Loading summary
Transcript109 lines
- [00:00]
A
I should have brought it, but I found a photograph. I was clearing out a box of photographs, which sounds like a task that only happens in novels, but I was actually doing it. I found a photograph of you in my parents kitchen. Don't know what you were doing there. I do know it was my 21st birthday party.
- [00:19]
B
I remember that party.
- [00:20]
A
Do you?
- [00:21]
B
Yeah.
- [00:21]
A
And when I was looking at the photos, I didn't really remember much, but I was like, fucking hell, there's Elizabeth.
- [00:25]
B
I don't think I really knew you that well up until that point because how we met. We were both at university together and I was dating your friend. You were, But I remember you being the year below. And at that stage in life, it feels like a really big age gap. And I was like, who's this young buck? Young buck? And I don't think we ever really spoke that much, but I was just aware that you were in the vicinity. And Rick, my then boyfriend, referred to you as Dolla.
- [00:54]
A
He did.
- [00:54]
B
That was your name? That was my name as far as I was concerned. But then I was invited as Rick's plus one. She was 21st. And it was really lovely because as you say, it was in your family home. There was a marquee. I remember thinking, oh, that's grown up.
- [01:06]
A
You're making me sound a bit posh.
- [01:08]
B
And over the years, we've fallen in and out of contact because our friendship was only really established through podcasting. And that's when we reconnected. And I feel like that's when we had our first proper conversation. And during the course of that conversation, I. I remember Richard III coming up. This episode is brought to you by TaxAct. Don't do your taxes alone. Join TaxAct's National Admin Night. Admin nights are social gatherings for getting through your to do list. So get ready for a night of fun. Finding deductions and filing taxes with TaxAct where you can file your federal and state return for just $49 through April 8th. Let's get together and get them over with. Visit taxact.comadminknight for details.
- [01:59]
A
So that, yes, I remember the conversation. There were two things that we spoke about. The first was peloton.
- [02:04]
B
Yes, our other obsession.
- [02:08]
A
And my exercise bike radar went off. And the second was you, I think, admitted straight off the bat to being a Ricardian.
- [02:17]
B
Yes. There's no admission to it, Dan. I don't need to admit. I don't need to confess it. I'm not ashamed of it.
- [02:24]
A
Well, maybe you should be.
- [02:25]
B
I know you think that because you are obsessed with the Tudors, you have such a hard on for them that you've fallen every single piece of Tudor propaganda you could do. And that's why I'm thrilled that we're having this conversation. Because not only have we bonded over the years as friends, but we're both history graduates.
- [02:44]
A
Both history graduates. And as any history graduate will tell you, there are two sides to any argument, one right and one wrong. We will establish which side of those we rely on. Why don't we start? Hello, this is History's Greatest Fails with me, Dan Jones. I'm a medievalist, broadcaster and author.
- [03:06]
B
And I'm Elizabeth Day, a fellow author and podcaster.
- [03:10]
A
We're old friends and fellow history graduates. And in this podcast we're going to dig into failures of historical proportions to
- [03:18]
B
to understand why failures make history.
- [03:21]
A
Now, before we begin some housekeeping.
- [03:23]
B
Yes, if you were expecting how to fail, don't fret. My podcast hasn't changed. As this is our first collaboration, we're marking this very special moment by giving you the debut episode of History's Greatest Fails on both of our feeds.
- [03:39]
A
And to catch the rest of this series, indulge your inner history nerd by subscribing to my podcast the this is History. A dynasty to die for. Now, let's get stuck in you, Elizabeth Day, I put this to you are a Ricardian. You're in love with Richard III in some kind of sick, fetishistic way. And I think that the failure of the last Plantagenet monarch, who brought down the glorious house of Plantagenet, which I've been spending season after season narrating the story of on my podcast, this man, for some reason you think is totally marvelous. I wonder if you can explain, first of all, why you're such a Richard III obsessive.
