The official website for BBC History Magazine
Kate Vigurs reveals the stories of little-known women who parachuted into occupied European territory as secret agents during WW2
From sabotage operations to devastating betrayals, stories of the women of Special Operations Executive are some of the most incredible stories of the Second World War – but, says Kate Vigurs, many remain little known. In her new book, Mission Europe, Vigurs reveals the astonishing bravery of such female agents operating in the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, and Mandate Palestine, many of whom parachuted behind enemy lines. Speaking to Elinor Evans, she reveals how their courage and sacrifice changed the course of the war.
What Was Life REALLY like in a Medieval Castle? The truth about castle living
Moats, murder holes and massive feasts – the HistoryExtra team visited Farleigh Hungerford Castle to find out more about life in a medieval castle
Was life in medieval castles as luxurious as the films and TV shows imagine? The HistoryExtra team travelled to Farleigh Hungerford, a historical site managed by English Heritage in southwest England, to find out. View Green Video on the source website
Stephen Greenblatt sheds light on the brief life of playwright Christopher Marlowe, one of the great rivals of William Shakespeare, whose death in a Deptford tavern in 1593 still leaves a great many unanswered questions
From his possible espionage work for the Elizabethan state to his open flirtations with atheism and subversive sexual themes, the brief life of playwright Christopher Marlowe tells us much about the shadowy edges of 16th-century England. Stephen Greenblatt joins Elinor Evans to discuss the subversive, dangerous life of 'Kit', who became both a collaborator and rival of his contemporary, William Shakespeare. Stephen Greenblatt is the author of Dark Renaissance: The Dangerous Times and Fatal Genius of Shakespeare’s Greatest Rival, Christopher Marlowe (Bodley Head, 2025). Buy it now from Amazon
CW Goodyear introduces US president James Garfield, the 20th man to hold the office, who died after being shot in 1881
US president James Garfield's life is often overshadowed by his untimely death in 1881, as the second president to be assassinated in office. However, his story is now once again in the limelight, thanks to the new Netflix drama Death by Lightning. Historian and biographer CW Goodyear talks to Elinor Evans about a man who, though his time as leader was fleeting, remains a fascinating figure – and explains why there is much more to be remembered about him than simply his final days.
“We analysed Hitler’s DNA – and what we discovered made us gasp”
Turi King and Alex J Kay have married genetics with history to study a sample of DNA from Adolf Hitler – and, as they reveal, their research has thrown up some extraordinary insights into the Nazi dictator’s private life
Few historical figures have been discussed and debated as much as Adolf Hitler. We have a wealth of primary source material available to us about his life, including his autobiographical manifesto Mein Kampf, personal correspondence, political directives and military orders, recordings and transcripts of his countless speeches, eyewitness accounts, photographs and film footage. Now, 80 years after his death, Hitler's DNA: Blueprint of a Dictator, a groundbreaking documentary produced by Blink Films and currently airing on Channel 4, has unlocked a new source by presenting the results of a world-first analysis of a sample of Hitler’s DNA. The DNA was taken from the blood on a small piece of fabric cut from the sofa on which Hitler died after shooting himself in his Berlin bunker on 30 April 1945 We have the privilege of being part of this documentary – both as lead investigators and in our separate roles as senior historical consultant (Alex) and the person leading the genetic analysis (Turi). The background to the documentary was a multi-stage process, each step a powerful marrying of genetics with history. It probably goes without saying that the first step was to confirm that the blood sample was actually that of Hitler. With this in mind, it’s important to remember that, as in any forensic case, DNA evidence cannot be taken in isolation. It has to be combined with other types of evidence, in this case reaching back into the past for information first about Hitler’s suicide and then about how the piece of fabric came to be available for DNA testing. The Führer’s family tree So, what does the history tell us? With the Red Army closing in, Hitler killed himself in his Berlin bunker on the afternoon of 30 April 1945. In the days following his death, the Soviets controlled access, and few people were allowed in. Among those who were permitted to enter was Lieutenant Colonel Roswell P Rosengren, public information officer for General Dwight D Eisenhower, the supreme Allied commander in Europe. While taking various souvenirs, Rosengren cut out a swatch of the fabric on the sofa on which Hitler had shot himself – and which, crucially, was stained with blood. He took it home to the United States and kept it under lock and key, before passing it down to his son. It was later acquired by the Gettysburg Museum of History in Pennsylvania, which in turn offered it for DNA analysis to anyone who was interested. Accompanying the swatch was a signed affidavit from Rosengren’s son confirming its provenance. Certainly, the fabric looked like it matched photographs of the sofa. So far so good. Next came the genetic analysis for the identification. It is standard in cases such as this to analyse the DNA from the sample and compare it either with a previous authenticated sample from the individual in question or with the DNA of a close relative. Yet there were no such close relatives available to carry this out: Hitler had no children. However, as part of a previous study, more than a decade ago, a journalist