Love It or Hate It, Medieval History Matters: How Poor Teaching of Medieval History is Failing Students

Often, medieval history is overshadowed by modern history in both education and public interest. After reading Ian Mortimer’s ‘Medieval Horizons’ I found myself wondering, do we really value Medieval history as much as we should?

This blog post is an extended essay exploring the challenges medieval history faces within history education, particularly in UK universities. It discusses how uneven access to medieval and earlier historical periods across different institutions limits students’ historical awareness and curiosity. Drawing on my own experience at Oxford and comparisons with other universities, I argue for greater standardisation in history curricula and increased collaboration to ensure all students gain a well-rounded understanding of history—not just modern periods. Medieval history matters deeply for understanding today, and this essay outlines why it should be made more accessible and valued in education.

--

As a history student, I often find myself being interrogated about all genres of history – usually outside of the remit of the papers I have learned. I would be lying if I said I jumped at the opportunity to discuss the impact of the Second World War for what feels like the millionth time, but for some, these periods ignite an impassioned interest. Here, history becomes personal – a reflection of the lives of the people they knew or, indeed, they experienced. Modern history can be related to in a much clearer sense than Medieval history. This in itself is an issue.

History's accessibility is hindered through Medieval studies. It often requires closer examination of relatively few sources, unlike modern historians, who usually have access to many sources, such as newsletters, census records, diaries, and photographs, from which they can study the impact of events and changing ideas across a greater level of society. Meanwhile, a medievalist is left with artefacts, architecture, ecclesiastical writing, and often sources concerned with the elite classes. These are very different source materials. One may appear ‘easier’ than the other for a present-day student to examine. For example, being understood in the native language rather than requiring a translation could have been open to the translator’s discretion. As such, barriers to the study of history can be seen through medieval studies.

Divisions between the study of differing periods can be helpfully summarised as the ‘Marmite’ approach to history. By this, I mean the polarisation of medieval history to be of two extremes, like the Marmite advertisement of being loved or hated.[1] This approach helps to explain the potential issues surrounding the study of medieval history. From this, we can identify ways to improve the study and put it on equal footing with modern history, which seems to be prioritised by schools and influences their students' later studies at university.

In the following, I argue that medieval history faces many challenges in terms of teaching. By applying the ‘Marmite’ idea to my experience at secondary school, reflecting on opportunities for medieval study versus modern study, and commenting upon what should be done to correct this, I will highlight these issues—providing a framework for discussions surrounding the development of medieval history’s appreciation, thus removing it from its current Marmite state.

School – The Polarisation is Strong

When I think of my experience studying history at a state-comprehensive school, there were not as many opportunities to study medieval history as there were for modern history. This creates a divide within the field, almost prioritising one period over the other. In this section, I endeavour to explore the issues of how history was taught to me at school and identify just how we can challenge this modern prioritisation. Yet, while it may appear my scepticism in having us jump around historical periods could be interpreted as an attack on the prevalence of other periods, it is not. Instead, my point is to redirect attention to medieval studies, making them equally accessible to students and not just thought of as an afterthought. Education, as such, serves as a powerful tool for influencing historical interest.

Yet, before we discuss secondary education, it is essential to analyse the impact primary education has on our interests. From a young age, school students are introduced to exciting historical societies like the Romans and Ancient Egypt before swiftly progressing to the likes of the 17^th century. Then, before long, the curriculum jumps ahead to the First World War, often bypassing medieval history almost entirely. All these periods are equally compelling to study, but the lack of medieval inclusion usually makes me wonder why. Yes, in a primary setting, it can be harder to adapt the likes of Church history, but it is relevant to how society interacted, and it is a mystery why we don’t try harder to include it. By neglecting their studies at a young and, most importantly, impressionable age, students may prefer the periods they are exposed to at a greater quantity than at other periods. Arguably creating a preference that remains with students as they progress to Secondary school.

My experience of secondary education and history as a subject was tumultuous. While I found the subject easy enough – the source analysis and constant, albeit maybe slightly annoying- questions I would ask also made me ‘Historian’ material. A comment from my year 9 report from my history teacher called me a “natural historian.” I mean, she was, in some ways, right as I have ended up studying it at university. But, the historian in me thinks she may have encouraged me to trust myself and pick the subject for GCSE. I was on the fence with this at the time, finding it a little too dull. (Shock gasp from historians around me). So, my path to studying influenced my perception of learning, what I believe was a heavily modern selection of papers.

