tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg November 11, 2015 10:00pm-11:01pm EST
♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. charlie: john meacham is here, he is a pulitzer prize-winning historian, and executive director at random house, his latest book is "destiny and power: the american odyssey of george herbert walker bush." it draws on extensive conversations with the former president, his family and inner circle. in it, the older bush offers assessments of dick cheney, donald rumsfeld, and even his son. alongside the controversy, there has been praise. the new york times says the book
reflects the qualities of both subject and biographer. judiciousness, balanced, deliberative, and a deep appreciation of history and the personalities who shape it. all of that being said, i am pleased to have my friend, and the friend of this broadcast, jon meacham. where do we start? this has been a 17 year project. jon: 17 year odyssey. first in 1998, i went to my mutual friends, immediately found president bush to be more complicated and interesting in conversation than the caricature in the press. charlie: how so? jon: the quiet, consistent charisma. i understand how he became president. it was person by person by person. absolutely always paying attention to you. -- to the other guy.
wanted to make sure you are comfortable. part of that fundamental political transaction. what is the fundamental political transaction with politics? you can trust me with your fate. almost instantly, i saw this is how he did it. charlie: the idea of a biography. jon: it developed over the next seven or eight years. he granted me unconditional access to his vice presidential and presidential diaries. probably the last documents of their kind. charlie: why is that? jon: special prosecutors, stuff being subpoenaed. he did it because he wanted hit a historical record. he was not sure what he would do with it. he mentions in the audio diaries -- they are audio diaries, late at night, early in the morning, on marine one, on air force one, you can hear the chopper blades going as he decides he will say, "this will not stand."
i think it was therapeutic. he would hate that word. he never wanted to be on the couch. but he never complained to anyone else, including mrs. bush, about the burdens of the presidency. as he told me once, no one wants to get the president of the united states saying, woe is me. charlie: there was that one moment, which was a revelation for me and anyone who knows anything about politics in which he becomes a bit despondent. after the war had been won, the first gulf war. what is interesting in this biography is this is not speculation. this is from the words of the man himself. jon: our friend, evan thomas told me, so many of us have to
speculate what was going through their minds. here we know. charlie: he tells us. in his own words. jon: he never celebrated the victory in the gulf. he was way ahead of the pundits. he knew that artificial 89% approval rating would not last. he knew the economy would be the essential thing. he wished there had been a battleship missouri surrender. he did not like that saddam was in power. charlie: that was his decision. jon: his decision was that the 35-nation coalition he put together with a lifetime of experience with telephone calls. his mother called him halve half bush. he would always give half to a friend. perfectly trained diplomat. first president, post-cold war world. the united states is a lucky place.
bismarck remarked, god loves drunks, little children, and the united states of america. man and moment met. charlie but let's go back to the despondency. he actually said it. jon: he said, the american people deserve someone with energy. at some level he realized he had almost finished the work he had been put on earth to do. he was getting sick. he had a heart episode based on his thyroid. his thyroid was overactive. the dosage for that was very hard to get right through 1991, 1992, that is something else that is new. he had a second heart episode right before the 1992 convention. he says, if i thought it was
really serious i would have to go in to the press room and say i am not running, i am not sure what the convention would do. the emotional life of a president, which fascinates people like us so much is so often something we have to to -- tiptoe around. he gives us everything. part of what surprised me the most about him it was how emotional this seemingly buttoned-down new england wasp was. charlie: a man of manners. jon: not walking around like a peacock. it was a strange career choice for a man whose mother said i never want to hear about the great i am. he would come in and say, i hit a triple, she would say, how did the team do? charlie: you explain it because it is not politics, but service.
jon: it is the tension between two things, between wanting to be number one, to win, to make his mark in whatever game it is, including politics. and this ambient sense of service that goes directly to the sense that the founders had. charlie: that is part of what he was despondent about. part of what he complains about. he doesn't understand the new generation. he doesn't understand they have the stuff he believed in. jon: i nearly fell out of my chair when i listen to the audio of november 3 to november 4, 1992, the night he lost the presidency to bill clinton. barbara is asleep in one room. he gets up, goes into the living room, turns on a tape recorder and says, duty, honor, country, i always thought that was what americans were made of. quite clearly that is not.
