One of the most damaging repercussions of this was the often-brutal suppression of the monasteries. With 1-in-50 of England’s adult male population belonging to a religious order and monasteries owning around a quarter of all cultivated land in the country, the Dissolution of the Monasteries uprooted thousands of lives and changed the political and religious landscape of England forever.

So why did it happen?

Criticism of monastic houses had been growing

Long before Henry VIII‘s break with Rome the monastic houses of England had been under scrutiny, with stories of their lax religious conduct circulating the country’s elite spheres. Although there were vast monastic complexes in almost every town, most of them were only half-full, with those living there barely abiding by strict monastic rules.

The immense wealth of the monasteries also raised eyebrows in the secular world, who believed that their money may be better spent on England’s universities and parish churches, particularly as many spent exorbitantly inside the monasteries’ walls.

High up figures such as Cardinal Wolsey, Thomas Cromwell, and Henry VIII himself sought to limit the powers of the monastic church, and as early as 1519 Wolsey had been investigating corruption in a number of religious houses. In Peterborough Abbey for example, Wolsey found that its abbot had been keeping a mistress and selling goods for a profit and duly had it shut down, instead using the money to found a new college at Oxford.

This idea of corruption would become key in the dissolution when in 1535 Cromwell set about collecting ‘evidence’ of untoward activity within the monasteries. Though some believe these tales to be exaggerated, they included cases of prostitution, drunken monks, and runaway nuns – hardly the behaviour expected from those dedicated to celibacy and virtue.

Henry VIII broke with Rome and declared himself Supreme Head of the Church

The push towards more drastic reform was deeply personal however. In the Spring of 1526, having grown restless with waiting for a son and heir from Catherine of Aragon, Henry VIII set his sights on marrying the enamouring Anne Boleyn.

Boleyn had recently returned from the French royal court and was now a sparkling courtier, well-versed in the courtly game of love. As such, she refused to become the king’s mistress and would settle only for marriage, lest she be cast aside as her elder sister had been.

Driven by love and an intense anxiety to provide an heir, Henry set about petitioning the Pope to grant him an annulment from his marriage to Catherine in what became known as the ‘King’s Great Matter’.

A portrait of Henry VIII by Holbein thought to be from around 1536.

Image Credit: Public domain

Setting Cardinal Wolsey on the task, a number of challenging factors delayed the proceedings. In 1527, Pope Clement VII was virtually imprisoned by Holy Roman Emperor Charles V during the Sack of Rome, and following this was heavily under his influence. As Charles happened to be Catherine of Aragon’s nephew, he was unwilling to budge on the topic of divorce as not to bring shame and embarrassment to his family.

Eventually Henry realised he was fighting a losing battle and in February 1531, he declared himself Supreme Head of the Church of England, meaning he now had jurisdiction on what exactly happened to its religious houses. In 1553, he passed a law forbidding clerics to appeal to ‘foreign tribunals’ in Rome, severing their ties with the Catholic Church on the continent. The first step to the demise of the monasteries was set in motion.

He sought to destroy Papal influence in England

Now in charge of England’s religious landscape, Henry VIII set about ridding it of the Pope’s influence. In 1535, Thomas Cromwell was made Vicar General (Henry’s second in command) and sent letters to all the vicars in England, calling for their support of Henry as the Head of the Church.

Thomas Cromwell by Hans Holbein.

Image Credit: The Frick Collection / CC

Under intense threat, almost all of England’s religious houses agreed to this, with those who initially refused suffering heavy consequences. The friars from the Greenwich house were imprisoned where many died of maltreatment for example, while a number of the Carthusian monks were executed for high treason. Simple obedience was not enough for Henry VIII however, as the monasteries also had something he was desperately in need of – vast wealth.

He needed the immense wealth of the monasteries

After years of lavish spending and costly wars, Henry VIII had frittered away much of his inheritance – an inheritance painstakingly amassed by his frugal father Henry VII.

In 1534, a valuation of the Church was commissioned by Thomas Cromwell known as the Valor Ecclesiasticus, which demanded all religious establishments give authorities an accurate inventory of their lands and revenues. When this was completed, the Crown had for the first time a real image of the Church’s wealth, allowing Henry to set in motion a plan to repurpose their funds for his own use.

In 1536, all small religious houses with an annual income of less than £200 were ordered to be closed under the Act for the Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries. Their gold, silver, and valuable materials were confiscated by the Crown and their lands sold off. This initial round of dissolutions made up around 30% of England’s monasteries, yet more were soon to follow.

Catholic revolt pushed further dissolutions

Opposition to Henry’s reforms were widespread in England, particularly in the north where many staunchly Catholic communities persevered. In October 1536, a large uprising known as the Pilgrimage of Grace took place in Yorkshire, in which thousands marched into the city of York to demand a return to the ‘true religion’.

This was soon crushed, and though the king promised clemency for those involved, over 200 were executed for their roles in the unrest. Afterwards, Henry came to view monasticism as synonymous with treachery, as many of the religious houses he had spared in the north had participated in the uprising.

The Pilgrimage of Grace, York.

Image Credit: Public domain

The following year, inducements to the larger abbeys began, with hundreds forfeiting their deeds to the king and signing a document of surrender. In 1539, the Act for the Dissolution of the Greater Monasteries was passed, forcing the remaining bodies to close – this was not without bloodshed however.

When the last abbot of Glastonbury, Richard Whiting, refused to relinquish his abbey, he was hung drawn and quartered and his head displayed over the gate of his now-deserted religious house.

In total around 800 religious institutions were closed in England, Wales, and Ireland, with many of their precious monastic libraries destroyed in the process. The final abbey, Waltham, closed its doors on 23 March 1540.

His allies were rewarded

With the monasteries suppressed, Henry now had vast amounts of wealth and masses of land. This he sold off to nobles and merchants loyal to his cause as a reward for their service, who in turn sold it off to others and became increasingly wealthy.

Not only did this strengthen their loyalties, but also built a wealthy circle of Protestant-leaning nobles around the Crown – something that would become vital in instilling England as a Protestant country. During the reigns of Henry VIII’s children and beyond however, these factions would grow into conflict as the successive monarch’s adapted their own faiths to that of their regime.

With the ruins of hundreds of abbeys still littering England’s landscape – Whitby, Rievaulx and Fountains to name a few – it is hard to escape the memory of the thriving communities that once occupied them. Now mostly atmospheric shells, they sit as a reminder of monastic Britain and the most blatant consequences of the Protestant Reformation.

