Beyond the Block: Helene Harrison on Tudor Executions and Power Politics
Q&A with Helene Harrison
Helene Harrison brings a distinctive dual perspective to Tudor history—a scholar's analytical rigor combined with a storyteller's accessibility. As both a historian and librarian, Harrison has crafted a professional life that allows her to excavate the Tudor period's most complex narratives while making them approachable to modern readers. "I wanted to make history more accessible, but with academic rigor," Harrison explains, capturing the philosophy that drives her work.
Harrison's fascination with Tudor history began during her A-level studies on Tudor Rebellions, later deepening through undergraduate and postgraduate research focused on Anne Boleyn's public image and literary representations. What started as academic inquiry evolved into a popular history blog in 2012, which caught the attention of publishers seeking fresh perspectives on this perennially popular historical era.
Her latest work, Tudor Executions: From Nobility to the Block, examines the Tudor monarchs' strategic use of treason charges and executions to consolidate power. The book reveals Harrison's methodical research approach, honed through her academic training and library career. Particularly intriguing is her exploration of how, by the end of the Tudor period, there were no dukes left in England—a fact that sparked her curiosity about whether this was a deliberate strategy by Tudor monarchs to eliminate potential rivals.
In the following interview, Harrison discusses her research methods, the challenges of balancing scholarly integrity with narrative engagement, and her upcoming work on Anne Boleyn—a subject she's been pursuing since her university days. Through her careful analysis of primary sources and attention to the psychological dimensions of historical events, Harrison invites readers to reconsider familiar Tudor narratives and draw their conclusions about guilt, innocence, and the nature of power in sixteenth-century England.
Jonathan Crain: Can you tell us about your journey into the field of history? What sparked your passion for the Tudor period specifically?
Helene Harrison: I seem to have always been surrounded by history. My dad always had stacks of history books, though his interest is mainly military and naval history. We used to go camping when I was growing up and we’d always go to castles, abbeys, priories, or other ruins – I particularly remember Threave Castle in Dumfries and Galloway and Framlingham Castle in Suffolk. But I also grew up going to jousting re-enactments at my local English Heritage site at Tynemouth Priory.
My initial interest in history was actually in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust as my History GCSE was modern world history. It wasn’t until I did my A Levels that I did a module on Tudor Rebellions. During my undergraduate degree I then did modules on women’s history. These were my first real introductions to the Tudor period, and at the same time, Showtime’s TV show The Tudors was being shown on television. My undergraduate and postgraduate dissertations were both written on Anne Boleyn, looking specifically at her public image, and perceptions in fiction and literature.
It's just developed from there, really, as I started my blog in 2012 as I finished my undergraduate degree and began reviewing books, and publishers then contacted me to review more books, and then my publisher approached me to ask if I was interested in writing a book!
Jonathan Crain: How has your academic background influenced your approach to historical research and writing?
Helene Harrison: I think having an academic background with an undergraduate and two postgraduate degrees means that I am quite methodical when it comes to my research. During my history degrees we looked at a lot of primary sources, how to access sources in different databases, and how to analyse sources. It’s set me up really well for my writing, to look out for bias and author intent in sources, as well as what the purpose is and how this should inform our reading of it.
But it was a very deliberate decision for me to choose to write more popular history rather than to go down the academic route. I have found academic writing to be quite dry at times, even with an interesting topic. I wanted to make history more accessible, but with academic rigour. I use a wide range of sources, and I still try and analyse to the highest standards, but I hope I make it more accessible to a wider audience, to encourage others in the love of history that I’ve had for so many years.
Jonathan Crain: With an extensive career in library management, how has this experience shaped your research methods?
I wouldn’t say my career in library management has been extensive. I started with work experience at the age of fifteen, got my Library Management degree while I was working part-time in my local library alongside a full-time job, and then COVID hit. It was only at the beginning of 2024 that I got a job in my alma mater university library, but I can see it being my lifelong career, for sure!
