‘My View’ in the Daily Mail Weekend Magazine, 15 October 2011
I was surprised recently to find myself being attacked by my fellow historian, Alison Light, on Radio 4’s Today programme.
She accused me of ‘cheapening history’ by ‘dressing up in bonnets and climbing in and out of carriages’ (as I did, with gusto, in my recent BBC series Elegance and Decadence, The Age of the Regency). Instead of having fun with social history, I should apparently have been exploring big, serious ideas.
She also argued that there’s too much history on the box which I find staggering from a professional historian. It’s true that there’s a huge variety of topics and styles available but how this diverse output can be seen as wrong is beyond me.
In fact I believe that this a golden age for history on TV – from the presenters to the formats to the shows themselves. Never have we had so many good things to watch. The BBC has upended the idea that TV historians are white males gesticulating in battlefields. Marvellous presenters like Amanda Vickery (‘At Home With The Georgians’) and Mary Beard (‘Pompeii: Life and Death in a Roman Town’) are now regulars on the box.
History on TV today isn’t all straightforward presenter-led or talking-heads stuff either. There’s historical drama like Downton, The Crimson Petal and the White and Upstairs Downstairs. There are clever formats like ‘Who Do You Think You Are?’, while on Channel 4 Tony Robinson blew up Blitz Street with explosives. In my own BBC series Elegance and Decadence, and in If Walls Could Talk, I enjoyed trying on the clothes, handling the objects, and getting to grips with the nitty-gritty, dirty detail of the past.
Personally I have absolutely no sense that there’s ‘too much’ history on television, and people don’t necessarily realise that different audiences want different things, including me dressing up!
I’ve seen a programme from the 1950s in which the granddaddy of TV historians, the Oxford don AJP Taylor, magnificently stepped onto a stage and simply started to speak about Lenin. There were no special effects or graphics. Indeed, he had no pictures at all: just an audience and his big brain.
It was mesmerising. But while Taylor’s single voice skilfully weaving an argument might win over historians like me and have been right for TV viewers 60 years ago, now it just wouldn’t work.
But why is history so popular right now? I believe one reason is that in troubling times we look to the past for reassurance and guidance. We see that terrible things have happened before, and people have got through it. Also there’s the sheer pleasure of losing oneself in a lost age.
And interest is not confined to the TV. At the Historic Royal Palaces, such as the Tower Of London, where I work as a curator, we’re experiencing record visitor figures.
Because I think my ‘ridiculous’ bonnet is, in some small way, helping fuel this appetite for history, I’m not going to hang it up just yet.
Lucy Worsley (www.lucyworsley.com) is the Chief Curator at Historic Royal Palaces and a BBC presenter
but…lots of people who would otherwise have no interest in history watch your programs, just in the hope, of seeing you in a bonnet.
the ends justify the means ?
The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism By Shaw is an interesting book, though all wrong.
I am off to St Pauls next week to read out ‘unto this last’ by Ruskin to the revolutionaries !
You keep up the good work Lucy, you make history very enjoyable for us as viewers. You are an excellent presenter.
Trish
Absolutely right!
These are probably the same people who recently accused the National Trust of the Disneyfication of history. As a museum professional I think its great to see history explored through object based learning on tv. Thanks. Caroline
Few television programs with historical subject matter can truly give the in-depth analysis to be found in academia of the “big” subjects and ideas;the point of such programs is to be entertaining as well as informative and generate an interest in the viewers for the topic discussed. It is when people follow up that interest that the more “serious” attitude can be taken if need be. So keep wearing the bonnets Lucy.
I absolutely agree with you, Lucy. One of things which I most enjoy about your TV series is that you become tactile with history – the episode in Walls where you try out the bed and explain ‘sleep tight’ really brought it home. It’s very difficult with history to understand it in anything more than a dry recitation of facts and events. By bringing history life in this way it’s fantastic to learn about the every day banalities of real life (which are actually fascinating). One of my favourite historical topics is what ‘real people’ were up to. Many of our ancestors weren’t queens, dukes, prime ministers or so on. A lot of worked in fields and had seemingly miserable lives but programmes such as yours bring this to life in a thoroughly engaging manner.
Vive La Bonnet!
It feels a little as though this critic fears that the great unwashed are being given access to the private members club of Serious History. There are people who will be drawn into the subject via the judicial application of bonnetry, and much as I too loved old AJP the huge majority of people would have found him as dry as dust, and that’s always supposing that they’d watch him at all.
But, um, Downton … no. Just no.
Judicious. Judicious application of bonnetry. I’ll get me coat.
