Mary Rose: Tudor Painting and Tidal Analysis Offer Clues as to why it sank

Mary Rose: Tudor Painting and Tidal Analysis Offer Clues as to why it sank

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Skulls, the ship’s figurehead and other artifacts from the wreck of a 1545 Tudor warship have been made available to peruse online in 3D reconstructions. But why did she sink? The answer is more elusive than you might assume.

Many people think that disaster hit on her maiden voyage, sailing out of Portsmouth Harbor into the Solent. This is simply not true. The Mary Rose sank at the front of an English fleet of about 80 ships which were doggedly defending England from a French invasion. The French fleet of around 200 ships, carrying an army 30,000 strong , was anchored just off the eastern end of the Isle of Wight. The fate of England, and King Henry VIII’s crown, hung in the balance on July 19 1545 – a calm, hot, summer Sunday.

Henry’s main army was in France, defending the English possession of Calais and the town of Boulogne. So all he could muster at Portsmouth was a scratch force of inexperienced militia and farm-hands – 12,000 ill-equipped and untrained men. The English were outnumbered nearly three to one on both land and sea, so the only way of thwarting a full-scale invasion was to prevent the French from landing.

The Embarkation of Henry VIII at Dover (Public Domain)

Traditional thinking says that she was blown over by a freak gust of wind as reported by an eyewitness to the events, while another contemporary account suggested that the crew were incompetent and unwilling to follow orders. More recently it was said that many aboard were Spaniards who could not understand English instructions, leading to confusion and chaos. But these seem to me to be very unsatisfying reasons for the catastrophic loss of Tudor England’s finest ship and consequently I attempted to develop a better understanding of the Battle of the Solent and the events that surrounded the loss of the Mary Rose.

Reconstructing the battle

I did so by assimilating both geographical and historical records in order to reconstruct the battle. In addition to the written accounts, a contemporary painting of the event – the original of which was more than 20ft long and once adorned the dining parlour of Cowdray House in Sussex – has proved remarkably useful. It depicts the entire battle scene and was probably painted between 1545 and 1548. The original was lost to fire in 1793 but luckily copies had been commissioned 20 years earlier.

Battle in the Solent, July 1545.

The picture shows the French invasion fleet off the Isle of Wight on the left and the English fleet arranged across the Solent to the right. Henry VIII is shown riding towards Southsea Castle (followed by Sir Anthony Browne, Master of the King’s horse, who commissioned the painting) and right in the middle of the picture the masts of the Mary Rose can be seen breaking through the surface of the sea, with a sailor waving very animatedly from a platform at the top of the main mast. Surrounding him are the floating bodies of drowned sailors and several small boats trying to rescue any survivors.

Using the Cowdray picture and modern digital mapping technology it was possible for me to recreate and map the positions of all of the ships, troops and installations across the Solent battlefield. The picture is remarkably accurate in its presentation of the geography of the Solent. Known landmarks, such as forts, churches and creeks, still visible in the modern landscape, enable good positions for the ephemeral elements such as ships and troops to be determined.

Portrait of Henry VIII by the workshop of Hans Holbein the Younger.

It was also possible to reconstruct the tidal currents for the day of the battle. Consequently we can work out how the two opposing fleets likely conducted the action between them. This ties together the written accounts from the time and the archaeological evidence and places it within the geographical context of the Solent.

Tidal tales

A tidal reconstruction shows that from 8am to around midday, the Solent’s flow was westerly. As the day was calm and sunny and there was no wind, the English ships would not have been able to move, and so would have remained anchored at Spithead, the tide shifting their bows to face towards the French. This detail is crucial, because the English ships did not have any guns that could fire directly forwards, only off to the port or starboard sides. This means that for four hours in the morning, the French would have been favored by the tide, able to send in their advance attack of five galleys directly towards the bows of the English ships without the English being able easily to return fire.

