A Popular History of Unpopular Things

The Story of Peter the Wild Boy

• Kelli Beard • Season 1 • Episode 75

Share episode

Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.

0:00 | 34:01

Join Kelli as she goes over the story of a feral boy found in the woods outside of Hamelin, Germany. He was brought to King George I's court in England and named Peter, and he entertained curious onlookers for months. He had strange mannerisms and was an oddity, until he fell out of favor and "retired" to a farm, where he lived peacefully until his 70s.

But what was really going on with Peter? Was he really feral as people thought? Did he clamber around on all fours like a beast? Or was he just tragically misunderstood in a time before medical science could diagnosis him with an intellectual disability?

Sources:

Support the show

Intro and Outro music credit: Nedric | Yello Kake

Follow me on Instagram! @beardhistory

If you want to support the show, donate to the cause at Buy Me a Coffee

The Story of Peter the Wild Boy
Intro
Welcome to A Popular History of Unpopular Things, a podcast that covers the… unpopular stories from history - tales about disease, death, and destruction. I like learning about all things bloody, gross, mysterious, and weird.

Today’s story rests firmly in the “weird and mysterious” camps, but it’s also a bit sad.

I want to talk about Peter the Wild Boy.

In 1725, outside of the German village of Hamelin – yes, the same Hamelin associated with the infamous Pied Piper – hunters encountered a young boy living in the woods. He was alone, couldn’t speak, and walked on all fours. He was, according to reports, completely feral.

He caught the interest of England’s King George I, who brought Peter back to London, and the Wild Boy became an instant sensation. Who was this feral creature? Where did he come from? Was he even human? People came from all over to marvel at this creature with weird habits, like trying to steal from men’s pockets and smooch on the women. Peter’s conduct was so different and unusual from the social norms of the day that he became a curiosity, an oddity.

His story stretched beyond the royal court, taking on a life of its own. He was used as an example of evolution and questions about our species. Author Daniel Defoe wrote a book about him – you’d probably know Dafoe best for Robinson Crusoe, though I quite liked his book “A Journal of the Plague Year” for obvious reasons. And of course he’s written many other things, too.

Satirists even took on the Wild Boy, using his appearance to poke fun at the state of England. 

When his initial popularity died down, there were those who took an interest in him, trying to get him to learn English and gain the life skills needed to survive in our world. 

Today, I want to dive into the story of Peter the Wild Boy. What do we know about him? What was his life like in England? What happened to him?

In this episode, we’re actually going to start with Peter’s story. What sources do we have of his original capture and early life? What was an English King doing in Germany, and how did the King even meet up with a feral child? Why was Peter brought to King George’s Court? Why was the public so fascinated by him? And have we figured anything else out about poor Peter and what might have led to him becoming the “Wild Boy?”

Once we get a good handle on his story, we’ll take a look at modern interpretations. Was he really a feral child, or did he have a condition that just made him a bit different from everyone else?

So… let’s get started!
Peter the Wild Boy
Now Peter, when he was first found, was labeled “feral,” a label given to other children of that time as well. So what do we mean by the term “feral children?” Michael Newton’s book Savage Girls and Wild Boys is pretty intrumental in this field, so let’s use his definition. Quote:

Mostly it describes children brought up by animals, but over the last few centuries these words have been applied to children who have grown up alone in the wilderness, lost in the woods and forests.  

End quote.

And today’s star, Peter, is a feral child of the latter definition – he was found lost in the woods.

Here’s what we know about Peter the Wild Boy. I’m going to occasionally quote from some of the earliest books about Peter, one of which came from the man I just mentioned in the intro, Daniel DaFoe.

Now in 1726, the same year that Peter was brought before King George, Dafoe wrote - get ready for a long title, quote -  “Mere Nature Delineated, or, A body without a soul. Being observations upon the young forester lately brought to town from Germany. With suitable applications. Also, a brief dissertation upon the usefulness and necessity of fools, whether political or natural.”

Don’t you just love those early modern English titles that are an entire paragraph long? I’m really glad we don’t do that anymore. Can you imagine if Stephen King published: “The Shining, or a harrowing tale of an alcoholic father who struggled with the friction between his own demons and his need to pad his ego over his wife and son with psychic abilities in the midst of a winter caretaker position at a hotel filled with malevolence, which did thereupon take advantage of the father’s instability and insecurities, and in addition to various ghosts there are also supernatural bees and hedge animals.” Rolls right off the tongue.