Personally i think you have the balance between educational program and fun about right.
Whatever balance you use,someone will be critical.
I love that you dress up and add that little bit extra to historical programs. It really makes history come alive. And for me, there can never be enough history on TV. Keep up the good work, Lucy!
P.S. I’m thoroughly enjoying If Walls Could Talk.
I’m with you Lucy. I find people who make comments like this are looking for attention that they don’t deserve.
History is only interesting because it holds something for everyone being serious, comic and instructive all at the same time.
Under educated boring people will always find fault to justify their lack of popularity and fame so carry on in the way that works for you, me and all you fans .
Hold on just one minute, ‘cheapening history’ by ‘dressing up in bonnets and climbing in and out of carriages’. I cannot see how this cheapens history; the enactment of social history is about bringing it to life. Role playing can only bring a better insight and understanding of how the macro and micro environments impinged on people’s daily life’s, and how this effected their behaviours.
I can see from a purest academic viewpoint that this would seem on the face of it to be an anathema, which is a misunderstanding. Research and insight cannot only be limited to text books alone.
If we can obtain any better understanding about our history this will result in a better understanding of what it is telling us. This can only mean a better society. Human nature hasn’t changed that much over time, what has changed is our day-to-day environment; it has radically changed over the centuries. The more we are exposed to our history the more questions will be raised about us as a society; the question is do our political classes learn from history or, is history just the domain of the academic ecosystem?
History is made by real people, linking the past with the current; it’s one of the few things handed down from generation to generation, it’s about real people living in the moment and what this tells us about our society. We need to feel that we are making progress towards a better society and reviewing the past helps us to move forward. It’s also a source of comfort when times get hard, like now.
Some may argue that opening up history and making it more accessible to the masses cheapens it. I would argue that to inform you need to entertain, not in a funny ha ha way but in a enlighten way.
Bringing your knowledge and insight of social history, combined with your energy is just what is required. The academic world could learn a few things.
Love you! Please, is there ANY chance you could join my other – slightly older, but still gorgeous – ideal woman, Lucinda Lampton, in ANY kind of program. The two of you could be a riot and would produce such a watchable event. You both have a fantastic way of entertaining and educating.
Absolutely to the mark. You are the history teacher I never had – in the 60′s my history education was listening to a (read out) lecture, writing notes for homework, then having those marked. Only in recent years have I developed an interest in things historical, and your approach (along with others) makes that possible. Just keep going…..
Keep up the good work Lucy! My 14 year old daughter and I both find your programmes engaging and inspiring. I say “stuff and nonsense” to those who think it “cheapening history”…to us it is bringing it alive and inspiring us to learn more.
Thanks all for your kind comments!
I would love your programs with or without lovely costumes and props but I think they make history more approachable for the masses. I have always been the “boring” history geek spurting out facts that people don’t really want to hear, so I appreciate how you have put an effort into making history fun for every one! Keep doing what you’re doing, you’re an inspiration!
By the way how can a historian complain about to many history programs??
Sorry to be late commenting on this, but just wanted to say that I absolutely agree with everything you said and have done. You know that I have always said I love tv that entertains and educates. Yes, the history programmes at present are great but I also agree with the earlier comment in that whilst i still watch Downton, I really cannot see where all the “great” accolades are coming from!
Carry on doing exactly what you are doing, and stay yourself!
I think you’re programmes are absolutely wonderful. They are informative and interesting, but with the added element of fun, which makes them appealing to all types of people, rather than just those audiences who are already inclined to improving their historical knowledge.
I work in a museum, so I am surrounded by history all of the time and can quite easily keep up with these more traditonal historical documentaries featuring someone simply talking at you, however I don’t want to just be spoken to, I want to feel like I can relate to what I’m hearing and learning and with your programmes I feel that I can become involved with the programme. You make history appealing to a much wider audience, so I commend you for this and say loudly and proudly that you should keep up the brilliant work!
thanks for all the knoweldge you give us!
I have just read an article about you in the Mail on Sunday and I can’t wait to see the historical programes you have made.I am 53 years old and have recently discovered my love for history.I have been so inspired by you Lucy.I will be buying your books and have promised myself a visit to Hampton Palace.Thank you Lucy.
We see the same arguments in physics/astronomy about Brian Cox. That in making science accessible and, good grief, even fun, he is somehow devaluing the work of “real” scientists.
Well devalue away Lucy, I say. In the world of Worsley and Cox, the wonder of science and the intrigue of history are reintroduced to people who haven’t bothered to think about them in any meaningful way since they were 14. How is that ever a bad thing?