Dan Snow's History Hit - The British Monarchy

Episode Date: November 23, 2021

The British Monarchy is a thread that has run throughout the history of Britain but over the centuries it has been a constantly evolving institution. From the warrior kings of early England steeped in violence to the largely symbolic constitutional monarch of today, Tracy Borman helps Dan chart how the monarchy has changed and what roles it continues to play. They discuss the best and worst of British Monarchs, why women seem to be better suited for this gargantuan job, her personal favourite ruler and what future kings and queens can learn from their predecessors. Tracy Borman is an author, historian and broadcaster. Her latest book is called Crown & Sceptre: A New History of the British Monarchy.

Hi everybody, welcome to Dan Snow's History Hit. We are reminded recently that the Queen is mortal. She has been in hospital, she has put her back out, was unable to attend the annual remembrance commemorations in Whitehall. She is withdrawing from public view for a couple of weeks, we're told maybe a couple of months. She is deep into her 90s, It shouldn't come as a huge surprise. She seems like she's been there forever. Anyway, that's the nature of heritory monarchy, folks.

It all depends on the beating heart of the sovereign, the all too human flesh, muscle, sinews, blood supply of a fellow human being. And Britain's unusual in the world for still having a system of hereditary monarchy. And one of our favourite stories has written a history of that monarchy. Tracy Borman is coming on the podcast now to talk about the British monarchy for the last thousand years. We talk about some of the challenges around succession. We talk about some of the successes and some of the failures. It's a great film. Tracy Borman's been on the podcast several times. She's curated Historic Royal Palaces. She's an expert, particularly in the 16th century.

She's written beautifully about Thomas Cromwell. She's come on to talk about the true, the real Thomas Cromwell, what Hilary Mantel might've got right and wrong. Mostly, spoiler, Tracy thinks she got it right. So it's an interesting episode. Enjoy. All guns are blazing on the HistoryHit shop at the moment. Go to historyhit.com slash shop if you want to buy some amusing historical hoodies, historical gear. Make it clear that you're a history fan, folks. You're going to warn people. You're going to warn friends and family around Christmas that you're going to come out with historical facts. It's what we like to see. So head over to historyhit.com slash shop and don't forget to subscribe to History Hit at historyhit.tv. But in the meantime, everyone, here is Tracy Borman talking monarchs.

Enjoy. Tracy, thank you very much for coming on the pod. It's my great pleasure. It's lovely to see you. Well, you know, I'm used to talking to you about all things Tudor, but you've gone full lockdown crazy. You've decided to write a massive book of everything. There's quite a few people coming across the foredeck who've done this, but it's amazing. A thousand years. When's your first monarch?

So my first monarch is William the Conqueror, sort of. So it's 1066 to the present day, although there's a fairly lengthy kind of prelude on the Anglo-Saxons and even back to the Romans. So if it hadn't been for lockdown, I don't think this book would have been written. It is quite immense. Yeah, it's a huge one. Why did you start with William the Conqueror? I always find this fascinating. Why does the date 1066 mean so much for you? Well, I think by then, England was well and truly a united kingdom, so to speak. The Anglo-Saxon period, it was still really the heptarchy, you know,

seven different kingdoms with only a sort of loose unity. And I think it was very firmly established by 1066. So that was really my jumping off point. But I know, you know, other historians have started much earlier. There is an argument for doing so. In fact, just answering that question of who was England's first king was actually tortuously difficult. So I thought, look, I'm not going to go there with the Anglo-Saxons. I'll talk about them a little bit, but let's start when we know there is a king of England, and that's with William the Conqueror. Was it Athelsan? Was it Edgar? Who knows? It's difficult, isn't it?

