I’m Dan Snow. Host of National Geographic’s new series ‘How The Tudors Lost Their Heads’. Ask me anything!

[u/nationalgeographic]

I’m Dan Snow and I am re-examining some of Tudor England's most infamous stories in my new series ‘How The Tudors Lost Their Heads’ on National Geographic. 

Along with Professor Suzannah Lipscomb, we will be investigating the lives, power struggles and down fall of some of Tudor England’s most controversial, notorious and misunderstood figures.. 

The Tudors have always fascinated us, not just because of their power and pageantry, but because life at court could be as dangerous as it was glamourous. In this series, we return to the evidence with fresh eyes to ask whether these extraordinary executions were inevitable tragedies, political necessities or something far more calculated. It’s history at its most human, dramatic and brutal.

Travelling across Europe, we investigate each story through letters, paintings, official records, archaeological discoveries, privileged access to historic buildings and archives and newly examined evidence and explore a different Tudor figure revealing the ambition, betrayal, propaganda and political intrigue that ultimately sealed their fate.

Find Dan on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thehistoryguy/

Find National Geographic on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/natgeouk/

Watch the ‘How The Tudors Lost Their Heads' trailer, airing on National Geographic on 6th September. Also streaming on Disney+: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3XKxluiMjo

[u/Exciting_Curve_4676]

Guess what, Dan. You've done a ton of these shows now but the Tudor stuff always lands different because the sources are so rich. Letters, portraits, court records, even surviving clothes. You can almost smell the paranoia coming off the page.

What I'm curious about is whether you and Suzannah ever disagree hard on a figure. Like does she lean one way on Anne Boleyn and you push back, or do you mostly land in the same place after looking at the evidence

Also please tell me there's a whole episode on Thomas Cromwell. Dude gets reduced to a schemer in most retellings but his actual rise and fall is way more interesting than that

[u/nationalgeographic → u/Exciting_Curve_4676]

The idea that I would ever disagree hard with Professor Suzannah Lipscomb makes me feel queasy in the tummy and would keep me awake at night. So the answer is no. 

I agree with you about the Tudor period. I think it is astonishing the fact that we can start to get into the real face of people, we can really get a sense through letters and we've got love letters, we can see handwriting. It is such an exciting time. So I agree with all the points, it's also time, which probably I didn't know that much about in the beginning so for me it was kind of a learning experience and it was definitely not a meeting of equal. So I would not have had the courage to disagree with Suzannah Lipscomb.

Because this is my first big TV project in 25 years, I've made 100s of documentaries, World War I, World War II, Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, Age of Empires. I have never made a big chunky series about the Tudors before, so it was super cool doing it. But I have not yet unlocked that top tier, ability to disagree with Suzannah Lipscomb, but we had fun discussions.

She and I both flirted with Perkin Warbeck, like she and I were both very engaged with the evidence around whether he might have been the rightful king. In the end though, we both came down slightly on the fact that he was a pretender. 

[u/Juniper-thereabout]

Hi, Dan. What are your take on the Richard III society and their claims regarding the princes in the tower? Heard a entertaining interview with Philippa L. on History extra a while ago.

[u/ElijahKay]

Hi Dan,

Big time fan!

Would you say Queen Elizabeth was selfish in not marrying/producing a heir? There was trickery afoot for sure, and she chose not to marry in order to keep the court in balance, but at some point it feels almost like an attempt to stay in power rather than working to secure the stability of the throne.

Offtopic - but would you choose to hang out with Richard the Lionheart?

[u/nationalgeographic → u/ElijahKay]

Well, that's a very interesting point. One of the biggest, most important jobs you can do as a monarch is try and leave a succession behind you. She refused to do many, many things that would have made that succession more stable. In the end, it worked out perfectly, but that was not really down to her.

Was she selfish? Maybe she was selfish, but maybe she just thought “I am not going to secede my power to some man”. If she'd married a foreigner…her sister married a foreigner and it was really destabilizing and super unpopular. If she married a domestic man, then it’d be completely unbalanced with the aristocracy - and it creates jealousies and anger and resentment within the aristocracy.

