Dan Snow's History Hit - Royal Siblings: Heirs and Spares

Episode Date: January 10, 2023

Prince Harry's explosive new memoir is out today and headlines, articles and tweets all weighing in on the rift between the royals are everywhere. In the past warring royal siblings fought it out on the battlefield or in duplicitous schemes of murder, but today it plays out in the media.Historian of Monarchy Anna Whitelock joins Dan to talk about the dynamics of royal families, the dangers of hereditary power and some of the most important royal sibling rivalries through history including Henry VIII and Arthur, Prince of Wales, Elizabeth I and Mary Tudor and William II and Henry I.Produced by Mariana Des Forges and James Hickmann. 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 the History Hit app from the Google Play store.Download the History Hit app from the Apple Store.

Hey everyone, welcome to Dan Snow's History Hit. We have got a good, old-fashioned, royal sibling rumpus going on right here in the UK. In fact, we've got a good old transatlantic royal rumpus. It's sending everyone into paroxysms. But historians, I know you get bored of us saying this. It's nothing new, folks. In fact, it's the oldest thing in the world. Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome. Remus killed at his brother's

hand. Menelaus and Agamemnon, I could go on and for the next little period I will. There is something clearly about a hereditary system that can destroy relations between brothers, between siblings. You see it, the sons of Canute. You see it vividly with William the Conqueror, a man who imprisoned his own brother and whose sons were, frankly, a disaster zone. Odric Vitalis, who was a Benedictine monk who wrote chronicles of the 11th and 12th centuries, wrote that Robert, William the Conqueror's elder son,

and his brothers William and Henry had fallen out ever since the two little ones had dumped a full chamber pot over Robert's head. And what in any other family would be typical sibling banter and competition when you own countries, when you bestride the narrow earth like a colossus? Well, then it's trouble for the rest of us too. On this podcast, I'll be talking to one of my oldest friends, Anna Whitelock. She's a historian, broadcaster, author. She's the Professor of the History of Monarchy at City University of London, and she's Director of the Centre for the Study of Modern Monarchy. So she knows what she's talking about, folks. She and I are going to start by talking about William

the Conqueror's troublesome kids. You'll have heard me before refer to the fact that William II, William the Conqueror's son, was absolutely terribly unfortunately and accidentally killed in a hunting accident at which his younger brother Harry was present. William and Harry hunting together, one of them ends up choking to death in the dirt. Did young Harry stick around and try and help his older brother? No, he didn't. He left him there in amongst the leaves of the new forest in the year 1100, galloped off to Winchester, secured the royal treasury and had himself crowned king. Perhaps a little suspicious. Was it assassination? Was it a terrible accident? We may never know.

But really that little spat between William and Harry has set the tone for the next thousand years of tempestuous royal sibling relations. And as Anna Whitelock points out in this podcast, it seems clear to me that frankly, rivalry, conflict, outright warfare is actually the norm. Brothers getting on fine is pretty unusual. Æthelred probably killed his brother. King Harold fought his brother. Richard I, John, and their brother Henry fought each other. Edward IV killed his brother. Charles I was bullied by his brother. The list is almost endless. But to take us through some of the most notable, some of those lasting and memorable examples, let's hear from the brilliant Anna enjoy Anna great to have you back on the pod great to be here Dan

first of all do all siblings fall out? Or is there something about these royal siblings in a winner-takes-all, inherited system, until recently, patrilineal, all about the boys? Is there something that kind of just means that while the institution might glide on, it destroys the relationships everyone caught inside it? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, you know, siblings fall out. I'm sure we both have experience of that.

