Episode 268: Helen Castor on Richard II and Henry IV
34:17 Share

Let's talk about something that's not always top of mind, but still really important. Life insurance. Why? Because it offers financial protection for your loved ones and can help them pay for things like a mortgage, credit card debt. It can even help fund an education.

And guess what? Life insurance is probably a lot more affordable than you think. In fact, most people think life insurance is three times more expensive than it is. So with State Farm Life Insurance, you can protect your loved ones without breaking the bank. Not sure where to start? State Farm has over 19,000 local agents that can help you choose an option to fit your needs and budget. Get started today and contact a State Farm agent or go to statefarm.com.

Hey, who's ready to get pickled?

Get started with Noom GLP-1 today. Not all customers will medically qualify for prescription medications. Compounded medications are not reviewed by the FDA for safety, efficacy, or quality. Hey, friend. Welcome back to the YouTube channel for the Renaissance English History Podcast. I'm your host, Heather. I've been podcasting on Tudor England since 2009 with my show, making it the original Tudor History Podcast. Today, this is a very special video. This is an interview with Helen Castor. Helen Castor

is an acclaimed medieval and Tudor historian. Her first book, The Past and Family in the Wars of the Roses, was long listed for what is now known as the Bally Gifford Prize for Nonfiction and won the English Association's Beatrice White Prize. Her next two books, She Wolves, The Women Who Ruled England Before Elizabeth, and

and Joan of Arc, A History, were both on numerous Best Books of the Year lists and made into documentaries for BBC television. And Joan of Arc was long listed for the PEN America Jacqueline Bogart-Weld Award for Biography. She has one son and lives in London. On a personal level, I was delighted to interview Helen Castor. I've been watching her documentaries and reading her books for decades.

15 years, and what a thrill it was to get to speak with her about her new book, which is about the relationship between Henry IV and Richard II. It's a psychological profile of these two men. So in this interview, we talk about how these events from the late 14th century impact the Tudors. We're going to look at it from a Tudor perspective.

And we're also going to talk about why people who are 16th century enthusiasts would also enjoy learning more about this period. If this is new to you, she'll introduce the topic. Her new book is called The Eagle and the Heart, The Tragedy of Richard II and Henry IV. And I've read it. It's so good. Highly recommend it. So let's get right into it with Helen Castor.

This new book, so we are talking on a Tudor history podcast and YouTube channel. This new book is, you know, a good 100, 120 some years before that period. So for a lot of people who are listening to this podcast, watching this interview, they might not be as familiar with the story of Henry IV and Richard II. They might have come across it through Shakespeare.

But not know the details. So before we get I think there's a wonderful discussion to be had around the intersection of Tudor memory and the way they saw history and propaganda. But before we get in, that's what my questions center around. But before we get into that, I would love if you could just give us a background for people who are coming to this story fresh.

Of course. And I have to say, I have a very dear friend here with whom I've talked virtually every week while I was writing the book. And I've found that virtually every week I've had to say this Richard, Richard II, is not Richard the Lionheart and he's not the king in the car park. He is the one in between.

And precisely, as you say, the one that you might know best from Shakespeare, not Richard III, the king in the car park with the very dramatic villainous portrayal by Shakespeare, but instead the subject of that immensely lyrical and poetic play, the one where we might know that Richard says, for God's sake, let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings and so on.

And he was king from 1377 to 1399. And in 1399, as we see in Shakespeare's play, he was overthrown and deposed by his cousin Henry of Bolingbroke, who took the throne to become Henry IV. And of course, he has his own two plays that Shakespeare wrote later on. But what we need to know about these two men is that they were first cousins and

almost exactly the same age. Henry was just three months younger than Richard. And that when Richard came to the throne in 1377, they were both just 10 years old. What had happened was that the throne of England had skipped a generation after the reign of Edward III, who was one of the greatest kings ever to rule England and who had

been on the throne he'd worn the crown for fifty years during which england had been at war with france the early stages of what we know as the hundred years war

Of course, they didn't know that. They weren't saying, lads, it's halftime, let's have a break. But this was an ongoing war with France. And by the 1360s and 1370s, it was not going well for England after all the triumphs of the 1340s and 1350s, the Battle of Crecy, the Battle of Poitiers and so on. So it was a very difficult time for England. Having a 10-year-old boy as your king is not ideal. But the...

central problem that emerged as Richard got older was that it became clear that while he was fixated on the rights of his crown, what he ought to be able to do and command, he had no real understanding of what his responsibilities towards his people were. And so that's the story that plays out in Shakespeare's, tells the very, very end of it. Shakespeare's play begins in 1398.