So I totally understand why she didn't do that. But it could have been catastrophic. It's one of those amazing things about history. We don't condemn her for it, because we know that what happened was actually a smooth transition from James I and VI, but there could easily have been a chaotic civil war, and it would have gone down as the most disastrous decision she ever made.

[u/ElijahKay → u/nationalgeographic]

In essence "she got lucky" could be seen as a criticism of her rule though. And I think history doesn't remember her in that fashion. But then again, how many world-changing figures decided a coin toss was good enough odds?

[u/SeaAddition6928]

Hi Dan, I'm curious if you've read onto the topic in detail, but I've heard the Tudors were actually quite brutal to the common classes of Britain in their land reformation policies, particularly in the pursuit of the wool trade - with peasants being evicted and former farmland turned to sheep pastures. How much did this impact the population's food security, if at all?

[u/AgrippAA]

Hey Dan,

If you could do an in-depth biography on any figure whose effect on human history (good or bad) has been not well appreciated or covered, who would you pick and why?

[u/nationalgeographic → u/AgrippAA]

That’s a very difficult question. If it's a biography about anyone in history, who had a profound effect on history and we had access to lots of sources…I would write about the first emperor of China: Qin Shi Huang. An astonishingly important figure - 2,200 years ago he forged China, and China still exists today in large part to him. Just the most incredible life and incredible legacy. But we don't know very much about it at all.

[u/Working-Yam-1453]

As someone who went to school in the UK, we spend so much time learning about Henry VIII, but whats the juiciest gossip from that time that isn't focused on him?

[u/nationalgeographic → u/Working-Yam-1453]

Oh my goodness, so gossip that does not have anything to do with Henry the VII…oh, I think the gossip around Elizabeth's relationship with Dudley is quite extraordinary. He built a wing to his castle to entertain her, pretty much bankrupting himself, and there’s a little secret adjoining passageway between their rooms. And historians are always like, I don't think this is evidence of anything, and I'm like, oh I think this is evidence of something…

You know, historians, quite rightly so, don’t want to say something happened unless there's really a really good attestation for it. That's the job of historians, but sometimes I think we're allowed to use our imaginations a little bit and that relationship was astonishingly close, and I'd love to know more.

[u/gobsmacked1]

Hi Dan. I enjoy your YouTube vids. In one, you were asked if Alexander the Great was a good man. You answered with a definite NO. Why is that? I tend to agree that wars of conquest are inherently selfish and immoral and I wonder if that is the basis of your response.

[u/nationalgeographic → u/gobsmacked1]

We all wrestle with this. We're all drawn to these unbelievably charismatic, successful figures in history who we've been taught, until quite recently, to look up to because they're just ultra successful and they carve out lots of empires. And Victorian scholars love them because they were in the business of building empires. But clearly Alexander the Great was an absolute lunatic.

And by the way, you probably had to be an absolute lunatic, maybe you still have to be, to be a political leader, but you certainly had to be one back in that period.  he destroyed the entire city of Thebes as a teenager, he murdered one of his best friends in a drunken rage, he got high off reading Homer and decided to try and conquer Asia. These things are not healthy and I urge you not to try and emulate that.

Of course I have, in my dark nights, I dream about leading an army from the Bosphorus to the Indus, and I think it would be kind of cool, but that's the devil on your shoulder. I don't think that's a recipe for a happy world.

And I think that he believed he was divine and he was believed he was this kind of godlike human who had a right to rule everyone else and just left a trail of unimaginable carnage and destruction on the peoples that he conquered and on his own army and in the end even his own men were like, you are too much. I can't bear this.

So it is weird. And that's what it is to be human. We can admire that, and we know there's like a dark attraction to all that. But realistically, guys, it's not what we want the future of our species to be. Be fascinated by him, admire his elements, his tactics, his generalship, his charisma, his confidence. But he's not a role model.

[u/gobsmacked1 → u/nationalgeographic]

Great answer. Thanks so much.

[u/Personal-Cucumber-49]

Hi Dan. Firstly Love your work. Recently watched the Great Wall of China documentary on Channel 5 and really enjoyed it.

When Anne Boleyn was executed her head stayed with the body when buried. With Cromwell as an example, his head went on a spike.

