The 'Unruly' British Monarchy (with David Mitchell)

Summary

Noble Blood: A Deep Dive into the Ridiculous History of England's Kings and Queens

Episode Release Date: November 19, 2024
Hosts: Dana Schwartz, iHeartPodcasts, and Grim & Mild
Guest: David Mitchell, Comedian, Author, and Historian

---

Introduction

In this captivating episode of Noble Blood, host Dana Schwartz engages in an enlightening conversation with the multifaceted David Mitchell. Known for his prowess as a comedian, actor, and writer, Mitchell delves into his latest literary endeavor, "The Ridiculous History of England's Kings and Queens." This book offers a humorous yet insightful analysis of England's monarchs, exploring their impacts on British and human culture.

---

Inspiration Behind the Book

Dana Schwartz opens the discussion by highlighting the breadth of Mitchell's work and the significance of his new book.

[00:37] Dana Schwartz:
"David, thank you so much for joining me."

David Mitchell attributes his inspiration to the global pandemic, which provided him with the time and impetus to explore historical narratives. He likens the sudden arrival of COVID-19 to the unexpected incursion of the Vikings into Anglo-Saxon England, a metaphor that underscores the theme of unforeseen disruptions in history.

[01:37] David Mitchell:
"Well, it was definitely partly the global pandemic in that I was sitting around doing nothing... It was just something that came out of the blue and was a real pain for everyone."

Mitchell reflects on the universal feeling of powerlessness during the pandemic, drawing parallels to the Middle Ages' pervasive uncertainty.

---

Research Process

Mitchell describes his approach to historical research as a blend of personal knowledge and extensive reading. He emphasizes his primary goal: to make history amusing and accessible without sacrificing factual integrity.

[04:29] David Mitchell:
"I started writing about what I knew about already and to try and find a funny way through it."

He acknowledges his limitations, admitting that he did not consult primary sources but instead relied on existing literature to reconstruct historical events with a comedic flair.

[05:29] David Mitchell:
"I see myself as a comedian, not a historian. And I thought the first thing the book needs to be, if at all possible, is amusing..."

---

King Arthur's Myth and Its Modern Perception

A significant portion of the conversation revolves around King Arthur, a central yet mythical figure in British history.

[07:11] David Mitchell:
"King Arthur is a lovely idea, but he didn't exist. But very, very important if you're writing a book about kings, because that's the template."

Mitchell critiques the romanticization of King Arthur, pointing out the absence of historical evidence for his existence. He argues that Arthur serves as an idealized symbol, a "template" for kingship that later monarchs aspired to, despite his likely mythical origins.

[09:28] David Mitchell:
"You choose to start earlier than William I... I loved your analysis of King Arthur."

He connects this to modern nationalism, drawing parallels to slogans like "Make America Great Again," which similarly evoke an idealized, possibly fictional past.

---

Underrated and Overrated Monarchs

Mitchell offers his perspectives on various English kings, highlighting those he finds underrated or overrated.

Underrated: King Henry I

[14:19] David Mitchell:
"I've got a soft spot for Henry I... he really worked at it."

Mitchell praises Henry I for his competent and professional governance, emphasizing his efforts to maintain order and ensure a stable succession. He suggests that Henry I's reign was relatively successful compared to the tumultuous standards of the Middle Ages.

Overrated: King Henry V

[23:35] David Mitchell:
"He had that one buzzy battle, though, amazing battle. Agincourt definitely won against the odds."

While acknowledging Henry V's military success, particularly at the Battle of Agincourt, Mitchell criticizes the prolonged and ultimately futile English attempts to claim the French throne. He views these campaigns as wasteful and counterproductive.

---

Principles of Kingship: Stability vs. Competence

A recurring theme is the balance between maintaining stability through clear succession laws (primogeniture) and the competence of individual rulers.

[15:34] David Mitchell:
"Predictability feels like a sort of undersung factor in what makes a good king."

Mitchell argues that the predictability of succession is paramount to preventing civil wars and ensuring governmental continuity. He contrasts the meritocratic yet chaotic Anglo-Saxon elective kingship with the primogeniture system, advocating for the latter's stability despite its occasional shortcomings.

[16:04] David Mitchell:
"The entire principle of kingship is saying, never mind how good the ruler is, let's just know who it is."