Known to most English speakers as simply, “Anne of Cleves”, the twenty-four-year-old woman managed to wed Henry VIII of England as his fourth wife, see their marriage annulled, and receive a handsome settlement from Henry, all within seven months of her arrival.

After the annulment, Anna was elevated to the position of the king’s sister, second only to his immediate family members.

Early Life

Born 28 June 1515 according to German primary sources, the young duchess received a very practical education. She learned the basics of running a large household, cooking, making and mending clothes, and how to read and write German. Given her family’s strong ties to the Burgundian court, Anna may have learned a little Burgundian French. She likely had a passing familiarity with the Latin used during mass or in a book of hours.

Anna, her parents, and her brother Wilhelm were Catholics their entire lives. Her older sister Sybylla and younger sister Amalia were the only family members who openly converted to Lutheranism.

Marriage

At Anna and Henry’s first encounter on 1 January 1540, they got along famously. English records created for the annulment of Anna’s marriage talk about how Henry was not attracted to Anna.

The German sources, created a mere few days after Anna’s first meeting and marriage to Henry, talk of how well the two seemed to get along. Henry even gave Anna a gilded crystal goblet, encrusted with diamonds and rubies. They socialized late into the evening.

Anne of Cleves by Wencelas Hollar

A political pawn

Henry came back the next morning to enjoy his breakfast with his new bride. Unfortunately, their marriage was effectively over before it began because of the machinations of Anna’s younger brother, Duke Wilhelm V of Cleves.

Wilhelm was in a simmering fight with Holy Roman Emperor Charles V over the Duchy of Guelders. Wilhelm could already count the powerful Elector of Saxony as a brother-in-law. To strengthen Wilhelm’s military might even more, he gladly married Anna to Henry. While Anna was on her way to England, Wilhelm was secretly in talks with Francis I of France, too.

Anna delayed writing to Wilhelm for as long as possible. She was effectively trapped in England as a political refugee due to the conflict between Wilhelm and Charles V. Henry adopted Anna as his sister, and granted her several properties so she could maintain herself. Anna quietly slipped away from court for the remainder of 1540.

The King’s Sister

When she finally came back for New Year’s 1541, Anna was poised and charming. She accepted her replacement, the young Catherine Howard, well.

After Catherine’s downfall later that year, and continuing on until Henry married Catherine Parr in July 1543, there was serious chatter that Anna and Henry might remarry. Fresh evidence was brought back from Germany that Anna was free to marry. Anna’s brother Wilhelm, who would start the Cleves War with the Emperor in Spring 1543, was anxious to have Henry as an ally again. Anna, for her part, kept her nose out of politics.

Life after Henry

After Henry’s death in 1547, Anna was treated quite poorly by her one-time stepson Edward, who never developed a relationship with her. Anna’s fortunes changed for the better when her eldest stepdaughter, Mary I, became queen in July 1553. Mary was a mere 8 months younger than Anna, and there is reason to believe the two were friends.

During the Catholic Mary’s correspondence with Anna’s Catholic brother Wilhelm, Mary repeatedly referred to Anna as her, “dear sister and cousin”. Even when Anna was implicated in the Wyatt Rebellion, she still got away with a slap on the wrist. It is likely that the rumors which wrapped up Anna in the Wyatt Rebellion were simply that, and Mary was clever enough to see right through them.

Mary Tudor by Antonis Mor (1554). Image credit: CC

When Anna died in July 1557, she asked Mary to bury her wherever Mary thought suitable. Mary chose the south side of the high altar in Westminster Abbey, although Anna’s tomb is usually not pointed out. A much grander tomb for Anna was planned, but never came to fruition.

Mary had the unenviable task of writing to Wilhelm (and, vicariously, to Anna’s younger sister Amalia) to inform Wilhelm of Anna’s death and disposition. Anna’s final gifts to Wilhelm and Amalia were sent to them with the help of Mary, as well.

Anna, a victim of her brother’s political ambition, was well-regarded in her adopted country of England. Though there were some remarks about her seemingly curious behavior, it turns out the behavior was not curious at all: it was simply German. Anna clearly had a friendship with Mary I, and likely had one with Elizabeth I.

Anna’s father adopted religious tolerance in Jülich-Cleves-Berg in the 1520s and 1530s; Elizabeth I did something similar. Anna’s time in England left its mark, and she remains an interesting, enigmatic, important part of both English and German history to this day.

Heather Darsie is studying for her Master’s in Early Modern History through Northern Illinois University, focusing on the history of the Holy Roman Empire under Charles V. Her language training in German, French and Spanish has been indispensable writing about Anna von der Mark, Hereditary Duchess of Cleves and Anna’s family. Her book Anna, Duchess of Cleves: The King’s ‘Beloved Sister’ is published by Amberley books.

At various times a royal citadel, palace, menagerie, observatory, public records office, mint, arsenal and, even to this day, the home of the crown jewels of England, since 1100 it has famously served as a prison for notorious traitors, heretics, and even royalty.

Out of the more than 8,000 unfortunate souls, many who were imprisoned in the Tower never left. Those who did, often did so without their head. For a small number, however, the supposedly impenetrable walls proved merely a minor nuisance.

Here are 5 of the very best escapes from ‘The Tower’.

1. Ranulf Flambard, escaped 1101

Influential in establishing the Domesday Book, Ranulf Flambard was Bishop of Durham and a key supporter of the tyrannical William Rufus.

A keen builder, he oversaw the construction of Durham Cathedral, the first stone London Bridge, Westminster Hall and – most ironically – a curtain wall around the Tower of London.

The South View of the Tower of London” engraving, published in 1737 (Credit: Nathaniel Buck, Samuel Buck, British Museum).

The accession of William’s younger brother, Henry I, saw a dramatic downturn in Ranulf’s fortunes. Removed from all offices of state and charged with embezzlement, Flambard became the first official prisoner of the Tower.

For 6 months, he wiled his time away patiently.Renowned for his qualities as an entertainer, he frequently hosted banquets for his gaolers.

After slowly building their trust, on 2 February 1101 the canny cleric organised one such event, taking note to ensure extra quantities of wine.

Once his captors were inebriated, he used a rope that had been smuggled into his cell and abseiled down the walls. Despite the end of the rope being about 20 feet from the ground, he managed to scale the curtain wall to where a horse had been left for him by his allies.