Tangent. If you’ve only seen the Kubrick film and haven’t read the book – they are both masterpieces in their own right. The film is in my all-time top 5, but they are completely different stories and vibes. Do yourself a favor and read the book. You won’t regret it. The book is better.

But anyways.

DaFoe opens up with a recount of how Peter was just found, and here’s what he wrote. I’m keeping most of it as-is, but I might change the odd word here or there to make it more accessible to a 21st century audience. Quote!

A youth is brought over, said to be from the forest or waste of Zell, near the City of Hamelin, or somewhere thereabouts... 

Here, they tell us, he was found wild, naked, dumb; known to, and knowing nobody. That he lived a vegetative life, fed of grass, moss, leaves of trees and the like; that he acted below brutal life, and not at all rational.

He did not walk or step upright, but rather creeping on hands and knees, climbing trees like a cat, fitting on the boughs like a monkey, and the like… though in that part we much not carry our fancy beyond the fact, because we see him at present standing upright as [those of us with souls] do.

End quote.

And this is the beginning of his book. So right off the bat, he’s setting up the idea that Peter was found in the woods of Germany, outside Hamelin. And that he was completely feral - he didn’t seem to belong to anyone, was crawling around like a beast, and ate whatever he could find in the forest. It certainly captures the imagination. 

Now apparently, after being “discovered” in the woods, he was shipped over to King George’s Court. On April 7th, 1726, spectators gathered to look at this feral child, this wild boy pulled from the dark forests of the mainland. He looked to be about 12-15 years old – his age varies in different texts – with unkempt, bushy hair. He reportedly scuttled about the room like a chimp, even going right up to the King – how unceremonius! How lacking in social graces! He must have been a huge spectacle, the talk of the town for years to come. 

But how did he end up there? And why the English King if he was found in a German wood?

Here’s an account that tells us what happened to Peter once he was found. I read it in Dafoe’s book, but he tells us that it’s a reprint of published news of the day. Quote:

Hanover, Dec 11, 1725. The Intendant of the House of Correction has brought a boy hither, supposed to be about 15 years of age, who was catched some time ago in a forest or wood near Hamelin, where he walked upon his hands and feet, run up trees as naturally as a squirrel, and fed upon grass and the moss of trees. By what strange fate he came into the wood is not known, because he cannot speak.

End quote

Ok let’s pause there – Peter was sent to a House of Corrections. He was imprisoned?! But he was apparently so peculiar that word of this strange boy who couldn’t speak and didn’t act like any other rational man spread, and it was arranged for him to travel to Hanover to meet with the King of England, who had expressed interest in him.

King George I was born in Hanover, Germany. He even served as Hanover’s elector before and during his reign as King of England. He had close, personal ties to the region, and apparently preferred his native tongue and spoke little English, leaving much of the governing to his ministers in London. So when news travelled of this strange boy that was found not too far from his birthplace, George was interested in meeting him.

The center of Hamelin today is only about 40 kilometers from Hanover, in a straight line. As the crow flies. That’s roughly 25 miles. Relatively close, in my books.

George was already in Germany at the time staying at Herrenhausen, his summer palace, and had Peter brought there from the prisons. He was apparently quite intrigued by the wild boy. Here’s how Dafoe puts it. Quote:

His Majesty thought the object worth notice, and particularly his Royal Compassion was moved by seeing a Youth in human shape, and supposed to have a Soul, the Image of his glorious Maker, yet so demented, so deprived of the faculties proper and particular to a Soul, or at least, of the exercise of those faculties, as to be made entirely miserable, void of speech, of reasoning powers… His Majesty, moved with compassion, ordered him to be taken care of, clothed, fed, taught, and instructed, and made capable of the ordinary enjoyment of Life.

End quote.

It’s also said that George’s daughter-in-law, Caroline Ansbach, Princess of Wales, and later Queen consort when her husband George II became King, was also quite interested in novelties like feral children and other oddities, so I imagine she had something to do with it as well.

From the Herrenhausen Palace in Hanover, Peter was brought to London, where he was essentially reduced to being the court’s pet. People came to visit him, marvel at him the way some perhaps go to Ripley’s Believe It or Not museums to marvel at difference.