As a Tudor specialist, you came from the 16th century. Did things surprise you? Did the changing nature of monarchy, were you expecting it, or did it surprise you? Did the changing nature of monarchy, were you expecting it or did it surprise you? And did it make you think that the 16th century, the Tudors are more unique, quite contingent, the nature of their power? Yeah, I think so. I think quite a lot surprised me. The biggest surprise was, how on earth is the monarchy still here? Because you look at what it's been through and how it's had to evolve and the sacrifices it's made along the way and how it almost didn't exist. And so many monarchies were wiped out after the First World War, and yet the British

monarchy survived. So that was kind of the surprise and the conundrum really, then tracing back, how did the monarchy survive? What were the keys to its success? That was a big theme in the book. And there are some monarchs who I guess I knew less about and who surprised me in a good way. So I'm thinking of the likes of George V, who, I don't know, he's always just skirted over a bit. Everyone talks about Edward VIII and then the Queen's father, George VI. But George V was a really, I think, quite a good egg as a king. He emerged as one of my favourites. And equally, some of the ones who are often really celebrated

as some of our greatest monarchs, not so much. I think Edward III, Henry V, they had their drawbacks too. So yeah, lots of the personalities really did surprise me. Yeah, it's interesting. too. So yeah, lots of the personalities really did surprise me. Yeah, it's interesting. Edward I, Henry V, Edward III, Edward IV, those kind of ostentatiously warrior kings. Was that not what the job involved back then? I mean, was it just absolute thuggery? Or even by the sounds of their own time, do you think they were overrated? Yeah, I mean, there was a lot of thuggery, I have to say. And it was an incredibly violent history, the history of the crown for the first 500 years or so after 1066, when monarchs ruled, they didn't just reign, it wasn't a kind of ceremonial position. So they had to be military leaders. Edward IV, I guess, you know, we were talking about people who weren't quite as I expected. In every other way, he'd been this brilliant soldier

leading up to taking the crown. But once he had the crown, he was a bit rubbish, actually, at fighting wars, and he didn't get on very well in France. So it all fell a bit flat. But then that violence and that kind of ruling did continue in the Tudor period, but it was a bit different. They'd lost their military edge, I think, the Tudor monarchs. Henry VIII tried to get it back, tried to go on campaigns to France, but it never really worked. So I think monarchy changed after the Wars of the Roses. Okay, well, I'm going to come on to that because obviously Tudor is your happy place. But let's start with the Normans. Can you put the monarchy into buckets? I mean, and how many buckets should there be in terms of, in the words of, I think, was it Henry of Navarre, a French king who said,

I rule with my arse and my saddle and my sword in my hand. So these charismatic warrior kings where power was personal and the state was embodied in the person of the king. So William the Conqueror definitely, when is that helpful thing about that coming to an end? Do you think it is the War of the Roses? Is Edward IV and William the Conqueror recognizably similar? Yeah, I think so, because Edward IV really wins the throne by conquest. He's this incredible military figure. And I think it probably does change quite significantly after that with the Tudors. But until then, absolutely, being a military leader was an essential characteristic of any monarch, not just in England, but across

Europe. And it's interesting that the trappings of royalty slightly played down during that time. And so William the Conqueror is not that interested in the royal court. And he receives visitors on a rug in the middle of a forest because he can't be bothered to kind of go back to one of his palaces. But then the less military the ruler gets, the more they rely on all of that kind of fluff and bling that surrounds even the modern day monarchy. The palaces, the jewels, the ceremonies. Really, that's what has survived much more than the kind of military side of things. When I can't sleep, I...

I'm not about to say I read your book, Tracey. uh no i'm not about to say i read your book tracy when i can't sleep i try to go through like the kings of england and whether they had to fight to secure their accession and the answer is like yes like william did his sons all fought each other henry ii had to invade england and had a sort of standoff with stephen henry ii then fought his own sons right richard john imprisoned a nephew and was kind of pretty violent and then henry the third obviously there was a french invasion you're at edward the first really by the time someone actually just inherits the goddamn throne from their dad in a kind of organized fashion it's madness it's total madness and it's a bewildering kind of array of thrones changing hands very

quickly you know kind of game of thrones i guess but it's very rare that it's a bewildering kind of array of thrones changing hands very quickly, you know, kind of Game of Thrones, I guess. But it's very rare that it's a very peaceful succession. And there's no such thing as blood being thicker than water for the first three or 400 years of the British monarchy. You know, it counts for absolutely nothing. It doesn't matter if your dad's the king, you're still going to rebel against him, try to kill him. Likewise, your nephews, your brothers, your sons. It's quite rare, as I say, that it's a nice peaceful relationship as well. There seems to be this running theme of a monarch really hating their heir. It's almost like they're looking at their own death, looking at their heir. They know that this is the person who's going to supplant them one day, and it leads to friction and turbulence in relationships between fathers and sons. You know, as you mentioned that, it strikes me that arguably is a universal that stretches across the thousand years, even when it stops being such a military office. Yeah. Because the Hanoverians despised, although they thought of themselves, of course, as soldiers, but the Hanoverians despised their kids.