My secondary school recently rebranded its curriculum; however, this hasn’t changed the overly modern feel of the papers studied. They study an Edexcel course in which students sit three papers: a thematic study and historic environment paper, a British depth and period study, and finally, the modern depth study. When I ‘sat’ GCSEs, because I completed them during the COVID-19 pandemic, we sat papers focusing on Crime and Punishment from 1000 to the present day with a case study of Whitechapel and the Jack the Ripper cases, Anglo-Saxon and Norman England c.1066-1088 with Superpower relations and the Cold War 1941-1991, and finally Weimar and Nazi Germany 1918-1939. The change my school has recently made only applies to the breadth paper, changing instead to study Medicine Through Time (which I think is a criminal swap). All of these periods merit study, yet, to me, they appear overly modern.

Teachers largely shape the curriculum chosen at their schools. Now, my school has made a good selection of papers which prepare students of history to engage with relevant themes they may encounter in society. The impacts of the Second World War are felt today, and an awareness of the issues in Weimar Germany seems a good fit for engaging us. Furthermore, as much as it pains me to admit it, including the Cold War is beneficial when studying the relationship between superpowers like the US and Russia – something we feel an effect with, especially now. My concern is that most of my teachers preferred modern history, something they would elaborate on when we asked them what they studied at a degree, as we progressed to A-Levels. This could have created biases when selecting papers, going straight for options they felt were more compelling to the historians they are. These choices equip students with a good grasp of how history can shape our world. Each event's proximity to us emphasises its perhaps greater usefulness than medieval options have to offer us.  

However, schools should not dismiss medieval options because of their lack of direct connection to the world around us. In Medieval Horizons, Ian Mortimer makes the case for medieval history apparent. Arguing that the inclusion of these earlier periods for study actually enhances our appreciation of various factors that impact us today. This includes language, democracy, and education. Furthering our scope of study benefits students, not detract from their experience, thus, a good thing.

I’ll admit that the only good thing from Michael Gove’s education reforms was a renewed sense of enforced medievalism. While Mr Gove ensured we got a medieval element in these qualifications, he failed to ensure their proper implementation across the paper. If we lived in an ideal world, we would force students to study an early, middle, and late period as separate papers – much like my degree forces me. Students, as part of the Edexcel syllabus’s option 1HI0/10 (Crime and Punishment), are expected to remember information from the medieval to the modern day. Yet, they are not likely to recognise such ideas of the Middle periods in depth again. I was fortunate enough to study medieval history as a small section in paper 2 – the in-depth study of Anglo-Saxons and Normans. Here, I got to explore, albeit in a small period, the social, political and economic changes within the two-decade shift from Anglo-Saxon to Norman rule. However, this came at the expense of other periods like early modern History. The syllabus shouldn’t just be about sweeping breadth studies as if it were a box-ticking exercise to start somewhere early and end up somewhere later, but instead should have aimed to engage students on equal levels across the papers. I understand this may not always be feasible with complications from teachers’ preferences and personal understanding, but we must ensure that better attention is paid to this.

Students may not wish to continue their studies of medieval history if they are not exposed to it. Schools that provide a relatively modern syllabus run the risk of historically isolating their students. By this, I mean their students may become too focused on studying modern history and neglect a broad scope that is often needed to appreciate the developments of society today. Mortimer’s point again stands. We have to enjoy these underlying developments to understand why events happened. After all, most teachers spend time illustrating to their students the necessity of relating continuity and changes within their essays. Without exposure to the earlier source material and ensuring a level of access at all periods, schools run the risk, for example, of pumping out a higher number of modernists than medievalists.

Educators shape students' perception of history. By prioritising modern events, they unintentionally frame medieval history as secondary – something obscure, irrelevant, or even dull. By doing this, students may be inclined to view the sometimes-challenging sources of the medieval world with suspicion. It may, in some cases, put students off studying it all together, preferring instead to focus on readable source material they have from a more modern perspective. The argument put forward by Mortimer highlights that to understand and appreciate the world we have today, we need to peel back the layers of history. Magna Carta in 1215 revolutionised the role of baronial elites. It gave them a chance to form councils and directed attention away from the king, the start of a democratic system of political ideas being shared and then implemented. This paved the way for crucial events in the 17^th and 18^th centuries, where the role of the King was reduced even further. Therefore, these earlier ideas are essential and need to be taught to an equal standard.