By all accounts, Caroline did try to educate the boy, mostly through her good friend the Scottish Dr. John Arbuthnot. And though it seemed like he might have understood what was being said to him, he never learned to properly speak, only able to repeat a few words. But apparently Dr. Arbuthnot did teach him how to fetch things, greet people with a bow, and symbolically kiss his fingers, a greeting and reaction of the day.  

Eventually, the Royal Court tired of him. He was no longer a fascination; his antics were tiresome. And so he was shipped off to the country, specifically, to the farm of a Mr. James Fenn in Hertfordshire. More specifically, a farm in Berkhamsted, northwest of London and east of Oxford. Mr. Fenn was paid £35 a year to look after the wild boy.

Now our Peter apparently had a penchant for wandering. In 1751, he went missing and ads were placed in the newspaper looking for him, offering a reward for his return.

A few months later, in October 1751, a fire broke out in a jail in Norwich, and the inmates were released. One of them was Peter - I suppose he was locked up the same way he was when they first found him outside Hamelin, because nobody knew what to do with this strange man who couldn’t speak and had no social graces. 

He was returned to Mr. Fenn’s farm, and this time, he was given – get this – a dog collar with Fenn’s name and address inscribed on it. That way, if he got lost, he could be returned. That collar still exists, you can look it up online. It’s a worn, brown leather collar with a gold-colored metal plate affixed to it. The inscription reads “Peter the Wild Man of Hanover. Whoever will bring him to Mr. Fenn at Berkhamsted shall be paid for their trouble.”

Peter lived the rest of his life on that Berkhamsted farm. He liked to watch the fire burn, and enjoyed looking up at the dark and starry night sky. He liked to squirrel away acorns in the fall. And, as he was first found, he enjoyed spending the bulk of his time in and around nature. When James Fenn died, his brother Thomas took over Peter’s care. And after Thomas, it was a Farmer named Brill. 

According to Farmer Brill’s wife, in his old age, Peter had learned to articulate two things – his name, which he emphasized as two syllables pee and terr, and that of the man who brought him to England, King George. Though he never learned to say more than that, he was fully capable of understanding what was said to him. He could also sing. Wordless, but still full of joy.

Farmer Brill’s wife gives us more of his life on the farm. Other than fires and the stars in the sky, he loved the water, ate onions like they were apples, and got excited each year for the coming of spring.

Once Farmer Brill died, Peter refused to eat, and in his despair, died a few days later on February 22nd, 1785, aged 71 or 72. He is buried at a nearby church, his grave marked with the words “Peter the Wild Boy, 1785” His portrait is included in a mural on display in London on the east wall of the King’s stairwell in Kensington Palace, and his collar is on display at the Berkhamsted Collegiate School.

So what are we to make of Peter? Was he really a feral boy, found living alone in the woods, who resisted becoming “civilized?”

Dafoe points out a lot of conflicting problems with the whole original premise. For example, quote, 

The first objection that offers itself  is considerable, is the impossibility of it that a creature so young, so utterly void of assistance, could subsist, could support life in that condition and circumstance as to the place and as to the seasons and other difficulties which you must necessarily go through. 

For example, the climate in that part of the world is known to be cold to extremity and unsufferable to mankind, even clothed and covered. Without shelter, it seems impossible that this young creature could live there in the depth of winter, naked, and without the least covering, destitute not only of conveniences and shelter but of food or fuel except, as they tell, us apples and nuts, moss and leaves. The cold is severe, and sometimes so intense, that the Beasts of the field are starved with the severity of it.

End quote.

He goes on musing about this for quite some time; that beasts have adaptations to survive, like birds in trees, wolves in dens. But we humans don’t – we need clothing, shelter, the ability to start fires, to use tools… and it didn’t seem like Peter had the ability to do any of that. So where did he come from? Was he always this way, or was this a condition that he had recently fallen into? Well, we don’t know. Because Peter couldn’t speak.

But critics argue that a lot of the supposed accounts of Peter’s capture – running up trees like a squirrel, so feral that he was essentially a quadruped – are just bogus. There was no evidence to support the facts; the poor boy didn’t have calluses all over his knees and hands from walking on them or clambering up trees, and he appeared in the royal court walking like a normal bipedal human child. The forest where they found him? There wouldn’t be copious amounts of grasses or tree moss to eat. And apples? In a wild wood? Let’s say there were some natural apples to be found – certainly not in the winters! The whole premise just doesn’t fit reality, and many contemporary sources pointed that out.

