Dr. Estelle Paranque talks about Elizabeth I as seen through foreign eyes for Tudor Summit 2019.
Estelle is a Lecturer in Early Modern History. She joined NCH in September 2017 having previously taught at King’s College London, University of Winchester, and UCL. Estelle will be delivering the undergraduate courses “Sixteenth Century England” and “Cross-Cultural Encounters in the Early Modern World.”
She will also be contributing lectures, seminars, and tutorials in “Britain and the Wider World”, “History, Heritage and Memory” and “Power and Politics”.
Estelle’s research focuses on the perception of Elizabeth I of England by the French royal family and their ambassadors from 1568 to 1588. She has published a monograph entitled Elizabeth I of England Through Valois Eyes: Power, Representation, and Diplomacy in the Reign of the Queen, 1558-1588.
Estelle has undertaken archival research in the UK and in France and is an expert on Elizabeth I of England and her relations with France. She has also carried out research on other European monarchs including Isabel Clara Eugenia, Governor of the Spanish Netherlands, Henry III of France, Catherine de Médicis, and Elisabeth of Austria, Queen Consort of France. Estelle also has a research interest in Anglo-French relations during the sixteenth century, monarchical representations in Europe, and the Valois kings.
Check out her website
Follow her on Twitter
Check out her book Elizabeth I of England through Valois Eyes
Other books by Estelle Paranque
[advertisement insert here: if you like this show, and you want to support me and my work, the best thing you can do (and it’s free!) is to leave us a rating on iTunes. It really helps others discover the podcast. Second best is to buy Tudor-themed gifts for all your loved ones at my shop, at TudorFair.com, like leggings with the Anne Boleyn portrait pattern on them, or boots with Elizabeth I portraits. Finally, you can also become a patron of this show for as little as $1/episode at Patreon.com/englandcast … And thank you!]
Transcript: Dr. Estelle Paranque on Elizabeth I Through Foreign Eyes
Heather:
I am super excited to welcome our next speaker who is very prolific on Twitter if you follow her there. She is Dr. Estelle Paranque from the New College of the Humanities, so let me tell you about her.
Dr. Paranque is a lecturer in early modern history. She joined the New College of Humanities in September of 2017, having previously taught at King’s College London, University of Winchester, and UCL. Dr. Paranque will be delivering undergraduate courses, 16th century England, and cross-cultural encounters in the early modern world.
She also contributes lectures, seminars, and tutorials in Britain and the Wider World, history heritage and memory, and power and politics. So her research focuses on the perception of Elizabeth I of England by the French royal families, and their ambassadors from 1568 to 1580.
She’s published a monograph entitled Elizabeth I of England through Valois Eyes; Power, Representation and Diplomacy in the reign of the Queen 1558 to 1588.
I’m super excited to welcome her here and let’s get right into her interview.
Why do you think Elizabeth I is the greatest monarch?
Estelle:
I’m gonna tell you why for me Elizabeth I. Though we have lots of queens in the 16th century in the 15th century as well, and even before, like Empress Matilda, we do have strong female figures in the period of history. But I said that because Elizabeth is the only one who decided not to marry, and who decided to rule. For me as such she then became king and queen of England.
I’m not actually the one who said it first, and I’m really keen on always crediting people’s work. So it’s Carole Levin’s The Heart and Stomach of a King which changed my life, which is why I’m here today. She explained why she was really king and queen of England. I’ve pushed it further in some of my works.
For example, I just wrote a chapter that would be out in 2019, where I discussed that Elizabeth is also the father of our country more than she was a mother. So I explained because that the love of her father is sometimes more distant in that period and a mother is more caring. She’s not that caring and nurturing because she doesn’t have that contact with the people.
She’s like a protective figure defending her country. For me in all of that, because she’s king and queen, mother and father of her country, because she plays with that rhetoric. She is for me the greatest monarch. I also think that for me, she puts her country first.
People will disagree because they will say, “Oh but she didn’t secure a dynasty, so truly it’s problematic.” I don’t think it’s that problematic. Actually she said it herself, “Just because I’m gonna give you a son by birth, it’s gonna be a good king.” She had an heir. The heir was her godson, James VI of Scotland.
Of course, being the last of her dynasty was problematic at the same time for her thinking “Do I really want to take the risk to die in childbirth? No, not sure about that. Do I really want to take the risk to get married to someone who’s basically gonna take the power from me?”