called Jean-Paul Mulders and a genealogist named Marc Vermeeren had traced distant male-line members of Hitler’s family tree living in Europe and had obtained DNA from one of them. Mulders had been particularly interested in tracing male-line members of Hitler’s family tree because there is a segment of DNA that is passed down through the male line: the Y-chromosome. Y-chromosome types differ between individuals, but male-line members of the same family tree should carry identical, or near-identical, Y-chromosome types. Analysing the Y-chromosome type from a male-line relative gives you, essentially, Hitler’s Y-chromosome type. All these years later, if the blood on the piece of fabric was from Hitler, the Y-chromosome from it should match that from the relative whose DNA had already been tested. This was a huge moment in the project. So you can imagine our relief when we established that there was a DNA match – and, what’s more, it was a rare Y-chromosome type. Still, here historical context is, again, important. What were the chances of a male-line relative having access to the bunker and, crucially, also bleeding on the sofa? Given the rarity of the Y-chromosome type and what we know about the whereabouts of Hitler’s few male-line relatives at the time, the chances of this happening were vanishingly small. The blood sample, and thus the DNA in it, belonged to Hitler. We had his DNA. Sequencing the genome The match led to another of the study’s major discoveries: an answer to the question of whether Hitler had Jewish heritage through his paternal grandfather. In view of Hitler’s virulent antisemitism and his pivotal role in the extermination of 6 million European Jews, it is understandable that this particular rumour has triggered a great deal of speculation among both scholars and the general public alike. Well, the rigorous scientific testing carried out for the documentary has now confirmed beyond doubt what serious historians had long believed: namely that there is no truth in a rumour that has circulated since the early 1920s. The DNA match firmly debunks the Jewish ancestry myth. The next step was to sequence the entire genome. Hitler now joins thousands of historical individuals – often nameless but including among their number the famous German composer Ludwig van Beethoven – whose genomes have been sequenced. We approached the task with an open mind. But given how many medical biographers have tried to diagnose Hitler from a distance, we were naturally interested in what the former German leader’s DNA could tell us about his health. But first, let us be clear about what Hitler’s DNA can tell us – and, more importantly, what it cannot. This calls for a quick genetics lesson. For some diseases and conditions, the process is straightforward. Known as monogenic in origin, the development of a given condition can be traced back to a single gene or genetic variant that affects how the gene is working or, in this case, not working. A common example of a single gene disorder is cystic fibrosis. However, for other conditions and diseases, it is a far more complex picture, because they are both polygenic and multifactorial. This means that many – often hundreds – of genetic variants are involved, each incrementally increasing or decreasing a person’s risk of developing the condition. What’s more, the risk of developing the condition is also influenced by environmental factors ranging from chemical exposure (such as smoking) to lifestyle (such as diet). A common example of one of these conditions is coronary artery disease. A shock revelation We analysed the DNA in two ways: by sending the genetic results to experts in different fields so that they could identify any medical conditions of interest; and also by running it through the standard medical pipelines for known genetic variants associated with various conditions. The results were striking. First, thanks to the work of colleagues at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, we found that Hitler had a well-known deletion in a gene that is associated with Kallmann syndrome and the elaborately named Congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. While the severity can vary from person to person, this mutation can result, among other things, in an impaired testosterone production, low libido, abnormalities in the development of sexual organs, and, by extension, a disrupted reproductive function. This was a gasp moment in the study, and of particular interest to historians. The revelation that Hitler had some form of Kallmann syndrome is intriguing because of the implications for his private life. The finding suggests there could have been a causal relationship between Hitler’s genetic make-up and particular facets of his behaviour. It complements what we already knew about this part of Hitler’s biography, and it sheds light on aspects of his life that we could previously only speculate about. A physical examination of Hitler, conducted during his incarceration in Landsberg prison in 1923 following the failed Munich putsch – but only known about since the rediscovery of the medical file in 2010 – revealed that he had “right-sided cryptorchidism”. That is, an undescended testicle. (It turns out that the British satirical song ‘Hitler Has Only Got One Ball’, the origins of which remain unknown, was close to the mark after all.) “Some sense of shame” This physical abnormality might help to explain an account given by August Kubizek, Hitler’s closest (and perhaps only) friend during his adolescence. Hitler and Kubizek shared a room in Vienna from February to July 1908. Noting Hitler’s “obvious indifference to the opposite sex”, his “strict monk-like asceticism” and the fact that he “refrained from masturbation”, Kubizek observed: “My friend undoubtedly found favour with the opposite sex although, to my amazement, he never took advantage of it.” Commenting on the entirety