King Slayers in America: The 17th-Century Regicides Who Went on the Lam in Colonial New England

The Execution of Charles I of England
The Execution of Charles I of England
Artist unknown, Wikimedia // Public Domain

As Edward Whalley and his son-in-law William Goffe huddled inside a claustrophobic cave in the colony of New Haven in June 1661, there was little they could do but sit in quiet contemplation—and marvel at just how far they’d fallen.

Just a few years earlier, the men had been heroes. As prominent allies of Oliver Cromwell—the Puritan general who had led his parliamentary army to victory over the Crown a decade earlier, amid a series of English civil wars—they'd personally signed King Charles I’s death warrant and were likely present at the monarch’s execution in 1649. Afterward, both men had taken prominent roles in Cromwell’s new regime and worked diligently to create what they viewed as a purer and godlier England.

Within a decade, however, Cromwell’s death and a rejection of Puritan ideology, among other factors, led England to restore the monarchy and place Charles’s son, Charles II, on the throne. Suddenly, Whalley, Goffe, and dozens of their peers saw their defining act of heroism devolve into a life-altering stigma. Not unlike Jaime Lannister from Game of Thrones, Whalley and Goffe became renowned kingslayers—regicides—a term that clung to them on both sides of the Atlantic.

Cromwell's Allies—and Charles II's Foes

According to historian Matthew Jenkinson, author of Charles I’s Killers in America, the events that followed are one of the most neglected stories in early American history. Both Whalley and Goffe escaped to British North America in May 1660, then fled investigators across New England not once but twice, hiding at various points within an enclosure later named in their honor as “Judges’ Cave.”

Neither Whalley or Goffe had liked their chances under the Restoration, and both feared retribution. A cousin of Cromwell's, Whalley was a major in Cromwell's regiment of horse during the first English Civil War. After the conflict, he and his regiment personally guarded Charles I during his 1647 incarceration at Hampton Court. Goffe—who married Whalley’s daughter—had perhaps even more to fear. During debates held at Windsor Castle in 1648, he denounced the king, with implications about shedding the blood of his own people, a rationale that ultimately provided the legal basis for Charles’s execution.

As it turned out, Whalley and Goffe’s worst fears soon came to pass. Soon after retaking the throne in May 1660, Charles II pardoned most of his father’s political opponents through what historians now refer to as the Indemnity and Oblivion Act. He did not, however, extend this courtesy to those who had participated in Charles I’s trial. In ensuing months, several signatories of the king’s death warrant resolved themselves to martyrdom and defended the justness of their actions all the way to the chopping block. Some had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment. Others fled to the Netherlands, Germany, and Switzerland. Only Goffe, Whalley, and John Dixwell—a former member of Parliament—sought refuge among sympathetic Puritans in New England, where, according to Goffe, they hoped “to cleave to the Lord, & to Love him, & serve him forever.”

This decision quickly proved sound. Of the 39 surviving signatories at the time of the Restoration, nine were executed, 10 successfully escaped, and the rest spent the remainder of their lives in prison.

The Regicides' Early Years in New England

Whalley and Goffe arrived in Massachusetts aboard the Prudent Mary on July 27, 1660. According to Thomas Hutchinson—the then-lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, whose 18th-century History of Massachusetts is a key source regarding the regicides—their initial movement in the colony was far from covert. “They did not attempt to conceal their persons or characters when they arrived,” Hutchinson wrote, “but immediately went to the Governor, [John Endecott], who received them very courteously.” In a surviving entry from Goffe’s journal, the regicide noted that after arriving in America, he and Whalley also attended a public sermon on Hebrews. Afterward, they visited a gathering, where many of Massachusetts Bay’s most prominent preachers reveled in their presence.

This favorable treatment ended the following year when the Crown officially condemned the men. Fearing that harboring the regicides might jeopardize their royal charter, Massachusetts officials debated what to do next. Sensing shifting winds, Goffe and Whalley elected to leave the colony. That month, they found refuge in New Haven with a preacher named John Davenport. On May 6, 1661, Governor Endecott finally issued an arrest warrant, after receiving formal orders from the Crown to apprehend the regicides. Soon thereafter, Endecott commissioned two local royalists—Thomas Kellond and Thomas Kirke—to hunt the men. He did so, however, only after he had delayed enough for news to reach the regicides’ caretakers in New Haven.