  • 4,000-year-old Minoan shipwreck discovered in Turkish waters
  • 2,300-year-old Punic Vessels uncovered in ancient shipwreck
  • Hundreds of Shipwrecks Revealed in Lake Michigan as Water Clears

These Mediterranean galleys were fitted with either two or four large guns firing directly forwards and could shoot from a relatively long range. In the morning, the French therefore had the advantage. Unlike the English, French galleys were powered by oars, rowed by prisoners-of-war and convicts, and could move independently of wind or tidal current. So, for at least four hours the French could have been firing at the English ships’ bows, relatively safe themselves. Together, these details suggest that it is likely that the Mary Rose would have sustained damage to her bow in the morning. An account by French eyewitness Martin Du Bellay records:

Favored by the sea, which was calm, without wind or strong current, our galleys were able to manoeuvre at their pleasure and to the disadvantage of the enemy who, not being able to move for want of wind, remained exposed to the fire of our artillery.

It seems unlikely, given that they could get close to the English ships, that they would have missed their targets, so they may well have damaged the bow of the Mary Rose. (At this point in time, much of the bow structure of the Mary Rose is yet to be excavated from the seabed and so there is no archaeological evidence of such damage.) Of itself, a damaged bow wouldn’t be too much of a problem, although she may have been shipping considerable water into her hold. Intriguingly, the Mary Rose’s pump was not found in its proper position when excavated and it had been partly dismantled, not functional at the moment the ship sank – perhaps it broke through overuse?

Carracks, similar to the Mary Rose

On the attack

By mid-afternoon it is normal for a sea breeze to blow up in the Solent. This would have afforded the Mary Rose the opportunity to set sail and bring her broadside armament to bear against the attacking French galleys. At about 4pm or 5pm the Mary Rose embarked on a northerly passage, the direction in which she was travelling when she sank, across the Solent to engage the French.

  • The Antikythera Shipwreck – The Titanic of the Ancient World and its Sunken Historic Treasure
  • The Misfortune of the Bom Jesus, the Diamond Shipwreck
  • Famous Antikythera Shipwreck Yields New Remarkable Discoveries

Archaeological evidence tells us that some of the starboard guns were fired, so she must have encountered the enemy. She continued passage northwards but would have been rolling and sailing sluggishly if she had been hit earlier in the day and shipped water. Having fired their guns, the crew of the Mary Rose would have known that they were in trouble, feeling the uneasy movement of the ship beneath their feet. I suspect that it was their aim to run her aground on Spitbank, just 600 meters ahead of where she sank.

Six minutes more sailing and she would have been safe. But had she rolled just a little bit too far and for a little too long, allowing the open gun ports to dip below the sea, the sudden inrush of a mass of water onto the main gun deck would have completely destabilized the ship and she would have sunk within seconds.

The sinking of the Mary Rose claimed the lives of around 500 men on board. Only 35 were reported saved. I believe that the crew of the Mary Rose have been unfairly maligned by previous suggestions for the cause of the sinking. No evidence suggests that they were incompetent or ill disciplined, and on such a calm day a freak gust of wind seems unlikely. But until – or if – the bow is recovered, my theory remains just one of a number of possibilities.

Page options

The Mary Rose was built at Portsmouth between 1509 and 1511. Named for Henry VIII's favourite sister, Mary Tudor, later queen of France, the ship was part of a large build-up of naval force by the new king in the years between 1510 and 1515. Warships, and the cannon they carried, were the ultimate status symbol of the 16th century, and an opportunity to show off the wealth and power of the king abroad.

In addition Henry was well aware that his right to the throne was open to challenge, and that sea-borne invasions, such as the one his father had staged from France, in order to claim the English throne only three decades earlier, were easy for his enemies to organise. To meet the danger he built up his fleet, fortified the obvious landing places, and wiped out those with any claim to the succession.

Mary Rose was the second most powerful ship in the fleet and a favourite of the king.

