About History: ancient Albion

Periodically we come across “Albion” as an early name for Britain but was that the name used by the islands’ inhabitants?

From Britannica.com, Albion is the earliest-known name for the island of Britain. It was used by ancient Greek geographers from the 4th-century BC and even earlier, who distinguished Albion from Ierne (Ireland) and from smaller members of the British Isles. Describing the ocean beyond the Mediterranean Basin for example, the Pseudo-Aristotelian text “On the Universe” mentions the British Isles and names the two largest islands Albion and Ierne:

ἐν τούτῳ γε μὴν νῆσοι μέγισται τυγχάνουσιν οὖσαι δύο, Βρεττανικαὶ λεγόμεναι, Ἀλβίων καὶ Ἰέρνη, τῶν προϊστορημένων μείζους, ὑπὲρ τοὺς Κελτοὺς κείμεναι.

“There are two very large islands in it, called the British Isles, Albion and Ierne; they are larger than those already mentioned, and lie beyond the land of the Celts.”

It seems the Greeks and Romans probably heard the name Albion from the Gauls or the Celts [1]. The name itself has been translated as “white land”, but this seems incorrect. From an altar dedicated to the god Vulcan by the civilians living there [2], we know the Romans called their Auxiliary fort at Bardon Mill in Northumbria, just south of Hadrian’s Wall, “Vindolanda”. Translated, Vindolanda means “white lawns” or “white fields”. The Romans explained Albion as referring to the distinctively white chalk cliffs at Dover (Latin: albus, “white”) in the southeast of Britain. These cliffs are visible from mainland Europe and a landmark at the narrowest crossing point of the English Channel.

The name Albion was used by Isidore of Charax, a Greco-Roman geographer of the 1st-century BC and 1st-century AD about whom nothing is known other than his name and that he wrote at least one work. Isidore’s usage of the name, however, was subsequently adopted by many classical writers such that, by the 1st-century AD, Albion referred unequivocally to Great Britain. Yet this enigmatic name did not remain popular among Greek writers. It was soon replaced by Πρεττανία (Prettanía) and Βρεττανία (Brettanía “Britain”), Βρεττανός (Brettanós “Briton”), and Βρεττανικός (Brettanikós, meaning the adjective British). From these words the Romans derived the Latin forms Britannia, Britannus, and Britannicus respectively.

Albion is Alba, right?  Albion should not be confused with “Alba”, the kingdom formed by the union of the Picts and Scots under Kenneth I MacAlpin in AD 843. Their territory, ranging from modern Argyll and Bute to Caithness, across much of southern and central Scotland, was one of the few areas in the British Isles to withstand the invasions of the Vikings [3]. Indeed, the ancient link with Ireland from where the Scotii (Scots) had emigrated was only broken by a cordon of Scandinavian settlements established in the Western Isles and Ireland. With large parts of England also conquered by the Norse (mostly Danes who created the “Danelaw” [4]), Alba was left isolated.

Incursions by Northumbrians into Alba were eventually halted by King Malcolm II at the Battle of Carham (c. 1016) thereby securing a Scottish hold over the land between the rivers Forth and Tweed. Malcolm also secured Strathclyde about the same time, but it was his grandson and successor Duncan I who, after becoming king in 1034, united Alba with Strathclyde, Cumbria, and Lothian. The name Alba began to fade away as every king thereafter, and retrospectively, was styled “king of Scots”. Bon appétit!

Endnotes:

1. The name “Celt” applied to the various tribes of Iron Age Europe is derived from Latin Celta, (pl. Celtae), an adaptation of Greek Κελτοί (Keltoí) used to denote an ethnic group of the La Tène culture. The first recorded use of the name was by the Greek geographer Hecataeus of Miletus in 517 BC when writing about a people living near Massilia (modern Marseille). In the 5th-century BC, the Greek historian and geographer Herodotus referred to Keltoi living around the head of the Danube and also in the far west of Europe. Herodotus uses the same word for the Gauls (who also were called Galatai). The Romans used Celtae as the generic name for continental Gallic tribespeople but apparently not for British tribes. In current usage, the terms “Celt” and “Celtic” take several senses depending on context: the Celts of the European Iron Age, the group of Celtic-speaking peoples in historical linguistics, and the modern Celtic identity derived from the Romanticist Celtic Revival.

2. The altar was found during drainage works in 1914. It is on display in the Vindolanda Museum.

3. The Norwegians and Danes were referred to as the Norse or Norsemen by the Anglo-Saxons. The term “Viking” appears in use from the 12th- to the 14th-century AD, but its etymology is far from certain. The name may derive from the Old Norse word víkingr in contemporary use by the Scandinavians themselves and usually taken to mean “pirate” or “raider”.

4. The northern, central, and eastern region of Anglo-Saxon England colonized by invading Danish armies in the late 9th-century AD was called the Danelaw. In the 11th- and 12th-centuries, it was recognized that all of eastern England between the Rivers Tees and Thames formed a region in which a distinctive form of customary law prevailed in the local courts, differing from West Saxon law to the south and Mercian law to the west. The region derived its name from the Old English Dena lagu (“Danes’ law”) under the assumption that its unique legal practices were of Danish origin, an assumption borne out by modern scholarship.

Horrible History: Colour-blind history

It is clearly the trendy (dare we say “woke”) thing to portray historical figures in dramas and documentaries with actors and actresses whose appearance diverges from known, provable representations. In the 21st-century we are encouraged to be gender neutral or colour blind in portrayals of ourselves in the media whether that be on television, in films, in video games, or even in textbooks. In recent years, there been an increased impetus for greater diversity and inclusion in the workplace and other spheres of society. Many organizations now actively work to create more inclusive environments by addressing the underrepresentation of various social groups. Such actions are laudably the right thing to do, but sometimes not all attempts at fostering diversity and inclusivity are created equal. One problematic approach that has seemingly emerged is “forced diversity” when organizations or institutions mandate the inclusion of individuals from diverse backgrounds based solely on factors such as their gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. But this is not the same as organically fostering an inclusive environment because such approaches often result in “tokenism” where individuals are included primarily based on their diverse attributes rather than on their skills and qualifications. While the intentions behind forced diversity may be well-meaning, its somewhat superficial nature can lead to a variety of unintended consequences and harmful outcomes.

Before proceeding it might be worth explaining the jargon. In some quarters forced diversity is popularly referred to as “blackwashing”, but this is a derogatory term for the revisionist portrayal of someone or something as belonging to a black race of people. Its antonym “whitewashing” is likewise a derogatory term for the process of making over (a person or character, a group, an event, etc.) so that it either is or seems more “white”, more Caucasian. “Whitewashing” may include, for example, replacing an original character of colour (or of a minority group) with a white character, person or actor. It can also mean the literal application of makeup to a person to alter their ethnicity, or masking the involvement of non-whites in an event to focus only on white participation. It has been done many times in movies and television shows, but in more recent times has declined significantly. 

So, if we agree that “whitewashing” is unacceptable, then the same must be true for “blackwashing”. There would be understandable outrage if a white actor was hired to play, for example, the African warrior king Shaka Zulu. Accusations of racism and calls for the film, its producers and the broadcaster or distributor to be boycotted would undoubtedly swiftly follow. All of which is perfectly reasonable and appropriate. But does having a black or Asian actor playing an ethnically white historical character make the story more inclusive or is it just the entertainment world forcing diversity on audiences. More alarmingly from the historian’s perspective, is this evidence of deliberate disinformation? Why do it at all when it is so unnecessary? Why not bring to life, on the big and small screen, the true stories of Africans, Asians and minority groups with actors and actresses befitting the characters.

Forced diversity is evidently a factor in “identity-conscious casting” or “colour-blind casting”, two interchangeable terms that are increasingly the fashion in the stage, film and television industries. It has also become trendy for playwrights, filmmakers and novelists to use history as a stimulus for artistic licence - material often exploited and abused for dramatic effect. It is quite clear that their considerations are audience appeal, profit and, far too frequently, politics. As far as the media is concerned (cf. Ridley Scott’s reaction to criticism), historians can deal with the facts and worry about the truth. Of course, some historians can be guilty of distortion and sloppy analysis, but to be plain wrong is both unethical and unprofessional. So, when we view documentaries wilfully misrepresenting characters and events, then the makers are open to accusations of leaving audiences ignorant of what is true or false. This is straightforward mendacity and always should be challenged. As Simon Jenkins (author, Guardian columnist and BBC broadcaster) wrote in “The Conversation” for BBC History Magazine [1]: “artistic licence should not be a licence to deceive.”

For current purposes, if actors are hired only to satisfy a perceived need for inclusion and diversity, then this is effectively creating false representation, or misrepresentation. So, when a traditionally deemed white character is portrayed by a person of colour, it is fair to reproach the production company of, at best, identity-conscious casting or, at worst, forced diversity. Interestingly, albeit somewhat perversely, these “colour-blind” decisions (which hopefully we can agree are being made for all the right reasons, probably) can perpetuate the tokenism alluded to earlier. Individuals included for their demographic characteristics rather than on merit or for their qualifications makes it easier for detractors to see them not as valued contributors but merely “tokens”. As such, these casting choices risk reinforcing negative stereotypes that, in turn, could breed resentment in those who may feel their qualifications and skills have been overlooked in appeasement to inclusivity and diversity.