---

The Controversial Reign of Richard III

Mitchell addresses the enduring debate surrounding Richard III, particularly his alleged role in the deaths of his nephews, the Princes in the Tower.

[26:23] David Mitchell:
"He definitely took the throne, you know, usurped the throne from his nephew... I think he probably did that."

While acknowledging Tudor propaganda's role in vilifying Richard III, Mitchell leans towards the conventional historical consensus that Richard was responsible for the princes' demise. He finds the emotional investment in reimagining Richard as a misunderstood hero both fascinating and emblematic of history's complexities.

[28:48] David Mitchell:
"History is the story that we tell ourselves... It’s an incredibly messy series of complicated people and complicated events that will be forever unknowable."

---

British Identity and the Monarchy

Mitchell explores how British and English identities are intertwined with the monarchy, noting the lack of a unified English identity compared to other nations within the UK.

[30:09] David Mitchell:
"Within the United Kingdom and the British Isles, the nations that aren't England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland have very, very strong senses of cultural identity. And England doesn't?"

He argues that the English identity often lacks a cohesive sense of self, relying instead on the monarchy as a unifying symbol. This dependence on monarchical symbolism contributes to England's obsession with its heritage and an idealized, often rural, past.

[31:32] David Mitchell:
"The monarchy then becomes a sort of symbol of a unifying one, even for those that are against the monarchy, if you see what I mean."

---

The Future of the Monarchy

Addressing the contemporary relevance of the monarchy, Mitchell contemplates whether nostalgia and national identity are sufficient to sustain it.

[34:19] David Mitchell:
"I don't know. But certainly I have no problem with the constitutional monarchy at all."

He appreciates the constitutional monarchy's role as a non-political figurehead, providing national dignity without wielding actual power. Mitchell expresses uncertainty about the monarchy's longevity but highlights its current utility in the UK's political framework.

[35:37] David Mitchell:
"It would leave you so vulnerable to the Vikings."

Mitchell humorously suggests that abandoning the monarchy could lead to political instability, drawing back to his earlier metaphor of external invasions.

---

Conclusion

David Mitchell's "The Ridiculous History of England's Kings and Queens" offers a blend of humor and historical analysis, shedding light on the often absurd aspects of monarchical rule. Through his engaging discussion on Noble Blood, Mitchell provides listeners with a nuanced understanding of England's royal past and its enduring impact on British identity.

[35:45] Dana Schwartz:
"Unruly the Ridiculous History of England's Kings and Queens is out in paperback in the UK and across the pond. You should absolutely pick it up."

Mitchell's insights not only entertain but also provoke thoughtful consideration of how history shapes contemporary societal structures and identities.

---

Notable Quotes:

• David Mitchell [04:29]:
  "I see myself as a comedian, not a historian. And I thought the first thing the book needs to be, if at all possible, is amusing..."

• David Mitchell [15:34]:
  "Predictability feels like a sort of undersung factor in what makes a good king."

• David Mitchell [28:48]:
  "History is the story that we tell ourselves... It’s an incredibly messy series of complicated people and complicated events that will be forever unknowable."

• David Mitchell [31:32]:
  "The monarchy then becomes a sort of symbol of a unifying one, even for those that are against the monarchy, if you see what I mean."

---

This episode of Noble Blood serves as a testament to the intricate dance between history, humor, and national identity, all through the lens of England's most colorful monarchs.

Transcript

[Dr. Joy Hardin Bradford]

This is Dr. Joy Hardin Bradford from Therapy for Black Girls. You know that Amazon has millions of books, so you can find one that gives you just the reading feeling you're looking for. You know, like if you're looking for a relaxed feeling, like with a beach read, Amazon has got it covered. Or if you're looking for more of a terrified ah with evil twins or things lurking in the woods or something, Amazon's got you. I mean, even if you want an aw teen romance, Amazon has it covered too. Amazon Books. That reading feeling awaits.

[Dana Schwartz]

Welcome to Noble Blood, a production of iHeartRadio and Grim and Mild from Aaron Menke. Listener discretion advised.

[David Mitchell]

I'm so thrilled to be talking to the brilliant David Mitchell, who's an incredible comedian, actor, writer, television show creator, icon of British panel shows, and author of several books. But his latest book, the Ridiculous History of England's Kings and Queens, is now out in paperback. If you're a listener of this podcast, you will absolutely love this book. It's such a phenomenal analysis, not only of the early kings and queens of England, starting from before William I, which I thought was a brilliant decision, but an analysis really of what our historical understanding of those kings says about British culture and human culture as a whole. David, thank you so much for joining me.