Goffe and Whalley’s association with Davenport soon came to light, and so the men moved on to the home of one William Jones. According to Hutchinson, the fugitives stayed with Jones until May 11, when they hid in a local mill. Two days later, accomplices “conducted them to a place called hatchet-harbour, where they lay two nights, until a cave or hole in the side of the hill was prepared to conceal them.” The regicides stayed in this cave—the aforementioned “Judges’ Cave”—with only a few exceptions until June 11.

Throughout this period, New Haven officials continuously delayed and obstructed Kellond and Kirke, most notably on the crucial weekend Whalley and Goffe fled into the woods. As the regicides hid in their cave, deputy governor William Leete delayed the two royalists, first by questioning the wording of their warrant, then, the next day, by refusing to allow them to travel on the Sabbath. Leete finally commissioned a search the following week, but by this time the regicides were long gone. Frustrated, Kellond and Kirke eventually retired to Boston, where, according to Jenkinson, magistrates arguably bought them off with 250-acre estates.

The King Tries Again

Goffe and Whalley occupied their cave off and on throughout the summer of 1661. In August, they traveled to Milford, Connecticut, where, according to Hutchinson, they remained in the house of a man named Tomkins for two years “without so much as going into the orchard.” This brief period of calm ended, however, when Charles II grew distrustful of colonial officials and tasked four of his own agents with locating the regicides in 1664.

These men ran into similar problems as Kellond and Kirke. Throughout 1665, they interrogated several of the regicides’ known acquaintances. Most refused to cooperate, and Whalley and Goffe once again avoided capture, this time by slipping away to Hadley, Massachusetts. There, they took on assumed names and lived on the property of the Reverend John Russell.

Letters written by Goffe to relatives in England show that he and Whalley soon established a network in Hadley, through which loved ones sent them money and supplies. “Money,” Goffe wrote, “be it more or less, may be put into the hands of our Dear & Reverend friend, Mr. John Russell … or such person or persons as he shall appoint to receive the same.”

According to Jenkinson, this system was far from elaborate. Charles II’s government might have discovered it had not plague, war, and domestic religious divides preoccupied its attention during this period. “Faced with all of that,” Jenkinson says, “plucking two aging Puritans out of the American wilderness started to go down the priority list.”

As it turned out, Charles II’s shifting priorities allowed America’s regicides to live out their lives in relative peace. Whalley, it seems, died around 1675, roughly 15 years after his arrival in Boston. Goffe followed suit sometime in the 1680s—but only after one final chapter in his great American adventure.

The Angel of Hadley

A depiction of the Angel of Hadley legendFrederick Chapman, Wikimedia /// Public Domain

According to Hutchinson’s History of Massachusetts, Goffe avoided attention in Hadley for more than a decade. In 1675, however, he reemerged mysteriously during King Philip’s War—a devastating three-year conflict that pitted New England and its Native American allies against the Pokanokets, other members of the Wampanoag nation; the Narragansett, and other native communities.

Citing a story related to him by descendants of Massachusetts governor John Leverett, Hutchinson claimed that a Wampanoag army attacked Hadley during a worship service on September 1, 1675. As the congregation panicked amid the chaos, “a grave elderly person appeared in the midst of them.” Calling for the congregants to defend themselves, the man—whom Hutchinson implied was Goffe—“put himself at their head, [then] rallied, instructed and led them on to encounter the enemy, who by this means were repulsed.”

Early American historians reported this story as fact. In 1874, however, a historian named George Sheldon argued that contrary to Hutchinson’s claims, contemporary histories of King Phillip’s War reported no attacks on Hadley in September 1675. There was, however, an attack there on June 12, 1676. Sheldon noted that Goffe likely wouldn't have emerged on this date, as a company of Connecticut militiamen were stationed in Hadley at the time. Their presence, Sheldon suggested, would not only have disincentivized Goffe from taking part in Hadley’s defense, but also made it unnecessary for townspeople to take up arms. The New York Times reprinted this argument in 1905, and, thereafter, most historians considered the “Angel of Hadley” story debunked.

