The official website for BBC History Magazine
History TV and radio in the UK: what's on our screens this week?
Can't decide which shows to watch or listen to this week? Here are the latest history radio and TV programmes airing in the UK that you won't want to miss
Pride And Prejudice BBC Radio 4 Saturday 13th December, 3.15pm Marking the 250th anniversary of Jane Austen’s birth, here’s a new adaptation of one of her best-loved novels. Concludes Sunday (3pm). Narrated by Tamsin Greig. Listen out too for When I Met Jane Austen (weekdays from Monday 15th December, 11.45am & 1.45pm), in which celebrities, beginning with David Baddiel, recall their first encounters with the novelist’s work. Read more Archive On 4: The Battle Of The Drina BBC Radio 4 Saturday 13th December, 8pm Filmmaker Fiona Lloyd-Davies looks back three decades to the siege of Goražde, a Bosniak enclave that was surrounded by Bosnian Serb forces during the bitter breakup of the former Yugoslavia. There’s a personal element to the story as Lloyd-Davies remembers how coming under fire affected her sister Vanessa, a British Army doctor who committed suicide in 2005. Read more Great Lives BBC Radio 4 Monday 15th December, 3pm The series where celebrities speak up for historical figures returns. In the first of eight new episodes, former astronaut Tim Peake nominates Jeffrey Quill (1913–96), Vickers Aviation’s chief test pilot who was a central figure in the development of the Supermarine Spitfire. Presented by Matthew Parris. Read more Civilisations: Rise And Fall BBC Two Monday 15th December, 9pm The series concludes by charting what happened when Japan’s samurai class encountered the industrialised west in the middle of the 19th century. It’s the story of an elite determined to maintain its hold on power, US gunboats and a clash of cultures that changed Japan forever. Read more The Essay: Accompanying Austen BBC Radio 3 Monday 15th December, 9.45pm Over five weekday nights, film critic Antonia Quirk meets composers who have provided the music for Jane Austen adaptations, and for a biopic of the novelist. First up, she hears from Rachel Portman, whose score for the 1996 film version of Emma, starring Gwyneth Paltrow, won an Oscar. Read more Lady Killers With Lucy Worsley BBC Radio 4 Tuesday 16th December, 3pm Season four of the show about women who got caught up in the criminal justice system begins with an episode recorded at the Hay Literature Festival. Novelist Sarah Waters, Lucy Worsley and historian Rosalind Crone’s subject is women who inspired fictional characters in books, including Margaret Garner, an escaped slave whose life Toni Morrison researched when writing Beloved. Read more What’s The Monarchy For? BBC One Tuesday 16th December, 9pm How has the royal family shaped its public image down the years? Concluding his series on the Windsors’ place in the 21st century, David Dimbleby considers the royals’ relationship with broadcasters. Satirist Ian Hislop of Private Eye fame is among those offering their insights. Read more Mozart: Genius For Hire Sky Arts Tuesday 16th December, 9pm In the first of three documentaries shown over successive evenings, the topic is how Mozart broke from courtly patronage. Featuring Matthew Broome and David Harewood reading from letters between Mozart and his father. Also look out for Mozart’s Sister (Wednesday, 9pm) and Mozart’s Women (Thursday, 9pm). A drama based on Peter Shaffer’s Amadeus is headed for Sky next week. Read more Persuasion: The Read With Monica Dolan BBC4 Thursday 18th December, 8pm The actor Monica Dolan (Mr Bates Vs The Post Office, Sherwood) reads from Jane Austen’s last completed novel, which tells the story of 27-year-old Anne Elliot and her on-off relationship with naval officer Frederick Wentworth. A soothing Jackanory for grown-ups that nonetheless deals with big themes, including how money and class shaped people’s lives in the Regency era. Read more Christmas Treasures Of The National Trust – pick of the week BBC Two Friday 19th December, 9pm In a one-off episode of the entertaining fly-on-the-wall series, cameras follow life at three National Trust properties in the run-up to the festive season. At Victorian mansion Cragside in Northumberland, the team prepares to recreate a servants’ ball. At Tudor-era Cotehele, Cornwall, staff work on a 60ft seasonal garland and there’s a 1920s-themed bash at Colston Fishacre in Devon. Read more
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
Was Robin Hood ACTUALLY real? The history explained
Dive into the myth and historical speculation surrounding Robin Hood, a legendary outlaw famed for stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, as HistoryExtra's David Musgrove presents the real details from history that might have inspired the Sherwood Forest hero
Was Robin Hood one man – or many? In this video, Dr David Musgrove shares some of the medieval rebels who may have inspired England’s greatest outlaw, and discover how history has turned him into a folk hero. Drawing on expertise from Dr Sean McGlynn, Musgrove examines figures such as King Richard the Lionheart and King John to anchor the Robin Hood legend in real history. But the earliest stories don’t depict Robin Hood as particularly kind – in fact, he’s often violent. And his iconic green outfit? A mere invention. From chopping off heads to fighting the French – dig into the real history behind the Robin Hood that has so often featured in Hollywood blockbusters. View Green Video on the source website
Who was the real Lucretia Garfield? Inside the forgotten life of a fleeting First Lady
Lucretia Garfield, also known as Crete, was the wife of US President James A Garfield and served briefly as First Lady in 1881. She was admired for her stoic devotion during the president’s long illness that followed his wounding by assassin Charles Guiteau (as depicted in the Netflix drama Death by Lightning), and for her later efforts to preserve his papers and legacy
When US President James A Garfield was shot by Charles Guiteau in July 1881, the nation’s focus turned not only to the wounded president and his successor Chester A Arthur, but also to his wife, Lucretia Garfield, sometimes known to history as ‘Crete’. She was with him for more than two months as he died, dividing her time between his sickroom in Washington, DC, and the New Jersey seaside house where doctors hoped the air might help him recover. Contemporary newspapers heaped praise upon her for her strength and devotion, at a moment of personal and national anxiety. But her stoicism in the face of personal tragedy is just one part of Lucretia’s story – part of which is dramatised in the Netflix series, Death by Lightning, which follows the assassination of President Garfield. Behind her composure was a life of intellectual interest and loyalty that was present long before she became First Lady. Who was Lucretia ‘Crete’ Garfield? Lucretia Rudolph Garfield is remembered in history as the wife of James A Garfield, the 20th President of the United States. She served as First Lady for only six months before her husband died of fatal wounds following an attack by assassin Charles Guiteau. She had previously been a teacher and scholar, and retained passion for education and literature throughout her life. Her poise during his slow death earned wide admiration across the United States, and in the decades that followed she became a guardian of his papers and legacy. Read more | How many US presidents died in office? <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2025/11/GettyImages-1410610111-5277a01-e1762429347504.jpg" width="1500" height="1000" alt="This late 19th-century portrait shows Lucretia Garfield, wife of U.S. President James A. Garfield. Known for her intellect and dignity, she brought refinement to the White House during her husband’s brief presidency in 1881." title="A portrait of Lucretia Garfield, wife of President Garfield." /> Lucretia Garfield’s early life and education Lucretia Rudolph was born on 19 April 1832 in Garrettsville, Ohio. She was the daughter of Zebulon and Arabella Rudolph. Her father, a carpenter-farmer and local politician, believed in the power of education and ensured that all his children studied beyond the basic level then available in rural Ohio. Early friends remembered her as a serious figure even from a young age. She was well-read and chose to spend her time studying. She was once quoted as saying: “Books are more faithful companions than the crowds that pass.” Read more | The 5 most notorious presidents in US history In 1850, in her late teenage years, she enrolled at the Western Reserve Eclectic Institute (later Hiram College), one of the few co-educational