Dan Snow's History Hit - Kings and Queens: Villains, Heroes and Rulers

Episode Date: November 23, 2022

Dan teams up with his parents and esteemed journalists Peter Snow and Ann MacMillan to explore the lives, loves, triumphs and disasters of a monarchy that is the envy of the world. They offer a unique insight into those born to rule, whether villains or heroes – from cruel King John and warrior-king Edward III to our own Elizabeth II: dutiful, discreet and the longest-reigning queen in the world.Their new book is called 'Kings and Queens: The Real Lives of Monarchs' Produced by Dan Snow and edited by Dougal Patmore. If you'd like to learn more, we have hundreds of history documentaries, ad-free podcasts and audiobooks at History Hit - subscribe to History Hit today!Download History Hit app from the Google Play store.Download History Hit app from the Apple Store.

Hi everyone, welcome to Dan Snow's History. Like them or loathe them. You can't get away from them. Kings and Queens. The Kings and Queens of England, Britain and the United Kingdom. In this podcast I'm talking about the good, the bad and the distinctly average. I've got very special guests on this podcast because, yes, it's another episode where you'll be listening, you'll be treated to a little sense of what it's like around the Snow family dinner table. It's my mum and dad, Peter Snow and Anne Macmillan. They have written a new book on the kings and queens. They got it published just in time to rush out a final chapter on Charles III. Good timing from them. And I want to get them on the podcast and just hear about who they thought were some of the

best and worst. None of this starting at 1066 nonsense. None of this William I. We're going all the way back. We're going back to Alfred. So you'll be hearing about Edgar and Athelstan, as well as Edward and Anne. When you're writing history, when you're studying history, you think to yourself, I'm going to try and avoid the kings and queens. It's so boring. Everyone always talks about them. They're so ingrained, inserted into British life and British history that it's almost impossible to write history, to tell stories about the kingdoms, the nations of these islands without paying attention to who was sitting on the throne. So here's my brilliant mum and dad, the people I owe it all to. Dad,

my brilliant mum and dad, the people I owe it all to. Dad, well into his 80s now, after six decades of journalism and writing and thinking about history, and my mum, not quite as old, but with an equally illustrious track record in TV broadcasting. Here they are, Pete Snow and Anne Macmillan. Hope you enjoy this podcast, even a fraction as much as I've enjoyed being their son. Hello, Mom and Dad. Welcome back on the podcast. Thank you. Thank you, Dad. Everyone loves Kings and Queens. There's so many books out about Kings and Queens. I suppose the death of our late and lamented queen has only increased the appetite to learn about her forebears. I mean, they are an extraordinary collection of people. We've studied 60 of them, from Alfred the Great right up to King Charles III.

And it just is a fascinating study of human character and nature and what people do when they're presented with huge power. Okay, so what we thought we'd do is we'll look at some categories. I mean, first of all, best and worst, easy. What are your top five? Did you agree between yourselves or have you got different favourites? I think we disagree about some of them. I have to admit that I went for, you know, obvious ones like Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Elizabeth II, but I quite like some of the ones that history has not been very kind to. For example, William the Conqueror's son, William Rufus, with his red face,

who was King of England for a short time. And he spent most of his reign fighting with his brother, Robert, Duke of Normandy. And he actually managed to defeat Robert, take over most of Normandy, as well as being King of England. He put Robert in the end in a castle and kept him prisoner. But what I liked about him was that he was quite a fashionable chap. He loved shoes, for example. And there's some lovely ancient pictures of him wearing very pointed, lovely shoes.

That's a minor point. But he also was responsible for rebuilding many of London's treasures, like London Bridge. He added to the Tower of London. He also built Westminster Hall in the Palace of Westminster. So I think he is underrated. And of course, he came to a very sticky end. He was hunting in the New Forest, and he was struck by an arrow and killed. A totally unfortunate hunting accident that his younger brother Henry did definitely have no part in. While I've got you though, you're talking about building there. Is it possible over the 1500 years almost that you've looked at to talk about, are there such things like universally good and bad things to do? Or has it changed so much

that the demands of a constitutional monarch now are so different from the requirements of a Athelstan or Alfred to slaughter Vikings? years ago, 1200 years ago, until the time roughly of James I, was that they could exercise power and do good and bad and so on and behave themselves well, hopefully, and make the right judgments. But now, of course, it's different. It's on the whole, they keep their mouths shut and just exercise a sort of role as a figurehead, as a kind of mantle of continuity and tradition that allows all the politics to go on rushing away in tumult underneath them while the sort of Union Jack flies over Buckingham Palace. That's why we loved writing this book,

because this is a time of great change from Queen Elizabeth to her son, King Charles. And it was just fascinating to go back and see who their predecessors were. And like you, Dan, we love telling stories. And there are fewer wonderful stories in the world than stories about British monarchs. Okay, so we've got Mum coming in unexpectedly with William II.