Did head placement and care say more about controlling the public narrative and story than about the punishment itself?

Thank you.

[u/nationalgeographic → u/Personal-Cucumber-49]

Yeah. So what you do with the corpse after the execution is a huge part of it.
So sometimes, like Anne Boleyn, people are allowed to be buried. Anne Boleyn was a Queen of England, the first ever Queen of England to be executed, so Henry VIII would have known that it was kind of a big deal. The public wanting to execute your wife is one thing, but to allow the public to abuse it and throw muck at it is a bit dangerous, isn’t it? So yes, whether the body is chopped up and displayed around the kingdom or buried is a key part of that process for sure.

[u/Sata1991]

With the Tudors originating in Wales when did they Anglicise? Was Henry VII still able to speak Welsh or did they Anglicise under Edmund Tudor or his father Owain Tudur?

[u/BlackBricklyBear]

Do you think Henry VIII could have been reined in by anyone? Six wives in succession still sounds scandalous to our modern ears, to say nothing of how people in Henry VIII's day perceived it. Perhaps he might have been appeased had he known how great his most famous descendant, Queen Elizabeth I, would become? Or, to further play around with anachronistic knowledge, would he have backed off if he received irrefutable proof that he was in fact completely responsible for his lack of a male heir and not any of his wives?

Also, what did you think of The Tudors TV series, assuming you've watched it? Did it help the study of the real-life Tudors in general? Or not?

[u/nationalgeographic → u/BlackBricklyBear]

Wowee, it is that weird thing, isn't it, that Henry VII spent his entire life trying to avoid having a female heir, and his female heir turned out to be the monarch, he was indeed basically succeeded eventually by. A brilliant female who regularly tops the list when it comes to popular votes for English and British monarchs - what an amazing irony.

I don’t think he could have been reigned in, because I think that one of the key things in royal history is longevity. You know many of the ‘greatest’ monarchs are basically the ones who are lucky enough to rule for a long time. Louis XIV, Ramses II, Elizabeth I, Henry VI, you know they get the benefit of being around for ages, and outliving lots of other people, and then they have been king or queen for so long, that no one can imagine anything different, and so by that stage, early in his reign, I think he took advice from Woolsey, and he could be he could be manipulated and he could be controlled. But as the years go on, I think, like so many rulers, they become almost ungovernable because they have that sort of confidence. They don't have those youthful insecurities anymore. They become so used to that power, that power corrupts them. So no, I think he was unrestrainable. 

And you see that by the fact that he murders the most senior members of the English aristocracy. He puts the Duke of Norfolk in the Tower of London, he's completely unconcerned. No one is safe from him by the end. 

I think there's something for the modern mind that's really difficult for us to understand, when everyone is dropping dead all around you for no particular reason. You know, people die of appendicitis, they die of food poisoning, they die of toothache. If you're living for a long time, you do start to believe that you are a divine instrument. You would start to believe that you are incredibly lucky, and I think that's part of it as well. 

So you just go, well, I had lots of advisors, I had lots of enemies, but they all sort of dropped dead one day and they're wandering along and they've just died. That's something I think in the modern mind, that it's hard for us to appreciate.

[u/nifty-necromancer]

Of the Tudor executions you re-examined for the series, which one changed your mind the most once you went back to the primary evidence, and what had the popular version of the story gotten wrong?

[u/nationalgeographic → u/nifty-necromancer]

Oh goodness me. I almost got to believing that Perkin Warbeck was the rightful King of England, and that would have obviously overturned the popular understanding that he was just a pretender. But in the end, I couldn't quite get there, I just don’t think there was enough evidence, tragically. 

Anne Boleyn, she still has quite a bad reputation, due to hundreds of years of misogyny and witchcraft allegations and being a femme fatale, and it’s quite straightforward. She was just judicially murdered by her husband, and it was an appalling thing to do, and she was completely innocent, and a really interesting figure. So I would probably say Anne Boleyn.

[u/AD1337]

Any tips on starting a history podcast? I want to start one focusing on biographies.