Interestingly, in March 2022 Stefan Aguirre Quiroga wrote the following in defence of the idea that forced diversity is not a thing:

“When people of color [sic] enter spaces historically perceived as ‘white’ in popular representations of history and speculative fiction, familiar outcries of ‘blackwashing’ or ‘forced diversity’ are sure to follow. What is it exactly that white people fear losing?”

But is this true? One can argue that a black actor or actress playing any character in fiction, whether “speculative” or not, is not really the issue. Besides, the final sentence of the quote is clearly intended to be provocative. Where a character is black or Asian in a modern-day story or one set in a fictional past or an imagined future, then it is irrelevant whether the reader or viewer is “white” or otherwise. Mr Quiroga’s article also highlighted allegations of “forced diversity” in Amazon TV's series “The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power”. Yet the case he uses to illustrate his point is in reality a straw man fallacy [2] and rather immaterial to the question at hand as this series is a prequel clearly set in fantasy world. Whether one can argue Tolkein’s magnum opus was a commentary on post-war Britain - and perhaps more widely, Europe - it is certainly not a history of these isles [3]. Consequently, there really are no limits on who may be cast to play the various fictional characters in such a fantasy setting. Whether the cast chimes with a particular reader’s or viewer’s preconceived notions is another matter entirely, and one for that individual to deal with.

“Whitewashing”  Historical settings are a different matter, however. The first example is a rather dated instance but does speak to how things used to be done but, as we shall see, it is not an isolated case. In the early 20th-century, it was not unusual for white actors to caricature different ethnicities adopting “blackface” to portray Africans, or the equivalent “yellowface” for East Asians. Both practices typically involved the performers using theatrical makeup (or burned cork, shoe polish, etc.) to caricature black or Asian people on stage or in entertainment. The practice of blackface may have its origins as early as Medieval Europe's mystery plays when bitumen and coal were used to darken the skin of white performers portraying demons, devils, and damned souls. It should not need to be said but, just in case, linking Africans, Asians or any other group of people with “demons, devils, or damned souls” is not to be inferred. Nevertheless, other scholars have dated the practice to English Renaissance theatre in works such as William Shakespeare's Othello which, conveniently, provides a useful case study.

By the mid-20th-century there was far more colour diversity in the film and entertainment industry and blackface had mostly disappeared. The 1965 film Othello was a notable exception, however, as the white actor Laurence Olivier was cast as the title character, “the Moor”, and wore blackface as pictured below left. Jump forward roughly 20 years and 1986 saw the release of director Franco Zeffirelli’s lavish film version of Giuseppe Verdi’s opera Otello based on William Shakespeare’s play. The Spanish tenor Plácido Domingo was cast in the title role (pictured below centre) and “blacked up” accordingly. As Domingo was at the height of his operatic career in the late 1980s and 1990s, his casting should not be too surprising. Yet the thought of engaging an opera singer of north African descent was evidently spurned by Zeferelli. Perhaps the decision reflected a (misguided) belief that audiences in the 1980s were not ready to accept an African opera singer. The latter was probably a risk too far, while casting one of the most famous opera singers at the time was a commercial no brainer.

In direct contrast to Olivier and Domingo was the 2009 casting of Sir Lenny Henry in the role of the tragic Moor of Venice (pictured above right). While Sir Lenny was not required to sing as he performed the more traditional stage play, his portrayal of Othello epitomises how it ought to be done. The first two examples are clearly emblematic of whitewashing, while the third is a superb illustration of appropriate and brilliant casting.

Horrible history  What follows are some instances of history documentaries, historically themed docudramas and straightforward films or television productions that quite clearly have engaged in forced diversity or identity-conscious casting. Whatever one calls it, the practice is cropping up everywhere. Before proceeding it must be emphasised that the “Horrible History” series always avoids being critical of individuals, especially actors playing a role. Rather, the chosen case studies are intended to highlight historical inaccuracies and then present a more accurate version of history. Wherever possible it is hoped we can learn something more from critiquing each example.

Ann Boleyn (2021)

While some aspects left critics unimpressed, Channel 5's three-part drama about Anne Boleyn was praised for casting black actress Jodie Turner-Smith in the title role. The series was described as a “re-imagining” of Anne Boleyn's life, “re-examining her final five months and her legacy through a feminist lens”. Any intellectually honest historian ought to be troubled by those statements for at least three reasons. The first relates directly to the subject at hand. According to the Radio Times, the producers actively used “identity-conscious casting” for the series in a similar way to how theatre productions have long approached casting historical plays. According to Channel 5, identity-conscious casting “makes space for and embraces how actors and artists can bring their whole identities or even parts of their identities to a character. Actors from minority backgrounds that are not often represented on screen can therefore claim parts that correspond to their personal identities, without being limited by them.” Not bound by the “casting constraints historically adopted within period dramas”, this approach gave the series producers the freedom to tell Anne Boleyn’s story in a way that will “resonate broadly with a contemporary audience.” Tellingly the Radio Times quoted actor Mark Stanley, who plays Henry VIII in the Anne Boleyn cast:

“It was all about this being the right person for the job, rather than what we as a society might perceive as the 'right look' for the job”.

Stanley’s statement is a clear indication that the production traded historicity to appease their perception of “a contemporary audience” and favoured forced diversity. As already stated, that is all well and good in a fictional setting but not if portraying known historical figures. So, while Jodie Turner-Smith’s powerful performance was widely praised, criticism of the race swapping of historical characters and accusations of blackwashing soon followed the series’ airing in June 2021. There is no doubt that Turner-Smith is a fine actress and a superb role model for aspiring black actors but casting her as the very obviously “white” English queen was disingenuous at best. For a viewer new to Ann Boleyn’s story or someone keen to learn more about her, then what they are exposed to is a false representation of Henry VIII’s ultimately doomed second wife. In essence, a lie.

The second concern centres on the self-styled “feminist lens” the writer and producers used to examine Ann Boleyn’s tragic fall from grace. Regrettably, such “-isms” introduce subjectivity to the study of history. In more recent times some individuals or groups, who perhaps rightly or wrongly consider themselves marginalised, have been weaponizing history for their own interests or political aims. The only “lens” required to study the past is objectivity. Not always an easy prospect, but history should not be viewed through 21st-century eyes. To do so risks applying modern notions of morality on people for whom such concepts had yet to be conceived, were irrelevant or did not chime with their lived experience. 

To give feminism appropriate and due consideration is a massive topic that deserves the more in depth treatment found elsewhere. For the present purpose, in the classical world and that of Mediæval and Tudor England, our modern notions of feminism were alien and unremarked so for the programme makers to apply current feminist values is to misrepresent the past. In the Classical world we have only one isolated instance of actions that might today be labelled feminist. During the 3rd-century BC a group of women barricaded ancient Rome’s Forum in an attempt to force the highly conservative Republican consul Marcus Porcius Cato to repeal laws limiting women’s use of expensive goods. The highly unusual nature of this incident is probably why it was recorded but is indicative of the relationship between men and women in the Roman world. Over a thousand years later, in the late 14th- and early 15th-centuries, the first notable feminist thinker appears in the historical record. French philosopher Christine de Pisan codified typically feminine behaviour in her treatises on moral instruction, and was credited with agitating for female education, a radical stance at the time. Although clearly active just before the Tudor period, there is no indication that her views had gained any ground with men or women in England.

The third concern is the “re-imaging” of the historical figure or story in question. That effectively means “making it up”, creating a fictionalised version of history. Again, there is the danger of twisting the known or demonstrable facts to satisfy an agenda. Adding or removing elements from the narrative to suit a particular viewpoint is not what reputable historians strive for. Yet to study history is to interpret the past. We cannot for example “know” with any certainty what a historical figure was thinking in any given circumstance unless they documented their thoughts, and then that record survives the centuries for us to discover. The evidence may no longer exist, or what does might be patchy and incomplete. All too often, especially in the age of social media, it is into these knowledge gaps that rumours, falsehoods, conspiracy theories and re-imagined “bad history” is woven. So, studying history is an art that demands we continually ask the six key questions necessary for critical thinking. By thinking critically and questioning the “facts” presented we can counter the bad actors intent on manipulating the past perhaps for nefarious motives.

Wolf Hall (2015 and 2024)

Our second example is “Wolf Hall”, a British television series adaptation of Hilary Mantel's trilogy of novels, a fictionalised biography documenting the life of Thomas Cromwell. The six-part first series, based on the novels “Wolf Hall” and “Bring Up the Bodies”, was initially broadcast on BBC Two in January 2015. It documented the rapid rise to power of Thomas Cromwell in the court of Henry VIII, through the death of Sir Thomas More, to Cromwell's success in freeing the king of his marriage to Anne Boleyn. The first series was a critical success and received eight nominations at the 67th Primetime Emmy Awards and three nominations at the 73rd Golden Globe Awards, winning for Best Miniseries or Television Film. A second series, adapted from “The Mirror & the Light”, the final novel in the trilogy, featured the return of Mark Rylance playing Thomas Cromwell, as well as director Peter Kosminsky and writer Peter Straughan. Filmed between November 2023 and April 2024, the series was first broadcast on 10 November 2024.

Both series of Wolf Hall are without doubt lavish and entertaining. Viewers are offered a fascinating glimpse into an important period of British history, but the production raises the perennial question of how historically accurate is this period drama? Answering that question, Kazim Ladimeji was keen to point out: “It is important to remember that Wolf Hall is a fictionalised historical drama, not a strict documentary reconstruction. Small inaccuracies, especially in props or dialogue, are sometimes inevitable in this genre.”