Henry's early shipbuilding programme culminated with the massive Henry Grace à Dieu of 1500 tons. While the Mary Rose was smaller, initially rated at 600 tons, she remained the second most powerful ship in the fleet and a favourite of the king. She was considered to be a fine sailing ship, operating in the Channel to keep up links with the last English possessions around Calais. She was a carrack, equipped to fight at close range.

As built, the Mary Rose was intended to close with her enemies, fire her guns, come alongside to allow the soldiers she was carrying to board the enemy ship, supported by a hail of arrows, darts and quick-lime, and to capture it by hand-to-hand fighting. Aside from the use of small guns, little had changed in the design of warships since Edward III's victory at Sluys in 1340. The only heavy guns were mounted low in the stern, and were mainly used to bombard shore positions.

History of the sea: Mary Rose

The historical Dockyards in Portsmouth play host to one of the world’s famous Tudor ships the Mary Rose.

Mary Rose Sinking

This painting, by renowned maritime artist Geoff Hunt depicts the final moments of the Mary Rose, Henry VIII’s warship, during the Battle of the Solent on July 19th 1545, when a 200+ strong French invasion fleet confronted the much smaller English Navy just a few miles from Portsmouth. Although there have been many theories, from damage caused by the French to design instability, the reason for her loss is a mystery.

Contrary to popular belief, the Mary Rose was quite an old warship, launched 34 years earlier in 1511. During her career she fought in many battles against the French, carried troops to the Battle of Flodden and even hosted the Holy Roman Emperor during treaty negotiations in 1520.

Ship Maintenance

The Mary Rose is one of the largest archaeological artefacts anywhere in the world and her conservation proved to be a difficult and complicated process. After being brought into the dry dock in 1982 she was sprayed with freshwater, to remove any remaining sediment and salts, as well as to prevent drying out.

During the 437 years the Mary Rose spent under the mud, the cell structure of the timbers became weakened, and drying the ship out without treatment would have caused it to shrink and collapse.
In 1994 the conservation team began a process of spraying the structure with polyethylene glycol, a wax that penetrated the wood, replacing the water. Once the wax levels were high enough, they could turn off the sprays, as they did on 29th April 2013, after 19 years, and allow the ship to dry.

This basket-hilted sword was excavated from beneath the sterncastle in 1982 during work to dig the tunnels to secure the lifting wires needed to raise the hull. It was made of iron, with a beech handle grip and an iron/steel composite double-edged blade.
It is unusual in surviving, as most iron objects on the Mary Rose were heavily, if not completely, corroded away. This one was buried deeply in mud with almost no oxygen present, so oxidation was reduced, allowing it to survive almost intact.

A similar basket-hilted sword appears in a portrait of William Palmer, dated to about 1540, where he is dressed as a member of the Gentlemen Pensioners, a corps established by Henry VIII as his personal bodyguard. The presence of this, as well as a second weapon, suggests that there was at least a small number of these elite troops on board the Mary Rose when she sank.

This cast bronze bell was found near the sterncastle of the Mary Rose, close to a beech structure that may have been the bell hanger. Its primary use was timekeeping on board ship, telling the crew when their watches began and ended, as well as when to take soundings and other measurements vital for navigation.

It also allows us to identify the ship as the Mary Rose, as her name isn’t written on any part of her hull, nor on her artefacts. Dendrochronology (the study of the rings in the timbers) allows us to work out what year the trees they came from where felled, so you can tell that none of the Mary Rose timbers date from later than 1545, but while the practise of putting the name of a ship on a bell didn’t start until the 18th Century, it is cast the legend “Ic ben ghegoten int yaer MCCCCCX'”, Flemish for “I was made in the year 1510”, so the ship it belonged to must have been built then.
While the presence of a Flemish inscription might suggest it to be a Flemish ship, the rest of the contents of the ship firmly place it as an English warship.

Anti-Boarding Netting

While only fragments of this anti-boarding netting were recovered, originally it would have been placed over the heads of the crew on the waist and castle decks of the Mary Rose, forming a roof of pitch-covered hemp. This was in place to prevent the ship being captured, enemy boarders would have to cut through the net to get on board, during which time they were at the mercy of the crew underneath, who would be stabbing and shooting at them.