Victoria had problems with Edward. And our own blessed royal family, Tracy, one hears that there are troubles with intergenerational problems as well. So let's come back to that at the end. That does feel like something that may be universal. But in that first bucket of kings, so Norman Plantationate kings down to late 15th century, Henry VI, Henry III, Richard II, quite attractive in a way, quite gentle. They were often bullied off the ball a bit, weren't they? Well, a lot. So what made a good and a bad king in that basket for those 400 years? In those 400 years, I think really personality is key. You have to be a very forceful personality. As you say, the authority is vested in them and they have to win it by the sword, but also by sheer force of personality. So that's when the gentler types, perhaps like

Richard II and Edward II, they fall down a little bit. But the other key thing, or it's really what not to do, don't surround yourself with favourites. It never goes well. Over-reliance on those around you, giving them too much power. That's when it starts to unravel because other people get jealous. There's lots of resentment in the kingdom at large. And there's so many examples of this happening. Most obviously, Edward II with Piers Gaveston and the dispensers. And it just always is a recipe for disaster. So you kind of have to take that sole responsibility. You have to be decisive, whether they're the right decisions, you have to bring people with you. And I think that was part of the brilliance of Henry V, even though he wasn't

completely heroic as I was expecting him to be. He knew his own mind and he could bring people with him. Are kings born or made? Like you mentioned Henry V, he had bad reviews as a prince and then became a kind of almost archetypal warrior king devoted to his own aggrandizement, basically. But do you think Henry III, Richard II, Edward II, of course, did they just have the wrong shooters, the wrong kind of vibe going up? Or is this something that just unfortunately you're born with it? I know it's a really odd one. I'd like to say there's a neat pattern or a neat kind of characteristic that you can say, yes, they've inherited that, they're born to rule. But actually, it changes so much. And some of the greatest monarchs were

never supposed to be king or queen at all. So they had no training, no preparation, they were kind of probably destined for the church, something like that. So I'm thinking of the likes of Elizabeth I. Couldn't go without mentioning my own personal favourite. You know, she wasn't supposed to be queen. Actually, neither was Elizabeth II. I think she's done a pretty good job of it. And interestingly, it tends to be the heirs to the throne who have the longest wait for the throne that are the worst kings. So the likes of George IV, the kind of playboy prince, the prince regent, waited endlessly, as did Edward VII. Now, I'm kind of affectionate towards Edward VII, but he wasn't that great as a king, but he was ages as Prince of Wales. So it doesn't necessarily

do you any favours to learn the job for a long time. I think a lot comes down to character and it's that whole nurture versus nature. I think they can be taught so much, but actually I think you're either great or you're not. Okay. So in these first bundle of Kings, do you have a favourite? Who fascinated you during the writing of this book? Oh, well, I was fascinated by Henry V just because it felt like a very self-confident age. And, you know, there's Agincourt and all the rest of it.

But actually, I think probably my favourite from a personality point of view and also achievement point of view was Henry II. So he united England after the civil wars between Matilda and Stephen. Incredibly charismatic. You get the feeling he just won hearts and minds immediately. And he ruled over this vast domain from Southern France all the way to Northern England. And it was said that he had this extraordinary speed. He could travel faster than anyone. He seemed to know what was going on he could predict events he had people in the right place at the right time i think he was just enormously impressive he was a bit of a psychopath as well actually imprisoning his wife eleanor and he married well i mean he imprisoned his wife but he married well i've always bought the conspiracy

theory that eleanor might have been the actual doer in that relationship and the plantation empire falls apart on her death not on his yes yeah yeah it's true you know she's still you know forced to be reckoned with in the reign that her son Richard the Lionheart she's running a lot of affairs traveling around even well into her 70s and likewise bad King John she's still on the scene and then it all falls apart a bit when she dies so I think you're absolutely right and then who comes across particularly badly in this first half millennium? Well, I mean, King John is hard to beat. He's usually top of the list of worst monarchs for a pretty good reason. Younger son, grown up, with a sense of being deprived of all the good things that his older