2. Alice Tankerville, escaped 1534

The only escapee of Henry VIII’s reign, Alice Tankerville was the first and only woman to flee the Tower.

Condemned to death for stealing a shipment of 366 crowns and brought to the Tower, the reputedly charming woman managed to befriend two of the gaolers – William Denys and John Bawd.

Having fallen in love with his prisoner, Bawd agreed to help her escape. Buoyed by claims from Denys that the Coldharbour Gate had a plausible escape route, Bawd purchased two long pieces of rope and had a second key cut of the tower’s outer door.

On the night of the next new moon, Tankerville escaped with the help of her gaoler, whose securing of a rope to an iron hook ensured their way down the parapets from St Thomas’ Tower.

After sailing a small boat across the moat, they disembarked at the Iron Gate Steps and fled along a nearby road where Bawd had prepared two horses.

There, disaster struck. Posing as young lovers, the guise failed to fool the returning night watch.

On 31 March 1534, the hapless couple were carted to the walls that lined the river’s embankment and enchained at low tide, while Bawd was left above the walls to experience exposure and dehydration.

Guilty or innocent, the gold was never found.

3. Edmund Neville, escaped twice 1585-1610

The Tower of London, 1647 (Credit: Wenceslaus Hollar, Project Gutenberg)

In the Tower’s long history, only two of its prisoners are believed to have twice escaped.

Neville’s first experience of the Tower began in 1584 on suspicion of his involvement in the Parry Plot against Elizabeth I. Using a small file, he patiently worked away at the bars of his window until he managed to make his way out.

Despite managing to flee the city, an alert horseman took notice of his strange appearance and odour from swimming in the Tower moat, and he was returned to his cell.

Neville attempted the same escape a couple of years later, aided by a rope smuggled in by his wife. Making his way through the same window, he discovered that the rope was significantly too short and guards were alerted to the splashing noise of his drop into the moat.

Still undeterred, the thrice-shackled prisoner set about a third attempt. After 6 frustrating years, he succeeded brilliantly in tricking his gaoler by sitting practically motionless before, one night, creating a straw mannequin and dressing it in his own clothes.

Having also created fake tools and dressed himself up as a blacksmith, he waited for his gaoler to enter his cell only to be discovered trying to make his exit.

Within two years it was decided that Neville no longer posed a significant threat and was finally exiled to the Continent.

4. William Maxwell, escaped 1715

‘Jacobite Troops Surrendering Their Arms to General Wills in Preston Market Place’, 1715 (Credit: Holmes, Richard, Harris Museum).

A Stuart loyalist, William Maxwell, 5th Earl of Nithsdale was captured and taken to the Tower for his part in the Jacobite rebellion, after proclaiming the ‘old pretender’ James Edward Stuart king in the Scottish borders.

His wife, Lady Winifred, immediately set about securing his release, appealing to a Jacobean sympathiser and tricking her way inside St James’s Palace to seek an audience with the king – all unsuccessfully.

She then came up with an ingenious plan: to dress her husband up in women’s clothes so that he could stroll out unnoticed. On the day before his execution, she and several sympathisers smuggled in layers of garments worn below their dress.

Part one complete, Lady Nithsdale got frantically to work to add appropriate makeup before staging a mock conversation with herself as her heavily disguised husband walked free.

Nithsdale watched from an attic window the following day as two other Jacobean peers were executed for their role in the doomed rebellion. Inside the Tower, no less than 5 warders were dismissed on grounds of negligence.

Placing a guard at every road and gate leading out of the city failed to stop a magnificent coach bearing the arms of the Venetian ambassador with the errant lord on board.

Lady Winifred too passed safely by as she travelled north to secure the family papers before joining her husband overseas to end their lives happily in Rome.

5. Subaltern, escaped 1916

In 1916, a young officer was brought to the Tower and accommodated somewhere in the East Casemates. Unlike the POWs of the time, the man’s charges related to being unable to honour his cheques due to insufficient funds in his account.

The man was clearly attentive to everything around him, as was proved when he nonchalantly passed the distracted guard outside his quarters and marched through the main gate, honoured with the salutes of unsuspecting personnel.

Catching the Underground, the mystery man subsequently dined sumptuously in the West End, paying for his dinner with another fraudulent cheque.

Curiously, he decided to return to the Tower, discovering his actions had caused considerable consternation. Of his background, nothing is known. The only reference concerning the man is Subaltern.

John Paul Davis is the international bestselling author of 10 thriller novels and three historical biographies. A Hidden History of the Tower of London is his first book for Pen & Sword.

If you enjoyed this article, you can find more of John’s favourite escapes here.

But before Queen Elizabeth there were King Edward VI and Queen Mary I of England, her younger brother and older sister. And the three monarchs were only Henry VIII’s legitimate children who survived beyond a few weeks. The Tudor king also had one illegitimate child who he acknowledged, Henry Fitzroy, and is suspected of having fathered several other illegitimate children too.

Mary Tudor

Henry VIII’s oldest daughter earned herself the unfortunate nickname “Bloody Mary”

Image Credit: Hans Eworth, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons (left) / Antonis Mor, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons (right)

Mary, the oldest of Henry VIII’s legitimate children, was born to his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, in February 1516. Henry was affectionate towards his daughter but increasingly less so towards her mother who had not born him a male heir.

Henry sought for the marriage to be annulled — a pursuit that ultimately led to the Church of England breaking away from the authority of the Roman Catholic Church which had denied him an annulment. The king finally got his wish in May 1533 when Thomas Cranmer, the first Protestant archbishop of Canterbury, declared Henry’s marriage to Catherine void.

Five days later, Cranmer also declared Henry’s marriage to another woman valid. That woman’s name was Anne Boleyn and, adding insult to injury, she was Catherine’s lady in waiting.

In September of that year, Anne gave birth to Henry’s second legitimate child, Elizabeth.

Mary, whose place in the line of succession was replaced by her new half-sister, refused to acknowledge that Anne had superseded her mother as queen or that Elizabeth was a princess. But both girls soon found themselves in similar positions when, in May 1536, Queen Anne was beheaded.

Edward Tudor

Edward was Henry VIII’s only legitimate son.

Henry then married Jane Seymour, regarded by many as the favourite of his six wives and the only one to bear him a son who survived: Edward. Jane gave birth to Edward in October 1537, dying of postnatal complications shortly after.

