16 of 74 people found the following review helpful
This review is from: David Starkey: The David Starkey Collection [DVD] (DVD)
I am amazed at the glowing tributes paid to Mr Starkey and his collection. This is a man whose ignorance and narrow mind has been in evidence for some considerable time. Before coming across it again in his television history programmes I had heard many examples of his stupidity on Radio 4's The Moral Maze..heard enough indeed to stop listening after a while due to the verbal ordure coming from Mr S. I haven't seen the whole collection but more than enough on tv to confirm my low opinion of him. If you are truly interested in history then body-swerve David Starkey. History is too important.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 24 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 14 May 2012, 12:53:56 BST
Lizzy Dripping says:
Thank you "sandz" as you say history is too important to get bogged down in other's opinions
In reply to an earlier post on 15 May 2012, 17:36:45 BST
Perhaps people are reviewing the dvds, not Starkey himself. I don't always agree with him when he speaks on modern day issues, but admire him as a historian!
Posted on 18 Oct 2012, 18:38:31 BST
Prof TBun says:
I would much rather have David Starkey's opinions which are based on evidence, rather than your feeble opinion which is not.
Posted on 30 Dec 2012, 10:09:25 GMT
Long Distance Grandma says:
David Starkey: the David Starkey Collection [DVD]
As someone who is neither English nor well informed about British history I was fascinated by the third Monarchy series on TV and am considering buying the collection. I am interested in all shades of opinion but do not find this very negative criticism helpful as the reviewer hasn't given any detail of why he considers David Starkey to be ignorant and narrow minded nor why watching the series would give a false impression of history. Are there factual inaccuracies, are there opinions with which the reviewer disagrees or does he simply dislike the presenter's manner? I would like to know if it is either of the first two reasons and why.
Posted on 16 Feb 2013, 19:08:12 GMT
Yes ignorant and narrow minded, you of course NOT David Starkey !!
In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2013, 10:19:23 GMT
Sean Surrey says:
I think the review is of Starkey himself, many liberal people feel he is an arrogant conservative.
Posted on 11 Mar 2013, 12:48:17 GMT
I love David Starkey and his no nonsense views. Firm assertive and blunt. What you see is what you get. I would rather that, than what we get from the feeble wriggling lies of modern politicians who are unable to face up to the facts and instead forever bury and hide the truth in order to get re-elected.
In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2013, 15:03:03 BST
David Sands says:
Exactly on what "evidence" is Mr Starkey basing his opinions? Historians, with the possible exception of Mr S, would appear to be in agreement that history is open to various justifiable interpretations. The truth, in the way of hard indisputable facts, regarding any historical event being almost, if not completely, impossible to verify.I do not happen to agree with many of his interpretations and also find him, as evidenced by his many appearances on The Moral Maze, arrogant, boorish, rude and more often than not, remarkably stupid. I accept that this is all merely my opinion, and of course you are entitled to disagree with it, but it is hardly "feeble" and to suggest it is evidence free is just plain nonsense.
In reply to an earlier post on 29 Jul 2013, 14:10:39 BST
Well, Mr Sands, you are of course entitled to an opinion, but you haven't explained it and so can hardly expect people to understand you - though clearly Starkey himself somehow rubs you up the wrong way. However, Starkey is someone who has not just spouted comments and presented some shows but also studied, gained a PhD, taught for 30 years and written 20 or so books on history - whereas you just listened to him once on a radio show and apparently didn't like some things he said (though you haven't stated what, so we can't consider or agree with you). So if you are to helpfully criticise a large collection of historical documentaries based on decades of academic pedigree, you must provide some examples of what is actually wrong or poor with their content and accuracy, or your comments will be seen as being worse than insubstantial, and your arguments against the DVD collection will be deemed groundless, or perhaps even silly.
Mr Higgins, as you may already know, although he's pro-free-market and was a fan of some of Thatcher's attributes/ideas, the liberals you refer to are wrong to simply interpret Starkey as an arrogant conservative. He has publicy condemmed (on BBC's Question Time and elsewhere) not only the champagne-socialists, but also the liberal-elite and established middle-classes' increasingly closed-shop, old-school-tie, and other self-preferential ways of inhibiting social mobility and opportunity for people of more humble origins (such as himself: a disabled council-estate kid to often-unemployed parents, Starkey won a Cambridge scholarship). Starkey isn't even a stuffy moralist, being gay.
I'm a PhD in Archaeology, taught briefly, published twice, and held a keen interest in both military and social history, politics and current affairs for 3 decades, and although I don't agree with all Starkey says, I can see it all has value to serious, intelligent debate. And in this social-media, twits-on-twitter obsessed age, to anyone thinking of publicly nay-saying the opinions of extremely intelligent, highly educated, well-published and richly experienced persons, one had better have insightful and well-researched reasons, or else would be wise to adopt Abraham Lincoln's advice: better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
In reply to an earlier post on 29 Jul 2013, 15:36:32 BST
Long Distance Grandma says:
Thank you Streetyson - your articulate and well substantiated comments are much appreciated!