Another writer, Jonathan Swift, wrote a satirical pamphlet in 1726 called “It Cannot Rain, but it Pours: or London Strewed with Rarities.” His name may not be as familiar as Daniel Dafoe, but I’m certain you’ve heard of Swift’s most famous work – Gulliver’s Travels. And while this pamphlet wasn’t only about Peter, he did get a mention. Like Dafoe’s book, “It Cannot Rain but it Pours” was published in the same year Peter was brought to England - 1726.

Here are some passages from Swift’s pamphlet. Quote,
I am told that the new sect of Herb-eaters intend to follow him into the Fields, and that there are many [parents] thinking of turning their children into the woods to graze with the cattle, in hopes to raise a healthy and moral race, refined from the corruptions of this luxurious world. 

I am not ignorant that there are disaffected people who say he is a pretender, and no genuine wild man. This proceeds from the false notions they have of Wild Men, which they frame from such as they see about the town, whose actions are rather absurd than wild, therefore it will be incumbent on all young gentlemen, who are ambitious to excel in this character, to copy this true original of nature. The senses of this Wild Man are vastly more acute than those of a tame one. 

End quote.

Quite the satire. But you know what? Swift does a great job of mocking the over-hyped fascination of Peter, and of how “civilized” polite society in England was obsessed with everything but. 

Or as Newton puts it, quote,
[it was] basically [a] skit, an impromptu “witty” variation on the latest news. It mocked Peter, the court, aristocrats, women, and, in the most interesting cases, mocked human beings at the expense of the nobility of animals.

End quote.

Because what was publicized about Peter was just nonsense. He wasn’t a boy raised by wolves like Romulus and Remus, the mythological founders of Rome. He wasn’t able to scale a tree like a squirrel. And he didn’t survive on tree moss and nuts and berries from the cold, German woods while without clothing or shelter.  

And the more that was posted about him, the more diluted the real story became. And in its place was just exaggerated, distorted fiction.

But what Peter did do was cause a relatively big debate over the concept of nature vs. nurture.
The Great Debate
Now in the text of Dafoe’s Mere Nature Delineated, and I’m not going to quote too much of it because I’ve already done enough, Dafoe opens with this really interesting line. Quote:
“This undertaking – writing the book – this undertaking is not to make you laugh, especially not at the person. I take him to be… an Object of Pity, and in consequences of which, his majesty order’d him to be taken care of, taught, and instructed as far as he might be found capable: A Body without the due exercise of a Soul, is certainly an Object of great compassion, and so I treat him all along.”

End quote

Fascinating. So from the get go, Peter was seen as an object to be pitied, a vessel lacking a soul, therefore something that needed to be taken care of. So what did it mean to have a soul? Could one be nurtured into polite society, or was that determined at birth?

And how did Peter fit into the broader cultural context of the Age of Enlightenment?

You know what’s coming – let’s do our historical context! You didn’t think I’d forget a historical context in an APHOUT episode, did you?! You know me, any chance I get, I’m cramming some extra history in one of these bad boys. 

Let’s start with the bigger picture. Broad strokes. As I used to teach my world history kids, in European (and – more broadly – the West) there were four big cultural, transformative changes in the early modern period: the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation (which I promise I won’t talk about today), the Scientific Revolution, and the Enlightenment, sometimes called the Age of Reason. Each of those four things sparked massive, massive changes. And the one I’m concerned with for today’s historical context, for England’s understanding of Peter the Wild Boy and how he fits into their society, is the age of Enlightenment.

But briefly - the end of the Scientific Revolution, because there’s some important overlap.

So for anyone who was awake for world or european history class, you remember the Scientific Revolution as the period of time when math and science, more broadly empirical observation, started to replace traditional knowledge based on either ancient Greek or Roman philosophy or the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

Why are we questioning the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church? Well, many didn’t blindly trust their teachings anymore after the Protestant Reformation… nope… I promised I wouldn’t talk about that today. I… I won’t go into too much detail… pinky swear.  :) 

There’s just a lot of overlap!!! I can’t help it!

So as people start to employ reason, logic, rational thought, and empirical observation to challenge what they were told, they start to discover some things about the world around them. The most famous example is probably Isaac Newton and gravity, right? But we’ve also got Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler and their ideas about heliocentrism – the idea that the sun is the center of our universe, not earth or heaven – and planetary motion. Those are the heavy hitters. The big guys. The ones whose names you have probably heard of. And there are so many more that deserve to be mentioned.

