Like others, I was hoping that I had found a definitive, unbiased and honest history of Britain here. Unfortunately, this series is no more enlightening than listening to a dogmatic university prof. where you hear the same-old slant over and over again.
That is to be expected when enrolling in a uni course but this is telivsion - and it should be presented better.
Aside from this, the man is just plain wrong for TV himself as he is visually nauseating to watch for so many hours. Every time he speaks he circulates his shoulders (one forward and one back)and thrusts his chin toward the camera. Maybe this is a pysical deformity and I should be more sensitive. But I am sorry, for the money it costs to buy this thing I have to say it should be more watchable; it can make it really difficult to concentrate on what is being said. This visual annoyance is not at all helped by the high class tone and smugness of his speech in which his sarcastic delivery has the effect of talking down to the viewers and not, as perhaps he had imagined, win them over to his point of view without question.
Regretfully, low points for style are not made up for with outstanding substance. It's a good general refresher of English history so long as you are smart enough to listen for the missing facts. Some of my main criticisms include his presenting myth as honest history in the case of the whereabouts and final resting place of English King Harold's body after his defeat by Norman King William The Conqueror in 1066. He also refers to this period as "early British history." Just saying that reveals his historical ineptitude and/or basic arrogant attitude to the earlier Celtic and Celtic-Romano British history. On that note he does even mention the word 'Celtic' once when he briefly covers that enormous period of history. Every thing is either Iron Age this or Ion Age that - even Queen Boudica is an Iron Age Queen - We are fairly certain she didn't speak English so I guess she could only have spoken 'Iron Age' as her first language. Of course, the words 'Anglo' and 'Saxon' are used over and over again to describe the next era of history following the Celtic and Celtic-Roman ages.
For anyone who misses the point here, answer this question: Why doesn't he (and other revisionist historians) simply refer to a Saxon king as a Dark-Age king or Dark Age Britain instead of Saxon Britain?

This new book on the Donnellys is an interesting read and a fine place to start for anyone new to the story of Canada's so-called "Black Donnellys." However, as someone who does know the story quite well, I was a little disappointed that this book didn't really explore any new territory or offer any new angles or extra information we haven't already seen before. However, in most cases it is clear that Hendley has researched the subject enough to know when to say certain dates or facts are still in dispute and when to write them down as historical fact. The only other criticisms I have are over a few minor historical details. For instance, he writes that James Donnelly had heard about a place called Southern Ontario from other immigrant. I find this hard to visualize since he and most other immigrants he would have known would have been were illiterate. Back then a trip to North America was 99% one-way so if his illiterate friends did want to write to him about it, how would he have read it? Tales 'about' or 'of' other immigrants would be more accurate. In fairness though, James Donnelly would definitely have heard stories about a place called Upper Canada, or, increasingly by the mid nineteenth century, Canada West. However, he would not have heard of a place called "Southern Ontario", a name which wouldn't have been in use until a few more decades after he arrived. He also writes that Grosse Isle is north of Montreal when in fact it is east of Quebec City. Another geographical error is one where he writes that The Roman Line road led to Lucan. It actually goes in a more southerly direction to London. To get to Lucan, one must turn right off the Roman line in a northwest direction. There is also another part where James Donnelly on his return from a 7 year stint in the pen, returns to his home on the Roman Line. Right after he greets his family, the Donnellys then parade around streets of Lucan as if Lucan where right outside their door. The farm was over 7 miles from Lucan and horses would have been needed to accomplish this. Hendley does write that later on that evening after dinner, the Donnellys do ride into Lucan which doesn't really add up. None of these things really affect the overall accuracy of the book so I guess I am nit-picking a bit here. I would definitely recommend this book as a good introduction to the story of the Donnellys and as a generally easy, entertaining read.