Saturday, August 1, 2026

Tudor biblical partners

 


 



by

Damien F. Mackey

 

“As early as 1530 Saint John Fisher began to preach that he was willing to die like Saint John the Baptist in defense of the sacrament of matrimony. You’ll remember that John the Baptist received martyrdom for protesting King Herod Antipas’ adulterous marriage to Herodias.

 

Henry VIII was the new Herod

Ann Boleyn was the new Herodias

John Fisher was the new John the Baptist”.

 Dr. Taylor Marshall

  

Introduction

 

Why is it that the Tudors so frequently call to mind for scripturally-minded scholars, and for historical enthusiasts, well-known biblical characters?

 

This is especially the case with King Henry VIII, as partnered with Anne Boleyn.

The pair have been considered in terms of:

 

Henry VIII as Ahab, Anne Boleyn as Jezebel

 

(4) Henry VIII as Ahab, Anne Boleyn as Jezebel

 

More fruitful, though – and very much at the forefront of this present article – will be the scriptural pairing of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn with, respectively, Herod Antipas and his paramour, Herodias.

 

Less common is the comparison of Henry VIII with King Hezekiah of Judah.

 

Hezekiah was a great reforming king, a fact which no doubt calls to mind for some Henry’s vital rôle in the English Reformation.

 

There is even an uncanny ‘preview’, roughly 350 years earlier, of the illicit situation involving Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, when King John divorces his spouse in order to take as wife a young woman whose name rhymes almost perfectly with Anne Boleyn, Isabella of Angoulême. As I wrote in my article:

 

Anne Boleyn almost rhymes with Angoulême

 

(5) Anne Boleyn almost rhymes with Angoulême

 

quoting Rebecca Starr Brown:

 

“Henry VIII was not the first monarch to divorce their spouse from the throne.

That auspicious honor goes to none other than King John, who, upon ascending

the throne in 1199, divorced his wife, Isabel of Gloucester, and married the young Isabella of Angouleme. There are a few reasons why this divorce is of less fame, though it was its own 13th century scandal at the time. For one, this would be

John’s only divorce and he stopped at two wives. …. Which brings us to

Isabella of Angouleme, who had one notable characteristic in common with

Anne Boleyn – they were both wildly detested by the public”.

 

Both Angoulême and Anne Boleyn were known as “Jezebel”:

 

Isabella of Angoulême – ‘more Jezebel than Isabel’

 

(5) Isabella of Angoulême - 'more Jezebel than Isabel'

 

New Testament comparisons

 

Jesus, who had warned his disciples regarding King Herod Antipas (Mark 8:15): “‘Be careful …. Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod’,” would also say of King Herod (Luke 13:32): ‘Go tell that fox that I will keep on casting out demons and healing people today and tomorrow; and the third day I will accomplish my purpose’.

 

‘… that fox …’!

 

There was no lack of foxes in the days of King Henry VIII.

 

There was:

Edward Foxe - Wikipedia

Edward Foxe (c. 1496 – 8 May 1538) was an English churchman, Bishop of Hereford. He played a major role in Henry VIII's divorce from Catherine of Aragon, and he assisted in drafting the Ten Articles of 1536”.

 

There was:

Richard Fox, called by King Henry (just like Herod Antipas), “a fox indeed”:

Richard Fox, Bishop of Winchester (c.1448-1528) [Richard Foxe]

“The accession of Henry VIII made no immediate difference to Fox's position. If anything, the substitution of the careless pleasure-loving youth for Henry VII increased the power of his ministry, the personnel of which remained unaltered. The Venetian ambassador calls Fox "alter rex" and the Spanish ambassador Carroz says that Henry VIII trusted him more than any other adviser, although he also reports Henry's warning that the bishop of Winchester was, as his name implied, "a fox indeed".” 

 

The striking parallels between King Herod, Herodias, and John the Baptist, on the one hand, and Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn, and John Fisher, on the other, are well known, and have often been commented upon.

 

I touched on these in e.g. my article:

 

John Fisher and John Baptist parallels

 

(7) John Fisher and John Baptist parallels

 

Here is a sample of that:

 

I have already shown parallels between John the Baptist and Bishop John Fisher, in:

Chewing over the House of Tudor

 

(4) Chewing over the House of Tudor

 

which article I opened with the exclamation: “Talk about parallel lives!”