No, not at all. Thank you for having me. Thank you for that lovely introduction.

So, just to start, what inspired you to write a book about the British monarchy?

Well, it was definitely partly the global pandemic in that I was sitting around doing nothing and I sort of went through a long period of frustration at all of the books and screenplays that everyone else seemed to be using their time to write while I sat there and miserably refreshed the BBC news page in the hope of some sign of an end to it all. And then finally, when there was some sign of an end to it all, I found something to do, which was to initially sit down and start typing about how the arrival of COVID felt a bit like the arrival of the Vikings must have felt to the Anglo Saxons. As in, it was just something that came out of the blue and was a real pain for everyone. It was, you know, literal and metaphorical pain ensued. So I literally started typing that chapter, I think, because of that, you know, the weirdness of COVID and the suddenness. Do you do think more about history because you think, oh, my God, this is a bit of it that's happening. It's just happening suddenly to me. And it's not out of a trend, really. I mean, Obviously, people relentlessly talk about how it was out of a trend and we should have seen it coming and why wasn't there more PPE in all the covers, et cetera, et cetera. But they weren't saying it beforehand, or if they were, no one was listening. So I sort of. I think, broadly speaking, no one saw it coming. I mean, the Anglo Saxons thought that they should have seen the Vikings coming by, you know, and it was all because they hadn't prayed enough. And there's really no evidence of a connection between their lack of praying and the arrival of Norse warriors. But, you know, you start think about your powerlessness in the universe. And that's how a lot of people in the Middle Ages felt all the time, because they really didn't know what the hell was going on. So it was a natural thing to start typing about. And then it was great that I just had that freedom for a few months just to play around with it and find a tone of voice that I hope is funny for talking about the past in a. Not in a detailed way, but in a way that gives an overview for people who wish they had more of an overview of, in the case of my book, the Kings and Queens of England. So, yes, by the time we were allowed to go out and go to cafes again, I'd written a third of it, and that meant I was bound to finish it or that third would have been wasted. I intend to write another book, but I'm not quite sure how I'll do it without a pandemic.

Well, I was going to say, well, we would all. We would all hope for that, but let's just say if there was another pandemic, that would be the slight silver lining.

Well, thank you.

Where did you begin in your historical research? Obviously there you cover a wide swath of history. What was sort of your process like, of finding sources or reading genuinely?

I started writing about what I knew about already and to try and find a funny way through it. And then when I sort of realized, actually I've got to a point I don't know what happened now, then I. I just read around it and I can't pretend to have gone back to primary sources in any way, but I just read some books about it and got my sense of what was vaguely going on and tried to re express it in a way that's comic and informative. And I see myself as a comedian, not a historian. And I thought the first thing the book needs to be, if at all possible, is amusing and if it can be Amusing through things that are true and in my view, sort of historically matter, then that would be hopefully a rewarding read. Rather than taking, you know, obviously you can find funny things in history in terms of, broadly, the disgustingness of life, then the lack of plumbing, the weird superstitions. You can do that.

The existence of king henry viii.

Yeah, exactly. Or you can try and do. What I hope I've done, at least partly, is take the things that were important and see the funny side of that. And that doesn't mean, because I'm a big believer that anything that matters is looked at in a certain way funny. And if it doesn't matter, it's never that funny. The best comedies have always been about things that really matter. You know, the heart of the simpsons is a story of disappointment and a failed dream and the sort of. I mean, there's a great line in it, I think, that, you know, be the cause of an answer to all of life's problems. And in that, you sort of. There's a sort of deep truth about human disappointment that makes that show much funnier than if it was just, you know, funny about silly things.

They should put that on the emmy campaigns. I haven't seen that on the billboards.

Well, I think the greatest truth comes through comedy, I think. And I, you know, as someone who's tried to say funny things about the news at various times in my career, I thought, well, I'll try that. About what was the news, which is history.

One thing that I love about this book that I mentioned briefly in the introduction is that you choose to start earlier than william I, than william the conqueror, where the counting sort of begins. But there's so much british english history that happens before then, and particularly I loved your analysis of king arthur. Can you talk a little bit about how the myth of king arthur sort of is understood in modern day britain?