brothers have got. And so he doesn't lose that kind of avaricious nature. He's kind of quite mean-spirited. Obviously, there's the disaster of seeding so much royal power with Magna Carta. And even though John disregards Magna Carta very quickly, it's there to stay. And it's still part of the constitution today, really. So yeah, John is quite hard to beat. I'd say William the Conqueror's son, William Rufus, not particularly pleasant character again, didn't make himself very popular, didn't last very long, got shot in the New Forest, possibly not by accident. And Richard II, again, quite a weak

character. And I think Richard II's sort of Achilles heel is that he set a lot of store by the bling, by the trappings of royalty. He loved all of that. He loved the ceremony. He was always having portraits painted. He established a lot of royal ceremony that's still in place today, but he didn't have the goods to back it up. He didn't actually rule very effectively. He just liked all the fun stuff. Okay, so this is my question about that early tranche of kings. Did they matter? Did England's subsequent history, England's territorial extent, England's wealth, depend on those kings? Or does a run of bad kings, in the same way that a run of

bad kings could have seen the eclipse of England, like, for example, Burgundy just disappeared off the map. Did you find yourself thinking England's subsequent history as England and Britain's kind of hegemonic power did depend on something as fragile as like Edward III having a good long reign or of Henry I kind of stabilising things after a slightly feckless older brother's reign? I think there's an essential vulnerability throughout the history of the monarchy. And you get a sense that it could have gone either way. As I say, it's a remarkable survivor and a surprising survivor. But these early kings really did lay the foundations for England's later dominance, or at least her emergence as a world power. And they were the ones that everyone else tried to emulate

in later centuries. The Tudors still styled themselves kings and queens of France, even though really they weren't anymore. But it's all echoing the glory days of Agincourt and Crecy and these great warrior kings of this first kind of three or four hundred years of the British monarchy. So I think they did make a huge contribution. It was quite a turbulent time. And as I say, history could have turned out very differently on numerous occasions. But nevertheless, they made England, I think, a power to be reckoned with. This is the Dan Snow's History Hit. We're talking monarchs with Tracy Borman. More coming up.

What caused the anarchy? How did medieval migrants shape the language I'm speaking right now? Who won the Hundred Years' War? Could England's lost patron saint be buried under a tennis court in Suffolk? How did England's last medieval king end up under a car park? And were the Dark Ages really all that dark? I'm Dr Kat Jarman. And I'm Matt Lewis. On Gone Medieval, we'll uncover the most exciting and unexpected stories about the Middle Ages, hearing from the best and brightest

minds. We will disentangle fact from fiction, bring you the latest discoveries, and reveal how the so-called Dark Ages laid the foundations for much of the world we're living in today. Subscribe to Gone Medieval from History Hit wherever you get your podcasts. Land a Viking longship on island shores, scramble over the dunes of ancient egypt and avoid the poisoner's cup in renaissance florence each week on echoes of history we uncover the epic stories that inspire assassin's creed we're stepping into feudal japan in our special series chasing shadows where samurai warlords and shinobi spies teach us the tactics and skills needed not only

to survive but to conquer whether you're preparing for assassin's creed shadows or fascinated by history and great stories listen to echoes of history a ubisoft podcast brought to you by history hits there are new episodes every week. We've talked about this before, geography, I suppose, unlike Burgundy, where if you have a run of dodgy kings, you could literally

disappear from the map. Whereas England had a little bit more of a geographical logic to it than some European statelets. What's the next batch of kings and queens should we talk about? If you get, call it early modern, so Henry Tudor, Henry VII, who ironically wins the crown on the battlefield, but is not remembered as a warrior. When do they transition?

They're still essential, still executive, head of the executive branch. When do they start transitioning to a different kind of monarchy, perhaps one that's more modern, more limited? Yeah, I think really that transition, I mean, I guess you can say there are traces of it in the Tudor period, but I think that doesn't happen until quite a lot later with really the glorious revolution and even early the restoration of the monarchy with Charles II on quite prescribed terms. I think the Tudors still can reign supreme in a way that their earlier sort of Norman and Plantagenet predecessors did. But that really changes sort of middle of the 17th century with the Civil War, and then the monarchy being invited back, but on quite unfavourable terms. And then ultimately, what really changes,