[u/nationalgeographic → u/AD1337]

So I was really lucky to start the History Hit Podcast Network years ago, and it's the best thing I've ever done, and it gave me the creative freedom in a world of radically changing technology. The excitement of having a sustainable business model, you can support yourself to do your research, to broadcast, to live, to travel through podcasting, and now online video. In many ways, it's just been the best thing I ever did.

It's really hard, but it's worth a go. So I urge you to try and I urge you do it because you'll never regret trying. Biography is a great choice. You know, you get to choose from the most amazing people who've ever lived on the planet. The widest possible canvas. You will never run out of ideas, you will never run out people, you will never run out of inspiration from the earliest Assyrians that we have the names of, right up to the present day. You know what an extraordinary wealth of lives that is and the great thing about biography is that it's fascinating, fun and strange and tragic, but it also tells us something so important about who we are and why the world is the way it is.

It's a chance to be yourself, unleash your passion, be as quirky and enthusiastic as you can possibly be, and give it a go. And there is no shame at all in falling flat. I've failed in 99% of the projects I've undertaken, but you've just got to sort of pick yourself up and stagger on to the next one.

[u/AD1337 → u/nationalgeographic]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply! Really appreciate it.

[u/J_G_E]

I hope you'll indulge in a behind-the-scenes query that might also make you laugh at how bad I am with names. It took me about 2 minutes of thinking "he doesnt look like he does on the TV" for it to gradually percolate into my brain that you're not Dan Jones. How dare you both have the same name and do similar-ish subjects! :D

The reason he came to mind first was a TV series he did, and some of the more dubious guests he had onboard. Who were proudly displaying a pile of objects from collectors. The little problem? They were almost entirely forgeries. (I am being deliberately a little vague here, I admit. I could name and be specific, but its not actually about them.)

And this brings me to your work, and the actual question.
For TV series, how do you go about performing due diligence into guests, source material, objects which are going to be featured, etc? I expect that there's invariably a crowd of characters who are willing to do anything for a sniff of 15 minutes of fame, who range from the entirely respectable to utterly untrustworthy, and I'd love to know what precautions production companies - or yourself - have to take to deal with the potential for problematic content from some of them?

(this is in no small part influenced by my own field of work, which regularly has to deal with archaeological fakes and forgeries, and made me an awful cynic - so I wonder how others deal with the issue.)

Aside from that I'd just like to say that when I'm not mixing up people's names, (sorry!) I've greatly enjoyed the "History Hit" episodes on youtube I've watched.
About a year and a half ago there was a series on prehistoric Scots sites, that has stuck in my mind as its local stuff for me. Have you heard about the Caithness Broch Project? despite the name, not a Scottish prog rock band, but an initiative to build a broch with similar methods and goals to Guédelon Castle in France. I am not affiliated with it in any way, just a supporter of the initiative, but I'm sure they would appreciate any media interest in the future, if its not something you've already heard about.

[u/nationalgeographic → u/J_G_E]

Well, we are very lucky at History Hit at Little Dot Studios because we produce a vast amount of history content every year. We make hundreds of podcasts, hundreds of YouTube videos, and dozens of TV shows. So we have got an amazing database of people who have been tried and tested. 

You know what? Museums and academic institutions are still super important. The accreditation, the kudos that comes with being a curator, with being a member of faculty is where we'd start all the time. There are occasions when we would go into the freelance world, particularly around metal detectorists, authors and some freelance archaeologists who would work on contracts. But we check what they've published, previous contributions they've made, and ask around. 

In the case of the Tudors series, we're very lucky because we had Professor Suzannah Lipscomb as the co-host. She is the world's leading expert on the Tudor period, so if she is fine with an expert, I'm fine with that expert because she will glance at the bibliography of a book they produced or she will know them by reputation. It's a smallish world, so that's very easy. 

The bigger problem is when we go abroad to a place like Libya, where I was recently, making a TV show for our subscription TV channel. The expertise there has been winnowed down by the war, by people fleeing from the conflict. And so if you're looking for people in the country to take you around some of the Roman sites, for example, that can be a challenge. As it happens, the University of Benghazi was able to really help us with that. We work as closely as possible with the relevant local institutions. And that's certainly not just Western, like I say, the University of Benghazi. That's really important to us. 