So it's the last two years, if that, of the reign. And what I wanted to do was to tell the whole story and also to tell the story of both men because Shakespeare's portrait of Richard II is...

fascinating and compelling but Bolingbroke really appears only as his nemesis and then in the Henry IV plays Henry IV seems like a different person from Bolingbroke and he's in the background with Hall and Falstaff and Hotspur in the front so I wanted to do two things tell the whole story and put Henry beside Richard and let them both be there in the spotlight.

Yeah, it's really kind of a psychological portrayal. You go back and forth in the story between opening with Richard and how he was raised and then looking at Henry and how he was raised. And Richard and Henry were raised quite differently. And when you look at Richard's story, it's hard to not feel sorry for him. And I know he's portrayed almost like a tragic character.

tragic character in that way. He was raised thinking he was so special, but never given any of the schooling around responsibility. Can you explain just a little bit about the way he was raised? Yes, it's a fascinating subject, and I'm having to read a lot into silences, as often happens in the medieval records, because we can't get behind those closed doors of the households that they grew up in very easily at all.

But as you say, I'm trying to put together a psychological picture. And so I'm trying to use the scraps of information we have to help us explain and understand the men they became. And in both cases, they were brought up within what we would call complex, blended families. In Richard's case...

His parents had married relatively late in life, in their 30s, which for an heir to the throne, his father was the Black Prince, the eldest son of Edward III. For an heir to the throne to not marry until he was 31 was an extraordinary thing. But it was Richard's mother who'd been married before. She was an English noblewoman.

the Black Prince's first cousin once removed, legendarily beautiful and had been rather indulged by her cousin King Edward in terms of being able to pick and choose her previous husbands. So she already had four children by her second or first marriage, depending on how we want to view her checkered marital history before then. She had two sons and two daughters.

She then had two sons with the Black Prince, the older of whom, little Edward, died when he was just five, leaving littlest Richard, the baby of the family, to be babied many times over, if that makes sense, because by the time he was four, it was clear that he was the unique child

heir to the throne. He was the Black Prince's only legitimate child, and the Black Prince himself was already ill by this stage in his late 30s. King Edward III in his 50s going into his 60s, also ill. So England's future depended on the shoulders of this little boy.

who was therefore cocooned within this magnificent household, protected, as you say, told he was special because he was special. He was going to be God's anointed. But if you then think about pushing a little boy in that situation into, for instance, learning to fight, which is one of the key responsibilities of a medieval king to defend your realm in battle,

First of all, you're worried about his safety, and it was dangerous to set a couple of heirs to noble houses during this story get killed in training for the joust. But also, and especially once he becomes king at ten...

The sense we get is that fighting was not something that Richard wanted to do. And if you think about trying to make a 10-year-old king do his homework that he doesn't want to do, how far are you going to be able to push that? He is the king. He can't rule, but you don't want him 10 years further down the line to have an extraordinary hatred for you because you were the one that shoved him onto a horse and made him...

Whereas Henry, who was the son of John of Gaunt, Richard's oldest and most powerful surviving uncle, once his father and grandfather had died. Henry was the heir to John of Gaunt's Duchy of Lancaster, and he was right in the middle of a very complex empire.

formidable bustling family he had two extremely formidable older sisters I think Philippa and Elizabeth would have knocked some rough edges of any little brother they might have had you say that they kept his ego in check I think was the line you used that that is my now I can't prove that with a vignette because obviously I would have put it into the book if I could

But looking at who they grew up to be, Philippa ended up as Queen of Portugal, the mother of the golden generation of Portuguese monarchs. And Elizabeth was a fiery character in her own right, took after Richard's mother in picking and choosing her own husbands. I cannot see how their little brother could have got away with much. But John of Gaunt also then went on to marry again, have another daughter, but also develop a relationship with Catherine Swinford,

who was governess to his children, who also had two children of her own before she'd been widowed, but had four more with Gaunt. So this is a packed nursery. And Henry is the only legitimate son and the heir to the dynasty, but he's also having to earn his place. And all of the Mancastrian children were able, intelligent men.

impressive people when they grew up. So I think we have to see this as a very constructive and positively challenging environment.

