Henry VIII’s palaces missing

by Damien F. Mackey “After the execution of Charles I it did not take long for the commonwealth to strip the palace of everything of worth, right down to the stone from which it was built, for profit and to destroy a symbol of the monarchy they had come to hate”. Marcus Goringe An article intriguingly entitled, The Lost Palaces of Henry VIII (2023), will examine a presumed ten palaces of the king: https://tudorplaces.com/issues/lost-palaces#:~:text=The%20ten%20palaces%20featured%20in,Oatlands%20Palace%20and%20Nonsuch%20Palace. Overview This special issue of Tudor Places magazine features in-depth articles on ten of the palaces which Henry VIII built or acquired. The great halls of Eltham and Hatfield remain, providing a taste of the former size and splendour of those palaces, but of the others there are only tantalising hints; in gatehouses, sections of walls, remnants of cellars and street names, in foundations and traces of masonry, and in paintings, sketches, letters, accounts and ambassadors’ reports. Each article includes information on the site, layout and decoration of the palace, and the momentous events that occurred there. We explore what of the palace can still be seen on site, or elsewhere, and how to visit, along with a list of books and articles for further reading. The ten palaces featured in this special issue are: Eltham Palace, Richmond Palace, Greenwich Palace, Bridewell Palace, Hatfield Old Palaces, Suffolk Place, Whitehall Palace, Chelsea Manor, Oatlands Palace and Nonsuch Palace. …. And Marcus Goringe, “a lifelong resident of Richmond”, as he says, wrote this account of the demise of Richmond Palace (2016): https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/richmond-lost-palace/ …. The end of the palace …. We come now to the greatest tragedy to fall on the most beautiful of palaces: Oliver Cromwell. After the execution of Charles I it did not take long for the commonwealth to strip the palace of everything of worth, right down to the stone from which it was built, for profit and to destroy a symbol of the monarchy they had come to hate. This was the straw that broke the camel’s back for Richmond. A small manor house was built but the palace never recovered. What was left fell into disrepair and the ruins were never rebuilt. As time went on and the lands fell back into the hands of the crown, no one seemed to want to waste the money on rebuilding the palace. Instead, the crown eventually started letting out the grounds to bring in revenue. By the early 18th century the land had been split into many new houses; the largest of these were the Trumpeters house and Asgil house, which together claimed most of the front of the land facing the Thames and still survive to this day. …. [End of quote] “What was left fell into disrepair and the ruins were never rebuilt”. It is suspicious when a whole range of old buildings just goes missing. And that appears to have been the case with Tudor architecture. But that may not be the essence of the Tudor problem, for, as I wrote in my article: Chewing over the House of Tudor (8) Chewing over the House of Tudor | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I'm Henry the eighth I am Henry the eighth I am, I am I got married to the widow next door She's been married seven times before And every one was an Henery (Henry) She wouldn't have a Willy or a Sam (no Sam) I'm her eighth old man, I'm Henry Henry the eighth I am. Herman’s Hermits Talk about parallel lives! Herod Antipas and Henry VIII. John the Baptist and Bishop John Fisher. This is astutely picked up by Thomas McGovern, in his article for Catholic Culture.org, “Bishop John Fisher: Defender of the Faith and Pastor of Souls” https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7604 Adultery is worth dying for Henry replied to the legates, in answer to the bishop, in a manner which clearly showed how resentful he was at the bishop's protest, particularly that he was ready to suffer like St. John the Baptist, as it naturally suggested a comparison between Henry and Herod Antipas. However, the martyrdom of St. John had long been a familiar subject of contemplation to Fisher, as is clear from his treatise (1525) in defense of Henry's book against Luther — the "Defensio." "One consideration," Fisher writes, "that greatly affects me to believe in the sacrament of marriage is the martyrdom of St. John the Baptist, who suffered death for his reproof of the violation of marriage. There were many crimes in appearance more grevious for rebuking which he might have suffered, but there was none more fitting than the crime of adultery to be the cause of the blood-shedding of the Friend of the Bridegroom, since the violation of marriage is no little insult to Him who is called the Bridegroom."