of their friendship from the autumn of 1905, when they met at the opera in Linz, to the summer of 1908, when their time together in Vienna came to an end, Kubizek concluded: “I think I can say with certainty: Adolf never met a girl, either in Linz or Vienna, who actually gave herself to him.” Tellingly, Ernst Hanfstaengl, one of Hitler’s closest confidants during the 1920s and 1930s, later wrote: “I can never recall having seen him in a bathing costume, nor had anyone else. A story, probably authentic, was frequently told that Hitler’s old army comrades, who had seen him in the wash-house, had noted that his genital organs were almost freakishly underdeveloped, and he doubtless had some sense of shame about displaying himself. It seemed to me that this must all be part of the underlying complex in his physical relations, which was compensated for by the terrifying urge for domination expressed in the field of politics.” According to the historian Ian Kershaw, author of the definitive biography of Hitler, “Kubizek’s account, together with the language Hitler himself used in Mein Kampf, does point at the least to an acutely disturbed and repressed sexual development.” Rumours that Hitler had been infected with syphilis by a Jewish prostitute were without foundation: medical tests in 1940 showed that Hitler had not suffered from syphilis. The discovery that Hitler had Kallmann syndrome might thus be the key to explaining his seemingly “disturbed and repressed sexual development”. Looking for patterns Hitler may well have been extremely self-conscious about his body and, for this reason, reluctant to engage in relations of an intimate or sexual nature – and perhaps even uninterested in that side of life. This fact would help to explain his absolute devotion to politics to the almost complete exclusion of any kind of private life. Such devotion was exceptional among Nazi leaders. All other senior Nazis – Hermann Göring, Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Goebbels, Martin Bormann, Rudolf Hess, Albert Speer, and so on – had wives and children. Some even had extramarital affairs. Ian Kershaw also wrote: “There was no ‘private life’ for Hitler. Of course, he could enjoy his escapist films, his daily walk to the Tea-House at the Berghof, his time in his alpine idyll far from government ministries in Berlin. But these were empty routines. There was no retreat to a sphere outside the political, to a deeper existence that conditioned his public reflexes.” Read more | Did Eva Braun love Adolf Hitler? The discovery and testing of Hitler’s DNA, combined with the historical facts already available to us, may explain why. When testing the DNA sample, experts at Aarhus University in Denmark looked at more complex conditions such as neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders. When scientists are interested in a condition that is polygenic, they determine which genetic variants might predispose someone to the condition by looking, in a large population, at the patterns of DNA in people who have that particular condition compared to those who do not. One can then take an individual’s DNA and place them, based on the genetic variants they carry, on the bell-curve distribution to see how they compare to others in that population. Do they have a lot of the genetic variants that seem to predispose someone to the condition, or very few? This is known as a polygenic score. Hitler’s results were, again, striking. His polygenic score placed him in the top 1 per cent for schizophrenia, for autism and for bipolar disorder. However, we have to be really clear here: Hitler’s polygenic score being high is not diagnostic. We cannot, from his DNA, say that he would have been diagnosed with any of these conditions. Even people with the highest scores aren’t diagnosed with the disorder 95 per cent of the time. What makes Hitler so unusual is not the possibility that he might have had any one of these disorders on its own, but rather the fact that his placement in the top 1 per cent for the polygenic scores of all three of these conditions is exceptional: none of the other individuals in the population analysis had the same result. Still, we know that numerous environmental factors, such as adverse life events, would have had a big influence on his likelihood of developing them. What’s more, it is important not to stigmatise people with these conditions. It is rare for anyone with any of these conditions to go on to commit violent acts, let alone genocide. Indeed, they are more likely to be on the receiving end of violence. Genetics is only one part of the puzzle in determining who someone will become. Nature vs nurture No attempt to explain the man Hitler became and the extreme inhumanity he exhibited can, therefore, be reduced to a question of genetics. But it is interesting to view these scores in light of what we already knew about him. Environmental and social factors played a central role in moulding Hitler. Born in provincial Austria in 1889, he had a traumatic childhood, experiencing abuse at the hands of his father and losing four out of five siblings as well as both parents by the age of 19. He later wrote in Mein Kampf that the death of his mother, Klara, had been “a dreadful blow”. These events would have gone a long way toward shaping Hitler’s character, regardless of his genetic makeup. Similarly important for the bigger picture is the fact that Adolf Hitler was only one man. He was the undisputed dictator of Germany for 12 years. He devised and ordered the genocide of Europe’s Jews, as well as countless other atrocities. But he did not act alone. There were hundreds of thousands of perpetrators, each with their own genetic makeup and life experiences. Millions more eagerly followed him and profited from his policies. Genetics does not bring us any closer to understanding and explaining how the Holocaust could have happened. At the same