But here you have a family, which is also a family business, where, as you say, the eldest son, as it used to be until 2014, when it became the eldest child. But the eldest son was the one who was the focus of all attention. The future of the family, the future of the line was all about them. And everybody else was essentially a spare, a backup, really just there on the off chance that the heir died or was incapacitated. And so you have the rivalry that naturally goes with siblings added on to this sense that they're pretty much immaterial and dispensable and I think you know Harry's talking about this kind of competitiveness

with his brother which is perhaps true of any brotherly relationship but on top of that a sense that basically William could be saying yeah but you know like I'm heir and you're not and go figure Harry's left feeling pretty pissed off. Yeah. And I think that's the nature of this is that unlike you're in my family, I hope, where there aren't favourites, there aren't designated people that will sort of succeed to things. No one child of mine is going to succeed to the History Hit podcast, Anna. I mean, there's some vicious squabbling already. No. So that's all I have to leave. People say to me, oh, poor Harry this or poor Harry that. No, actually the system is that. Harry is completely dispensable. Like his needs,

his ambitions, his desires in the eyes of the system are not as important as that of his older brother. That's the weird thing. You've got to keep the show on the road and that might involve grotesque unfairness. Yeah. I mean, as you say, it's not just being favourite, but favoured. And it's all about the other. And also, of course, going forward, and as was true in the past, ultimately, if Harry had remained within the royal family, his position, how much wealth he had, his titles, and so on, would be entirely dependent on the whim and the will of the king, which in the future, dependent on the whim and the will of the king, which in the future, of course, will be his brother William. And we've seen when we look back in the past, that clearly drives some younger siblings mad. I mean, there's this sense of profound insecurity, profound resentment, profound alienation, and profound ambition. And that, of course, can mutate in all kinds of different ways. And yes,

here we have a battle of words across the Atlantic. In the past, we literally saw battles played out, whether it be on the battlefield or at court, with murders, assassinations, potentially, and rival claims. So Anna, we could really go anywhere with over a thousand years of British history to choose from, let alone if we got involved in the old Indian, the Mughal dynasty or the French. My God. But let's stick with the Brits and let's stick in the last thousand years. William the Conqueror fell out with his brother Odo, half-brother. But the good one is William and Henry. It's like an open goal, right? William II, his little brother Henry, frenemies and mysterious circumstances around William's death.

This surely was a big rivalry. And of course, their brother Robert as well. Well, exactly. I mean, I think we're all familiar and certainly on this podcast with William the Conqueror. His sons were a complete nightmare. And ironically, the ones that perhaps it's particularly worth focusing on were William and Harry, would you believe it? The allegedly assassination of William by Harry, the future Henry I, in order to get the throne for himself. And I mean, it was interesting how William the Conqueror was basically just clearly not enamoured with any of his sons exclusively, or he was certainly more enamoured with his second son than he was his first son.

So it was to his second son that he gave the inheritance of England and his third, the inheritance of Normandy. Split inheritance is always going to set up warring siblings and so it turned out. We should say that actually, that there has been a little bit of chat recently over the last, again, not coming from Harry himself,

but a little bit of chat from people talking on the news in various places, that perhaps we should have some sort of split inheritance, you know, perhaps that's great. And any cursory knowledge of history suggests that is an absolutely shocking idea. Well, come to Henry II's kids, but, you know, with dividing up Normandy and England was a nightmare and older brother, Robert, Duke of Normandy, William II, Henry III, son of the conqueror, third surviving son of the conqueror, fought his older brother Robert and imprisoned him for years in Cardiff Castle, no less. I mean, you've got to keep it all under one crown, right? Well, this is it. William was trying to kind of split his chances by splitting his inheritance of a son who would do him proud, as it were. But ultimately,

yeah, it just created massive family rivalries because they all wanted essentially what the other had. So real full on fraternal rivalry. And yeah, as you say, splitting the inheritance is not a good idea. And actually, it brings us to thinking about the Wars of the Roses and also Shakespeare, because if you want to think about where some of these fraternal rivalries, sibling rivalries, family rivalries are really depicted, it was Shakespeare. And Shakespeare drawing on the 15th century in particular and the Wars of the Roses, of course. And again, I mean, probably very familiar to your listeners, Edward IV, who had two brothers, George, Duke of Clarence, and Richard III of the car park. But actually, it was his younger brother, George, Duke of Clarence, who he really was loggerheads with. George, Duke of Clarence, I think, in some ways, I do see

slightly cheekily parallels with Harry, because he just seems to be consumed with this sense of insecurity, not liking the fact that ultimately his whole position is dependent on his brother. And so even though Edward, when he becomes king, decides to try and control his brothers and retain their favour by giving them lands and dukedoms, that in a sense is almost worse for George, Duke of Clarence, because he just gets really jealous. Now, of course, whether Harry is motivated by jealousy or not, kind of is an interesting question. It's not one that perhaps people are asking, but certainly George wanted what Edward had. And it was a pretty legendary battle, which ultimately end up with George being killed. And, you know, some would say