While it proved very efficient at keeping people out, sadly it was equally good at keeping people in. While a lot of people claim it was the crew’s inability to swim that caused them to drown, even the most proficient swimmer would be unable to get through this netting in time. Because of this, of five hundred men on board only the 30 or so working above the netting survived.

Knee-high boot

This leather knee-high boot was found in the hold of the Mary Rose. It appears to have been lined with, although this is now lost. What does still remain are the boot straps, sewn to the top of the boot to make them easier to pull on. Other similar boots found on the Mary Rose have a layer of straw sewn into the sole, to improve comfort, but this one lacks this. It also lacks a raised heel, and isn’t made for a specific foot, allowing it to be worn on either.

Surgeon’s Coif

The Surgeon’s coif, made with black silk velvet imported from the continent, was the badge of office for a Tudor surgeon. Similar hats are seen in the 1540 painting of Henry VIII and the Guild of Barber Surgeons by Holbein, produced to celebrate the amalgamation of the barbers and surgeons by Royal charter. It’s believed that the Mary Rose’s surgeon may be one of the surgeons depicted in this image, but without further information, it’s impossible to tell. Marks on some of the pewter ware suggest his initials were W.E.

The barber surgeons were the field medics of the day, treating the wounded of the King’s armed forces during battles or just day-to-day injuries. Despite their amalgamation, the surgeons and the barbers did not do each other’s jobs. While both surgeon’s tools and shaving equipment were recovered from the surgeon’s cabin, it’s unlikely he did both. Cutthroat razors were used like scalpels and what has in the past been described as a shaving bowl may, in fact, just be a large bleeding bowl.

Gold Half Sovereign

Five gold sovereigns were recovered from the Mary Rose, unsurprising, as they’d only entered into circulation four months prior to the sinking of the Mary Rose. Unlike most of the older gold coinage that was recovered, these had a much higher level of impurity, part of Henry VIII’s debasement of the currency, introducing alloys that were, in the case of the Mary Rose’s coins, only 92 per cent gold.

Even after this, a half sovereign was a lot of money, more than a Captain would earn in five days, and more than an ordinary mariner would earn in five months!

Gimballed Compass

This compass was one of three navigational compasses found on the Mary Rose, all of which were gimballed, allowing them to remain flat in the choppiest of conditions.

While the compass card, onto which the points of the compass were painted, is missing, as is the iron-magnetised needle, we still have the copper-alloy pin it was mounted on, as well as the turned poplar lid. The fact this was found in the pilot’s cabin, rather than the upper deck suggests that this compass was not in use at the time the Mary Rose sank.


Paternosters, or rosary beads, were found on all decks of the Mary Rose, showing that many of the crew would have been deeply religious, which is understandable in a period of such religious turmoil in England. While many Roman Catholic rituals had been outlawed by Henry VIII, in attempt to encourage the laity to take a more active role in religious instruction, recitation of the rosaries was permitted, provided it was done with due reverence.

This particular example is made from various red stones, agate and boxwood and features three drilled dots on some of the larger beads either in a row or forming a triangle, possibly representing the Holy Trinity.

Revealed: What really sank the Mary Rose

Political spin was used in Tudor times to cover up the true reason why Henry VIII’s flagship the Mary Rose was sunk in battle, according to a new study.

University of Portsmouth geographer Dominic Fontana said the truth that the Mary Rose was sunk by a cannonball fired from a French ship was withheld to maintain the Royal Navy’s image.

The Mary Rose as it is today

Instead the authorities created a cover story that the king’s pride and joy was toppled by heavy winds and an incompetent crew.

A University of Portsmouth spokeswoman said: “What happened next was an artful piece of political spin.

“The French were not credited with sinking the Mary Rose because, by claiming instead the ship was toppled by wind and an incompetent crew, the navy’s supremacy was maintained, Henry VIII’s pride remained intact and the French were unable to claim the victory.”