 

And I have just found something similar here from Dr. Taylor Marshall, Dean of Fisher More College in Fort Worth, Texas:

The Parallel between St John Fisher and St John the Baptist - Taylor Marshall

 

Saint John Fisher was born in Beverley, Yorkshire, England in 1469, the eldest son of Robert Fisher, a modestly prosperous merchant of Beverley, and Agnes Fisher. He was named after Saint John the Baptist.

He was the only bishop in England who faithfully defended the Pope against the adulterous tyranny of King Henry VIII. All the other English bishops apostatized. John Fisher, even more valiantly than Thomas More, defended the valid marriage of Henry to Catherine of Aragon and vehemently opposed Henry VIII’s assumption of the title “Supreme Head” of the English Church.

As early as 1530 Saint John Fisher began to preach that he was willing to die like Saint John the Baptist in defense of the sacrament of matrimony. You’ll remember that John the Baptist received martyrdom for protesting King Herod Antipas’ adulterous marriage to Herodias.

Henry VIII was the new Herod

Ann Boleyn was the new Herodias

John Fisher was the new John the Baptist

When John Fisher was convicted of “treason” he was, of course, sentenced to death. Henry, as Head of the Church” had already defrocked John Fisher and deposed him of his bishopric. Pope Paul III responded by naming John Fisher as a cardinal of the Catholic church.

This infuriated Henry VIII who said that the Bishop of Rome did not need to send the cardinal’s hat to Fisher – Henry would instead send the Fisher’s decapitated head to Rome!

Accounts say that Fisher was sentenced to die on June 23 or 24. However, June 23 is the vigil of St John the Baptist and the 24th is the feast of Saint John the Baptist. Englishmen began to snicker at the irony. John Fisher truly was a new Saint John the Baptist and would even share a feast day with him.

Henry VIII panicked and had the sentence moved up to June 22 so that the parallel would not be obvious. This is the day of Fisher’s glorious death for the sake of Christ.

Saint John Fisher is a saint of our time. He is the only cardinal who was also a martyr. Moreover, he died defending the liberty of the Pope and the sanctity of Holy Matrimony. What better saint for our time!

Saint John Fisher, pray for us.

 

What makes all of this even more weird are the historical problems associated with the House of Tudor (see above article) and with the regal members of this House. ….

 

Saint Thomas More

 

Once again, also, there is a ‘preview’, referring to what I wrote above: “There is even an uncanny ‘preview’, roughly 350 years earlier, of the illicit situation involving Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn …”. This time, though, I am talking about the parallels between Thomas Becket and Thomas More, also roughly 350 years apart:

 

Parallel Lives - Thomas Becket and Thomas More

 

(7) Parallel Lives - Thomas Becket and Thomas More

 

Suffice here to recall from this article what I quoted Kristina Glicksman writing about:

Telling them apart: Thomas Becket and Thomas More | Salt + Light Media (slmedia.org)

 

Telling them apart: Thomas Becket and Thomas More

Kristina Glicksman

Sunday, December 29, 2019

 

In our Catholic Christian tradition we’ve been blessed with many role models for holiness in our saints. But sometimes it can be difficult to keep them all straight.

 

In this series, “Telling them apart,” I am presenting some side-by-side comparisons in order to help us keep track of commonly confused saints.

Why is it that the memories of Mass which seem to stick most in our minds are not powerful spiritual insights or moving homilies or beautiful liturgical moments but the ones that are most human – the time your brother made you laugh out loud or the altar server dropped the book or the lady fainted during the Easter Vigil?

 

One of my most enduring memories is of a homily preached at a weekday morning Mass on December 29th one year when I was home visiting my parents for Christmas. The celebrant chose to educate us about the saint whose feast we were commemorating that day: St. Thomas Becket.

 

As he began the story, which was fairly familiar to me, I was surprised to hear details which I knew belonged to the life of St. Thomas More. Apparently, my mother recognized them as well because she shook her head through the entire homily, but unless he was telepathic, I’m not sure what the poor priest was supposed to do with that.