When Henry died in January 1547 it was Edward who succeeded him, aged just nine. The king was England’s first monarch to be raised Protestant and, despite his young age, he took a great interest in religious matters, overseeing the establishment of Protestantism in the country.

Edward’s reign, which was plagued by economic problems and social unrest, came to an abrupt end in July 1553 when he died following months of illness.

The unmarried king left no children as heirs. In an effort to prevent Mary, a Catholic, from succeeding him and reversing his religious reformation, Edward named his first cousin once removed Lady Jane Grey as his heir. But Jane only lasted nine days as the de facto queen before most of her supporters abandoned her and she was deposed in favour of Mary.

During her five-year reign, Queen Mary gained a reputation for ruthlessness and violence, ordering hundreds of religious dissenters burnt at the stake in her pursuit of the restoration of Roman Catholicism in England. This reputation was so great that her Protestant opponents denounced her “Bloody Mary”, a name by which she is still commonly referred today.

Mary married Prince Philip of Spain in July 1554 but bore no children, ultimately failing in her quest to prevent her Protestant sister, Elizabeth, from becoming her successor. After Mary fell ill and died in November 1558, aged 42, Elizabeth was named queen.

Elizabeth Tudor

The Rainbow Portrait is one of the most enduring images of Elizabeth I. Attributed to Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger or Isaac Oliver.

Image Credit: Hatfield House via Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain

Elizabeth, who ruled for nearly 50 years and died in March 1603, was the last monarch of the House of Tudor. Like her brother and sister, she too bore no children. Even more surprisingly for the time, she never married (though stories of her many suitors are well documented).

Elizabeth’s long reign is remembered for many things, not least England’s historic defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, seen as one of the country’s greatest military victories.

Drama also flourished under the queen’s rule and she successfully reversed her sister’s own reversal of the establishment of Protestantism in England. Indeed, Elizabeth’s legacy is so great that her reign has a name all of its own — the “Elizabethan era”.

Whilst nearly 500 years later, we will never know the exact course of their relationship, we can certainly examine the consequences: the English Reformation and the establishment of Protestantism in England. Anne and Henry’s courtship may not have been the sole cause, but it was certainly a major factor in shaping England for the centuries to come.

Romance

Henry VIII infamously had 6 wives: but he was married to his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, for nearly 24 years. Henry met Anne Boleyn, one of Catherine’s ladies-in-waiting, around 1522: Anne was not the most beautiful woman at court, but she was well-educated, witty, attractive and exotic, having spent many of her teenage years at the French court.

By 1526, Henry was infatuated with Anne. Unlike her sister Mary, Anne refused to become Henry’s mistress, saying she would only sleep with him when they were married. The pair played at courtly love, exchanging ardent love letters and courting until Henry proposed marriage to Anne.

A 1528 love letter from Henry VIII to Anne Boleyn, in which he promises marriage.

Image Credit: Public Domain

Trying for annulment

Henry tried to get his marriage to Catherine annulled by the Pope. She had not borne him a son and heir, and years of pregnancies and miscarriages had not been kind to her. Coupled with his infatuation with Anne, Henry began to quote Biblical verses, claiming his marriage was cursed in the eyes of God, due to Catherine being his brother’s widow.

The Pope, Clement VII, was reluctant to grant Henry’s wish. Catherine was a Spanish princess and aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V: annulling her marriage would have serious political consequences. An ecclesiastical court was summoned to judge the matter in England, but after months of debate, the request for an annulment was denied.

Cardinal Wolsey, Henry’s chief minister, had spearheaded his attempts for the annulment and failed. He quickly, and dramatically fell from favour, leaving room for the quick-thinking, legally-minded Thomas Cromwell to take his place.

Cromwell and Anne pushed Henry to ignore the Pope, but a meeting of lawyers and clergy advised against it. Thus began a process which culminated in Henry becoming the Supreme Head of the Church in England, and splitting from Rome entirely.

Thomas Cromwell by Hans Holbein the Younger

Image Credit: Public Domain

Long awaited marriage

Henry still wanted support for his marriage. So he went to France and sought the approval of Francis I, the French king. Gaining an implicit approval, he then held a private ceremony in London on 25 January 1533. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, then declared Henry’s marriage to Catherine null and void, and 5 days later the marriage to Anne was declared valid. Henry couldn’t be labelled a bigamist because his marriage to Catherine was, he claimed, invalid.

This may not have been their first wedding however. Some sources point to them having married in another secret ceremony in November 1532, shortly after they returned from their meeting with Francis I in Calais.

It is possible that Anne had misgivings about this first wedding, she didn’t want to give anyone cause to doubt her legitimacy as queen. The marriage in January was done exactly by the book so there could be no doubting Anne’s position. Nor could Henry be labelled a bigamist because his marriage to Catherine was, he claimed, invalid.

The need to legitimise their union at this time was particularly important because Anne was already pregnant. Supporters of Elizabeth I, Anne and Henry’s only surviving child, later highlighted the earlier ceremony of 14 November 1532 to prove that Elizabeth was not conceived in wedlock.

The not so happily ever after

After all this Henry and Anne were finally married. Yet it would not last: the forthrightness, fiery temper and intelligence which had so enamoured Henry as a mistress were not the qualities he wanted in a wife. Anne’s inability to provide him with a son and heir was the final nail in the coffin.

Just 3 years later, in 1536, Anne was beheaded after being found guilty of adultery, incest, and treason. She maintained to her death that she had not been unfaithful, and on her execution, she declared

God save the king and send him long to reign over you, for a gentler nor a more merciful prince was there never: and to me he was ever a good, a gentle and sovereign lord.

Regardless of Anne’s guilt, or not, Henry had decided that she had to be gone. Whether or not she was actually unfaithful to him was virtually immaterial. However the machinations of her enemies (including her former ally Thomas Cromwell) and Henry’s relentless search for a son made this irrelevant. Henry quickly married Jane Seymour, who would finally fulfil his desire for an heir.

Henry’s final mercy was to have Anne beheaded by an expert swordsman, and not with an axe, bringing to a tragic enemy that love affair  that would go on to shape the nature of Christianity in England right up until the present day.

For those Tudors who could afford it, there was nothing like a good banquet to show off your wealth and social status. From interesting ingredients to intricately designed sugarcraft, banquets became a key social event, and Tudor monarchs notoriously indulged in some of the finest dishes and delicacies available.