Hilary Mantel, the author of the original trilogy, was obsessive about ensuring her novels were as historically accurate as possible. She refused to add modern twists or fantastical elements to her historic fiction yet, as Mantel herself maintained, her works were fiction. As a novelist, she claimed she could take her story where “the historian and biographer can’t go”, adding: “However much you learn, factually, there is plenty of scope for imagination.” This blurring of the lines between history and fiction, especially on screen, is problematic. Viewers with little knowledge of the Tudor period accept the lavish sets, superb costuming, and the characterisations as a true representation. But as John Guy, a Tudor historian, noted in 2017 it was “troubling that many students had begun to assume the first Wolf Hall series was 100% accurate.”

So, who is this gentleman (pictured) at Court? By his appearance he is purportedly wealthy and in fact, this actor can be spotted in scenes depicting the Privy Council, the body of advisors to the king who were drawn from the highest echelons of the nobility, senior church leaders and notable legal counsellors. As far as Tastes Of History can discern, the actor is uncredited so we cannot be certain which of the Privy Councillors he is supposedly portraying. For present purposes, however, identifying him is irrelevant because historically he could not have been a member of the Privy Council. The nineteen men upon who’s advice the king relied were all rich, privileged and, most significantly, white. Interested readers might wish to follow the link to a separate post listing Henry VIII’s Privy Councillors in 1540.

But wait one moment. We have stated that Wolf Hall is a fictionalised account of the Tudor court and its intrigues. Moreover, we have also argued that in a modern-day story or one set in a fictional past or an imagined future whether a character, or the actor playing, them is black or Asian is irrelevant. So, is it a problem? In this instance, no, not really. Nor is the presence of an actress portraying one of Queen Jane Seymour’s (Kate Phillips) ladies in waiting in the screenshot. It is on record that director Peter Kosminsky made some changes to the second series including the decision to implement “colour-blind casting” (an alternative term for identity-conscious casting). Unfortunately, viewers of African, Asian or mixed ethnicity might be persuaded that the Tudor court was replete with men and women sharing their same heritage which is simply not true. Bearing in mind John Guy’s earlier comment, colour-blind or identity-conscious casting is inaccurate, misleading and disingenuous to viewers.

Black Tudors  In keeping with the “Horrible history” theme, even though Wolf Hall series two overplays the diversity card, it does highlight that people of African origin were living in Tudor England. Indeed, it has been suggested that there were over 200 according to evidence presented by historians such as Imtiaz Habeeb, Onyeka Nubia and Miranda Kaufmann. Perhaps further examples will be discovered but in comparison to the population of England at the time - roughly three million people - 200 Africans represents an insignificant 0.0067% of the populace. Even so, information about these people and their lives has been discovered in letters, legal records and church records of births and deaths. Some came directly from the continent of Africa as traders or as ambassadors. Abd el-Ouahed ben Messaoud came from Morocco to have treaty talks with Elizabeth I, for example. More importantly, there is evidence that people of African origin served in the royal courts of Henry VII, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. Some also lived in the homes of the nobility as servants of Elizabeth I’s favourite courtiers, Robert Dudley, Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Francis Drake, Sir William Cecil and Sir Robert Cecil.

Most people of African heritage in Britain were servants, yet this also reflects that many commonfolk in the Tudor period were servants, and of varying status. Some of African heritage, however, worked for themselves as skilled craftspeople. Notable among them was Reasonable Blackman who made an independent living as a silk weaver and lived, with his family, in Southwark, London c. 1579-1592. This was at a time when the silk industry was new to England, but its products were the height of fashion. Blackman probably arrived in London from the Netherlands, which had both a sizeable African population and was a known centre for cloth manufacture. We also know he had a family of at least three children, but sadly lost a daughter, Jane, and a son, Edmund, to the plague that struck London in 1592.

John Blanke  As far as the Court of Henry VIII is concerned, the only person of black origin documented is the trumpeter, John Blanke. The two images of Blanke in the Westminster Tournament Roll of 1511 comprise the only known portrait of a Black Tudor. It is believed that he may have come to England in 1501 as part of Catherine of Aragon’s household staff. Records tell us that John was present at the court of Henry VII from at least 1507. He was employed by both Henry VII and Henry VIII, and there is evidence to show that in 1509 he performed at both Henry VII’s funeral and Henry VIII’s coronation.

The Westminster Tournament Roll depicts John as a Royal trumpeter in 1511 at the joust held to celebrate the birth of Henry VIII and Catherine’s son, also named Henry, who died shortly afterwards. John was one of a large group of trumpeters who announced the entrance of the King at the beginning and end of the joust. In Tudor society, trumpeters were valued musicians being employed for court occasions, on the battlefield and to announce the arrival of important royals.

John received eight old pence a day in the reign of Henry VII. This was double the wage of an ordinary farm labourer and three times that of a servant. In fact, John may have been so valued that he was successfully awarded a pay rise from Henry VIII. In 1512, he received a gift of new clothing from the King when he got married. John disappears from the historical record after this gift. We can infer from this that he may have left royal service at this point, but without written evidence, we cannot know for certain.

Jacques Francis  An expert swimmer and free diver, both skills common to his native coast of West Africa, but extremely rare in Tudor England. His ability to hold his breath for a long time and dive down to the seabed secured Francis a role in the team hired to salvage guns from the wreck of the Mary Rose in 1546. Henry VIII’s flagship had sunk in 1545 along with most of its crew during a battle with the French off the coast of Portsmouth. Francis’ job was to dive to the ocean bed and tie ropes around objects that would then be pulled up; a dangerous job needing years of practice.

Jacques Francis and his coveted diving skills are known to us today because he was a witness in a court case in February 1548. Francis gave evidence when his employer was accused of stealing tin and other materials from the wrecks of two Italian merchant ships, the Sancta Maria and the Sanctus Edmundus. As not every member of Tudor society was allowed to give evidence in court, this may be an indicator that Jacques Francis was well respected.

Gunpowder Siege (2024)

Our third and final example centres on the events remembered by Britons each year on the 5th of November. It is a time of fireworks displays, chilly outdoor night-time parties, and bonfires. Sadly, increasingly few know what really happened when the infamous Guy Fawkes tried (but failed) to blow up the English parliament in 1605. The plot was part of a much bigger plan, as Fawkes and his associates fought to stop Catholic oppression under King James I. Sky History’s Gunpowder Siege (2024) “dramatically re-imagines [there’s that phrase again] the most infamous rebellion plot in British history, shattering the myths to reveal the largely forgotten, gripping truth behind the Gunpowder Plot.” The three-part series focuses on the aftermath of the Plot, spotlighting its three leaders - Robert Catesby, his cunning cousin Thomas Wintour, and their fellow Catholic, and ruthless enforcer, Thomas Percy. It is dramatic, compelling and well-acted.

It was Catesby (c. 1572 – 8 November 1605) who inspired and led the unsuccessful attempt to kill King James I (and VI) in November 1605. He was the third and only surviving son and heir of Sir William Catesby of Lapworth in Warwickshire, by his wife Anne Throckmorton, a daughter of Sir Robert Throckmorton (c.1513–1581), Knight of the Garter, of Coughton Court also in Warwickshire. So, Catesby was a Warwickshire lad through and through. Why then was the character of Robert Catesby played by British actor Chukwuma (Chuku) Modu? He was born on 19 June 1990 to a mixed-race Nigerian-German father and an Anglo-Irish mother in Chiswick, West London. Mr Modu is another talented actor, so this is not a criticism of his performance but, ignoring the historical accuracy, his casting feels like tokenism. Robert Catesby was, by all accounts, not a tall, handsome heartthrob and certainly not of mixed ethnicity.

Onion bottles  In one scene the conspirators are sat at a table where an onion bottle was prominently featured. In the screenshot pictured, the bottle can just be made out to the left side of the image in front of Catesby (played by Choku Modu). Before explaining why this is an anachronism, high praise is due for the interior lighting effects which perfectly capture the ambience of the period. Note that only two modest candles are burning rather than the room being flooded with candlelight. The latter is usually what is depicted in films but is historically inaccurate unless the characters are enormously wealthy. Oil for lamps, candles or rushlights were expensive to burn and would not be wasted frivolously.

Returning to the subject of “onion” or “glass onions”, these were indeed a bottle shape developed and used during the 17th- and 18th-centuries. Unfortunately, the design was not developed until nearly a quarter of a century after Catesby et al. were all dead. Nevertheless, it is true that new techniques of glassmaking at the beginning of the 17th-century were producing glass bottles to replace the pottery vessels that traditionally held wine and spirits. These wine bottles, however, were small and thin walled making them difficult to store and ship. During the 1630s privateer turned inventor Kenelm Digby, who conveniently owned a glass works, teamed up with James Howell to create a method using hotter furnaces to make stronger glass. Digby's technique produced wine bottles that were stronger and more stable than contemporary types and protected the contents from light due to their green or brown translucent, rather than clear transparent, colour. These early bottles, usually referred to as “shaft and globe” bottles, evolved into the onion bottle shape by the 1670s. By the end of the 17th-century, the design was gradually developed to be stouter with a broad base and short neck. It then became elongated during the onset of the 18th-century to a style familiar today. So, while the onion bottle sitting on the table looks “Olde Worlde” it is in fact an anachronism. That the set-dressers clearly did not realise speaks volumes about how media productions are content to do just enough to make a scene “look right”. Although to be fair most audiences will not have spotted such a minor mistake.