I think, is the Glorious Revolution, 1688 to 9. William and Mary, they accept the throne on a kind of contract. And it's been described as a sort of emasculation because they've given away all real power. And they are now just titles and ceremonies and traditions. But actually, they can't rule. They can't tell Parliament what to do. They can't tell the people what to do. So that is the fundamental shift. And that's the monarchy as we kind of recognise it today, I think. Well, and I guess, as you point out, Charles has obviously lost his head, faced a huge battle over kind of dominance in church and state. So the monarchy's changing that period, and that's why perhaps you get that kind of transition out of that violence,

that upheaval. How important is it that you get two queens pregnant in the 16th century? Does that accelerate what was already going on, the move away from a kind of hyper-masculine warrior lord to a more civilian form of government? I think to a certain extent, yes. Inevitably, women weren't seen as fit to rule, let alone to wield military might. Although Elizabeth I did give it a good go with the Armada and she donned her armour and she gave this great speech. But actually, yeah, you could say that having 50 years of female rule did change things. But then we're back to the Stuarts and we're back to some men in charge. And yet, I think James I had more in common with Elizabeth than with, say, Henry VIII, who was still trying to go off to battle.

James was much more of a negotiator. He liked diplomacy, favoured that over the sword. And then Charles I, his son, of course, disastrously tried to push it too far in terms of just how much authority a king could wield. And perhaps, yeah, by that stage, we'd lost the appetite for having a kind of real ruler in that respect. And Charles didn't acknowledge that. And I guess, you know, Charles donned armour at Naseby. Charles' kids were on the battlefield. Prince Rupert was on the battlefield. It's still a very ostentatiously military... They try and

maintain the trappings and the behaviour of military leaders. put was on the battlefield. It's still a very ostentatiously military. They try and maintain the trappings and the behaviour of military leaders. Yeah, they do. Absolutely. You're right. I mean, Charles I'm not sure how effective he was as a military leader, but still, his reign is played out on the battlefield ultimately. And of course, he loses his head, so he can't get much more violent than that. But I think there has been a shift. I think it's more playing at being a military king for the 16th and 17th centuries than actually being the same as the likes of Edward III and Henry V and all the rest of it. But why is that? What's changing in society? Why is that happening? Well, I think we have the growth of government. We certainly have the growth of Parliament,

thanks to the Reformation and all these kind of seismic changes that are pushed through the English legislation, which gives Parliament power. Now, in the time of Henry VIII, he can still use Parliament, you know, that it's subject to his authority, but that of course shifts so that Parliament gradually rises and gets more and more power in relation to the monarchy. And that is one of the most important relationships in the entire book, is just this interplay between the monarch and parliament and who has the upper hand. And ultimately, of course, it's parliament. And that reaches its full extent during the Civil War and putting to death the king. But

there's a sense that parliament won, but they don't know what to do with the power now. They need something. They still need some kind of figurehead. It always reminds me of the Millennium Dome. They kind of built the dome and then they didn't know what to put in it. And it was a similar sort of thing, I think, with the Civil War. Yes, we've got our Commonwealth, but yeah, what do we do with that now? We kind of still need a king-like figure. So effectively, Oliver Cromwell became a king until he was replaced ultimately by Charles II. Following William and Mary, you get Anne, another strategically placed female ruler,

and then you get three Georges. And George III probably helps this transition to parliamentary king and parliament rule because he goes mad and has an utterly feckless son so that again that personalities do interplay with the kind of greater forces that are impelling everybody along on this journey. Yeah yeah absolutely and the Georges I think they all do to a certain extent. George III you're right particularly of necessity parliament has to become more powerful, more active. And then, of course, under his rather feckless son. But even George I and George II, they bow to Parliament. This is when you get the rise of the role of Prime Minister with Robert Walpole,

who absolutely begins to take precedence over royal authority. So yeah, there's a very definite trend now, and it doesn't ever really go back. Queen Victoria, interestingly, just looking ahead, she did go through a phase of actually wanting to have a bit more power over Parliament than she could have, but she was soon put back in her place. Yeah, there are a series of kind of mini constitutional crises, right, up until, you know, I think 1911 with your new best friend, George V. But it seems to be quite an open and shut case post the 18th century. Who does best post William and Mary, 1688 to present, let's say, at working out how to be a sovereign in these new circumstances? Yeah, gosh, that is a really good question. Well, I do like George V. It makes it sound like I'm aiming for a damehood, but I do think our current queen has done a pretty good job, actually, at just getting the balance and none of the work that goes with it.

