History HubΒ permalink
Female TV history presenters?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Thursday, 14th April 2011
Despite the esteemed gay historian Dr. David Starkey's criticisms of "pretty female presenters" feminising history into a 'bonkarama' which focuses on gossip and becoming 'soap-like' (I agree with to a large extent, regarding the program makers to 'blame' & not the presenters), are there many female historians and specialist experts gracing our screens and adding to this most beautiful topic?
Well, yes, I reckon. And many of them have genuine beauty to match their intellect, professionalism and charisma.
I admire Bethany Hughes and enjoy her content and style of presenting, as I do Alixe Bovey (lecturer in Medieval History at the University of Kent at Canterbury).
Then we have;-
The expertise of the professional ladies involved in Time Team
Dr Alice Roberts (Archaeology)
Dr. Nina Ramirez (Art History)
Zoologists Miranda Krestovnikov and Charlotte Uhlenbroek?
These ladies are hardly dumbing history down, or turning it into a 'gossipy soap'? More likely, they are gracing and adding to it?
Indeed, even Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, who founded the first academic Women's Studies department in the US, became a critic of feminism.
Ironically, the Beeb apparently had 'crisis talks' last year about the LACK of 'pretty female historians', who often pay Starkey's salary? -
Message 2
Posted by Seamus an Chaca (U14844281) on Sunday, 17th April 2011
The women you mentioned are totally professional and capable, there's no suggestion of them being 'airheads' or dumbing history down, unlike X-Factor or any of the trashy 'Next Chapter' 'programming'? Lol
-
Message 3
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Sunday, 17th April 2011
Have the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ really worried about 'pretty' female historians? This seems incredible to me: do they worry about pretty male historians? I know some are - Neil Oliver for one (though I think people quibble about his historical background) is gorgeous, but is it a pre-requisite? Would you call Simon Schama particularly attractive?
Do the media now consider us all so shallow we can only access information from people suitable beautiful? I daresay I woud have some problems if the information was given to us via someone with the looks of the elephant man (but I am a bit shallow in these matters) but surely normal ordinary looks are perfectly acceptable.
NZ History seems to be always presented by men, or in dramatic form. British history tends to come to us via the History Channel and it focuses on WWII for some reason, so masculine presenters are perhaps not a surprise. Otherwise we have Tony Robinson or Who Do You Think You Are or Antique Roadshow (I suppose that is sort of history).
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 4
Posted by Seamus an Chaca (U14844281) on Monday, 18th April 2011
Caro, sadly we are experiencing in the West alot of 'beautiful only' type of TV 'presenting' in the form of tacky ITV reality and 'talent' shows, which appeal to the lowest common denominator, but despite "The Tudors" etc, I'm pleased to say that history has avoided dumbing down to that extent, as the above female examples demonstrate?
-
Message 5
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Monday, 18th April 2011
Beg to differ, Nina Ramirez' programme on the early English- which attracted some attention on these boards when it went out- showed a lamentable dumbing down which might be attributed mainly to a crass producer if her eccentric command of the English language didn't put her own contribution in a questionable light.
Dr Alice is a serious broadcaster but does also deal in undeniable wrinkle-nosed fluffiness. Which, actually, I don't mind on occssion -
Message 6
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 19th April 2011
Have the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ really worried about 'pretty' female historians? This seems incredible to me: do they worry about pretty male historians?Β
30 years ago there was just such a debate surrounding Michael Wood when he presented the series 'In Search of the Dark Ages' (1981). Many a female (and male) viewer tuned in to get a glimpse of the tousle-headed, young historian in tite jeans rambling across Saxon barrows etc. His was a totally new, fresh style in history broadcasting and his enthusiasm was infectious. Traditionalists, however, did not approve.
Conversely 11 years later Sister Wendy Beckett presented 'Sister Wendy's Odyssey' (1992) a series on art history in which the Carmelite nun in her sixties (complete with half-inch-thick glasses and buck teeth) visited and commented on some of the masterpieces of Western fine art. The ratings were huge.
With regard to the current crop of young female historians then mention has to go to Kate Williams who wrote and presented the excellent 'Young Victoria' (2008) and also contributed to 'Balmoral' (2009). A striking redhead known for her dramatic 'Victorian Neo-Gothic' dress sense she also brings insightful knowledge to her specialist area. -
Message 7
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Friday, 22nd April 2011
When I first saw Kate Williams "doing" Victoria I'm afraid I thought it was a "Take Off" of History Programmes. I really didn't think it was serious. She read a letter, close up of fluttering eyelashes as they stroked the page. Zoom in on black leather "kinky boots" then out to gravel path at Osbourne House and so it went on! The shock was it was to be taken seriously! It wasn't "Dead Ringers".