But the one that, for me, best links the Scientific Revolution to the Enlightenment is Rene Descartes.

Descartes, who looks like such a Puritan in his portraits, even though he isn’t, was a French philosopher and mathematician. He’s sometimes known as the father of modern philosophy, as he was the one who posited cognito ergo sum – I think, therefore I am. But what interests me the most is his idea of skepticism. 

In short, be skeptical of everything you’ve been told. Investigate it for yourself. Employ rational, empirical observation. Critical thinking. Why? How? It’s the foundation of knowledge and growth, really. 

For example, the Church used to tell its parisioners that they’d only get into heaven if they paid them a ton of money – the sale of indulgences, right? And since many churchgoers couldn’t read the all-Latin bibles their priest had chained to the lecturn, they had no way of checking the Bible to see if indulgences were in there, no way of checking the source, to see if that was true… 

Oh man, I totally lied to you. I said I wasn’t going to talk about the Protestant Reformation… You should be skeptical of me, really. If I tell you I won’t go on a tangent… be very, very skeptical. It’s what I’m really good at doing.

But hopefully you get my point, right? If we weren’t skeptical, if we didn’t think for ourselves, if we just swallow everything that’s told to us as the truth without investigating it on our own, then there’d be no advancement. That’s how dictators and Kings take over. That’s how you end up living in a Soviet Communist State. 

How did George Orwell put it in 1984? Quote: The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. End quote. 

It’s a scary thing to not trust your own senses, to not observe your surroundings or use critical thinking, to just trust google AI to tell you the answer without doing the research yourself to vet whether or not it's true, to not use your brain to study the things around you and come up with your own conclusions. Rene Descartes taught us about the importance of skepticism. You think, therefore you are. It’s what makes you a human being and not a machine or a sheep.

And to me, that’s the real link between the Scientific Revolution and the Age of Enlightenment. Because if we can apply skepticism and logic and reason and empirical observation to math, to physics, to the world around us… can’t we also apply it to social systems? To government? To the economy?

The answer was yes. And that’s where we start to get thinkers like John Locke who promoted democratic government – not the political party, the idea that the government should be by the people for the people. That the government’s job is to protect our natural rights of life, liberty, and property. You know, the basis of the American Constitution. Without skepticism, without observation, without critical thinking, we wouldn’t have a Constitution. We’d still be living under the tyranny of a King or an Emperor.

Then of course we get Adam Smith, the father of modern Capitalism, and many other great philosophers, thinkers, writers, poets, men and women who sought to make life better for everyone, not just those at the top.

So that’s the world that Peter lived in. He lived in the midst of these original conversations about who we are, what our purpose is, how governments should exist and serve the people, where people came from – this is also the same era that Carl Linnaeus, Swedish biologist, developed his taxonomy, the system we use for naming all biological forms. 

And fascinatingly enough, Linnaeus had a special category for feral children, and one specifically for Peter the Wild Boy – Juvenis hanoveranus. In English, “Hanover Youth,” named after the region he was found.

The broader idea was that if human beings are employing logic and reason and skepticism and trying to find out where they belong in society, on this earth… what do we do with boys like Peter, who are seemingly incapable of doing those things?

What’s fascinating about feral children, like Peter, is that they are representative of the essence of humanity. They grew up outside the normal social order, so through them, we can understand a little more about ourselves. As Michael Newton puts it, quote,

Such stories have afforded generations of scholars, writers, and philosophers insights into the very essence of humanity. These children raise the deepest and most insoluble of questions: what is human nature? Does such a thing even exist? How do we differ from other animals? Where does our identity come from? And the inevitable silence of these children provikes a further mystery: what part does language play in creating our humanity?

These are all very valid questions, and ones that those around Peter struggled with. What really is human nature? And is humanity shaped moreso by nature, or from nurture? Peter, seemingly alone in the woods, apparently lacked nurture. So what did his nature tell them about humanity? 

