BBC Television programmes  permalink

Chivalry and Betrayal BBC4

Messages: 1 - 20 of 69
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by meldrewsrevenge (U13159010) on Tuesday, 12th February 2013

    I was greatly looking forward to this - history without Hitler or the Tudors has to be a first for BBC. And it was OK but cheap. It was a touristy perambulation through modern landscapes with no attempt to create a sense of period. Why did they invent CGI? And the soppy little piping voice of the presenter got even more lost in the background music than usual. This is a wonderful period of our history, it deserves better than this amateurish treatment

    Reply to this message 1

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Percy Pillock (U15368740) on Tuesday, 12th February 2013

    Mind you, having criticised her previous programmes on Treasures of the Anglo-Saxons and Illuminated Manuscripts, I have to admit that I stayed with this one to the end, and found it much better.

    So the good news is she is improving! smiley - smiley

    Reply to this message 2

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Anignig (U13352042) on Tuesday, 12th February 2013

    The first thing that annoyed me was that it was on at the same time as Dancing on the Edge. I almost turned it off but got on with practising my origami rose so listened rather than watched so avoided the "rouristy perambulations", thank goodness. Anyway I can't stand all that focus on the presenters rather than the subject they do these days. I agree the background music was thoroughly irksome.

    I thought they could have related the start of the 100 years war to the why of it more. Even a brief résumé of how the English crown held the duchy and earlier fisticuffs between the French kings and the Plantagenets would have given us a better start, using the concept of chivalry to illustrate a lot more history

    All in all I suppose I just feel grateful this rich and fascinating part of English history has managed to get a look in.

    Reply to this message 3

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Percy Pillock (U15368740) on Tuesday, 12th February 2013

    I can't stand all that focus on the presenters rather than the subject they do these days.  Indeed.

    She seemed to have an obsession with the ninth letter of the alphabet, and it tended to get in the way of what was otherwise an interesting story.

    Reply to this message 4

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Grandadpop (U3054464) on Tuesday, 12th February 2013

    I thought it was...interesting, though I didn't learn much I didn't already know.
    Yes...cgi might have helped, or even cuts from other films?
    I taped it and watched 'Dancing on the Edge' first...which was excellent..

    'G-G'

    Reply to this message 5

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by heterodox (U14291406) on Tuesday, 12th February 2013

    'I can't stand all that focus on the presenters rather than the subject they do these days. ...... the background music was thoroughly irksome.'


    I agree but at least there was not so much attention given to the presenter's footwear this time.
    What is a social historian? Is it the same as sociable and does it mean that she gets on well with friends and colleagues.
    I couldn't pondering upon the feelings of the ordinary 'squaddie' who found that he had been conscripted into the Hundred Years War. No 'All over by Christmas' for the likes of him.

    Reply to this message 6

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Anignig (U13352042) on Tuesday, 12th February 2013

    I thought she said she was a "cultural" historian which would explain her interest in "chivalry". And yes, from what I saw there was less of her footwear this time.

    I keep wondering why I find Lucy Worsely's presence so much more acceptable. Is it because somehow she makes her presence "part of it"?

    Yes, it would be good to have some history told from the point of view of the "squaddie" and what they had to do. I think I've read that soldering was one of the very few a ways of earning a living at these times but often they didn't get paid so they went about taking what they needed, making havoc of people's lives. Also, weren't they part of their lord's contribution to the war effort/defence of the realm.

    The National Archives have the Gascon Roles, claims made by local nobles and gentry for compensation. There's a huge amount of history waiting in the archives full of great stories.

    Reply to this message 7

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Percy Pillock (U15368740) on Tuesday, 12th February 2013

    Mind you, even TNA has its prima donnas.

    Once, when walking through the reading rooms into the blue collar archives sector, my way was barred by a genealogist. He looked at me like I'd crawled out from under a stone, probably because I was wearing a tee shirt, and therefore looked like I could not possibly be in possession of a pass, a reader's card and a Bodleian Library card.

    But having produced the necessary evidence, and with great reluctance, our prolific reviewer and commentator on all aspects of history finally stood to one side. smiley - winkeye

    Reply to this message 8

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Sandstrom (U14413284) on Tuesday, 12th February 2013

    Mind you, having criticised her previous programmes on Treasures of the Anglo-Saxons and Illuminated Manuscripts, I have to admit that I stayed with this one to the end, and found it much better.

    So the good news is she is improving! smiley - smiley 

    Yes was worth sticking with.

    Reply to this message 9

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by the_cleaner (U3423083) on Tuesday, 12th February 2013

    It's on BBC~HD on Saturday.

