a result of our programme tonight, which features Dr Garrard’s research, thinks again about their family member, or acquaintance, or work colleague with some sort of psychiatric malady, then that’s a positive result – even for the mildly ‘useless’ art historian.

Posted in General TV | Tagged , , | 14 Comments

A true email conversation recently conducted through my website reveals an unexpected moment of courtesy in cyberspace.

While I have not exactly displayed heroism on the Mary Beard scale, it will warm the hearts of the speech-impedimented everywhere.

(Apparently my problem is my enormously long tongue – its great length means that it rather lazily won’t take the trouble to curl up and form the letter ‘R’ properly.  But I promise you it’s not for want of trying on my part!  I have even consulted a specialist speech therapist, and she said that to cure the problem I’d have to say ‘R’ correctly as many times as I have said it incorrectly in the past.  So, I’m sowwy, but I don’t think there’s much I can do about it.)

Man:

-I’ll be blunt (apologies) Please try harder to correct your lazy speech or remove ‘R’s’ from your scripts – I could not sit through Bolsover Castle – and became so annoyed I had to write this drivel. Regards. Darren

Me:

-Oh Darrren, I think you’ve taken refuge behind the anonymity of the internet to say something that you probably wouldn’t say to my face. Please do re-consider, and maybe even retract your unkind words! Lucy

Man:

-I apologise!  Even though I revel in my ignorance and rudeness I would not wish to upset you face to face and the anonymity of the internet made me forget this. My unkind and blunt words were an instant and disproportional response to my annoyance with a speech impediment which is obviously out of your control. Even though you have lost a viewer, rest assured that I feel embarrassed and chastened and will not be sending any more email outbursts (to anyone).  Yours humbly, Darren.

Me:

-Many thanks Darren for your generous response! Lucy

Posted in A curator's life, General TV | Tagged | 9 Comments

Well, for a long time now I’ve been resisting having ‘views’ on Richard III, because I’m generally quite equivocal about the whole thing.  But here we go.  With a comment in today’s Guardian I have finally succumbed…

‘Who says the Wars of the Roses are over? Five hundred years since the Battle of Bosworth, the Yorkist side is turning in on itself, and the Richard III Society may have finally met its match in the Plantagenet Alliance.

The former, in association with the University of Leicester, kicked off last year’s stunning exhumation of Richard III’s body from a car park in Leicester, and Leicester is where it wants his final resting place to be. Now the latter, consisting of 15 living relatives of the king, say they are planning to use the law to insist he be buried in York instead. You might wonder what they’re all getting so worked up about – and this Richard III business certainly defies all logical explanation.

In strictly scientific terms, there was no point in digging him up. Archaeologists thought he was under the car park – and indeed he was. Historians thought he had curvature of the spine – and it looks like indeed he did.

It was the sensational and emotional impact of the discovery that mattered, and many professional archaeologists and historians – and indeed journalists – found that uncomfortable. Words like “trivialisation” and “stunt” were bandied about, especially after the Channel 4 documentary that dwelt as much on the players as the results.

The editor of History Today, Paul Lay, blames “the pernicious influence of the solipsistic celebrity genealogy series Who Do You Think You Are?” for a demand for history to which we can “relate”. Indeed, Plantagenet Alliance members are “relatives” of the king, no less. And no more, either. As he had no children, they can’t claim to be his descendants.

It’s easy to mock the people who straightforwardly project their present concerns on to the past. As a curator, I’ve met endless people who feel a “special connection” with Anne Boleyn, or Victorian prostitutes, or various other unlikely candidates.

It’s easy too, if you look back at the past, to draw connections between people’s barmy obsessions and their own age. The Victorians were very taken with the idea that Henry VIII might have had syphilis, a disease that was central to their own health fears. Today the most modish explanation of the king’s maladies is Kell’s disease. If Henry VIII belonged to the rare Kell positive blood group, he would have found difficulty in fathering more than one child with any Kell-negative woman. The theory matches his reproductive history; but it’s also the perfect solution to have arisen in our own age, when genetics appears to have all the answers.

