Emma: I have followed you from the beginning and all of your presentations have been splendid but this series is truly stunning and will become your grand opus to date. Well filmed, chock full of wonderful information and beautifully presented. So looking forward to your future productions. I truly think the museum will greatly appreciate your efforts in making this extraordinary facility known to the public worldwide.

Pretty cool looking place. It looks to be twice as big as the American Museum of Natural History. Also, that outfit, tho.

Might you consider episodes bringing your geoconservation perspective to things like :- How the museum is there for future scientific investigations unimagined by those who originally collected and curated them? Radioisotope dating and DNA analysis spring to mind as past examples, Artificial intelligence and computational biology for studies to come. How to future-proof collections. What about the upcoming NHM move of collections from South Kensington to the new Thames Valley Science Park facility with the University of Reading and how that will change the experience of using collections - digitisation, more exhibition space in South Ken, different arrangements for expert access, better conditions for preservation.... Bit of a brain-dump going on there but hey, you've got a great format there and can enjoy full editorial control and independence (unlike some people in the news this week).

Very nice, very cool ❤😎👍

Brilliant Emma...and can't wait for more episodes. 👍💘

Toujours un Moment de Détente🔬🍀Beau Travail comme d'habitude🎬Alex France🙏🌌

Hi Emma, this was an amazing presentation. I see you as a geologist and natural history eductaor and presneter on TV and in the media. Sharpen those writing skills for books, TV, scripts and advising on alll things geological very soon. Thank you again.

I love that place , my interests were sparked there too at a very early age . Great vid , can’t wait for the rest , love your hair too , peace ✌️

It would be nice if you can add the names and terms of the creatures. Also a handheld microphone might be a better option for a loud, gathered place like a museum. Great video. I can't wait for more!

Excellent museum review, very educational. I would go just to see the building. I love the story of Hope. Love the necklace too.

Love the natural history museum I have only been once and won tickets. From a dinosaur drawing competition. Great video and information

I've always wanted to go here and this year I'm finally going to go see it!! 😁

Happy you like the architecture as it was a close friend of mine who restored/referbished all the cast iron fixtures fittings, sculptures and railings around the natural history museum. love your vids.

You could be a TV presenter. So good! Have always liked your videos, but you are getting really good at being in front of the camera now 👍👍

Love this, thanks for featuring the NHM! The ceiling is really something to behold!

This is brilliant, Emma! I hope you make more videos like this in more interesting places.

I love this Emma, BBC about to pick this up for a new show!! Thank you for putting in so much work for this new series, we are looking forward to it!

You guys are so lucky! The natural history museum in the Netherlands was closed for public while I grew up. All we got (I lived nearby) was the smell of the maceration tanks outside 😂

Well done, Emma, and I’m looking forward to your next video tour of the museum! 😃👍