    Reply to this message 10

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Rhoces (U11212688) on Tuesday, 12th February 2013

    Is this the first documentary to rely on an Ipad so much??? I thought it was good and informative.

    Reply to this message 11

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by heterodox (U14291406) on Tuesday, 12th February 2013

    'I thought she said she was a "cultural" historian....'


    I'm sure you're correct but I'm still left with the same sort of question.
    Said in this programme, and it can't be said often enough, is the fact that all the ideas about knightly chivalry and so forth applied only to how the aristocratic class treated each other.Treatment offered to 'ladies' was quite different to that inflicted on 'women' and this difference was applied to the disadvantage of common people generally.
    I think you gain an understanding of the period if you think of contending groups as gangsters. The methods and morality of, say, York versus Lancaster are pretty much the same as shown in 'The Sopranos' and that applies to all the other dynastic squabbles as well. The death of Richard III ( a topical reference) simply represents the overthrow of one 'boss' by another.

    Reply to this message 12

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by eviled2 (U14446578) on Tuesday, 12th February 2013

    I liked it...quite enjoy Dr Ramirez....and her boots, what happened to them? smiley - winkeye

    Incidentally, on her "official" website she id described as an "Art Historian".

    Reply to this message 13

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Grounded Griselda (U14326837) on Tuesday, 12th February 2013

    I thought it was good.

    I'd far rather have Janina Ramirez as a presenter than Dan Snow or that escapee from The Famous Five, Lucy Worsley.

    Reply to this message 14

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Huckerback (U14411634) on Tuesday, 12th February 2013

    ...or that escapee from The Famous Five, Lucy Worsley.  smiley - laugh

    But, I love Lucy!

    Reply to this message 15

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Grounded Griselda (U14326837) on Tuesday, 12th February 2013

    You are Desi Arnez and I claim my £5!

    Reply to this message 16

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Anignig (U13352042) on Tuesday, 12th February 2013

    Yes, I find the word "culture" difficult too and lately decided it meant the social attitudes, beliefs, habits, etc. and thought chivalry fitted that. Someone's also mentioned she's an art historian too, which is how I thought she described herself in that earlier series where we saw more of her feet than anything else.

    I've spent more time so far on late 12th and 13th history and seem to remember reading that Simon de Montfort (I think - can't be sure now) was the first noble to be deliberately killed in battle for centuries - the beginning of the end of chivalry. Everyone was most upset when de Perche was killed at the 1216 battle of Lincoln - only the lower orders were supposed to die in battle. Another fascinating "cultural" change was the Norman descendants of those given Anglo-Saxon lands etc. by the Conqueror beginning to think of themselves as English after John lost Normandy in 1204 - and resenting the Plantagenet's attempts (especially the cost) to hold on to their possessions, especially the Aquitaine, on the Continent, not least when Henry III kept giving English offices and lands to his continental friends, relatives and in-laws.

    There was then a huge shift in culture in England by the time the 100 years war started and it would have been good to see a programme on that - hopefully we don't get to spend too much time on Joan of Arc but learn about how they became the "gangsters" you describe.



    Reply to this message 17

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Tuesday, 12th February 2013

    A big huzzah for this era getting featured at all! I thought it was a decent romp through the period; I wasn't really expecting anything deeper or more academic.

    Personally I think Edward III is deserving of a series on his own, for the impact his reign had on England, but unless he can disguise himself as a Tudor that would probably be asking too much... smiley - doh

    Reply to this message 18

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Ceiderduck (U14588518) on Tuesday, 12th February 2013

    thought she said she was a "cultural" historian 

    This time last year I was pretty sure she was an art historian. Her title changes with each series.

    I don't like being shown artefacts on an ipad or generic tablet device, no matter how trendy the BBC might believe them to be. That aside, I liked it, and will continue to watch.

    Reply to this message 19

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by minibones (U14961554) on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    I was greatly looking forward to this - history without Hitler or the Tudors has to be a first for BBC. And it was OK but cheap. It was a touristy perambulation through modern landscapes with no attempt to create a sense of period. Why did they invent CGI? And the soppy little piping voice of the presenter got even more lost in the background music than usual. This is a wonderful period of our history, it deserves better than this amateurish treatment  Watching a recording as I type. Won't argue with your opinion, but have to pick you up on "soppy little piping voice". Does your TV have a treble dial that is badly adjusted? I would suggest that if forced to describe her voice, it would be a little deeper than the norm. Strikes me as a bit petty and makes your criticism of the programme seem less reasoned.

    Reply to this message 20

    Report message20

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.



Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

BBC © 2014 The BBC 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.