colleges in the region. Lucretia studied philosophy, literature and science, and impressed her teachers with her diligence and clarity of thought. Among her classmates was James A Garfield, a handful of months older and already known for his energy and oratory skills. Their friendship, formed through shared academic interests, soon began. Lucretia and James Garfield’s marriage and family life Lucretia and James’ relationship developed slowly and in a non-linear fashion. They were briefly engaged, then separated for several years before reconciling. They married on 11 November 1858 in Hiram, after a long and sometimes hesitant courtship, with his sociability and ambition often standing in contrast to her more reserved nature. The couple began married life in modest circumstances. When the American Civil War broke out in 1861, Garfield entered military service while Lucretia managed the household and their growing family. In his absence, she handled finances, kept detailed household accounts, and offered political observations to James via her letters. They had seven children, five of whom survived to adulthood: Harry, James, Mary, Irvin, and Abram. Their marriage wasn’t without challenge; during his service, Garfield had an extramarital affair with a woman named Lucia Calhoun in Washington, DC. He later admitted the indiscretion and was forgiven by his wife. By the 1870s, James having returned from war, their marriage had become close to an equal partnership. Garfield consulted her on political decisions and drafts of speeches, and she often edited his work. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2025/11/GettyImages-1177463808-b82af2f-e1762429745125.jpg" width="1500" height="1000" alt="This 1881 print depicts President James A Garfield with his family, published with the permission of his wife, Lucretia, and was created shortly after his assassination." title="James A Garfield and Family, Respectfully Dedicated to and Published by the Permission of Lucretia R Garfield, Published by JH Buffords Sons, 1881" /> Lucretia’s time as First Lady of the United States When Garfield was elected president in 1880, Lucretia was reluctant to step into her new role as First Lady. She valued privacy and found the ‘high society’ of Gilded Age America artificial, though she soon established her own good reputation. Her receptions were smaller than those of her predecessors, but more personal. Read more | "Violence and American politics have gone hand in hand right from the beginning" She took particular interest in restoring and cataloguing the White House’s historical furnishings, many of which had fallen into disrepair. Her plans for preservation and displaying items anticipated later efforts to treat the residence as a national museum. She also began a small library, for the use of White House staff and guests. Shortly after her husband’s inauguration in March 1881, Lucretia contracted malaria and was sent to the seaside city of Long Branch, New Jersey, to recover. It was there, in July 1881, that she received a telegram containing news of an attack on her husband. Lucretia Garfield’s reaction to the assassination of President Garfield On 2 July 1881, President Garfield was shot by Charles Guiteau at a Washington, DC, railway station. The president was seriously wounded but still alive as he was taken to the White House to recover. Despite her illness, Lucretia travelled immediately from New Jersey. For more than ten weeks she kept an almost continuous vigil at his side. She read aloud from Shakespeare and from the Bible, selecting passages that spoke to ideas of stoicism and courage. The public sympathy for Lucretia was immense. Newspapers bore reports of her composure, and thousands of telegrams of support arrived. Read more | 6 shocking presidential scandals that rocked the White House When Garfield was moved to Long Branch in September in the hope that sea air would aid his recovery, Lucretia oversaw the journey, travelling by his side when he was moved in his sickbed. On 19 September 1881, when Garfield died from infection caused by his wounds. Lucretia was by his bedside. Garfield was the first US president to die following an attack by an assassin since Abraham Lincoln. At the funeral in Cleveland, Ohio – Garfield had served on the Ohio state senate, forever cementing his link to the state – crowds lined the streets in solemn respect as her carriage passed. What was Lucretia Garfield’s life like after her husband’s death? Following her husband’s death, Lucretia withdrew from public life. She refused interviews and declined invitations to political events, focusing instead on being with their children, and tasking herself with the preservation of Garfield’s writings. Read more | 50 assassinations that changed the world In 1882, she purchased a home in Cleveland which she named Lawnfield. While there she began organising her husband’s papers and correspondence, creating the first presidential library. Her careful cataloguing efforts later provided the foundation for the James A Garfield Memorial Library. Lucretia also oversaw the design and construction of the James A Garfield Memorial in Cleveland’s Lake View Cemetery, completed in 1890. She personally selected the artists and approved inscriptions, insisting that the building include both a tomb and a public museum. It became one of the first presidential monuments to incorporate an educational space. Lucretia Garfield’s later years Lucretia never commented publicly on Charles Guiteau, the assassin. Neither did she attend his trial, or his execution in 1882. In her later years she divided her time between Cleveland and the West Coast. She remained interested in education and social reform, supporting local schools and charities but avoiding public attention. During the First World War, she followed events closely and corresponded with her son Harry, who was involved in relief work. Lucretia Garfield died on 13 March 1918, aged 85, at her home in Pasadena, California. She was buried beside her husband in the Garfield Memorial. 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.
Who was the real Chester Arthur – and what was his relationship with James Garfield?
When US President James Garfield was assassinated in 1881, his Vice President, Chester A Arthur, assumed the presidency amid widespread distrust. But once viewed as a party insider tied to political corruption, Arthur surprised the nation
When US President James Garfield was shot in July 1881, few Americans expected his vice-president, Chester A Arthur, to be able to manage the crisis that followed. Known as a New York Republican party bureaucrat, with a background in patronage and machine politics, Arthur had little public confidence backing him. But when Garfield died of his wounds later that year, Arthur was thrust into the spotlight as the 21st President of the United States. Arthur story simmers in the background of Netflix’s 2025 drama Death by Lightning, the story of the assassination of Garfield (played by Michael Shannon) at the hands of frustrated political hopeful Charles Guiteau (played by Matthew Macfadyen). In Death by Lightning, Chester Arthur (played by Nick Offerman) is portrayed as something of a low man pushed in high office, a Republican enforcer famed for his carousing. But how does real history remember him? Who was the real Chester Arthur? Prior to becoming the 21st US President, serving from 1881–85, Chester Alan Arthur had been a lawyer and political organiser from New York, and was closely associated with the patronage system of the Republican Party. As president, however, his administration is perhaps best known for passing the 1883 Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act – ending the easily abused ‘spoils system’ of political patronage that he had once supported. His presidency is often viewed as a meaningful step toward cleaner government and a more professional civil service. Arthur was born on 5 October 1829 in Fairfield, Vermont, as one of nine children. His father, Reverend William Arthur, was a Baptist minister from Northern Ireland. His mother, Malvina Stone Arthur, came from a New England farming family. He attended Union College in Schenectady, New York, where he graduated in 1848. He taught at a school for several years before studying law in New York City. In 1854, in his mid-twenties, he was admitted to the bar. Arthur’s early legal work included a notable civil rights case. In 1855, he represented Elizabeth Jennings, a Black schoolteacher who had been forced off a streetcar reserved for white passengers. Arthur won the case, helping to bring an end to racial segregation on New York’s public transit