- [04:22]
B
I will explain, but before I do, I'd like to point out there that you've done something that many Ricardian women have to constantly, constantly address, which is that you have accused me of being in love with Richard iii, which automatically from the outset undermines my historical prerogative to put this case. And one might suggest that your argument is going to be the weaker because of it, because you've gone personal from the start. And actually, there's an enormous amount of historical fact that I can draw on to put my case.
- [04:57]
A
Well, you go ahead, but before you do, can I just say, not just women who are in love with Richard iii.
- [05:02]
B
Okay, that's your defence?
- [05:04]
A
That's one of my defences, yeah.
- [05:05]
B
I'VE got a few more. So I became fascinated with Richard III at quite a young age. I think I was around 10 or 11. And I don't know if you remember the erstwhile, much lamented Discovery Magazine.
- [05:22]
A
Discovery magazine.
- [05:23]
B
Were you ever a subscriber?
- [05:25]
A
Just context for listeners and viewers. Elizabeth as a child was maybe the geekiest child that ever lived.
- [05:33]
B
I take that as a compliment coming from you.
- [05:34]
A
It was a compliment.
- [05:39]
B
Discovery magazine was a history periodical for kids. And I loved it so much. I loved it so much. And they did an entire issue on Richard III and Henry vii. And I think there is something somewhat mystical about the allure that Richard III has for so many people. And I think maybe it's because it's what we all love. It's an unsolved mystery. It's an unsolved true crime story. For many of. I, since reading that copy of Discovery magazine, have been obsessed with the fact that Richard III was wrongly accused of murdering the princes in the Tower. That's one of the things that we're going to address in this episode, but we're also going to address what you have claimed, which is that he brought down the Plantagenets. He had a very brief reign of around 26 months, I think. And so we're going to discuss whether that shortness is in and of itself a failure.
- [06:36]
A
But before we do that, let's just for the sake of clarity for listeners like Spel, who Richard was before the reign, because I think that what often happens with discussions of Richard III is that they're played backwards and when you read the story forwards, I think what you see with Richard III is a personal tragedy and a good object lesson in the way that politics in particular can spiral very badly when you have these decision trees of bad decision leads to two more options for bad decisions and things get worse and worse and worse. But first of all, I think you have to start with who is Richard? Well, Richard, born in 1452, for sort of broad context, the same year as Leonardo da Vinci. For most of his life, he is a significant political success, one of three brothers of Richard, Duke of York, one of three sons, sorry, surviving sons to significant political adulthood of Richard, Duke of York, the elder of which is Edward iv, who defeats the House of Lancaster at the Battle of Towton in 1460 and becomes the first Yorkist King of England. Richard III is actually extremely competent, but probably in a way too competent in the sense that he can't sort of grasp the broader political implications of what he's going to do. So on the death of Edward IV in 1483, Richard has effectively a binary decision to take. Does he allow Edward IV's son, the young Edward V, who has been effectively captured by the Woodville family, the family of Edward IV's wife, widow, side note,
- [08:20]
B
obsessed with Elizabeth Woodville.
- [08:22]
A
Why are you obsessed with Elizabeth Woodville?
- [08:23]
B
She's called Elizabeth number one and she's one of the founders of my Cambridge college, Queen's College. And I find her story fascinating because she was the commoner and she'd been married before and so brought into the this marriage with a king, like children that she already pre existing children, his stepchildren.
- [08:43]
A
Yep.
- [08:44]
B
And I find that all very interesting. And then the sanctuary in Westminster Abbey of it all.
- [08:49]
A
You really like reality television? Correct.
- [08:52]
B
I love reality tv and that's what history is.
- [08:54]
A
I totally agree. That is in no way a criticism. And the Woodville marriage with Edward IV is precisely that. It's just a sort of weird kind of jumble of all these oddball people interacting with each other and then suddenly this is a amazing moment of revelation where the King turns up and goes, guess what? I've got something to tell you all gather round. I got married to someone completely inappropriate.