So I do have some sympathy with the professional historians and archaeologists who roll their eyes at the enthusiasts who stomp around fields on Saturdays in unconvincing costumes, complete with modern eyewear, or cry at archaeological digs. But ultimately if you push me, I’m always going to be on the side of the tearful. There seems to me to be something admirable, indeed noble, about the people arguing over Richard III. They’re doers rather than naysayers, romantics rather than realists, people looking for meaning rather than numbness. And I do wonder what professional historians are beavering away for in their ivory towers, if not to have history become part of the common currency of life.

Of course, it’s fun to point out the inaccuracies or sensationalism or elisions of historical drama, or history designed for public consumption. In another sense, though, it’s self-defeating, because if you constantly deride the offerings of this whole industry that produces what the Americans call “public history”, its customers will slip away to football, or Facebook, and leave us all the poorer.

Even if emotion isn’t your thing, look at the money. Whoever gets the final tomb of Richard III will have a new and possibly profitable tourist attraction on their hands. So I’m all in favour of a spot of Plantagenet controversy. There’s only one thing worse for a subject than being talked about. It’s not being talked about.’

Posted in A curator's life | Tagged , , | 9 Comments

Devoted readers of my blog and books will know this story already, but this Wednesday you can see it made into a lovely little television programme…

A few weeks ago I was in cold and misty Derbyshire, making a film in a new BBC Four strand called ‘Secret Knowledge’.  This is a really great idea because it’s so simple and yet can be utterly esoteric too. Specialist presenters just get to talk, for half an hour, on their favourite painting or artwork or place.  I chose Bolsover Castle, and had to explain why I like the place so much, and why it’s important.

As the film will tell you, when I was twenty one years old, I’d just finished the final exams for my history degree, and in the few weeks between exams and our having to leave college for good, I happened to pick up a random book in the library by Mark Girouard.

It was called Robert Smythson and the Elizabethan Country House, and I can’t recommend it to you highly enough.  It’s about a treasure hunt that Mark Girouard made, in search of the houses designed by Robert Smythson.  He’s the best known of the shadowy mason/designers (this is before the age of the professional architect) who designed fabulous Elizabethan buildings like Wollaton Hall and Hardwick Hall.

The book builds up to a climax in Jacobean England: a house on a windy hilltop in Derbyshire associated with Robert Smythson’s son, John.  The pictures of this chivalric, romantic recreation of a gothic castle really intrigued me, and inspired me – a couple of years later – to get a job at Bolsover Castle, working for English Heritage, who look after the ruins of the place today.

Over the next few years, I was the Assistant Inspector of Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings responsible for a big re-display project at Bolsover, which included the conservation of the wallpaintings, restoration of the battlements, a new exhibition, and the return to working order of what The Guardian newspaper called ‘the rudest fountain in England’.

At the same time as I was doing all the research for the project, I completed a PhD thesis on the topic of the castle’s builder.  My rather unsexily-entitled thesis ‘The Architectural Patronage of William Cavendish, first Duke of Newcastle, 1593-1676’ became, in due course, my first book: Cavalier, The Story of a Seventeenth Century Playboy.

And on Wednesday night you can visit his crazy castle from the comfort of your own armchair, by watching the programme.  8pm, BBC Four, don’t miss it!

Posted in A curator's life, General TV | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

Here’s my article from yesterday’s Telegraph…

When the Queen left hospital after a brief stay earlier this month, she reputedly told her doctors not to “make a fuss’ – entirely in keeping with what we know about her stoical character.

But our monarchs have never been particularly docile patients. The doctors who look after them might well expect wealth, knighthoods and influence in return for their work. And yet their task isn’t always easy. If they do their job well, and their patient remains healthy, success is taken for granted. If the patient dies, heavy censure will inevitably follow.

No one knew this better than Sir Richard Croft. In 1817, when he was summoned to attend the lying-in of Princess Charlotte, 21-years old and second in line to the throne, he must have thought he’d ascended to the pinnacle of his profession.

But during the course of a 48-hour labour, Croft shilly-shallied about using the forceps to pull the baby out. Valuable time was lost, the child died, and a few hours later, so did the mother.

At a stroke, two generations of the royal family were wiped out. Princess Charlotte, the only legitimate daughter of the hated George IV, had been by far its most popular member. Croft was heavily blamed for failing to save her, and he took the criticism to heart. Just over a year later, he shot himself.