system. Why was Chester Arthur so powerful in the Republican party? When the American Civil War began in 1861, Arthur joined the Union cause and would be eventually appointed Quartermaster General for the State of New York, where he oversaw the supply and organisation of troops. He performed the role effectively and established a reputation for reliability and administrative skill. His work brought him into contact with New York’s Republican political machine, led by Senator Roscoe Conkling, who headed the Stalwart faction of the party. The Stalwarts believed in the traditional system of political patronage (known as the spoils system) under which party loyalty was rewarded with public appointments. In 1871, Arthur was appointed Collector of the Port of New York, one of the most powerful federal positions in the country. The office was responsible for collecting customs revenues and appointing thousands of employees. Arthur used the post to strengthen his political connections, and became a well-known figure in New York society. Though some critics accused him of using the office to entrench party interests, he was never personally accused of corruption. In 1878, the incumbent US President, Rutherford B Hayes, who had promised reform, removed Arthur from the position as part of his efforts to reduce the influence of politics over what should have been administrative positions. Though a political setback, Arthur remained loyal to Conkling and the Stalwart faction. How did Chester Arthur become Garfield’s running mate? By 1880, the Republican Party was divided. The Stalwarts, led by Conkling, supported the return of former president Ulysses S Grant for a third term. The reform-minded Half-Breed faction, led by Maine senator James Blaine, wanted new leadership and a move away from patronage politics. When the Republican convention in Chicago rolled around in June 1880, there was deadlock. Days passed. So did 35 ballots. A canny compromise was needed, and that was ‘The Man From Ohio’, James Garfield: a senior congressman and former Union general. Read more | The 5 most notorious presidents in US history When Garfield was nominated for president, Arthur, representing the Stalwart faction, was chosen as his running mate to balance the ticket. The compromise proved successful. The Garfield–Arthur ticket won the 1880 election by a narrow margin, defeating the Democratic nominee, Winfield Scott Hancock, and securing a Republican victory after a closely contested campaign. Arthur’s nomination had helped unite the party’s factions, at least temporarily, behind a single ticket. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2025/11/Death-by-Lightning-Split-WL-AN-1-afd7447-e1762441343700.jpg" width="1500" height="1000" alt="US President James Garfiled as played by Michael Shannon in Netflix drama Death by Lightning, and a photo of the real James Garfield" title="US President James Garfiled as played by Michael Shannon in Netflix drama Death by Lightning, and the real James Garfield (Photos via Netflix & Getty)" /> James Garfield and Chester Arthur’s relationship: did they get along? Though James Garfield and Chester Arthur were allies on the Republican ticket, they had little in common. Garfield was in favour of party and government reform, and sought to reduce the power of party bosses, while Arthur was deeply entrenched within the political system that Garfield wanted to change. The two men had a distant working relationship. Arthur’s main duty as vice-president was to preside over the Senate, and he had little influence on administration policy. After the election, tensions between Garfield and Arthur’s Stalwart faction came to the fore over the appointment of the Collector of the Port of New York (the same office that Arthur had once held). Garfield nominated William H Robertson, a Half-Breed reformer, to the position. Conkling and his allies opposed the nomination, arguing that it undermined their influence in New York politics. Arthur, out of past loyalty to Conkling and seeking to protect his own reputation as a Stalwart, supported the protest against Garfield’s decision. The dispute became public, and was damaging to the party unity, but ultimately Conkling’s protest failed. The episode weakened the Stalwarts and left Arthur politically isolated. He might have remained that way, had it not been for the actions of a man named Charles Guiteau. On 2 July 1881, only four months after taking office, Garfield was shot at a Washington DC railway station. The shooter, Guiteau, was a political office-seeker who claimed to be acting on behalf of the Stalwart cause. “I am a Stalwart,” Guiteau shouted, “Arthur is now President of the United States.” Read more | 50 assassinations that changed the world How did Chester Arthur react to Garfield’s assassination? Although Chester Arthur had no connection to the assassin, many Americans recognised that he stood to benefit from the crime. Public suspicion turned toward him, and he received hostile letters and threats. He was hurt by the accusations and strongly denied any sympathies for Guiteau, rejecting the idea that he wished Garfield harm. Garfield survived for almost three months after the shooting, before succumbing to his wounds on 19 September 1881. News of the president’s death reached Arthur in New York, and he was sworn in at his home in the early hours of the next morning. But, from all his disagreements with Garfield, public confidence in Arthur was on the floor. Read more | Who was the real Lucretia Garfield? Inside the forgotten life of a fleeting First Lady How did Garfield’s assassination shape Chester Arthur’s time as president? Aware of the doubts surrounding him after Garfield's assassination, Chester Arthur actively sought to position himself as a unifying figure of fairness and restraint. His administration was moderate, orderly and more independent than had been expected. His most significant reform was his support for the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883. This introduced competitive examinations for many federal jobs, and made it illegal to dismiss employees for political reasons. It marked the beginning of a professional civil service in the United States. Although it was Garfield’s supporters who had pushed for reform, it was Arthur, once a beneficiary and proponent of the patronage system, who signed the bill and enforced it. It was a sign of his seriousness to protect Garfield’s wishes after his death. Read more | "Violence and American politics have gone hand in hand right from the beginning" In other measures, Arthur began rebuilding the US Navy, which had fallen into decline since the Civil War. His administration authorised the construction of new steel warships and established the basis for a modern fleet. He also undertook a renovation of the White House, bringing a new sense of formality and remaking it as a symbol of political and social importance. Arthur also vetoed an early version of the Chinese Exclusion Act that would have imposed a 20-year ban on immigration, which he argued violated treaty agreements. Congress later passed a revised version with a 10-year ban, which Arthur signed into law. In all, Arthur was widely regarded as a careful and pragmatic president. His administration was free of major scandal, and his measured style served to restore some measure of public trust in the political system. Arthur’s declining health and the end of his presidency In 1882, Arthur was diagnosed with Bright’s disease, a chronic kidney condition that was then incurable. He kept the diagnosis private, but it affected his energy and outlook. Figures close to him noted that he seemed tired and subdued. By 1884, his political position had weakened further. Despite his best efforts, reformers remained suspicious of his past, while Stalwarts felt betrayed by his role in the reform. Recognising the facts at hand, Arthur made little effort to seek re-nomination. The Republican Party chose James G Blaine as its presidential nominee instead, who went on to lose to Grover Cleveland. Arthur then retired to New York City, living quietly in a brownstone on Lexington Avenue. He died soon afterwards, on 18 November 1886, aged 57. Upon his death, even his former critics acknowledged the integrity and restraint that he had brought to the highest office of the United States of America. For more content like this, check out the best historical movies of all time as chosen by historians and ranked by you, history TV shows and films to stream tonight, and our picks of the new history TV and radio released in the UK this week
Who was the real James Garfield, ‘the man from Ohio’ and doomed president of Death by Lightning?