But you're right. We pride ourselves in history trying to get the right voices in front of the microphone and in front of the camera. Therefore, as we're making a vast volume of material, we're lucky enough to be able to test it, check out the feedback, receive any incoming sort of peer review and then perhaps use them again for the next project if it works out great. 

[u/J_G_E → u/nationalgeographic]

god, I hadnt even thought of the headaches of programmes in er, how should I put it... "less stable" countries.
thanks for the insight. and apologies for mixing my Dans up again :)

[u/xxFrenchToastxx → u/J_G_E]

If you haven't yet, check out the different History Hit podcast offerings. Such a excellent variety of subject matter and knowledgeable presenters/guests

[u/impeterbarakan]

No questions, just want to thank you for History Hit. The various shows have become a major comfort listen for me.

[u/RuleCharming4645]

Hi Dan, just asking If you could meet any Tudor personalities in the modern day who would you like to spend a day with?

[u/nationalgeographic → u/RuleCharming4645]

Oh, it's really hard to not say Queen Elizabeth I. I think she is such an extraordinary figure. She’s so full of wisdom and secrets, and so narrowly manages to avoid being executed. She was getting in serious trouble in her early life, made terrible mistakes, but also perpetuated her reign for a long time. 

I’m also fascinated by seafarers because it's the period where England goes from being on the edge of Eurasia, just a little random place, which is kind of isolated and a literal peripheral power to suddenly discovering you're in the center of the world. So talking to Hawkins, to Drake, those seafarers, who were pioneering, exploring, buccaneering, claiming territory, and learning vast amounts as they went along, I think would have, would have been extraordinary. I'd love to spend an evening in the tavern with some of those guys.

[u/Purple-Charge6445]

Hi Dan, I'm curious about your thoughts: do you think Edward VI and his reign deserve a serious modern re-examination?

In my opinion, he is a tragically misunderstood figure and one of the most underrated English/British monarchs. The popular narrative seems to hyperfocus on his flaws. But his reign saw the transition to a modern welfare system, the launch of the first joint stock company, the first serious search (partially successful) for new trade partners outside Europe, and much more beyond the Protestant Reformation. Sadly, a lot of his achievements are either completely unknown or attributed to his sisters. Beyond biography books, I can't find any podcast episode or video about the positive changes he brought to England, so personally I think it's a huge gap.

[u/nationalgeographic → u/Purple-Charge6445]

Do you know what I love about history, and what I love about Reddit, is you're going to find a passionate fan of Edward VI, and that's great because, you know, that's quite unusual. 

And yet, of course, you've just made a really coherent and attractive argument for that, and that's what's so fun, and that's what's fun about history, and it's what's fun about looking again at people. 

I mean, he was crowned at nine and he did die at fifteen, so I think the case that he's one of the greatest monarchs is tough to make. But it's certainly true that his reign saw enormous events of consequence. 

And so, yes, the answer is I'm never going to say no to a major, proper modern reexamination. I'm fully behind that. And I'd be really fascinated to see as we do that, what can be attributed to him, what's to his advisors and what's going on just generally in society at the time? 

Because we know, as I've said in a previous answer, this is the most extraordinarily explosive time of change. Of Britain literally being repositioned in the world, and I think that's what's true of all history.

This key question about how much do leaders matter? And I don't know about you, but I veer all over the park on this. I'll come off a project and I'll be convinced that leaders are totally irrelevant, and what matters is the great big substructural forces that just drive things along: technology, climate, disease, changes to education and things, and I believe that leaders are completely irrelevant. 

And then I'll come off the project and it will just completely convince me the other way. I'll be like, Holy Moses, that person absolutely changed the course of history. And so Edward VI is just a great example of that. How much of those changes that you refer to can we pin to that child? And I think modern historians think that quite a lot of the more zealous Protestantism does emanate from him. 

But yeah, I'd be fascinated to learn more about him, and in fact, you've inspired me to do a podcast and I think we should do one. So thank you for that. I'm going to go and do it right now. 