Therefore, it is clear that history and how it is taught lead to prioritising certain events. Modern history is most likely prioritised over earlier periods due to various factors. Teachers' own interests and a belief of connectivity to the world today may sway curriculum choices as such, much needs to be considered to re-shift our focus on medieval history.

 

Historical Awareness Outside of the Classroom

Education certainly plays a crucial role in shaping our research interests, but exposure through the media, books and sites plays a role. Thus, by exploring these areas, I will ascertain how far the influence of the world around us may impact our appreciation of medieval studies, pushing us to adopt this Marmite approach and either love or hate it.

Television often reinforces the modern bias in history – period dramas favour the Regency of 20^th century, while medieval history is either ignored or turned into fantasy. Take Bridgeton (2020), the Netflix hit based on Julia Quinn’s work, which has received 1.13 million views for series one alone.[2] The show follows the (mostly) fictitious Bridgerton family navigating Regency-era London, searching for love and happiness. The show takes a historical period, making it accessible to a modern audience. For example, an awareness of events surrounding George III’s illness is seen through the perspective of Queen Charlotte through the show and its spin-off Queen Charlotte.[3] However, it injects some creative liberty for plot development within the show. Catherine Curzon, a historian of the eighteenth century, claims that Queen Charlotte and George III were very devoted to one another – something the show negates for dramatic purposes. Pushing their viewers to invest in the story, loving it, and perhaps converting people to the historical cause. These shows aim to engage their audiences and use history as a background to the story. They shouldn’t be taken as truthful accounts but instead as a spring-board to further engage people with history.

Television can further our interest through the production of documentaries. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is one such company that produces a range of documentaries presented to the British public. Unlike a school curriculum, documentaries have no limitations and can explore various themes and periods. A House Through Time (2018-2024) sees David Olusoga explore the “story of those who lived in one house from the time it was built until now.”[4] Meanwhile, The Black Pharaohs (2004) highlights the “story of the Black African kingdom of Kush and its battles with Ancient Egypt for the supremacy of the Nile Valley.”[5] The BBC is an invaluable source for historical documentaries. They are prolific in the number they produce and certainly would have impacted those who watch television. These can be both positive and negative – viewers may feel an instant attraction to the plot, or feel uninterested pushing them away. However, the pushing of history through these documentaries helps push students who may have begun to ‘hate’ earlier periods to convert and ‘love’ it through the differing structure to the classroom. These documentaries are engaging, almost bringing the story to life, and thus could have a better success rate in securing viewership. Despite the period between the two shows I have mentioned, the continuous creation of thought-provoking content from new and exciting angles, such as memory, space, or racial histories, provides ample material to inspire its viewers historically.

Films also allow history to seep into cinematography. Take Monty Python and The Holy Grail (1975), a comedy adventure film set around the Arthurian legend. It has become one of the greatest comedy films of all time. Mainly intended to be a comedy and for entertainment, elements of historical interest do come through. The sets, including castles and buildings in the Crusade, highlight how history can be made accessible. However, it should be viewed as a form of Medieval England stereotype, as An Oxford Historian underscored.[6] Taking a period and exemplifying features we believe, whether accurate or not, to be there all create an illusion of the past. This is something we, as an audience, can enjoy and temporarily be immersed in the ‘Middle Ages’. By having us immersed we can grow to ‘love’ the period, find it of greater interest, and might even secure new interest in the period. Whilst Monty Python is one such idea as to how history can be applied in films, it does show the fundamental principle of accessibility. Films can be accessed by audiences who may find opening a dense textbook daunting. It ultimately acts as a gateway for generating historical interest, perhaps even pushing some to conduct studies in these fields.

In the case of the media, my framework of the ‘Marmite’ approach is somewhat limited. The media presents work to engage a specific audience – whether young or old and through this, it can put some off engaging with it. For example, the case of Bridgerton may be viewed as raunchy. This is contrasted by the likes of Monty Python and the Holy Grail where a loose portrayal of medieval history draws a wider audience in. Yet, the approach stands due to the influences most people have faced from their school days. Students exposed to broader levels of modern history may turn to watching similarly inspired programs. It would be like my A-level classmates turning to watch a Blitz documentary over one on Anglo-Saxon society purely based on the interest generated through our coursework, which happened to focus on the Blitz. The centrality to medieval studies being either loved or hated is influenced through the major factor in which we engage with history, and for the majority of us this was through school. Yes, you may have been to museums and historical sites as a child with family, but these, for many, would have been few and far between, whereas school was a constant in many of our lives. This leads to many people leaving school having studied history with an interest in modern events, and this may influence the commission of content in places such as the BBC.  In light of this, the media plays into the ‘Marmite’ approach due to the volumes of content produced to suit audiences' tastes.

