5 of 23 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars
English History as only The English can tell it., May 3 2005
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?