he was drowned in a butt of marmsy wine. And we've skipped over a few there. There was Henry II and his little brother, Geoffrey, fell out because Geoffrey tried to abduct Henry II's fiancee, Eleanor, before she married him. That was awkward. Yeah, I mean, that's another recurring trope, really, about whether the eldest brother perhaps gives permission for younger brothers to marry who they want so control over relationships too and the suitability or unsuitability of a royal bride perhaps there's echoes here going on is also a source of conflict

in the past as it is perhaps now too. A lot of George III, George III fell out with all his kids and his brothers and everybody about suitability of royal brides. We might come on to that. But Henry II's sons, Richard, young Henry and John, they fell out with each other spectacularly and campaigned against each other,

fought against each other. We all know that. John, as Prince John, tried to bribe Richard the Lionheart's captors, not to release him, but to keep him in prison. So they absolutely hated each other, those boys. Yeah, I mean, I think what was quite interesting about this is it's kind of near but so far,

because all of these, you know, rival brothers simply don't wear the crown by virtue of their place in the birth line. And so they're so close to it. And obviously, over the course of the centuries that passed, I mean, it was about life and death and favour and triumph and ambition and all of these things played out. But in a way, I guess it's almost the question of which royal brothers didn't fall out in the past and have these profound rivalries defining their relationships. Yeah, you're so right. It's the closeness to it.

And I guess now that you're talking, I'm just thinking, is it almost worse today? Because in the past, there are examples of royal brothers, Henry V's brothers, Edward III's kids, John of Gaunt. You could be a magnificent figure in the kingdom. You could be a royal duke. You could have your own armies. You armies you could campaign john gaunt went off and tried to nick a continental throne for himself in a way at least if you made your peace to your brother there was status to be had real power and status within the kingdom well there was status dependent on the favor of brother but

yeah but you also i think needed a playground you needed an area which was yours and you need to have the opportunity to go and get glory abroad. So, yes, you could be loyal, but you would want something. You would need something. You would need, you know, a big area of the country that was yours. You would need Ireland. Exactly. That you could have the opportunity to go and secure riches abroad. And I suppose it's when you're essentially being kind of handcuffed and you don't feel like you have an opportunity to win glory for yourself that you become really aggrieved and tortured. And I think that's perhaps as much a feature of the past as it is the present. That's the thing about the modern monarchy,

is that you no longer get to be Admiral of the Fleet. You no longer get to command armies on the continent. The last royal duke to command armies properly on the continent was probably the Duke of York in the 1790s. So being a modern spare is arguably almost worse than being like Henry V's little brother. At least he might get left behind and rule the North in his absence or something, right?

Whereas if you're Prince Edward or Prince Harry or some of those funny royal dukes, Gloucester and Kent, the former Queen's cousins, there isn't much there for you, right? You're so close to the big prize, but the cake, as if you like, has shrunk. And the big prize is really the only one worth having. Yeah, and of course, you also basically just have to do everything to support and uphold the position of your brother

and the family and the institution. And of course, I mean, Harry, ironically, did actually go and have a military career and actually in that sense did carry on a traditional role of the spare. But then he was pulled back off the front line because I think it was seen as a security risk. And he himself said, you know, that's where he felt he had most purpose and he was most sort of happy and fulfilled. Even that was denied him. So now we're in a position with spares where they can't perform military service, as was the role in the past. They don't

have any prospect of glory for themselves. And in fact, if they are seen to be too popular and seeking glory for themselves, then that becomes a real issue, not overshadowing the air. And I think we saw that in the early months after the engagement of Harry and Meghan, that it was made very clear that their focus was going to be the Commonwealth. That was the area that they were going to focus on. So in a sense, not to get in the way of

and undermine the position of William and Kate at home. You're listening to Dan Snow's History. We're talking about royal sibling rivalry. More after this. Why were medieval priests so worried that women were going to seduce men with fish that they'd kept in their pants? Who was the first gay activist?