The 20th President of the United States had the potential to be one of the greats, according to many – until his assassination less than a year into the job. As a new drama comes to Netflix about what set him and his killer on their tragic collision, here’s why it’s time to better remember James Garfield
In the history of the presidents of the United States, James Garfield is too easily overlooked. It’s not hard to see why: his time in the presidential spotlight had been brief, emerging late as a surprise candidate for the 1880 election and serving only 200 days in office. He is perhaps best known as one of the four US presidents to be assassinated, alongside Abraham Lincoln (1865), William McKinley (1901) and John F Kennedy (1963). But while he does not rank as one of the ‘greats’, Garfield is the great ‘what if’ of American politics. A brilliant mind, commanding yet humble, and driven by principle, he fought against corruption and for the modernisation of the country. If he had lived, who knows what he might have accomplished. Now Garfield is back in in the spotlight again in 2025 Netflix limited series Death by Lightning starring Michael Shannon as the doomed president and Matthew Macfadyen as his killer, Charles Guiteau. How and why was US President James Garfield assassinated? On 2 July 1881, President James Garfield travelled to the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Station in Washington DC, on his way to speak at his college reunion before heading off on a family holiday. Only a couple of members of his cabinet accompanied him; even after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination 16 years earlier, it was not common practice for a president to have a security detail. As he entered the waiting room, a man named Charles Guiteau approached from behind, and fired his British Bulldog revolver twice. The first shot grazed Garfield’s arm – causing him to cry out, “My God, what is this?” – and the second hit his back, becoming lodged near his pancreas. While Garfield was rushed away for medical care, police seized the gunman. Guiteau, almost certainly suffering from a severe mental condition, had a lifetime’s worth of failed enterprises and disappointed ambitions that stretched well beyond his ability. The latest had been a role in politics. He had supported Garfield in the election and believed that he was due reward, though although in reality this amounted to writing a single speech, delivering it to a small group of people and distributing some printed copies. Read more | 50 assassinations that changed the world Yet despite this rudimentary support, Guiteau believed that his efforts had been utterly pivotal in Garfield’s victory, so much so that he expected to be rewarded with a position in the administration. For months, he tried to secure a consulship in Vienna or Paris. When neither materialised, a devastated Guiteau decided that Garfield had to die. In fact, he thought God told him that Garfield’s “removal” was necessary for the sake of the country. Having bought the pistol, he stalked the president for weeks – until his opportunity came in that train station waiting room. Although it took time, and some woefully mishandled treatment by his doctors, the attack ultimately claimed Garfield’s life. Who was the real James Garfield? James Abram Garfield was born on 19 November 1831 into a life of poverty. Raised in a log cabin in rural Ohio, his father Abram died young, leaving James, his brother and his two sisters to be cared for by their penniless yet headstrong mother, Eliza, while she managed their scrap of land. A young Garfield had several attributes in his favour, though: he was extremely bright, hardworking, and impatient to better himself. Starting in his teens, he worked odd jobs to put him through his education at Geauga Seminary, Western Reserve Eclectic Institute and then Williams College, Massachusetts, where he graduated in 1856. He went back to the Eclectic Institute as a professor, but by the age of 26 he had become its president. Excelling in numerous subjects, Garfield had a mind that could write Latin with one hand and ancient Greek with the other (and at the same time), and then, in later life, author his own proof of the Pythagorean theorem as a hobby. Read more | The 5 most notorious presidents in US history While at school, he met Lucretia Rudolph and, after a long courtship, they married in 1858. Their early years were strained, exacerbated by the loss of their first daughter and the revelation that Garfield had an affair with another woman while away during his service during the American Civil War. But Lucretia – affectionately known as Crete – forgave him and the couple grew devoted to each other. They had another six children, one more not surviving infancy, and Crete remained a constant counsel in her husband’s career. Not content as a teacher, Garfield become an attorney, got ordained as a minister and went into politics, joining the new, anti-slavery Republican Party and being elected to the Ohio state senate in 1859. Then, with the start of the American Civil War in 1861, his sights turned to the military. What did James Garfield do in the American Civil War? A staunch abolitionist, Garfield eagerly signed up for the Union cause. As well as raising funds for volunteer regiments in the legislature, he recruited men to the 42nd Ohio Volunteer Infantry and served as its colonel. With the war initially going badly, Garfield gave the Union something to cheer with his against-the-odds victory at the battle of Middle Creek in early 1862. He saw further action at the battles of Shiloh (1862) and Chickamauga (1863), rising to the rank of major general. By then, he had also been elected to the House of Representatives. President Lincoln himself convinced Garfield to resign his commission, saying that he had enough generals for the battlefield, but needed more good men in Congress. How long was James Garfield in Congress? Beginning in his early 30s, Garfield served nine terms and 17 years as a congressman, during which he distinguished himself as a charismatic orator and pragmatic statesman. Affable and willing to talk to both sides of the aisle, he chaired several powerful committees and became a key figure in fiscal matters, particularly known for his advocacy of the gold standard and free trade. Following the abolition of slavery, he fought for the rights of African Americans during the period of Reconstruction. In particular, he called for freed slaves to have the vote, believing that an educated, engaged Black population was the quickest way to equality. By the late 1870s, Garfield had become the leading Republican in the House, while simultaneously taking cases as a lawyer. In 1880, he was elected to the Senate, but before he could take his seat, higher office came calling. How did James Garfield become president? A newly elected senator, Garfield went to the Republican National Convention, held in Chicago in June 1880, to endorse his fellow Ohioan and secretary of the Treasury, John Sherman, for president. The other candidates were former president Ulysses S Grant, seeking a third term, and James Blaine, a senator from Maine. Selecting the party’s candidate would not be straightforward. The Republican Party was divided into factions over the ‘spoils system’, a long-established convention of patronage whereby government jobs would be filled by one’s supporters and cronies. The Stalwarts faction wanted it preserved, not least because their leader, the powerful New York senator Roscoe Conkling, controlled the patronage of the New York Customs House, which was at that time one of the most lucrative ports in the world. Conkling backed Grant. The Half-Breeds faction, headed by Blaine, wanted major reform to create a civil service based on merit. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2025/11/LIGHTNING102Unit03806RC-ab782f8-e1762445619564.jpg" width="1500" height="1000" alt="Lucretia Garfield (Betty Gilpin) and James Garfield (Michael Shannon) in Netflix drama Death by Lightning" title="Lucretia Garfield (Betty Gilpin) and James Garfield (Michael Shannon) in Netflix drama Death by Lightning (Photo via Larry Horricks/Netflix)" /> Neither side budged. Several days and 35 ballots passed without one man securing the nomination. It became clear that a compromise candidate was needed – and more and more heads turned towards Garfield. Ostensibly against Garfield’s own wishes, he won the 36th ballot and reluctantly joined the presidential race, with Stalwart Chester Arthur added to the ticket as vice presidential candidate. His Democratic opponent was Winfield Scott Hancock, a fellow Union Army veteran. At this time, it was improper for a candidate to go out campaigning personally, so Garfield came up with a novel solution. He stayed at his home in Mentor, Ohio, and the press, voters and lobbyists came to him. Hundreds if not thousands heard him give speeches from his front porch, in which he made the most of his rags-to-riches story. In the end, he defeated Hancock, although narrowly – the margin was fewer than 10,000 votes, out of more than nine million cast. Was James Garfield a good president? The truth is that we will never know, but there is reason to think he could have been more than good. Garfield’s first act was to put together a conciliatory cabinet, including Blaine as Secretary of State, and then he set about purging the Post Office of corruption. The major success of his tenure