Dr Fontana said the ship would have carried the best available crew, which bravely battled against the incoming water after the French blew a hole in the side. He said: “The Mary Rose was holed by French gunfire received from an advance party of fast, oar-powered galleys which were heavily armed.

“She would have quickly taken quite a quantity of water into her hull before she manoeuvred to bring a broadside of guns to bear on the attacking French galleys.”

He explained that the manoeuvre to put the Mary Rose in a firing position was its undoing as the sudden movement of water in the hold caused it to capsize, killing the 400 crew on board.

Dr Fontana said: “The water in her hold would have had a significant effect on her handling and her stability would have been severely compromised.

“The additional weight of water would also have pushed her open gunports closer to the waterline than they should have been, making disaster inevitable once the sea flowed rapidly in through them.

“It was the same effect that sank the cross-channel ferry the Herald of Free Enterprise off Zeebrugge in March 1987.” Dr Fontana’s research involved studying the “Cowdray Engraving”, which is a large picture recording many of the events that happened during the battle of the Solent on July 19 1545.

The original Tudor painting, from which the engraving was made, once adorned the wall of the dining parlour at Cowdray House in Sussex but it was lost when Cowdray House caught fire in 1793.

Dr Fontana used advanced Geographical Information Systems (GIS) technology to create a map from the engraving which revealed the positions of each of the ships involved in the action.

CHANGING CURRENTSHe then integrated this data with tidal currents hour by hour over the period of the battle. “Changing currents are crucial to our understanding of the tactics, which may have been employed by both the French and the English.

“The GIS brings all of this information together so that it becomes possible to determine the potential movements of individual vessels. “The Mary Rose was hit by French gunfire and despite valiant efforts being made by her crew, she capsized just one mile from Southsea Castle, from where King Henry VIII was watching the battle.

“Those onshore would not have known anything about flooding in the hull caused by a French hit on the ship and it would have appeared as though she had been caught by a freak gust of wind and blown over.

FRENCH DAMAGE“They would have seen what looked like a fully-intact Mary Rose suddenly sink. The French damage to the hull would have been relatively slight but it was a fatal wound,” Dr Fontana said.

He added that skeletal remains were found in the hold which were thought to have been the carpenters desperately working in the dark trying to plug the hole made by the cannonball. He said it was also believed that the Mary Rose might have been attempting to run aground on Spitbank, a shallow sandbar 650 yards ahead of where it sank.

The new research will be the centre of a television programme called What Really Sank The Mary Rose, being shown on the History Channel at 9pm on November 24.

Caister Castle: What Remains Today

Caister Castle was occupied by the Paston family until 1659 when it was sold to William Crow. During the seventeenth century the castle fell into disrepair and is now owned by the Caister Castle Trust. All that survives today of this once great Castle is the Great Tower, the foundations of the inner and outer court, sections of the outside walls and the moat. However, I would highly recommend taking a visit to Caister. Visitors are still able to climb the Great Tower and the height of 27m provides a spectacular view of the surrounding countryside.

Caister Castle is open from the 17 May to 1 October 2021. The full address is: Caister Castle, Castle Lane, Caister-on-sea, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, NR30 5SN and the website is here:

More information

The Mary Rose Museum website has a wealth of information and resources for teachers.

The sinking of the Mary Rose

Comprehensive article by Margaret Rule on the sinking of the Mary Rose with full discussion of the ship itself and of the events of 1545 as well as a selection of original accounts.

Article from the BBC about the Mary Rose

The Cowdray engravings and the loss of the Mary Rose

Detailed discussion of the Cowdray engravings of the war with France in 1544 and 1545, including the sinking of the Mary Rose.

Article from the BBC about Henry VIII

Article from the BBC about the British Reformation

Article from the BBC about the myth of the European Renaissance

BBC radio programme about the Field of the Cloth of Gold in 1520 and English relations with Europe in the period


From the depths of the Solent to Portsmouth Dockyard, the Mary Rose Museum has been dramatically restored, costing £27 million in Heritage Lottery Funding. 9 galleries offer views of the ship, opportunities to take photos from the top deck and hands-on displays which detail Tudor technology and ingenuity. After 30 years of preservation the Mary Rose ship can now be seen from all angles like never before.