And what on earth does the expression sneezing in the cabbage mean? I'll tell you, it's not a cookery technique, that's for sure. Join me, Kate Lister, on Betwixt the Sheets, the history of sex, scandal and society, a podcast where we will be bed-hopping throughout time and civilisation to bring you the quirkiest and kinkiest stories from history. As promised, there will be sex.

Anne has said that Henry is not skilful in copulating with a woman and has neither vigour nor potency. Anne has said that Henry is not skillful in copulating with a woman and has neither vigour nor potency. Anne Scandal. Everybody just descends onto this crime scene and it's being pulled apart by members of the public sort of as quickly as they can excavate the bodies. And moments which shaped society. Pointy boobs then became a thing

and were still a thing into the 1950s. What more could you possibly want? Listen to Betwixt the Sheets today, wherever it is that you get your podcasts. A podcast by History Hit. I'm Matt Lewis. And I'm Dr. Alan Orjanaga. 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. Now, Anna, how about this pair of siblings? You're one of the world's leading experts on. This little couple here, Mary Tudor and her illegitimate half-sister, or her mother claimed was illegitimate half-sister, or who her mother claimed was illegitimate, the bastard child of a whore, Elizabeth I. What do you make of this

sibling rivalry? And is there something different because they're women, or do you see very similar patterns at play here? I think there are similar patterns at play, although, you know, arguably Elizabeth was perhaps manipulated as a Protestant figurehead more or less than she intended to be. So, I mean, maybe she wasn't directly engineering the role that she had, but certainly this rivalry ended up with Elizabeth in the Tower of London, believing that she was going to be killed. Because of course, there, it was not just position of rivalry for the throne, it was religion. And that was an additional factor here. Of course, Mary was Catholic, Elizabeth was Protestant. And so Elizabeth was looked to as the great Protestant

hope. Whereas of course, for Catholics, Elizabeth was, as you say, their little whore, the daughter of the great whore that was Anne Boleyn. And ironically, James I had the last laugh with these rival sisters because they were rivals. Elizabeth represented a clear threat to Mary's throne during her reign, but they ended up buried together in Westminster Abbey with the slightly cheeky description, partners both enthroned and brave, here rest we two sisters in the hope of one resurrection. And of course, that wasn't what either of them would have wanted or intended. But it was James I who thought it would be rather amusing to put them together in a grave. And so yeah, those two sisters, those rivals are now forever buried together. But it does suggest that gender is not a key factor here.

And even though, of course, it was royal brothers that traditionally played out this airspare rivalry, it's true of women too. And Mary imprisoned Elizabeth in the Tower of London? I mean, how close do we think it came to Mary executing her sister? I mean, I think it came close. And there's that letter that Elizabeth sends to Mary from the Tower in 1554, which is sort of often reproduced. And you can see how Elizabeth strikes out the end of the document so nobody can write anything additional on the parchment. And it did get close. And by all accounts, actually, it was Mary's husband, Philip of Spain, later of Armada fame, that actually kind of stepped in and thought that it would be better if Elizabeth was spared and not executed. But yeah, I mean, this was pretty close. Elizabeth really did believe when she entered the tower that that was the end for her. that that was the end for her. Let's talk briefly about Mary, another Mary, although not a sibling,

but a cousin, the famous rivalry between Elizabeth I and her cousin Mary, Queen of Scots. Is there something slightly different going on here? Yeah, there absolutely is, because of course, both of them were legitimate sovereign queens. And in fact, that was the kind of tortured problem for Elizabeth I, because Mary, although she, as Elizabeth, would have it wrongly and unjustifiably claim the throne of England, she did claim and indeed was Queen of Scotland. And no one debated that. despite all kinds of pleadings from her counsellors, because she believed that Mary was sovereign. And so, yeah, here we have a situation where, yes, they were rivalries, and yes, Mary, Queen of Scots, wanted Elizabeth's throne, or at least those who looked to Mary as a figurehead.