Flintlock muskets  The final episode of the three, “The Last Stand”, focuses on the aftermath of the failed Plot. Instantly branded as the most wanted men in England, the conspirators race from London to the Midlands, desperately seeking to ignite a Catholic rebellion. When that also fails, viewers see the fugitives barricading themselves in Holbeche House where Catesby and the others reflect on the years of persecution that led to that moment. It is during the portrayal of the siege with the King's men that the conspirators are shown well-equipped with several flintlock muskets. 

Flintlock is a general term for any firearm that uses a flint-striking ignition mechanism. The first such weapons appeared in Western Europe in the early 16th-century. The snaplock, for example, was probably invented shortly before 1517 and was undisputedly in use by 1547. Their cost and the lock’s fragility limited their use, however. Around 1662, for example, only one in six firearms used by the British royal army was a snaphaunce, the rest being matchlocks. The development of firearm lock mechanisms had proceeded from the matchlock to wheellock to the earlier flintlocks (snaplock, snaphaunce, miquelet, and doglock) in the previous two centuries, and each type had been an improvement, contributing design features to later firearms which were useful. As an example, shortly after King Louis XIII accession to the throne in 1610, French court gunsmith Marin le Bourgeoys incorporated various features to create what became known as the flintlock or true flintlock. The new mechanism gradually replaced earlier firearm-ignition technologies, such as the matchlock, the wheellock, and earlier flintlock mechanisms such as snaplock and snaphaunce. By the late 17th-century, the flintlock had proven easier to manufacture, relatively inexpensive, reasonably weatherproof and, most importantly, provided an instant and reliable way of igniting gunpowder in a gun’s chamber. So successful were these firearms that the British Army's muzzle-loading smoothbore flintlock, officially titled the Land Pattern Musket, remained in use for over a hundred years. Nicknamed “Brown Bess”, this musket and its derivatives, all with a calibre of 0.75 inches, were the standard long guns of the British Empire's land forces from 1722 until 1838, when they were finally superseded by a percussion cap smoothbore musket.

So, while flintlocks had been around for the best part of a century, in the England of 1605 they would have been far too costly and thus not so prevalent as implied in the episode. Moreover, the flintlocks shown on screen appear to be of a much later period, and it is just possible that they are in fact the aforementioned Brown Bess muskets. A more accurate portrayal should have used matchlock muskets similar to the one pictured which were the common firearm during the later English Civil Wars from 1642 to 1653. It is suspected that the armourer supplying the production may have found flintlocks easier to obtain. That said, the number of replica, firing matchlock weapons in the possession of musketeers with the English Civil War Society (ECWS) or The Sealed Knot is significantly large and should have been easy to hire. That said, it is a little easier for the actors to learn to confidently handle and shoot a flintlock than setting a match which takes a little more training. As an example, take a look at the complex and lengthy matchlock musket drills (below) written for musketeer re-enactors by Al Slater, a member of “Colonel Edward Montague's Regiment of Foot” in the ECWS. By comparison, it should be evident that the loading drills for an 18th-century musket, as typified by the Brown Bess, are far simpler, and far safer. It therefore makes perfect sense that the firearms experts and armourers for Gunpowder Siege chose to use flintlocks even if ever so slightly anachronistic.

Conclusion  It must be emphasised that we are all for diversity and inclusion, but can we agree that arbitrary quotas are kept out of historical documentaries? It seems perfectly acceptable in a production like Bridgerton where the primary purpose is purely entertainment. But a history documentary's objective is surely to accurately inform the audience. In almost any other context, inclusive casting is essential to ensure as many people as possible are involved in all kinds of projects. But when it comes to historical documentaries, we are not alone or in favour of the media’s virtue signalling choices. If a documentary's goal is to educate the audience, why mislead them with identity-conscious casting that effectively removes the viewer from the historical world it is trying to recreate? Artistically, it does not necessarily benefit the actors, and from an informational standpoint, it does not serve the audience either. And yes, we know Wolf Hall is an outlier by dint of it being a fictionalised account of Tudor period intrigue. Yet the popularity and impact of the two series warrants its inclusion in light of John Guy’s observation “that many students had begun to assume the first Wolf Hall series was 100% accurate.” Television, movies, video games and social media platforms can have a far reaching influence which can be entertaining and as historically accurate as possible. Bon appétit!

References: 

BBC Bitesize, “Africans and their lives in Tudor England”, available online (accessed 18 March 2025).

Black History Month 2025, “BLACK TUDORS…A peek into the lives of ten people of the African Diaspora who lived in Tudor Britain”, available online (accessed 18 March 2025).

Carr, F. (2021), “Why Channel 5's Anne Boleyn is a Black woman - a look at the real Anne”, RadioTimes.com, available online (accessed 9 January 2025).

Ladimeji, K. (2024), “How Historically Accurate Is Wolf Hall?”, Oxford Open Learning, available online (accessed 17 March 2025).

O'Hehir, A. (2001), “The book of the century”, Salon, available online (accessed 16 January 2025).

Quiroga, S.A. (2022), “Forced Diversity’ In Movies Is Not a Thing – But Here’s Why Some People Are So Scared of It”, De Gruter Conversations, available online (accessed 16 December 2024).

Slater, A. (1998), “Musket Drill”, English Civil War Times, available online (accessed 18 March 2025).

Endnotes:

1. Jenkins, S. (2024), “Should period dramas reflect modern sensibilities”, in “The Conversation”, BBC History Magazine (July edition), p. 12.

2. A “straw man fallacy” is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.

3. Writing in Salon, Andrew O'Hehir suggests the novel is Tolkien's lament over the impact of the Industrial Revolution and the environmental degradation of England's formerly “green and pleasant land”.

Henry VIII’s Privy Council in 1540

The Privy Council remains to this day a formal body of advisers to the sovereign on the exercise of the royal prerogative, a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity attached to the monarch. Its members, known as Privy Counsellors, were drawn from the higher nobility, senior church leaders and leading legal advisors.

The early equivalent to the Privy Council of England in Henry VIII’s reign was the Anglo-Saxon Witenagemot. After 1066, during the reigns of the Norman monarchs, the English Crown was advised by a royal court or curia regis on matters pertaining to legislation, administration and justice. Later, different bodies would assume these distinct functions. The courts of law, for example, took over the business of dispensing justice, while Parliament became the supreme legislature of the kingdom. Nevertheless, the Privy Council retained the power to hear legal disputes, either in the first instance or on appeal. Furthermore, laws made by the sovereign on the advice of the Council, rather than on the advice of Parliament, were accepted as valid. This meant that powerful sovereigns often used the body to circumvent the Courts and Parliament. During the 15th-century, one such example was a committee of the Council permitted to inflict any punishment except death, without being bound by normal court procedure. Later this committee would become the Court of the Star Chamber which sat judicially each Wednesday and Friday.

During Henry VIII's reign, the sovereign, on the advice of the Privy Council, was allowed to enact laws by mere proclamation. The legislative pre-eminence of Parliament was not restored until after Henry VIII's death. By 1540 a reconstructed Council, most probably the creation of Thomas Cromwell, met almost exclusively at Court on a virtually daily basis. While the Council’s powers were ill-defined it did mark the union of the Royal Court with the apparatus of State. What follows is a brief introduction to the nineteen men, in no particular order of seniority, who formed Henry VIII’s Privy Council in 1540.

Thomas Audley, Lord Chancellor

Thomas Audley, born 1488 in Earls Colne, Essex, became a member of Privy Council in 1527. Trained in law, Audley had a very illustrious career at the Tudor court, especially in politics where he became speaker of the House of Commons in 1529. The same year he was also made Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Having gained Parliament’s acceptance of Henry’s anti-papal policies, the king made him Lord Keeper of the Great Seal in 1532 and, after the resignation of Thomas More, he was appointed Lord Chancellor of England from 1533 to 1544. As Lord Chancellor, Audley presided at the trials of Bishop John Fisher and Sir Thomas More in 1535. Both men were duly executed for refusing to repudiate their support of papal supremacy in England. 

Although he worked with Thomas Cromwell to establish the supremacy of statute law in England, Audley played a prominent role in securing the attainder of Cromwell in 1540 as well as that of Henry’s fifth wife, Catherine Howard two years later. In 1538 he had been created 1st Baron Audley of Walden and was made a Knight of the Garter shortly thereafter. Four years later he founded Magdalene College, Cambridge. The barony became extinct upon his death on 30 April 1544.

Audley was clearly accommodating of Henry VIII’s agenda and was rewarded accordingly. Historians have viewed him as an unprincipled politician completely subservient to Henry’s will. He certainly backed the King’s desire to divorce Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn and helped Henry break with the papacy to establish himself as head of the English church. In 1536 Audley presided at the trials that led to the execution of Anne Boleyn and the men around her.

We know that Henry VIII “interfered so much in the chancellor’s domestic concerns as to command him to marry, and to bring about the match, and promise to endow him accordingly.” Dutifully, Audley married his second wife Elizabeth Grey sometime between 1538 and 1540. Their first child, Margaret Audley, was born in 1540.

Sir John Baker, Chancellor of the Court of First Fruits and Tenths

Sir John Baker was a well-known figure at the Tudor court. In June 1540 he was knighted and in the same year became a member of Henry VIII’s Privy Council. In 1545, he was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The succession of Mary to the throne saw the restoration of Catholicism in England. During her reign Baker earned a reputation as a brutal persecutor of protestants meriting him the nickname “Bloody Baker”. Legend says that he was riding to persecute some protestants when he heard Queen Mary had died. The place where he turned back became known as Baker’s Cross.