in the White House came against Conkling. Instead of picking the man Conkling wanted as Collector of the Port of New York, according to the spoils system, Garfield chose a Half-Breed, William H Robertson. Both New York senators – Conkling and his preferred candidate – resigned in protest, certain that they would be instantly re-elected in a show of support from the city of New York, but the gambit backfired. Conkling lost his seat, and Garfield made a resounding statement asserting presidential authority. While a blow to the spoils system, Garfield still had to contend with huge numbers of office seekers, people who thought they were owed for their support. Among them was one Charles Guiteau. What was James Garfield’s relationship like with his vice president, Chester Arthur? At the time of Garfield’s nomination, it was hoped that divisions within the Republican Party could be reconciled by selecting Chester A Arthur, a Stalwart, as the vice-presidential candidate. This inevitably led to a tense relationship between the two in highest office. This came to a head especially during Garfield’s feud with Conkling. Arthur was firmly in Conkling’s pocket: indeed, he lived with him at the time of the convention. But after Garfield’s death, it would be Arthur – a product of the spoils system – who pushed through legislation for civil service reform. When did James Garfield die? The shots fired by Guiteau did not immediately kill Garfield. In fact, he lived for another 11 weeks, receiving treatment at the White House from a host of doctors. Far from aiding his recovery, these medics made matters worse. Their attempts to extract the bullet in the president’s back were carried out with no consideration of germs or sterilisation, meaning that Garfield picked up fevers and infections, including sepsis. Unable to eat, he lost a huge amount of weight and became increasingly weak. Time and time again, his wound was opened. Even Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone, was brought in to test his new metal detector in the hope of locating the bullet. Was the gunshot not fatal? Ever since, there has been a school of thought among medical experts that, if doctors had just left Garfield alone, he may have recovered. Instead, his health worsened. His doctors eventually decided to take Garfield away from the oppressive summer heat of Washington and transport him to Elberon, New Jersey, to benefit from the sea air. Extra rail track was laid in a night just to make his journey more comfortable. There, 80 days after being shot, Garfield finally succumbed on 19 September 1881, aged 49. Guiteau, who had spent the whole time in jail, could now be put on trial for murder. Despite his defence of insanity – and declaration “I did not kill the president. The doctors did that. I merely shot him” – he was found guilty and executed by hanging in June 1882. What did James Garfield’s assassination mean for American politics? Before his death, Garfield’s health became a media spectacle with every medical update printed in the papers. As such, the news of his death was met with an immense outpouring of grief. More than 100,000 people saw him lying in state in the Capitol Building, while 150,000 observed his funeral in Cleveland, Ohio. For years afterwards, his widow Lucretia preserved his records and papers, and stored them in an archive built on her property. This is now recognised as the first presidential library. Most significantly, Chester Arthur, once sworn in as the 21st president, signed the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act in 1883, which ended the spoils system. He meant it as a memorial to Garfield, and it remains a legacy to a presidency that could have achieved much more, if not for an assassin’s bullet. For more content like this, check out the best historical movies of all time as chosen by historians and ranked by you, history TV shows and films to stream tonight, and our picks of the new history TV and radio released in the UK this week
Death by Lightning real history: the true story of Charles Guiteau and a president’s assassination
Pick a word to describe the life of Charles Guiteau and you may go with ‘failure’. Another option would be ‘assassin’. So why did he murder James Garfield, 20th President of the United States?
On the morning of 2 July 1881, Charles Guiteau secured his infamous place in American political history when he fired two shots at James Garfield. The 20th President of the United States would die almost three months later. Guiteau’s life was ended the following year, at the end of a rope. The assassination was Guiteau’s last violent response to a life of not receiving what he thought he deserved from the world. Almost certainly living with an undiagnosed mental health condition, Guiteau failed as a lawyer, journalist, author and preacher; he failed as a husband and as a member of a religious commune; and he failed, risibly, in his foray into politics. It could be said the only thing he succeeded at was killing the president. And he almost failed in that. Death by Lightning, a 2025 Netflix four-episode drama starring Matthew Macfadyen as Guiteau and Michael Shannon as Garfield, tells Giteau’s story while acknowledging that, as presidential assassins go, his name is hardly as well known as John Wilkes Booth or Lee Harvey Oswald, killers of Abraham Lincoln and John F Kennedy respectively. The opening line of the series, delivered as Guiteau’s preserved brain rolls across the floor in a jar, sums it up: “Who the f*** is Charles Guiteau?!” Who was the real Charles Guiteau? Charles Julius Guiteau had a rough start. Born on 8 September 1841 in Freeport, Illinois, he was the fourth of six children to a mother suffering from psychotic episodes. She died when Charles was seven, and his father was a disciplinarian, and often abusive. Like the man he later killed, the young Guiteau looked to better his situation through education, only to fail in in his attempt to get into the University of Michigan, stumbling at the entrance exam. Leaving schooling behind, he instead joined a religious sect – the Oneida Community – in New York state in 1860. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2025/11/GettyImages-615251932-faec44a-e1762443683976.jpg" width="1500" height="1000" alt="Charles Guiteau, the assassin of President James A Garfield, shot the president in July 1881 and was executed by hanging the following year. His act of violence shocked the nation and led to renewed calls for civil service reform in the United States." title="Charles Guiteau" /> Did Charles Giteau join a ‘free love’ commune? Yes, he did. The Oneida Community believed in the possibility of perfectionism, being totally free of sin on Earth. To that end, they practiced mutual criticism (getting together in groups to berate the sin out of each other), a form of proto-eugenics to ensure only perfect babies were born, and ‘complex marriage’, where anyone could sleep with anyone else. While Guiteau idolised its founder, John Humphrey Noyes, he never fitted in at Oneida. He begrudged menial labour and could not find pleasure in the free-love doctrine as no one wanted to be his partner. Finding him egotistical, community members called him “Charles Gitout”. Read more | The story of the American Civil War He obliged, leaving to start a newspaper based on Oneida’s teachings, The Daily Theocrat. It failed, as did his return to his community and his resultant lawsuits against Noyes. By this point, several people described him as “insane”, including his sister Frances who recalled how he once held an axe over his head as if to kill her. Moving to Chicago, Guiteau managed to take a severely lax exam to be admitted to the bar and married a librarian named Annie Bunn. That did not improve his outlook, though: instead of becoming a lawyer he worked as a bill collector (and stole money from clients, for which he received a stint in jail) and he was abusive to Annie until she sought a divorce. In 1872, while in New York City, Guiteau showed his first interest in politics by writing a speech in support of a presidential candidate, Horace Greeley. For that alone, he believed he would deserve a reward in the form of an ambassadorial job in Chile. When that did not work out, Guiteau made a brief return to religion, writing a book titled The Truth, which he essentially copied from Oneida’s literature, and became an itinerant preacher. No one seemed to respond to his rambling sermons, yet he increasingly felt that not only was he doing God’s work, but, after surviving the sinking of a paddle steamer, he had divine protection. With this unshakeable sense of purpose – a drive which by this point was clearly seen by others as fantasism – Guiteau stepped back into politics. Did Charles Guiteau meet James Garfield? It is not known whether the two men met as part of the 1880 presidential election, in which Garfield had won the Republican ticket, although there was no concrete reason that they would have, since Guiteau did not have an active role in the campaign. That was not for want of trying; he constantly and desperately offered his assistance. This began before Garfield was on the ticket. At the Republican National Convention in 1880, many expected Ulysses S Grant to secure the nomination, given that he had held the office twice already and was the figurehead of the leading faction in the party, the Stalwarts. Read more | The 5 most notorious presidents in US history This group