Dafoe struggled with this in many ways, but one such way was through his lack of speech. Here’s some more from Dafoe’s book on Peter. Quote:
Words are to us the medium of thought; we cannot conceive of things but by their names… we cannot muse, contrive, imagine, design, resolve, or reject; nay, we cannot love or hate, but in acting upon those passions in the very form of words; nay if we dream ‘tis in words, we speak everything to ourselves, and we know not how to think, or act, or intend to act, but in the form of words. All our passions and affections are acted in words, and we have no other way for it.

End quote.

So if we function as humans by the nature of our language, what did that mean for Peter, who could not speak? 

Now, of course, we know that Peter did have some understanding – we’ll get to his currently accepted diagnosis in a bit – but to Dafoe and other writers and philosophers of the day, it raised some serious questions about thinking. I think, therefore I am, right? Cognito ergo sum. But if one must think with words in their head, and Peter, as far as anyone knew, didn’t have any words, then could Peter think? Did he have consciousness without the ability to think? And if he couldn’t think, was he human like us?

Again, yes. Of course he could think. He was a human being with feelings, who loved fires and acorns and the stars in the sky. He was quiet, gentle, and terribly misunderstood. He had thoughts, he just wasn’t verbal. But in this age of enlightenment, in an age where humans were just starting to classify themselves and really understand the natural world around them, applying logic and reason and skepticism to their lives, culture, and society… these were interesting questions brought about because of feral children like our Peter.

If he were born today, we’d have had ways to help him. We’d be better able to understand him. We have technology to run diagnostics and see his DNA and get a better sense of whether or not he had a learning disorder of some kind, perhaps exacerbated by being abandoned in the woods at a young age. But in the early Age of Enlightenment, he was an oddity, and he raised serious questions about belonging, about nature vs. nurture, and about the essence of humanity and thought.

So… do we have any modern theories about Peter? What would we say about him if he were born in our lifetime?
Modern Theories
In 2011, Historic Royal Places historian Lucy Worsley suspected that Peter might have been autistic, based on various contemporary descriptions. But in addition to descriptions in text, many of which we read today, there was also that mural painted at Kensington Palace, with Peter right on it. And he had some very specific facial features, like the cupid’s bow shape of his lips.

Lucy went to Phil Beale, a professor of genetics at the Institute of Child Health to see if he had any ideas about what Peter might have had that made him nonverbal and seemingly feral, at least according to the biased sources who painted this child as “different.” Beale looked through all of the available symptoms, including the visual ones from his portrait in the mural, and came up with Pitt-Hopkins syndrome.  

Pitt-Hopkins is a rare genetic disorder that affects the brain and nervous system, causing developmental and intellectual disabilities which usually manifests in childhood. People with Pitt-Hopkins are known to have different face structures, including a “cupid’s bow” shaped lip, which is visible in the mural portrait of our Peter. Other symptoms include the inability to speak or limited language development, delays in learning how to walk properly, and limited social skills. These descriptions, coupled with the visual appearances of children with Pitt-Hopkins, seem to match.

Do we know for sure if Peter had Pitt-Hopkins? No. But it seems to be the best fit, and no other theories have come out with any other ideas. Does it really matter? I suppose not. We know Peter wasn’t feral, there was just no framework to understand his rare genetic disorder. I mean, we didn’t even really accept germ theory until the mid 19th century, that’s the mid 1800s, and Peter died in 1785. He was tragically misunderstood. Perhaps he was even abandoned by his parents in the woods at Hamelin because they didn’t know how to care for him – or didn’t want to. And though Peter was initially treated as an oddity, a thing to marvel and laugh at, he eventually did go on to live a peaceful, happy, quiet life on the farm. Even to this day, people lay flowers on his grave. 

It’s a good lesson to remember, I suppose. Treat people with kindness, question things with healthy skepticism, and don’t mock those who are different from us. We’re all just humans trying to figure out how to belong. 
Outro
Thanks for joining me for this episode of A Popular History of Unpopular Things! My name is Kelli Beard, and I hope you’ve enjoyed this episode on Peter the Wild Boy. Thank you for tuning into my podcast, and check out some of the other episodes if you want more!

If you want to support the show, I’ve got a link in the description for Buy Me A Coffee, a site where fans can fund small creators like me, but without having to sign up for an account. I would of course appreciate any help you can give me, but honestly, I just appreciate that you listened to me talk about cool history stuff. 

Be sure to like and follow my podcast, available wherever you listen, so you know when new episodes are dropped. And stay tuned to get a popular history of unpopular things.

Head Shot

Kelli Beard

Host