Books as a medium for historical access and the importance of differing periods can be seen through their presentation in bookshops. For this example, I shall focus on Blackwell’s Bookshop in Oxford. I have chosen to focus on this shop specifically as it has a great selection of books, and I feel it would be most representative due to the size of the Norrington Room, much larger than the likes of Waterstones, in which its history books can be found. Walking in, you’re surrounded by modern history – politics, war, and recent conflicts dominate the shelves, The medieval section? Tucked away, small, often overlooked. The categorical division is, to an extent, useful – keeping periods roughly together – but many modern historically focused books (conflict, politics and modern history) appear in greater volumes. This could influence a reader to pick one of these more modern books off the shelves instead of an earlier one, which is pushed to the end of the entrance. The positioning of these books is also essential, with the British and modern ones placed first, followed by a reverse chronology. But, credit to Blackwells in their use of tables around the room to promote books, and to their credit, they are notably better balanced in periods.

Book placement reinforces the ‘Marmite’ divide. Medieval history books are often pushed aside, making modern history seem more appealing by default. Potentially contributing to the divide, with people gravitating to what they know and fearing the unknown. The earlier ideas of educational biases further reinforce this. Students may be included to gravitate to books relevant to their courses, or indeed, due to the placement of these works within the store. Clearly, the presentation of books in shops can further this divide that is already presented through educational biases.

To summarise, media, books, and sites are one way to access history but are not the most significant in informing our historical interests. School plays a more critical role in informing the interests we develop from a young age and so can be credited as the place we must direct our attention to reinvigorate our appreciation of medieval society.

 

Not all Degrees Are Created Equal

My experience in degree-level history is mostly informed by my experience at St Hilda’s in Oxford. We have to acknowledge that in the case of Oxford, students’ experiences vary from those of other universities. So, to determine the experience of history at ‘degree level’ I will compare my experience to the experiences of three other institutions to determine whether the current system gives students of History a fair opportunity to study a variety of periods.

In terms of selecting these universities, I chose to base my methodology on the rankings of the Guardian 2025’s “Best UK universities for history – league table.” Here 84 universities are listed as teaching history. Oxford ranks 1^st on this table and to select the others, I divided 84 by three. These rankings would give us a first, second, and third category. This would provide us with a ‘best’, ‘good’ and ‘okay’ version of the course to assess. From this I have selected are York (ranking 14^th), Plymouth (ranking joint 41^st), De Montfort University (ranking 70^th). As I shall analyse, students don’t experience equal teaching, limiting their historical awareness.

Oxford has expanded my historical awareness. I have studied early, middle, and late histories and histories of not just Britain and Europe but also the global world. In the first year, students sit preliminary exams. They don’t count to your degree grade, but the geographical and periodical requirements are included. The Oxford system forces students to study across all periods. This is vital for increasing student awareness. Whilst I find my degree intense, the quality of teaching is outstanding. Whilst other Russell Group institutions' awareness of other periods is mirrored, it is not seen at all universities. Students who may not achieve straight A’s may be disadvantaged in the degree they study. They may not have access to tutors who specialise in earlier periods, putting them at a disadvantage to those who are at these Russell Group universities. Potentially, students may not choose to study these earlier periods unless ‘forced’. Disadvantaging them against their peers who have studied much broader periods. Without this, they face a modern only approach which will stand them in good stead for the world today, but not in their training as historians. We need to see developments over wider periods and not just in these smaller studies as seen in the cases of lower ranking universities later on. As such, the discrepancies in the periodical study of history limit historical awareness, reducing students’ access to earlier periods.

In their first year, students are introduced to global history and historical arguments at York. Their core modules include: Political Communities in World History, Societies and Economies in World History, Arguments and Analysis, Knowledge and Beliefs in World History, and, Evidence and Methods. York aims to give students a wide historical and geographical background. It pushes students from all walks of A Level and International Baccalaureate life to study various historical ideas and periods. This is invaluable for bringing students to the same standard – essentially what many first year courses intend to do. As we shall see with the other universities as we progress down the Guardian’s rankings, history teaching is unequal across the UK. Students don’t have equal access to all historical periods, and much more should be done to increase this. Medieval history does matter, and the choices available often narrow with institutional access.