My role in the university library is working less with students and more with the academic staff, so it’s been interesting to see it more from their point of view. It does give me access to tools that I might not have had otherwise, which is really handy. It seems unfair that so much is only available within an institution, or it costs an arm and a leg. Though with the move towards open access and open research, hopefully that will change in the coming years, although the humanities still have a way to go to catch up with STEM disciplines.
Jonathan Crain: Could you describe a typical day of research for you? How do you balance this with your role at the university library?
Working full-time during the week doesn’t always leave a lot of time for research and writing. It is my weekends which are largely full of research and writing, though I do try to do as much as I can during the week, so that I can have some time to relax at the weekends!
Typically, when I settle down for a day of research and writing, I look at which chapter or chapters I want to work on. It’s often a mood thing for me when I’m writing and often depends on which sources I’ve got. I have a timetable for my word count which keeps me on track, and I try and write about 2,000 words a week, alongside any research. Though a lot of the research is done before I even start to write.
Jonathan Crain: What inspired you to write Tudor Executions: From Nobility to the Block?
Probably a little weirdly, I’ve always had an interest in executions and treason during the Tudor period. As my original interest was in Anne Boleyn, I came to it through her, then other female executions like Katherine Howard and Lady Jane Grey, then expanded from there.
But there was one fact I discovered which really drove the genesis of this book and narrowed down my focus to noble executions; and that was that, by the end of the Tudor period, there were no dukes left in England. The Duke of Norfolk was executed in 1572, and there were no more dukes until George Villiers was created Duke of Buckingham in 1623. I was intrigued and I wanted to know how and why this had happened. Was it purposeful on the part of the Tudor monarchs to wipe out the highest of the nobility? Were the nobles really guilty as charged?
Jonathan Crain: How does this book build on or differ from your previous works on Tudor history?
My first book was Elizabethan Rebellions: Conspiracy, Intrigue and Treason so I covered a few executions in that book – the Duke of Norfolk in 1572 and the Earl of Essex in 1601, as well as Mary Queen of Scots in 1587. Norfolk and Essex I cover again in Tudor Executions: From Nobility to the Block. So, in that way, it builds on my first book, but in other ways it is very different because Elizabethan Rebellions focuses solely on Elizabeth I’s reign, where Tudor Executions covers the whole Tudor period from 1485 to 1603. But both cover some of the more violent aspects of Tudor history and explore some of the motivations as well as the psychology behind these events.
Jonathan Crain: Can you share the process of selecting which figures to include in your book? Were there any you regretted not being able to delve into?
Some figures it was obvious that they would need to be included, like Anne Boleyn who was the first female noble execution, and the Duke of Norfolk, who was the last ducal execution of the period. I also wanted to make sure that I covered the whole period, so from Henry VII to Elizabeth I; I was very aware that I didn’t want Henry VIII’s executions to overwhelm the book, though noble executions under him are the most numerous.
Trying to narrow them down wasn’t easy – I started with a longer list that I had to whittle down gradually. I nearly did separate chapters for Lady Jane Grey and the Duke of Northumberland, and for Katherine Howard and Jane Boleyn, but the stories are so intertwined for the two pairs that it made more sense to tackle their stories together. I also nearly combined Thomas and Edward Seymour as their stories directly impact each other, but they are also very distinct and happen at different times, so it made more sense to tackle those ones separately.
Other figures which nearly made it were Edmund de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, who was executed in 1513, Thomas Baron Darcy and Thomas Fitzgerald Earl of Kildare who were both executed in 1537, Henry Courtenay Marquess of Exeter, executed in 1538, and Thomas Percy Earl of Northumberland who was executed in 1572. It’s the Earl of Suffolk who came the closest to inclusion and, even now, I still sometimes wish I had added him in as Henry VIII’s first noble execution.
Jonathan Crain: Each chapter of Tudor Executions can stand alone as an independent piece. What led you to choose this structural approach?