And when I was reading about how Richard was raised, it made me think a little bit, and pulling the Tudor side into how Henry VIII was raised after the death of Arthur in this cocoon of safety. And I wonder then when you see each of them, how they grew up and their views on legitimacy and people rebelling against them and all that. Do you think there are similarities? I do. I think there are very...

instructive comparisons to be made. I think they turned out slightly differently. Their characters were different, of course, but in Richard you see a profound narcissism developing, I think, and I'm trying to show in the book, in which he is really the centre of his own reality. And I'm not sure...

And Richard, and of course that's difficult because a king, in a sense, should be the center of the reality that, you know, he's in charge and God has put him there to be in charge. But it's the responsibilities thing that I don't, I'm not sure Richard ever saw anybody else, with the possible exception of his favorite Robert De Vere, as responsible.

fully three-dimensional, fully real, with the same needs as he had. Now, in Henry's case, in Richard's case, one of the ways that played out is that I don't think Richard ever liked to think about a future without himself at the center of it. He never had children, right? That's it. That's what I was just going to go to. He married, first time, Anne of Bohemia, one of the same ages himself, but they didn't have children. And when she died, he married a six-year-old girl.

who was the king of France's daughter, reinforced his sense of his own majesty and his own glory, but was very much putting off any sense of a future without him. Whereas Henry VIII,

of course, obsessively focused on his legacy and how his legacy was going to play out. And of course, also obsessively focused on the woman he was spending his life with. I'm not sure Richard was interested in women in that way, but nevertheless, um,

That sense that the world must reflect back to Richard and Henry the way they see themselves and must fulfil their wishes. I think what you're referring to, that sense of being brought up in a cocoon where your own central importance to the world is reflected back to you all the time and you're not exposed to challenge and difficulty anymore.

You know, I was just then thinking about Elizabeth I, whose life was nothing but challenge and difficulty.

until she became queen and then continued to be so. And the difference in psychology that that produces is really striking. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And then that also then makes me think about the way then pulling Henry IV into it, the way Henry IV came to the throne through conquest, well, deposing, and then through how Henry VII came to the throne through conquest. And I wonder because...

Henry IV, Shakespeare shows him kind of having these doubts and wonders or just demons that he has to wrestle with quite a bit. And Henry VII and Henry VIII were very concerned about their legitimacy. And what kind of similar lessons do you think there are to pull from that? I think there are very important similarities and also key differences which you're making me think about as you ask that question. If we look at Henry IV first,

One contrast I would want to make with Henry VII is that the manner in which Richard II was deposed is very significantly different from 1485. That is, no one had ever questioned Richard II's right to rule. He was the grandson of Edward III. He was the son of the Black Prince. The reason why Richard II is brought to the point of being deposed is that he has ruled so badly that

His kingship has become a kind of tyranny in the last two years of his reign. And what I mean by that is that where kings ought to be ruling according to the law and in the interests of their people, they ought to be defending their realm against external attack and against internal anarchy by providing justice and peace in their country.

Richard's paranoia about other people trying to get his power away from him had meant that he had started to act like a tyrant. That is, he was ruling by arbitrary will rather than law, and he was attacking his own people instead of defending them. And that means that Henry of Bolingbroke comes back to England because by this stage he's been exiled and disinherited. These are one of the ways in which, in fact,

The sort of trigger that brings everything crashing down for Richard is that by exiling and disinheriting Bolingbroke, he demonstrates that even the greatest nobleman in the country has no security under the law. Richard thinks he can snap his fingers and take his property and future away from him.

Picture this, you're halfway through a DIY car fix, tools scattered everywhere and boom, you realise you're missing a part. It's okay, because you know whatever it is, it's on eBay. They've got everything, brakes, headlights, cold air intakes, whatever you need. And it's guaranteed to fit, which means no more crossing your fingers and hoping you ordered the right thing. All the parts you need at prices you'll love, guaranteed to fit every time. eBay, things people love.

For

$45 upfront payment equivalent to $15 per month. New customers on first three-month plan only. Taxes and fees extra. Speeds lower above 40 gigabytes. See details.

Hey, who's ready to get pickled?