Did not see that one coming as one of her top five. Dad, anyone else in the top five? I'd like to go back to good old Alfred. You can't not include Alfred in the top three, frankly. I mean, he was an extraordinarily successful king. I mean, he was a philosopher king, frankly. He was a man who unbelievably couldn't read until he was growing up. But when he could read, when he did grow up, he was an extraordinary study and education in learning and knowledge. His biographer said he was absolutely fascinated by knowledge. knowledge. His biographer said he was absolutely fascinated by knowledge. He did great things. Alfred, although, of course, William McConquery came along and bashed up everything the Anglo-Saxons, or not quite everything the Anglo-Saxons had done. Alfred's legacy of local government, of the boroughs, which he invented, all this kind of stuff, the English language,

England, the word England, all these things Alfred did, which have stayed with us for 1,200 years. So Alfred, great chap. But having said that, I think one of my favorites, unusual perhaps to choose him, is Henry II. I think Henry II, who reigned for quite a long time, some 30 years, he was an extraordinarily powerful warrior. And also his love life yielded him an empire, a massive empire, almost half of Western France. Aquitaine became his when he married Eleanor of Aquitaine, who was, of course, married to the King of France, but he dumped her because she couldn't have any sons for him. So Eleanor went off and married Henry II, and they, between them, were a terrific pair. And they won Aquitaine for the English Empire. And I think the other thing to say about Henry was that he sensed very early on that the church had far too much power so did some of his

predecessors so these successors of course up to including Henry VIII but Henry tried to tackle it Henry II middle of the 12th century way before before Henry VIII, when he pulled down the Catholic Church, Henry II tried very hard to persuade his mate, Thomas Beckett, to recognize that the Catholic Church, as it was then, had much too much power. They could have their own legal system. They could judge their priests whether they were good or bad without any reference to the civil code. And so Henry said, I've got to deal with this. I've got to deal with this. I've got to deal with this church. And of course, tragically, he failed because Beckett, whom he'd appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, hoping that his friend would follow along and make that great gesture,

recognizing the church was too powerful, Beckett refused. And of course, that was very sad and disastrous. And Henry, of course, ended up, tragically, ended up at war with his sons. Can I just throw in another unexpected favorite of mine? Yeah, go for it. Queen Anne. I completely agree with you. Because I watched that film, The Favorite, years ago and thought, oh, what a useless woman that is.

But when you actually read about her and learn about her, you discover that she had a tough life. She wasn't expected to become queen. Her father was the younger brother of Charles II. It was thought he would have children with his wife. And if not, it was thought that their father, James II, would have a son. Anne and her sister, older sister Mary, they weren't even called princesses. They were just called Lady Mary and Lady Anne, and they weren't well-educated. They were taught sewing and singing. They just

were not expected to rule. Queen Anne was pregnant at least 17 times. Only five of her children survived childbirth. All of them died before the age of 11, three of them from smallpox. And at the age of 37, when she took over, she was crippled by gout and rheumatism. She had to be carried to her coronation in a sedan chair. She had the most boring husband from Denmark. Charles II famously said about him, I've tried him drunk.

I've tried him sober. I've tried him sober. There's nothing to him. But she hung in and she used to attend cabinet meetings. She was wheeled into cabinet meetings. She didn't play politics. She was equally fair to the nascent political parties. And I think that she did her very, very best. I love Queen Anne. Okay, so we've got Alfred Henry, William II, and any others towards the top of the list? Well, I'm quite keen on Edward IV. I mean, why not? He was very naughty. He had far too many mistresses and affairs and things, but he was the one who finished the Wars of the Roses. I mean, he was very determined to sort the thing out. As Duke of York, he was a very fine fellow. He realised what was wrong with the country.