We have examples in history of power couples, Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon – an amazing one actually even, that’s pretty rare. I mean it’s really rare that the power is shared and it works really well, and the personal relationship as well with a political relationship, so I think for that she was really ahead of her time.
I also like the fact that she said it’s a personal matter if I want to get married or not. I think when we try today so much to have these moral views that we try to apply to the past, here she’s so modern, saying “I’d rather not get married. I’d rather be single. I’m not having kids.” Woah. It is quite modern.
So for me, she’s really the greatest monarch for all these reasons. I believe she truly cared about her people, truly cared about country. I believe she really did great. She avoided civil wars in England which France didn’t manage to avoid. I think that she was really politically powerful and extremely smart as well. And then again the fact that she was both king and queen, in my head, that makes her the greatest. It separates her from the others basically.
Heather:
So how did the French see Elizabeth?
Estelle:
Yeah, I would love to share it! Well first of all I think I’m just gonna talk quickly about why did I start on the French, and how it basically came up. Well, I fell in love with Elizabeth I when I was 17. In France, I was doing English studies, and I went for a history course on England, then Britain – difference. When I heard about this woman, who was single, ruling on her own right, being so powerful for 44 years – that’s, well not a short time. I was like “Wow”. so I was just really interested.
But then I realized that the more you read, I had to learn English and be good at English. Then it was, oh it’s gonna be tough to– the gaps in historiography – I believe they exist. I’m like, if you are future historian, if you’re a student, if you have a love, go for it. You know what, you will find a way. You will read as much as you need to read, and then you will find a way to see something new, and something good.
I got in touch with Professor Carole Levin. She was extremely supportive and then I got in touch with Professor Michael Questier who was also extremely supportive, and Dr. Elena Woodacre. These people basically were the ones shaping my interest, and also telling me “You should use the fact that you can read French, that you’re French, that you know the culture, that you already know so much about the Valois to make interesting parallels.”
I was really interested in Henry III, so it started like that. I was really interested in Henry III of France, who is absolutely not loved. It’s such a shame, I need to write a book on him. He was absolutely not loved in France, absolutely not loved anywhere. Then I thought it’s fascinating to look at actually, because we know how she was perceived in England, we’ve done that. We can still do that in different ways and I’m sure people will and I encourage that.
But I was thinking how amazing would it be like to have a French perspective of that. And I thought not only do I have the letters of Henry III, Charles IX of France, or Catherine de’ Medici. I love Catherine. Amazing, amazing woman. Amazing Queen as well, but very different in a way, and very similar is the same time. Anyway, but I was thinking as well, you know what French ambassadors had concrete access, and direct access to the Queen. Though they possibly had very interesting views. Surely in their handwritten – Henry had thousands of letters, we have, there must be something very interesting.
So then I decided to work on them, and it was my PhD. Then you realize you have thousands of letters, and you have to make choices. I thought, I need to look at when there’s a trigger like a political trigger, a political problem, and so I chose to look at, for my PhD it was 1568 – 1598. I had four chapters. For my book, I expanded, I did 1558-1565. I added this new chapter where there’s three different French ambassadors, three different voices. Absolutely amazing, different relationships.
I realized as well that there were some other ambassadors that had more access, that had privileges. It’s not that surprising, because at the end of the day they were human beings. So at the end of the day, I mean, you have your preferences, you prefer some people to others. So I really think that it is important to tell these views on her.
My book is definitely not cheap because it’s an academic book, and I’m very sorry about that. I hope the price will drop soon, because the sales are growing. Thank you again to everyone who’s purchasing the book. I’m sure that it will drop at some point. But what I’m saying is that you will learn a lot. You will have different views of Elizabeth I. You’ll have the other side of the dynamic, the political dynamics, to diplomatic dynamic of the period. So obviously I love my book and I’m open to criticisms. It’s obviously not perfect, but I really believe in it. I really believe in what I’ve done.
Heather:
Tell us a little bit about the marriage negotiations with France.
Estelle:
The marriage negotiations with France, I’m sorry to laugh, when you think it could be a real drama but with an anticlimax at the end “No marriage!” It’s not a romcom. It could have been. So it started as early as 1564. It was more or less a dynamic in the relationship between Elizabeth and Catherine. It’s basically because Catherine was like, “Hmm, there’s an English Queen. She’s single. I have three boys, what could I do with this?” She’s obviously trying to put her 14-year-old Charles IX– She’s like “He could be your husband.”