Well, king arthur's probably the most famous king in some ways. There's probably more programs made about henry viii these days, but he's an incredibly famous figure, the original good king who reigned at some point after the romans had left and before the anglo saxons arrived, and a wonderful, very, very pure and christian kingdom. And this is a lovely idea lent on and enjoyed for centuries by other kings, by people who were sad that their king wasn't better, and they thought, if only he could have been more like good old king arthur was. And, you know, has been dramatized for television and in films. And it's a really lovely idea. The only problem is there is absolutely zero evidence that he existed at all. And, you know, he just didn't. It's just not possible. I mean, he looks like a medieval king in all the pictures. And that's because the key time of imagining and enjoying imagining him was the Middle Ages. And they didn't really think about whether people wore the same clothes hundreds of years earlier as they did. So that's a bit of a clue. Why would there be this sudden, basically, totally medieval king, a bit like Edward I or Edward iii, cropping up soon after the last toga just rotted and before the first boat comes over from Denmark? It just doesn't add up. And the monks of Glastonbury Abbey, who were, you know, nothing if not entrepreneurial, created a grave for King Arthur and his queen. And everyone thought, well, he must have existed, he's got a grave. But no, it's, you know, you could say the same about Mickey Mouse and his castle. So, yes, King Arthur is a lovely idea, but he didn't exist. But very, very important if you're writing a book about kings, because that's the template. That's what everyone was saying a king should be and they didn't. They weren't great many periods of the past, and we're not necessarily that great at it now, even they weren't great at hoping for a better future. What they could do, though, is hark back to a better past. But they didn't necessarily really know what the past was like, so they sort of invented a utopian past in King Arthur, or certainly utopian when it comes to kingship, and decided that's what they would hark back to.

I found that idea in your book very striking, with a lot of modern parallels of how motivating it is for people to hearken back to an imaginary past, whether or not that past actually existed.

Well, exactly. And our views are memories of the past that, you know, the issue of. Of make America great again is hanging over this conversation. So I'm just going to say, yes, that is an attempt to hark back to something in people's minds. And whether or not that thing ever existed is, well, certainly unproved. Either way, it was a different world in all of the west in the 1950s and 60s. And in many ways it was a worse world, but in some ways it was a better world. Obviously, there are people who want to cherry pick elements of the past and say, let's get back to that. It was better. One of the things that was better for us all, of course, is that we were younger, so our backs hurt. A bit less. Our knees were less troublesome, our death was further away and you can't actually get back to that.

Our parents weren't telling us about all the bad things happening on the news and movies were better because we of course weren't watching them with a critical eye.

Yes, quite so you can't help. Nostalgia is a powerful force and even it's possible to feel nostalgia, even for great misery in one's own past. And that's just because it's gone now and will never be recaptured. And so it has a kind of rose tinted aura.

[Dana Schwartz]

I live in Los Angeles, but I absolutely love falling. Here is a very incomplete list of things that I love as fall comes around. Going to a pumpkin patch way too sweet lattes and slipping into a cozy sweater from Quince. Quince is known for their Mongolian cashmere sweaters from $50. And it's not just that all Quince products are priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. That includes beautiful leather jackets, cotton cardigans, soft denim and so much more because they partner directly with top factories and cut out the cost of the middleman which passes the savings on to us. I have a Quince V neck that's like absolutely perfect every time I get on a plane. It's like my go to travel sweater because it's thin but not too thin and warm but doesn't make me sweaty. So I am all in on Quince. Get cozy in Quince's high quality wardrobe essentials. Go to quince.comnoble for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Q U I N C E.comnoble to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.comnoble this is Dr. Joy Hardin Bradford.

[Dr. Joy Hardin Bradford]

From Therapy for Black Girls. There are millions of books on Amazon so there's a reading feeling for everyone. So if you're after that excited haha feeling like when you discover you have a lot in common with Vikings or something, Amazon has books for you. Or maybe you enjoy the sort of nervous haha that comes when the hero barely escapes the zombies. Or maybe you like the smug that comes when the villain gets what he deserves. You know Amazon has it all. Amazon books. That reading feeling awaits.

[David Mitchell]

One idea that I love in this book is the notion that the, for lack of a better phrase, Da Vinci codification of trying to find the real King Arthur is ultimately a meaningless exercise. Because even if you found a man who happened to be called Arthur, he wouldn't be the king that he became in popular legend.