He realised that the hopeless chap, Henry VI, who, Lancastrian, who was a king for a very long time, was simply incompetent, pathetic, a very religious, very pious, not a very good man, but just hopelessly brittle and incompetent and unable to administer a country. And so he decided to put it right. And he had to fight very hard. And of course, the tragedy of all of this period, the Wars of the Roses, was the number of people who died. But Edward was triumphant. The Duke of York was triumphant. He beat Henry VI once. And then Henry came back, of course, and had a go at him. And then he finally defeated the amazing Margaret of Anjou, who was Edward VI's wife, who determined to fight on at the Battle of Tewkesbury. And Edward IV then became king.

And he was really quite a good king. I think Edward IV deserves a place in history as a good king. Can we go back and say Edward III as well? Sure. Another Edward who was a brilliant king. His only problem was that he lived too long. king. His only problem was that he lived too long. He became a bit senile and all the very wise advisors who, unlike many of his predecessors, he actually listened to and conferred with and took advice from, they had all passed away by the time he got into old age. He unfortunately collapsed

and went into senility, but his early life was fantastic. He was a renowned warrior. He was a wise ruler. He was a good family man. I liked him. Okay, very good. Everyone always usually says Elizabeth Tudor, Elizabeth I. Did you guys rate her on your rampage through British history? Oh, definitely. Because the great thing about Elizabeth was that after the dreadful fights between Catholics and Protestants under Mary, Edward VI and Henry. Elizabeth very wisely, and she had enormously good advice from the Cecils, her top advisors. She was very wise. She didn't want to increase the divide between the two religions. And she was very careful not to push it too hard, with one single exception. When Mary, Queen of Scots came along as the

suggested successor, a cousin of hers, of course, and looked like the natural successor to a woman who wouldn't have children, Elizabeth wouldn't have children. And there was Mary, Queen of Scots, the probable obvious successor. Elizabeth decided, no, I can't let her take over. One, because she's a bit of a conspiracy type. I don't really trust her. But secondly, she is a Catholic. We can't have that.

And so, tragically, of course, Mary Queen of Scots goes and gets executed on Elizabeth's orders, effectively. And rather ironically, I think, James VI of Scotland, Mary Queen of Scots' son, becomes king, succeeding Elizabeth. She must have maddened her advisors in not providing an heir, which was so important in those days. This is the Down Snows History. We're talking kings and queens. All coming up.

On Gone Medieval, History Hits Medieval podcast. We're here to spoil you with the big topics. Possibly one of the most important Anglo-Saxon discoveries since Sutton Hoo and the Staffordshire Horde. And discover people you might never have heard of. Philip Augustus, genuinely, he was a genius. We explore cutting-edge research. I want to focus on the archaeology. It's a whole body of information and knowledge in its own right.

And the big questions. There is discussion about whether women wore knickers. From everyday life to dynasty-shattering events. The key to conquest was cavalry and the short, extremely powerful bow the Mongols had. I'm Dr Kat Jarman. And I'm Matt Lewis. Every Tuesday and Saturday, we'll explore some of the biggest stories, the greatest mysteries and latest research.

We'll travel the medieval world in search of the stories you haven't heard and get under the skin of the ones you do know. Subscribe to Gone Medieval from History Hit, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Matt Lewis. And I'm Dr. Eleanor Yonaga. And in Gone Medieval, we get into the greatest mysteries. The gobsmacking details and latest groundbreaking research. From the greatest millennium in human history.

We're talking Vikings. Normans. Kings and popes. Who were rarely the best of friends. Murder. Rebellions. And crusades. Find out who we really were.

By subscribing to Gone Medieval from History Hit, wherever you get your podcasts. Okay, let's move on to worse monarchs now. Quite a lot to choose from here. There's a very long tale of British monarchs. What do we think? My absolute most hated monarch in a thousand years is Edward VIII, the man who fell in love with an American twice-divorced Wallace Simpson. The more I learned about him, the more I despised him. He started out at a very early age, hating his family, hating the monarchy. He wrote letters to his married mistresses when he was in his 20s, the dashing young Prince of Wales who looked so happy and elegant and charming. And he'd write letters after he'd been going around shaking people's hands saying, I hate this job. I despise

my life. I should shoot myself if I ever became king. So he was a disaster from the start. And his father couldn't stand him, George V. He was just really selfish and spoiled and not the least bit interested in doing his duty as so many of his ancestors had done and continued to do after him. So I really have no time for that man. And I'm very glad he abdicated. And I love Noel Coward's comment, which was that every village green should put up a statue to Wallace Simpson because she spared us from a long reign of King Edward VIII. I mean, obviously, I'm for King John and King Richard III.