Plymouth University provides students with a solid foundation for their studies. In the first year, they are expected to study a series of modules, including ones which focus on the study of History itself. They study the following: America from Settlement to Empire, World History since 1850, Fractured Isles: Britain and Ireland 1640-1990, History and Heritage, as well as Hands on History: War and Society. This seems comparatively better than our later example – giving students a chance to grapple with global history and providing a chance for a wider scope of study. The curriculum appears to be designed around presumed interests and prior knowledge, rather than encouraging chronological breadth. Students aren’t even given the chance to study medieval history. They are given this early/late focus instead. I believe this is a disadvantage for future historians as it limits their historical curiosity. Unlike students at Oxford who have to study a medieval paper – to meet our period requirements – students at other universities may not be exposed to it and, therefore, are limited in historical scope. Whether or not they chose to pursue it later on, the argument still stands that they should be taught it. Limited options ultimately reduce student opportunity in the long run.

De Montfort’s History course is interesting in composition. In the first year, they allow their students to study four blocks – Modern Britain since 1800, Journeys and Places, Nationalism and Revolutions in the 19th century, and Ideology, War and Society in the 20th century. There is minimal introduction to medieval History and the course maintains a strong modernist focus. I believe that by neglecting medieval and quite a lot of early modern history, De Montfort does not provide their students with the building blocks for understanding later developments. The fact of the matter is I have read historical books by researchers who have been based at De Montfort who are also medievalists, so it escapes me that they don’t include this in their course. From my experience of my GCSEs and A Levels, there seems to be a clear push for modern history. Students who have enjoyed this at school may very well thrive at De Montfort but ultimately fail to be given a wider historical focus in the long-run.

 

What Should Be Done

I firmly believe that there should be much more standardisation of history degrees. Students need this Gove-style approach to having periodic study to increase their awareness. Without this enforced study of these earlier periods, students neglect their importance and with it more generations have a limited awareness of the importance of these earlier periods. As Mortimer put forward, the Middle Ages do matter and are essential for understanding the later developments we see today. He is right, we need this appreciation of the further past to be fully aware of the world today. We cannot discount one period for the sake of another.

Researchers should be encouraged to share their interests to universities of all backgrounds. There is a clear need to develop medieval studies at typically lower-ranking institutions. We can improve this through targeted opportunities to place lecturers at other universities, build courses up, and leave the resources needed for this. One way this could be achieved is through Russell Group working with local universities to create an almost outreach programme. For example, the University of Oxford and its Medievalists should work with Oxford Brookes to increase their students’ access to earlier source material. Currently Brooke’s first-year students can study from 1450 onwards. Resources could be shared to create a course encouraging students to think beyond this. In addition, Oxford could work with Brookes to offer small tuition sessions to those interested, say, in the Norman Conquest. We could easily increase the historical awareness of interested students.

Lower-ranked institutions have a narrower field of study, and limited options for their students to study. It is easier for these students to re-study a period they have focused on before. Opposed to studying a new period, the same periods offer us a sense of security enabling us to follow up on what we already know. Pushing students to study outside of their current historical awareness pushes them to appreciate the developments of other periods. These earlier periods provide the necessary foundations for us to see today's developments.

In terms of schooling, more can be done to increase medieval representations in history. Teachers could be given specific training on handling it, ensuring their confidence and allowing them to make informed choices when selecting new papers. The government could also grant access to teaching courses. This would enable those with medieval interests to receive funding to train to teach history and ensure its future in places like schools. These measures may effectively ensure the balance of historical periods being studied going forward.

 

Conclusion

Medieval history should not be a case of love-it-or-hate-it. The limited access to earlier periods at all levels of education impacts students’ perceptions. While the media can further this, it relies on students naturally interested in going and seeking it out. The majority influence, as such, rests on education. Here, there is a clear need to reform teaching to ensure an equal historical awareness is achieved by all students and all institutions. Many at lower ranking institutions face a lack of understanding, as if they are in the dark and might be put off studying the unknown. It is much easier to choose to study we are familiar with than pushing ourselves to try something new. Without structural changes, students will continue to encounter medieval history only by chance—if at all—rather than through intentional academic design.

