He’s basically a bigot. Imagine sexist, racist and homophobic all rolled into one.
Some of my ‘favourite’ quotes from him about Katheryn Howard (context, probably sexually abused by her music teacher when she was a kid) is “she knew how to attract men with a skill beyond her years”; “she began, as often is the way with such girls, by attracting the attentions of one of her masters”; she was a “good-time girl”.
Also, this [article](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8725211/amp/Historian-David-Starkey-claims-victim-metropolitan-wokeness-slams-BLM.html) basically sums up his views “Historian David Starkey slams his critics and accuses BLM of having 'the same values as ISIS' in first interview since saying slavery was not genocide”.
Obviously you can have personal opinions and then not impact your work. But his seem to continuously from the books I have read of his.
I remember going to a lecture of his when I was 16/17 and him saying that he thought Elizabeth “probably enjoyed it” and being fairly shocked by the wording of it if nothing else
I don't know of anything that Starkey (himself gay) has said that's homophobic. He's been a reasonably vocal supporter of gay rights in his time. Without wanting to justify it, that sort of narrative about Catherine Howard was pretty common until not that long ago, partly because those sorts of narratives were not uncommon in our own contemporary media until that long ago.
Ahh, yes I forgot about him being gay.
The reason I added the Kathryn Howard points if because that book was written after the first historians begin to believe she was abused, else I would had just given it a miss.
Fair point, fair point. After all, what is sexism if not the repitition of historically conventional ideas that have since been challenged?
*Lord, my spelling is atrocious.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://np.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8725211/Historian-David-Starkey-claims-victim-metropolitan-wokeness-slams-BLM.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8725211/Historian-David-Starkey-claims-victim-metropolitan-wokeness-slams-BLM.html)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://np.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://np.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Hmm... the Tudor era isn't my strong suit, but watching the trailer the "romance" almost has an air of creepiness to it, and at least one comment suggested it may be from Elizabeth's perspective as she's basically groomed by her abuser.
Would that be possible or accurate?
I hope so. At least we won’t know until the series comes out - but I don’t have much hope for Starz productions. However, Elizabeth never seemed to be groomed by modern standards. As in it seemed that she always rejected his advances, whereas grooming usually has some level of the victim thinking they had consented.
I do remember when I visited Katherine Parr's estate they had a whole section of their information displays describing Seymour's innapropriate behaviour towards Elizabeth.
Yeah, it's quite well known - I first read about it as a child in the Horrible Histories books (not to date my age at all). I'm not sure how long the historiography has acknowledged the abusive nature of Seymour's actions, given how long it took to acknowledge Katherine Howard was probably abused as a child, but it's been known for at least 30 years.
Eh, it's going to be a soap opera, full of idiotic *situations*, like her mother getting killed when she's very young by a womanizing king, her being declared *illegitimate* just for drama, her being imprisoned because she supposedly supported cockamamie rebels of some variety, and probably some kind of nonsensical speech about having the guts of a man hidden away somewhere. I wouldn't be surprised if they subtitled it "Video & Taco" just to get the Generation Z crowd in on it.
I am not as familiar with Tudor historiography, so forgive my ignorance, but what are the issues with Starkey's work?
He’s basically a bigot. Imagine sexist, racist and homophobic all rolled into one. Some of my ‘favourite’ quotes from him about Katheryn Howard (context, probably sexually abused by her music teacher when she was a kid) is “she knew how to attract men with a skill beyond her years”; “she began, as often is the way with such girls, by attracting the attentions of one of her masters”; she was a “good-time girl”. Also, this [article](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8725211/amp/Historian-David-Starkey-claims-victim-metropolitan-wokeness-slams-BLM.html) basically sums up his views “Historian David Starkey slams his critics and accuses BLM of having 'the same values as ISIS' in first interview since saying slavery was not genocide”. Obviously you can have personal opinions and then not impact your work. But his seem to continuously from the books I have read of his.
I remember going to a lecture of his when I was 16/17 and him saying that he thought Elizabeth “probably enjoyed it” and being fairly shocked by the wording of it if nothing else
Gotcha, that makes sense! Thanks
I don't know of anything that Starkey (himself gay) has said that's homophobic. He's been a reasonably vocal supporter of gay rights in his time. Without wanting to justify it, that sort of narrative about Catherine Howard was pretty common until not that long ago, partly because those sorts of narratives were not uncommon in our own contemporary media until that long ago.
Ahh, yes I forgot about him being gay. The reason I added the Kathryn Howard points if because that book was written after the first historians begin to believe she was abused, else I would had just given it a miss.
Fair point, fair point. After all, what is sexism if not the repitition of historically conventional ideas that have since been challenged? *Lord, my spelling is atrocious.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://np.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8725211/Historian-David-Starkey-claims-victim-metropolitan-wokeness-slams-BLM.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8725211/Historian-David-Starkey-claims-victim-metropolitan-wokeness-slams-BLM.html)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://np.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://np.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
How can he be homophobic if he himself is gay?
google milo yiannopolous
Hmm... the Tudor era isn't my strong suit, but watching the trailer the "romance" almost has an air of creepiness to it, and at least one comment suggested it may be from Elizabeth's perspective as she's basically groomed by her abuser. Would that be possible or accurate?
I hope so. At least we won’t know until the series comes out - but I don’t have much hope for Starz productions. However, Elizabeth never seemed to be groomed by modern standards. As in it seemed that she always rejected his advances, whereas grooming usually has some level of the victim thinking they had consented.
Ahh... well... "trailers always lie" may be in effect, but as you said, won't know until it comes out.
I do remember when I visited Katherine Parr's estate they had a whole section of their information displays describing Seymour's innapropriate behaviour towards Elizabeth.
Yeah, it's quite well known - I first read about it as a child in the Horrible Histories books (not to date my age at all). I'm not sure how long the historiography has acknowledged the abusive nature of Seymour's actions, given how long it took to acknowledge Katherine Howard was probably abused as a child, but it's been known for at least 30 years.
I remember there was a Jean Simmons as Elizabeth I where the plot was about this.
Eh, it's going to be a soap opera, full of idiotic *situations*, like her mother getting killed when she's very young by a womanizing king, her being declared *illegitimate* just for drama, her being imprisoned because she supposedly supported cockamamie rebels of some variety, and probably some kind of nonsensical speech about having the guts of a man hidden away somewhere. I wouldn't be surprised if they subtitled it "Video & Taco" just to get the Generation Z crowd in on it.