 

It’s not just that he mistook one Thomas for the other, but he moved so fluidly between the 12th century and the 16th, the archbishop and the politician, that he created a kind of super saint with all the most memorable details from the lives of each.

And as painful (in an empathetic way) as it was at the time and amusing in hindsight, it is really not at all surprising.

 

They are two Thomases who were Chancellors of England and close friends of kings named Henry who had enormous egos and vile tempers. Both were embroiled in controversies which straddled the Church/state divide and put them in opposition to their former friends who ordered their deaths. Who wouldn’t get confused? ….

 

Kristina Glicksman’s awareness that, when hearing about Thomas Becket in that homily she was picking up”, as she recalls, “details which I knew belonged to the life of St. Thomas More”, is the very same sensation that I had experienced when reading through Graham Hancock’s book, War God. Night of Sorrows, supposedly all about Hernán Cortés, but reading like Alexander the Great:

 

Alexander the Great and Hernán Cortés

 

(DOC) Alexander the Great and Hernán Cortés | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

 

Following on from all of this, I have written of several striking likenesses that I have noticed between Thomas More and the Apostle, James the Greater:

 

Apostle James Maior and Sir Thomas More

 

(7) Apostle James Maior and Sir Thomas More

 

Just what is going on here?

 

Queen Ellizabeth I

 

Although she does assume the rôle of Jesus when washing feet, Elizabeth has been so often likened to earlier, great biblical figures that I have written this about her:

 

Queen Elizabeth I like an Old Testament character

 

(7) Queen Elizabeth I like an Old Testament character

 

The litany of Old Testament persons who emerge below are only some of those to whom Elizabeth has been likened, with Judith being at the forefront of all of these:  https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/rest.12258

Elizabeth I as Judith: reassessing the apocryphal

widow’s appearance in Elizabethan royal

iconography

 

…. Historians and literary scholars have long noted and analysed the appearance of biblical analogies as part of Tudor and Stuart royal iconography. Using the example of a biblical figure, monarchs demonstrated the divine precedent for their decisions, and subjects in turn could counsel their monarch to emulate the actions of a divinely favoured biblical figure.

 

Queen Elizabeth I of England was the subject of the greatest number of biblical analogies drawn in the early modern period: analogies were drawn both by apologists and by Elizabeth herself throughout the entire span of the queen’s reign, and for almost a century after her death.

….

Elizabeth’s comparisons with Deborah the Judge, Queen Esther, Daniel the Prophet, King Solomon, and King David have all received varying levels of attention in the existing scholarship: but the analogy to Judith, the chaste widow of the Apocrypha, has generally escaped detailed analysis. …. Judith was invoked in various ways throughout Elizabeth’s reign, and the diverse analogies reflect the changing religio-political climate of the time.

 

This article offers a re-examination of the comparisons drawn between Elizabeth and Judith during the queen’s life. In doing so, I argue that contrary to claims in some of the existing scholarship, Judith was routinely and consistently offered to Elizabeth as biblical precedent for dealing with Roman Catholics – with violence, not just diplomatic rhetoric – and for the providential sanctioning of female rule; and that Elizabeth, in drawing the parallel to Judith herself, inserted her own voice into these debates. ….

 

Judith’s story can be found in the eponymous book of the Apocrypha. A prophecy was brought, foretelling that Bethulia, Judith’s city, would be lost to the invading Assyrians because of the Jews’ disobedience. Judith attempted to prevent this happening, and prayed to God that he would give her a ‘sworde to take vengeance of the [invading] strangers’. …. She and her handmaiden allowed themselves to be captured by the Assyrians, claiming that they had deserted. The Assyrians took her to Holofernes, the General of the Army.

 

Judith lied to Holofernes that God had forsaken the Jews because they ate his offerings before the requisite time had past, and that he would not defend them until the sacrifices were re-offered, which would take many days to organize. Holofernes was pleased with this news, and allowed Judith to stay in the camp. On the fourth night at the camp, after a banquet, Holofernes passed out, drunk. His servants left the tent, and Judith remained inside, alone. She picked up Holofernes’ sword, grasped his hair, prayed, ‘Strengthen me, O Lord God of Israel, this day,’ and then ‘shee smote twise upon his necke with all her might, and she took away his head from him.’ …. She stowed the head in her handmaiden’s bag, and the two left the camp. She returned to Bethulia, and showed the head, saying, ‘Beholde the head of Holofernes the chiefe captaine of the army of Assur . . . the Lord hath smitten him by the hand of a woman.’ …. Without their general, the Assyrian army fell into disarray, and the attack was abandoned.