Not Just The Tudors presenter Professor Suzannah Lipscomb discussed these banquets and how the arrival of sugar changed Tudor habits with historian Brigitte Webster. Here we take a look at what ordinary people ate and drank, and indeed what was served at these bountiful banquets.

What did the everyday Tudor eat?

Meat: The Tudors (especially the rich) ate a much wider variety and amount of meat than we do today, including calves, pigs, rabbit, badger, beaver and ox. Birds were also eaten including chicken, pheasant, pigeons, partridge, blackbirds, duck, sparrows, heron, crane and woodcock.

Wealthier Tudors would also have eaten more expensive meats such as swan, peacock, geese and wild boar. Venison was seen as the most exclusive – hunted in the deer parks of the king and his nobles.

Most peasants had small plots of land to keep chickens and pigs. Animals were generally slaughtered just before being eaten to ensure freshness (there were no fridges), and game often hung in a cold room for several days to improve flavour. Before Winter, animals were slaughtered (traditionally on Martinmas, 11 November), with meat smoked, dried or salted for preservation. Smoked bacon was the most common meat of the poor.

Fish: Meat was forbidden on a Friday and during Lent for religious reasons, and replaced with fish such as dried cod or salted herring. Those living near rivers, lakes and the sea had easier access to fresh fish – common freshwater fish consumed included eels, pike, perch, trout, sturgeon, roach, and salmon.

Herbs: Herbs were used for flavour, with wealthy Tudors commonly keeping a separate herb garden to grow what they needed.

Tudor-style kitchen in Tudor House, Southampton

Image Credit: Ethan Doyle White / CC

Bread and cheese: Bread was a staple of the Tudor diet, eaten by everyone at most meals. Wealthier Tudors ate bread made of wholemeal flour (‘ravel’ or ‘yeoman’s bread’) and aristocratic households ate ‘manchet‘, particularly during banquets. The cheapest bread (‘Carter’s bread’) was a mixture of rye and wheat – and occasionally ground acorns.

Fruit/vegetables: The Tudors ate more fresh fruit, vegetables and salad than is commonly thought. Surviving account books tended to emphasise meat purchases as vegetables were home-grown, and sometimes seen more as a food of the poor.

Fruit and vegetables were locally grown and generally eaten in season, soon after being picked. They included apples, pears, plums, cherries, strawberries, onions, cabbage, beans, peas and carrots. Some fruit was preserved in syrup, including seville oranges imported from Portugal.

Towards the end of the Tudor period during Elizabeth I’s reign, new vegetables including sweet potatoes, beans, peppers, tomatoes and maize were brought over from the Americas.

Esau and the mess of pottage, by Jan Victors 1653 – showing pottage to still be a staple dish

Image Credit: Public Domain

Pottage: 

Whilst we often think of great feasts in Tudor times, growing income inequality in the 16th century removed some sources of food and shelter for the poor (from landed gentry enclosing land to graze sheep and evicting farm labourers, to the dissolution of the monasteries).

Pottage was consequently a common staple daily diet for the poor. This was essentially a cabbage and herb-flavoured soup, with some barley or oats and occasionally bacon, served with coarse bread (sometimes peas, milk and egg-yolks were added). The rich ate pottage too, though theirs would have also contained almonds, saffron, ginger, and a dash of wine.

Beer/wine: Water was considered unhealthy and was often unfit for drinking, being contaminated with sewage. Thus everyone drank ale (including children), which was often brewed without hops so wasn’t particularly alcoholic. The rich also drank wine – under Henry VII, French wines were imported in greater quantities, yet only affordable for aristocrats.

The wider availability of sugar

Initially Tudors used honey as a sweetener as sugar was expensive to import, until an increase in its quantity and thus a more affordable price transformed diets.

Along with herbs, sugar was seen as medicinal, with people encouraged to eat sugar for its warming qualities and for ailments like colds. It’s therefore no coincidence that after the 15th century, dental health deteriorated.

Whilst initially women were deemed responsible for looking after their family’s health, towards the end of the 16th century health became medicalised (contributing to notions of ‘witches’ – often older women who had grown-up concocting medicinal remedies from sugar and herbs).

Despite its later ubiquity, medieval cooks used sugar in very small quantities – more as a seasoning to intensify sweet spices and to moderate the heat of hot spices. Thus, few dishes tasted perceptibly sweet.

Sumptuary Laws

Efforts were made to enshrine the distinctions between the classes in ‘sumptuary’ laws, which controlled what people ate according to their position. Failure to obey could earn you a fine for trying to ‘ape your betters’.

The Sumptuary Law of 31 May 1517 dictated the number of dishes that could be served per meal depending on rank (for example a cardinal could serve 9 dishes, while dukes, bishops and earls could serve 7). However, hosts could serve the number of dishes and food appropriate to the highest-ranking guest to prevent higher ranks feeling deprived when out for dinner.

Rise of the banquet

Al fresco dining originates from banqueting food. The word banquet is French, but originates from the Italian banchetto (meaning bench or table), first documented in England 1483, and again referenced in 1530 in relation to sweetmeats.

After a multiple course feast, the last ‘banquet’ course was a more special course of the feast, designed to be eaten elsewhere and indicate that guests should soon prepare to leave. Although banquets were customary following important dinners, they were far more lavish than desserts and seen as a repast of sugared medicines.

Banqueting food was essentially finger-food, usually served cold and prepared in advance. Sweet spiced wine (hippocras) and wafers (for the highest ranks) were often served to standing guests whilst staff cleared tables.

Cold and draughty great halls led to the nobility seeking smaller, warmer and more comfortable and inviting rooms to consume the last course of their feast in. Changing room provided guests with more privacy – generally staff kept out of the new room and as there was no strict seating order, the banquet developed as a social event. This was politically important in Tudor times where guests could speak out of earshot and initiate more intimate conversations.

Tudor banqueting food

The Tudor court was a place of lavish feasts. (King Henry VIII’s waistline is known to have expanded from 32 inches at age 30, to 54 inches at age 55!) The Tudor elite enjoyed a wider range of foods than English people in the mid-20th century, including lamb, early recipes for macaroni and cheese, and chickpeas with garlic. Guests were plied with the most exotic dishes, made from the most expensive ingredients and displayed in the most outrageous way.

Favourite recipes of Henry VIII included globe artichokes; Catherine of Aragon was said to enjoy seal and porpoise; Jane Seymour is documented as having a weakness for Cornish pasties and cherries, whilst Mary I was particularly fond of pears.