It just seemed automatic to me, that that’s the way this book would be structured. Perhaps it’s just personal preference for me as I like to be able to delve in and out of books easily, so just being able to read a chapter and put it down again really works for me. I also wanted to make sure that each chapter was around the same length, as I knew I could write so much more about some of the people and I wanted each person to be treated fairly and equally, and each chapter came in within 250 words of each other, so that made me really happy that I had managed to do that.
Jonathan Crain: Your book covers a range of well-known and lesser-known figures. How do you ensure that each character's portrayal remains balanced and factually accurate?
There are more sources on some people than others, so some are easier to research than others. It can be difficult to maintain balance because some of the sources we have are very obviously biased or created for propaganda purposes, so I think it’s always important to be aware of bias and the purpose for which the source was written. I also wanted to try and highlight where portrayals have changed over time. We see this a lot with Anne Boleyn particularly, but also with Katherine Howard.
Guilt or innocence doesn’t really seem to be certain in any of the cases. Most people nowadays believe that the Earl of Warwick and Anne Boleyn were innocent, but the waters are muddier when it comes to Katherine Howard and the Duke of Buckingham, for example. Balancing these views and trying to present a balanced view is challenging, but I think it’s something that my academic background has prepared me for quite well.
Jonathan Crain: The theme of power and how it's wielded is central in your book. What drew you to explore this particular aspect of Tudor history?
I don’t think you can explore treason in the Tudor period without exploring power – the Tudor monarchs used treason laws to maintain power, particularly as the laws were changed multiple times over the period.
During Henry VII’s reign, the Treason Act dated from 1351. Henry VIII introduced a new Treason Act in 1534 to protect his marriage to Anne Boleyn and the succession of their children, as well as his new position as Head of the Church in England. This expanded the treason law to include speech and thoughts. Edward VI introduced a new Treason Act in 1547 then Mary I did in 1554, which effectively restored the 1351 act. There was a lot going on and it just fascinated me that there were so many changes in the definition of treason, and how that related to the power of the monarch.
Jonathan Crain: In your research, you use a mix of primary and secondary sources. Can you discuss a particularly challenging or surprising primary source you worked with?
Francis Bacon’s A Declaration of the Practises & Treasons attempted and committed by Robert late Earle of Essex was fascinating to work with. It features in the final chapter discussing the fate of Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, who was executed in 1601 – the last noble execution of Elizabeth I’s reign. Essex’s execution I’ve always found fascinating anyway, as it doesn’t have the political motivation of most of the other executions. It’s essentially selfish.
Francis Bacon’s source is essentially government propaganda which I thought was just fascinating. During the Tudor period we really see the rise of printing, which means that the government can more easily disseminate what they want people to think. It tells us what the government wanted the people to believe about Essex’s actions, so although it is biased, it’s not a useless source; you just need to be aware of its purpose and limitations. It's interesting to compare Bacon’s work with the other sources we have and what the government didn’t seem to want people to know.
Jonathan Crain: How do you navigate the biases present in historical sources, especially those like trial documents that may be inherently prejudiced?
Bias is present in every source, whatever you’re reading. Whatever someone is writing, it will be affected by their own thoughts, feelings, and prejudices, and the time in which they’re writing. That’s something that my studies at university demonstrated when we had to do a lot of source analysis. As long as you’re aware of bias in sources with the background and context of when those sources were written and who they were written by, and for what purpose, they can still be useful. You can’t take anything at face value. A good historian will always be questioning and considering different points of view.
Jonathan Crain: Your book includes gruesome details about the executions. Was this a deliberate choice to bring realism to the narrative, and how do you handle such sensitive content?
It was a very deliberate choice to include all of the details. I think it’s important within the stories of these people to make it real – they aren’t fictional figures in a story, but real people who lived and died in this awful way. It was difficult to write quite often, but I think that often does make it more real. If the author finds it difficult to write about, then hopefully that will come across in the narrative just how awful these situations were for the people involved. It is a narrative and a story, but it is also real, so there is a need to balance that and make sure that the reality does come across.
Jonathan Crain: What challenges did you face when writing about the psychological impacts of treason accusations on the individuals involved?