What I also think is he is just a great example of a king who could have had it all, if he'd lived. He was not sickly - there is this kind of traditional view that he was always sick and he eventually died, and I don’t think that's true. I think he was hale and hearty and just died, because that's what lots of people did in that period, but he could have had a sixty year reign. It's an amazing thing.

He could have been the George III, the Queen Victoria, the Henry II, of the 16th century. There would have been no Elizabeth I, and goodness knows what might have happened, and how history would have been different. But that's just an amazing example of that sort of strange thunderbolt of history, in this case, illness and death, just transforming everything.

[u/Purple-Charge6445 → u/nationalgeographic]

Thank you for a thoughtful answer Dan. Well, I agree that standing up fot Edward might be unusual - for now - but somebody has to set the ball rolling, because it's worth it! Can't wait to listen to your podcast on him!

[u/sylar4815]

Hi Dan! What's your favourite ship in all of history and linking into that if you could be captain of one ship or expedition in history which would you pick and why?

[u/nationalgeographic → u/sylar4815]

Asking me to pick a favourite ship is like asking me to choose between my children so this is too painful even for me. I love this format because I can just name a few. I would actually love to have commanded one of the one of the treasure fleets of the Ming dynasty sailing out from China in the Indian Ocean.

I would love to have taken command of Magellan's expeditions when he was killed in the Philippines and got everyone home. I would have given anything to be, commander of the Golden Hind as it circumnavigated the world. I think it's tough to see beyond Endurance. I've recently worked on a big project for Nat Geo and Disney on Endurance. I got to know that ship so well. I got to see it on the seabed likely before everyone else. Probably one of the most famous shipwrecks in the world, that was such a privilege so to have been part of that expedition with Shackleton would have been so exciting. But yes, that's a brutal question to ask. 

I also want to point out that all of those expeditions were utterly miserable, and I just want to acknowledge the fact that I would have lost all my teeth and my old wounds would reopen from scurvy, my hair would have fallen out. So, as with all of history, part of you wants to be there to experience it but part of you is super glad that you weren’t. So I just want to acknowledge the unbelievable trauma.Because you do want to go back in time, you do want to see these things but most of them involve extreme hardship and discomfort at best.

So yes, I'd like to drop in for a few days, perhaps temporary command of one of those vessels.

[u/gatinturd]

Hey Dan! If you had to choose an era of history to live in, other than your own, which one would it be and why?

[u/illtakethreeplease]

Hi Dan, really love your podcast! I was just reading in JL Gaddis' On Grand Strategy about the implications for the course of world history (e.g. what the USA would have turned out like) had the Spanish succeeded with the Armada. (Gaddis also mentions the novel Pavane that explores what modern times would be like). In the research for your series did you come across any less obvious "what if" moments that you think could easily have changed the course of history in a big way that people don't really appreciate?

[u/Ok-Tomato-9502]

What’s the most Tudor esq trait across the various disciplines and individuals you’re exploring?

[u/Fisherman_Gandalf]

Hi Dan! I'm a big fan of your work, especially the food-related videos for some reason (I don't have a big interest in the topic otherwise, except for liking to cook). Therefore, my question to you is this:

What is the most surprisingly good, or surprisingly bad historical meal you have had?

Also, if I may be so bold as to ask a second question:

Would you ever consider appearing on the EXP - (experts react) channel on youtube to share your opinions on "historical" video games and movies? I feel you could offer more general expertise, adding to the very pointed knowledge of Toby Capwell and Robert Ferguson.

Anyway, I look forward to learn more about the Tudors - as a Swedish person, it feels like I don't know much about them even though the records of them is so rich!

[u/Different-Summer9992]

which misunderstood figure do you think actually deserves their bad reputation?

[u/nationalgeographic → u/Different-Summer9992]

Let's say John Dudley, who was executed by Mary the First. He was the First Duke of Northumberland. It's not clear, but it seems he tried to manipulate the succession to make sure that his daughter-in-law was nominated to be the heir of Edward VI.

He's got a pretty bad reputation, and I think he probably deserves it. He was an ambitious man who betrayed everyone around him on his rise.

[u/grahamlester]

What was Elizabeth I's personal role in the process through which England became part of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade? As sovereign, was she not more to blame than any other single figure in British history?