In 1987, however, the historian Douglas C. Wilson discovered that June 12, 1676, fell within a short period in which the Connecticut and Massachusetts militias combined for a pincer attack in Northampton. It turned out that Hadley was undefended on the date the Wampanoag attacked the city. This made it at least plausible that Goffe would risk exposing himself in defense of his adopted home, albeit on a different date than the one relayed by Hutchinson.

Jenkinson, for one, believes the event occurred similarly to how Hutchinson originally described it. As such, the Angel of Hadley provides a fitting end to the regicides’ story—like other elements of their flight through New England, it defies belief and yet still somehow withstands historical scrutiny. “There have been a few myths that have sprung up around the regicides in America,” Jenkinson says. “But it seems that the most heroic and daring [of these stories], the most absurd on the face of it, is probably the one that is actually based on reality.”

14 Retro Gifts for Millennials

Ravi Palwe, Unsplash
Ravi Palwe, Unsplash

Millennials were born between 1981 and 1996, which means the pop culture they grew up with is officially retro. No matter what generation you belong to, consider these gifts when shopping for the Millennials in your life this holiday season.

1. Reptar Funko Pop!; $29


This vinyl Reptar figurine from Funko is as cool as anything you’d find in the rugrats’ toy box. The monster dinosaur has been redesigned in classic Pop! style, making it a perfect desk or shelf accessory for the grown-up Nickelodeon fan. It also glows in the dark, which should appeal to anyone’s inner child.

Buy it: Amazon

2. Dragon Ball Z Slippers; $20

Hot Topic

You don’t need to change out of your pajamas to feel like a Super Saiyan. These slippers are emblazoned with the same kanji Goku wears on his gi in Dragon Ball Z: one for training under King Kai and one for training with Master Roshi. And with a soft sherpa lining, the footwear feels as good as it looks.

Buy it: Hot Topic

3. The Pokémon Cookbook; $15

Hop Topic

What do you eat after a long day of training and catching Pokémon? Any dish in The Pokémon Cookbook is a great option. This book features more than 35 recipes inspired by creatures from the Pokémon franchise, including Poké Ball sushi rolls and mashed Meowth potatoes.

Buy it: Hot Topic

4. Lisa Frank Activity Book; $5

Urban Outfitters

Millennials will never be too old for Lisa Frank, especially when the artist’s playful designs come in a relaxing activity book. Watercolor brings the rainbow characters in this collection to life. Just gather some painting supplies and put on a podcast for a relaxing, nostalgia-fueled afternoon.

Buy it: Urban Outfitters

5. Shoebox Tape Recorder with USB; $28


The days of recording mix tapes don’t have to be over. This device looks and functions just like tape recorders from the pre-smartphone era. And with a USB port as well as a line-in jack and built-in mic, users can easily import their digital music collection onto retro cassette tapes.

Buy it: Amazon

6. Days of the Week Scrunchie Set; $12

Urban Outfitters

Millennials can be upset that a trend from their youth is old enough to be cool again, or they can embrace it. This scrunchie set is for anyone happy to see the return of the hair accessory. The soft knit ponytail holders come in a set of five—one for each day of the school (or work) week.

Buy it: Urban Outfitters

7. D&D Graphic T-shirt; $38-$48

80s Tees

The perfect gift for the Dungeon Master in your life, this graphic tee is modeled after the cover of the classic Dungeons & Dragons rule book. It’s available in sizes small through 3XL.

Buy it: 80s Tees

8. Chuck E. Cheese T-shirt; $36-$58

80s Tees

Few Millennials survived childhood without experiencing at least one birthday party at Chuck E. Cheese. This retro T-shirt sports the brand’s original name: Chuck E. Cheese’s Pizza Time Theatre. It may be the next-best gift for a Chuck E. Cheese fan behind a decommissioned animatronic.

Buy it: 80s Tees

9. The Nightmare Before Christmas Picnic Blanket Bag; $40

Shop Disney

Fans of Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas will recognize the iconic scene on the front of this messenger bag. Unfold it and the bag becomes a blanket fit for a moonlit picnic among the pumpkins. The bottom side is waterproof and the top layer is made of soft fleece.