Well, no, exactly. And people are so desperate for King Arthur to have existed. You know, understandably, it would be really cool that they seem willing to drop almost every meaningful attribute, I'd say, including his name, that sort of go. Maybe he was based on some major chieftain who ruled the Britons. Soon after the legions left and the Anglo Saxons arrived. And he said, well, yes, okay. I mean, obviously there were powerful figures then because people lived and so there will have been people bossing them around. That's the way of the world. But in what meaningful way are any of them King Arthur? And yes, I suppose King Arthur is based on them because that's the time in history that he's supposedly sort of cited. But unless any of these people were in any way good in the same ways as King Arthur, then the basing him on them is not very meaningful.

Who, in your research of this book, which goes from the imaginary King Arthur up until Elizabeth I, would you say is the most underrated king that you came across?

I've got a soft spot for Henry I, and he's certainly not very highly rated at the time. I don't suppose he felt underrated. He was, you know, everybody said he was a very successful king, but I think he's largely forgotten now. And the, the reason he interests me is that he feels very professional. And you sort of feel that the government under him was. He had an interest not, not necessarily in the priorities that modern government have, but he wanted order, he wanted expansion of his own realm, but sort of to a limited extent, he wasn't going mad for that. He wanted an orderly succession to the next generation. He very much didn't get that, but he really worked at it. So you sort of think that that's not that nightmarish for the people at the time. If you've got a king like that, then that is reasonably competent government. And that may sound like faint praise, but it, in the context of the Middle Ages, it isn't faint praise, it's high praise because the standard of government was dreadful. So I think Henry I, I think if all the kings had been like Henry I, then being a medieval peasant would have been 40% more pleasant than it actually turned out to be. So, yeah, I, I'll put in a word for him.

I do love the emphasis over the book of, of predictability and the value of stability and understanding what's coming next and whether that is knowing which son is going to become king next or knowing that you're not going to go to war and lose all your holdings in Normandy, predictability feels like a sort of undersung factor in what makes a good king. It's not usually as glamorous in a conversation when compared to war or conquering or crusades.

Basically, they knew at the time, as far as I can tell, that there was no amount of good stuff that any individual ruler could do that was as bad as what could go wrong if there was a disputed succession. And they were very much happy. The whole principle of kingship is saying, never mind how good the ruler is, let's just know who it is. Because when we don't know who it is, that's civil war. And the very basic stuff that we expect from our government stopping us being invaded, maybe a bit of help if the crops fail, you know, low level law and order that will collapse if we don't know who the king is. And even quite bad kings might keep those basic services limping along. So by saying, and in the early part of the book, the Anglo Saxons, they didn't have a principle of primogeniture, so it wasn't necessarily the eldest son who was supposed to succeed. So quite often when an Anglo Saxon king died, there was a mini civil war while his sons fought it out for who was going to run the kingdom. And that's actually a marginally more meritocratic system you get. The more effective warrior king tends to be the one that prevails. But that element of meritocracy was demonstrably not worth it for the amount of fighting and killing that that system involved. You know, now in a functioning democracy, you, you get fingers crossed an orderly succession when one government replaces the other. And that's a really important part of what makes a democracy work. Because if you don't have that, you're better off just not changing the government, ever, sticking with who you've got, and then saying as clearly as possible in advance, and when he dies, it'll be his son. And please, may it just continue on this even keel for as long as possible. Because the worst things that happened in the Middle Ages weren't the things the king did, it was the times no one knew who the king was or couldn't agree on that. And that's happened a lot in the Anglo Saxon era with no primogeniture established. It happened when Henry I died and he wanted his daughter to succeed him. That was, did not go down well.

At the time, as seen on House of the Dragon.

