David Starkey, for example ...

[Molesworth]

... is a sexist twat

Starkey attacks women historians again

Yes he is.

Although i like my history books and tv quite dry and recently read a book about Mary Queen of Scots (written by a woman) that was overdramatised like he describes - written like an autobiography and it was shit.

But he's just as guilty of doing that too.

And your dog is lovely btw

aww thanks port

Ha! Excellent ripostes

The bloke is an offensive clown

actually, it really annoys me that for some reason the domestic aspect of history is seen as unimportant. yes, typically, it's the female perspective, but so often the day to day lives of people are of great significance, just as much as the big political intrigues. by saying that one is 'better' than the other is taking a very subjective look. both aspects of history - the micro & the macro view - need to be considered to fully understand past events, and learn from them.

for e.g. if marie antoinette had been viewed as pious & self-sacrificing, would the french revolution still have happened? the perception of her lifestyle, at the time, was seen as just as inflammatory as the taxes people were paying.

the whole of society needs to be considered to get an accurate view, you can't just eliminate parts of people's lives because you don't find them interesting

Oh David, David, David... You disappoint me, sir.

Now, off you fuck. I shan't be purchasing a book of yours again.

goes off to read Alison Weir

There is a difference between reporting the domestic view and romantisising a story into 'faction'. (in case kickass's comment was aimed at me)

And i in no way support the sexist git...

The Da Vinci code is an example of taking history and 'romantising' it then painting it as fact. Other authors do the same with historical figures.

I'd rather read about the more mundane areas of life,

Kudos to your DH, SGM. Starkey's a meeja hooer. Allegedly.

hmm, but isn't he pretty much assuming that genuine historians (not writers of historical fiction) who focus on domestic issues are in fact female & being too emotional? which seems to be a grand generalisation.

it would be equally wrong to say that the stereotypical 'male' view, of just facts and figures, was too dull and gave no real image of the situation.

you can't just separate out one part of life from another. VERY few major historical situations came about merely due to external events (apart from natural disasters), so the emotional, personal side is just as relevant.

having said that, i don't like when fiction masquerades as fact. no probs with something which is obviously fictions (e.g. phillipa gregory), but don't do sloppy research & then embellish or make assumptions. a little 'guesswork' based on good working knowledge of the characters, if notified as such, seems ok, but not absolute assertions based on nothing more than assumption.

having said that, anyone who makes makes some of the comments he did is going to look silly - you can't take a historian seriously because of their name? oh dear, not the most intelligent thing I've ever heard.

(btw port, no comments aimed at anyone, just my waffling away)

love the idea of moving his books to the fiction section!

Starkey has made his name from the personal lives of the Tudors. He's the most gossipy, bitchy historian going.

Silly man. Ignore him.

SGM, your DH rocks!

DS is a prat. I saw him on Question Time once and he was quite astoundingly rude to the (one) female panelist. One of the few times I think the term "misogynist" is appropriate.

Still, one shouldn't mock the afflicted.