Personally I find Simon Schama "attractive" due to his wit, wisdom and querky sense of humour. "History is all about dead people"! And I listen to David Starkey, I don't want to have close-upsof his nasal hair. The director decides what to do and the producers decide what we want. We decide IF we want to go along with their decisions by audience figures. We don't have to play!
Surely people noticed that, "The Tudors" went from 9pm, Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ1 on Saturdays to after 10pm on Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ2 towards the series slow and protracted death? This was simply due to falling viewing figures. Kate Williams and all she stood for was an experiment, where is she now by the way? Dear Bethany is still with us, so is Michael Woods for that matter, they are real historians.
Personally I find much of the News programmes of today a little kinky too. Old and grey haired man standing next to his young, grandaughter with neon teeth is not dignified, sometimes distracting.It is thought that sex sells. Or should that be men's view of sex sells. It's simply silly and won't last. Like "celebrity culture", is there such a thing? If you want the News you listen to Radio 4! Especially at 8.20am when the really important things are discussed. You can fool some of the people some of the time but....What has happened to Kate Williams? An historical circuit tour of the West Coast of the USA? Emmiretus Professor of Harvard in History or "kinky boots"!? -
Message 8
Posted by Seamus an Chaca (U14844281) on Friday, 22nd April 2011
That Victoria episode by Kate Williams was pretencious and cloying?
Talk about sucking up to the young Queen in a sentimentalist manner, not scientific and historically sober? -
Message 9
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 10
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Saturday, 23rd April 2011
Cattiperson, naughty step, NOW, and don't rejoin the grown ups until you learn how to behave!
You may think this is amusing but the rest of us are getting thoroughly bored with your attention seeking behaviour (now, who else have I remember being accused of that?).
This obsession you have with minette is disturbing as says rather more about you than it does about her. Give it a rest or get a room. -
Message 11
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Saturday, 23rd April 2011
Why doesn't this stupid board have an edit function? I'm really reasonably literate despite the evidence otherwise. 'Who else do I remember......'.
-
Message 12
Posted by Seamus an Chaca (U14844281) on Saturday, 23rd April 2011
Yes, I simply ignore childishly bitter tantrums like the above. Any additions like that should be deleted by the Beeb.
How can we have forgotten the wonderful - and beautiful- Hermione Cockburn? -
Message 13
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 23rd April 2011
do they worry about pretty male historians?Β
Not sure. The Beeb (I'm fairly sure it was) had an outing with Tristram Hunt a few years back on the British Civil Wars - given that (IIRC) it wasn't actually his particular field of expertise, I do wonder how much his looks (and youth) had to do with it. Either way, it was a mostly dreadful series and I haven't seen him since. Dan Snow is in favour now; he has an Oxbridge history degree but I think that's pretty much it in terms of academic credentials. Decent enough presented, though.
I wasn't impressed by Bettany Hughes when I first encountered one of her programmes but she's grown on me. I am, though, more interested in their qualities as an historian and presenter (of either sex) than their looks. -
Message 14
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 23rd April 2011
By coincidence Sister Wendy Beckett was on 'The One Show' yesterday.
She must be in her eighties now and was escorted by Phil Tufnell in the National Gallery. She was slightly frail but was as lucid and insightful as ever:
(about 47.45 mins in) -
Message 15
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 16
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Sunday, 24th April 2011
Careful, you don't really want to antagonise a proper Gleska keelie, do you? Remember, usually only effete Edinburghers use the 'Weegie' nomenclature and I do hope you eschew fur coats rather than knickers.
I'll pass on the 'bru thank you, but a small whisky mac would be most welcome, asking for the milk of human kindness would clearly be pointless. -
Message 17
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Monday, 25th April 2011
I've just been watching Kate Williams on a programme about Royal Weddings - a production of more than usually revolting sentimentality. She certainly is a very pretty girl and she most definitely knows her stuff, but she does tend to simper. I have to admit that I found the lisp when she spoke of 'Diana's beautiful engagement wing' a little bit irritating. I liked her frock though - lovely, Renaissance-inspired dark green velvet with interesting detail on the shoulders. If I'm honest I want to come back as Kate Williams in my next life.