time, it is undeniable that certain people have a huge and lasting impact on the course of historical events. Hitler is one of those people. Ian Kershaw once wrote of the dictator: “He is one of the few individuals of whom it can be said with absolute certainty: without him, the course of history would have been different.” Being able to analyse Hitler’s DNA thus offers us a remarkable opportunity to add another layer of information in the quest to understand more about the man regarded as “the embodiment of modern political evil” (Kershaw). However, we want to emphasise that it is not possible to see evil in someone’s DNA. A new piece of the puzzle It can be argued that only under Hitler could the Nazis have come to power, consolidated that power, waged a European war and committed the most terrible crimes in modern history. One reason for this is Hitler’s single-mindedness in the pursuit of power, which was unmatched by any other senior Nazi. That he had some form of Kallmann syndrome could well have been a factor in his renunciation of any kind of private life or intimate relationships. All available evidence suggests that he did not even have sex with his long-term companion, Eva Braun. Hitler always claimed that his life was devoted to Germany, so that there was no room in it for a wife. It seems this claim might, at least in part, have been a way of covering up his aversion to intimate relationships, and that his genes could have played a more significant role in his decision not to marry (until the day before his death) and not to have children than he was willing to admit. No single piece of evidence explains everything. We cannot take the genetic information about Hitler in isolation. It needs to be couched within our knowledge of what DNA can and cannot tell us, but crucially also within what we know about Hitler, and the time in which he lived. A rare constellation of factors – genetic, environmental and societal – all contributed to the emergence of Hitler. The discovery of his DNA – and the findings that have emerged from its analysis and are now presented in this cutting-edge documentary – provide historians with a rare and extremely significant new piece of the jigsaw puzzle in their attempts to understand and explain the most notorious figure of the 20th century. Turi King is the lead geneticist on the research into Hitler’s DNA. Alex J Kay is a historian specialising in Nazi Germany. Their groundbreaking work is covered in the two-part Channel 4 and Blink Films documentary Hitler’s DNA: Blueprint of a Dictator
Gordon Corera introduces Vasili Mitrokhin, a Soviet archivist whose quiet rebellion exposed the deepest secrets of the KGB
When an elderly man with a battered suitcase walked into the British embassy in Vilnius in 1992, few could have guessed what he was about to hand over. Gordon Corera tells the story of Vasili Mitrokhin, an under-the-radar Soviet archivist who copied thousands of classified KGB documents over 12 years. Speaking to Elinor Evans, he reveals how a project that began as a private rebellion against the agency he once served evolved into one of the greatest intelligence coups of the 20th century. (Ad) Gordon Corera is the author of The Spy in the Archive: How One Man Tried to Kill the KGB (William Collins, 2025). Buy it now from Amazon
Who was Roscoe Conkling? The real story of how US politics’ ‘spoils system’ met its match
In the turbulent Republican Party of the late 1870s and early 1880s, Roscoe Conkling loomed as the hard-edged master of machine politics. Who was Conkling, and how did he ‘go to war’ with James Garfield, sparking a chain of events that would end with the president’s untimely death?
Netflix drama Death by Lightning has revived interest in the turbulent politics that shaped James Garfield’s brief presidency, and at the heart of that drama stood two Republican powerbrokers – Roscoe Conkling and James Blaine. Their rivalry helped fracture their party and set the stage for Garfield’s rise and the collapse of a corrupt brand of politics known as the 'spoils system'. Conkling was charismatic, theatrical, and ruthless. More importantly, he controlled a powerful faction within the Republican party known as the Stalwarts, whose influence depended on the spoils system – an issue which had flourished unchallenged in the politics of the United States of America since the 1820s. While Death by Lightning is ultimately the story of Garfield’s untimely death in 1881, following his shooting by Charles Guiteau, much of the action derives from this seemingly unsurmountable rift in the Republican party of the time. What was this system, what was Conkling’s role in it, and why was it so important to the assassination of President James Garfield? Here’s the real history. The Stalwarts, the Half-Breeds, and the spoils system Speaking on an upcoming episode of the HistoryExtra podcast, historian and biographer CW Goodyear describes Conkling as “a colourful bantam rooster of a politician” who walked through Congress “like a bird of paradise amid a barnyard of DC fowl”. And as for the system in which he thrived, Goodyear explains that in this era “the civil service, all of the jobs in the federal government, were awarded by politicians to their cronies”. That arrangement allowed corrupt networks to flourish, and created something called the spoils system through which politicians could “basically rig elections” and “bribe people, and then reward places on the public payroll to their loyalists”. Read more | Your guide to the American Civil War These loyalists, in turn, would often “skim money from the public to enrich themselves and give money back to their political patron”. “It created machine-based politics,” says Goodyear, and the Stalwarts were the system’s unrepentant practitioners. The Stalwarts represented one faction of the Republican party of the late 1870s, while their opposition was called the Half-Breeds. “We