But she has never, ever, to my knowledge, challenged really that constitution. And so she's criticised for that. But I kind of think it's ultimately incredibly pragmatic, because there is no way back. I think now we can't go back to a time when the monarch really does rule when they have an actual say. We're too far down the line of constitutional monarchy for that. I think Elizabeth II has recognised that. She's been very pragmatic. She's worked with it. And I think even people I found in my research who are rampant Republicans, they still respect and admire the Queen. Looking back across the whole thousand years now, are there similarities? Is it even possible to say such different people as George VI and Henry II? Did you spot anything that does feel universal?

really, or effectiveness, is the management of your public image. However you achieve that, whether in the age of Henry V, he sort of went on progresses to sort of celebrate his military victories. He was always very conscious of his public image. Elizabeth I, again, I know I keep mentioning her, but she was the absolute mistress of PR. And I think Elizabeth II as well has got it right in terms of that balance between maintaining the mystique of monarchy, but not being so aloof that you lose people. And interestingly, the only faux pas I think that she really made, there was a disastrous BBC documentary called The Royal Family that went out in 1969. And she was persuaded to do it. And as somebody wrote afterwards, you can't let daylight in on magic. It was an absolute PR disaster.

The royal family trying to pretend that they were normal and cooking a barbecue and things like that. And she hasn't done it since. She kind of learned from that lesson. So I think PR, really, that might sound quite insubstantial, but it's a really key ingredient for success and also upholding tradition. Otherwise, why would we bother with a monarchy, really? It does have a constitutional role, but it's the tradition.

It's the ceremony. That's why people flock to royal events still, why they flock to Britain in normal times. It's for our royal history. And finally, I do think there is a role to play. The longer a monarch is on the throne, the more able they are to be this kind of thread of continuity and to perhaps advise ministers, to warn them, to encourage. And so there is a role. It's not a powerful role, but the longer

you're on the throne, the better, really. As you're talking about PR, of course, I thought from battlefield PR, like William the Conqueror having to rip his helmet off to show everyone he was still alive at Hastings but also Henry III rebuilding Westminster Abbey and placing the confessor at the heart emphasizing as you point out that kind of claiming lineage being part of a long line stretching into the distant past and thus kind of removing any glimmers of thought in people's heads that there might be an alternative to this. This is a sort of time-hallowed institution, which is almost impossible to imagine England going without it. Yeah, absolutely. And it's a brilliantly effective way of doing it. You have to give the impression that this is an institution and indeed a person rooted in centuries of history. It makes them kind of untouchable, unshakable, really, and

much more difficult to challenge than if they were just looking at their own particular dynasty and not its longevity through history. And another really effective way of doing that is, you know, as I say, the upholding of tradition, even kind of fairly bonkers ones like touching for the king's evil was very popular for centuries where sufferers of scrofula would come and be touched on the diseased area by the monarch in this elaborate ceremony and apparently miraculously healed, you know, although I kind of think it was the placebo effect. And interestingly, even as late as Queen Anne, she was still keeping that tradition going. And there are still, you know still traditions that we still have today. The coronation is very, very similar to the one King Edgar had

1100 years ago. So that all helps to enhance this image of an unshakable institution. You can't mess with the monarchy. I've read your excellent Henry VIII book, which you came on to discuss on the History Hit Book Club the other day. Subscribers to History Hit TV can access the History Hit Book Club. Make sure you check your emails from us. And Tracy, we talked about how miserable Henry VIII was by the end of your book. I mean, he was obviously physically infirm. He was isolated. He was lonely.