Sources:

Pearson, Pearson Edexcel Level 1/ Level 2 GCSE (9-1) in History (1HI0), Issue 6, (2024), Accessed 25^th February 2025 via https://qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/GCSE/History/2016/specification-and-sample-assessments/gcse-9-1-history-specification.pdf

Pearson, GCSE (9-1) History Guidance on Paper 1, Thematic Study and Historic Environment, (Unknown), Accessed 25^th February 2025 via https://qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/GCSE/History/2016/Teaching-and-learning-materials/GCSE-History-Paper-1-Guide.pdf

Adams, Richard, “Michael Gove unveils GCSE reforms”, The Guardian, (11 June 2013) Accessed 25^th February 2025 via https://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/jun/11/michael-gove-gcse-reforms

Trafford, Bernard, “History is a victim of Gove’s back-of-an-envelope policies” Tes Magazine, (2 February 2019), Accessed 25^th February 2025 via  https://www.tes.com/magazine/archive/history-victim-goves-back-envelope-policies

Tudum, “Top 10 Most Popular Shows”, Accessed 25^th February 2025 via https://www.netflix.com/tudum/top10/most-popular/tv

Evans, Elinor, “Bridgerton: the real history explained”, History Extra, 16 May 2024, https://www.historyextra.com/period/georgian/bridgerton-real-history-inspiration-historical-accuracy-regency-ton-explained/

“About Catherine”, Madame Gilflurt, https://www.madamegilflurt.com/p/catherine.html

“Best UK universities for history – league table,” The Guardian, (7 September 2024) https://www.theguardian.com/education/ng-interactive/2024/sep/07/best-uk-universities-for-history-league-table

University of York, “BA History”, University of York, (n.d.), Accessed 1^st March 2025 via https://www.york.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/courses/ba-history/#course-content

De Montfort University, “History BA (Hons)”, De Montfort University (n.d.), Accessed 1^st March 2025 via https://www.dmu.ac.uk/study/courses/undergraduate-courses/history-ba-degree/history-ba-degree.aspx

University of Plymouth, “BA (Hons) History”, University of Plymouth, (n.d.), Accessed 1^st March 2025 via https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/courses/undergraduate/ba-history

University of Oxford, “BA History”, Faculty of History – University of Oxford, (n.d.), Accessed 1^st March 2025 via https://www.history.ox.ac.uk/ba-history

Oxford Brookes University, “BA (Hons) History” , Oxford Brookes University, (n.d.), Accessed 1^st March 2025 via https://www.brookes.ac.uk/courses/undergraduate/history

Anon. The History of Marmite You Either Love It Or Hate It Slogan. Accessed: 25 February 2025 via https://www.creativereview.co.uk/you-either-love-it-or-hate-it/ 

 

Anon, “Top 10 Most Popular Shows”, Tudum, Accessed: 25 Febuary 2025 via  https://www.netflix.com/tudum/top10/most-popular/tv

 

Alphey, Tristan, “Monty Python and the Holy Grail: A Review”, An Oxford Historian, 15 November 2021, Accessed 25 February 2025 via https://www.anoxfordhistorian.com/post/monty-python-and-the-holy-grail-a-review

 

BBC, “The Black Pharaohs”, BBC iPlayer, (n.d.), Accessed [25 February 2025] via https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00b5vlq/the-black-pharaohs

 

BBC, “A House Through Time”, BBC iPlayer, (n.d.), Accessed [25 February 2025] via https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b09l64y9/a-house-through-time

---

[1] Originally from the 1996 slogan used by Richard Flintham and Andy McLeod. The History of Marmite You Either Love It Or Hate It Slogan. Accessed: 25 February 2025 via https://www.creativereview.co.uk/you-either-love-it-or-hate-it/

[2] Tudum, “Top 10 Most Popular Shows”, https://www.netflix.com/tudum/top10/most-popular/tv

[3] Evans, Elinor, “Bridgerton: the real history explained”, 16 May 2024, History Extra https://www.historyextra.com/period/georgian/bridgerton-real-history-inspiration-historical-accuracy-regency-ton-explained/

[4] BBC, “A House Through Time”, BBC iPlayer, (n.d.), Accessed [25 February 2025] via https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b09l64y9/a-house-through-time

[5] BBC, “The Black Pharaohs”, BBC iPlayer, (n.d.), Accessed [25 February 2025] via https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00b5vlq/the-black-pharaohs

[6] Alphey, Tristan, “Monty Python and the Holy Grail: A Review”, An Oxford Historian, 15 November 2021, Accessed 25 February 2025 via https://www.anoxfordhistorian.com/post/monty-python-and-the-holy-grail-a-review