I read Catigern's deleted posts and I am both baffled and fascinated by this business with Minette. All sorts of interesting questions arise from what appears to be no more than a childish spat on a message board. You talked of 'moral courage' to ferval, Catigern, and ferval mentions 'the milk of human kindness'. What is moral courage, Catigern and which historical figures in your opinion have displayed it? One man's moral courage, after all, is another's bigotry and spite.
And is 'the milk of human kindness' as dangerous to success as it was in Shakespeare's time? Is being kind, forgiving and ruthlessly honest about our own faults simply the sign of a failing milksop personality - weak, cowardly, really rather pathetic? Even worse is kindness simply a ploy - just another means of self-promotion, actually quite selfish? Yet even that cynical old realist Machiavelli could write 'A multitude is more easily governed by humanity and gentleness than by haughtiness and cruelty.'
Answers on a postcard please, care of Pontius Pilate.
(What happened to Pontius Pilate - do we know? Did he return to Rome and live happily ever after?) -
Message 18
Posted by Seamus an Chaca (U14844281) on Monday, 25th April 2011
Yes, ignoring Catigern's unprovoked, childish and bitterly obsessed foot-stamping.
Kate William's is knowledgeable and pretty, but I find her work cloying and gushing, less sober and objective? -
Message 19
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Monday, 25th April 2011
Did he return to Rome and live happily ever after?Β
According to Josephus he was sent home in disgrace after a catalogue of acts misgovernment. He seems to have tried out pretty much every way of upsetting the natives, which in a province as sensitive and unstable as Judea was too much even for the Romans to tolerate. -
Message 20
Posted by Silver Jenny (U12795676) on Monday, 25th April 2011
Anne Wroe's book "Pilate the biography of an invented man", Vintage, 2000 is an account of Pilate, the elusive man, ,whom she persues through endless books and documents [and resists writing a novel].
-
Message 21
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Tuesday, 26th April 2011
Ferval-Hen,
Careful, you don't really want to antagonise a proper Gleska keelie, do you?Β
Ah'm no feart o' nae weegie, likesay...
Remember, usually only effete Edinburghers use the 'Weegie' nomenclatureΒ
I'm no Edinbugger, neither, though I do know the city quite well (and am as aware of Pilton as I am of flower clocks and festivals). My favourite relatives lived there when I was growing up, I once had the misfortune to live on Easter Road for 6 months and I've read 'Trainspotting'...
...and I do hope you eschew fur coats rather than knickers.Β
I eshew fur coats for the moment, but I intend to be a tiger in my next life...
asking for the milk of human kindness would clearly be pointless.Β
Only if you're asking on behalf of such an evil person as Minette...
Temp,
What is moral courage, Catigern and which historical figures in your opinion have displayed it?Β
A prime example of a morally courageous individual would be Oliver Cromwell, who was prepared, after exhaustive attempts to find a compromise with that Man of Blood, Charles Stuart, to take the momentous step of pushing for the tyrant's execution, despite the latter's kingly status.
Moral cowardice, by contrast, often involves people turning a blind eye to evil, and is exemplified by those who choose to ignore Minette's bigotry and her role as an apologist for tyranny and absolutism...
Yes, ignoring Catigern's unprovoked, childish and bitterly obsessed foot-stamping.Β
Silly old Jimmy still has his head in the sand re Minette's pathetic and highly provocative attempts to slander the delectable Dr Williams.
-
Message 22
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Tuesday, 26th April 2011
Since we're expected to be bold and brave and not be morally cowardly which I often prefer to be, I will stick my head up here. Minette has been around these boards for a long time now, Catigern, and we don't really need to be told how to view her. And even if we did, it would hardly need to be in the vicious tones you have used. Minette does enough of that herself.
You say you are defending Kate Williams but she is a public figure no doubt well used to people not necessary liking her and not necessarily being slow at saying so. She also probably doesn't come here to check out our comments, so hardly needs your defence in language that attacks someone else.
These boards are meant to be reasonably civilised and your posts are not always so.
Caro. -
Message 23
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Tuesday, 26th April 2011
Moral cowardice, by contrast, often involves people turning a blind eye to evil, and is exemplified by those who chose to ignore Minette's bigotry... Β
Oh don't be so bloody silly, Catigern. Minette is a daft bat at times, but she's not evil. Neither are you. You're both a pair of ninnies.
You are also both witty, intelligent and - whatever your formal academic qualifications or lack of them - very knowledgeable. I know very little about Charles I, Charles II or Oliver Cromwell (although I have read 'Forever Amber'). A really robust debate about these interesting characters would liven things up and be worth reading. It would be nice if you two could apologise, shake hands and then start arguing again, but this time about history.