Tudor period food in preparation, at Sulgrave Manor, England.

Image Credit: World History Archive / Alamy Stock Photo

Banquet food features in very early Tudor cookery books. The banquet was a distinctive Tudor social institution that began at the highest level at the royal court, but filtered down to a new fashion that wealthy households wanted to copy.

Serving sugar and spices also served as an important way of showing off your wealth, influence and power – and to highlight an awareness of nutrition, with these ingredients seen as healthy at the time. Typical dishes included comfits, sweetmeats, or sugar-coated seeds and nuts, anise, carraway, fennel, corriander, almonds or angelic/ginger root.

Banqueting food was believed to boost wellbeing, facilitate digestion and act as an aphrodisiac, enhancing its reputation as a romantic feast. It also required great knowledge and skills, contributing to its aura of exclusivity. Recipes were often secret, with hosts happily preparing the treats themselves instead of servants.

The Tudor form of marzipan (marchpane) and small sugar-work sculptures also became a key and fashionable part of the banquet dessert. Initially intended to be eaten, these ended up being predominantly to show-off (designs presented to Elizabeth I included sculptures of St Paul’s Cathedral, castles, animals or chessboards to make a striking focal point).

Foods of the Tudor period with Marchpane cake (heartshape decorations)

Image Credit: Christopher Jones / Alamy Stock Photo

Wet and dry suckets (essentially sugar and fruit-based) were also a key sweet treat, some vaguely similar to present-day marmalade. This was made of a quince paste from Portugal, boiled down with lots of sugar until solid, then poured into moulds. In 1495 imports of this form of ‘marmalade’ started to attract special custom duties, highlighting it’s proliferance. Wet suckets such as this (and pears roasted in red wine) were so popular that a specialised sucket fork was made to eat them with, with fork tines at one end and a spoon at the other.

Candied fruits were also popular, including orange sucade – a dry sucket made from seville orange peel. This was submerged in water multiple times over several days to withdraw the bitterness, then boiled in lots of sugar to thicken and sweeten, then dried.

Tudor period food – candied fruit

Image Credit: World History Archive / Alamy Stock Photo

How did the Tudors eat?

The Tudors predominantly used spoons, knives and their fingers to eat. As eating was communal, having clean hands was important, and strict etiquette rules attempted to prevent anyone touching food that would be eaten by someone else.

Everyone brought their own knife and spoon to a meal (giving rise to the custom of giving a spoon as a christening gift). Although forks were used to serve, cook and carve (and started to be used at the end of the 1500s), they were largely looked down upon – considered a fancy, foreign notion. It wasn’t until the 18th century they became ubiquitous in England.

Health

Estimates suggest the Tudor nobility’s diet was 80% protein, with many feasts consisting of several thousand calories more than we would eat today. However the Tudors – including the nobility – required more calories than we do due to the phyiscal requirements of their lives, from cold houses, travel on foot or horseback, hunting, dancing, archery or hard labour or domestic work.

Nevertheless, the new Tudor appetite for sugar as a foodstuff might not have been the best health plan for their teeth, or arteries…

When and where was the Field?

The Field took place between 7 and 24 June 1520 in what is now northern France (but was then English territory called the Pale of Calais) between the towns of Guînes and Ardres.

Each side built temporary accommodation in and near the towns. The English constructed a temporary banqueting palace just outside the walls of Guînes.  It was 328 feet (100m) square. There were also hundreds of canvas tented pavilions covered in rich fabrics, including the cloth of gold that gives the event its name.

Why was the Field held?

In early 1520 Henry was 28 years of age and had been king since 1509. In 1513 Henry had personally invaded France in pursuit of his dynastic claim to the kingdom. Francis was 24 years old and had ruled France since 1515.  That year, Francis had conquered the duchy of Milan.

Endemic warfare in Italy and the Ottoman’s conquest of Egypt and Syria in 1517 prompted Pope Leo X to formulate plans for a five-year truce in Christendom.

In 1518 Cardinal Wolsey rather hijacked these plans and turned them instead into a multi-lateral non-aggression pact. All participants swore not to attack each other and to support any one of their number who was attacked by another. Henry would arbitrate disputes between them.

Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, Archbishop of York, statesman and a cardinal of the Catholic Church. As a papal legate he had immense power in the name of the pope (Leo X at the time of the meeting), by unidentified painter.

Perhaps surprisingly, the major European powers including Francis and Charles of Spain signed up. At the time Charles and Francis were keen rivals and both wanted to become Holy Roman Emperor. Charles was elected in 1519 and Francis looked to Henry as a potential ally against him.

Francis was able to purchase (rather expensively) from Henry the city of Tournai lost to the English in 1513. Henry secured increased annual payments from Francis that he regarded as ‘tribute’ for ‘his’ kingdom of France. Therefore, when Henry and Francis met in 1520, they could do so as equals and each sought to reinforce his position through offering friendship to the other, but on his own terms.

Who was at the Field?

Each king brought an entourage of between 5-6,000 people. Henry was accompanied by Queen Katherine (of Aragon). King Francis brought Queen Claude, who was heavily pregnant at the time.

Their leading nobles, courtiers and advisors such as Wolsey, who had organised the whole event, also accompanied them, with many nobles and knights who participated in the tournament, together with their wives and servants.

The two young monarchs who met at the Field of the Cloth of Gold: left, Francis I of France (reigned 1515–1547) (portrait by Jean Clouet, Louvre Museum, Paris); right, Henry VIII of England (reigned 1509–1547) (portrait after Hans Holbein the Younger, Royal Collection, Windsor Castle).

What happened during the Field?

The two kings met for the first time on Thursday 7 June, about half-way between the two towns. Surrounded by their leading nobles, they embraced and swore to uphold the alliance they had agreed. Over the following fortnight, they jointly hosted a series of tournament competitions conducted in a specially built tournament ground.

The tournament field was a joint Franco-English civil engineering project and there was nothing similar until the Concorde aircraft and the making of the Channel Tunnel in the 20^th century.

There was jousting along a barrier or ‘tilt’ that separated the competitors. This was followed a few days later by a freer form of combat called a ‘tourney’ with mixed teams of English and French knights fighting. Finally, there were foot combats across barriers between pairs of knights. Both kings fought alongside, not against, each other as the brothers in arms they now claimed to be.