It was quite difficult at times – I’m not trained in psychology in any way, but I have some personal experience. I am autistic, and I’ve struggled with depression and anxiety most of my adult life. But that doesn’t compare with facing your own death at the hands of your monarch and knowing that it will be watched and judged.
Sometimes, of course, it wasn’t just a monarch who condemned these people to death, but a husband in the cases of Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard, a nephew in the cases of the Seymour brothers, or a cousin in the cases of Jane Grey and the Duke of Norfolk. It’s not a distant relationship. And I wonder if that made it harder for those who were dying as well as the monarchs who signed the death warrants. We know that Mary I, for instance, didn’t really want to execute Lady Jane Grey, and Henry VIII didn’t want to believe that Katherine Howard could be guilty.
There must have been a huge emotional toll on a lot of the people involved, and sometimes it can be difficult to make that come across when writing it. As a historian you’re at a distance from the events, and we can’t even understand it now – we haven’t had the death penalty in the UK for a lot of years, but it wouldn’t have been anything like the huge events that the Tudor executions could be, with hundreds of people witnessing the death and hearing the final words of the accused. We can’t understand it or get inside their heads and that makes it more difficult to write about.
Jonathan Crain: The Tudor period is known for its political intrigue. How do you strip back the layers of historical dramatization to present a clearer picture of events?
I think the political intrigue and executions are at least part of the reason why the Tudors are so highly dramatised. When it comes to executions specifically, people will often visualise Anne Boleyn’s end in The Other Boleyn Girl or the executions of the Duke of Buckingham, Anne Boleyn, or Katherine Howard in The Tudors. There are lots of examples of Tudor executions on screen and there have been many times where people seem to have taken these dramatisations as fact. But they are dramatised for the screen, and not fully or at all based on the primary sources. So, I made sure to go back to the primary sources to get eyewitness testimony to events where possible, though there is also still a lot missing or that we don’t have sources for, so there are some assumptions made and this is really where dramatisations can go over the top.
Jonathan Crain: Your work encourages readers to draw their own conclusions about the guilt or innocence of the figures discussed. Why is this reader engagement important to you?
I think that the guilt or innocence of the people discussed is not clear cut really in any of the cases. There tends to be an overarching belief, like the Earl of Warwick and Anne Boleyn are largely seen as innocent of the charges against them. I like to provide the evidence and allow others to make up their own minds. People might not agree with the conclusions I draw, but that’s okay – history is about debate, as long as it’s polite and respectful. If someone disagrees with me, I want to know why and what their arguments are. Are they reading a source differently to me or taking different biases from it? If you allow others to draw their own conclusions, and if those conclusions are shared, then we might all learn something. And that’s hugely important, to keep learning. I know I’ve learned from discussions with others.
Jonathan Crain: How do you think the understanding of 'treason' during the Tudor era compares to modern interpretations of political betrayal?
It’s an interesting comparison really. Treason during the Tudor era was a lot more deadly, and it relied sometimes on the whim or want of the monarch. We have different motivations today in politics, not the succession or rebellion, but essentially still about power. No one likes to lose power, although politicians today have a lot less power than the Tudor monarchs – they are answerable to others. To the monarch who they have to explain themselves to, other politicians, and to the general public who vote. In the Tudor period, you didn’t vote for your leaders. So today I think there is more of a sense of betrayal because we have chosen our politicians to lead us and make decisions, where the people in Tudor times didn’t have a choice, and no recourse if things went wrong.
Jonathan Crain: The book suggests that the Tudor monarchs used treason charges as tools for consolidation of power. Can you expand on how you developed this thesis?
I think treason charges were certainly used as tools to consolidate power for the Tudor monarchs. The Tudor dynasty was only 118 years old when it ended, and they took the crown on the battlefield. Henry VII, I don’t think ever felt secure, although he never really took to using treason charges as his son did – he preferred to keep the nobility on side through other methods. But Henry VIII did use executions, more as his reign progressed. Henry VIII was a second son and wasn’t intended to inherit the throne, but the pressure was on him to produce a son of his own. I think as he got more desperate, he took more violent measures to ensure that the succession would continue through him and to secure the throne for his son, Edward. Mary I and Elizabeth I were the first crowned and anointed female monarchs of England so I think their positions were always under threat, and although neither seemed to want to execute their nobles, both would do it when pushed into it.