Right, yes. And, you know, that was. So there was absolutely, you know, a hellish, it's known unfashionably now, but it's known as the anarchy, traditionally, that period, and that's a hint that it wasn't nice. The wars of the Roses a few hundred years later, that's a long period of lack of clarity as to who the king was. That was the lesson of the age. But every so often they broke their own rules. So Richard ii, absolutely terrible king, but undoubtedly the rightful king. Nobody ever really disputed his right to rule, however awful his conduct was. But in the end, he was so bad they couldn't stand it. And the barons got rid of him and he. And basically killed him or allowed him to die and put another guy on the throne who was in every way more competent. And they all liked him and, you know, he'll be much better. But they all felt they'd done wrong. The next king was Henry iv. He had a sort of very unstable, unhappy reign, but basically there on the office of king was never properly strong again. And there was a lot more fighting over who would be in charge after that. And so fundamentally, it wasn't worth it. They should have stuck with Richard II until he died and, you know, there would have been less horribleness if they had. But at the time they thought, well, he just can't. This can't carry on to me because it's a long time ago and all of the pain caused has receded well into the background. I find it funny. I find that quandary. They're relentlessly in, the aristocrats of sort of stability versus competence. I find that amusing. Amusing to see them struggle with it. Amusing how they've invented collectively this thing, kingship, that they claim God is into. So they. They give the ruler the sort of endorsement of the Almighty. That was a clever idea to have cooked up. But then the problem is, what if you have an absolute idiot, you know, slash murderous maniac, who you're now saying is endorsed by God? What do you do about that? And should you just do nothing, you know, hope it gets better, wait till he dies, should you try and get rid of him? But then what are you saying? What's. What's the system then? I think the other thing that we forget is that they really bought into this. It might have been invented in the Middle Ages, the notion of kingship, but they didn't feel that they'd invented it. They thought it was something fundamental and natural and genuinely ordained by God. So as soon as they undermine it, they feel, have we committed a terrible sin? And if they don't feel like that, they're just sort of rudderless in the universe, saying, well, who's supposed to look after us? Who's supposed to say what's what? And we're quite used to the notion of atheism now. There are a lot of atheists and there's no one who hasn't heard of the idea. So we've all contemplated that feeling that what if there is no order to the universe? There is no big beardy guy in charge making sure we'll all be okay. And so even if we do decide we're religious and we. It's a sort of choice. In those days, it wasn't a choice. They were. That's. They were told it was true in the same way we're told how to wire a plug. And that must have been very, very comforting. And the idea of kingship was fundamentally linked to that. So as soon as the king is bad, as soon as they get rid of a king, then their whole notion of the universe is shaken. It's as if they suddenly discover that the, you know, the solar system isn't as we believe it to be.

I mean, there's that idea where if the king isn't chosen by God, then it's just a man in a gold hat. And we've created all of these institutions around him that are artificial and ultimately meaningless. You know, hundreds of people bringing him his breakfast and organizing his jousts and everything that goes into kingship. What is it all for if it's not God anointing this person as the leader of all of us?

Exactly. A tremendous comfort comes from it and the sort of duty to this figure and as sort of trying to say, well, you know, the Lord moves in mysterious ways, so the king may seem like a maniac, but maybe this is all going to come good in the end. And throughout my book, you see people try and shore up that idea and you see them confront it, and it's. It doesn't really come to any final conclusion. But at the end, there's still a sovereign on the throne claiming that they ruled by divine sanction. I think the idea is less bought into by the nobleman then than it had been a few hundred years earlier, but they're still going with it. But there is also something called a parliament, sort of slightly reigning in the monarchs. And that obviously is a prelude to the next chapter of English and British history, when the Parliament and the king end up fighting a war. But you could sort of see that that was inevitable because they were fundamentally always going to come to blows if.

Henry I is sort of the unsung king, or an underrated king in British history. Who would you say is the most overrated?

King Henry V, I think, is probably the most overrated.

He had that one buzzy battle, though, amazing battle.

Agincourt definitely won against the odds. And he, by the end of his reign was, you know, the heir to the French throne as well as king of England. And so, you know, on his own terms, he was spectacularly successful. That's where I sort of play my comedian's card and say I'm allowed to take a step back from, from medieval kingship and say that the hundreds of years of English kings desperately trying also to be kings of France was an enormous waste of energy, money, lives and effort. And it was pointless. It was the wrong policy. The king of England will never be the king of France as well. The king of France will never be the king of England as well. It was just unworkable. But yet English kings, for hundreds of years, their main focus was raising money to raise troops to go over to fight battles in France with horrendous consequences for the people trying to just live in France. And in the end, they usually failed. There are a few examples of that, you know, English history has sort of always cherished of these against the odds victories with the brave English archers defeating larger numbers of French knights. But you take a step back and what was the point in all of that? The king of England never became king of France and it wouldn't have been good if they had. It was just a waste of time and blood and energy. And it's one of the things I like about Henry I is that he didn't really try any of that. He was the Duke of Normandy. He wanted control of Normandy. He'd like control of some other bits around Normandy if possible, but he didn't have any ridiculous ideas about also being king of France like Henry V and Edward III did, or being, say, like Henry VIII did, being some sort of emperor or whatever. He, he knew his place. He had reasonable ambitions for a king of his scale, and that caused a lot less suffering. Henry V was a maniac fueled by sort of religious fervour, very successful militarily, but what is the point in all of that energy and all of that killing of poor French noblemen while they were wrapped up in armor.