Wrestling at the Field of the Cloth of Gold (tapestry, c. 1520). Francis I is shown top right, above an actual cloth of gold. (Credit: By Anonymous – http://www.sothebys.com/fr/auctions/ecatalogue/lot.14.html/2014/masterworks-n09209).

On three occasions there were extravagant banquets given by one court to the other. Francis and his immediate entourage went to Guînes while Henry went to Ardres.

The banquets had multiple courses and the English kitchen accounts list some 6,475 birds including swans. Huge numbers of deer, lamb and no fewer than 98,050 eggs were accounted for in dishes made for these English banquets.

They were followed by formal masques and dancing. Henry and Francis were both skilled dancers and showed off their talents, dressed in elaborate costumes and acted out the roles of heroes in chivalric and classical romances. Afterwards both made carefully synchronised returns to their respective residences.

The event came to an end with a High Mass celebrated by Cardinal Wolsey on 23 June. An outdoor chapel was built over the tiltyard the previous night. The cardinal proclaimed a papal indulgence for the large congregation. The following day, the two kings promised to meet again and then farewelled each other, exchanging gifts of jewelled collars, horses, cups and plate and cash.

What happened after the Field?

At the Field the two kings were testing each other’s potential as a friend as well as possible enemy. For Francis though, it was not so much Henry as Charles V who was the problem. Hoping to trigger the collective security mechanism, he covertly attacked imperial territory in 1521.

The plan backfired completely and led to open war with Charles. Both sides appealed to Henry who was finally drawn into the war on Charles’s side. He attacked France in 1523.  Francis was finally defeated and captured at the Battle of Pavia in February 1525 as he tried to recover the duchy of Milan.

Battle of Pavia, fought on the morning of 24 February 1525, was the decisive engagement of the Italian War of 1521–1526 between the Kingdom of France and the Habsburg empire of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor as well as ruler of Spain, Austria, the Low Countries, and the Two Sicilies. By Joachim Patinir.

He was compelled to sign the disadvantageous Treaty of Madrid of January 1526. Francis repudiated it as soon as he returned to France. Henry was disappointed that Charles had not supported his wish to divide France between them after Francis’s defeat.

By 1527 Wolsey had persuaded him once more to ally with Francis. A difficult but productive ‘eternal peace’ was agreed and maintained for the next fifteen years.

This peace, a legacy of the 1520 meeting, gave Henry some support as he broke from Rome over his wish for an annulment to his first marriage. Henry’s support for him, or at least indifference to Charles, helped Francis to hold his own against the most powerful ruler of Western Europe, even if he never got back his much-prized duchy of Milan.

Why was the Field significant?

The Field was an ambitious event held to affirm the ideal of royal chivalry as the best means to maintain peace and Christian unity among European states.

It could not, however, prevent the incessant dynastic conflict between Francis and Charles, and their sons, that caused so much warfare in sixteenth century Europe.

At heart, the Field of Cloth of Gold was a display by the kings of England and France of the material and human resources at their command in support of their claims to princely honour and renown. Each tried to demonstrate a compelling magnificence that enhanced his international status, whether he was at war or peace.

With its jousting kings, tents and pennants, banqueting and extravagance, the meeting has often seemed a curious instance of theatrical medievalism. Yet if understood in its proper context, the Field shows us a great deal about how Renaissance monarchy worked.

Dr Glenn Richardson is Professor of Early Modern History at St Mary’s University, Twickenham. He is the author of Renaissance Monarchy: The Reigns of Henry VIII, Francis I and Charles V (London, 2002) and The Field of Cloth of Gold (Yale and London, 2014). In 2020 Routledge published his new biography of Cardinal Wolsey.

Although he would go on to become the most infamous monarch in English history, Henry was never actually supposed to be king. Only the second son of Henry VII and Elizabeth, it was his elder brother, Arthur, who was first in line to the throne.

This difference in the brother’s statuses meant that they did not grow up together — while Arthur was learning to be king, Henry was spending much of his childhood with his mother and sisters. It seems that Henry was very close to his mother, who, unusually for the time, appears to have been the one who taught him to write.

But when Arthur died at the age of 15 in 1502, Henry’s life would change for ever. The 10-year-old prince became the next in line to the throne and all of Arthur’s duties were transferred onto him.

Fortunately for Henry, it would be a few more years before he would have to step into his father’s shoes.

Henry becomes King of England

Henry’s time came on 21 April 1509 when his father died of tuberculosis. Henry became king more or less immediately in what was the first bloodless transfer of power in England for nearly a century (though his coronation didn’t take place until 24 June 1509).

The eighth Henry’s accession to the throne was met with much rejoicing by the people of England. His father had been unpopular with a reputation for meanness and the new Henry was seen as a breath of fresh air.

And although Henry’s father had been of the House of Lancaster, his mother was from the rival House of York, and the new king was seen by Yorkists who had been unhappy during his father’s reign as one of them. This meant that the war between the two houses — known as the “War of the Roses” — was finally over.

King Henry’s transformation

Henry would go on to reign for 38 long years, during which time his reputation — and his appearance — would change drastically. Over the years Henry would transform from a handsome, athletic and optimistic man into a much larger figure known for his cruelty.

Both Henry’s appearance and personality seemed to transform during his reign.

By the time of his death on 28 January 1547, Henry would have gone through six wives, two of whom he killed. He would have also strung up hundreds of Catholic rebels in his quest to break away from the authority of the pope and the Roman Catholic Church – a goal that began, in the first place, with his desire for a new wife.

It is not quite clear what the 55-year-old Henry died of though he seems to have been in a bad way, both mentally and physically, for several years before his death.

Obese, covered in painful boils and suffering from severe mood swings, as well as a festering wound he sustained in a jousting accident more than a decade before, his last years cannot have been happy ones. And the legacy he left behind was not a happy one either.

Christianity became no longer a religion only tied to the Pope in Rome. The many denominations that now exist within Christianity-that is believing that Jesus Christ lived, died and rose from the dead as the son of God-proliferated because of the protests and reforms that took place in this period.

1. The word ‘Protestantism’ originates from German princes issuing a ‘protest’ against the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V.

Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, 1516-1556.

2. Martin Luther (1483 – 1546) was the most influential figure of the Reformation

Initially an Augustinian friar, Luther strongly disputed the claim that freedom from God’s punishment could be purchased with money. ‘Lutheranism’ is the first major branch of Protestantism to emerge.

