Lucy's conclusions, concerning Autocracy as "the way power works in Russia", were extremely suspect. She correctly stated that it was the Romanov's autocracy that paved the way for what we have in Russia today. But she utterly failed to point out that this was the direct result of one bunch of autocrats - Lenin and the Bolsheviks - seizing power from another bunch of autocrats - the Romanovs. She also failed to mention that Alexander II's reforms, correctly implemented, would have inevitably led to a Russian kind of constitutional monarchy - and also that it was Nicholas II's wish to implement his grandfather's reforms - should the allies win the war. It was his hope that the Provisional Government would be able to carry this through where he had not, which was the central reason for his abdication. None of this was said.
The part on Rasputin was superficial and emotionless - and failed to get to the heart of Rasputin as a man. If you are interested in the real man, read Maria Rasputin's book on her father or find a copy of Rene Fulop-Mueller's 1928 book on the man. As for the assassination, she failed to mention that the fatal shots were likely fired by an agent of British Intelligence - Oswald Rayner. Indeed the involvement of British Intelligence in the murder, and recently broadcast on BBC2's Timewatch. was completely ignored.
As for the fate of the family, well, again, where do I start? What are the "most sources", that Lucy mentioned in her presentation that "agree" on what happened? The gaping holes in the protocol of Yakov Yurovsky were never mentioned. Neither was a ballistic fact. That eleven men firing pistols and rifles in a small stone room at a group of terrified people, some of whom were, by her own admission, wearing the equivalent of armour plating, would likely have killed themselves before any of the people they were firing at. And that's only the start. For more, consult the reading list at the back of my novel and judge for yourselves.
In the end this was very poor history. Most of the "facts" Lucy presented could have been culled from standard English text books. And the part on Nicholas II was very skewed, in favour of showing that autocracy is the only way to hold power in Russia, having simultaneously showed that it was this very concentration on autocracy that led to the end of Romanov rule in the first place.
In fact, as I pointed out earlier, the October Revolution of 1917 merely replaced an autocratic family - the Romanovs - with the Red Autocracy of the Bolsheviks. The possible democratic Revolution of February 1917 was over-run by a bunch of power-hungry men who had been playing the long game since the assassination of Alexander II in 1881. And Russia is still suffering from the effects of this today.
Finally. This programme was "presented" by Lucy Worsley. But who wrote it? This went unsaid...