Elizabeth was very sweet, “He’s very too young and I’m too old for him.” She dismissed it. The negotiations, it didn’t take long. It was an idea that Catherine was basically pursuing. She pushed a bit Paul de Foix the ambassador of English court, saying “You really need to find a way to make it work,” but he obviously didn’t.
Anyway, so in 1569 she tried again and said, “Well there’s still my son and he’s King and you’re Queen, and it could work.” And Elizabeth said “You know what the problem is? (I’m just simplifying it) ’cause I see myself as a second mother to your son.” So then she dropped the idea.
Then in 1571, so two years later, she send portraits of Henry, the Duke of Anjou at that time. He was bloody hot and Elizabeth was like, “Yummy.” I don’t know if she said yummy, but she was really interested. She noticed that he was extremely handsome. I mean Charles was handsome too, but Henry was slightly more handsome. She said, “He’s tall. He’s handsome. I could be interested.” She basically said she could be interested.
But then Henry, Duke of Anjou was like, “No I am NOT marrying this public whore.” I don’t think anyone repeated that to Elizabeth but it obviously did happen. So then the last choice was Francis. François, Duke of Valois. He was not handsome, is he? He had scars from smallpox, Elizabeth had smallpox too. Yet she was like “Meh. I don’t really like his scars.” I love Elizabeth! Being picky herself, I love it! I absolutely love it. I didn’t put it that way in my book, but there’s a bit where I wrote it. I laughed I think when I wrote it. I mean it’s very serious, but I mean it’s a funny topic.
Anyway, what happened is that then Catherine was much more forceful. For the English, it lasted until 1581 and the French were hoping untill 1583. To understand those times, Elizabeth played that card really well. Because if you’re in negotiations for marriage, if you keep going back and forth, because she said “Yes, I will”, “No, I won’t”, “Yes, I will”, “No, I won’t.” I mean, can you imagine making someone believe you’re going to marry them over ten years, I mean it’s absolutely genius.
It helped her having good relations at least on the surface. It meant that France was not going to be an enemy, an outright enemy to her. Naturally, the relations were pretty good during the marriage negotiations. It’s even very strong between Catherine and Elizabeth. They definitely develop a very strong correspondence. So it really helped in terms of making sure that there was peace between England and France. They also recognized that the true enemy was Spain because Spain was the biggest power in Europe at that time. So that helps in all of this, I guess.
Heather:
How did her Protestantism affect the relationship with France, especially in relation to the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre and the Wars of Religion that France was experiencing?
Estelle:
The problem between France and England, Elizabeth officially said she was not helping the Huguenots. We know she was sending money and soldiers as well, but obviously, officially she was like, “I’m obviously not doing this.” Sometimes she was even saying, “Oh, I’m not the one making the decision. If my people overseas want to help the Huguenots, there’s nothing I can do. I can reprimand them when they come back. (which she didn’t.) I can’t do anything when they’re at sea.”
But she kept advising them on. “You should grant religious freedom to the Protestants to make sure that you are at peace.” And it was not that easy. I think the French monarchs were not stupid. They knew that it was the right thing to do, but they had an extreme Catholic league, the Holy League, the Catholic League, by the de Guises, by Mary Stuart’s family, we know how it works. So I think people tend to believe that after the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, that the relations were really bad between England and France, and that’s not true.
First of all, because la Mothe-Fénelon was still at court. La Mothe-Fénelon was the French ambassador that had special privileges from Elizabeth I. They had a close relationship. They go hunting together. Elizabeth liked his company. He really liked her. He described her as a “wonder”. So obviously, he might have a crush. So it really helped that he was the one at court, making sure that the relations between France and England remained good.
Actually, Elizabeth was shocked. Of course, she was shocked about what happened, she said it. But she was not so much shocked about what happened in Paris, but what happened after. Because what you need to know, what people don’t really know sometimes, is that normally the massacre in Paris happened but it spread out in all of France. So it meant that the King was no longer in control of what was happening.
It’s one thing to have justified it. Charles was justifying that there was an attempt on his life, so he had to defend himself. Also, I would like to point out that we still don’t know for sure how much Charles and Catherine were involved in this. I’m sitting right now on four hundred letters that I need to go through about their culpability or not. We still need to be extremely careful because there are still sources that we can find. We haven’t found all of them yet.