3. Luther’s ninety five thesis represented the symbolic start of the Protestant Reformation in 1517

Luther is believed to have nailed the thesis on a church in Wittenburg.

4. ‘Justification by faith alone’ or Sola Fide in Latin is at the core of the new Lutheran ethic

1861 painting of Luther discovering the Sola fide doctrine at Erfurt, Germany.

5. Luther’s ideas spread throughout Europe. John Calvin the French theologian founded ‘Calvinism’ in Geneva from 1541

6. The doctrine of Predestination is a key difference between ‘Lutheranism’ and ‘Calvinism’

This is the belief that God chooses some to be destined to salvation whilst others to damnation.

7. Predestination only became the hallmark of Calvinism until after Calvin’s death in 1564

8. Pope Leo X’s Papal Bull of 1520, Exsurge Domine, was the first response from the papacy condemning Luther

9. The Edict of Worms declared Luther an obstinate heretic and banned the reading or possession of his writings

10. Guttenburg’s revolutionary printing press was central to the spread of new protestant ideas

In this film, Stephen Fry goes on a journey to explore the story of the printing press, and of the man who created it: Johann Gutenberg.Watch Now

11. The selling of indulgences was directly challenged by Luther in the ninety five Thesis (1517)

Johanen Tetzel was a German friar renowned for selling indulgences. Indulgences granted quicker passage through Purgatory and had traditionally only been granted through good works.

12. The Western Schism from 1378 to 1417 greatly lowered the reputation of the Catholic Church

13. The burgeoning spirit of learning as part of the Renaissance period made people question traditional thought

Florence was the city at the centre of the Renaissance. The sculptural masterpiece David, by Michelangelo (right) is at the Galleria dell’Accademia in Florence.

14. The rise of commerce and the shift to a moneyed economy was creating a stronger middle class

The headquarters of the Catholic Church was in Vatican City, Rome. It was largely controlled by the upper classes and administered for their benefit.

15. Henry VIII challenged the convention that the Church wields ultimate power

16. Many new sects of Christianity emerged.

John Wesley’s split with the protestant formed Anglican Church instigated Methodism in the early 18th century.

17. The Catholic Church responded via their own ‘Counter Reformation’

18. As part of the Counter Reformation, Ignatius Loyala became the founder of the Society of Jesus

19. The Bible was translated from Latin into vernacular languages across Europe

20. The Reformation led to a series of religious wars that culminated in the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648)

This huge war devastated much of what is now Germany, killing between 25% and 40% of its population.

What do we know about Cromwell’s very early life?

Thomas Cromwell was born in Putney around 1485. Records of his birth do not exist (it was Cromwell who established that records of births, deaths, and marriages should be kept), but shreds of evidence from records including leases indicate Cromwell’s parents were Walter and Katherine who lived in Putney after moving there to acquire land for sheep farming. The Cromwells were yeomen at the time of Thomas’ birth and lived with Walter’s brother who ran an alehouse supplying Mortlake Manor for the Archbishop of Canterbury. In 1501, Thomas’ family moved to Wandsworth to a property with a water-mill suggesting they were grinding grain or fulling cloth.

Did Cromwell flee to the Continent to escape a violent father?

The notion of Thomas Cromwell’s father being a violent man (as is depicted in Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall, for example) most likely arises from two places. First, Walter appears in a court record for assault following a dispute between him and his brother-in-law’s brother. Second, an Italian author called Matteo Bandello wrote that Cromwell fled his father. However, we should treat this evidence with caution as, in a letter written to Thomas Cromwell by his then-protégé, Anthony St Leger, Anthony praised Thomas and Walter for their goodness.

Nonetheless, Cromwell did head to the Continent around the age of 15. He did not attend university and Eustace Chapuys, imperial ambassador, noted in his mini-biography of Cromwell that he travelled to Flanders and then Italy after time in prison (in his later years Cromwell described his young self as a ‘ruffian’). During this time, it is likely Cromwell was in the French army in 1503, travelling to Florence after the French were defeated in the Battle of Garigliano, and later Antwerp.

Was he a man of faith?

Cromwell was taken into the service of Thomas Wolsey, Archbishop of York, around January 1524. In 1525, Cromwell began helping Wolsey to close or amalgamate under-performing monasteries and it seems he regarded this as a legal and business matter, not a religious one; the actions were to improve efficiency and wealth. Nonetheless, from 1526, after meeting Thomas Cranmer, Cromwell began discussing the idea of a reformation of monasteries, reflecting on how to improve them.

That said, there is much debate to be had here. Historian and author Caroline Angus believes Cromwell’s actions were largely pragmatic rather than principled, while others believe Cromwell was a reformer, citing evidence including his correspondence with the Thames Valley Lollards, a group of religious dissenters who questioned the established church, and his contact with radical reformers in Zurich and northern Switzerland.

Sampson Strong: Portrait of Cardinal Wolsey (1473-1530)

Image Credit: Christ Church via Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain

Was he loving and kind?

Although depicted by some as scheming and unpopular, we should not ignore Cromwell’s depths and complexities. Cromwell married Elizabeth Wyckes c.1514 and had three children, Gregory, Anne, and Grace. He appears to be a caring man who was loyal to his family, taking in Elizabeth’s mother, Mercy, Elizabeth’s sister, Joan, and the children of both of his sisters. Similarly, the letters that survive from Cromwell’s in-tray (that is, the letters he received) demonstrate he formed long-lasting, kind friendships, including from his time on the Continent.

The love Cromwell felt for his family seems evident in his actions after his wife and children died. Letters show that, for the first time in his professional life, payments went unpaid, replies were not sent to letters, he snapped at friends, and Bishop Gardiner even came looking for Cromwell as he could not be contacted by Wolsey. His actions were so out of character that those around him seemed genuinely concerned for his health and welfare.

How else should we characterise Cromwell?

Cromwell was well-liked and could be charming. He spoke directly, in part because he did not rely on a particular group of people for his position or status. He was a hard worker, toiling day-after-day, and seems to have been a strategic thinker. He was not given any noble recognition (apart from being Master of the King’s Jewel house in 1532) and did not seek it; his 1532/33 portrait by Holbein implies he was proud of his work as a lawyer and his membership of the Merchant Taylors’ Company (look for the scissors in his portrait), which marked his place in the world of international commerce.

What is clear is that traditional representations of Cromwell as either one thing or another are too simplistic. He was a public servant with a personal life and a complex personality.