I'm a bit more about them in a moment if you like but I think the chap I'd pick out as being really one of the worst inferences on British history was James I James VI of Scotland who became James I of England I mean he was responsible really for that rascally dynasty of the Stuarts I mean there's very little to say good about the Stuarts

I think except Quiddle William III who gave us constitutional government but the thing about James I is that he was greedy. He was obsessed with himself. He actually used the expression divine right of kings. He infected his son, Charles I, who of course ended us up with that ghastly civil war because he, like his father James, believed that kings could do what they wanted to do. And James felt that way. And he had some hopeless characters who he asked to advise him. He had a useless man who was very good looking, apparently, which some suspect may have been one of the reasons James I liked him so much, the Duke of Buckingham. Duke of Buckingham was absolutely ludicrous character who failed in

the military sphere, who was greedy like James himself, and who corrupted James too and encouraged him to believe that he could do no wrong. And James, for 19 of his 22 years in power, he dissolved Parliament. How he got away with it, I have no idea. I think possibly because the one achievement of James I was that he ruled a country at peace for the world. That was a great breakthrough for James I, that there was no war with France, there was no war with Spain. He was, on the whole, at peace, and that meant the country prospered. But under his ludicrous rule, his hopelessly spoilt and arrogant and fraud feckless rule the country did true prosper but he himself I think was a terrible king. I also took a great dislike to Edward II who reigned

from 1307 to 1327 he was one of the Plantagenets his father Edward I was a great king Edward II was a useless king and Edward III was a great king this often happens particularly with the Plantagenets. You start out with a bad one, then a good one, then a bad one, then a good one. Anyway, Edward II's major problem was he allowed himself to be dominated by unscrupulous men. The first one was Piers Gaveston, who told Edward that he could do whatever he liked and not just pay attention to the barons who were putting more and more pressure on Edward to toe the line. And Gaveston gave him very bad advice. And when the nobles finally said, you must get rid of your evil advisors or you won't get any money from us, he did actually

agree to Gaveston being banished. Gaveston came back on his bidding, on Edward's bidding, and was quickly disposed of by the nobles. He was murdered. Edward II then became involved with a father and son, the Hugh Dispensers, just Hugh the Elder and Hugh the Younger. Dispenser the Younger was particularly odious and was detested by Edward's wife, Isabella of France. And when Edward sent his wife to sort out a quarrel with the French king, who happened to be her brother, she just stayed there. She didn't come back. And she put out a very wonderful declaration saying, I cannot continue with unmentionable men dominating my husband. I'm not coming back until he goes, meaning to Spencer. And it made your dad and I think of Princess Diana in that infamous

Martin Bashir interview when she said there were three of us in our marriage. It was a bit crowded. Well, Isabella felt the same. She ended up coming back to England, head of a victorious army, and captured young dispenser and Edward. Young dispenser was put on the top of a 50-foot ladder so that all and sundry could see him being disemboweled and quartered. Poor old the king was locked up, was told he had to hand his crown over to his son, the wonderful Edward III. This was the first time an English king had ever been deposed. And he died, probably murdered, maybe by smothering or that terrible thought of having a hot poker shoved up his behind. I think you have to do as someone who's writing about the royal families,

take sides in the argument about Richard III. And I'm afraid I take the side. You may say it's not very woke to do it, but I take sides against the Ricardians. Richard III undoubtedly was an extremely brave man. He fought very valiantly for his brother, Edward IV. He fought very valiantly, of course, at the Battle of Bosworth and died fighting singly against great opposition.

And also he had a very successful parliament in 1484. He believed in legal reform. And Richard, on the other hand, was a man who, like a lot of other kings, was determined to make sure that nobody got in his way. He was determined to make sure that once he was king, and he went out of his way to make sure he was king, he didn't brook any opposition. And he couldn't tolerate heirs. And the heirs that worried him, of course, were his nephews, the two princes in the tower. I can't help feeling if anybody who studies what happened between April and June 1483 cannot help come to the conclusion that Richard III was out to make sure either that they

were simply put away and somehow captive forever or murdered. And I'm afraid, although, of course, nobody knows for certain what happened to the princes of the Tower, whether they were murdered or not. Edward V, the young lad by 12, whose coronation was planned, which would, of course, have excluded Richard III, Richard of Gloucester, from being king. His coronation was postponed by Richard. Richard King. His coronation was postponed by Richard. Richard encouraged the idea that Edward and his brother Richard, Hugh of York, were illegitimate, that they weren't really Edward IV's children. He did everything he could to make sure that they could not legitimately succeed their father, Edward IV. Thomas More, he wrote a history, which I tend to believe is probably right and true

that Richard was indeed the murderer, the order of the murder of the two princes of the Tower and after all Richard instituted no investigation into why the princes disappeared Richard made no effort to express his sorrow about them disappearing it was also something that his predecessors, people like Henry IV and Edward IV, had made sure that any rivals to their rule were put away or indeed killed. Richard II, of course, was put away and probably killed, and so was Henry VI. And so I think Richard had to get rid of these two princes in order to secure his own rule. And I'm afraid I take that view.