He complained the whole time. He's like, who'd be a prince, right? I learned from your book. What about the physical toll, both in terms of generational clashes? It's the office that creates conflict between brothers, between families, between generations. Did you notice that all the way through as well? I think you have to be very fit to rule in all senses. Enormous pressure is put on the incumbent. Even if they start off really desperate for power, even if they battled their way to the throne, they're going to face an awful lot of physical, emotional,

psychological pressure. And you do see that taking its toll throughout history. Henry VIII is a great example. Of course, George III with his mental breakdown, and that was really worsened by the loss of America. That's when he absolutely suffered this kind of complete breakdown. And that was really worsened by the loss of America. That's when he absolutely suffered this kind of complete breakdown. And up to modern times, George V, bless him, and had to keep going on these seaside retreats towards the end of his life because it was all getting too much and he became a very, very heavy smoker. George VI, the Queen's father, never really wanted the job and his health really suffered because of it. So you do have to be quite robust. It seems though, it's the women who've got it

sorted in this respect. I know women tend to live longer than men anyway, but Elizabeth I, Victoria, Elizabeth II, all very long lived. I'd love to know a bit more about the secret behind that. Let's finish up by talking about women. I mean, it is striking that there are very few female sovereigns in English and then British history, but nearly all of them are quite near the top of the league table. I mean, Anne is never talked about, but actually I think Anne was a very good monarch. And so is there something, particularly this new post-Bosworth, post-medieval world, where actually women are better at it than men?

It's obviously an absurd generalisation, but the Georgian monarchy is, as I learned from the brilliant Historic Royal Palaces exhibition in Gainesville Palace, I'm sure you're a part of, but those women pioneered the new monarchy that we associate with today. Less military, less dominant about celebrating national achievement, about architecture, science, charity, philanthropy. The monarchy that those women, Caroline and others, created in the 18th century is the one that we have today. So are women better at this than men? I think they are. I'm pleased you said that, Dan, because I actually think they are. I think they

have the qualities and certainly history proves this. There aren't so many of them by far as men, but they seem to be in touch more with the public mood. They seem to invest time in activities that actually bring real results and real benefits for the monarchy, helping to safeguard it, such as the charity work, as you mentioned. I think actually, and this is again, you can't help but generalise here, they're great pragmatists. I think they don't necessarily go out on a limb for valour and for great glory in one respect or another. They're better at judging which way the tide's going and trying to swim with it rather than against it. And our current queen is a great example of that. Yeah, I think we may get a useful counterexample when her son gets on the throne.

Speaking of her son, why does she read your book? How does the history help you be a better monarch? For anyone about to launch into a career in monarchy, listen to this podcast. What can they learn from your book about how to be a better monarch? Well, they can read the epilogue, Dan, because the epilogue is about just that, you know, lessons from the past. What is still relevant today? What have we learned from the past thousand years that actually still applies? And it is things like the management of public image,

getting that balance right between the kind of continuity, but also change. And let's not forget, by the way, our current queen has been quite revolutionary in certain respects in bringing in finally a law that gives equal prominence to women as to men in the royal succession. And also just using the traditions that they've inherited, preserving those traditions, but somehow staying in touch as well with the way that the world is evolving. But I think people do still value the monarchy as this, as it's been called a golden thread that runs through generations, just as something stable and unchanging in a rapidly changing and often quite frightening world. Do you reckon we'll have a monarchy in 50 years' time?

I think we will. I think we will. There have been numerous surveys. People are very sure that we will in kind of 50 years' time. They get a lot less sure about 100 years' time, and perhaps I'm with them on that. But it's been a remarkable survivor, predicted to fall many, many times over the last thousand years. So hopefully it's still got legs. Yeah, I'd be amazed if someone like in 100 years' time.

I'd be surprised. I think I'd be surprised if Prince George ever ascends. That's right. We'll see. We'll see. That's the interesting thing. We have many male heirs now. That's the irony.

I know, ironically, as soon as you change the laws, male heirs coming out of every which way you look. Tracey Borman, thank you very much. This gigantic new book is called? Crown and Scepter, A New History of the British Monarchy. Go and check it out, everyone. Thank you very much for coming on. Thanks so much. I feel the hand of history upon our shoulders.

All this tradition of ours, our school history, our songs, this part of the history of our country, all were gone and finished. Thank you for making it to the end of this episode of Dan Snow's History. I really appreciate listening to this podcast. I love doing these podcasts. It's a highlight of my career. It's the best thing I've ever done. And your support, your listening is obviously crucial for that project. If you did feel like doing me a favor, if you go to wherever you get your podcasts and give it a review, give it a rating, obviously a good one, ideally, then that would be fantastic. And feel free to share it. We obviously depend on listeners, depend on more and more people finding out about it, depend on good reviews

to keep the listeners coming in. Really appreciate it. Thank you.