know how to name them, don't we?” jokes Goodyear. And, as the Republican Convention of 1880 approached, along with a need to nominate the party’s presidential candidate, they were at loggerheads. Who was the real Roscoe Conkling? Roscoe Conkling was a New York senator who also courted controversy and attention in his personal life, explains Goodyear. “He was a ladies’ man who always dressed in myriad bright colours, polka dots and stripes and matching socks. He had his pages followed behind him in a single file like he was a priest.” <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2025/11/GettyImages-1371374203-50fc891-e1762872582952.jpg" width="1500" height="1000" alt="This portrait by John F Jarvis, taken after 1868, shows Roscoe Conkling, the influential US senator from New York. A powerful Republican figure of the Reconstruction era, Conkling was known for his commanding oratory and fierce defence of political patronage." title="Roscoe Conkling (1829-1888), American Politician, U.S. Senator from New York, half-length seated Portrait, John F. Jarvis, 1876 after 1868 negative" /> He also cut a distinctive figure with his hairstyle: “He had something they called a Hyperion curl, this single lock of hair that would kind of split his forehead.” Ultimately, says Goodyear, Conkling’s biggest impact was as the florid, eloquent, and incredibly brutal boss of the Stalwarts. And for Conkling and his cronies – who included politician and future US President Chester A Arthur – the spoils system was not corruption, but the proper way to wield power. They aimed to place former president Ulysses S Grant back in the White House for a then unprecedented third term, believing this would let them “extend their style of corruption to all branches of the federal government”. Opposing the Stalwarts were the Half-Breeds, led by a politician named James Blaine, along with other reform-minded Republicans who were desperate to professionalise government service. Senator James Blaine of Maine, a figure Goodyear calls “the first American politician to run on charisma and nothing else”, was widely assumed to be a future president because of his magnetism and charm. Yet, as Goodyear notes, Blaine ran for the Republican nomination for the Presidency five times, “and he never won.” Blaine’s personal feud with Conkling ran even deeper than the factional divide. According to Goodyear, Blaine and Conkling “personally hated each other, long before these factions became a thing”. Despite claiming to oppose Stalwart corruption, the Half-Breeds “also dabbled in spoils politics” and Blaine himself “was seen as being a very corrupt figure as well”. This left the Republican Party bitterly divided, while a third group of reformers insisted upon a need to clean up the civil service and get rid of “the practices that had led to people like Conkling and Blaine”. What happened at the 1880 Republican Convention? By 1880, with a Republican convention approaching, the party was on the verge of political collapse, and Goodyear notes that many Republicans felt their only hope was a universally respected unifier. They converged on one name – ‘The Man from Ohio’, Congressman James A Garfield. Garfield never sought the nomination. Yet at the 1880 convention, after dozens of deadlocked ballots, delegates began spontaneously switching to him. When Wisconsin unexpectedly assigned Garfield enough votes to place him in the running, the Ohio congressman rose and insisted that “no candidate can receive votes without their consent”. Read more | When was the White House built – and why is it white? This refusal, says Goodyear, delivered in the heat of chaos, made Garfield appear sincere and selfless. On the next ballot, delegates elevated him to the nomination. Yet the party remained divided, and Garfield still walked a fine line. To soothe Conkling, Garfield accepted a Stalwart running mate: Chester Arthur. Goodyear calls Arthur “one of the most notoriously corrupt Stalwarts,” noting that as Collector of Customs at the Port of New York Arthur had personally pocketed a proportion of import fees, a perk that (until President Rutherford B Hayes removed him from the post in 1878) had made him immensely wealthy. But while he gave a nod to the Stalwarts faction with Arthur’s appointment, on other fronts, Garfield was ready to play hard ball. Garfield vs Conkling: what happened? Garfield “was very much dancing on the heads of snakes,” says Goodyear, trying to keep both the Half-Breeds and the Stalwarts happy. “And then the predictable happened, which was that the Stalwarts didn't get the jobs they want. “And Roscoe Conkling, this embroidered turkey of a politician, basically waged war against Garfield.” Once Garfield entered the White House in March 1881, he refused to hand Conkling control of federal appointments. Conkling was basically “trying to use veto power to put his own cronies in the jobs he thinks Garfield promised him,” says Goodyear, and the Stalwart leader retaliated by trying to block Garfield’s nominees. But Garfield held firm. After conspiring with leading Stalwarts, including Arthur who by then was Vice President, Conkling responded with what Goodyear characterises as “a huge miscalculation”. “Conkling and one of his cronies, Tom Platt, resigned from the Senate,” says Goodyear. The pair were fully confident that the New York legislature would immediately reappoint them. But this did not have the desired effect of forcing Garfield’s hand. Instead, Garfield was able to rely on support from other Stalwarts who moved in defiance of Conkling, which allowed Garfield to appoint the people he wanted. Conkling and Platt were not re-elected, laying bare the extent of their misjudgement, and no longer beholden to the brutal politics of the Stalwarts, Garfield now had much freer rein. How the spoils system spawned a tragedy It was soon afterwards that tragedy struck. A mentally unstable office-seeker