Brave though he was, and wise and clever though he was, I think he has to be condemned as a villain. As we transition from Elizabeth to Charles here, the monarchy has come under renewed scrutiny. What are your thoughts, having studied it, of the kind of lottery of hereditary monarchy? Lottery is the word. I mean, I think one should take the view it's good or bad, having this extraordinary hereditary monarchy. Lottery is the word. I mean, I think one should take the view it's good or bad, having this extraordinary hereditary monarchy. The view I take is it's just a fascinating and captivating source of study because you get these incredible people shoved into power,

some of them dreadful people, some of them extremely impressive. Sixty of them altogether we studied. And, you know, half of them at least were people who did their best and succeeded and gave the country a fine figurehead, leadership, inspiration. And of course, others disastrously didn't. But it's just a fascinating study. And the question is, is hereditary monarchy at the end of this 1200 years or so since Alfred the Great, of progress, in which, of course, they lose power dramatically over the years, successfully they lose power and they become much less dictatorial

than they used to be in the way of the great old days. Nevertheless, does it serve any purpose? I think it does. I think this extraordinary tradition, this extraordinary sense of continuity, this extraordinary way in which they this extraordinary sense of continuity, this extraordinary way in which they provide the sort of stability, the background of stability under which the politicians, and of course, this more and more true as you get more and more towards our own day, under the cloak of which, under the monarch's rule or reign or whatever the

word is, you can't really say it's rule because they have very little power. Under that, this political turmoil can take place while we can be confident that somehow Britain is something grander than that. After all, in the last few months here in Britain, we've seen political chaos. We've seen the succession of prime ministers chaotic, whereas the succession from Elizabeth II to Charles III happened with serene beauty and glory. But tragic that was when Elizabeth II died. Nevertheless, Charles has taken over and he's really made a good start. And I think that suggests that there's something else than the sort of political chaos from one succeeding prime minister to another that gives us some sort of

rest from all that stuff. There's this continuing figurehead that started way back with, even before Alfred. I think it's a triumph. Speaking as a Canadian, it's interesting because I was brought up cutting out pictures of Charles, little Prince Charles and Princess Anne, and putting them into scrapbooks. My mother was Welsh, and so she had a vested interest in the British monarchy, and she read us stories from our island story. So I was a bit different from many young Canadians. But it's very interesting today. There's not a huge wish in Canada to get rid of the monarchy.

And in fact, if you look at what newcomers to Canada from all over the world say when they get to Canada, most of them love the idea of coming to a stable country that has a monarch as head of state. Surprising, but true. One thing I think worth saying is that because we haven't said enough about Elizabeth II, she was an extraordinary successful. A.N. Wilson, I think, a wonderful writer, picked up a phrase somewhere he found it. Gilbert and Sullivan. He picked it up in Gilbert and Sullivan, which was roughly, she didn't do a lot of things, but she did them very well. And the great thing about Elizabeth II was that she presided without serious political power. She has this extraordinary aura of continuity and grace, and she presided over the collapse, after all, of British Empire and the transformation of Britain

into a quite different country. It's been through Europe and out of Europe. And yet there she was, steadying the ship, as it were, with her grace and her smile. And I think that has been an absolute triumph. She really represents the impressiveness of a relative monarchy. And she's handed on to her son, who's taken over again with great grace, I think. And the fascinating question now is whether her unopinionated rule is going to be slightly changed by Charles into a rule where he is able to express himself and to have his own views and opinions, which may, some of them, really hit the mainstream, the consensus of general opinion, for example, over climate change, and be allowed to express himself rather more than she ever was. I think it's going to be a very interesting period ahead. One of the joys of writing this book, Dan,