 

….

 

While I do not argue that Elizabeth was the first English monarch to be paralleled with Judith … the examples assembled here demonstrate that Elizabeth was both the first monarch to be compared to Judith in a sustained and systematic way for religio-political purposes, and also the first monarch to affirm the analogy in her own words. The importance of these two facts is often sidelined in the scholarship that does discuss the Judith analogy. Helen Hackett’s study of Elizabeth and the cult of the Virgin Mary is excellent, but dismisses Judith’s longevity by claiming, ‘biblical heroines like Deborah and Judith dominated early Elizabethan royal iconography.’ ….

 

 

 

Thursday, July 30, 2026

Queen Elizabeth I’s missing banqueting house

 


 

“So little has remained for us today of these ephemeral places.

We have a few – like the one at Hampton Court, the one at Melford Hall in Suffolk”.

Janet Wertman

 

 

This is a companion to my (Damien Mackey’s) article:

 

Henry VIII’s palaces missing

 (5) Henry VIII’s palaces missing

  

Tudor Banqueting Houses - Then AND NOW (!) - Janet Wertman

Tudor Banqueting Houses – Then AND NOW (!)

Published by janetwertman on May 18, 2019

 

A banqueting house was a “separate pavilion-like building reached through the gardens from the main residence.” They became very popular during the Tudor era – even memorialized by Henry VIII in fanciful structures at Hampton Court and Nonsuch Palaces. But most of the time, they were temporary – tents atop platforms (lavish tents atop massive platforms to be sure!).

 

We have extensive details of royal tents from reports and paintings of the Field of the Cloth of Gold and its fabulous array of golden pavilions. We also have a wonderful description of the temporary banqueting house that Elizabeth built at Whitehall in 1581 ahead of negotiations for her potential marriage to the Duc of Alencon. The 332-foot-long structure, which took almost 400 people a little over three weeks to build, was held up with 30 masts; its canvas walls were painted to look like stone; its roof was painted with stars, clouds and sunbeams to look like the sky and the insides were decorated with “292 glass lights… and… all manner of strang[e] flowers… garnished with spangs of gould [and fruits like] pomegarnetts, orrnges, pompions, cowcumbers, grapes, carettes, peas and such like”. The structure lasted for 25 years – and then James VI built a more permanent building that we can (and do!) still visit today.

 

Courtiers, too, built these structures – especially in the “prodigy houses” that Wikipedia defines as “large and showy English country houses built by courtiers and other wealthy families, either ‘noble palaces of an awesome scale’ or ‘proud, ambitious heaps’ according to taste.” They also note that many of the grandest “were built with a view to housing Elizabeth I and her large retinue as they made their annual royal progress around her realm.”

 

So little has remained for us today of these ephemeral places. We have a few – like the one at Hampton Court, the one at Melford Hall in Suffolk. We might be about to have another.

 

There is a grassy hump in the Sudeley Castle grounds that went ignored for more than 400 years…and that is now believed to cover the remains of the banqueting house built to in 1592 to welcome Elizabeth and her retinue who came for a three-day celebration of the fourth anniversary of the victory over the Spanish Armada.

 

Sudeley has crowdfunded a dig that begins on Monday (May 21) and runs through June 2 …. DigVentures, who’s running the project, is planning on uploading photos and videos from the dig team, as well as interactive 3D models of the trenches. They will also be adding details of all the artifacts, layers and discoveries they make, and they’ve created communities on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. The best part: according to Maiya Pina-Dacier, their Head of Community, if the wifi signal is good enough they even hope to do a livestream video (everybody start crossing your fingers now). ….

 

“… start crossing your fingers now”.