advocated the continuation of the ‘spoils system’, a long-established form of patronage whereby government posts were filled by supporters and cronies rather than on merit. Guiteau, harking back to the ambassadorship he felt he had deserved in turn for his support for Greeley, believed he would benefit from the spoils system, so he backed Grant. He wrote a speech titled ‘Grant against Hancock’ (the Democratic candidate, Winfield Scott Hancock). Except, Guiteau had thrown his support behind the wrong horse; at the convention, Grant failed to get enough votes for the nomination, and Garfield unexpectedly became the compromise candidate. This turned out not to a problem for Guiteau: he simply revised his speech by changing all the uses of ‘Grant’ to ‘Garfield’ and kept everything else the same. While he may have delivered it to a small group of people and printed a few copies for distribution, that was the extent of his contribution to the 1880 election. Why did Charles Guiteau assassinate James Garfield? When Garfield won the presidency, Guiteau became utterly convinced that it had been solely down to his speech. In return, he expected to be given a prestigious post in his administration, and set about asking for a consulship in Vienna, Austria, which he later changed to Paris, France. Joining the throngs of office seekers in Washington DC, a destitute Guiteau hung around quizzing anyone for an update on what was owed to him. The rest of the time, he snuck between boarding houses without paying. He focused much of his efforts on James Blaine, then the Secretary of State, bothering him regularly. One day in May 1881, an exasperated Blaine reportedly snapped: “Never speak to me again on the Paris consulship as long as you live!” Devastated, Guiteau came to a realisation: Garfield was out to destroy the spoils system and the only way to save it – and get the Paris job – was to kill him. Garfield’s Vice President, Chester Arthur – a prominent figure in the Stalwarts faction – would take over. More than that, Guiteau concluded that God had told him that Garfield’s “removal” was for the good of the Republican Party and the country. Read more | Who was the real Lucretia Garfield? Inside the forgotten life of a fleeting First Lady When and how did Charles Guiteau assassinate James Garfield? Borrowing money from a relative, Guiteau bought a short-barrelled British Bulldog revolver, deciding to go for the ivory grip over wood as he thought it would be more attractive when the weapon inevitably became part of a museum exhibit on the assassination. He tested his aim against trees in Washington’s parks and then began to stalk Garfield. During his trial, it became clear that he backed away from taking a shot on a few occasions, once in a church and on another, so that he would not kill Garfield in front of his wife. Eventually, Guiteau saw his opportunity in the newspaper: the president would be getting a train on 2 July 1881. Read more | How many US presidents died in office? That morning, Guiteau lay in wait at the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Station for Garfield and his small entourage. Even after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination 16 years earlier, presidents did not have a security detail, so nobody stopped Guiteau as he approached and fired. One shot grazed Garfield’s arm, while the other hit him in the back. Guiteau tried to escape, but ran into a policeman. Accepting his arrest, he declared: “I am a Stalwart. Arthur is now President of the United States.” Garfield survived the attack and may have fully recovered had it not been for the shoddy medical care he received, typified by doctors treating his wound with unsterilised tools and hands. His condition gradually worsened and he died 11 weeks after the assassination, on 19 September 1880. He had been president for just over eight months. All that time, Guiteau waited in prison. What happened at Charles Guiteau’s trial? Once Garfield died, Guiteau could be charged with murder, his trial began in November. His brother-in-law George Scoville acted as his defence lawyer and put forward a plea of insanity. Guiteau certainly gave credence to that defence with his erratic behaviour in court. He interrupted and swore at everyone, including Scoville; delivered his testimony as epic poems; and passed notes to spectators asking for advice. Yet while he asserted that he had been insane at the moment of shooting – since God had taken away his free will – he insisted that he was not medically insane, to his defence’s chagrin. He ended up agreeing with the prosecution in that he knew his actions to be unlawful. Read more | 6 shocking presidential scandals that rocked the White House Besides, he argued, the responsibility of Garfield’s death should fall to his doctors, not him. “I just shot him,” he said. When not in court, he dictated his autobiography for The New York Herald, which included a personal ad seeking “a nice Christian lady under 30 years of age”, and started planning what to do after the trial. Guiteau maintained he did the right thing and believed many Americans backed him. He even wrote to Arthur saying he should be grateful for the higher salary now that he was president. Certain of being released, Guiteau anticipated going on a speaking tour of the country, followed by his run for president in 1884. Instead, when the trial concluded in late January 1882, the jury took less than an hour to find him guilty, to which he yelled, “You are all low, consummate jackasses!”. Guiteau was sentenced to death by hanging. When was Charles Guiteau executed? The execution was carried out on 30 June 1882, two days before the first anniversary of the shooting. On the scaffold, Guiteau recited a poem he wrote that morning, a rambling verse with the phrases “Glory hallelujah” and “I am going to the Lordy” repeated over and over. His request for an orchestra to provide musical accompaniment was denied. What happened to Charles Guiteau’s brain? Death by Lightning would have us believe that Charles Guiteau’s brain is in a jar somewhere – and this is absolutely true. Parts of it are still on display at the Mütter Museum in Philadelphia, an institution specialising in medical history. After the hanging, Guiteau’s body was autopsied and his brain sent off for study in the hopes of discovering an anatomical explanation for insanity. His state of mind remains a topic of debate to this day, with diagnoses ranging from syphilis, schizophrenia and psychopathy. 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
Who was the real James Herriot? The true story behind All Creatures Great and Small
The anecdotal works of the veterinarian James ‘Alf’ Wight have captivated readers for decades, been turned into a popular television series and even a must-see tourist attraction. Lauren Good explores the life and career of the man behind James Herriot, from his life in Thirsk, Yorkshire, to going AWOL during the Second World War and a struggle with mental illness
Since his book If Only They Could Talk was published in 1970, James Herriot – the pen name of James Alfred ‘Alf’ Wight – has delighted generations with endearing stories of his life as a veterinarian in North Yorkshire from the 1930s-50s. The charm of a country vet going about his rounds has since brought Wight global fame, from his first appearance in If Only They Could Talk (1970) to films (All Creatures Great and Small (1975) and It Shouldn’t Happen to a Vet (1976)) and television adaptations (the original from 1978-1990, and the Channel 5 series 2020-present). Yet, in his heart, he always favoured the quiet life in Yorkshire over the glare of the spotlight. Where was James Herriot born? Wight was born on 3 October 1916 at his mother Hannah Wight’s family home in Sunderland in the north of England. Having visited Sunderland to give birth, Hannah returned to Glasgow when Wight was just three weeks old, which is where he spent his early years – and explains the lilting Scottish accent that many associate with his literary alter-ego, James Herriot. An only child, Wight attended Yoker Primary School and Hillhead High School, before taking a place at veterinary college at the age of 17. James Herriot’s career as a vet Since he was a young boy, Wight had always loved animals and spent much of his time walking with his dog, an Irish Setter. His interest blossomed into a desire to be a vet – so that he could care for all kinds of creatures – when he read an article in Meccano Magazine about veterinary surgeons. Two years later, when a vet visited his school to give a lecture, his mind was made up; that was what he wanted to do with his life. Wight joined Glasgow Veterinary College and graduated just over six years later, in 1939 at the age of 23. It should have taken him five years, but he suffered from gastrointestinal problems and had to miss lectures, causing him to fail many of his modules on the first attempt. Still, Wight’s progress at the college was impressively swift when compared to some of his contemporaries. There were students who took 14 years to finish the five-year course; for many, training as a vet meant little work and lots of play. Following graduation, Wight’s professional career got underway – in Sunderland and not Thirsk, as is often assumed due to the setting of the James Herriot books. His mother’s family were still based in Sunderland, so he happily made use of the free accommodation. Though, it wasn’t long before he felt the