- [09:18]
B
Yes. Whose brother is a championship jouster.
- [09:21]
A
Yeah.
- [09:23]
B
They're such a glamorous family. Anyway, I've gone off on a tangent.
- [09:25]
A
So Edward IV contrasts his marriage. He's got the two children. Up until the point of Edward IV dying, Richard Duke of Gloucester has been like the right hand man. But he has this decision to make in 1483 as to whether he's going to allow the new king effectively to be captured by the other side of the family. And when he decides he's not that he's going to force himself on the situation, it's where the sort of spiral begins. And every decision he makes thereafter starts to drag him into this zero sum politics where if he backs off at this point, he can't anymore surrender to the Woodville because it becomes kill or be killed. He has made enough decisions at that point. When the princes are in the tower that have been extremely ruthless and politically calculated, that it seems to me utterly bizarre and out of keeping with his like 15th century brutal politics head on. And if you've been born in 1452, you know, politics is kill or be killed. If he doesn't kill those princes in the Tower, he's insane.
- [10:37]
B
Let's hypothetically say that I agree with you. For the purposes of this, it doesn't
- [10:42]
A
have to be hypothetical.
- [10:45]
B
Is it therefore Fair to say that that was a successful decision. And so this whole notion of Richard III being a failure is irrelevant.
- [10:55]
A
I think it's a necessary political decision, but it can also be morally abhorrent. I think the slight red herring about his failure or success is that we zoom in on the princes in the Tower instead of the Battle of Bosworth. The Battle of Bosworth is connected to the princes in the Tower in the sense that when you fight a battle, you're inviting God's judgment. And so Richard fights this battle against Henry Tudor and God decides. We tend to, I think when we look at this from our sort of post enlightenment, rational, 20th, 21st century worldview, think that stuff about God. Well, yes, they go to church a bit more than we do, but that's the only difference. No, this is baked into your understanding of the world, which is that by fighting this battle, God will decide who is right and who is wrong. But anyway, I think the broader point is that Bosworth is the big failure, the failure to defend the crown once he'd won it and once he'd taken such drastic steps to get allegedly.
- [11:56]
B
Allegedly taken those drastic steps.
- [11:58]
A
Some of the steps aren't alleged. I mean, the killing of Hastings, for example.
- [12:02]
B
Yes, let's. Let's not focus on the killing so much. Let's. Hastings was a grown up titulus regius. Right. So that was an act of Parliament that was passed that said that he was totally within his rights to be king. So having passed that, was there still the necessary motive to do off with the princes in the Tower?
- [12:26]
A
Well, it depends on when we think they've been done away with.
- [12:30]
B
Exactly. And isn't that interesting, because there's no proof. I refer to my earlier point. And why do you think no bodies have ever been found?
- [12:38]
A
Well, two bodies were found under the staircase and they're in Westminster Abbey in the urn that Christopher Wren, sort of rather beautifully made for them. And I don't think it's going to happen in the near future, but I think we're probably closer to it than perhaps we have been, that testing could be carried out on the remains that are in those urns to see if they are indeed the princes in the Tower.
- [13:05]
B
Now, of course, because late Queen Elizabeth said, absolutely not.
- [13:08]
A
I think there's a. Yes. I mean, this would have to be signed off by the royal family and also by. By Westminster. But the sort of hypothetical about the remains of the princes in the Tower is that even. And this speaks to the whole case of Richard III and our perception of Historical failure. I think even if some hypothetical DNA testing were done on the remains of the prince in the Tower against known family members, and it said, these are definitely the remains of the princes, it still wouldn't change most people's minds.
- [13:46]
B
It's true.