 

And at: Search for the Banqueting Hall of Queen Elizabeth I part 1.pdf

we read:

 

Travel Tales

 

The Search for the Missing Banqueting Hall and Tudor Garden

of Queen Elizabeth I – Part 1

 

by Lew Toulmin

 

In the summer of 1592, Queen Elizabeth I and her very large retinue of courtiers arrived at Sudeley Castle, a magnificent structure in the Cotswolds, in Gloucestershire, southwest England. The official goal of this visit was to celebrate the fourth anniversary of England’s defeat of the Spanish Armada, and to honor Giles Brydges, 3rd Baron Chandos, owner of the Castle. But a possible secondary goal was to force Chandos, whose formerly Catholic family had previously been given the Castle by Catholic Queen “Bloody Mary,” to spend so much money on entertaining his guests, that he would have no resources left to resist Elizabeth’s rule!

 

Elizabeth may have also sought some revenge against the Chandos family and enjoyed forcing him to pay her homage, since Chandos’ grandfather (1st Baron Chandos) had been Elizabeth’s jailer for a short time at the Tower of London, when he was the Lord Lieutenant (the commander) of the Tower and she was incarcerated there.

 

The highlight of the lengthy royal visit to Sudeley Castle was an epic three-day party, probably one of the largest and most expensive in British history. The event involved jousting, bear and bull baiting, dancing, singing, a specially commissioned play, a pageant, mummers, and of course lots of feasting and drinking. The party was held in a temporary Banqueting Hall.

 

There is no historical description available of the Sudeley banqueting hall, but there is a description of a likely similar temporary banqueting structure built at Whitehall in London in 1581, as part of Elizabeth’s marriage negotiations with the Duc d’Alencon. (She was 48 and he was 26 at the time.) This structure took 375 laborers 3 weeks and 3 days to build (i.e., about 9000 person-days!). It was 332 feet long, held up by 30 masts, made of canvas painted to look like stone, and the ceiling was painted with stars, clouds and sunbeams to look like the sky. The inside was decorated with “292 glass lights…and all manner of strange flowers…garnished with spangs of gould…and fruits like pomegarnetts, orrnges, pompions, cowcumbers, grapes, carettes, peas and such like.” (sic!)

 

Temporary structures like this were meant to impress the common folk, convey the notion of the divine right of kings to rule, and allow the monarch to slowly progress around the kingdom. They played a major role in the famous 1520 event The Field of the Cloth of Gold at Calais -- the famous meeting between Henry VIII and Francis I, King of France. But because of their temporary nature, relatively little hard information on them is available via historical documents, paintings or archaeology.

 

Historians and experts at Sudeley wanted to find the site of the banqueting hall, but had no success until they noticed a large, lumpy, unused field in the area east of the Castle, in an area first thought to be an old Saxon manor house, but then suspected of being a buried Tudor Garden.

 

Beginning in the early 16th century, Tudor Gardens became important places to entertain, feast, and display new-found wealth and power.

(Previously gardens had been small private affairs.) During the reign of Elizabeth, this trend accelerated, and gardens filled with exotic plants and designs became even more elaborate, due to her love of display and clever use of design, fashion and architecture for political messaging. Nobles vied to build ever more elaborate gardens, to lure Elizabeth to visit. Such gardens could include private areas where political scheming could not be overheard, rosemary bushes shimmering with gold leaf, fountains, statues, and “bridges magically brimming with wine.”

 

Because of the transitory nature of gardens, and the destruction of almost all Tudor Gardens during the later open landscaping craze led by Capability Brown, there is only one other likely Tudor Garden in Britain.

 

Hence the possibility of identifying, mapping, and studying a previously unknown one is very exciting for historians and landscape architects. And with modern plant micro-identification and paleo-environmental techniques, it may be possible to identify some of the exact plants used in these exotic displays.

 

Sudeley Castle General Manager Wendy Walton stated that, “Finding an intact Tudor garden like this is an astonishingly rare occurrence. Bringing it back to the surface would be an amazing achievement, and would give us the chance to find out what it would have been like in the days when Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth I and Katherine Parr, Henry VIII’s last wife, walked its pathways.” ….

 

***

 

Tuesday, July 28, 2026

Apostle James Maior and Sir Thomas More

 



by

 Damien F. Mackey

  

Then there is the name similarity, Thomas (through Tames to) James.

