A Guided Tour From The Comfort Of Your Living Room...

Secrets of the Manor House on Yesterday – Episode One: Secret's of Henry VIII's Palace

Today I’m going to discuss Yesterday’s ‘Secrets of the Manor House’ series which has been airing for a number of weeks now. I wasn’t quite sure what to expect from the programme to be honest with you. I’d caught an advert which I was intrigued by and so just pressed the record series button, thinking I’d come back to it in good time. That I did and I was pleased to discover the first episode was on Hampton Court Palace – a favourite childhood haunt.

Unusually the programme wasn’t headed by a presenter, rather it was narrated by Samuel West and incorporated a number of ‘talking heads’ who spoke about their specialist subjects, including Suzannah Lipscomb who provided the main historical narrative. I’m a big fan of this technique and thought that it was really well used in this episode. We have so many talented historians in this country, with a broad array specialisms, that I can’t help but feel it’s a good decision for a documentary to showcase that. By drawing on the expertise of individuals it helps to show the general public that history isn’t all about the conventional topics like politics, monarchy or gender, but a great many more things that might appeal to them and their particular interests. In this one programme the producers had drawn on the expertise of a food historian to talk about Hampton Court’s extensive Tudor kitchens; a cultural historian to talk about Henry VIII’s passion for ‘real tennis’; an art historian to talk about the paintings and their use as forms of propaganda, as well as, the Head Curator of Historic Royal Palaces, Lucy Worsley. It wasn’t a single historian or presenter fronting the programme and appearing to know everything, rather it showcased the research and expertise of a number of individuals and as a viewer I responded really well to that.

What I also liked about the programme was how the palace itself was utilised as the setting for the pieces to camera and that the majority of the images used were clearly of Hampton Court. When each historian was shown discussing their particular topic they were positioned in the relevant place within the palace or with the relevant artefacts and it just felt genuine and intimate. At one point Lucy Worsley even commented how the meeting she was referencing took place in the ‘room below this office’, while at another point, camera shots were used to show the different styles of architecture that were favoured in different periods and added on to the original palace. Despite being a television programme, this technique offered somewhat of an immersive experience, as if you were having your own private tour of the palace and that made for quite an unusual experience as a viewer.

I’ve also made no secret of the fact that I’m not a fan of historical dramatization in history documentaries but surprisingly I didn’t object to its use too much in this instance. The clips were well integrated but used sparingly and made good use of the authentic setting. The costume was also more convincing than other examples I’ve seen and I couldn’t help compare it to the Tudor Tales demonstration I’d witnessed at the Embroidery Guild meeting a couple of months ago. Within this programme the use of dramatization seemed to fit well with the narrative, not directing it but offering another visual medium which enhanced the viewer’s experience.  

It will come as no surprise then that I really enjoyed this episode. If offers the viewer something that resembles a private tour of one of England’s most loved palaces, with experts on hands to offer unique insights into its history. I’d originally sat down expecting only to half pay attention and wish it to be over quickly, yet by the end I was enthralled and surprised when the hour was up. All round I’d say a hidden gem and well worth a watch!

Blackadder Wars - A brief, and admittedly personal, reflection.

I can’t pretend to know the ins and outs of this debate and I’m actually surprised that I’ve chosen to discuss it all. However, having just listened to the Start the Week episode with Michael Gove, Margaret Macmillan, Simon Sharma and Tom Holland from 30 December 2013 and having read a few of the news articles that have been produced in its wake , I found myself forming my own opinions and thought why not share them as the first blog of the new year!

Cast of Blackadder goes Forth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackadder_Goes_Forth

Commemoration of WWI is going to a topical subject over the course of the coming year and rightfully so. It is a period of British history that most people are familiar with and that holds great personal resonance with those who can recall the experiences of their relatives. It has always been a topic that has interested me and in my own time I’ve read war poetry and conducted my own research when questions have arisen in relation to the family tree. But as with most of us, my main knowledge derives from what I was taught at numerous points throughout education. Admittedly it was a fair time ago now, but I don’t remember ever being told the history of WW1 in a simplistic manner and for that reason I was somewhat surprised when discussion of how WW1 is taught in schools sparked such a heated debate. In particular I was somewhat bemused by the fact that use of ‘Blackadder’ became one of the main discussion points.

I remember vividly being shown a clip of Blackadder at the end of a history class where the focus had been on WWI, but it was never used as the centre piece of the lesson and I can’t say that I based my entire understanding of WW1 on the message of that piece. In fact I think it was one of those cases where a video was shown as a reward for finishing a given piece of work early. It was also just one of a number of other teaching tools that were used to teach us about WW1, we were also shown primary source material (including propaganda) and taken to Brookwood Cemetery – what political meaning should I ascribe to that?

Brookwood Cemetery
http://www.cwgc.org/

I can’t help but feel that Gove, and indeed Paxman, are underestimating teachers and indeed students when reflecting on how WW1 is taught in schools. I particularly don’t think enough credit is given to the students who are watching it. Students of history are always encouraged to look at other historical sources and to analysis and critique them and this is a skill you’re taught early on at secondary level. And while Blackadder may not be a historical source, it does present one interpretation of history and is something that students can approach and draw their own conclusions from. If nothing else it is informative of popular perception of the war. Also, students are not so thick as to take it as gospel – it is a piece of comedy after all! I think it is highly unlikely that any teacher would use Blackadder as the definitive source for understanding WW1, they may use it to start a discussion but you can then bring in all sorts of different arguments from across the board and as such, I have to agree with Tony Robinson, that showing clips of Blackadder is just one of many tools that teachers use to make classes a little bit more interactive and to engage students.

WW1 Poster
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/3400728

I remember in another class being asked to debate the reputation of General Haig, having been given a mixture of sources that portrayed him as both an army general doing his job and others where he was portrayed as the ‘butcher of the Somme’. I know now what a controversial figure he was because of that particular lesson and also now realise, that at that point I was also being introduced to the idea of historiography and the continually evolving nature of historical interpretation. At 14 years old we were being given material and encouraged to draw out own arguments and as such I never saw WW1 as a narrow and straight forward conflict and have always had great respect for those who fought for this country.

That might have been down to the initiative of our teacher I don’t know, but I would say is that those lessons gave me a really good grounding for understanding WW1 and one that was based on more than just the idea of ‘lions led by donkeys’. I can't help but feel this debate has lost some perspective and become more about political agenda than education. As with most of history WW1 is the subject of multiple interpretations - who's to say which are right and which are wrong? Should we not be more concerned with presenting as many of those perspectives as we can and hoping that one or more may provoke an enquiring mind?