The Mary Rose was King Henry VIII’s favourite ship. Built in 1510 she served the King for 34 years before sinking in 1545 defending England and Portsmouth from a French invasion fleet.

As an integral part of the history of Portsmouth, we all have our own favourite memories of the Mary Rose. Perhaps it was the much-televised day in 1982, when the hull was dramatically raised from the seabed. Or consequently the years of continual spraying, or perhaps trying to look through misted-up windows at what you could just about make out as a Tudor warship.

We've changed a lot since then. The sprays were turned off in 2013 and we opened our new state-of-the-art Mary Rose Museum in 2016.

The Museum tells the stories of the 500 men who lived, worked and died on-board. With some 19,000 artefacts on display, recovered from the seabed in one of the most challenging archaeological excavations of all time. Listen to the sounds of the past, smell real Tudor smells and see the ship brought to life with cutting edge technology telling the emotionally compelling stories of what life was like on-board when she sank in the Solent in 1545.

Mary Rose: Tudor Painting and Tidal Analysis Offer Clues as to why it sank - History

The flower is a red rose. If you go to Web Gallery of Art, you can view there a reasonably high resolution image of the painting. Note the two leaves at the lower left margin of the flower. They are relatively broad in shape. In contrast, the leaves of carnations (aka “pinks”), genus Dianthus, are quite narrow. Rose leaves are broader, as seen in the painting. Also, the center of the flower in the painting is yellow. The pollen-bearing reproductive centers of most Dianthus species, including carnations (Dianthus caryophyllus), are most commonly a lighter shade of the same color as the flower’s petals, while the same parts of a rose flower are most commonly yellow, as seen here.

The rose in the painting is probably a simple English rose rather than a specifically “Tudor” rose, since the petals are all the same color. As you know, the Tudor rose is an imaginary combination of the white rose of York and the red rose of Lancaster used for heraldic and symbolic purposes. It does not exist in nature, and I am not aware of any sixteenth-century English portrait in which the sitter holds a bi-colored rose. Tudor roses are instead included in portraits only as part of some heraldic emblem and are usually presented in a less realistic manner.

Red roses have a variety of symbolic meanings. In this instance, it may be a rebus device for the sitter’s name, perhaps even her sexual status as well, since roses are symbolically associated with the Virgin Mary. It may also have the symbolic meaning of love, a sentiment Mary is said to have expressed toward Philip even before she met him in person.

Actually bicolor roses were first cultivated in Vienna by Carolus Clasuis around 1583 by combining the Persian yellow rose to European standard roses of various colors. Today there exist over 200 specific bicolored roses. I have several types in my garden including a beautiful red and white specimen.

Yes, there are hybridized roses that do contain two colors blended together *on each petal*. That color pattern is more correctly called "variegated", not bi-color, at least in a botancial sense. And I know some rose hybridizers have developed roses with one solid color on the front of each petal and another solid color on the back of each petal, which they call "bi-color". But I have never seen a live rose that in any way resembles the iconic Tudor rose, with an inner group of petals entirely of solid white and an outer groups of petals entirely of solid red. But I am not a rose lover, so maybe I have missed something? I would love to see a live Tudor rose! I'd like to plant a few in my yard!