But ultimately, they also had thrones for themselves. Let's skedaddle forward a little bit in the 17th century. What have you got? Monmouth and the Duke of Grafton who were both illegitimate sons of Charles II they fought on different sides at the Battle of Sedgmore so they fought against each other Mary and Anne who were two sisters

daughters of James II they basically excluded their little brother the pretender, James III from the throne so I guess that would be a little sibling rivalry the Hanoverians seemed to hate each other fathers fathers and sons in particular, but brothers didn't get on that well. Frederick the Prince of Wales, who was George III's dad, who never ruled, he died before his father. And his brother, the Duke of Cumberland, seemed to dislike each other enormously. Cumberland was sort of more popular with his parents, and the Prince of Wales didn't like him

at all. So this is another trope, isn't it? That if you're as a younger sibling, seem to be more popular, more able than the heir, than your eldest brother, that's a problem. That's a sin. It's a total sin. So you can't kind of overshadow the heir. That's like the worst thing in the world. And again, I mean, we think about this as kind of a royal drama, but actually this is, can you imagine for an individual to kind of be told that they cannot do anything that would overshadow their elder sibling? And the other thing from your sort of canter through there is the way in which the spares, the younger brothers are manipulated or used by others. So this isn't just these individuals necessarily acting for themselves,

but then being used as figureheads and pawns by other people too, both at home and abroad. Yes, that's an interesting point, is that often if you want to avoid the appearance of treason and complete disloyalty, you can seize on a renegade royal prince and go, no, no, I love this country. I love this royal family. I'm just totally opposed to the current monarch, for example. And so Frederick, Prince of Wales is a good example. Lots of politicians gather around him and express their disagreement with George II and his ministers, but they can appear to do so in a kind of loyal way. And I guess perhaps that's something we see all through history. Well, we see, and not least with, say, the gunpowder plotters who actually, you know, intended to blow up James I and his wife and heir, Prince Henry, but they were going to set

up the Princess Elizabeth, his daughter, as a kind of puppet queen in order to achieve their Catholic ambitions. So, yeah, you're right that, in in a way the spares, as it were, become vulnerable to others who may well manipulate them and set them up as puppets for their own ends. Imagine manipulating the spare, that would be a terrible thing to do. We should have said there, Henry, the oldest son of James I and VI, Charles I's older brother, he was destined for the throne, apparently hated Charles I and bullied him, but died and Charles I's older brother. He was destined for the throne, apparently hated Charles I and bullied him, but died. And Charles I ascended to the everlasting lament of... Well, that's also interesting, because if we think about some of the most infamous

monarchs in history, actually, a lot of them were the spares, if you think about it. So if you go to Henry VIII, he, of course, was the spare. He was the second son. Prince Arthur died prematurely and therefore when he died, not only did Henry VIII inherit the throne, but also he inherited his brother's widow, Catherine of Aragon became his wife. If you think about Elizabeth I, I mean, she wasn't the eldest child. It was only because of the lack of children, in the case of Edward Mary, that she then inherited the throne. And of course, Charles I too, infamous king, not exactly a successful one, but he of course became heir when his elder brother, Prince Henry, died. was really looked to by Protestants across Europe as the great hope, this great military leader who could return England to Protestantism and lead a kind of Protestant crusade.

So his death was mourned on the most dramatic level. And yeah, Charles then inherited, but not as the elder son. I guess for the spare, it's a special kind of extra torment. It's the hope that kills you because you're always thinking, if it's good, you know, Henry VIII, Elizabeth, some of the most famous kings and queens in British and English history were spares. So of the monarch, the heir. If they die through misadventure, assassination or whatever, then literally the course of royal history can change and the spare suddenly becomes king. And, you know, we talked about misadventure or assassination. I guess one of the other versions of that is abdication.

And if we go to the late queen's father, George VI, again, seen as a successful monarch, ultimately an important monarch in the course of the modern monarchy. But he too wasn't destined to succeed the throne, but it was only after his brother, VIII abdicated. And again, Elizabeth II, the late queen, seen as one of the most remarkable monarchs in British history, the record-breaking monarch, she was never destined to the throne. So it's kind of amazing how the significant monarchs in history, in many cases, actually were the ones who weren't destined to rule. Do you think Andrew and Edward,

do you think a little peacethem dies every time a new child is born, the sons of Charles? Do you think they even bothered? Is it like, oh, no, don't worry. I don't mind going down the pecking order. It must do. You know what? Maybe.