i don't see how i lost to a draft dodger. those are tough words. saying that the country may not be about duty and honor. the remarkable thing, this goes to your point about his manners, even at his darkest hours, when he is dictating into this recorder, he will talk himself back up into the game. says ends the entry, he what do you do the next few days, you do it with grace, you finish strong. you say your prayers. you never let them see you down. he said his code was one of camouflaged competition. charlie: the ambition was not to be seen, but burn brightly. jon: that first appears in his andover school teacher report. charlie: they say what? jon: they say he works hard, but never wants anyone to know it. charlie: you decide this is a worthy subject.
first contact with the bush people, did they say, thank god, it is you? we have heard all about you. just back up the pickup. we have been waiting for a man like you to show up. thank god you are here. jon: i don't remember the pickup. there was skepticism because i had been, for a long time and -- at newsweek. you may remember in the fall of 1987, newsweek did a cover story saying, fighting the wimp factor. charlie: he hated that. jon: if you were sitting here, he could tell you the whole story. it was a long conversation about it. charlie: at dinner? jon: i would go to houston. charlie: give us some biographical flourish. jon: they spent winters in kennebunkport.
i think president bush was more for it perhaps than other people. charlie: barbara? jon: she was great. charlie: she made a condition. she would not give you diaries unless you allowed her to approve the quotes. jon: i took 90 pages to her, she took nothing off of the record. as far as presidential families go, i could not imagine a more gracious, open, and welcoming group. they are comfortable with what they did. the 43rd president was not a big fan of this project. he said that publicly. he was skeptical of me. the case i made, it was my initiative was, this is a man who needs to be seen as his own figure. not simply as precursor. at some point king david was just king david.
he was not a forerunner. i read the diaries. classic george herbert walker bush, he said read the diaries, i want to make sure you think something is there. he said to jean becker, what if he just finds an empty deck of cards? he told me two things that were heartbreaking. he said sometimes i feel i can -- like an asterisk. lost between the glory of reagan and the trials and relations of my son. the other key element i think was that he did not know there was enough there there. charlie: there there meaning his historical record?
not so much his diaries and recordings? jon: he worried there was not that much stuff to write about him. i have a note from him from 2008. after i published a biography of andrew jackson. he writes, it is a little overwhelming to think i would be following a lion. because i called the book, "american lion." he said to me afterward, because i had written about winston churchill, andrew jackson, he told me, i am not fdr, i am not churchill, i am not a lion. what he was was a unique american odyssey. we shall not see his like again. part of his appeal is that he did not think he was -- he does not understand even to this hour, he does not fully appreciate the impact he had on the country. charlie: the impact was?
jon: jon: he ended the cold war. without firing a shot. charlie: he navigated the sense that the russians did not feel that he was jumping all over them. jon: for those who think the personal does not matter in the political, our friend henry kissinger says it does not matter if they like you, it does not matter because of nations are not a character of people, not true. charlie: in bush's belief, they do matter. jon: he believed that everyone deserved their place in the sun. if you want to see a direct line between the character of have half bush, go to november, 1989, when the berlin wall was falling. he was able to put himself in the shoes of the hardliners of the soviet union. he was able to think, what would i be doing if i were seen as sticking it in gorbachev's year
-- ear. i think you meant "eye." this is going to be tough. there is national pride, there could have been a backlash. he took enormous amount of pressure. george mitchell, all of the people saying, he does not get the poetry of the fall of the wall. it is insane. george herbert walker bush understood the poetry of that. but he understood more importantly, that poetry is not all politics is about. he had to govern. charlie: one of the things that connected the first world war to the second was resentment. jon: if you asked him, what are you proudest of, he says german unification. because of the life he led. he understood that the europeans
-- thatcher, others were very wary of a reunified germany. as churchill once said, the hun is always at your feet or your throat. he was shot down in the pacific but he watched japan become a great ally and trading partner of the united states. he was looking forward. he was willing to move past history. in the popular mind, you look at someone like bush and you see someone hopelessly attached to the past, but he was attached to the future. charlie: phi beta kappa? in: and 2.5 years minor economics. he graduated from high school, he turned 18, and then he took th as an aviator.