So right now for me, it’s the de Guises who are really involved in that. It’s a revenge. They had revenge too. Because there was a revenge against Gaspard de Coligny who killed the de Guises’ father in Wassy. It was at war. It was the first War of Religion. They just couldn’t forgive him. It all started with that. So it started with a revenge between two houses, two powerful houses of France, noble houses of France.
Elizabeth was obviously shocked but it was more from what happened after. But also right after, Charles and his wife Elisabeth of Austria had a little girl on 27th October 1572. They asked Elizabeth if she could be godmother and she accepted. The daughter was called Marie Elisabeth, Marie for the grandmother of the little girl, mother of Elisabeth of Austria, and Elisabeth for Elisabeth.
The fact that she accepted showed that the relations were not bad at all. She actually said that she was really pleased to be the godmother of the little girl and that though obviously, they would have hoped it was a son, she hoped that Marie Elisabeth would be as good as her. I love her! No humility right there. I thought it was quite funny but quite spot-on as well.
So the relations continued, and the marriage negotiations continued. The marriage negotiations between Francis of Alençon and Elizabeth continued during that time. So it showed that the relations between France and England were not bad at all. What changes obviously is his death in 1584 when we no longer have the marriage negotiations.
However something very special happened, and I didn’t expect to find that in the manuscript that I went through, was the fact that Henry III who called her before in 1571 “Elizabeth the public whore”, in 1585, ’86, ’87, ’88 both became secret friends because they realized that the true enemies were the Guises and Mary Stuart. Obviously, Henry III didn’t put the… like that but knew how powerful were the Guises and basically what the Guises would have done, what they wanted.
They wanted to overthrow Henry III, become King of France, and they wanted Mary to overthrow Elizabeth so they would have a Guise Europe. Awful. Absolute shit. They wanted Europe to speak French. They also wanted Scotland to go back to Catholicism. I mean they had real plans. Obviously, Philip II of Spain was the one with the money, the cash to help them when they needed it. So all the details are all explained more in my book, but that’s how it worked – religion and how it impacted Elizabeth and the French.
Heather:
Given that Mary Queen of Scots is getting a lot of attention right now with the movie and all of that, can you share a little bit about how she would have affected the relationship between Elizabeth and France, given that Mary had been the Queen of France? Discuss that a little bit.
Estelle:
Okay, where do I start? I’ve been highly criticized for having a voice in this and I’ve been disagreeing with lots of people, a lot of respectable historians. So I’m gonna try to make my point as clear as possible. I have different issues with the Mary Queen of Scots movie.
The first one, and I think it’s the most important one. Personally, it’s personal, it’s me, I admit, it’s just me, I didn’t like it. I found it boring. I was bored watching it. So if you’re gonna change some bits of history, or if the timeline is gonna be off, because it was really off, the characters were not introduced well. I wasn’t lost because I knew who was who, but if you’re gonna do that, you at least have to make it really entertaining. And it wasn’t. So that’s my main, that was my biggest issue.
My other issues are, and I’m gonna say it again, and it’s gonna annoy people and I’m very sorry, it’s not to annoy people. I do have an issue with Mary Queen of Scots having a Scottish accent. Yes, some historians have pointed out, we have one source that says she had quite a Scottish accent. We just have one. I do have sources, and the thing is, when you read thousands of manuscripts, it’s not that easy to find, where is the line where they say she had a French accent when she was speaking other languages, and that is not surprising.
Yes, she was born in Scotland. Yes, her father was Scottish. Her mother was French. Her mother tongue was French, not Scots. Her mother, Marie de Guise talked to her in French. Mary Stuart was writing all her letters, most of the letters in French. So it means that it was her language that she felt closest to. Otherwise, she would have written in other languages. She left when she was not even six to France. She was raised at the French Court. There, no one was speaking Scottish, or the Gaelic language there. No one. It’s very important years.
And she never met her father. Barely. She was six days when he died. So her father could not be the one talking to her in Scottish, of course, at the Scottish Court, they were probably speaking in Gaelic. She was right with the two languages. But a language would be taking over, and obviously, if you’re taking bilingual studies and you look at bilingual studies, if you don’t have all the two languages all the time, there’s one that is taking over. It’s just how the brain works.
Then from 6 to 18 she was in France only speaking French. So when she came back she couldn’t have, of course, she could speak Gaelic, Scottish, of course, but she would have some hint of French accent there. So here we have the portrayal of a Scottish warrior queen and I’ll give her the warrior bit because she went to battle, so I’ll give her that. I’m not being unfair.