Get started with Noom GLP-1 today. Not all customers will medically qualify for prescription medications. Compounded medications are not reviewed by the FDA for safety, efficacy or quality. So Henry comes back to save England and Henry does not have to strike a blow in order to depose Richard. He comes back, raises his banner, England rallies to him and Richard's throne is gone before Richard knows what's happening. So

It's not a crown won on a battlefield, but the comparison you're pointing to is still apt in the sense that Henry has a claim to the throne because he's Richard's first cousin, but he doesn't have the claim to the throne. There are other possible claimants. It's not at all clear that he's the rightful successor. So he is a usurper. Even though everyone wants Richard gone,

there are always going to be question marks about what Henry has done and whether he can simply command the realm. And I do think Henry had deep troubles with his conscience, particularly later in his reign when he'd been struck down by chronic illness, which, of course, contemporaries were always prone to see as a punishment from God. And reading Henry IV's will, for example, which he wrote at a moment of very...

deep illness, very threatening illness, is a really moving thing because you can see these struggles with his conscience. But he survives and passes the throne on to his son, Henry V, so the dynasty becomes established.

Your comparison with 1485 is so interesting because by then, of course, England has lived through 30 years off and on of devastating civil war. And there have been multiple depositions. And so any question of where an unquestioned right to rule might lie is

by 1485 can only really be tested on the battlefield. And because Richard III is defeated and killed on the battlefield, Henry VII can claim God's will has been done in battle, his claim has been tried in battle, and it has been found good, if you like. And with Henry VII, whatever might have been happening in private,

one sees many fewer signs of a struggle with his conscience and many more signs of an overwhelming concern that he is going to reinforce the security of his usurping dynasty by any means necessary. And that is going to include making sure that he's seeing off pretenders, claimants,

and making sure his control is exerted. And of course, Henry VIII does this in much bloodier fashion over anyone whose bloodline might one day allow them to put themselves forward as a claimant.

Right, right. And it's interesting just now when you said Henry IV wasn't the claimant and similarly Henry VII, there were other people that had claims too. So some other interesting parallels as well. Exactly, exactly. But the whole thing had been blown wide open by then because there were these two lines of claimants. And of course, that is where, I mean, Henry V taking over in 1413.

his father had been a usurper, but he can now claim to be the rightful heir of the previous king. In Henry VIII's case, his strength lies both in being the rightful heir of the previous king and the fact that, of course, his mother represents the other line so that he can claim to be the product of the red rose and the white. And as I say, he backed that up.

over the years in spectacularly bloody fashion by killing virtually anyone else who had a small bit of royal blood in their veins, plantagenet blood in their veins. The whole family, the Courtenays. Exactly, exactly. But I do think those comparisons are fascinating. And sorry, I know I'm talking a lot about this, but...

I think one of the very interesting things about the whole story of Richard II's deposition is precisely, as you're saying, the story that this is where the Wars of the Roses come from because that original sin, if you like, of deposing the king then gets played out when Henry VI is challenged by the line of York. Now,

I would want to say as a historian, there is nothing inevitable about that because Henry V, one of the other greatest kings England's ever had, was totally secure on his throne.

died and left a nine-month-old baby as his heir, and no one blinked. Everyone rallied round to keep the realm and the war going until Henry VI should be of age. But once it had become clear that Henry VI was absolutely hopeless king in ways that made everything in the end impossible, then 1399 was there as a precedent to go back to. So it wasn't inevitable, but it was

a very significant factor in what you see playing out in the Wars of the Roses and then the advent of the Tudors.

Yeah. And I wonder also, just you talked about that original sin and the Tudor propaganda machine did frame their rule in a way that said, like, we are the result or we are the people come to make that right. We are the dynasty that's going to make that original sin right. And we're the fulfillment of all of this horrible stuff that happened. And here we are come to save everything. And I wonder how did chroniclers

other than Shakespeare, but the people who were writing the chroniclers at the time, refer to Richard II and Henry IV? And was it in a way that reinforced some of this propaganda with the Tudor narratives of their rightful rule? And what can you tell me about the way the Tudors saw this? Well, it's very interesting. And I can't claim to be an expert in Tudor historiography, but I have just been reading sort of through as much as I can

Edward Hall's Chronicle, first published in 1548, of the union of the two noble and illustrious families of Lancaster and York. And then Raphael Hollinshead's Chronicle, the two main Chronicle sources that we know that Shakespeare was working from, for example. And the two things that struck me

very forcibly about reading those texts is, first of all, Edward Hall begins exactly where Shakespeare does. In other words, I've recently been trying to read a bit more about this. I'm not a Shakespeare scholar in any sense, but it seems to me very likely that that framing of

that Shakespeare starts his play Richard II from the duel between Mowbray and Bolingbroke in 1398 that precipitates the final crisis. He's not going to explain the backstory of what Richard has done beyond that final trigger.