he had considered joining the canadian air force to get to the fight more quickly. he immediately joins up in june. he flies torpedo bombers, flies 58 combat missions. 2, 1944,ay, september he is shot down. but he finishes his mission, drops the bomb on the towers where he is aiming. he comes back out this way. that is the way they were supposed to get out. he bails out. he is almost decapitated. the plane keeps going, he gashes his head. his life raft fortunately landed near him. hours out there. a submarine on lifeguard duty picked them up. i asked him, do you think about dell delaneyost,
and ted white? on one of the many occasions he this when i went through process, he said i think about them every day. i asked why i was spared and if i did enough. i think why i was spared is one of the key factors that led him to the pinnacle of political power. he realized every moment he was given, he needed to become commensurate with that sacrifice. add to that, the loss of their daughter. they lost robin. charlie: four years old. jon: neither of them had heard the word leukemia until the diagnosis was given to them. they finished the war, gone to yale for 2.5 years, got in a red
studebaker, stopped in abilene, orders his first meal. he orders chicken fried steak, he is not sure if his is chicken fried like a steak or steak fried like a chicken. he starts his business. robin becomes sick. he goes back and forth to new york as they try to treat her. he wrote a letter to his mother about robin in the late 1950's. he said, we need a girl. we need a dollhouse to stand against the forts. curls tooft, fragrant go with the crew gets. we need someone who when she gets into bed is not rough and tumble. it is an amazing letter. i asked him to read it. we were sitting in his office in houston, he read it. he broke down in physical sobs.
long before he finished. he cried so loudly in fact that his chief of staff came into the room. she said, why did you want him to do that? i said, because if you want to know someone's heart -- before i could finish the president finished my sentence by saying, you have to know what breaks it. i asked him, what did you learn from all of this? he said, life is unpredictable and fragile. i am convinced that the loss of those two men in the pacific and the loss of robin infused this life code to always look forward. to make yourself worthy of your being spared. it created in him, what his parents had laid the foundations to strive tos
serve and succeed. i said to him once, if it was all about service, you could have opened a soup kitchen. he said, that is right. he said, my goal has always been to be the captain of the team. my motivation has been goal. the drama of his life, between service and doing what it took to succeed in politics. ♪ charlie: family.
out since youme have written this, the relationship between 43 and 41. we know that he had great resentment against donald rumsfeld and dick cheney for how had served inney the white house. and rumsfeld, who he had not swagger.ause of his thing, interesting making those criticisms, he says, it was my son that was responsible. jon: it is classic. they are the only criticisms that i know of that he has made. he says the buck stops there.
a couple things on this. what i think is important to understand, president bush, when he criticizes cheney and rumsfeld, he was criticizing more style than substance. 43 and 41 were closer together. charlie: with the idea that saddam should be removed. jon: right. they were closer on that than people think. most people in this zip code continues to think he was sitting at walker's point shaking his head. we have the letter he wrote his son saying, ratifying. what did bother him was the swaggering style. and the criticism of 43 was that he should not have said axis of evil. he did not think that would be seen as historically benefiting. these comments were made in 2008, 2009, 2010 when there was much conversation as you recall of expanding the war on terror
beyond iraq and afghanistan, possibly to iran. that is the context. i took everything, cheney and rumsfeld saw all this. i took the comments to everyone and i gave everyone a full chance to respond. 43, who was surprised and intrigued, because he said, my father never said any of this to me, said, my rhetoric could get hot at times. he joked and said, they understood me in midland. charlie: was it last night you were in dallas at the bush library? jon: sunday night. charlie: you are interviewed by 43. what was that like? jon: he was curious why i chose to write about dad, or his father as he put it.
charlie: rather than me? what did i think made him go, what made him tick. charlie: was he genuinely curious? jon: he wrote a book about his father. whats mainly curious about was in the diaries. charlie: that brings up the story, he, bush 43 wanted the diaries for his own book. he could not get access because bush 41 had given them to you, true? jon: i think there is an element of truth. charlie: what is the element that is not? jon: my first-hand knowledge is that the diaries had been given to me for the use of this biography, and an ultimate
scholarly edition of all of the diaries. that had been our agreement. george herbert walker bush stood by that. charlie: did he say to his son, i'm sorry, i have given them to jon meacham? jon: i am from chattanooga. i don't know. i doubt that conversation took place. charlie: the story i understand to be true is that 43 was not happy. jon: his rhetoric could get hot. charlie: why are you being like a bush? jon: i don't have first-hand knowledge. charlie: don't you assume it is true? he wanted to write about his father. he wanted to show things that no one else knew. here is the one thing that would've shown the world his own. jon: here is some speculation.