Baker was first married Katherine Sackville and subsequently to Elizabeth Dineley with whom he had five children. He died in London from a short illness in December 1558 less than a month after the death of Queen Mary.

Sir Anthony Browne, Master of the Horse

Sir Anthony Browne was born in c. 1500, the son of Lucy and Sir Anthony Browne, Henry VII's standard-bearer and lieutenant of Calais Castle. His father’s position meant Browne undoubtedly grew up in the household of the future King Henry VIII just like his half-brother William Fitzwilliam (see below). Although Browne never attained the power of the king's other ministers, he did manage to sustain a friendship with the young King Henry.

Browne's record of service officially started when he turned eighteen, in the year 1518, and it was around this time that he was part of an embassy sent to attend the delivery of Tournai to Francis I. In the same year, Browne was appointed surveyor and master of hunting for the castles and lordships of Hatfield, Conisbrough and Thorne in Yorkshire. By October 1519, Browne was serving Henry VIII as a gentleman of the privy chamber, and in 1520 he attended the Field of the Cloth of Gold meeting between Francis I and Henry VIII, taking part in a tournament there. In 1522 he was knighted by the Earl of Surrey for his part in the attack on Morlaix and the king made him a knight of the body. Three years later, he was made lieutenant of the Isle of Man.

The start of 1527 saw Browne being appointed as an ambassador in France reporting regularly on the activities in that country. His dispatches, noted as having a slightly petulant note, reveal an animosity toward the French court that grew over the years. Browne seemingly found fault with everything: the French manner of hunting, the King’s latest mistress, the Order of St. Michael which he considered a poor copy of the Garter, and that he could find nothing worth purchasing. Regardless, Henry VIII must have found Browne a loyal and competent servant as the king continued to send him on French embassies.

Browne was one of those chosen to attend the meeting between Henry VIII and Francis I in autumn 1532 regarding the English king’s wish to divorce Catherine of Aragon. Although a religious conservative, Browne supported the king in his quest for an annulment and throughout the break with Rome. In 1536 Browne, along with his half-brother Fitzwilliam, helped Thomas Cromwell engineer Queen Anne Boleyn's downfall. It was his own sister, Elizabeth, Countess of Worcester, who was said to have been the first to have raised suspicions regarding the Queen and her behaviour with her court musician, Mark Smeaton, and her brother, George Boleyn. 

In 1539, Henry appointed Browne as a privy councillor, master of the horse, captain of the gentlemen pensioners, and election as knight of the shire for Surrey. A year later and Browne was once again shown royal favour when selected by the king to meet Anne of Cleves at Rochester. He was made a Knight of the Garter in April 1540 and was also granted Battle Abbey. The Browne brothers appear to have allied themselves with the Duke of Norfolk by Thomas Cromwell’s fall in the summer of 1540, although they were distant enough from the duke to avoid being implicated in Catherine Howard’s fall of 1541 and 1542.

When Henry VIII died in 1547 Browne was made executor of the king’s will and was left the sum of £300. Browne was chosen as guardian of Edward, the king’s only son, and Elizabeth, the king’s daughter by Anne Boleyn. Along with the Earl of Hertford, Browne informed Edward and Elizabeth of their father’s death, and when Edward processed from the Tower of London to Westminster Palace, it was Browne who rode at his side.

Browne married twice. His first wife, Alice, married in 1528, bore him around ten children: seven boys and three girls. After Alice’s death, Browne was married a second time to Elizabeth Fitzgerald on 12th December 1542. The couple had two children who both died young. When Browne himself died on 6th May 1548 at Byfleet in Surrey, he owned 11,000 acres of land in Sussex worth a total of £679 annually as well as 8,500 acres of land in Surrey worth half as much. He was able to leave his second wife and children a generous amount to live on, but most of his fortune went to Anthony, his eldest son by his first wife.

William Fitzwilliam, Earl of Southampton, Lord Privy Seal

William Fitzwilliam, Earl of Southampton, was born in around 1490 and was the third son of Sir Thomas Fitzwilliam of Aldwark, Yorkshire, and his wife, Lucy Neville, daughter of John Neville, Marquess of Montagu. When he was about ten, Fitzwilliam joined the household of Prince Henry, Prince of Wales, as a companion to the young prince. He and his half-brother Anthony Browne (see above) were raised at court and educated alongside the future Henry VIII with whom they had a close relationship. After Henry’s coronation in 1509, Fitzwilliam was made a Gentleman Usher and King’s Cupbearer beginning his ascent to prominence. As esteemed members at court, Fitzwilliam and his half-brother, Anthony Browne, would be instrumental in Anne Boleyn’s downfall in 1536 and the investigation into Queen Catherine Howard's past in 1541. These acts, plus suppressing the “Pilgrimage of Grace” revolt and the Exeter Conspiracy, would earn Fitzwilliam the soubriquet of king’s “enforcer”.

In 1512, Fitzwilliam accompanied Thomas Grey, 2nd Marquess of Dorset, to Guyenne, and then served under Sir Edward Howard in a failed naval attack on Brest. Howard was killed and Fitzwilliam suffered a crossbow injury. He then led a company of the King's guard with Henry VIII and was knighted at Tournai. In November 1512, Fitzwilliam married Mabel Clifford. King Henry VIII attended their marriage.

By 1520, Fitzwilliam was serving as Vice-Admiral under the Earl of Surrey, which included organising Henry VIII's convoy to the Field of Cloth of Gold meeting with Francis I, where he attended on the king. On his return to England, Vice-Admiral Fitzwilliam had the job of preparing ships at Portsmouth for war with France and served under the Earl of Surrey burning French towns and villages. The following year, his fleet were victorious against the Scottish and French off the coast of Boulogne. In 1522, Fitzwilliam was made joint Master of the Ordinance at Calais and in 1523, he was appointed Captain of Guisnes.

By autumn 1525, Fitzwilliam had been appointed as Treasurer of the Household, and a year later was elected to the Order of the Garter. Between 1526 and 1530, he served at lieutenant of Calais Castle and took part in embassies in France. During this period, Fitzwilliam was made Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

In 1536, following the death of Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond and Somerset, he was made Lord High Admiral of England and the following year, Earl of Southampton. Three years later (1539), Fitzwilliam was one of the men responsible for welcoming Anne of Cleves on her arrival in Calais on her journey to England to marry the king. He is known to have praised Anne's beauty.

In 1540, following his former friend Thomas Cromwell's fall, Fitzwilliam was made Lord Privy Seal, in which role he supervised the staff of clerks and prepared documents for authentication by the Great Seal. That same year he was part of the delegation sent to Anne of Cleves to inform her of Henry VIII's wish to annul his fourth marriage and was a witness for the king in the annulment proceedings.

Fitzwilliam died in Newcastle-upon-Tyne on 15th October 1542 while leading troops to Scotland under the command of Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk. His earldom became extinct on his death, for he had no surviving children. 

Sir John Gage, Comptroller of the Household

Sir John Gage (28 October 1479 – 18 April 1556) was an English courtier holding several offices at the Tudor Court. An Esquire of the Body to both Henry VII and Henry VIII, he served offices in the Pale of Calais, becoming Comptroller in 1524 responsible for its finances. 

After receiving a knighthood in 1525, Gage moved to the post of Vice-Chamberlain of the Household in 1526 before leaving court in 1533. He also represented Sussex three times (1529, 1539 and 1542) in the parliaments of Henry VIII.

Although not at Court, Gage remained active attending the baptism of Prince Edward and the funeral of Jane Seymour both in 1537. He returned to favour, and in 1540 saw his appointment as Comptroller of the Household responsible for the royal household’s finances, and member of the Privy Council. Made Constable of the Tower, Gage supervised the arrangements for the execution of Catherine Howard. In 1541 he became a Knight of the Garter and in 1542 succeeded as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In 1544 he undertook an important role for the invasion of France, organising transport and supplies for the army whereupon he became a knight banneret.

Present at the funeral of Henry VIII, he was appointed one of the executors of the king's will and a member of Edward VI's Regency Council. Differences soon arose between him and The Duke of Somerset, who expelled him from the council and from his posts of Comptroller and Chancellor when Somerset became Lord Protector in 1547. Gage re-joined the council, before resigning upon the accession to power of The Earl of Warwick, later Duke of Northumberland. He was suspended as Constable for not supporting Northumberland's attempt to install Lady Jane Grey as Edward's successor. The accession of Mary I saw his restoration as Constable and appointment as Lord Chamberlain. He bore her train at her coronation and at her marriage to Philip of Spain. In 1555, as Constable of the Tower, Gage guarded Princess Elizabeth. Sir John Gage died a year later on 18 April 1556.

Sir William Petre, King’s Secretary

Sir William Petre (c. 1505 – 1572) (pronounced “Peter”) was Secretary of State to three successive Tudor monarchs: Kings Henry VIII and Edward VI, and Queen Mary I. He also deputised for the Secretary of State to Elizabeth I.

Educated as a lawyer at the University of Oxford, he became a public servant, probably through the influence of the Boleyn family, most notably Queen Anne Boleyn, second wife of King Henry VIII. Petre is also said to have been employed by Thomas Boleyn, Earl of Wiltshire, as tutor to his son George.