I love your passion for the history. I would say the London Natural History Museum is my favourite building in the world, in my least favourite city in the UK. I was always enamoured with the history and curiosities of the LNHM. As you say, it is a cathedral to natural history and a real gem of an architectural wonder. More than that, in it's very terracotta, and in it's story, it is a symbol of it's age, as part of Owen's own views, and his machinations within high society, as well as a surviving metaphor of a bygone age. And inside it, are treasures far greater than it's own architecture, and yet they are so beautifully there it is true. The story of the origins and development of the LNHM (originally, just considered an extension of the British Museum over by Trafalgar Square, and named as such for a long time), is one of my favourite in palaeontology. It's a genuine classic. Speaking of which, one of the subjects I did at college before university was Classical Civilisation. I could have talked for hours about the architectural wonders of the LNHM or the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, back then (I still could but I'll spare you) The British ironworking mastery by then, during the High Victorian Era, had reached something of it's zenith in that time, for what it was anyway (higher grades and scales of steel-working, stainless steel manufacture and it's integration into architecture, were to surpass what the Victorians had - for the longest time, wrought and cast iron, but they did have steel and other types of iron, iron alloys and other alloys of different metals) They were still masters of what they were doing, though, with what they had. I would argue that the Victorians had done with certain architecture metalwork, what the English of the 1600's had achieved with carved oak and other types of wood (there has never been, nor shall there likely ever be, finer woodwork than what they achieved, in the 17th century; even in the 18th century, a type when Britain famously built naval walls of wood, and the carvings were still ornate and exquisite, they revered those in the 17th century prior, and there are still a few remaining examples of it in London and elsewhere in England. It is beyond impressive. Even 18th century woodwork is arguably far better than most of what came after. But that is kind of the point. The same can be said of Victorian ironwork. It was 'their thing', and they intertwined it into their stonework and masonry, and were masters beyond anything possible for the glass and steel monstrosities seen in London today. It was a different age, and a far more beautiful architectural effort. There are so many layers to the story of that museum, that it can be quite moving just thinking about what it really represented and represents, to so many people, deceased and living. It is a crucible of palaeontological excellence and academic achievement in our field. And it has stood the test of time as a national treasure. Anyone can see. Nevertheless, Owen's very ideologies and philosophies were - by his constant nagging interference with the long-suffering architects; just how he 'instructed' Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins with the Crystal Palace Park sculptures of Dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals; as in, in his inimitably aloof and annoying way - interwoven into the design and construction of the London Natural History Museum. Originally, the bilaterally symmetrical wings were divided between exhibits with living animals (extant) and long-dead animals (extinct) This may seem like a simple design feature and one which is essentially innocuous, though Owen, a God-fearing man, was expressing his very will and forthright opinions into the architecture. Perhaps it was too subtle for most to see, but for him, it was manifestly obvious; God maketh, and God destroyeth. God bringeth, and God taketh away. The separate wings, as they were originally organised (long, long since changed for different layouts, of course), were deliberately divided being extant and extinct, down the middle. And the carvings on the building tell that story as well. One side of the building has living animals, like wolves, and the other, extinct animals, like Pterosaurs (or 'Pterodactyls' as they would call them) There was a deliberate meaning in this. It was no accident. And it was a _Creationist_ Palaeontologist's idea of how to demonstrate a giant counter riposte to the Darwinian side of the argument. Ironically, it only served to vindicate Darwin even further and faster than ever before. Darwin and Owen had once been great friends. Owen even named an extinct giant ground sloth from South America, called _Mylodon darwinii_ after him, though it was Darwin whom found those fossils (I believe in Chile, if memory serves, from a cave literally called, Mylodon Cave, at least now) And Darwin was not ever really interested in arguing with Owen. Yet Owen strongly opposed his Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, even resorting to hounding and insulting Darwin via an alias in the papers (though with levels of interpersonal knowledge and scientific knowledge, and a writing style, which clearly indicated whom it really was, to Darwin; it was quite patronising to Darwin for Owen to really believe he didn't know who it was; or perhaps that was part of the point, to annoy him more) Owen vociferously defended the idea of a 'Divine Blueprint' of the Tetrapodal form. He thought that God tweaked it and made new animals, according to bauplans like the bilaterally symmetrical one in tetrapods, or the radially symmetrical one in most jellyfish. The problems with Owen are many, and one of them was his (let's face it) atrociously poor attitude to his colleagues (for a variety of reasons) He was neither a champion of the common people, though he did enjoy their attention during lectures to the general public. He had a much more lavish and entitled life, compared to say, 'Darwin's Bulldog', Thomas Henry Huxley. Owen had cut his teeth in scientific study, in the 1820's, long before Darwin and Owen fell out. There may have been some sympathy from Owen, though he was no hero to the working class. He taught Queen Victoria's grandchildren Biology classes and was honoured numerous times for his work. At least, earlier in his bejewelled and glittering career (at least as long as people put up with his shenanigans, such as, you know, ruining people's lives and casual plagiarism he clearly thought nobody would be smart enough to trace back to him) Owen is this titan of early palaeontology, and English/British palaeontology of course. Though he was a deeply, deeply flawed man, and he became increasingly mistaken with his ideas in palaeontology, as well as punished for his transgressions against other scientists whom frankly didn't deserve his behaviour. For instance, when he used all his influence to buy a new specimen (the 'London Specimen', as it became known) of _Archaeopteryx lithographica_ to be able to study and describe it before most other comparative anatomists like him could, he shifted the blame for the large price-tag of the specimen to colleagues in the museum (I think the palaeontologist Henry Woodward, though it has been a long while since I read 'Bones of Contention', a great read, which covered this, and I borrowed the book to someone at university years ago and never got it back sadly, so I may have mixed up the name with someone else, but the point is, Owen didn't mind passing the blame for his own schemes) He was very dishonest. And to be fair, as much as the board of governors were annoyed at the price-tag of the _Archaeopteryx lithographica_ it is more or less arguable that Owen had somewhat ripped off Hermann von Meyer, the Bavarian (German) fossil collector whom found the first specimens in the Solnhofen Limestone (Formation) Expensive for the day yes, but still a bargain. Even the name 'Archaeopteryx' triggered Owen, because he didn't like the name and zealously intended to use the specimen to minimise it's Avian features, and he tried desperately to make everyone think it was just a lizard-like reptile called 'Griphosaurus longicaudatus' (whose name is thankfully relegated to _nomen rejectum_ which I think is pretty self-explanatory) Owen thought that by acquiring the evidence of evolutionary transition fossils first, he could get his paws all over defining what they were, and shaping the narrative. It was pretty underhanded, though he also knew the creature was important. Thankfully, Darwin and others were having none of that nonsense, and Owen's stunt didn't end up achieving much in the long-run. The likes of men like Thomas Henry Huxley had begun to note the bird-like qualities of the (Mid) Jurassic Dinosaur, _Megalosaurus bucklandii_ in the Oxford University Museum of Natural History (which was brand new at that time) in 1861. It was a bright and insightful observation, demonstrating how perceptive and wise Thomas Henry Huxley was. Huxley never had the upbringing of Owen. [part 1/2; part 2 below]

It's definitely a place I've wanted to visit

Excellente vidéo emma 😊😊👍👍

I love your video's !!!

Very nice

Great idea .

This is great. 😃 You're going places for sure😊.

Great video, thank you so much!

Loved it!

On Friday 31st March the NHM opens their Titanosaur exhibit. Could you possibly fit a speedy review around your regular work and get it onto a really special Fossil Friday ? Might bring even more people to your channel if it catches the YT algorithm just right.

Thank you! This is amazing!!!!

Your a natural in front of the camera Emma more of the same please.

Emma! Never say "it's just a theory." The phrase is more than frequently used by the creationists on this side of the pond. I hear it so often I think I've developed an allergy! ;-)

I wanna know what Micraster is, I want you to showww me

I've been to the...

Too bad museums aren't free anymore, not in Australia anyway. 😢

It's very much better than the Hungarian Natural History Museum.

Already an exceptional narrator and presenter. Emma, you remind me of Professor Bettany Hughes with your knowledge and enthusiasm. Keep up the good work and best of luck going forward!