But she didn’t even like Scotland. She just didn’t. She wanted to stay in France. It’s because of Catherine de’ Medici who told her “No you have to go back. I don’t want you in this country.” She didn’t want her in that country because Mary was trouble. Of course, she was trouble because she was de Guise. And I’m gonna say it again, Mary Stuart Queen of Scots is more a Guise than a Stuart. She loved her Guise family. She just did.
She had struck a strong close relationship with her mother. When her mother died, oh my god, awful, and she was really close to her uncles. So why do we need to have this full depiction of the Queen that is– at least if you want to do a movie of Mary Queen of Scots, I can acknowledge the French pass not just when she talks to her ladies-in-waiting. I acknowledged that there was more than that. She was much more French than Scottish. Period. That is it. She was raised in France, that is it, so that’s my point.
Oh yes, about the views of Elizabeth in France, yes and no. Yes, the Guises were obviously creating this propaganda against Elizabeth. Elizabeth this Jezebel, and I put it again in my book, but that’s why I wanted to do the French royal family and the ambassadors, because it’s actually not, they don’t have the same perception of her. Also, I would argue that there are a lot of Protestants that didn’t have that view of her. So again it’s just what sources you really look at, and you have a good understanding of it. You need to look at more sources, and not just the Guises.
But with the movie, I have some problems. Darnley was depicted as a bisexual, homosexual. There were some rumors, but I believe, again it’s just me, that it was more to attack and undermine his authority. Because when you look at who was saying that, it’s basically his detractors. We have more sources, and it’s not just me who’s saying that. I’m talking about historians who’ve worked on that topic for 40 years.
So I’m talking about again, Professor Michael Questier, Professor Carole Levin, but all those who’ve worked on that and who have sources, who went thru sources. I went thru sources myself where Darnley was a womanizer. So I thought it was a bit far-fetched. But in a way, it’s not what annoyed me most. Because you can decide, as directors you have the creativity and license, you can say, yeah I prefer, it’s better for my movie to go down the path of the rumors, then why not?
Personally, I don’t like it just because I think we have to be careful. Because it’s similar to Henry III of France who was described as a homosexual. He was not. We have love letters with his wife. He loved his wife, and he had mistresses. But because he didn’t want to hurt his wife, they were really hidden, and they were never favorite. So again. Yes he had favorites, male favorites, they were his friends. They went to battle together.
So yes, I read the letters, yes it said “I’ll kiss your hand.” But you say that to family, basically, Catherine and his brothers. Do you think he was doing stuff with his brother? He wasn’t! He’s so graphic in his letters, he would describe his poo to his ministers. Great, I was in the archives. I was really pleased, I just had lunch, I was amazingly pleased. But if he had one of his minions, he would have said it. “Ah last night was amazing when I had your skin against mine,” he would have described the whole thing!
So he didn’t, and I think it’s a bit I’m not sure to what extent is the same with Darnley in terms of his own words. But I know we do have strong sources and evidence of him being a womanizer. It was a bit farfetch to say he’s bisexual. Though I do understand if you want to go thru that set of source, it’s your right. I just disagree. So that would be the point.
But with the Mary Queen of Scots movie, they met, right? But they’ve never met. But everyone now is deciding that it’s good to have this meeting, I completely disagree with that. Because then you have people coming to you, and say they met, I saw in a movie. It’s just really hard because not everyone is going to read books. It’s not true. Not everyone is gonna want to know the truth. It’s not true. People expect from some historical fiction to have some bit of truth, to be told something.
And if you’re gonna make them meet have a bloody good dialogue. That was bullshit. That just was. So you’re telling me that you make them meet in 1568. So made Mary Queen of Scots fled to England. And you’re gonna tell me that Mary was in big trouble, big trouble, right? And she’s gonna say once, “Oh we’re sisters, we should be together.” Then the second, “I am your queen and I’m a strongest,” and so it’s like, no! No!
Why would she say that? The only one who was power to help her is Elizabeth. So even if they met secret, like no one will know. The only part the good part of the dialogue is Elizabeth saying, to make it credible she says ” If you say we ever met, I will always deny it.” Which is a bit more complicated than that because we have no trace of. It’s not just Mary saying “Yes, we met.” It’s contemporary sources. If they had met we would have known by now. But they didn’t.
