This was the response from a 9-year-old school pupil when asked; ‘Why do you like Horrible Histories?’ An adequate thesis? Perhaps not…but accurate? Yes. With 25 million copies sold, 500,000 viewers per episode, and a feature length film, Horrible Histories has earned its place in the history books. The mammoth brand of children’s history-based entertainment has gone from strength to strength since Terry Deary’s 1993 inaugural book. With his unique, irreverent style of ‘blood, guts and gore’ comedy, Deary set out on a mission to subvert the elitist, conservative, and stultifying school history lessons that he experienced.

Horrible Histories has expanded furthermore! Leaping off the page and screen in the form of stage shows taking place at the country’s biggest heritage sites such as Hampton Court Palace, boat tours along the River Thames and museum exhibitions at the Imperial War Museum. The very nature of this post-structural style of schooling invites criticism and adversaries. The role and impact of Horrible Histories is a contested topic because it is highly emotive. Put simply; people care. They care about their children’s education, tradition, and they care about the future. Yet, the debate surrounding Horrible Histories’ pedagogical style is also indicative of a wider conversation concerning the way that children should be taught history and reveals the divides between academic and public historians concerning the value of entertainment within teaching and indeed, the heritage and museum industry.

It is precisely this reason that I could justify studying Horrible Histories for my Undergraduate dissertation. I knew that there was more to its success than we can initially perceive. It is now salient, one year on from my dissertation submission and having studied an MA in Heritage Management, that the considered formula behind Horrible Histories can be extended across many aspects of heritage studies. Horrible Histories is a nuanced piece of public history which is unique in being able to effectively combine adverse methods of education entertainment and sophistication – convincing us that they are bedfellows.

Laurajane Smith’s 2006 concept of Authorised Heritage Discourse (AHD) has reared its head in many heritage and museum studies debates in recent times, arguably in response to an increased call for ancestral accountability within the heritage field and museum education. (Smith, 2006, Uses of Heritage) Can we not therefore view the success of Horrible Histories as an indication that the younger members of society are calling for a variety of heritage presentation and consumption too?  The 20-year long partnership between Horrible Histories and the Imperial War Museum (IWM) is demonstrable of the necessity of alternative presentation of history in the museum and heritage industry. From Blitzed Brits Exhibitions, Horrible Spies experiences and even a Horrible Christmas panto, the IWM often exceed their target educational visitor numbers, even by just under 200% in 2016-17.

The very categorisation of Horrible Histories as a piece of edutainment justifies its use as an educational tool, in the classroom and in museums. When one considers works of history alongside their intended aims, as Arthur Marwick contends, their benefits can be adequate and fairly judged. (Marwick, 2001, The New Nature of History) Horrible Histories’ purpose was to provide alternative history lessons which fixated more on day-to-day people than grand figures and battles, according to Deary. His book ‘Measly Middle Ages’ for example devotes a whole chapter to domesticity and consumption. In doing this, Deary is employing a Marxist material approach in his work by showing that economic and domestic factors shaped the lives of most people, rather than grand battles and feasts.

Furthermore, the weaponisation of considered and appropriate humour throughout the franchise aids content digestion among target audiences. Through the use of an irreverent and carnivalesque tone, Deary is able to create a sense of familiarity and kinship with the reader and bypass the occasionally patronising and monotonous styles of children’s historical literature. In general, children see learning and education in tandem with authority but with both being in opposition to fun, therefore they are often reluctant to embrace it. By subverting this dynamic through humour, children can see learning, facts, and knowledge as something to enjoy.

Critics of Horrible Histories argue that it encourages children to laugh at history, rather than think about it, or that it instils the belief that children cannot learn if they are not having fun. When it comes to museum and heritage interpretation however, I ask, why would children be interested in history if they cannot do what interests them whilst engaging with it? Take the Terrible Thames Tour fTerrible Thames Touror example, which sailed from April-October 2021. It was tailored for children, playing to their style of engagement and learning. For example, the script is based around the ‘child’ host – Billy’s – family, who plays the role of the rebellious pupil mocking the teacher. At one point in the script, Billy makes fun of the teacher’s age, stating that they would have been present when the Tower of London was first built.

Perhaps we can account for the success of Horrible Histories in Heritage to its considered and sophisticated approach to edutainment, as well as their inclusion of humour. It adopts a franchise-wide post-structuralist approach to history, yet also satisfies critics of the genre by mitigating concerns of post-structuralism such as a lack of narrativity and the negative effects of reality deconstruction. Certain TV sketches such as ‘Bob Hale,’ the weatherman alternative who narrates timelines of battles and events, along with considered chapter placement in books whilst encouraging a rejection of a linear historical social progression, seek to mitigate these concerns.

For the Terrible Thames tour, the trademark poststructuralist and revisionist account of heritage is adopted. The tour provides alternative readings of history, both from a political perspective as well as highlighting harder histories, typically ignored by the national curriculum, such as the Transatlantic Slave Trade. Similarly, throughout Terry Deary’s books, different interpretations of history encourage academic engagement with the presented material. In Deary’s ‘USA’ book, the common glorification of Lincoln as a modern and progressive character is discredited – ‘he was still a racist. He wanted free blacks, but he didn’t want equal blacks.’ This is consolidated by an excerpt from the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debate. By positioning source extracts next to revisionist interpretations, Horrible Histories is demonstrating the need for evidence when reaching conclusions in historical study.

The debate surrounding the use of humour in historical education has many arguments which can be extended to the heritage and museum sector. Heritage vs tourism, tradition vs modernity, fun vs. learning, authority vs. the masses are all dichotomies which scholars, museum curators and heritage interpreters struggle with when constructing an appropriate, educational, engaging, and accessible exhibition or event. However, these do not have to be antithetical. The success of the Horrible Histories franchise, in books and boats, museums and classrooms, demonstrates the importance of not getting weighed down by the constraints of AHD, instead tailoring effective and enjoyable forms of public history for the younger generation. If they laugh in the process who cares? It means they are having fun! They are leaving museums asking questions and being encouraged to think about history in different ways, and maybe even to take a risk one day and write a dissertation on a post-structuralist poo-based pedagogy.

This blog was based on work submitted for Undergraduate and Postgraduate degrees.

Matilda-Jane Hanning is a Postgraduate student studying for an MA in Heritage Management with Historic Royal Palaces, at Queen Mary University of London. She focuses on alternative approaches to heritage engagement and is currently studying the use of humour in public history. Please email [email protected] for enquiries.