Part of the challenge facing a royal doctor is the notion that royal patients aren’t supposed to get ill at all. If you consider a pre-modern monarch such as Henry VIII, who still had immense personal authority, there was a significant overlap between his health, and that of England.

This has become clear to me in the filming of my new BBC Two series, Fit To Rule?, which explores how the physical and mental health of our monarchs has shaped the history of the nation. Henry VIII was only the second member of the Tudor dynasty. With the benefit of hindsight, its success seems inevitable, but at the time the succession was very precarious. If Henry had died before producing an heir, the consequences were potentially terrifying. A return to the Wars of the Roses? Invasion by France? No wonder that doctors, courtiers, ambassadors and spies alike all wanted reassurance that the king was in good health.

To this end, the king was kept under constant surveillance. Whenever he went “to make water”, he was accompanied. Notoriously, his top servant was the Groom of the Stool, whose job was to attend the king upon the close-stool, the padded seat-less rest placed over the chamber pot. Afterwards, the pot’s contents would be handed to the medical staff for analysis. In short, the king’s body, and his most private moments, were not his own.

Despite – or perhaps because of – all the eyes trained upon them, kings and queens would make great efforts to disguise any ill health. It was bad for business. One of George II’s courtiers wrote that he had known the king “get out of his bed, choking with a sore throat, and in a high fever, only to dress and have a levee, and in five minutes undress and return to his bed”. If news of his sickness leaked out, it would “disquiet the minds of his subjects, hurt public credit, and diminish the regard and duty which they owe him”.

Another difficulty facing royal doctors was not being allowed to tell the truth. In Henry VIII’s reign, to “predict the king’s death” was treason, a crime punishable by death. What, then, was a doctor to say, if he thought there was something seriously wrong?

One also suspects that kings and queens don’t make the easiest of patients. Henry VIII and George IV shared a common waist measurement of 54 inches. By a strange coincidence, that’s also the circumference of a pair of Queen Victoria’s under-drawers from later on in life (though these were worn bunched around the waist). All three of these monarchs had difficulty in restraining their appetites, and their doctors found pleas for moderation ignored.

Ironically, prominent people often experience poor medical care, because the stakes are high, their doctors are nervous, and no one wants to deliver bad news. An exception to this rule was Dr Francis Willis, the physician who finally had some success in treating George III during his episodes of so-called madness. Only this “mad doctor”, an experienced asylum-keeper from Lincolnshire, seemed to have the strength of character to persuade the king to both exercise and rest. It did not endear Willis to the coterie of existing royal doctors, who’d all failed to bring about any improvement.

Queen Victoria, in particular, suffered terribly from having no one who could say “no” to her after the loss of her beloved husband Albert in 1861. As she herself put it, he had been the only person who called her not “Your Majesty”, but “Victoria”.

Of course she mourned him deeply, but as the years went by and his death receded into the past, nobody dared tell her that she was starting to wallow in her grief. A succession of tame physicians wrote a series of royal sick notes excusing the queen from public appearances for nearly a decade, and, in the process, doing grave damage to the royal image. In order to be believed, royalty has to constantly be seen.

Royal doctors inevitably get drawn into matters of presentation, and what we might today call spin. The best-known example of this was the involvement of Lord Dawson, the king’s doctor, at the death of George V in 1936, in an act amounting to euthanasia. Dawson administered a dose of morphine to speed the king’s passing, so that the announcement would reach “the morning papers rather than the less appropriate evening journals”.

Centuries earlier, we also see Henry VIII’s physician Dr William Butts performing a similar role in putting the most positive spin possible on the king’s health. Butts, only the second physician to receive a knighthood, had enormous authority at court. In 1540, Henry was keen to have his marriage to wife number four, Anne of Cleves, annulled. To achieve this end, Dr Butts testified to an enquiry at the House of Lords that the king had not had intercourse with her.

However, lest damaging rumours begin to circulate that the aging king was now impotent, Dr Butts was also required to reveal that the king was well “able to do the act with others but not with her”, and that he still experienced “pollutiones nocturnes”.

The pressure, the politics and the potential risks to reputation all make being a royal doctor much less attractive than you might at first think.

Dr Lucy Worsley is chief curator at Historic Royal Palaces. Her new series, Fit to Rule?, will begin on BBC Two next month

Posted in General TV | Tagged | Leave a comment