There were the worst line in the movie. Can I tell you what it is? You’re gonna love it. But we have Mary Queen of Scots, she’s abdicated, who says “I have more right to the English throne than you because I’m a Stuart!” Sorry? What does being a Stuart, how does it give you any rights to the English throne? It’s because you have Tudor blood! Could she just write a sentence well? I was just like it’s impossible, it’s impossible! So so that’s my problem. Anyway, that’ll be all for Mary Queen of Scots movie. I’m sorry I lost the plot.
Heather:
This is a century of great Queens in Europe, how does Elizabeth fit into that?
Estelle:
So I guess the thing about queenship in Europe and about Elizabeth, I guess I answered a bit when I answered about being the greatest monarch and Elizabeth being different. But I guess I could say more about her being a more monarch Elizabeth. Elizabeth didn’t go to war, but Elizabeth used war-like rhetoric in her speeches. Elizabeth showed she was not afraid of defending the realm, and it’s all obviously all about rhetoric but it’s the rhetoric that is used by all the kings of the period.
So how does she fit into the queenship narrative of early modern history? I guess she doesn’t, in a way. I guess you have kingship narrative queenship narrative. And she’s in the middle. She’s the one who’s between two. I wrote a chapter I just told you already, the father figure in early modern Europe and I’m obviously discussing her in all these. For me, she fits more with the Kings than she does with the Queens, in many ways, she does.
Heather:
Beyond France, how did rulers see her in Spain and Russia and even further afield than Europe?
Estelle:
I could talk a bit about how Elizabeth was perceived even outside of Europe, but this is not my work. Something very important for me to say, this is not my work. So we have Anna Riehl Bertolet for the Russian Tsar and Elizabeth. She wrote a chapter on that. Proabably The Foreign Relations of Elizabeth I edited by Charles Beem. We have Rayne Allinson who wrote about the difference correspondence of the Elizabeth with different kings and queens all over Europe. She touches on that point.
And we have the amazing work of, not that the other ones are not amazing, but I’m just really interested is Nabil Matar‘s Europe through Arab Eyes. He translated a piece that explained how the Arabic world, the Muslims world was seeing the victory against the Spanish Armada. It was very interesting because they were in admiration of Elizabeth I. It has more to do with the fact that the real enemy in Europe is Philip II of Spain, and also outside of Europe. So in a way, Elizabeth became like an ally because she defeated the evil Philip II of Spain. But I think it’s still interesting.
Also, it’s true that Elizabeth had a particularly good relations with the Ottoman Emperor Selim. Actually even James VI of Scotland asked Elizabeth to write for him, because he had to free I think it was called his tradesmen, and the Emperor was not listening to James. He didn’t really care about Scotland, I wonder why. Elizabeth had to write on James’s behalf.
That is again not my research, so if you want to know more you have to read these academic journals, articles, chapters, books. I think it’s really important to credit the work. And it’s not “we” researched. No we didn’t. These people researched and I read their work and I was amazed by their work and their research and I want to acknowledge that.
Heather:
And where can we find more of your fabulous work?
Estelle:
Well as I said I work some of these in French. I’m an Elizabethan historian. That’s how I defined myself. So that’s my book – Elizabeth I of England through Valois Eyes. Valois being the French dynasty. This is really what I do, but I also obviously work on all the Queens. I published on Elizabeth of Austria. I published on Catherine de’ Medici, Henry III.
My next academic project will be on royal mistresses, French royal mistresses as shadow queens, and I’ll focus on the ones who are not very well known. I’ve already presented some papers of conferences, so it’s building up nicely. Now have lots of sources already. My next book that I’m working on right now is on Elizabeth and Catherine of Medici. It would be a narrative of their relationship, so you have to stay tuned and see what I do next really.
Yeah, I would love that. To talk on that. Yeah, definitely, that would be absolutely amazing. Thank you so much for having me, I’m really pleased.
[advertisement insert here: if you like this show, and you want to support me and my work, the best thing you can do (and it’s free!) is to leave us a rating on iTunes. It really helps others discover the podcast. Second best is to buy Tudor-themed gifts for all your loved ones at my shop, at TudorFair.com, like leggings with the Anne Boleyn portrait pattern on them, or boots with Elizabeth I portraits. Finally, you can also become a patron of this show for as little as $1/episode at Patreon.com/englandcast … And thank you!]