There, I've put my head above the parakeet (joke attributed to Nordmann's gran - we must acknowledge our sources) and no doubt I'll live to regret it. I'll probably be savaged by you *and* Minette now. Never mind.
Hi Anglo-Norman and SilverJenny,
Thank you for info about Pontius Pilate. Jenny, I''ve ordered the book - it was very cheap from Amazon (a snip at Β£2.85 plus p&p). I really enjoyed Anne Wroe's 'Perkin', so I'll be interested to read what she has to say about Pilate. I've also been trying to find out about Pilate's wife - just one little sentence in Matthew's Gospel and the woman is remembered forever. Apparently (according to Origen) she became a Christian and is revered as Saint Procula. I wonder if this is true? -
Message 24
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 26th April 2011
I've just been watching Kate Williams on a programme about Royal WeddingsΒ
Yes - Kate Williams has suddenly been everywhere on television this week.
If she hasn't been giving details about Queen Victoria's wedding cake in 1840, then she's been describing the crowded scene at Windsor when Victoria's son Albert Edward (later Edward VII) married Alexandra of Denmark in 1863 or else referring to the music chosen when Prince Arthur Duke of Connaught married Princess Louise of Prussia in 1879 etc.
Should we be surprised?
Well on Friday it will, after all, be Kate 'n William's wedding. -
Message 25
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Wednesday, 27th April 2011
Yes - Kate Williams has suddenly been everywhere on televison this week. Β
Well, that's OK - the study of posh nuptials is one of her interests - she is after all the author (with Alison Weir, Sarah Gristwood and Tracy Borman) of 'The Ring and the Crown', a history of royal weddings.
But David Starkey is certainly not one to let all these clever and beautiful girls upstage him: he's bagged a prime slot on Channel 4 tonight (9.00pm) presenting 'William and Kate: Romance and the Royals'. This should be good. Starkey is looking at how other 'ordinary' women - Katherine Swynford, Elizabeth Woodville and Anne Boleyn, all of whom Starkey claims were 'certainly no grander' than KM - married into the royal family. I'm waiting to see if Starkey uses the expression 'captured the heart of a king'. I've lost count of how many times I've heard that this week. -
Message 26
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Wednesday, 27th April 2011
Temp,
I shall return to the subjects of stupidity and evil in due course, but, for the moment...
I suggest you ask Anglo-Norman about Oliver Cromwell - he wrote a diss about the Lord Protector and is less likely to provoke an hysterical response than I am.
I'm afraid I can't recommend a good introductory source for Charles I, as I don't know of any that take into account relatively recent revelations about his character. Most accounts give the Man of Blood credit for being a loving father and husband, but, a couple of years ago, a researcher from ?Manchester? found documentary proof of the tyrant's calculated adultery.
As for Charles the Even Worse, I must, again, recommend Ronald Hutton's online intro, to be found on the 'main' Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ history site. It includes an excellent summary and discussion of that foul, pox-ridden man's two 'faces' - the 'merry monarch' beloved of simplistic traditionalists and film-makers and the savage, spiteful tyrant familiar to serious, academic historians. I'd suggest following that up with Tim Harris's 'Restoration: Charles II and his Kingdoms', which you should be able to order from your local library. I prefer Harris's assessment of relevant power structures to Hutton's, and Harris also has the advantage of being a good attempt at 'Three Kingdoms' history, though it remains more thorough for England than for Scotland and Ireland.
Good hunting...
-
Message 27
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Wednesday, 27th April 2011
Thank you, Catigern. -
Message 28
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Wednesday, 27th April 2011
You're welcome, Temp. Hutton's article is a bit awkward to find on this site, so I'll add a link...
-
Message 29
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Thursday, 28th April 2011
Most accounts give the Man of Blood credit for being a loving father and husband, but, a couple of years ago, a researcher from ?Manchester? found documentary proof of the tyrant's calculated adultery.Β
It doesn't seem to me to be impossible for someone to be a loving father and husband AND be adulterous. People are much more complicated than saints-and-sinners little boxes give them credit for. There were lots of men of blood in those days. (Though I was quite surprised when reading recently about the scientists who built up the Royal Society. They had various political allegiances, though I rather liked what Halley (I think) said along the lines of it being his sovereign's responsibility to protect him and his responsibility to support whoever the monarch is. He seemed to have no compunction about changing sides if necessary. But none of these scientists ended with their heads on a block or generally being required to fight. (One of their fathers did lose his head after the Gunpowder Plot.)
Cheers, Caro.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.