named Charles Guiteau, immersed in the logic of the spoils system, had convinced himself that murdering Garfield would make Arthur president and earn him diplomatic office. Goodyear notes that Guiteau was wrapped up in the belief that Arthur “would be so grateful” that he would reward Guiteau with a prestigious position as an ambassador. Guiteau shot Garfield in July 1881, and the president suffered for 80 days while being cared for by his wife, Lucretia Garfield, before dying from infection. Garfield’s death ignited national outrage. According to Goodyear, reformers used him as “a fallen saint, a fallen hero,” turning Garfield’s cause of civil service reform into “the grassroots fiery political movement in the United States”. How did the spoils system end? The final chapter in the story of the spoils system belonged to Chester Arthur. Expected to be Conkling’s puppet, he was instead transformed by grief and conscience. Goodyear explains that Arthur “used it as an opportunity to turn his life around”, ultimately championing and signing the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act in 1883, the first major law to professionalise federal employment and dismantle the old system that had created him. Read more | Who were the tycoons of the Gilded Age? Meet the ruthless 'robber barons' who made millions Arthur’s redemption was so complete that, as Goodyear describes, “no one ever entered the White House more widely distrusted and no one ever left it more generally respected.” CW Goodyear is the author of President Garfield: From Radical to Unifier (Simon and Schuster, 2023). Goodyear was talking to Elinor Evans on the HistoryExtra podcast Death by Lightning is streaming on Netflix now. For more content like this, check out the best historical movies of all time as chosen by historians, history TV shows and films to stream tonight, and our picks of the new history TV and radio released in the UK this week
The Forsytes, a new drama adaptation of John Galsworthy's novels, has landed on British screens, giving viewers a sumptuous look at late Victorian London – a world of dazzling excess and great divide. Historical consultant Dr Victoria Bateman introduces the real historical detail behind the action
By the late Victorian era, having emerged from the Industrial Revolution, Britain was the wealthiest country in the world. Cotton, coal and iron and steel had propelled the island nation from poverty to prosperity, while putting Manchester, Sheffield and Newcastle – along with Scotland and Wales – on the map. In a situation quite the reverse of today, London had been left lagging behind, with the northern regions the far wealthier side of the divide. But the emergence of the ‘City’ as the financial centre of the world was to change this. Home to the London Stock Exchange and the Bank of England, the (quite literal) Square Mile, whose skyline is dominated by St Paul’s Cathedral, forms the backdrop to The Forsytes – Channel 5’s new period drama. Is The Forsytes a true story? No, The Forsytes is adapted by Debbie Horsfield from John Galsworthy’s classic novel series The Forsyte Saga, published in 1922. But as with many historical dramas there are truths underpinning the fiction. The star-studded six-part series follows the fortunes, personal rivalries, and revelries of a wealthy family of stockbrokers in 1880s London. We get to know Jolyon Forsyte, who is reluctantly set to inherit the family firm but whose wife – Frances (played by Tuppence Middleton) – would have it no other way. Waiting in the wings is his cousin and rival, Soames, who considers himself to be a far more worthy heir and who is as hellbent on ‘possessing’ his love interest Irene (played by Millie Gibson) as much as his stocks and shares. From Lady Carteret (played by Susan Hampshire, who won an Emmy Award for the original 1967 series) and the Forsyte matriarch Ann (played by Francesca Annis) to the dressmaker and former maid Louisa, the characters of The Forsytes span the British class system and give us a glimpse of life in a pivotal but often overlooked period of British history. Here are five important real details in The Forystes that true fans of historical drama won’t want to miss… The Forstyes were typical of the changing fortunes of ‘new money’ families As Britain’s economy grew, it created opportunities for stockbrokers, solicitors and property developers – the professional services that could meet the needs not only of industry at home but also of Britain’s growing overseas empire. From Africa and the Americas to Australia and India, railways needed to be built, land developed, and mines sunk – all of which required funds. British investors therefore refocused their energies away from investing at home to investing abroad. And they had deep pockets to do so. In the late 19th century, the amount of savings in London-based bank accounts exceeded the combined savings in the banks of New York, Paris and Germany. By redeploying these savings overseas, Britain became the world’s biggest lender. Stockbrokers like the Forsytes were able to build their own personal wealth by earning commissions on the investments they undertook on behalf of their clients. This meant that Britain’s upper classes – the traditional landed elites – now faced competition, not only from the industrialists of the north but also from ‘city-types’. While being accepted in the most esteemed social circles was a struggle, it was easier for financiers than it was for industrialists, which meant that careful cultivation of social networks could bring social as well as economic dividends for families like the Forsytes. As one etiquette guide noted, referring to the tradition of women being presented to royals at court: “The wives and daughters of merchants, or of men in business (excepting bankers), are not entitled to presentation.” In other words, those working in finance were special. While stockbroking