i think that if president bush 43 self describes his project in his biography of 41 as a love letter. i have a feeling that if that decision were taken that they would stick by the agreement with me, that as an independent biographer, i believe the contents of those diaries would have more credibility and impact if they were coming from someone who was not in the dna pool. charlie: this is an admiring biography. it is not uncritical. noticeablesm that is is a criticism he denied any knowledge of iran-contra. jon: he did. charlie: that evidently made you
seeth. jon: what puzzles me about his reaction to iran-contra is he was in the loop. he famously said he was not in the loop. charlie: why would he lie? jon: machiavellian. that is the key point of a political life. charlie: he thought it was ok to lie if the ends justify the means? it was an operation to free american hostages and open up channels with iran. let's be clear. he initially denied it was true. he then became an advocate for getting everything out as soon as possible. but he would shift his story. some days he would say, i cannot tell you what i told ronald reagan. some days he would say, well i expressed reservations.
what i think it tells you, he was an old spymaster. he was a realist. he wanted to be loyal to reagan. this was breaking in 1986, on the eve of the 1988 campaign. the phrase i use is, i believe that his reaction to iran-contra was unworthy of his essential character. he is a gentleman, a man of honor, and in the crucible he decided to obfuscate on an important decision. it was the wrong policy. george sholes was against it. they sat in meetings with ronald reagan. he did not think they were against it. neither george schultz or caspar weinberger could understand how george bush could say that. i have a feeling that president
bush selectively remember these things. charlie: there is generous. jon: you have to judge the whole. there is another thing, he was against the 1964 civil rights act. fundamental piece of american scripture at this point. what did he do in 1968 when he had gotten into congress? he voted for open housing to lift racial discrimination from the real estate sales. he ran a brutal campaign in 1988 against michael dukakis who they referred to as a midget nerd in his diary. when he got to washington, he did everything he could to establish a political culture of consensus. tell me a republican president today who would sign the americans with disabilities act. find me a republican president today.
charlie: maybe his son. jon: maybe. but one of the reasons i call this destiny and power, is he always believed he was the best man for the job. people fought -- thought you would be president long before it became a probability. if you believe that and your ompromises are not cynical -- charlie: there is also reagan. how did he see reagan? was he in awe? jon: he was against him for years and years. opposed him from 1968 forward. barely got on the ticket in 1980. only after the ford deal fell apart. charlie: which could never have
succeeded anyway. jon: when you think about moments of roads not taken -- let's just say that henry kissinger and alan greenspan had managed to make the deal happen and put a reagan ford ticket, it would have won. neither george bush would have been president. i asked them both. i said to the president and 43, i said if ford had become president, would you have become president? no. 43, no way. our modern political world took shape in detroit in the third week of july of 1980. charlie: george bush was on the ticket as vice president, he was defeated by bill clinton. you think that defeat marks the end of the 20th century politically? jon: i do.
last president of the world war ii generation and the emergence of a boomer generation that viewed the world differently. reagan grew to like bush. mrs. reagan never signed on to the bushes. she did not like the fact that bush had run in the primaries. george bush would put on jogging shorts and run through snow drifts to get pictures taken to show off that he was 55 years old and ronald reagan was 69. there was an implication that reagan was too old. bush played to that. it is wildly unfair. you cannot imagine a more loyal set of people. charlie: this last question is in the news today, is this
notion of what was the relationship between father and son? beyond the criticism of cheney and rumsfeld during the iraq war. jon: i think there was one substantive conversation that we know of at camp david in 2002. george w. bush walked his father through the diplomacy, inspections, everything. the former president said, if the man will not comply, you have to do what you have to do. when the operation was launched in march of 2003, there was an exchange of letters between the men. the letter from father to son is incredibly warm. ratifying the course. it says you are now facing a set of problems that perhaps no president has faced since lincoln. because the iraq operation was seen then as a war on terror to
keep americans safe on the homeland. charlie: i thought it was seen as the war because saddam had weapons of mass destruction. jon: that would possibly get into the hands of terrorists and be used against us. charlie: you get the feeling within hisge love family. a huge sense of responsibility goes back to prescott. now there is jeb. it looks like an unsuccessful run. jon: early days. charlie: agreed. but does that disappoint him? does he speak to that? jon: we do not talk about that. we closed this up before the book. charlie: i am asking about the man you know. i think he cares so deeply,