Buy it: Shop Disney

10. Toy Story Alien Socks; $15

Shop Disney

You don’t need to be skilled at the claw machine to take home a pair of these socks. Decorated with the aliens from Toy Story, they’re made from soft-knit fabric and are big enough to fit adult feet.

Buy it: Shop Disney

11. Goosebumps Board Game; $24


Fans that read every book in R.L. Stine’s series growing up can now play the Goosebumps board game. In this game, based on the Goosebumps movie, players take on the role of their favorite monster from the series and race to the typewriter at the end of the trail of manuscripts.

Buy it: Amazon

12. Tamagotchi Mini; $19


If you know someone who killed their Tamagotchi in the '90s, give them another chance to show off their digital pet-care skills. This Tamagotchi is a smaller, simplified version of the original game. It doubles as a keychain, so owners have no excuse to forget to feed their pet.

Buy it: Amazon

13. SNES Classic; $275


The SNES Classic is much easier to find now than when it first came out, and it's still just as entertaining for retro video game fans. This mini console comes preloaded with 21 Nintendo games, including Super Mario Kart and Street Fighter II.

Buy it: Amazon

14. Planters Cheez Balls; $24


Planters revived its Cheez Balls in 2018 after pulling them from shelves nearly a decade earlier. To Millennials unaware of that fact, this gift could be their dream come true. The throwback snack even comes in the classic canister fans remember.

Buy it: Amazon

Sign Up Today: Get exclusive deals, product news, reviews, and more with the Mental Floss Smart Shopping newsletter!

This article contains affiliate links to products selected by our editors. Mental Floss may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.

History Vs. Bonus Episode: Fact Checking Theodore Roosevelt


You often hear Theodore Roosevelt described as “larger than life,” which I think we can all agree is pretty accurate. And, as with many other larger than life characters, there are plenty of myths and misconceptions surrounding TR—some of which were encouraged and perpetuated by Roosevelt himself. As Kathleen Dalton writes in Theodore Roosevelt: A Strenuous Life, “He sought to keep his inner life and less attractive traits well hidden. He also encouraged his friends and authorized biographers to tell an upbeat, socially acceptable, stiff-upper-lipped version of his life. Many of his friends and biographers obliged him.” Dalton goes on to say that the guardians of his story would edit or destroy letters they deemed embarrassing, and would even hide the family’s secrets to present a better picture of Roosevelt’s life.

Austin Thompson: A lot of this fact checking stuff is to do with his legacy. They really intertwine because these myths and legends are such a part of the story.

That’s Mental Floss’s fact checker, Austin Thompson, who has been taking a magnifying glass to stories on Mental Floss’s website and to our YouTube videos for years, and he looked at every script of this podcast, too. He knows better than many how complicated unraveling the truth behind history can be, so for this final bonus episode of History Vs., I couldn’t wait to get him on the phone to debunk some TR myths and talk fact checking one of the most famous figures in history.

Thompson: I found an absolutely brilliant 1912 New York Times article about Theodore Roosevelt which was saying if you had four experts who swore that he boiled his grandmother and ate her in the 1890s, he would come back with documentary proof that she actually died in the 1880s.

Just a quick break here to say that when Austin was fact checking this script, he realized that he’d misremembered what the article said—it was actually 20 experts, not four. OK, carry on.

Thompson: If you have people who swear under oath that he had a meeting with Standard Oil at this date, he would come back with a dated photograph of him talking to a mother's congress. I think it really has to do with ... that he does come to the White House, and all his history, from a perspective of being a historian. He knows that he's great. He knows his greatness. Everyone his entire life has been clear, he is great. He can produce dated evidence for anything you might say he did. I think it's because he wanted to control his historical view in a way that other people wouldn't, but nowadays we wouldn't think is that weird.

When we were putting these episodes together, the general process went like this: I came up with the themes for each episode, then put together outlines that pulled together a ton of information around those themes. In each outline were sources, quotes, and beats that I wanted to hit, along with pieces of the interviews I conducted that I wanted to include. Then the writer—sometimes me, sometimes another Mental Floss staffer—would use that outline to write the script, which would go through an editing process where myself and members of the production team would weigh in and make tweaks. And finally, before I recorded, the script would go to Austin, and he’d dig in. And I mean really dig in. Not only did he find errors—hey, I’m not perfect—but he would also nearly always find some new piece of information or interesting story that I’d want to include.