pull of a rural life and headed to the Yorkshire countryside, where he joined Donald Sinclair’s veterinary practice at 23 Kirkgate, Thirsk. This would become the famous Skeldale House in the books and television adaptations, with Sinclair immortalised as the eccentric Siegfried Farnon. Who did James Herriot marry in real life? In his books, Wight’s alas James Herriot marries a farmer’s daughter named Helen Alderson, but her real-life counterpart was a secretary, Joan Danbury. Wight and Danbury married on 5 November 1941 at St Mary’s Church in Thirsk. Sadly, his parents didn’t approve of the match as they hoped he would marry someone of higher status. Their absence from the wedding haunted Wight throughout his life. Read more | The history of York: a northern powerhouse of many names Unable to afford any time away from work, the newlyweds could not enjoy a traditional honeymoon, but instead spent it in the village of Carnaby. Wight tested cattle for tuberculosis while his wife took notes. The couple then settled into married life in the attic of 23 Kirkgate. “It would have been spartan,” their daughter, Rosie, told PBS America. “They had hardly any furniture. When we lived in that house, as we did until I was six, that bit at the top was never seen as anything but the attic. We kept a pig down the garden [and] they used to hang the hams on hooks up in that same attic!” How many children did James Herriot have? Wight and his wife Joan had two children: James (better known as Jim) and Rosemary (Rosie). Jim would replace his father as a partner in the veterinary practice upon Wight’s death, while Rosie became a GP. As a child, however, she had wanted to follow in her father’s footsteps. “He encouraged Jim, but not me,” she told PBS America. “I think predominantly because in those days vets were mostly men, particularly country vets. And I don’t think dad wanted his little girl lying in cow byres in the middle of the night, flat on her face. He kept saying, ‘No, you’d rather be a doctor, wouldn’t you?’ “And I have to say, I don’t regret it. I was happy being a doctor. I don’t think either of us thought of anything else to do apart from doctors and vets.” What did James Herriot do in the war? Although his profession exempted him from military service, Wight joined the Royal Air Force in November 1942 and trained to be a pilot. Proving his skills in the air, as well as on the farms of Yorkshire, he was one of the first in his unit to fly solo and would achieve the rank of leading aircraftman. Yet Wight wasn’t an exemplary RAF pilot, and did break the rules. On two occasions, he went absent without leave (AWOL), the first time while Joan was pregnant with Jim and the second when she was due to give birth. Luckily, he was never caught. How long did James Herriot go to war for? Wight’s RAF career was cut short by health issues, specifically surgery for an anal fistula that left him unfit for combat missions. The condition had plagued him since his days at veterinary college. After just a year of service, he was discharged in November 1943. Are the characters in All Creatures Great and Small based on real people? Many of the beloved characters in Wight's stories were inspired by real people in his life, although he used pseudonyms to protect their identities. Herriot’s wife Helen Alderson was based on Joan Danbury. And while it is true that she was engaged to another man before marrying Wight, the real Joan ended this relationship before walking to the altar – unlike Helen in the television series. Siegfried Farnon – who owns the Skeldale House veterinary practice – and his brother Tristan are the fictional counterparts of the Sinclair brothers, Donald and Brian. The real brothers shared a complex relationship, with Donald often exasperated by his younger brother’s laid-back approach to life: Brian took a decade to complete his course at the Royal Veterinary College in Edinburgh, and at Donald’s expense. A character who plays a prominent role in the most recent All Creatures Great and Small series is Mrs Hall, the housekeeper who keeps Skeldale House running. She represents various women who assisted Wight and the Sinclairs with domestic tasks at the practice. Then there is Mrs Pumphrey and her Pekingese, Tricki Woo, who were inspired by socialite Marjorie Warner and her dog Bambi. Like in the stories, she did indeed send luxury hampers to the practice as tokens of thanks. What was James Herriot’s relationship like with Siegfried and Tristan Farnon in real life? Much like in the books and television adaptations, Wight had close relationships with both Donald (the real-life Siegfried) and Brian (Tristan). The brothers were affectionately known as ‘uncle’ to his children, and when Brian left Thirsk to work at the Ministry of Agriculture in Leeds, Wight and his wife Joan visited him regularly. However, while Brian was said to have been fond of his portrayal in Wight’s books, Donald disliked his fictional counterpart, believing himself to be dissimilar to the inconsistent and sometimes explosive Siegfried. He even told Wight that his debut novel was “a test of our friendship”. That said, Donald was always eager to welcome avid fans of Wight's work on a tour around the surgery at 23 Kirkgate whenever they showed up, according to Wight’s son Jim. When did James Herriot start writing? It was only in his fifties that Wight began writing seriously, thanks to encouragement from Joan. It might be a surprise that his earlier works were not about his career as a vet, but about sport. He hoped that his love of football might make the writing process easier; in fact, his famous pen name of James Herriot was inspired by a Scottish goalkeeper. Wight’s first book If Only They Could Talk, took 18 months to write, and would be turned down by all the publishers he sent it to. A key moment came when he received a piece of advice from a reader at a publishing firm to write his anecdotal stories in first person rather than third, leading Wight to revise his manuscript. Read more | Pet cemeteries: where have beloved animals been laid to rest through the centuries? He then found a publisher and If Only They Could Talk was released, first as a serial in the London Evening Standard before full publication in April 1970. A total of 3,000 copies were distributed around the UK. This was followed by It Shouldn’t Happen to a Vet in 1972, the same year that both books were compiled and published under the title All Creatures Great and Small in the US. These proved a great success, quickly outstripping the initial run of 3,000. According to Macmillan Publishers, more than 80 million copies of Wight’s books have since been sold worldwide – and they have never been out of print. In what order were James Herriot’s books published? If Only They Could Talk (1970, UK) It Shouldn’t Happen to a Vet (1972, UK) All Creatures Great and Small (1972, US compilation) Let Sleeping Vets Lie (1973, UK) Vet in Harness (1974, UK) All Things Bright and Beautiful (1974, US compilation) Vets Might Fly (1976, UK) Vet in a Spin (1977, UK) All Things Wise and Wonderful (1977, US compilation) James Herriot’s Yorkshire (1979, UK, non-fiction) The Lord God Made Them All (1981, UK) Every Living Thing (1992, UK) How did James Herriot feel about his fame? Wight was astonished by his success, telling the Daily Mail in 1981: “I was dumbfounded by the reaction to that first book, absolutely dumbfounded. The most I had hoped for was that someone would publish it and a few people quite enjoy reading it.” Despite his growing notoriety, he changed little in his life and rarely spoke about his literary achievements, according to his family. The financial success of his books meant he no longer had to work, yet he continued to practise veterinary medicine in some capacity for pretty much the rest of his life. Wight insisted that the farmers in the Dales didn’t treat him any differently either, once famously exclaiming: “If a farmer calls me with a sick animal, he couldn’t care less if I were George Bernard Shaw.” Of course, another star of the books was 23 Kirkgate, which became something of a tourist hotspot for fans. By the late 1970s, with James Herriot a household name, hordes of people would queue outside the practice to have books signed by Wight. He agreed in return for donations to a dog sanctuary, later claiming that this brought in around £100 each time. Today, 23 Kirkgate houses the popular museum, The World of James Herriot. James Herriot’s struggles with mental illness Wight struggled with depression for much of his life, beginning during his time at Glasgow Veterinary College. He once wrote in his diary: “I have been getting intermittent fits of the blues of late, but I don’t know what’s up.” His mental health issues carried on into later life. Jim said in a 2010 interview with the Daily Mail that his father would describe his depressive episodes as a feeling of “overwhelming melancholy”. Wight had a nervous breakdown in 1960, which plagued him for two years. He even resorted to electroconvulsive therapy. How did James Herriot die? Diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1991, Wight died at his home on 23 February 1995, aged 78. He left behind an estate valued at more than £5 million and his share of the practice passed to Jim, according to his will. The name James Herriot has lived on, as new generations of fans come to Wight’s books and watch the highly popular Channel 5 series All Creatures Great and Small.