families like the Forsytes had humble roots, they were on the way up. Men like Soames Forsyte really did ‘own’ their wives – but rights were changing In terms of their bodies, married women were considered the property of their husbands in late Victorian Britain. This meant that women were expected to submit to the sexual desires of their husbands. In fact, only in the 1990s did rape within marriage come to be considered a crime under British law. For most of the 19th century, married women also lacked any form of financial control – legally, husbands controlled not only their wives’ property and other assets, but also any wages she might have earned. Changing the law to give married women control over their own money became a central aim of Victorian feminism, successfully achieved in 1882 in the form of the Married Women’s Property Act. By the close of the 19th century, women owned a quarter of stock market shares and a third of government bonds. While stockbrokers were much more likely to be men than women, their clients were increasingly women. Working mothers were demonised, while ‘tradwives’ were celebrated Despite a central role in the workforce during the Industrial Revolution, not only in cotton factories but also in coal mines, women’s opportunities for work narrowed over the course of the 19th century. They were left them with two main options: working as domestic servants or in the cloth industry, including as dressmakers. Neither was particularly well paid and working hours were notoriously long. In The Forsytes, Louisa – Jolyon’s former love interest (played by Eleanor Tomlinson) – had done both types of work. For young working-class women, paid work was – as it had been for centuries – the norm in Late Victorian Britain. But for married women it was a different story. The tradwife was just as much a trend then as it is today, which meant that women were increasingly expected to give up their job upon marriage to instead become the ‘angels in the house’. Housewives were considered virtuous, while working mothers were demonised as neglecting their children. Read more | From family to factory: women's lives during the Industrial Revolution But while the Forstyes could afford for their womenfolk not to engage in paid work, most families were in a very different position. Studying poverty in turn-of-the-century London, the contemporary social reformer Charles Booth found that the ‘male breadwinner’ model was only practical for (at most) thirty per cent of the population. In the average family, wives – and children – needed to earn money in order to pay the rent and avoid starvation. But given that women’s options were shrinking, many women had to resort to informal types of work in order to make ends meet, such as taking in laundry, housing lodgers, or selling hot buns on the side of the street (including in the Square Mile). Women also performed unpaid labour within family businesses. In the case of the Forsyte women, that included the all-important social networking that lifted the family’s reputation – and with it, brought in new clients. Scrutiny of parentage had significant social impact The question of paternal parentage forms a central theme within The Forstyes. At the time, between four and five per cent of children were born out of wedlock and unmarried mothers faced serious social stigma, as did their children. Given that women had less access to well-paid work than their male peers, supporting a family as a single mother would have been either impossible or exceptionally difficult. Watch now | Did Queen Victoria and John Brown have a SECRET child? As a result, many women found themselves with no option other than to give up their children. Avoiding that typically required holding fathers to account – ensuring that they made a (sometimes secret) financial contribution to their child’s upbringing. Of course, most fathers failed to do so and, even when they did, their children were still at a clear social disadvantage compared with their ‘legitimate’ peers. Big bottoms really were fashionable in late Victorian Britain When it came to fashion, the crinoline – a device to hold voluminous hooped petticoats – was out, and the bustle – padding or wire at the back of a dress – was in. Sitting wasn’t always easy with an exaggerated bottom, especially as bustles became bigger. But as usual, Victorian inventors had a solution for everything, which led to the development of the ‘New Phantom’ bustle (patented in 1884). This device collapsed in on itself as the wearer sat back in her chair and then popped back out as she stood up. By the late 1880s, bustles were getting smaller rather than bigger, to the point that a small and simple pad, stuffed with horsehair, sufficed. In the 1890s, the ‘New Woman’ movement, which prioritised health and practicality, took the fashion world by storm, further simplifying the silhouette in what became known as ‘rational dress’. But without the previous appendages, it was necessary to find some other way to protect a woman’s figure, and so skirts were made with heavier materials, sometimes supplemented with stiff petticoats. While fashion evolved dramatically during Queen Victoria’s reign, the object was still the same: maintaining a woman’s bodily modesty. From regional divides and class tensions to tradwives and eye-popping fashion trends, it was in the Late Victorian period that today’s Britain was starting to emerge. Dr Victoria Bateman is author of Economica: A Global History of Women, Wealth and Power and is historical consultant to The Forsytes Series 1 of The Forsytes is available in the UK on Channel 5, and is soon to arrive on PBS Masterpiece in the USA
Your history guide to Frogmore Cottage: who has lived there before?
How much do you know about the history of Frogmore Cottage, previously home to Prince Harry and Meghan, Duke and Duchess of Sussex? Who has lived there before, and why was it built?