Let's talk about something that's not always top of mind, but still really important. Life insurance. Why? Because it offers financial protection for your loved ones and can help them pay for things like a mortgage, credit card debt. It can even help fund an education.

And guess what? Life insurance is probably a lot more affordable than you think. In fact, most people think life insurance is three times more expensive than it is. So with State Farm Life Insurance, you can protect your loved ones without breaking the bank. Not sure where to start? State Farm has over 19,000 local agents that can help you choose an option to fit your needs and budget. Get started today and contact a State Farm agent or go to statefarm.com.

Ryan Reynolds here from Int Mobile. With the price of just about everything going up during inflation, we thought we'd bring our prices down.

So to help us, we brought in a reverse auctioneer, which is apparently a thing. Mint Mobile Unlimited Premium Wireless. How did they get 30, 30, how did they get 30, how did they get 20, 20, 20, how did they get 20, 20, how did they get 15, 15, 15, 15, just 15 bucks a month? Sold! Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. $45 upfront payment equivalent to $15 per month. New customers on first three-month plan only. Taxes and fees extra. Speeds lower above 40 gigabytes each detail. I think that framing then...

is obviously what Hall is doing. He's framing that as the origin, and then he goes through Henry IV, Henry V, and into the development of the story of Lancaster and York and so on. Holland's head is really even more fascinating. I think he's a wonderful writer.

And the fascinating thing for me as a medievalist reading Holland's Head is that I can see all the medieval sources he's using. And he's actually a phenomenal historian. But when he gets to Richard II, you can see him being pulled in two directions because he's saying two things at once. He's saying that Richard has gone badly wrong here. Richard is wrong.

acting as an arbitrary ruler. He's not obeying the law. He's taken away Bolingbroke's property without any legal justification. He's done something that really does fundamentally

undermine his authority as king. And in the story, as there are in the medieval sources, there's an understanding and a support for what Henry is doing and an understanding of the support he gets. So you see all the justification for Richard's fall, as you do in Shakespeare's play. But at the same time, you also have a sympathy for Richard and an

an explicit suggestion that deposing an anointed king is wrong. And both of those things are in play because they were both in play. So in a way, that points back to what I was previously saying, which is that nothing is inevitable. But once things have gone that way, then you can reach back to that moment and use the fact that

deposing an anointed king was a challenge to the order of God's universe. And if things have gone wrong later, you can point to that. And you can particularly point to that if you're a usurping dynasty whose claim to the throne in any wider objective sense is vanishingly slender, really. I mean, no one until 1485 would have put money on Henry Tudor.

Becoming King of England and founding a dynasty from there.

And I want to be mindful of the time here, but I have two more questions. We talked about the legitimacy and that made me think about the Shakespeare came out right as the Essex Rebellion was happening. And I say it came out like it dropped at the store or something. But, you know, so there was a lot a lot of questions around that that Elizabeth had to deal with with legitimacy. But also, as you're talking, I thought about her not wanting to name an heir and the idea of not necessarily being forward looking as well.

And I just wonder, in like a minute, if you can share a little bit about how Elizabeth struggled with legitimacy and what kind of lessons there were for the later Tudors. That's such an interesting question. Elizabeth struggles on two fronts, I think. One is the legitimacy of her family.

self as sovereign because Henry VIII had made such a mess of his marriages and, of course, then the split from Rome. So in the eyes of Catholic Europe, Elizabeth is a bastard. She's a heretic. She should not be on the throne. She's also a woman. And that has left her with a huge problem about the future. So I don't think Elizabeth was

narcissistically blind to the future in the way that Richard II was. But the problem Elizabeth had been struggling throughout her reign with was she, unlike a male ruler, could not simply marry and have an heir because if she married a man, would he be the king? Would he rule instead of her? And having an heir would also risk her life every time she attempted it in a way that was never the case for a king. So she had decided that

that the way to preserve her authority as queen was not to marry, to fend off questions about the future in the hope of controlling the present. And you're absolutely right that by the 1590s, this was causing acute problems, even among her loyal subjects, because...