was that as well as doing all the really heavy-duty research about dates and kings and who followed them and who they married and all that, who they fought, was just finding out all sorts of really interesting human interest facts. Reading some of the early chroniclers, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Odrick, for example, Odrick tells us that there was a riot, near riot, when William the Conqueror was crowned in Westminster Abbey in 1066, and that the king was seen to tremble violently. Now, you always think of William the Conqueror as a totally bulletproof guy, but here he was shaking in his boots when he had the crown put on his head. A very funny

comment by the King of France saying, as William got older, he got very fat. And the King of France said he looked like a woman who'd just had a baby, a direct quote from one of the chroniclers. We also learned fascinating facts like the late Queen's father, George VI, was a very good tennis player when he was young. And he wasn't expected to become king. So he took a lot of time enjoying sports. He was a good athlete. And he actually played in the men's doubles at Wimbledon. Now, he wasn't very successful.

He got knocked out in the first round. He played with his left hand. And apparently people in the crowd were shouting, try playing with your right. So we found lots of really fun facts like that, that brought these people alive. One of my favorite absurdities is a chap who hardly anybody knows. I didn't know anybody until I read about him. A chap called Edwig. I think that's how it's pronounced. E-A-D-W-I-G, who ruled for four years. But he was completely ludicrous. He was like a schoolboy who was just completely spoiled and hopeless. They said to me, Your Majesty, we're going to have a banquet

to celebrate your coronation. Well, he says, that's very nice of you, but I don't think I want that. And they said, yes, you should come. And so they thought he'd turn up. He didn't turn up. And so they had to send the Archbishop of Canterbury to find him. And he was in bed. He just decided to sleep all day

and not go to his coronation banquet. He was actually in bed with someone, but we mustn't go into that. Not someone, two people. He was actually in bed with not one person, his girlfriend, but his girlfriend's mother as well, which was slightly scruffy of him when he was supposed to be at the coronation banquet.

So, I mean, unbelievably, he went on ruling for four years after that. They tolerated him somehow. But I love the fact that that was in 955 AD. That's right. So long ago. Yes. You're suggesting that it was okay to behave like that. No, I just think it's fantastic. Human nature hasn't changed. Exactly. It hasn't indeed. And the other thing to say about Edwig is that he was one of very few Anglo-Saxons who was a failure. One of the glories of British history, I think, is the period, frankly, before Alfred from Chapel Egbert,

certainly from Alfred the Great onwards until you get to Æthelred, the Unready and so on. The Anglo-Saxon kingdom was an extremely impressive and well-run and well-administered gathering of people. They really did absolute wonders. And they created England for the first time and made the English language and the English system of administration. It all worked really very well. A very impressive run of kings.

Do you think the monarchy's got a future? You've studied over a thousand years. Do you think there's another few hundred years left or not? I can't see how it's likely that we are going to accept anything other than hereditary monarchy. Now, you may say that's absurd. If you're a Republican, of course, it's a disgraceful thing to say. What I would say about Republicans is Cromwell had a chance. Oliver Cromwell, 400 years ago, had a chance of creating a republic.

And he tried very, very hard, but he failed. We just had to come back in the end to this monarch, this glorious sense of tradition and flummery that the monarch represents still, I think, in the 21st century, and I suspect into the 22nd and the very 3rd century. This wonderful tradition, this way in which the monarch gives us a kind of mantle of stability over the physical turmoil, I think it'll go on. I don't think we want a president. How on earth do we choose a president? It'd be an absolute shambles. As long as we don't have anybody like Edward VIII turning up in the royal succession in the next hundred years, I think it will go on. And it looks good at the moment. I mean, as Peter has said, King Charles is the most experienced trainee monarch in history. He looks as if he's not going

to put too many feet wrong. He has said that he's not going to get involved in political issues. Although, again, he may have views on global warming, but that's not really a political issue anymore. People just accept that that exists, most people. And he's got a very fine queen consort, too. We've met Camilla. Other people have met Camilla. All of them say that she's got a huge amount of common sense, a wonderful companion for Charles. A great sense of humor. She makes him laugh, just like Philip did with Queen Elizabeth. And then William looks like a sensible heir. And who knows about George?

But I think it's looking pretty good for the moment. Who knows about George? That's, of course, always the problem. You never quite know what the next one's going to be like. Either way, I'd say it's the thunder for editor-in-monarchy. I wouldn't dare say that. Well, if it ain't broke, let's not fix it. Thanks, guys. And what's the book called? The book is called Kings and Queens, The Real Lives of the English Monarchs. And guess what? The foreword is by Dan Snow. Wow.