Petre rose rapidly in the royal service and was adept at side-stepping the great religious controversies of the day. Knighted in January 1544, Sir William Petre was appointed Secretary of State, one of the King’s two principal secretaries the other being William Paget. As a member of the Privy Council, he attended its meetings regularly and was one of the six persons authorized to sign documents with a stamp of the King’s signature. Petre was also one of the five men appointed to advise Queen Catherine Parr during her regency in July 1544. His second wife, Anne Browne, served as lady-in-waiting to Queen.

Petre navigated the ship of state through the rest of Henry's troubled reign, managing a smooth succession in 1547. He held high office throughout the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I until, owing to ill health he retired a rich man to his manor of Ingatestone, in Essex, where he had built Ingatestone Hall.

Sir Richard Rich, King’s Solicitor

Richard Rich, 1st Baron Rich (July 1496 – 12 June 1567), was Lord Chancellor during the reign of King Edward VI from 1547 until January 1552. His origins are, however, somewhat obscure. In 1509, Rich inherited his father's house in Islington, Middlesex, and as early in 1551 he was described in an official document as “fifty-four years of age and more”, suggesting that he was born about 1496 (perhaps earlier).

Little is also known of Rich's early life. He may have studied at Cambridge before 1516. That year, he entered the Middle Temple as a lawyer and at some point between 1520 and 1525 he was a reader at the New Inn. By 1528 Rich was in search of a patron and wrote to Cardinal Wolsey. Thomas Audley (see above) succeeded in helping him get elected as an MP for Colchester a year later in 1529. As Audley's career advanced in the early 1530s, so did Rich's, through a variety of legal posts, before he became truly prominent in the mid-1530s. Other preferments followed, and in 1533 Rich was knighted and became the Solicitor General for England and Wales in which capacity he was to act under Thomas Cromwell as a “lesser hammer” for the demolition of the monasteries, and to secure the operation of Henry VIII's Act of Supremacy.

As King's Solicitor, Rich travelled to Kimbolton Castle in Huntingdonshire in January 1536 to take the inventory of the goods of Catherine of Aragon, and wrote to Henry advising how he might properly obtain her possessions. On 19 April 1536 Rich became the chancellor of the Court of Augmentations, established for the disposal of the monastic revenues. His own share of the spoil, acquired either by grant or purchase, included Leez (Leighs) Priory and about 100 manors in Essex. Rich also acquired - and destroyed - the real estate and holdings of the Priory of St Bartholomew-the-Great in Smithfield. In the same year Rich became Speaker of the House of Commons advocating the king's policy. 

In 1535, Rich testified in the trials of Catholic martyrs Sir Thomas More and Bishop John Fisher. His evidence against both men included admissions made by them during friendly conversation. In More's case Rich’s testimony was reputedly given a wilful misconstruction that led to More being condemned for treason. Alongside Lord Chancellor Wriothesley (see below), Rich was participant in the torture of Anne Askew, the only woman tortured at the Tower of London. He was also instrumental in the downfall of Thomas Cromwell in 1542 and took part in the prosecution of bishops Stephen Gardiner (see below) and Edmund Bonner.

Rich was an assistant executor of the will of King Henry VIII and received a grant of lands. He became Baron Rich of Leez on 26 February 1547. In the next month he succeeded Wriothesley as Lord Chancellor. Rich supported Lord Protector Edward Seymour in his policies, including reforms in Church matters and the prosecution of his brother Thomas Seymour, until the crisis of October 1549, when he joined with John Dudley.

He had a role in the harsh treatment accorded to the future Mary I of England, but surprisingly on her accession she showed Rich no ill will. Despite the share he had taken in the suppression of the monasteries, the prosecution of Thomas More and Bishop Fisher, and the later part he played under Edward VI and Elizabeth, Rich’s religious beliefs remained nominally Catholic. With Mary on the throne, Rich took an active part in the restoration of the old religion in Essex being one of the most active persecutors of non-conformist Protestants. His reappearances in the privy council were rare during Mary's reign, but under Elizabeth he served on a commission to inquire into the grants of land made under Mary, and in 1566 was sent for to advise on the question of the queen's marriage. He died at Rochford in Essex, on 12 June 1567, and was buried in Holy Cross Church in Felsted.

Sir John Russell, Lord High Admiral

John Russell, 1st Earl of Bedford (c. 1485 – 14 March 1555) was an English royal minister in the Tudor era. He served variously as Lord High Admiral and Lord Privy Seal. He became a Gentleman of the Privy Chamber to King Henry VII in 1507 and then to his son and successor Henry VIII in 1509. The latter employed him in various military and diplomatic missions on behalf of the crown. Russell was present throughout the entire reign of Henry VIII. He was knighted in 1522 and was created Comptroller of the King’s Household in 1537.

In 1528 Russell was made High Sheriff of Dorset and Somerset and served as Member of Parliament for Buckinghamshire from 1529 to 1536, retaining the royal favour despite the antipathy of Anne Boleyn. Late in 1536, he was made a Privy Counsellor and helped suppress the Pilgrimage of Grace uprising in that year.

On 9 March 1538/1539 he was created Baron Russell, and appointed Lord President of the Council of the West. In the next month, he was made a Knight of the Garter. In July 1539 he was made High Steward of Cornwall, and Lord Warden of the Stannaries. In 1549 he obtained the office of Lord High Admiral when the previous holder, the Earl of Southampton, replaced Thomas Cromwell as Lord Privy Seal.

After Henry VIII met Anne of Cleves at Rochester, the next day he asked Russell if he “thought her fair”. Russell replied with his natural diplomacy and prudence that he took her “not to be fair, but of a brown complexion”. In 1542, Russell himself resigned the Admiralty and succeeded to the Privy Seal on the death of the Earl of Southampton. He was High Steward of the University of Oxford from 1543 till his death.

After Henry VIII met Anne of Cleves at Rochester, the next day he asked Russell if he "thought her fair". Russell replied with his natural diplomacy and prudence that he took her "not to be fair, but of a brown complexion". In 1542, Russell himself resigned from the Admiralty and succeeded to the Privy Seal on the death of Southampton. He was High Steward of the University of Oxford from 1543 till his death.

Russell remained a close companion of King Henry VIII during the last years of his reign. On Henry's death in 1547, Russell was one of the executors of the king's will, and one of sixteen counsellors during the minority of his son King Edward VI.

On 21 June 1553 he was one of the twenty-six peers who signed the settlement of the crown on Lady Jane Grey. He was sent to attend King Philip II into England on his arrival from Spain to wed the Queen Mary.

Among the lands and property he was given by Henry VIII after the Dissolution of the Monasteries, were the Abbey and town of Tavistock, and the area that is now Covent Garden in London.

His wife, Anne Sapcote was a lady-in-waiting to Queen Catherine Parr and was a frequent member at court.

Russell fell ill at the beginning of 1555, making his last appearance at Council on the 11th of January and dying on the 14th of March that year.

Sir Ralph Sadler, King’s Secretary

By the time he was nineteen Ralph Sadler was serving as Thomas Cromwell's secretary learning about administration, finance and politics. He handled Cromwell's household business and was involved in drafting and writing his correspondence. By 1529 he had become one of Cromwell's most trusted friends and was appointed an executor of his will. Between 1525 and 1529, his name appeared in Cromwell's correspondence in connection with the suppression of monasteries. It was probably around this time that his talents came to the attention of the king.

It was probably soon after Cromwell's elevation to the peerage, on 9 July 1536, that Sadler was named a gentleman of the Privy Chamber, and in the same year, he became MP for Hindon in Wiltshire.

In January 1537, Sadler was sent to Scotland to investigate complaints made by Margaret Tudor, the King's sister, against her third husband, Henry Stewart, 1st Lord Methven, and to improve Anglo-Scottish relations. He succeeded in both respects. A second foray into Scotland was less successful although the King remained impressed with Sadler’s work.

In April 1540 Sadler was made principal secretary to the king, a position he held jointly with Thomas Wriothesley (see below). In the same year, he was knighted, made a privy councillor, and began more than 30 years of service representing Hertfordshire in Parliament. That same year Sadler survived the fall from power and subsequent execution of his friend and mentor, Thomas Cromwell. Significantly, when Cromwell was sent to the Tower in June 1540, Sadler was the only one who dared to deliver Cromwell’s letter to the King pleading for mercy. Clemency was not forthcoming; it is not known whether the King even read the letter. Six months later, in January 1541, Sadler’s association with his former mentor found himself imprisoned in the Tower. Able to clear his name, he was released in a few days later, returning to the council chamber. That November he played a leading role in the examination of the scandal surrounding Catherine Howard and her relatives. Having regained the King's trust, Sadler was knighted for his part in holding matters of state while the court went on a summer progress of the North in a tripartite ministry with Lords Audley and Hertford.

Sadler was present when the Bishop of Winchester, Stephen Gardiner (see below), one of those along with the Duke of Norfolk (see below) who engineered Thomas Cromwell’s downfall, was arrested. When Henry VIII was preparing his will on Boxing Day 1546, he had already appointed Sadler onto the Council of Regency that was to rule England during Edward VI's minority and left him £200 in his will. He was one of the signatories of Edward VI's will in 1553 and proved to be one of the radicals in Edward’s Protestant government. On the young king’s untimely demise, Sadler signed the device proclaiming his cousin, the Protestant Jane Grey, as Queen. Lord Burghley noted that Sadler was one of those expected to act on her behalf.