Jonathan Crain: With the benefit of hindsight and historical analysis, do you think some of the executions you researched were avoidable?
I’ve always wondered about the Earl of Warwick as he had been imprisoned for 14 years before his execution. Had Perkin Warbeck the pretender not come along, would Henry VII have had the excuse to execute him? But it’s said that Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain wouldn’t allow Katherine of Aragon to travel to England until Warwick was dead, so perhaps it wasn’t avoidable after all.
I think Lady Jane Grey actually probably came closest to not being executed. Mary I didn’t want to execute Jane and I think that it was her intention to keep Jane in the Tower until interest in her died down and then let her go and perhaps return to her family home at Bradgate. But the Wyatt Rebellion and her father’s involvement in it ruined that for Jane. I think that pushed Mary into the execution.
Jonathan Crain: What role do you think gender played in the accusations and executions of figures like Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard?
I think gender is what makes these executions stand out, at least in part. Anne Boleyn was the first anointed and crowned queen to be executed in England. Previous queens like Isabella of France and Eleanor of Aquitaine had been imprisoned but never executed. Even kings had never been judicially condemned and executed before. Henry VI and Richard II were killed in suspicious circumstances, but not publicly executed. Anne Boleyn was the first and that marked a watershed in English history.
Anne Boleyn’s execution then paved the way for that of Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, who followed Anne to scaffold 5 years later. But Margaret was executed with the more cumbersome axe, and it’s said to have taken a couple of strikes, whereas Anne’s execution was clean with a French sword. Then Katherine Howard and Jane Boleyn followed them to the scaffold the following year. This almost glut of female noble executions was new, and I think because of a combination of their gender and status, shockwaves went through England and Europe.
Jonathan Crain: In presenting the stories of individuals like Margaret Pole, how do you approach the challenge of portraying their complex historical and familial ties?
I had a very clear plan when I set out to write this book. Each chapter is split into four sections with the first being a discussion of their lineage and familial ties, what makes them noble. This is followed by a summary of their life and rise to power, then a study of their fall and the reasons for treason charges, and finally a discussion of their executions and conclusions.
The first step for me was to produce family trees showing any royal descent, and many of them descended from Edward I or Edward III. These family trees are in a very condensed form in the book. It would have been difficult for me to get the full family trees I originally drafted into the book in a readable format, as everyone is linked together, however distantly. I use full titles where possible to make sure that people with the same names are easily differentiable. Having three Thomas Howards, all Dukes of Norfolk was one of the major headaches!
Jonathan Crain: What was the most emotionally impactful chapter or case study for you to write, and why?
That’s a difficult one as several chapters were emotionally impactful, largely the women. I think it would have to be Lady Jane Grey, because she could have survived, although I know my friend who does a lot of proof-reading for me, found Katherine Howard’s chapter very emotional. I think with these two it’s the combination of their gender and the fact that they were so very young, still teenagers when they faced the executioner’s axe. They barely had a chance to live, and I think Jane Grey in particular could have made such an impact on history, whether queen or not. She was incredibly intelligent, well-read and well-educated, and it’s such a loss to history that we don’t know what she might have achieved.
Jonathan Crain: You have a particular interest in Anne Boleyn, as noted in your book. How do you maintain objectivity when writing about figures you are deeply interested in?
Writing the chapter on Anne Boleyn, I was very aware that this was the chapter I was most likely to go over my word count, and the one where I was most likely to, what I describe as, waffle. There is so much information about her and some of the sources are a little sparse on other figures. That’s why I set myself strict word limits for each chapter to keep them even and make sure that one person didn’t dominate the work.