- [13:47]
A
Because you'd still go, well, I think, Henry, not you. But also you would say, no, no, well, I think Richard III wouldn't have done that. I think somebody else did it. It doesn't really change because this is a case where the facts are. Are incomplete and the case is probably unprovable. And so there's enough space within this discussion always to make up your mind about what you think and then argue the facts towards that conclusion.
- [14:20]
B
Yes, there's a tremendous poignancy to it, because either you believe, as I do, that he was grossly maligned and unfairly so, and his body lay undiscovered for centuries, and he had this. He fought valiantly at Bosworth. By all accounts, he was a great warrior, but his body was inflicted with degrading wounds, and then history inflicts him with further wounds. In terms of his reputation, or you believe, as you do, that he gradually painted himself into a political corner because of the desperate amount of pressure he was under. And either way, there's a sense of tragedy to that.
- [15:04]
A
Yes, I totally agree.
- [15:05]
B
I would like to make the case now, more broadly, moving on from the princes in the Tower, as to why Richard III does not deserve to be consigned to the failure bin of history.
- [15:17]
A
I see. Okay.
- [15:18]
B
And I would like to draw attention here to the fact you said that he was an excellent political enforcer and strategist for his brother, and his brother put him in charge of the kingdom in the north, and by all accounts, he executed that incredibly well. And he was very popular, and he often stood up for the common people against the nobility, which was very rare for that time. He also, as we well know, when he was king, introduced trial by jury. He translated a lot of laws into English so that people could understand them. And that, for me, speaks of such a progressive leader who existed way beyond his way before his time. And in a way, because of all of the drama around his very short reign, we sort of forget that.
- [16:07]
A
When you consider medieval history like I do, you realise that a great deal of change hinges on leaps of faith, something England's King, Henry VI largely did not do. Now, he might have been better suited to selling stained glass windows, and he would have been unstoppable if Shopify was around in his day. It's a commerce platform that helps you make that leap to get your business into the world. Henry would have loved Shopify's inbuilt design studio, where he could have sampled hundreds of ready to use templates to build a beautiful online store. Plus, this shy king would have had plenty of AI tools at his disposal, helping him elevate his product descriptions, page headlines and product photography. So make that leap. Turn what if into with Shopify today. Sign up for your one pound per month trial today at shopify.co.uk dynasty. Go to shopify.co.uk dynasty that's shopify.co.uk dynasty this episode is brought to you by Fandango. People say fans are too distracted these days, but the truth is when a great movie hits the screen, you show up, you stay glued, invested, part of the story. And without fans like you, there'd be no cinema magic, no shared moments. So head to fandango.com to get tickets, stream or rent or buy top movies and series. Fandango loves fans. Yes, I. I agree. And I think that one of the things that, you know, whenever we think about history, this is a cliche, but it's forgotten a great deal, particularly when history's discussed online in kind of social media debate and stuff as Richard III very often is that of course this is an incredibly nuanced case, and that to judge Richard III as either failure or success is of course to ignore the arguments on both sides. Yes, there are many ways in which he was an excellent lieutenant to his brother and the makings of a successful king starting out from the worst possible position for a king, which is a usurper with another claimant to the throne very close to him, a whole bunch of enemies and needing to fight a battle early in his reign which, as it turns out, went the wrong way. But I think that the great failure to win at Bosworth, if we place these on the historical scales, does outweigh everything else. But I would add to that and say that my sort of premise in this mini series, in this idea of thinking about historical failures, isn't so much to think about failure or not failure, do we need to rescue them, as you do so brilliantly on your podcast? So what do we understand from cases of failure? And if we start from the premise that no matter how hard Richard tried or how many good things he did, ultimately his reign ended in failure, what do we learn about the way we think of history from that failure? And here's what I've been thinking about Richard recently, which is we are always looking Back, and you've mentioned Tudor propaganda already. We're always looking back at the 15th century through the lens of the 16th and, and a lot of that is through Shakespeare. But Shakespeare had his sources as well earlier in the 16th century, once Richard was dead, Battle of Bosworth, we can agree he at least was dead and Henry Tudor had taken the throne. It's often said