Deposed after only nine days, when the Catholic Mary I ascended to the throne, Sadler lost most of his offices, including master of the great wardrobe, he was removed from the commissions of the peace and excluded from the Privy Council. He was briefly under house arrest from 25 to 30 July 1553 before being granted a pardon on 6 October. For the rest of Mary I's reign Sadler remained in semi-retirement at Standon, Hertfordshire and did not attend any parliament.

During the reign of Elizabeth I, he was restored to royal favour and was eventually appointed Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in 1568. That year Mary, Queen of Scots fled to England after the battle of Langside. Some four years later Sadler would become her keeper at Sheffield (1572). He was again reluctantly appointed Mary’s gaoler from the summer 1584 to spring 1585, when she was housed at Wingfield Manor and Tutbury Castle. After the Babington Plot, Sadler was on the council that sentenced Mary to death.

Sir Ralph died on 30 March 1587 reputedly “the richest commoner in England.” His tomb lies beneath a magnificent wall monument in St Mary's Church, Standon, Hertfordshire. Sadler left the majority of his vast landholdings to his eldest son and heir, Thomas Sadler. His younger son, Henry, received the manors of Hungerford, Berkshire, and Everley in Wiltshire. 

Sir Anthony Wingfield, Vice-Chamberlain

Sir Anthony Wingfield was a member of court from the reign of the first Tudor, King Henry VII. He was Esquire of the Body at the court of Henry VII in 1509 and was at the King’s funeral that year. But it was during the reign of Henry VIII that Wingfield achieved great advancement. In 1513 he was knighted for his part in the capture of Tournai and rose in status from that point on.

Like his prominent kinsmen he served for a long time in the administration of his county, Suffolk. By 1539 his responsibilities included being part of the royal household and he had a seat on the Privy Council that allowed him to profit from the Dissolution of monasteries.

Anthony Wingfield was made a Knight of the Garter on St George’s Day 1541. Six years later when Herny VIII died in 1547, Wingfield led the guard at the funeral procession and served as an assistant executor of the King’s will from which he was bequeathed £200. Wingfield remained a member of Edward VI’s Privy Council during the protectorate of the Duke of Somerset. However, after the fall of the Protectorate in October 1549, it was Wingfield whom the Council sent to Windsor to arrest Somerset, and to bring him to the Tower. A year later (in 1550) he was appointed to the post of Chamberlain of the Exchequer, a position he held until his death two years later (15 August 1552).

Wingfield died at the house of his friend Sir John Gates in Bethnal Green, and his funeral took place on 21 August at Stepney. His body was borne in a grand heraldic procession, his armour and insignia displayed, over Mile End where the vicar of Shoreditch preached at the communion and a feast was held afterwards.

Sir Thomas Wriothesley, King’s Secretary

Thomas Wriothesley (pronounced “Reeseley”), born in London on 21 December 1505, was the son of York Herald William Wriothesley and Agnes Drayton, daughter and heiress of James Drayton of London. Wriothesley received his early education at St Paul's School, London. In 1522 he was admitted to Trinity Hall, Cambridge, where he was taught law by Stephen Gardiner (see below). Although Wriothesley did not take a degree, he and Gardiner remained lifelong friends. In 1524, at the age of nineteen, he entered a career at court and came to the attention of Thomas Cromwell. Sometime before 4 May 1530 he was appointed joint Clerk of the Signet under Gardiner, who was by then secretary to King Henry VIII. Wriothesley held this post for a decade while continuing in Cromwell's service.

Wriothesley was the one of two secretaries of King Henry VIII, the other being Ralph Sadler (see above). A naturally skilled but unscrupulous and devious politician who allegiances shifted with the times, Wriothesley and William Brereton were charged with helping secure an annulment for the King against Catherine of Aragon from Pope Clement VII to allow Anne Boleyn to assume her royal position. Subsequently, he served as a loyal instrument of Henry VIII in the King’s break with the Catholic church.

Wriothesley's services were richly rewarded at the Dissolution of the Monasteries being granted extensive lands between Southampton and Winchester that had once belonged to the abbeys of Beaulieu and Titchfield.

Until May 1539, he was Henry VIII's ambassador in Brussels. When Anne of Cleves was due to come from the German duchy to England later that year, it was Wriothesley who led the naval escort. Having been sent on diplomatic errands abroad, the following year saw the recently knighted Sir Thomas Wriothesley made one of the King's principal secretaries, a position he held jointly with Sir Ralph Sadler (see above), acting as Secretary to the Privy Council. Dividing the duties, Wriothesley's responsibility was purely political whereas Sadler's were as personal secretary to the King. Wriothesley's noble parentage and strong personality, however, enabled him to dominate the commoner Sadler.

Wriothesley continued to support the Duke of Norfolk and his pro-Catholic faction, but like many at the time did so when it suited him at court. When Queen Catherine Howard's conviction and execution for adultery signalled that the political pendulum was swinging away from Norfolk, Wriothesley distanced himself from Norfolk’s faction.

When on 22 April 1544 Lord Audley died, Wriothesley was appointed Lord Chancellor the next month. Ever the unscrupulous schemer, Wriothesley was purposely chosen to keep both papists and reformists at bay. The King relied heavily on his aristocratic friends Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk and Wriothesley to secure a balance of power in the Privy Chamber. He was created Baron Wriothesley of Titchfield in 1544. But as Lord Chancellor he became notorious for torturing Anne Askew, a self-confessed Protestant, personally operating the wheel on the rack.

Wriothesley was one of the executors of Henry VIII's will, and in accordance with the dead King's wishes he was created Earl of Southampton on 16 February 1547 and was a member of the Regency Council that would rule collectively during King Edward VI's minority. His long-standing antipathy toward the Seymour family meant that Wriothesley objected to Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset’s appointment to the position of Lord Protector. In March 1547, he then found himself abruptly dismissed from the chancellorship on charges of selling off some of his offices to delegates, losing his seat on the Privy Council at the same time.

Later he was readmitted to the Council, and he took a leading part in bringing about the fall of the Duke of Somerset, but he had not regained his former position when he died on 30 July 1550. His successor in the earldom was his son, Henry.

Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury

Thomas Cranmer, born 2nd July 1489 in Aslacton, Nottinghamshire, was the first Protestant archbishop of Canterbury (1533–56). In a lengthy career Cranmer was adviser to the English kings Henry VIII and Edward VI.

In August 1532 the aged archbishop of Canterbury, William Warham, died. The obvious candidate for the archbishopric, Stephen Gardiner (see below), was out of favour with the king who chose Cranmer instead. By March 1533 Cranmer was consecrated and instituted at Canterbury. Shortly thereafter he proceeded to do what was expected of him with regard to dissolving Henry first marriage. In May he convened his court at Dunstable, declared the king’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon void from the outset, and pronounced the marriage to Anne Boleyn valid.

In 1536, convinced by the dubious evidence of Anne’s alleged adulteries, he in turn invalidated that marriage. Four years later in 1540 he assisted in the freeing of Henry VIII from his fourth wife, Anne of Cleves, and in 1542 he was forced to be prominent in the proceedings that resulted in Catherine Howard’s execution for treasonable unchastity.

As archbishop, he put the English Bible in parish churches, drew up the Book of Common Prayer, and composed a litany that remains in use today. Cranmer was denounced by the Catholic queen Mary I for promoting Protestantism. Convicted of heresy he was burned at the stake on 21st March 1556 in Oxford.

Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester

Stephen Gardiner (27 July 1483 – 12 November 1555) was an English Catholic bishop and politician during the English Reformation period who served as Lord Chancellor during the reign of Queen Mary I and King Philip.

During Henry VIII’s reign Gardiner took part in various embassies to France and Germany. Indeed, he was so often abroad that he had little influence on the King's councils. Gardiner, an implacable opponent of Thomas Cromwell, was elected chancellor of the University of Cambridge in 1540 on Cromwell’s execution. A few years later he attempted, in concert with others, to fasten a charge of heresy upon Archbishop Cranmer who had married in contravention of one of the Six Articles, the historically defining statements of doctrines and practices of the Church of England with respect to the controversies of the English Reformation. But for the personal intervention of the king, Gardiner would probably have succeeded.

Great as Gardiner's influence had been with Henry VIII, his name was omitted from the King's will, though Henry was believed to have intended making him one of his executors. Henry had made provision in his will for a 16-man Council to rule England during his son Edward's minority (Edward VI). Gardiner was excluded from this council. He also resolutely opposed radical Protestant reforms introduced by said Council such that by the end of 1547 was summoned before the council to explain himself. Refusing to answer satisfactorily on some points, Gardiner was imprisoned in the Tower of London in June 1548. Eventually he was given a lengthy appearance before the Privy Council, beginning in December 1550 and, in February 1551 he was deprived of his bishopric and returned to the Tower where he remained for the rest of Edward VI’s reign (a further two years).

At the accession of Queen Mary I, Gardiner along with Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk and other state prisoners of high rank were in the Tower. The Queen, on her first entry into London, set them all free. Gardiner was restored to his bishopric and appointed Lord Chancellor, and he placed the crown on the Queen's head at her coronation. He also opened her first parliament and for some time was her leading councillor. He was now also called upon, in old age, to undo not a little of the work in which he had been instrumental in his earlier years – to demonstrate the legitimacy of the Queen's birth and the legality of her mother's marriage, to restore the old religion, and to recant his own words touching the royal supremacy.

Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk, Lord Treasurer

Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk, (10 March 1473 – 25 August 1554) was a prominent English politician and Privy Councillor in the Tudor court. An able soldier, he was often employed in military operations. In 1497, for example, he served in a campaign against the Scots under the command of his father, who knighted him on 30 September 1497. He was made a Knight of the Garter after the accession of his nephew by marriage, King Henry VIII, and became the King's close companion, with lodgings at court.

Howard was an uncle to two of the wives of King Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, both of whom were beheaded, and played a major role in the machinations affecting those royal marriages. After falling from favour in 1546, he was stripped of his dukedom and imprisoned in the Tower of London only avoiding execution when Henry VIII died on 28 January 1547.

He was released on the accession of the Queen Mary I, whom he aided in securing the throne, thus setting the stage for tensions between his Catholic family and the Protestant royal line that would be continued by Mary's half-sister, Elizabeth I.

Robert Radcliffe, Earl of Sussex, Lord Chamberlain

Robert Radcliffe, 10th Baron Fitzwalter, 1st Earl of Sussex, Knight of the Garter, Knight of the Bath, and Privy Councillor (c. 1483 – 27 November 1542). He was a prominent courtier and soldier who, in his youth, had been in the service of King Henry VII and his then elder son and heir, Arthur, Prince of Wales. Radcliffe was present at Arthur's marriage to Catherine of Aragon on 14 November 1501.

In 1509 Radcliffe became Baron FitzWalter and on 23 June of that year was made a Knight of the Bath. Further honours and appointments followed. Radcliffe was a member of the Privy Council before 2 February 1526, was created Earl of Sussex on 8 December 1529, appointed Lieutenant of the Order of the Garter on 7 May 1531, and appointed as a Chamberlain of the Exchequer for life on 3 June 1532.

On 3 January 1540, he attended Henry VIII at the reception of Anne of Cleves at Blackheath. Later that same year (3 August 1540) he was granted a lifetime appointment as Lord Great Chamberlain. Robert Radcliffe died at Chelsea on 28 November 1542 and was buried at Boreham, Essex.

Cuthbert Tunstall, Bishop of Durham

Cuthbert Tunstall (otherwise spelt Tunstal or Tonstall) was born in Hackforth near Bedale in North Yorkshire in 1474, the illegitimate son of Sir Thomas Tunstall of Thurland Castle in Lancashire who would later be an esquire of the body of Richard III.

On 22 February 1530 Cuthbert Tunstall succeeded Cardinal Wolsey as Bishop of Durham, a role that involved assuming quasi-regal power and authority within the territory of the diocese, the County Palatine of Durham. Seven years later he was made President of the new Council of the North. Although he was often engaged in time-consuming negotiations with the Scots, he took part in other public business and attended parliament where, in 1539, he participated in the discussion on the Bill of Six Articles mentioned above.

In the question of King Henry's divorce from his first wife, Tunstall acted as one of Queen Catherine's counsellors. Unlike Bishop John Fisher and Sir Thomas More, Tunstall adopted a policy of passive obedience and acquiescence regarding many matters for which he likely held little support during the troubled years following the English Reformation. While Tunstall adhered firmly to Roman Catholic doctrine and practices, after some hesitation he accepted Henry as head of the Church of England, and he publicly defended this position, accepting a schism with Rome.

When the Protestant Elizabeth I ascended to the throne, Tunstall refused to take the Oath of Supremacy and would not participate in the consecration of the Anglican Matthew Parker as Archbishop of Canterbury. He was arrested, deprived of his diocese in September 1559, and held prisoner at Lambeth Palace. He died there within a few weeks, aged 85, becoming one of eleven Roman Catholic bishops to die in custody during Elizabeth's reign. Tunstall was buried in the parish church of St Mary-at-Lambeth, now a deconsecrated building.

Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford, Privy Councillor

Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset, 1st Earl of Hertford, 1st Viscount Beauchamp, Knight of the Garter and Privy Councillor. Also known as Edward Semel, he served as Lord Protector of England from 1547 to 1549 during the minority of his nephew King Edward VI. He was the eldest surviving brother of Queen Jane Seymour, the third wife of King Henry VIII. Indeed, Seymour grew rapidly in favour with Henry VIII following the king’s marriage to Jane in 1536 and was subsequently made Earl of Hertford. 

From October to the end of Henry's reign he was in attendance on the king, engaged in the struggle for predominance which was to determine the complexion of the government during the coming minority. Personal, political and religious rivalry separated him from the Howard family. The latter could not acquiesce, in the Imperial ambassador's verdict, that Seymour was one of only two noblemen of fit age and capacity to carry on the government. Henry Howard's hasty temper and his attempt to secure the predominance of his family led to his own execution and to his father's imprisonment in the Tower of London.

On Henry's death in 1547, Seymour was appointed protector by the Regency Council on the accession of the nine-year-old Edward VI. Rewarded with the title Duke of Somerset, he became the effective ruler of England.

William Lord Sandys, Lord Chamberlain of the Household

William Sandys, 1st Baron Sandys (1470 – 4 December 1540) was a younger son of Sir William Sandys (1440–1496) of The Vyne in the parish of Sherborne St John, Hampshire. 

As a young man, Sandys gained preferment at court and was soon associated with the future King Henry VIII, assisting at his knighthood and at the reception of his future wife Catherine of Aragon. He was appointed as a Knight of the Body to Henry VIII, becoming a close companion to the King in the early years of his reign. In 1517 he was appointed Treasurer of Calais, a personal possession of the king, and in 1518 was made a Knight of the Garter. He was apparently instrumental in organising the meeting of the English and French kings at the Field of the Cloth of Gold, near Calais. He was created Baron Sandys of The Vyne, in 1523. In 1530 he was made Henry's Lord Chamberlain and later that same year he was appointed Captain of Guisnes, a position he held until his death in 1540.

As a favourite of Henry VIII, three times the king visited Sandys’ palatial Tudor-style mansion at “The Vyne” which he had built in 1520. Anne Boleyn, whom Sandys would later escort to imprisonment in the Tower of London, visited once in company with the king. Sandys is known to have disapproved of the King's marriage to Anne, and as a result, spent less time at court. Although his sister Edith had married, secondly, Thomas Darcy, 1st Baron Darcy de Darcy, one of the leaders of the Pilgrimage of Grace (1536), Sandys certainly played no part in the uprising. In October that year he was summoned to “attend upon the King's own person” with 400 men. On 10 October 1536 he was ordered to muster at Ampthill, Bedfordshire, and to “prepare victuals and lodging for the King and his train”, a task for which he would have been well qualified as Henry's Lord Chamberlain. Later he accompanied Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk as far as Cambridge but took no further action in the suppression of the rebellion.

In his later years, Sandys seems to have taken no great part in court life but his responsibilities at Guisnes kept him very busy in the early years of his appointment and between 1538 and 1540. He returned to The Vyne from Calais in October 1540. On 7 December, Lord Matravers, the Lord Deputy of Calais, received a message from England announcing that Sandys had died at The Vyne. On that same day, Henry VIII wrote to the Council of Calais advising them that “the Lord Chamberlain, who was captain of Guisnes is dead.” He was buried in the Chapel of the Guild of the Holy Ghost in Basingstoke, which he had founded, near his residence at The Vyne, and parts of his tomb survive within the ruins of the chapel.

Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, President of the Privy Council

Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk (c. 1484 – 22 August 1545) was the second but only surviving son of Sir William Brandon, Henry Tudor's standard-bearer at the Battle of Bosworth Field, where Richard III was slain. Brandon was brought up at the court of Henry VII, and became Henry VIII's closest friend. He is described by Sir William Dugdale, an English antiquary and herald, as: “a person comely of stature, high of courage and conformity of disposition to King Henry VIII, with whom he became a great favourite.”

Brandon held a succession of offices in the royal household, becoming Master of the Horse in 1513, and received many valuable grants of land. On 15 May 1513, he was created Viscount Lisle, having entered into a marriage contract with his ward, Elizabeth Grey. The contract was ended, and the title forfeited, as a result of Brandon's marriage in 1515to Henry VII’s fifth daughter, Mary Tudor.

After his marriage to Mary, Suffolk lived for some years in retirement, but he was present at the Field of the Cloth of Gold in 1520. In 1523 he was sent to Calais to command the English troops there. He invaded France in company with Floris d'Egmont, Count of Buren, who was at the head of the Flemish troops, and laid waste the north of France, but disbanded his troops at the approach of winter.

Brandon was appointed Earl Marshal of England in 1524, a position previously held by Thomas Howard, 2nd Duke of Norfolk. However, in 1533 he relinquished the office to Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk, “whose auncesto[ur]s of longe tyme hadde the same until nowe of late.”

After Cardinal Wolsey's disgrace, Suffolk's influence increased. He was sent with Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk, to demand the Great Seal from Wolsey; and Suffolk acted as High Steward at the new queen's coronation. He was one of the commissioners appointed by Henry VIII to dismiss Catherine's household, a task he found distasteful.

Brandon supported Henry's ecclesiastical policy, receiving a large share of the lands after the dissolution of the monasteries. In 1544, he was for the second time in command of an English army for the invasion of France. He died at Guildford, Surrey, on 24 August in the following year. At Henry VIII's expense he was buried in St George's Chapel, Windsor. Brandon was perhaps the only person in England who successfully retained Henry VIII's affection for most of a period of forty years.