Rosa Gallica officinalis (the red rose of Lancaster) and Rosa alba semiplena (the white rose of York)
have never to my knowledge been grafted together however the rose Rosa damascenia versicolor was considered by many to be the Tudor rose, It is a verigated rose from Provence but grown in England for the Tudors. It is more pink and red than white and red but color variations do exist so that is an example of a verigated rose growing in the 16th century. All these roses had promenent yellow stamins however the red rose white a BICOLOR rose hybrid is the closest to what I think a Tudor rose would look like with dark red outer petals and cream white inner petals and a bright yellow stamin. The presentation of these roses can appear as several layers of red around several layers of white petals when they are opening but are not the true white on red of the emblematic Tudor rose. The first three roses I mentioned are lovely, hearty plants with wonderful fragrance so prehaps you would like to try them in your yard, the later as with all hybrids is a bit tricky and since you are not a rosarian best to start with something hearty

It is the red rose of the House of Lancaster from which both Mary and Philip were descended in legitimate line (unlike her Tudor father). I seem to recall that in the portrait the Infanta Isabella sent to James VI&I on his accession to the English throne she wears a dress with the red roses on it, also as a symbol of their joint Lancastrian heritage - thought James only through the illegitimate Beaufort/Tudor line

Primary Sources

Primary Sources are crucial documents when it comes to researching a period of history because they were produced or created during the time under study. They can include artifacts, official records, speeches, journals and letters and offer us valuable insight into the past.

When it comes to researching the Tudors, there are countless books available on every topic imaginable. Rather than always referring to secondary sources, it’s a good idea to refer to the primary source wherever possible.

This has become a lot easier now that so many are available online. I have linked to over 20 primary sources related to the Tudors that you can enjoy from the comfort of your own home. This is a work in progress and I will add new links as I come across useful sources. Feel free to contact me if you have a suggestion.

Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts in the Archives and Collections of Milan – 1385-1618

Calendars of State Papers and Manuscripts relating to English affairs in the archives of Venice

Hall’s chronicle : containing the history of England, during the reign of Henry the Fourth, and the succeeding monarchs, to the end of the reign of Henry the Eighth, in which are particularly described the manners and customs of those periods. Carefully collated with the editions of 1548 and 1550 (1809).

Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII

Queen Elizabeth and Her Times: A series of original letters (Volume 1 & 2)

Original Letters, illustrative of English History, ed. Sir Henry Ellis (Series 1, Volume 1-3)

Original Letters, illustrative of English History, ed. Sir Henry Ellis (Series 2, Volume 1-3)

Original Letters, illustrative of English History, ed. Sir Henry Ellis (Series 3, Volume 1-4)

British History Online has put together a list of primary sources related to the reign of various Tudor monarchs:

King Henry VIII

Topics: Marriage to Catherine of Aragon, Field of Cloth of Gold, Defender of the Faith, Anne Boleyn, Thomas Moore and Pilgrimage of Grace.

Duke of Northumberland (1551), Lord Protector Somerset and Jane Seymour.

Latimer and Ridley, Sir Thomas Wyatt and Philip of Spain.

Elizabeth I

Ridolfi Plot, Francis Drake, Mary Queen of Scots and Spanish Armada

Access a list of all primary sources available on British History Online, covering the sixteenth century here.


Off topic, but I’m curious as to whether anyone has either a mailing or an e-mail address for either Professor Scarisbrick or for G.J. Meyer. If you do and are able to share, I can be reached at [email protected]

What archives in london is suitable for finding various tudor sources. Perhaps letters from richard III to anne neville or letters written by women?

The following are more of his amazing portraits for your viewing pleasure…

Lady with Squirrel

Portrait of a Lady with a Squirrel and a Starling, probably Anne Lovell. oil and tempera on oak, National Gallery, London


Portrait of a Woman in a White Coif

The Ambassadors

This painting has some of the most hidden messages/symbols of any of Holbein’s paintings. To learn more please watch the video below and prepare to be amazed!

Watch the video: The Mary Rose 1545 How Did She Really Sink Documentary (June 2022).


  1. Sadiq

    It agrees, the information is very good

  2. Vudokinos

    it is possible to close a space?

  3. Ashtin

    everyone is afraid he is dangerous ... I'm leaving !!!!!!!

  4. Noell

    This is the excellent variant

  5. Petrov

    How do you feel about Putin, everyone?

  6. Gugrel

    Will you be able to quickly find such a single sentence?

Write a message