that then an enormous amount of Tudor propaganda was pumped out to blacken the name of Richard iii. And I've been thinking about that in the context of the specific politics of the world we're living in today and how cultural propaganda, as it were, works. It's not the case of a sort of early Tudor CIA pumping out psyops against Richard iii. It's once. The fact is he's dead and lost and God has passed his judgment at Bosworth and there's a new regime. That regime is creating a kind of story around itself. Henry marries Elizabeth of York. They have the sort of white and red rose that implies there were two sides that are now united again. But I think what you also see is that once it's clear, well, this is the new regime, do I want to be in with them or out with them, a narrative starts to emerge, a cultural narrative starts to emerge. Well, that guy died and he's dead and gone and that world is over. And I'm going to start writing the world as I see it now. And you see this evolve throughout the first half of the 16th century until you get to about the 1540s, Grafton's Chronicle, Hall Holinshed, and they have these amazing frontispieces which see Henry VIII as the sort of the combination of the two houses. And they start to create, I think organically, I think without top down direction to create this satisfying narrative that says in 1399 Richard II was deposed. And that was a sort of original sin. And it splintered England into these two noble factions of Lancaster and York. And they grew apart. And then all of the sins of the age were contained within this monarch monster, Richard iii, who then had to be killed to expunge the moral stain. And now we live on the other side of it. Here's the new regime. And people write towards that for lots of different reasons. One, because it offers the opportunity of political advancement and not political persecution. Another, because again, there is this sort of picturesque narrative neatness to it. And when you get to Shakespeare, looking back through the lens of all of that writing, you think, well, Shakespeare writes Richard iii. What is he aiming to do with the play Richard iii Is it to yet again make the case that Richard III was guilty? Really? He's not in the business of making historical arguments. He's in the business of making moral arguments, right? Of saying, I want to tell a story that's about some deep element of humanity and I want my audience in the, whichever sort of Southwark Theatre it might be to engage with that. And I need a story that's instantly familiar. They don't need to bother with the plot needs to be as simple as Batman or whatever. Every time we watch a new Batman film, you can, you know, the Joker's the bad guy, Batman's the good guy, it's Gotham City, you know, gonna fight each other. Commissioner Gordon, I know all these characters. Now tell me this story again and draw some new morality out of it or give me a new kind of brilliant performance from it. And I think that's what Shakespeare's doing with Richard. He's like, I want to explore the concept of how evil and interact with each other. I'm going to use the story of Richard III because literally everybody knows it by now and they know the shape of this story. And so when that's being done, it's taking this historical failure and using it for an artistic purpose. But now here we are sort of 500 years later, we kind of crunch all those things together and say, yes, bloody Shakespeare, Tudor shill out there blackening the name of Richard III for political purposes. Shakespeare had a political bone in his body with regard to the 15th century.
- [23:30]
B
Also, the fact that we are sitting here talking about Richard III all of these centuries later and the fact that figures like Philippa Langley exist.
- [23:40]
A
Your friend.
- [23:41]
B
Yeah, my. Your friend and mine, Philippa Langley, who is one of the foremost Ricardians of our age.
- [23:48]
A
I think she'd be offended by one of her. I mean, the foremost Ricardian.
- [23:51]
B
Foremost Ricardian of age and essentially single handedly responsible for finding Richard III's body under an R sign for reserved in a council car park in Leicester. And it was the first day of that dig she had raised, I think it was £36,000 from members of the public and they had enough money, I think, to exhume six bodies. And it was the first day, within the first few hours, minutes even, that they disinterred what would later be proven to be Richard III's skeleton. And his feet were not part of that skeleton because the wall to a council building had been built, the foundations had chopped off his feet, basically. If that wall, if that council building had been sort of 2 inches to the left or the right, we might not have found it. It's an extraordinary thing. And the fact that we're still talking about that and the fact that so many of us watched that documentary of Philippa walking across the car park, seeing the R painted on the tarmac and thinking, I have a feeling that it's here in a way that's a kind of success. There are so many historical figures that are forgotten about, and actually that we're still talking about him is in and of itself really interesting and. Carry on, Dan.