That's a fantastic read. I also, I think one of the most controversial kings, and not. And controversial in the sense that people have very, very strong opinions on both sides of the issue, is Richard iii, because There are people who have very strong feelings. What are your feelings on Richard iii?

Well, my feeling, I take the conventional line on Richard iii, which is that he is overwhelmingly the most likely person to have caused the deaths of his nephews, the princes in the Tower. That's the key point of controversy over Richard iii. He definitely took the throne, you know, usurped the throne from his nephew, who's referred to as Edward V, although he wasn't really meaningfully ever a king, but he definitely usurped the throne. But obviously, plenty of people did that, including Henry I. That doesn't necessarily make you villainous in the context of English kingship, but it's also, he has always been accused of murdering his nephew, Edward V, and his brother when they were boys in the Tower of London, and, you know, either murdering them himself or more likely, having them murdered. I think he probably did that. And that is the conventional historical line. But Richard III has a lot of fans who think he was, you know, unfairly maligned, largely as a result of Tudor propaganda, because after Richard III fell, there was a regime change. The Tudor dynasty came in and they had to justify them their having taken the throne, and which they needed, needed a lot of justification because they definitely weren't heirs to the throne by any of the conventions of inheritance. So they needed to cook up a story. And the key part of their story was, well, the king before was awful. He killed his nephews, he was a tyrant. And so, you know, obviously you have to be suspicious of the things they say about Richard iii, but I don't know what else happened to those princes, because nobody, as far as we know, nobody saw them for at least two years before Henry VII was on the scene. So I don't see that it's plausible that they were killed by the Tudors. I think it. It was very likely to have been Richard iii, but I'm not saying that's definite. What amuses me is how much emotional investment people have in saying, no, Richard III was lovely, he was a great king. And he sort of go, well, we can't know. We can't know for sure. We know the balance of probability. We know it's more likely he killed the princes in the Tower than anyone else. And we sort of just have to be satisfied with that. And you can enjoy an imagined Richard III who was unfairly slandered by the Tudors if you want to, but you can't tell yourself that was definitely the case just because you find it an attractive idea.

It kind of goes back to what you were saying about history being the story that we tell ourselves in that it's very fun to imagine that it's a detective story that we can solve and not a incredibly messy series of complicated people and complicated events that will be forever unknowable.

Well, exact. All we have is the evidence that's gone that come down to us and things have been written about it. And, you know, that we're not going to suddenly discover video footage of Henry VII killing the young Prince Edward V. It's just not going to happen. There's always going to be a question mark over it. So I thought in my overview, I'll, you know, I'll say what I think probably happened and the reason I think it probably went that way. That's what most people think and that's the direction most of the evidence points in. But I fully accept we can't totally know.

[Dana Schwartz]

I don't want to keep you too.

[David Mitchell]

Long, but just as we wrap up the conversation. What I love about this book is not only is it an overview of the monarchs as they came, but also it fundamentally deepens, especially as an American, my understanding of how British people see themselves through the monarchy. Is there something you learned about British identity or discovered over the course of writing this book that surprised you?

Well, I think the more I thought about it, the more I was very careful to say this is a book about the English kings. So it's not about the Scottish kings.

Yes, I apologize.

No, no, not at all. But I'm sort of more explaining why I was so clear on that. Partly because I, you know, Scottish history up to 1603 is a, you know, a linked but separate thing. Ditto Irish history. And I wasn't going to pretend I'd covered them because I hadn't. So I come in clean. This is just England, obviously, after the period of my book onwards, the monarchy, the same monarchy, is effectively shared by more parts of the British Isles. So it become the story is more unified into a story of British history, the divisions within it notwithstanding. What it struck me is that within the United Kingdom and the British Isles, the nations that aren't England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland have very, very strong senses of cultural identity. And England doesn't? I don't think so. I think England's various sections of England have strong senses of identity. Cornwall and Yorkshire and London and Kentucky and the north of England versus the south of England. These are strong senses. But England as a whole doesn't have a strong sense of itself as separate from Britain in the way Scotland and Wales do.