Because I think in the interview yesterday, I was quite struck by when Tom Bradbury sort of was referring to a moment when he said something like, you were maybe like third in line then, but now you're like ninth or something. But, I mean, that literally is the case, isn't it, that you just fall further and further down the line of irrelevance, basically.

Again, this is a tough listen for Prince Edward. And if you're out there, the Earl of Wessex, we appreciate all the good work you do opening things and being nice. Let's talk again about George VI and Edward VIII as they sort of became, as they're remembered. They were very different characters. Did they get on even before Edward VIII made it clear that he was going to cause constitutional crisis?

I mean, as children, growing up? No, not really. I mean, there was sort of descriptions by their tutors of them falling out in the classroom. So, I mean, they were very, very different individuals. And of course, George VI famously was the king with the stammer. He was much shyer than the charismatic, confident Edward. He was much shyer than the charismatic, confident Edward. But ultimately, you know, it was, of course, Edward's determination to marry the American divorcee. And here we have the monarch and the episode that perhaps people rightly or wrongly draw parallels with the Harry and Meghan relationship. And certainly at the time of Harry and Meghan's marriage, people were like, oh, is this not a parallel with Edward VIII and the American divorcee, Wallis Simpson? Of course, different because Edward was king, Edward VIII.

But ultimately, through choice, not through assassination, misadventure, premature death, he abdicated the throne. And so, yeah, the spare there, his younger his younger brother George VI became king. I learned yesterday that they had another little brother called John who was terribly disabled and he died of various seizures and Edward VIII referred to him as little more than a regrettable nuisance so he wasn't one for great sibling attachment and actually their relationship got worse didn't it when he was on the throne because Edward used to ring him and demand money and get very upset about issues around sort of postcolon cash. And in the end, George stopped taking his calls, I think, and forbade any members of the family from attending Edward VIII or the Duke of Windsor, as he then was, at his wedding in France. So things got pretty ugly.

They did. And I mean, I suppose this is where, you know, people talk about is what Harry's saying now particularly significant. At the moment, Charles is the kind of intermediary between the two brothers. He is king, of course, and their father. When he's no longer around and William is king, we could well be in this situation where, you know, if Harry's career as an independent whatever doesn't take off, If Harry's career as an independent whatever doesn't take off, then he may well be in a situation where he looks to William for some kind of financial support. William could revoke his dukedom. We could really be in for a replay of that relationship, albeit one in reverse, because, of course, it was the king himself that abdicated rather than the other way around with the king, in this sense, calling the shots. Anna we've got pictures of the young family of William there they are two princes and a princess doing the royal pageantry coming out on balconies can we look forward to them

falling out spectacularly in years to come is it inevitable? Well I mean this is where the talk of Charles wanting to streamline the monarchy really does become particularly pertinent because by that people are talking about him trying to almost make efficiency savings in terms of money and so on but actually what he's talking about before all of this happened was trying to reduce the number of hangers-on people who essentially have this role where they are working members of the royal family but But what does that really mean? And how, if they want to, can people forge a life outside of being a working royal? Now, there is precedent for that.

I mean, Princess Anne's children have a remarkable degree of independence, really. So it's not impossible. But of course, William's children will be, George is his heir, and therefore the children are close in terms of the succession. And all eyes now look to them, they're the next generation. And I think you raise a really important question. Is anything going to be learned about these dynamics between royal siblings, heirs and spares? Is there any way in which it might be prevented between Louis, Charlotte and George? Or is Charlotte and Louis going to have a whole lifetime of

basically feeling aggrieved because all the focus is on George? If you had to name someone with the ambition of them making trouble for the British monarch, you would call them Louis. That's what I'm saying. So William may have inadvertently done some non-literal determinism there. I love it. I mean, anyone has to just think about that balcony appearance from Louis when he was making all those faces and stuff during the Jubilee. I mean, I think it's exactly what the royal family need. So bring on Louis. Anna Whitelock, thank you very much for coming on the podcast, you hero. And we're going to try and do some stuff with you on the coronation as well so um you'll be hearing lots from anna this year folks thank you very much no problem you