…. Bridgett draws the striking parallel between the fate of the Baptist and John Fisher: "At that time (1525) no thought of divorce had as yet, in all probability, entered the mind of Henry; Anne Boleyn, Fisher's Herodias, was then unknown. But the circumstances of Fisher's death bear so close a resemblance to those of the Baptist's, that it is strange even Henry did not observe and seek to avoid it. Both were cast into prison and left there to linger at the will of a tyrant; both were beheaded, and both by the revenge of impure women. But what Herod did reluctantly, Henry did with cruel deliberation."…. [End of quote] Perhaps the received Tudor history needs to subjected to a more intense scrutiny. According to Oxford University historian, Dr. Cliff Davies, the very term “Tudor” is highly problematical. We read about this, for instance, at: http://www.bbc.com/news/education-18240901 ‘Tudor era’ is misleading myth, says Oxford historian By Sean Coughlan BBC News education correspondent 29 May 2012 From the section Education & Family The idea of a "Tudor era" in history is a misleading invention, claims an Oxford University historian. Cliff Davies says his research shows the term "Tudor" was barely ever used during the time of Tudor monarchs. …. Dr Davies says films and period dramas have reinforced the "myth" that people thought of themselves as living under a "Tudor" monarchy. "The term is so convenient," says Dr Davies, of Wadham College and the university's history faculty. But he says it is fundamentally "erroneous". Missing name During the reigns of Tudor monarchs - from Henry VII to Elizabeth I - he said there was no contemporary recognition of any common thread or even any recognition of the term "Tudor". …. [End of quote] As already said: It is suspicious when a whole range of old buildings just goes missing. I wrote about this strange phenomenon in the Introduction to my article: Original Baghdad was Jerusalem (9) Original Baghdad was Jerusalem | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu as follows: Introduction When an important ancient personage, or location, apparently leaves virtually no visible or recoverable trace, or none at all, my inclination is to search for an alter ego (or more) for that person, or a revised geography for that location. In some cases, an important ancient character is lacking any depictions or statuary: More ‘camera shy’ ancient potentates (6) More 'camera shy' ancient potentates | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Or it might be, as in the case of Old Kingdom Egypt, some missing architecture: Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples (6) Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The famed capital city of Akkad (Agade) is just completely missing: My road to Akkad (6) My road to Akkad | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and its related kingdom of Akkad is missing an appropriate archaeology: Akkadian dynasty famous but archaeologically impoverished, Ur III dynasty, un-heralded but lavishly documented (4) Akkadian dynasty famous but archaeologically impoverished, Ur III dynasty, un-heralded but lavishly documented | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu See also somewhat similarly to this: Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology (4) Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And one may find various other similar examples and configurations. It is all enough to remind one of what G. K. Chesterton once so famously remarked about evolution: “All we know of the Missing Link is that he is missing – and he won't be missed either.” Was there Anysuch Palace as Nonsuch? “Sadly, there is no trace of the original building left today”. In Historic Mysteries we read: https://www.historicmysteries.com/history/nonsuch-palace/25312/ …. What Happened to the Palace? However it seems that the palace was too grand a design to be realized for Henry. Despite the amount of money that it cost; the palace was still incomplete when the king died in 1547. It was sold in 1556 by his daughter Mary I. …. Some of the materials and elements were incorporated into other buildings. The wood paneling is located and still can be seen today at the Great Hall in Losely Park. Sadly, there is no trace of the original building left today. The British Museum holds some pieces that can be seen, and you can still see the land on which the old church used to be before it was demolished. It seems that Nonsuch was too large and too expensive to maintain for anyone apart from royalty, and so for the price of a few debts it was lost forever. …. The plot thickens??? https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=FCf-o3Qhl2Y