he feels all the press criticism, every bad poll. charlie: and follows them? jon: he watches the news religiously. he is a political junkie. he follows it all. i think he is hoping against hope that the republican party returns to an appreciation for a two term governor of florida he believes to be the best man. charlie: was it tolstoy that said happy families are all alike, unhappy families are all unique in their own way? jon: it is a happy family. history has struck them twice, could strike them three times. i think that both george w bush and jeb bush are in politics because it is the best way they think they can pay homage to the most important, interesting, and
compelling man they know. their father. charlie: david mccullough, who knows something about history, the more time passes, the more dust settles, the clearer it becomes. george h.w. bush and the strength of character he brought to his service of his country deserves more attention and appreciation. now comes destiny and power. jon meacham's altogether fair, insightful biography of the 41st president, a portrait made especially compelling by the author's remarkable access to bush's private white house diaries. this is a timely, first-rate book. thank you. back in a moment. ♪
charlie: hannah rothschild is here. she is a writer, documentarian, and philanthropist. she recently became the first female chair of the board of the national gallery in london. her debut novel is called the improbability of love. it explores the london art scene and it features a talking painting. i am pleased to have hannah rothschild of the table. welcome. hannah: thank you. novel, hannahnew
rothschild writes about a familiar world. where is the photograph taken? hannah: that was a house that belonged to earl spencer and prince william and prince harry. we rescued it. that is the cherry on the cake. i'm not talking about myself. talking about the house. disclosure, you and your father are great friends of mine. did he introduce you as a young girl to the joy of art? hannah: very much so. if i wanted to see him, i had to go to museums. they were like a playground. charlie: it was the joy of being with him, rather than seeing art. hannah: the art was boring. it hung around and did not say anything. i wish pictures would talk. charlie: when did you begin to love it?
hannah: literally when i started to learn about it. when i learned about who had owned it, who the people were in the pictures. it was more of an intellectual understanding and love. when i was 16 i think i came face-to-face with a painting by waso, and that was my first real sucker punch. this person understands i am feeling. charlie: what role does it play? hannah: a huge role. i am the chair of the national gallery. i write about it, partly because i am surrounded by it. we also run a house which is stuffed full of art. wherever i go now. the child dragged around the gallery, little did i know it would end up being the place i chose to be. charlie: i want to talk with the art scene later, but more about you. i assume painting is your preferred form of art? hannah: it is the thing i know about, maybe that is why. charlie: was it difficult to
accept the chair your father had held before? hannah: i was appointed by the prime minister. it was not direct nepotism. but my father is my secret weapon. charlie: in what way? hannah: he has been there, done that, he is fantastically wise. he is very pragmatic. most issues that crop up, i can say, what would you do? he can say, actually what i did. it is nice. it has brought us close together. charlie: what is your first order? hannah: my first order? the national gallery has been told to prepare for between 25% to 40% cuts. that is huge. can you imagine? we can thank the chancellor. we will not know until december how big it will be. i am determined it should remain free.
it is free of charge at the moment. charlie: isn't that wonderful? hannah: it is amazing. met it is also free, but you are encouraged to make a donation. but i am determined it will stay free. charlie: how much do you want to change it? hannah: i do not know that i want to change the institution, but we do have a fantastic site at the back which would make an amazing extension. in addition to finding an extra 40% for running cost, i would not mind finding an angel who would like to give me $200 million for new buildings. if anyone is watching. charlie: are you still going to make films? hannah: making films is difficult. i like to embed myself. i follow people around for 10 months, and i have other things to do. charlie: where did the novel come from? hannah: it came from the little girl running around the gallery.
eventually i got pictures to talk. it chatters. being in the art world, and meeting people, and seeing them, what great characters. the russian oligarchs, the politicians, the hard curators. all people you have had on your show. as you know, they are rich fodder. charlie: indeed. and distinct personalities. we just had an auction in which someone paid $107 million for a painting. the highest ever. hannah: is that more than the picasso? i think it is. charlie: i was not in the running. hannah: nor was i. that is the thing. museums cannot afford to buy pictures. that is the sad thing.
charlie: i wonder if it is said, they are trophies for people, rather than a love of art. hannah: it has to be. there is no way you can say something which is just a piece of material with oil is worth $170 million. the wonderful thing about paintings is the price is about desire. it is about how much someone wants to pay for it. charlie: how bad do you want this? but does anyone have $170 million to waste? charlie: i think a lot of people have that money to spend on a painting. not a lot, but enough. hannah: the core of the book is how we value art. why we pay stuff for it. what it means to different people. it meant something to the person who bought it.