- [25:16]
A
No, I was going to totally agree with you. And I think that actually we say that again. I'm going to totally agree with you.
- [25:22]
B
Just that.
- [25:23]
A
Just that you make all your preposterous Ricardian statements, and I say, I totally agree with you. Failure is more interesting to us, I think, in terms of history, or if not failure, isolated, than the rise and fall, the story of the Knights Templar, world dominance around the Mediterranean, at any rate, and then calamitous collapse, Napoleon conquers Europe and then ends up exiled on Helena. Stories like this have, again, that sort of tragic shape to them, are just deeply fascinating to us as people. But I also wanted to ask you about Philippa Langley and about the dig and the. The sort of weird funeral of Richard iii, because you reported that when you were on the Observer.
- [26:13]
B
Yes.
- [26:13]
A
Newspaper.
- [26:14]
B
Before we get onto that, I just want to say something about failure, which I think is really interesting, that you ultimately believe that Richard III's reign was a failure because it ended at the Battle of Bosworth. And that is true. But also.
- [26:30]
A
Can we just clip that bit?
- [26:31]
B
How interesting. Ultimately, failure is also about taking risks, managing risk and living boldly and taking the risk that you might fail spectacularly. But there's a broader argument to be made that isn't it better to live that way than to play it very safe?
- [26:54]
A
Is that the question?
- [26:55]
B
I don't know. I don't know if it's a question of. More of a philosophical musing.
- [26:58]
A
Yes.
- [26:59]
B
Because I actually also don't think that things are failures just because they end. That ultimately, what you have contributed in this case to history, to trial by jury, to the fact that we're still discussing his legacy now in this podcast studio, surrounded by busts, historic stone, sculptural busts, is just a fascinating thing. So I would say that things aren't failures simply because they end. But I think your argument would be. It's the nature of the ending.
- [27:28]
A
Yes, I think. And I'll come back to Philippa Lange. Yes. Please do. I think I mostly agree with that. And maybe this will bring us back to Philippa Langley. I Wonder if Richard III's time is really now. I think we're living in an age that is more. And, you know, this is everything that. How to fail and your philosophy is about. It's like that failure is not something to be ashamed of. Failure is something to learn from and grow from. We're unusual in that being a sort of a dominant cultural understanding, sort of quite progressive, modern way of thinking. And for most of. My instinct is that for most of history, failure is sort of shameful and all sorts of other negative connotations. And so we've just sort of entered this period where Richard is really the perfect character because there are questions about his supposed guilt. See, I started calling it supposed guilt. You might have won. There are sort of issues around his disability. He is a sort of the perfect character to be reexamined, loved, fetishized. Back to Philippa Langley.
- [28:46]
B
That is so beautifully put, that, really. Yes. Well done. I didn't even have something sarcastic to say after that.
- [28:53]
A
Well, okay, then. We're drawing again.
- [28:55]
B
And I sort of feel that's what's amazing about history. You describe him there as a character. This person actually existed.
- [29:05]
A
Yes.
- [29:05]
B
And in this person's reputation and legacy, we can put all of our own feelings of inadequacy and failure and shame and humiliation and embarrassment, all of those petty grudges, all of those reputations that we want to save about ourselves, we can put into this historic receptacle. It's kind of an. It's why I love these stories. Philippa Langley. So I was for many years a star featur on the observer newspaper here in the uk, and a very good
- [29:37]
A
one, may I say.