It can be difficult to maintain objectivity. I firmly believe that Anne Boleyn was not guilty of adultery or incest, though I think that is a very common opinion nowadays. The question of treason is more questionable as the “dead men’s shoes” conversation with Henry Norris could be seen as treason under the 1534 Treason Act which was designed to protect her. I had to make a concerted effort that the likes of Anne Boleyn, Katherine Howard and Jane Grey didn’t dominate as they are the ones that there is a lot of both primary and secondary source work on. But with Anne Boleyn I just kept saying to myself that I can let it all out in my next book, which is wholly on Anne Boleyn.
Jonathan Crain: How do you hope your work on Tudor executions will influence the current understanding or discussions about the period?
I hope that my work on Tudor executions will encourage others to perhaps look further into the subject of executions and treason, to re-examine some of the sources. If someone thinks differently about a source to how I’ve portrayed it, I hope they’ll get in touch to let me know their thoughts and perhaps we can all learn something new. I think the National Archives exhibition on the history of treason a few years ago influenced a few people into a deeper interest. It’s not all gore and blood, there is a lot of political manoeuvring that leads up to it, and I am interested in the psychological impact on both the monarch and the victim, as well as the executioners, though we have very little information on the latter in pretty much all cases!
Jonathan Crain: What feedback have you received from readers and scholars about your approach to Tudor history?
I get a lot of comments about how my writing is very readable and engaging, which is very gratifying, as that’s what I wanted to do. I did get some comments when I was at university that my writing wasn’t academic enough, but I like that, and it works for what I want to do. I want to engage people in the subjects I’m writing about, and I seem to be doing that. One of my favourite comments for Tudor Executions was that it was enticing and easy to read, another that I had a great writing style, and another that it was fantastically educational. Comments like this make me feel like I’m doing what I wanted to do – making history accessible for a wide audience. And of course, one of the highlights for me of reviews for Tudor Executions was that it was endorsed by Dr Owen Emmerson who described it as ‘rich in detail and sharp in analysis’. Absolute highlight.
Jonathan Crain: In writing historical nonfiction, how do you balance the need for scholarly rigor with the desire to write something accessible and engaging?
For me, you can’t give up on the scholarly rigour in order to make it accessible and engaging. I have seen some books where the author appears to have tried too hard to make it engaging and accessible, and the history has fallen by the wayside. I have had some comments that there is sometimes too much repetition in my work, but I was always taught through my A Levels and university to always bring your arguments back to your central point and tie it all together. Otherwise, you’re at risk of going off on a tangent and losing the point of the work all together. That’s something that’s always stuck with me as good scholarly practice.
The balance is often in the tone. I find some historical journal articles too dry and there the scholarly rigour has overtaken the idea of making it readable and they’re hard work. I didn’t want my book to be hard work to read, but at the same time I needed to make sure it was well-researched, fully cited, with an extensive bibliography or primary and secondary sources. There’s no excuse for not doing any of that. You can make anything readable and accessible with a good solid writing style.
Jonathan Crain: Are there any historical myths or misconceptions about the Tudor period that you aimed to challenge or clarify in your book?
There always seems to be a sense that Henry VIII suddenly became a tyrant in January 1536 when he had a tilting accident. But there is a mix of sources, and the ones which are most reliable written by people at court at the time say that Henry fell but took no ill. It is sources which are further from the court or written later which say that he lay unconscious for several hours. But aside from that, Henry didn’t suddenly have a brain injury at this time. I argue that the execution of the Duke of Buckingham in 1521 was an earlier sign of Henry’s tyranny, and what he could become. Henry hadn’t really been challenged before this point and it wasn’t until the Great Matter comes up in the 1520s that we see Henry being challenged and his tyrannical side comes more to the fore, but it’s always been there. That was an interesting one to try and subtly challenge in chapter two.
Jonathan Crain: What advice would you give to aspiring historians or writers interested in tackling large historical topics like the Tudor period?