Thompson: As I was researching Theodore Roosevelt and looking at all sorts of things, there were two things that struck me about him. One makes fact checking a lot easier, the other one made it basically impossible. He mythologizes, but you can get so much information about him from other sources that aren't him. It'll be like, you spent five minutes with him 10 years ago, you're suddenly writing a book, the time I spent with Theodore Roosevelt. The family he's staying with in Germany who's saying, "Oh he's going to be President." That all exists independent of anything he did. So … he is in control of his image to a certain extent but there's such a world that you can pretty much verify most things he's saying.

And then the other thing that makes this harder, that we've talked about, is the changing views of Theodore Roosevelt. It's like, if you read something from the 1910s, it is a different perspective than if you read something from the 1940s. It's lucky because with Theodore Roosevelt we have so many of his primary documentation, but it's still really hard to sort of sift through all of that to say, well is this person saying this about Theodore Roosevelt because this is actually how it is, or is it just because that was the prevailing view at the time?

Also, socio-culturally we like to think of history as this great monolithic thing. It happened and now we can just kind of go back and look at bits and pieces of it. We as a culture, I don't think we really like to view history as having trends. That there are differences in how history is being viewed from one day to another, one culture to another. We're not taught to think of history in that way.

Erin McCarthy: So when you're fact checking something like the podcast scripts, do you usually try to go for the primary documentation first? Or, in the case of Theodore Roosevelt when you know that he did not like to write about things that were difficult, like, for example, he didn't include his first wife in his autobiography at all, are you looking elsewhere when you're fact checking?

Thompson: Well it depends on the thing. I mean, you know he's there to tell a story. So as long as you read it knowing, read what he says knowing this is the story he wants you to hear, then I always like to go back to primary sources, cause Roosevelt just gave us so many of them. And as I said, so many of the people who even interacted with him briefly would be writing books about the events that happened.

It is when you get into more sort of obscure—especially obscure leaders or figures in history—that it does start to really become a problem of, how much weight are you willing to put on this secondary source? I'm sure if you read some of my podcast suggestions, there are times when it'll be really awkwardly suggesting saying, "This person says this," and that's because it's maybe true but these other sources, say, aren't necessarily as strong.

McCarthy: So we often go back and forth and play a little bit of like, is this OK? What do you think about this phrasing? 'Cause we don't want to mislead anybody, right? We want to make sure that we're being accurate.

Thompson: I have spent ages, like I don't even know how long, debating whether a single word is correct. 'Cause it does make a difference.

McCarthy: Do you want to get into some myths now or do you … do you have other thoughts?

Thompson: I think so. I don't think I have anything else I wanted to talk about with the process of fact checking. It's just kind of like, you go through documents and try to decide is this reasonable? Is this accurate? Does this person say what this person says? Is this person correct? Is this person citing some lost documentation that was found at the top of a monastery in Outer Uzbekistan and then the monastery burned down so you're relying entirely on them? It's hard. 

TR myths, coming up after the break.


In the course of making this podcast, we came across a number of TR myths and misconceptions, some of which we touched upon briefly in the regular episodes, and some we just didn’t have time to get to. So we figured we’d finish up this season by digging deeper into a few of them. And if you’re going to take on TR myths and misconceptions, you might as well start at the beginning.

Everyone knows that Theodore Roosevelt was a sickly, asthmatic kid, who, after a directive from his father, built his body to the point where he had cured himself of asthma. Right?

Well … not so fast.

Thompson: According to Theodore Roosevelt, that is what happened. But there's a really interesting paper from a couple years ago, "The Misunderstood Asthma of Theodore Roosevelt." What makes the article interesting, so it says no, the asthma went away when he was somewhere between 12 to 15. And that's about the age you'd expect the asthma to lighten itself up, even if he was doing absolutely nothing.

As the paper notes, “[This] phenomenon is well recognized by clinicians today but was unknown in TR's time. Looking back at TR's inference, it is tempting to speculate about how his misplaced sense of accomplishment may have influenced his thinking about what else he might achieve if he set his mind to solving new problems.”