- [29:38]
B
You may say. And I got sent to meet Philippa Langley in the Leicester car park and go to the University of Leicester and speak to the scientists who'd done the DNA testing on Richard III's skeleton and chat to the dean of Leicester Cathedral, because they were preparing for this, essentially a kind of state funeral for Richard. I don't think it was quite state
- [30:05]
A
funeral, but I think kind of is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. Yes, it was a sort of. I mean, it depends how kind we want to be. It was a dignified laying to rest of his remains or a deranged pantomime.
- [30:19]
B
Guess which side Dan's on. But I. And I know that Philippa Langley has been the subject of so much ridicule and I think an enormous amount of that is deeply sexist. I really enjoyed meeting her and I thought she was great. One of the things that really struck me when I wrote the piece was a series of serendipitous coincidences. And there was one in particular that has always stayed with me, which is that Richard III, as you well know, Dan, was killed on the 22nd of August at the Battle of Bosworth, 1485.
- [30:56]
A
So far, so good.
- [30:59]
B
Now, his skeleton was discovered in that car park under that painted letter R, on 22nd August, 2012 by Philippa Langley and her team 527 years later. It was a bank holiday in 2012, and in order to exhume and identify the body, they had to seek permission from the Ministry of Justice. Stay with me, okay? But because it was a bank holiday, they had to wait three days before the Ministry of Justice reopened its doors and said, yes, you're fine to go ahead. So Richard III's body was removed on the 25th of August. Now, if we go back in time, 527 years from that point, Richard III, his body was displayed for three days after he was killed at Bosworth. His body was displayed for three days until he was buried. So it's exactly the same dates if you think about it now. Isn't that amazing, Dan?
- [32:01]
A
Not really the same dates, though, because of the shift in the Julian Gregorian calendar.
- [32:06]
B
You are such a buzzkill.
- [32:10]
A
Thank you very much.
- [32:11]
B
The point is, time is a human construction, but sometimes the universe sends you mysterious messages from the edges of consciousness. And I find something very romantic about the idea that his body needed to be found, and it needed to be found in this echo of time on the day that he was killed at the Battle of Bosworth.
- [32:34]
A
That is truly romantic and brings us really to the end of our discussion of Richard iii, but is also a wonderful segue to our discussion next week. Elizabeth, it's been such a pleasure talking to you about Richard iii. Next week, we're to be talking about failed romances of world history. We're going to be talking about Antony and Cleopatra, Edward and Wallis, and of course, everyone's favourite, Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. The Ross and Rachel of early modern history. If Ross chopped Rachel's head off, that's
- [33:02]
B
almost all for us this episode. But, Dan, where else can we find more failures?
- [33:06]
A
I'm so glad you asked. Yes. If you're one of my this Is History royal favourites, listen to this week's bonus episode to hear me and producer Al dissect your favourite historical failures. Listen@patreon.com thisishistory and Elizabeth, what about you?
- [33:22]
B
Yes, do you subscribe to my podcast how to Fail where I've had Pamela Anderson, Kate Winslet, Jon Bon Jovi and so many more. Tell me about how they've survived failure in the present. And if you're listening to History's Greatest Fails on my feed, how to Fail, do subscribe to this Is History to get the rest of the series.
- [33:39]
A
And if you've got a question about anything we've discussed on History's Greatest Fails so far, my Royal favourites can DM us on Patreon or email us on thisishistoryonymusic.com now friends, let's make history.
- [33:53]
B
Let's fail again. Next time.
- [34:00]
A
Next week I will bring my Ouija board.
- [34:02]
B
Please do
- [34:04]
A
this episode is brought to you by Athletic Brewing Co. No matter how you do game day, on the couch, in the crowd or manning the snack table, Athletic Brewing fits right in with a full lineup of non alcoholic beer styles you can enjoy bold flavors all game long. No hangovers, no buzz, no subbing out for water in the second half. Stock the fridge for tip off with a variety of non alcoholic craft styles. Available at your local grocery store or online at athleticbrewing.com near Beer Fit for all times.