Where is Frogmore Cottage? Frogmore Cottage, set in the grounds of Frogmore House, is part of the Frogmore estate in Windsor, Berkshire. Frogmore is situated around half a mile south of Windsor Castle, within Home Park (the private estate of the castle). It’s close to the river Thames and built upon historically wet marsh ground, which led to the estate’s name; the low-lying plot attracts a high number of frogs from the nearby riverbank. Today the cottage, nestled in a quiet corner of the estate grounds, is a private residence, and served as the British home of Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, from 2019 when it was gifted to them by the late Queen Elizabeth II. Prince Harry and Meghan were requested to vacate their British base in March 2023, as they took an official step back from participation in royal duties. It is owned by the Crown Estate, though there are no current residents based at the house, royal or otherwise. It was reported in October 2025 that Prince Andrew, younger brother to King Charles III, is considering Frogmore as his residence after leaving Royal Lodge in Windsor Great Park. Read more | Why has the British monarchy survived – and thrived? Can people visit Frogmore Cottage? The cottage is not open to the public, though Frogmore House and estate can be visited on a number of charity days held each year. When and why was Frogmore Cottage built? The cottage has served as a royal refuge since it was built in 1801. It was commissioned by Queen Charlotte, the wife of King George III, who bought the Frogmore estate as a country retreat for herself and her unmarried daughters in 1792. Her husband, often referred as ‘Mad King George’, ruled Great Britain and Ireland from 1760–1820 and suffered from an illness (sometimes attributed as porphyria, a rare hereditary disease) that prompted episodes of eccentric behaviour. Historian Sean Lang explains how the king once ordered his carriage to stop in Windsor Great Park while he popped out to have a chat with an oak tree, apparently under the impression it was the King of Prussia. The royal couple had 15 children over the course of their marriage, and historian Helen Rappaport has suggested that Frogmore Cottage was designed to provide respite for the king’s family. “The king had episodes of frenzy. He was most likely very hard to live with and [Queen Charlotte] presumably utilised Frogmore Cottage as a retreat.” Who else has lived in Frogmore Cottage? Another famous resident of the cottage on the estate was Abdul Karim, an Indian Muslim clerk who became a close confidant and teacher to Queen Victoria. Karim was sent to England to wait at the queen’s table during the 1887 golden jubilee celebrations when the 68-year-old monarch wanted servants who reminded her of her status as Empress of India. She was taken by the handsome young man and Karim quickly rose within Victoria’s affections, as well as in status to the title of ‘Munshi’ (teacher or clerk), teaching the queen Hindustani and advising on all matters concerning India. The relationship between queen and clerk, recently explored in a book by historian Shrabani Basu and dramatised in the film Victoria and Abdul, is just one story of a steady stream of Indian migrants coming to Britain during the 19th century. As Basu told History Extra, “[it’s] fascinating that a young Indian Muslim man was at the centre of the royal court at a time when the British empire was at its height. It is a part of history that the royal family tried to destroy after Queen Victoria’s death.” Karim lived in Frogmore cottage with his family, and refurbished the property in 1893. The queen visited him at the house “each second day”, explains Basu. Yet following the queen’s death in 1901, Karim was forced to return to India by Victoria’s son and successor, Edward VII, who had “abhorred” his mother’s companion. Read more | Queen Victoria's Indian confidant: an interview with Shrabani Basu A home to royal refugees? In the early 20th century, the cottage also hosted royal refugees from Russia. Following the killing of Tsar Nicholas II and his family in July 1918, who were shot by their Bolshevik guards, some relatives of the tsar fled the country. One such royal group was offered sanctuary in Frogmore Cottage by King George V, and included the king's cousin Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna. The royal refugees' financial situation meant the cottage soon fell into disrepair, and when King Edward VIII offered Xenia and her family Wilderness House (in the grounds of Hampton Court to the south-west of London), the family left Frogmore. What else can be found on the Frogmore estate? Frogmore House itself dates from 1680–84, built by an architect of Charles II for the king’s nephew. It was later the home of Queen Victoria’s mother, the Duchess of Kent, for more than 20 years from 1840, and artworks by both the duchess and Queen Victoria are on display in the house. A teahouse built for Queen Victoria also remains on the estate, alongside a 18th-century summerhouse in the form of a Gothic ruin designed by English architect James Wyatt. The estate has long been a bolthole for the royal family. King George VI and his wife Elizabeth spent part of their honeymoon at Frogmore in 1923, and it’s reportedly where the late Queen Elizabeth II walked her beloved corgis. The house hosted the wedding reception of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle in May 2018, as well as that of the Queen’s eldest grandchild, Peter Phillips, and Autumn Kelly in 2008. Read more | Retiring royals: 9 rulers and royals who stepped down through history The Frogmore estate is also the site of the Frogmore Mausoleum, the burial place of Queen Victoria and her husband, Prince Albert. The mausoleum, not open to the public during tours of the estate, is currently undergoing restoration works to protect against ongoing damp problems due to its riverside location. The site on the west side of the gardens at Frogmore House was chosen by the queen just four days after Albert’s death at the age of 42 in 1861, and construction began three months later. Following her death at Osborne on the Isle of Wight and a state funeral, Queen Victoria was buried at Frogmore on 4 February 1901. King Edward VII and his grandson, the six-year-old future Edward VIII, knelt as the queen was slowly lowered in to the crypt to be laid to rest beside her beloved husband. View Green Video on the source website
The place where TIME began | A history of GMT
On location at Royal Observatory, Greenwich in southeast London, HistoryExtra's Elinor Evans unpacks how astronomers, mathematicians, and global powers collaborated to create Greenwich Mean Time (GMT).
Long before smartphones and digital clocks, time was a local affair, creating chaos, confusion and even danger. On location at Royal Observatory, Greenwich in southeast London, HistoryExtra's Elinor Evans unpacks how astronomers, mathematicians, and global powers collaborated to create Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). Joined by Louise Devoy, Senior Curator of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, we investigate the milestone innovations in this story, including the story of the Observatory Time Ball, the Shepherd Motor Clock, and George Biddell Airy's meridian Prime Meridian. From solving longitude at sea to defining timezones for the entire planet, this is the story of how we learned to master time. View Green Video on the source website Find out more about the history of time, space and navigation and plan a visit to the Royal Observatory