In reality, his asthma didn’t fully go away and, in fact, it sometimes reared its ugly head later on in his life.

Thompson: When Edith was in labor, Alice—his daughter Alice—remarked something like "the train and my father came in wheezing as he rushed to be by her side." He had asthma attacks throughout his entire life, but they were not as bad. According to the article, at the time and for all of Theodore Roosevelt's life, asthma was thought to be psychosomatic.

The idea that they thought at the time asthma was psychosomatic, I think probably was a really big part of why Theodore Roosevelt wanted to proclaim himself as having cured his asthma. I mean, this was a guy who thinks basically everything is weaker than he is. So if he's truly feeling that his asthma is entirely in his head, it makes sense to me why he would then pretend that it wasn't. That's my opinion on the matter, but yeah.

McCarthy: OK, this is one of my favorites. So there is a photo floating around on the internet in which Theodore Roosevelt is riding a moose. So … did Theodore Roosevelt ever ride a moose?

Thompson: Well not that we know of. He spent a lot of time in Maine, so … but no. The picture is definitely fake. But it was never supposed to be viewed as real. It was from a 1912 New York Tribune. If you just take the picture by itself it's "whoa, manly, that's awesome." But the whole triptych is Taft riding an elephant, Theodore Roosevelt riding a moose, and Woodrow Wilson riding a donkey. It's for the president, and they were whatever the 1912 version of Photoshopped was onto the animal of the respective party. And then I can only imagine someone found a copy of that picture and thought "Theodore Roosevelt, manly!" and went with it.

What I think is kind of interesting about that picture, though, is since it was debunked several years ago, there’s a secondary myth that has since emerged, that the New York Tribune made up that picture as a way to help Roosevelt. When that's not true either—there's no evidence. I mean, yes in the picture, Theodore Roosevelt is bigger than the other two but there's nothing in the New York Tribune to suggest that it's being done to support Roosevelt at the expense of the other candidates. But it's just this sort of weird secondary myth that emerged after the first myth was debunked.

It says a lot about a president by what kinds of myths surround them as we go back. So George Washington, he's not telling a lie. Abraham Lincoln, he's beating 300 people in a wrestling match. It's a myth, but we still want to attach because it's truthfulness and ruggedness on the frontier.

Meanwhile, the great myth about William Howard Taft is he gets stuck in the bathtub. So I think it says a lot about Roosevelt's misconceptions, almost all of the misconceptions we're going to be going through they have to do with how manly he is. By force of will, he punks his asthma. He rode a moose. I think that says a lot not about Theodore Roosevelt, but about how our view of Theodore Roosevelt is shaped.

McCarthy: So one thing that you will often see floating around has to do when TR was sworn in after William McKinley was assassinated. So TR was on vacation in the mountains. McKinley takes a turn for the worse. He barrels down to Buffalo to try to make it to the President's side. The President dies and TR is sworn in, in some guy's house in Buffalo on not a bible. And so the myth is, or the popular conception is, that TR is the first president who was not sworn in on a bible.

Thompson: Yeah, most of those facts are fine until you get right to the end with the bible fact.

The story is that they were in such a rush they couldn't grab a bible. But the guy whose house it was, Ansley Wilcox, he commented later that there were loads of bibles around the house it just didn't occur to anyone to use the bible because that was not the tradition in the area they were in at the time. So you do have earlier that definitely didn't do a bible. John Quincy Adams says explicitly in his diary it was on a book of law. And then later it's sort of hit or miss who's on the bible because most people weren't explicit in recording that until later. What I think the interesting one is after Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, when he's inaugurated after the death of Harding, he did the exact same thing. That they had a bible at hand but it wasn't used because that wasn't the tradition of the area. So it just would not have occurred to anyone that, "Oh yeah we need to use this bible," until later. So yes Theodore Roosevelt was sworn in without a bible. No, he wasn't the first. And despite what some seem to think, no, there's absolutely zero meaning to such a thing, other than nobody thought of it at the time.

McCarthy: But then, you know, like when he was actually elected of his own accord, wasn't he sworn in on a bible at that point?