And the similarity of surname/epithet, More and Greater.

 I can enlarge upon this epithet now.

 James the Greater (as opposed to another Apostle, James the Lesser) is rendered

in Latin as Jacobus Maior. Now, Maior is uncannily like More – Thomas is More, but he is also close to being, like Saint James, a Greater.

  

By no means am I the first to have noticed the uncanny likenesses between King Herod and King Henry VIII. Thomas McGovern, for one, has, as well - as I noted at the start of my article:

Chewing over the House of Tudor

 

(1) Chewing over the House of Tudor

 

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

….

 

Apart from this article, I have written others according to which ‘Tudor’ may be a somewhat problematical concept, or reality. For instance:

 

Term ‘Tudor’ has become grossly distorting

 

(3) Term ‘Tudor’ has become grossly distorting

 

Horrible Histories: Turpitudinous Tudors

 

(4) Horrible Histories: Turpitudinous Tudors

 

Henry VIII’s palaces [are] missing

 

(4) Henry VIII's palaces missing

 

Anne Boleyn ‘a Jezebel and harlot’

 

(3) Anne Boleyn 'a Jezebel and harlot'

 

Some Herodian-Tudor parallels I had previously referred to are in the following piece, according to which Saint John Fisher was “the new John the Baptist”:

 

And I have just found something similar here from Dr. Taylor Marshall, Dean of Fisher More College in Fort Worth, Texas:

The Parallel between St John Fisher and St John the Baptist - Taylor Marshall

 

Saint John Fisher was born in Beverley, Yorkshire, England in 1469, the eldest son of Robert Fisher, a modestly prosperous merchant of Beverley, and Agnes Fisher. He was named after Saint John the Baptist.

He was the only bishop in England who faithfully defended the Pope against the adulterous tyranny of King Henry VIII. All the other English bishops apostatized. John Fisher, even more valiantly than Thomas More, defended the valid marriage of Henry to Catherine of Aragon and vehemently opposed Henry VIII’s assumption of the title “Supreme Head” of the English Church.

As early as 1530 Saint John Fisher began to preach that he was willing to die like Saint John the Baptist in defense of the sacrament of matrimony. You’ll remember that John the Baptist received martyrdom for protesting King Herod Antipas’ adulterous marriage to Herodias.

Henry VIII was the new Herod

Ann Boleyn was the new Herodias

John Fisher was the new John the Baptist

….

 

Can further parallels be adduced?

 

What about Saint Thomas More, the “Man For All Seasons”?

 

I already made a start on this in an additional article:

 

John Fisher and John Baptist parallels

 

(2) John Fisher and John Baptist parallels

 

The most obvious similarity between Thomas More and James the Greater

is the death by beheading (Acts 12:2) – that, at least, is how the Apostle James

is generally considered to have been killed.

 

And under the Herod-like Henry VIII.

 

Saint Thomas More

 

If John Fisher smacks of a new John the Baptist, then, to a lesser, not More, extent, but with reference to a Greater, Thomas More has some things in common with the Apostle, James the Greater.

 

The most obvious similarity between Thomas More and James the Greater is the death by beheading (Acts 12:2) – that, at least, is how the Apostle James is generally considered to have been killed.

 

And under the Herod-like Henry VIII (ref. to Dr. Taylor Marshall’s comparison above, “Henry VIII was the new Herod”).

 

Then there is the name similarity, Thomas (through Tames to) James.

And the similarity of surname/epithet, More and Greater.

 

I can enlarge upon this epithet now.

 

James the Greater (as opposed to another Apostle, James the Lesser) is rendered in Latin as Jacobus Maior. Now, Maior is uncannily like More – Thomas is More, but he is also close to being, like Saint James, a Greater. 

 

Thomas More was famous for his silence.

In “A Man for all seasons”, Cromwell remarks: “Now, Sir Thomas, you stand on your silence”.

Ironically, James 3:1-12 is all about taming the dangerous tongue.

 

For more on Sir Thomas More, see my article:

 

Parallel Lives - Thomas Becket and Thomas More

 

(3) Parallel Lives - Thomas Becket and Thomas More