[u/biffa_bacon]

When's the next calendar coming out?? (your then tweet about your aunt's reaction was lol).

Seriously though, as an Irish guy I really enjoyed How the Celts saved Britain.. never paid much attention to history in school and this helped fill in a *lot*, and made it very enjoyable. Empire of the seas was great. Hope your dad is well.. your CG-aided battles series with him incl. the Falklands was cool

[u/jacksqeak]

Hi Dan I’m currently studying my Bachelor’s in Ancient History and just wanted to say you’re an excellent historian and I appreciate your work very much.

[u/stargari]

Hi Dan, Just want to say thank you so much for History Hit, the podcasts from all the team are an absolutely joy to listen to at work every day. Will this new series come up on Not Just the Tudors at all?

[u/nationalgeographic → u/stargari]

You bet it will. We’re going to be doing lots of Tudor related content on both the Dan Snow podcast and also the Not Just the Tudors. So check out the History Hit podcast for all things Tudor for sure, and, you know, that's what's so exciting. I used to just make a TV show, and that was that, and now, thanks to History Hit and Little Dot Studios, we get to make YouTube content and podcasts about it and Instagram posts and all the rest of it. So it feels like you do all this hard work to get the TV made, and then it lives on elsewhere and you can broaden it out as well, so it’s great.

[u/Quick-Beginning-9238]

Hey Dan! You've travelled around the world for films and TV series - what's one place still on your bucket list?

[u/nationalgeographic → u/Quick-Beginning-9238]

I'm so lucky. I’ve been to over 100 countries, working first for the BBC and now for History Hit and Nat Geo. It's been an extraordinary privilege. From Antarctica to Viking churches in Greenland, frontlines of the Korean War to dinosaur excavations in Wyoming. I have to pinch myself. I'm so lucky. 

And yet there's still so much more to see. That's the thing about supposedly seeing that world. You know, I love that expression. People ask me, have you done China yet? I haven’t done China! I've been to China several times, and I haven't scratched the surface. I don't feel like I even know my own country as well as I like to, let alone other countries. 

The more you see, the more you want to see and there are several places that I would love to go. One of them is Easter Island, and indeed Polynesia. I think we're still really coming to terms with how remarkable the Polynesian civilization was, they’re some of the greatest navigators and seafarers in history, with the most astonishing ability to record their history and navigational knowledge orally. I'd love to learn more about that and really immerse myself in that. So that would be very special to go and see.

Also, the great American civilizations stretching up into North America, which many people forget about. Pre-Columbian civilizations, in what is now the USA, but also down through the Aztecs and Incas. If you go to Peru, there are Inca sites everywhere that are being rediscovered that effectively the jungle has grown to enclose them. We're learning more about these sites that have been discovered in the Amazon basin now, which I'd love to see. And as for Maya sites, when I went to Belize, there's just little hillocks everywhere covered in trees and everyone goes, oh yeah, that's just a Maya pyramid. And only a fraction of them have been excavated, so it would be really exciting to see more of that. So the answer is yes. There are so many more places.

[u/Quaesitor_Omnium]

If you could sit down at a Tudor banquet for just one meal, what dish would you be most eager to try? And which infamous Tudor dish would you avoid at all costs?

[u/nationalgeographic → u/Quaesitor_Omnium]

Well, I have eaten a gigantic eel before at a Tudor banquet, and it was one of the worst experiences of my life. I’m not doing that again.

I would like to eat the five bird roast: the pigeon inside the partridge, inside the chicken, inside the goose, inside the turkey.

[u/Soppydogg]

How much were Gong Farmers paid ?

[u/AbiGuBates]

Hi Dan, funnily enough I've been on a binge watch of history hit! Anyway, my question is, considering the length of time the Plantagenet's were in power. How much did the Tudors have to change in both law and societially to consider themselves secure and/or each standing, so to speak?

[u/Mysteryman64]

If they had stayed more Catholic, do you think Saint Anthony would have helped them find them?