They wanted to know what was going to happen. And so when Richard II was first performed, Shakespeare's Richard II, which we think was 1595, it was certainly first published 1597 and went into two further editions in 1598, clearly striking a chord. But crucially, when it's published, the deposition scene is not printed. It's too much of a political hot potato. People are worried about it. And then in 1601, when Essex does rebel,

He has a play about Richard II, or his supporters have a play about Richard II, possibly, probably Shakespeare's, performed for them the night before the rebellion at the Globe Theatre. So Richard's story becomes a way of talking about a monarch who hasn't named an heir and

for whose critics their advisors are favourites who are leading the realm astray. So Essex is saying, you ought to be listening to me, not the people you're listening to. And the pointing at Richard II's favourites is a way of doing that. And of course, Elizabeth herself then says, after Essex Rebellion, she's in the tower looking at the archives with the archivist. And she says, I am Richard II, know ye not that?

Now, I don't think she was anything like Richard II in terms of her understanding of politics. She had a mind like a steel trap, but she was stuck in a parallel situation. And so for people who are more 16th century interested, Tudor interested, and maybe medieval curious, what would you say as to why this is important for those people to read your book and to learn more about this period?

Well, all the reasons we've been talking about, which is that, of course, with any period, the roots of this are going to lie earlier. And I've always been fascinated by the Tudors. I started with the Tudors. And over the years of my studying and then beginning to write, I worked backwards. So I'm hoping it's a journey that your listeners and viewers might want to come on to, but also...

I think one of the reasons I've always loved the Tudors, I imagine might be true for other people, is that they're such huge and fascinating three-dimensional characters. I've always thought one of the reasons we love them is because of Holbein. We can see their face. Now,

Richard was terrible at being a king, but he was brilliant at commissioning art. So Richard is the only medieval king whose face we can actually see because he commissioned two glorious portraits and a glorious tomb effigy. I think that part of him is fascinating. But also in this book, what I've tried to do is draw a psychological portrait of

of both men and explain the political world in which they live that can live up to what I love about the Tudor world. So I'm hoping it might be of interest.

I think it will be for sure. Congratulations on the success of the book. I know it's made a lot of best books of the year lists and all of that kind of stuff. So congratulations to you. It was wonderful. It was a wonderful read. Thank you so much, Heather. It's been an absolute pleasure talking to you. It's been fun. Thank you so much to Helen Castor for taking the time out to speak with me. I hope you enjoyed that interview. I hope you will check out her book. Read it. It's so good. Such a good book. I'll kill it.

So I have both the audiobook and the e-book. And I had been going back and forth between the two because I just couldn't stop. The story had me so pulled in. So I really highly recommend it. If you enjoyed this interview and have friends who are maybe 16th century enthusiasts who might enjoy learning more about this period in history, why not forward this interview to them and let them learn as well? And I sure would appreciate a press of that like button as always.

Selling a little or a lot? Shopify helps you do your thing however you cha-ching. Shopify is the global commerce platform that helps you sell at every stage of your business. From the launch your online shop stage to the first real-life store stage. All the way to the did we just hit a million orders stage.

Shopify is there to help you grow. Shopify helps you turn browsers into buyers with the internet's best converting checkout. 36% better on average compared to other leading commerce platforms. Because businesses that grow, grow with Shopify. Get a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash work. shopify.com slash work. Let's talk about something that's not always top of mind, but still really important. Life insurance.

Why? Because it offers financial protection for your loved ones and can help them pay for things like a mortgage, credit card debt. It can even help fund an education.

And guess what? Life insurance is probably a lot more affordable than you think. In fact, most people think life insurance is three times more expensive than it is. So with State Farm Life Insurance, you can protect your loved ones without breaking the bank. Not sure where to start? State Farm has over 19,000 local agents that can help you choose an option to fit your needs and budget. Get started today and contact a State Farm agent or go to statefarm.com.

It helps to feed the algorithm and get our content to more people. I hope I earned your subscription to my channel where I put out content like this on the regular. Thanks so much for watching and listening, and I will be back soon.

Thank you.