Michael Deacon

Investigating David Starkey is an absurd waste of police time

Dr David Starkey has long had a habit of expressing contentious opinions in interviews. There are any number of examples, on all manner of subjects. In 2009, for instance, he told BBC History Magazine that, a lot of the time, Henry VIII was actually a pretty good husband.

“Henry likes women,” said Dr Starkey (speaking, as is often his way, about historical figures in the present tense). “Henry is only happy with women around him… When Catherine of Aragon is pregnant, he’s all solicitude… I would use the word ‘tender’. He is a tender husband.”

Now, I wouldn’t dream for a moment of questioning Dr Starkey’s expertise on this subject. After all, he’s one of the world’s foremost authorities on Tudor England. He’s written numerous books on Henry VIII, and presented several TV series about him. I, by contrast, have written and presented precisely none.

Even so, to a layman like me, this particular claim did come as something of a surprise. It certainly didn’t chime with what little I knew of the subject.

If only we could ask Henry’s wives what they think.

“Oh yes, it’s perfectly true. Henry and I had a wonderful marriage. People nowadays don’t seem to realise what a great husband he was, which I think is a real shame, because with me he was always so kind, sensitive and considerate. Lots of little romantic gifts and gestures. Never forgot our anniversary. Always noticed when I’d had my hair cut. In fact, the two of us were really very happy together. If you don’t count that one time he had me executed in the Tower of London.

“Apart from that, though, lovely guy. For a while, I was actually quite keen to get back together with him, but my friends talked me out of it. They said that once a Tudor monarch has had you executed in the Tower of London, you shouldn’t give him a second chance.”

Despite Dr Starkey’s longstanding renown in the field of Tudor history, however, his reputation has taken a serious and possibly irreparable hit. Back in June, he gave a video interview in which he argued that the slave trade wasn’t genocide – because if it had been, “there wouldn’t be so many damn blacks”.

Uproar ensued. Among other things, those words swiftly cost Dr Starkey a book deal, his honorary fellowship at a Cambridge college, and a medal for services to history that he’d been awarded 19 years earlier.

Three months passed. The matter seemed to be closed. But apparently not.

Now, Dr Starkey is being investigated by the police over his comments. In a statement, the Metropolitan Police said it had been “passed an allegation from Durham Police of a public order offence relating to a social media video”, and that officers had begun an investigation. The man who conducted and published the interview, Darren Grimes, is also being investigated.

Personally, I think this is ridiculous. Of course what Dr Starkey said in his interview was bigoted, ugly and wrong. He himself has accepted that it was “a bad mistake” and has apologised repeatedly.

For the police to get involved, however, is surely unnecessary. First of all, Dr Starkey has already been punished. Look at all that he’s lost. And second: is this investigation really in the public interest? Naturally, the police are obliged to look into the complaints they receive. But do we seriously want the video’s publisher dragged in for questioning? Is there a huge and irresistible wave of demand for this? Are millions of people across this country really saying: “You know what’s at the forefront of my mind, in the midst of what threatens to be the worst pandemic in a century, with tens of thousands dead in Britain alone, and businesses going bust, millions in fear for their livelihoods, a second full lockdown looming, and no guarantee of an effective vaccine this year, next year or maybe even ever?

“Well, I’ll tell you. It’s a clip from over three months ago of a TV historian being interviewed by some obscure little twerp on a social networking website most people don’t use. That’s what’s really worrying me and my family right now. And I for one will not rest easy until the matter has reached the highest court in the land.”

Is that what the nation is saying? I could be wrong, but I’m not convinced. In fact, I’d go further. If, for example, I’d recently been burgled or mugged, and the police had made little headway in bringing the miscreant to justice, I’d probably be somewhat disappointed to learn that officers were otherwise occupied investigating a video of a minor celebrity trashing his own reputation on the internet.

Then we come to another matter: freedom of the press. Grimes may well have demonstrated himself to be an interviewer of outstanding naivety, who at the time failed to challenge Dr Starkey’s remarks. But, however offensive those remarks were, a publisher should surely be free to publish them. If an interviewee has said something appalling, the public has a right to know – and to see, hear or read it for itself.

In the end, it’s hard to see what a police investigation will achieve – other than to turn Grimes into a martyr for free speech, and thereby giving an inadvertent boost to his career as an online culture warrior. His followers will defend him. His critics will sympathise with him. And, as a result, his audience will grow.

Grimes has deplored the investigation as a “contemptible way for the Metropolitan Police to abuse taxpayers’ money and the trust of citizens”. But it may, if anything, end up helping him.

Is this really what the nation wants in the midst of a pandemic?