To be honest, I was nervous when I signed the contract for my first book because the Tudor period is so popular and there are so many books and television dramas and documentaries today that it seems like everything has been covered. However, there is always a little niche that you can fit into, things that haven’t really been covered before or a little kernel of information you might come across that spouts an entire book. But the most important thing is that you find a topic that you enjoy researching and writing about. If it feels like a chore then that’ll come across in the final work and it won’t feel like you’re drawing the reader in. I’ve had difficult writing days where I’ve squeezed out some words and then had to go back and rewrite it. But often you just need to write, and you can always reword it later. Get the ideas flowing first.
Jonathan Crain: Looking ahead, are there any other periods of history or topics you are eager to explore in your future work?
Well, my upcoming third book is a big one for me – the one I’ve always wanted to write since completing my undergraduate dissertation in 2012. It’s called The Many Faces of Anne Boleyn: Interpreting Image and Perception and is due out on 30 July 2025. I am working on my fourth book which is on Henry VIII’s Great Matter.
I doubt with my books I will venture outside the Tudor period but never say never. My other historical interests are Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, which I’ve always had an interest in since my GCSEs, and a personal interest as well. My grandmother was Austro-Polish, and she was in a labour camp during the Second World War and once she was released, she moved to Britain. Other interests are Jack the Ripper, and the English Regency period. I will say that my interest in the English Regency period predates the drama Bridgerton – I read quite a bit of Georgette Heyer which really introduced me to the period, but I am delighted to see more books on the period now being written and published as a result of Bridgerton.
Jonathan Crain: Lastly, what do you want readers to take away from Tudor Executions: From Nobility to the Block after they turn the last page?
I think the thing I would most want people to take away from Tudor Executions is that you can’t just look at the immediate run-up to an execution if you want to understand it. You need to take into account the whole life of the person and their familial ties as well. In the Tudor court, very often you weren’t just an individual but part of a family or a faction who wanted more money, wealth, titles, or power. The Tudor court could make you and break you. And often the breaking was easier than the making.
Helene Harrison's approach to Tudor history challenges conventional narratives by emphasizing the interconnected nature of political power, family networks, and treason in sixteenth-century England. Rather than viewing executions as isolated events, her work demonstrates how they functioned within broader dynastic insecurity and factional competition systems. Harrison observes, "In the Tudor court, very often you weren't just an individual but part of a family or a faction who wanted more money, wealth, titles, or power."
Her research reveals Tudor monarchs' strategic deployment of treason charges as tools for securing their precarious positions—from Henry VII's management of Yorkist threats to Elizabeth I's handling of the Essex rebellion. Harrison's work on noble executions also illuminates the significant gender dimension in Tudor politics, spotlighting Anne Boleyn's execution as a watershed moment that "paved the way" for subsequent female noble executions.
What distinguishes Harrison's scholarship is her balanced methodology—maintaining academic standards while crafting accessible narratives. She avoids the dry exposition of academic journals and the sensationalism that can characterize popular Tudor histories. Instead, she presents evidence and encourages critical engagement, noting that "history is about debate, as long as it's polite and respectful."
Harrison's forthcoming books on Anne Boleyn's image and Henry VIII's Great Matter promise to extend this approach to two of the most contested areas of Tudor historiography. By examining how perceptions of historical figures evolve across centuries, she invites readers to consider how historical interpretation is shaped by cultural context and available evidence. Harrison's work reminds us that understanding Tudor executions requires examining not just the moment of death but the complex lives that preceded it and the political calculations that demanded it.
Connect with Helene Harrison through her website for updates on her latest works and insights into her writing, and other topics. She can also be found on Social Media:
Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/tudorblogger
Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/tudorblogger
Blue Sky – https://bsky.app/profile/tudorblogger.bsky.social
Threads – https://www.threads.net/@tudorblogger
Really well done to you both! Honestly I looked at the length of this piece and almost passed, as I only had a few minutes, but I'm glad I jumped in because although it was really long I really enjoyed every word!! I liked getting to know Helene and more about Tudor executions! I am fascinated by Henry Howard Earl of Surrey so I'm hoping he makes an appearance in the book.
This is the most thorough review and conversation I have read in years. Bravo to both of you!