The Tudors and TV: Is There Anything New to Say?

Tudor enthusiasts greeted the news of Lucy Worsley's new BBC documentary about the six wives of Henry VIII with excitement. For those of us fascinated by the Tudor period, we cannot get enough of it; we read about it, we watch documentaries about it, we visit the buildings associated with it and, perhaps most of all, we love to talk about it. Admittedly, Henry's tumultuous marriages is a well-worn subject, but the enthusiastic Worsley promised to offer new insights and, for me at least, she has done so in what is, admittedly, a challenging medium: television.

However, not everyone reacted as positively to Worsley's documentary as others. Last week, an article was published in The Guardian entitled: 'Six Wives With Lucy Worsley: Why TV History Shows are for the Chop', and was written by Joel Golby. In it, he attacked Worsley's documentary as 'awful, tedious history' and 'Game of Thrones without any of the good bits', a rather absurd criticism that, nonetheless, exposes the difficulty that historians face in attempting to strike a balance between education and entertainment, when presenting TV documentaries. In one hour, Worsley was required to discuss and examine Henry's 24-year long marriage to Katherine of Aragon, her experiences of queenship and Anne Boleyn's rise to power, in a way that was both credible and engaging to viewers. Golby's scathing assessment indicates that she failed.

Others voiced their criticism of another Tudor documentary on Twitter and in the comments section of the article, although some commentators were rather more positive. One praised Worsley's coverage of 'one of the most fascinating eras.' But Golby's negativity was mirrored in another article published in History Today on 14 December by the magazine's editor, Paul Lay. The title of the piece is 'Television History and Its Discontents', and featured a still from Worsley's documentary, in which she wears Tudor costume.

Lay criticised Six Wives, for he suggested that it offered 'unconvincing, cheap looking, historical reconstructions', and because it 'says nothing that we do not know already.' I object wholeheartedly to Lay's criticism, which I believe to be both unfair and untrue. The documentary does offer new insights, and as a biographer of Katherine Howard, I wholeheartedly commend Worsley's decision to present Henry VIII's hapless fifth wife as a victim of predatory behaviour, a view that has only gained acceptance amongst historians in the last decade or so.

Before then, Katherine Howard tended to be perceived as, in Alison Weir's words, 'an empty-headed wanton', or even, to use the late David Loades's term, 'a stupid slut'. She has been derided for her 'promiscuity' and has been slated as a 'natural born tart' (Alison Plowden). Television documentaries and dramas tended to follow these interpretations: Tamzin Merchant presented Katherine as a nymphomaniac, even a prostitute, in the Showtime television series The Tudors, and even in Dr David Starkey's entertaining documentary about the six wives, Katherine was said to have shown more dignity at her death than she had ever displayed in life. An earlier documentary about the six wives produced this year also focused on Katherine as sexually adventurous both before and after her marriage.

To my knowledge, Worsley is the first to present Katherine as an abused victim in a television documentary. In doing so, she has drawn on the theories of historians such as Retha Warnicke and Joanna Denny to offer a compelling, and more historically accurate, version of Katherine's life than previously seen ever before on television. From this perspective, Lay's criticism is absurd. 

It is true that there is an abundance of documentaries about Henry VIII and his wives, but is that really a bad thing? Many people are fascinated by the king and his queens, and read as many books as they can about them, as well as flocking to Hampton Court Palace, the Tower of London and Windsor Castle every year, as well as to the numerous National Trust and English Heritage owned properties. I object to criticisms of new documentaries about the Tudors and, in particular, Henry VIII - for contrary to these views, such documentaries are offering new insights and are aimed at audiences who will appreciate these insights, because they are intelligent and engaged viewers who want to learn as much as they can about the period. 

Perhaps, if the likes of Golby and Lay view such documentaries as redundant, because they offer 'nothing that we do not know already', then they should not watch them, since there are many who will watch them and will learn something new. If either individual can point me towards an older documentary that portrays Katherine Howard as a victim of sexual predators, then I might rethink my views. But until they can, I stand by why I argue in this piece: that even well-trodden subjects can offer something new, which can be documented on television in a manner that is both educational and entertaining. 

Fashion, Gender, and Government Control in Uganda

Copyright: Amy Fallon for The Guardian.

It is possible that in December, the Ugandan government will pass a law banning the miniskirt. Women who wear the miniskirt in public could face arrest if they refuse to cover up. Government officials have suggested that the anti-pornography bill, in which the proposed ban of the miniskirt has been included, will outlaw 'provocative' female clothing alongside censoring film and TV and restricting Internet use.

The era of director Idi Amin witnessed the banning of short skirts by degree, and if the bill is made law, these skirts will once more suffer this fate. Many Ugandans, however, oppose the idea, inspiring a Twitter hashtag #SaveMiniSkirt. Simon Lokodo, Uganda's ethics and integrity minister, argued that women who wear revealing clothing invite sexual violence and assault: "We know people who are indecently dressed: they do it provocatively and sometimes they are attacked. An onlooker is moved to attack her and we want to avoid these areas".