quite a lot to the auctioneer. charlie: probably a lot to other people who drove the price up. hannah: exactly. along with a, fantastic figure, there is of course 150 stories around it. pictures go in and out of fashion. a painting, i don't know what it sold for 50 years ago, probably a fraction of what it sold for today. even less when he painted it. it is a crude desire. and it is a crude admiration. charlie: it is the second highest price. you were right. bought by a chinese businessman. hannah: is that right? i didn't know that. charlie: my impression about the chinese is they are primarily not buying western art, but their own art. an aficionadoot
at all, but somebody said when newly rich nations start by buying things from their own history, and then they get more confident. they will start buying the totemic pieces. at the moment, picasso, renoir. with confidence they start looking further. perhaps that is why this chinese person bought it. charlie: i have often asked this question, i have had the chance to no good collectors who have a good eye, people you know. they all say to me someone with a great eye, when they know what is the best picasso, they know. they can see and have an instinct. they have studied, they have immersed themselves. what is your definition of a good eye? hannah: a good eye is someone who matches instinct and knowledge and experience.
so that you can have someone who has lots of money and lots of experience, but doesn't necessarily have instinct. it is about pouncing. charlie: a good eye is being able to see an artist before he or she is famous. you know the picasso will make a lot of money. it has been established, for the most part. but with someone that is a young, beginning artist, or arriving who has not had an international reputation, a good eye could see it. hannah: great academics make a market. with great selling powers, and incredible scholarships, they find masterpieces and they make them seem glamorous and desirable. he even got his restorer to
alter the shape of eyes to look more like the film stars of the day. you can make a market. charlie: what did it take for you to decide, i have enough to write? i know enough? i have met enough interesting people to understand the dynamics of the culture? hannah: that is a good question. i don't think i ever thought i knew enough. i am not sure i do. i set off on a journey, it seems to work. when i knew it was quite fun, then i thought i have something here. i certainly do not know enough. i went today to the met, i thought, i know nothing. there are so many extraordinary things to learn about. charlie: favorite novel is "scoop." why? hannah: even war makes me laugh.
it also makes me slightly horrified and eviscerates the character. it conjures people like a brilliant artist. charlie: if you made that character up -- one piece of music by thelonious monk. abandons all plans. hannah: literally. not knowing if he would accept her in any way. hannah: she did not meet him for four years, at the time he had been busted for heroin. he was locked up. charlie: she waited for him. it's amazing. charlie: it's like a movie. hannah: it will be a series for a well-known television station. charlie: the bbc. jon: am i allowed to say? it is for amazon.
charlie: they are doing a lot of original programs. how is the family? hannah: that is a big question. charlie: fighting? hannah: always. charlie: fathers and sons are speaking? are they? hannah: fathers and sons had lunch recently. that is all fine. any family, any big family is complicated. ours is absolutely no exception to the rule. charlie: when you got ready to write this novel, the knowledge of the contemporary art market was with you, the new york times said she has been involved to capture it well. her novel is not unsympathetic, but it does expose some of the fairly sharp practices in this world, which is unregulated to say the least, not very transparent. hannah: i think it is a strange thing.
you have this world. there are very few regulations. for example, this thing of, when you go into an auction and the auctioneer can take bids from off of the wall. meaning he can have someone there who wants the painting and upcan bid that person without necessarily having an opponent. i don't think that is completely straight. there is another thing where you can go and offer someone a huge guarantee to underwrite how much their work will get. someone will underwrite it so they know at the end of the day if it doesn't fetch that, it will go. there are all sorts of slightly nefarious practices to guarantee high prices. is that right? is that a level playing field? probably not. can you prove it, probably not. charlie: and you chose and juan
-- antoine ratos. an 18th-century painter, whose brief career provided interest. there was little known about him, which is brilliant. if i had written about picasso, there would be massive. we know he was born, he died, and he had a miserable life. i thought, perfect. i didn't want people knowing too much. there was enough going on. charlie: was it hard going up as a rothschild? hannah: i don't know any other way to grow up. that was the only thing i knew. charlie: my impression of you is that you have grown with new adventures, have grown more confident. hannah: i am a completely different person than the one you met. charlie: what was that?
hannah: it was difficult to live up to some of the people in my family. my father, my grandfather, my aunt, there was miriam, the men and women were all larger-than-life. i had to go out and achieve things of my own right. i had to make my mistakes to feel like it was all right. charlie: it turned out all right. hannah: so far so good. thank you. charlie: hannah rothschild, the improbability of love. thank you for joining us, see you next time. ♪ angie: it is noon in hong kong.