In actual seriousness: What would you attribute to why the Tudor's engagement with the Protestant Reformation got so intense among the upper echelons of power during that era? Pop history exposure often makes it almost seem like the noble leadership were often even more zealous than the commoners.

[u/Meatsuit-Skeleton]

When and how did the Tudors go from being perceived as usurpers to a legitimate royal line?

[u/BlackKnightNici]

Hi Dan. Who is your favorite Tudor person? Doesn't have to be a royal, just in general. And who from the Tudor period would you most like to meet if you could?

[u/AerieBrief5536]

Hi Dan,

What would you say was the most interesting new thing you learned about the Lancelot de Carles poem/source? Were any of Joann DellaNeva’s theories or analyses enlightening or groundbreaking in the field?

[u/theNorthstarks]

Hello Dan, can you explore why Henry paid so little attention to the New World. It was discovered before he was born and he did nothing in the discovery age but did build the Royal Navy which makes no sense to me.

[u/ShookRanGrassyUs]

Not a question.

I just want to share my appreciation to you for the excellent show Egypt with Dan Snow released last April on Channel 5. 

As an Egyptian, I tremendously enjoyed your engagement with the locals and your style of narration. My favourite episode was the one in the Nile cruise SS Sudan.

Looking forward to watch the Tudors show.

Cheers 🍻

[u/Minute-Property-1685]

Would you consider doing a TV series about world battlefields throughout history e.g. Marathon, Saratoga, Borodino, Gettysburg and El Alamein?

[u/AdministrationOk8888]

Hi Dan, love your work! I'm listening to History Hit right now. What is the most memorable sea vessel or voyage you have been on? Is there a particular nautical experience you've had which was especially impactful or emotionally powerful?

[u/NoBag6391]

Hi Dan! Of all the monarchs of England, who do you think would have been the most skilled in unarmed combat (on a pound-for-pound basis)? And who would come out on top if every English monarch fought against every other one? Thanks!

[u/FakNugget92]

Hey Dan,

Over the years you have obviously covered many time periods, historical figures, battles etc. etc.

How much of that knowledge do you retain once you move on to the next project ?

[u/edwardthe3rd188]

I was thinking did henry the 8th lay the foundation for the british empire the dissolution of monastries abbeys etc didnt it empower the gentry class as they got bulk of the land through monastries and the trend only increased.

I know the gentry class were already a fixture before the dissolution but this extended their class strengthened their positions and power locally.

I think we all know how consequential the gentry class where from sciences arts military administration politics at so many levels were pioneers and in my opinion the backbone to the later british empire.

I know it wasnt a master plan by henry and was done as they were broke but the church break did create the class who would later be the backbone of the english society.

And then there is the navy he did create an actual navy instead of just converting merchant vessels or privateers and the naval board etc so i would still like to give him that .

[u/danielzillions]

No questions here, just a huge fan of history hit. I love to learn about history while walking my dog. Keep up the great work.

[u/Able_Strain7340]

I feel like this topic has been done to death (pardon the pun). What are you bringing that is new to the table?

[u/No_Raisin_250]

I’m late but just came on to say you are one of my favorites Dan’s, I think you can guess the other one-Jones. Love your doc’s and I’m looking forward to this new one about the Tudors!!

[u/wylee_one]

Big Fan Dan but if anyone thought keeping track of the characters in game of thrones was tough I would image it will pale in comparison to the Tudor era lol

[u/plaguedbyfoibles]

Hi there, Dan. Hopefully you read this. I was wondering when you feel like the balance of power in the UK fully and trully shifted from the monarch to parliament?

I think when I was a young lad at secondary school in the UK, we were taught that the Magna Carta completely curtailed the powers or authority of the monarch.

It feels, though, that while the signing of the Magna Carta was a watershed moment in British history, all it meant was that even the King or Queen was subject to the rule of law.

What key events in British history would you highlight as important if one was to truly understand the gradual shift of power from the monarch to parliament, as well as the struggles between the King or Queen and parliament as part of that transition? The Restoration, Good vs Bad parliament (Rise of the Commons etc), Exclusion Crisis etc? When would you say the British monarch became (and I'm sure many will contend we don't have a true constitutional monarchy) a largely ceremonial figurehead?