Who was the real Edward Guinness of House of Guinness?
Described as a 19th-century Succession, a period drama by the creator of Peaky Blinders follows four siblings who are part of the world’s most famous brewing family. Before you get a pint of the black stuff and settle in for the series, find out what’s known about the real Edward Guinness, one of the historical figures who was thrust into running the business
When Edward Guinness took joint control of his family’s brewery in 1868, it was already a global giant. Yet business would only keep booming as he ran things, initially with his brother before taking sole ownership and making the company public. The move netted Edward millions, and there seemed to be no limit to how high the Guinness brand, built on their world-famous stout, could go. This is the setting of House of Guinness, a historical drama from Steven Knight, creator of Peaky Blinders and SAS Rogue Heroes. The eight-part series is streaming on Netflix and stars Louis Partridge (of Enola Holmes fame) as Edward, an ambitious, savvy businessman and philanthropist, looking to navigate the political and familial obstacles of Victorian Dublin. Who was the real Edward Guinness? Edward Cecil Guinness, known as the Earl of Iveagh (he was first bestowed the title of Iveagh in 1891), headed up the Guinness Brewery in the second half of the 19th century and remained an important figure in its management into the 20th. As the richest man in Ireland, he used his wealth to sponsor a lifetime’s worth of philanthropic causes. Born 10 November 1847 in Dublin, he was the youngest child of Elizabeth and Benjamin Lee Guinness, who had established the family brewery on the world stage. Despite having two older brothers, Arthur and Benjamin, and a sister, Anne, young Edward emerged as the heir-apparent to the company. Privately tutored, he spent much of his teen years working as his father’s secretary, which gave him early hands-on experience and the opportunity to demonstrate his sound head for business. He studied at Trinity College Dublin, but by the time he graduated, Benjamin Lee had died and Edward, at 22 years old, was in charge, running Guinness in partnership with his eldest brother Arthur Guinness (played by Anthony Boyle, who starred as John Wilkes Booth in Manhunt and appeared in Masters of the Air). Edward Guinness and the Guinness Brewery According to the will of Benjamin Lee, who died in 1868, his eldest and youngest sons would manage the brewery together. Operations expanded quickly, but the partnership would not last. In 1876, a 29-year-old Edward bought Arthur’s shares for more than £600,000 (around £60 million in today’s money), making him sole proprietor. Under his management, the brewery continued to grow. The number of hogsheads (a type of cask) being brewed went from 565,000 in 1879 to over 900,000 just seven years later, and manufacture kept increasing. Guinness had become the largest brewery in the world. In 1886, Edward made his boldest and ultimately most successful business decision yet by floating two-thirds of the Guinness Brewery on the London Stock Exchange. With demand for shares so high, he made £6 million (around £680 million today), which firmly established him as the richest man in Ireland. By the age of 40, he had stepped back from the Guinness brewery, although he remained its largest shareholder and still held the position of chairman. Did Edward Guinness have a political career? Edward’s father Benjamin Lee was elected as both Lord Mayor of Dublin and an MP, and his brother Arthur followed their father into the House of Commons (though not without some complications when Arthur was accused of election fraud). Edward, however, would be unsuccessful in his own run for Parliament. Instead, he served in the municipal positions of High Sheriff of Dublin City, and then High Sheriff of County Dublin. A collection of titles started coming Edward’s way too, starting with the baronetcy of Castleknock in 1885. Later in life, he became a Knight of St Patrick, a national order of chivalry. Read more | Resolving the 'Irish Question': 5 key moments on the path to partition Edward made no secret of his political leanings. Throughout his life, and like all the other Guinnesses, he was a Unionist, a supporter of Ireland remaining a part of the United Kingdom, and a Protestant. At the time, the divide between Unionists and nationalists, who wanted independence, was widening, marked by the emergence of a republican secret society, the Fenians, in the 1860s. Religion similarly was a source of constant division. Who did Edward Guinness marry? Edward married his third cousin, Adelaide Maria Guinness, affectionately known as ‘Dodo’. Together, they had three sons: Rupert, Ernest and Walter. In recognition of his achievements as a businessman and philanthropist, he was made Baron Iveagh in 1891, followed by Viscount Iveagh in 1905. Befitting his titles, he bought Elveden Hall in Suffolk, which remains the family seat. Finally, in 1919, he became Earl of Iveagh. Particularly given his staunch support for the Union, there is no historical evidence that he had any personal or romantic relationships with any involved in the Fenian cause, as in the show. Edward’s ‘retirement’ from the Guinness Brewery After making the company public, Edward maintained a presence in the running of the business, appointing his brother-in-law Claude as a senior manager. He hoped to spend more of his time grouse shooting in Scotland or sailing with the Prince of Wales (the future George V). When Claude had a mental breakdown, however, reportedly being removed from the brewery in a straitjacket and dying shortly afterwards, Edward returned to a more formal role. There he remained until his death. A key development came in 1902, when Edward commissioned the Guinness Storehouse, a section of St James’s Gate that is now a major tourist attraction. More than 1.5 million people visit every day, enticed by the claim that this is the best place in the world to have a pint of Guinness. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2025/09/GettyImages-3376350-c8ee910-e1758815899722.jpg" width="1500" height="1000" alt="A stunt photo showing a man guiding a 10-ton stainless steel fermenting tun as it is hoisted by a crane at Glasgow docks, en route to the Guinness Brewery in Dublin" title="A stunt photo showing a man guiding a 10-ton stainless steel fermenting tun as it is hoisted by a crane at Glasgow docks, en route to the Guinness Brewery in Dublin" /> Edward Guinness as a philanthropist Following the family tradition for philanthropy, Edward gave huge sums of money to humanitarian causes, particularly urban renewal and slum clearance. The Guinness Trust and Iveagh Trust were created to provide affordable housing in London and Dublin respectively, and still operate, today known as The Guinness Partnership. In Dublin, his contributions helped in the upkeep of St Patrick’s Cathedral and a number of hospitals, and built the Iveagh Markets for street traders, the Iveagh Play Centre as a recreational hall to serve as an after-school club, and swimming baths. Small fortunes went to medical and scientific research, such as co-founding the Radium Institute in London, and he sponsored new buildings at Trinity College Dublin, where he served as chancellor for nearly 20 years. Edward also helped finance Ernest Shackleton’s Nimrod Expedition of 1907–9, and in recognition a mountain in Antarctica was named after him. When did Edward Guinness die? Edward Guinness died in London on 7 October 1927, at the age of 79. He would be buried near his Suffolk estate. Another of his houses, Kenwood was gifted to the nation along with the so-called Iveagh Bequest, his magnificent collection of paintings, furniture and textiles. Following his death, Edward’s son Rupert oversaw the Guinness brewery business for the next 35 years, bringing the brand into the 20th century. House of Guinness is streaming on Netflix now. For more content like this, check out the best historical movies of all time as chosen by historians and ranked by you, history TV shows and films to stream tonight, and our picks of the new history TV and radio released in the UK this week