To an American, I would say that the English identity, and correct me if I'm wrong, seems to be exclusively bunting and baking in a tent and having a man poke at your bread and tell you if it's overproofed or not.

Well, that certainly is a big part of our identity. But that program, confusingly, is not called the Great English Bake Off. So we have this issue of Englishness and Britishness, where they're distinct. For Scots, even the ones that don't want Scotland to become an independent country, even Scots in favor of the Union still have a strong sense of what is different about Scotland from England, what Scotland's unique identity within Britain is. England, I don't think, has that sense. So England very much turns backward on its own history, and at the center of its history is its monarchy. So I think, I say early in the book, the monarchy is what England has instead of a sense of identity. And that's obviously a simplification. And I think there are many senses of identity in England, but no real unifying one. But the monarchy then becomes a sort of symbol of a unifying one, even for those that are against the monarchy, if you see what I mean. There it is at the center of us. Whether you like it or not, it's there. It's why England is so obsessed with its own heritage, obsessed with looking back, with nostalgia, with sort of returning to the point about nostalgia being something that people can invest in more wholeheartedly than a belief in a better future. And the Great British Bake off is obviously part of that because its entire aesthetic is a sort of idealized 1950s village England. But England has been largely metropolitan since the early part of the 19th century. And yet the typical England, the archetypal England, is about villages. Well, most people live in big cities. In England, we were the first industrialized nation. And yet we associate ourselves with rural areas. Well, that's something fundamentally absurd about that. We should be the most sort of urban focused of all the cultures. But no, we think of ourselves as rural, even though we're patently not. And the monarchy being at the center of that is part of it. And we feel safe focusing on our monarchy because these days it's harmless and powerless. But nevertheless, it's sort of all we've got is our sort of badge of belonging.

And forgive me, because this book does stop at Queen Elizabeth I. But I'm curious, on your, on your read, on the modern day monarchy, do you think that fundamental nostalgia and fondness for a sort of national story is enough to keep the monarchy going in the present day?

I don't know. But certainly I have no problem with the constitutional monarchy at all. And I think there's something quite useful about having the figurehead of the country, the nominal, most important person in the country, not actually being the person with the power. I think putting the power and the sort of dignity of nationhood in the same person can be problematic. I say that at risk of, you know, straying into topicality again, but I genuinely think it's useful that the person with the power, most power in Britain is the prime minister, but they have someone else who's nominally their boss. And obviously if we got rid of the monarchy, we would have to have a new constitution. We'd have to decide whether to have an executive presidency like in the United States and France, or whether you have a president you elect but has little more power than a monarch. And, you know, I don't know how well we cope with that because if you've won an election, you should have power, shouldn't you? Or, you know, we'd have to face up to all of that. And my fear is that we're going through a tricky time ourselves here. Faith in politicians and politics is at a sort of all time low. And this isn't really the best time to frame a new constitution.

It would leave you so vulnerable to the Vikings.

It would. Excellent point. Yes. And then we'd only have ourselves to blame.

Well, Unruly the Ridiculous History of England's Kings and Queens is out in paperback in the UK and across the pond. You should absolutely pick it up. It is a delightful and such a smart read. David Mitchell, I can't thank you again enough for this conversation. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much for having me. I've really enjoyed it.

[Dana Schwartz]

Noble Blood is a production of iHeartRadio and Grim and Mild from Aaron Mankey. Noble Blood is hosted by me, Dana Schwartz, with additional writing and research by Hannah Johnston, Hannah Zwick, Courtney Sender, Amy Height and Julia Milani. The show is edited and produced by Jesse Funk with supervising producer Reema Il Kayali and executive producers Aaron Menke, Trevor Young and Matt Frederick. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.

[Dr. Joy Hardin Bradford]

This is Dr. Joy Harnon Bradford from Therapy for Black Girls. Reading books gives you feelings. I mean, that's what they do. And with millions of books on Amazon, there's a reading feeling for everyone. Like there's an awestruck whoa feeling. You get when you read about a dragon flying across the sky. But that's different from the surprised Whoa. You get when you read that the best friend did it. And that's totally different than the hubba hubba. Whoa. When the stable boy becomes a stable man and Amazon's got all the woes. Amazon books. That reading feeling awaits.