The proposed bill suggests that anyone found guilty of abetting pornography faces a 10m shillings (£2,515) fine and/or a maximum of 10 years in jail. The likes of Madonna and Beyonce will be banned from television due to their "provocative" attire and dance routines. Lokodo defended this by stating: "Certain intimate parts of the body cannot be opened except for a spouse in a private place". Sam Akaki, international envoy of Uganda's opposition Forum for Democratic Change, criticised the proposed bill, suggesting that it "will discriminate people on the basis of gender".


Above: the likes of Beyonce could be banned from Ugandan television.

Rita Aciro Lakor, executive director of Uganda Women's Network, opined that the issue centres more on control of women in a patriarchal society: "It's about going back to controlling women. They'll start with clothes".

One is similarly reminded of Jacob Zuma's trial in 2009 in South Africa amidst discussions of female fashion, gender, and immorality. Lokodo argued that women invite rape and sexual assault through the clothes they choose to wear - similarly, Zuma suggested that he believed that the rape victim had invited him to engage in sex with her because of her kanga clothing and her 'suggestive' position. The key argument in the trial centred on the expectation in Zulu culture that a man fulfil the desires of a woman if he interprets her being 'aroused'. Zuma's followers argued that women usually fabricate stories of rape as a means of accessing money and power. Unsurprisingly, the rape victim was accused and denigrated as a manipulative seductress, serial rape accuser, and a pathological liar.

Richard Waller (2006) has suggested that fashion is a means of allowing youths, particularly in African urban spaces, to construct their own identities and values. Fashion promotes individuality. If the miniskirt is banned in Uganda, it will be interesting to see how Ugandan women refashion their sense of self and their ideas of individuality. Will they use other items of clothing to convey a sense of their personality, their identity, and their personal makeup; or will the loss of this garment signify a male appropriation of what 'proper' female sexuality and conduct is believed, or even supposed, to encompass?

Why the Focus on 'Foxy Knoxy'?

Why the focus on Foxy Knoxy?

It’s ironic that Amanda Knox’s autobiography, entitled Waiting to be Heard, is set to be published at just the same time that Italy’s highest appeal court has sensationally announced that Knox and her ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito will face a re-trial for the tragic and highly controversial murder of British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia in 2007.

Knox’s story has been one, unsurprisingly, of controversy, drama and fierce emotions. Viewed as an innocent victim by most American citizens, who whole-heartedly supported her when she returned to the USA in 2011 following her incredible acquittal, Knox has divided opinion around the worldwide. I read an interesting article in The Daily Mail, which suggested that, unlike the USA, most countries continue to view her with ambivalence, if not open hostility, and thus question how correct it is that her memoirs are being published at this controversial time. It emerges that the re-trial has been ordered, not because of new evidence on Knox and Sollecito’s guilt or innocence, but because it’s been felt that the appellate trial may not have been properly conducted.

Certainly the trials have been tainted in controversy; Knox herself claimed that the use of evidence was questionable, and many have agreed with her. Insufficient forensic evidence tests were particularly condemned, and prosecutors alleged that the court which acquitted Knox and Sollecito had ‘lost its bearings’ in the case. Knox issued a statement shortly after this announcement that it is ‘unfounded and unfair’. She maintains that ‘our hearts go out to them [Meredith’s family]. No matter what happens, my family and I will face this continuing legal battle as we always have, confident in the truth and with our heads held high in the face of wrongful accusations and unreasonable adversity’.

But is this process ‘unreasonable’, as Knox claims? Look at the incredible drama surrounding the case – as I write this, there are no fewer than 1096 comments on the Guardian’s article covering this development. Knox arouses strong opinions and feelings; whether love and respect from American citizens, or hatred and hostility from those who believe she had a crucial hand in Meredith’s murder.

It is my firm belief that the real victim, Meredith Kercher, is being ignored and neglected in all of this. If Knox is truly innocent, then it is understandable why she, famously, made numerous cartwheels and reacted with wild celebration on discovery of her acquittal, and celebrated even further by reportedly signing a multi-million book deal to reveal, in her eyes, the ‘truth’. But her reaction, for many people, seems callous and insensitive. Yes, she’s been acquitted, but what about the girl who she spent time living with, socialising with, befriending, eating together, sharing confidences etc? Does that friendship mean nothing? In my reading of this case (albeit only from newspapers), Knox appears to have made very few utterances regarding Meredith herself.

Meredith’s death was brutal and appalling. It shows the depth of sadism which sexual antics can degrade to and the murky nature of that night in 2007 will never be fully known. She was dead at the unbelievably young age of 21, her whole life ahead of her. Many people’s comments on the Guardian seem to agree with my stance – ‘AhBrightWings’ opines: ‘To make money off another young woman’s death is grossly insensitive. She should hand over the proceeds to charity. That would go a long way to clearing her name’.

I am not suggesting Knox is guilty, far from it. But she does not seem a likeable woman. She has been portrayed by the media as calculating, manipulative, insensitive and fully aware of the sexual power she holds over men. Whether or not this is true, and one must remember how much the media exaggerate and distort, there is something very distasteful about a young woman who, rather than mourning her housemate’s tragic and brutal death, is currently celebrating the millions she will make from a book supposedly revealing the ‘truth’ of her case. Let’s remember who the real victim is here, who is forever silenced, and who may never receive justice.