Thompson: Yes. See, he wasn't making any point. In Upstate New York, they didn't use bibles, and nobody thought anything of it until afterwards, and they're like, “oh yeah, that's how you do it in the rest of the country. Huh.”

McCarthy: OK, I have one more note here for something that ... It's just a question mark. Tattoo? Question mark?

Thompson: Oh god.

McCarthy: And I feel like we have to talk about it because we've talked about it before.

Thompson: Yes. It's like, tattoos and judicial recall. Those are the two stories I'd been hoping to avoid.

McCarthy: OK, so the rumor goes that Theodore Roosevelt had a tattoo on his chest of the Roosevelt Family crest. And it's everywhere. But, dot dot dot, and I'll let you take it from there.

Thompson: Probably not but maybe—is that enough? So I spent, I don't even want to think how long, trying to figure out, like ... did he have a tattoo? And in the end, my guess is probably not, because there are clear descriptions of him doing things bare chested when a tattoo would have been notable, but nobody commented on it. That being said, they might just not have commented on it. And there aren't many pictures of, like, a shirtless Roosevelt during the time period where he's said to have the tattoo. I was really hoping that I could find his autopsy report, but turns out that he didn't have an autopsy after he died, so ...

McCarthy: This got dark.

Thompson: That's the kind of thing you have to look at. Yeah.

McCarthy: It just goes to show the lengths that you will go to ... to figure something out.

Thompson: Yeah. And so, I then tried to trace the myth back, and I don't think I was able to get the myth before the 1970s. So there's like a 50-year gap where there's no mention of Theodore Roosevelt having a tattoo, then it just kind of appears. And I've never, despite lots and lots of looking, been able to close that gap. So ... that is not proof that he didn't have a tattoo, but I'm pretty confident he didn't because, as I said, there were times when people are describing his bare chest and a tattoo would have been noteworthy, and they didn't comment on it.

McCarthy: Yeah. So we end where we began: tattoo, question mark?

Thompson: Yeah, basically.

McCarthy: Are you sick of Theodore Roosevelt yet?

Thompson: No, I'm not sick of Theodore Roosevelt because he's just interesting. I mean, he's definitely such a good person for the first season of this podcast ‘cause I was thinking: There aren't that many people who have reinvented themselves so many times. Most people are fairly consistent in their lives. Theodore Roosevelt, he was like, never more than five, six years at any one thing in his entire career, which makes him a very interesting person to research. And you just keep learning new things about him.

I mean one of the things I find amazing about Theodore Roosevelt is that his entire life he just kind of … he just kind of overshadowed everyone around him. People at the time were saying William McKinley was essentially the next Lincoln. He was viewed as a truly great president. And now: William McKinley who?

McCarthy: Yeah.

Thompson: He makes lists of the most forgotten president and that's because Theodore Roosevelt is just this force of nature that everything around him is dimmed by his incredible Theodore Roosevelt-ness.

Yeah, a very bright light.

A huge thanks to Austin Thompson for hopping on the phone to chat and for fact checking every episode of this podcast. I truly could not have done it without him.

And with that, we’re wrapping up this first season of the podcast. I have to be honest, we did not intend to stick with TR this long. We had initially planned to launch a new season in June, and then COVID-19 happened and messed up all of our best-laid plans.

But I’m happy to announce that we’ll be back in early 2021 with a brand new season of the podcast, although it’s going to be slightly different than what we did for this first season.

First, we’re going to be changing the name of this feed so that we can put all of our Mental Floss podcasts here, though we’ll only be doing one season at a time, so don’t worry, we won’t be spamming you.

Also, rather than bring you another season of History Vs., we’re going to explore a different topic with a different host—but I promise it’s incredibly compelling, and the host is someone you’ve heard on this podcast before. And there is a bit of a TR connection. So stay tuned!


History Vs. is hosted by me, Erin McCarthy. This episode was written by me, with fact checking by Austin Thompson.

The Executive Producers are Erin McCarthy, Julie Douglas, and Tyler Klang.

The Supervising Producer is Dylan Fagan.

The show is edited by Dylan Fagan and Lowell Brillante.

For transcripts, photos, and even more about Theodore Roosevelt, check out our website at

History Vs. is a production of iHeart Radio and Mental Floss.