The Mary Rose
A Tudor Warship, Its Sinking, and Its Recovery
- 20 chapters
- 52m
- European History
- Free · no sign-up
The ship remained lost for over 400 years until modern archaeological techniques brought her back to light. Chapters cover everything from the vessel's construction methods to the survey and excavation that led to her raising in 1982. The finds include thousands of artefacts that reveal daily life aboard Tudor warships, from personal items to military equipment. Conservation work has preserved much of the original timber and metal.
Anyone interested in Tudor naval history will find this account fascinating. It combines historical records with modern archaeological discoveries to tell how one ship's sinking revealed secrets about England's maritime past. The book shows how the Mary Rose became a window into life aboard 16th-century warships.
Listen
-
Read this chapter
In the late 15th century, England was still recovering from decades of conflict—first with France in the Hundred Years’ War, and then a brutal civil war at home between the houses of York and Lancaster. The great English victories were behind them, leaving only the small port of Calais in northern France under English control. The War of the Roses ended with Henry VII establishing the Tudor dynasty, but his successors didn’t continue the naval ambitions of Henry V. Despite this, Henry VII managed to keep a quiet peace and maintain a small but effective navy. Meanwhile, the marriage alliance between Anne of Brittany and Charles VIII of France in 1491, followed by Louis XII in 1499, weakened England’s position on its southern border.
In 1508, France, the Holy Roman Empire, and Spain found themselves drawn into the War of the League of Cambrai, originally targeting Venice but later turning against France. England, closely linked economically to the Low Countries under Spanish Habsburg rule, and with young King Henry VIII eager to assert his claim over French territory, aligned himself with Spain. Just six weeks after his coronation in 1509, Henry married Catherine of Aragon and entered the League. By 1511, he was part of a coalition that included the Pope, the Holy Roman Emperor, and a Spanish monarch, all united in opposition to France.
When Henry VIII came to power, England’s navy was tiny, with only two large ships, the Regent and the Sovereign. Just months into his reign, he ordered two new vessels: the Mary Rose and the Peter Pomegranate, weighing about 500 and 450 tons respectively. It's not certain who first proposed building the Mary Rose, though construction began during Henry’s time, possibly based on plans made earlier. Henry himself oversaw the project and went on to order even more ships, including the massive Henry Grace à Dieu, known as the Great Harry, which weighed over 1000 tons. By the 1520s, England had effectively created a permanent royal navy—the direct ancestor of today’s Royal Navy.
-
Read this chapter
The Mary Rose was rebuilt in 1536, a significant upgrade from its earlier form. That renovation increased the ship’s size from 500 tons to 700 tons and added an extra tier of broadside guns to its existing carrack-style structure. Because of this rebuilding, much of what we know today comes from studying this later version of the vessel. The original design from 1509 remains less understood.
The Mary Rose was built in the carrack style, featuring tall castles at both the front and back, with a low central section open to the sky. The ship’s hull was designed with tumblehome, meaning it narrowed as it rose above the waterline. This design made it harder for enemies to board and reduced the amount of heavy timber needed to support the upper guns. While modern understanding suggests tumblehome doesn’t actually improve stability by bringing the guns closer to the centerline, that may have been the intention of those who built her.
Because only part of the hull has survived, it’s not possible to know many of the ship’s basic measurements exactly. The moulded breadth, or widest point of the vessel roughly above the waterline, was around twelve metres. The keel was about thirty-two metres long. But the overall length of the ship remains uncertain.
The Mary Rose had a hull divided into four levels by three decks. The lowest part was the hold, right above the bottom planking and below the waterline, where the galley was located and food was cooked. Behind the galley was the mast step, a groove in the central timber of the keelson that held the main mast, with the main bilge pump nearby. Ballast and most supplies were stored in the hold to keep the ship stable. Above the hold came the orlop, the lowest deck, which was also partitioned and used for storing food, sails, and other essentials.
Above the lower deck, called the orlop, was the main deck, where the largest cannons were mounted. This level of the ship had gunports on each side, protected by heavy lids that sealed tightly when closed. The main deck was also the highest one that was properly waterproofed. Alongside the main deck, there were small cabins under the forward and rear sections of the ship. These have been identified as belonging to the carpenter, barber-surgeon, pilot, and possibly the master gunner and some officers.
The upper deck, or weather deck, ran along the waist of the ship and was exposed to the sea. It served as the main fighting area, with no partitions and a mix of heavy and light guns. A boarding net covered the open waist, meant to stop enemy ships from boarding. Though little of the upper deck remains, it’s thought to have held the crew’s living quarters under the aftercastle. In that area, a drain has been found and may have been a “piss-dale,” a general urinal, with regular toilets likely placed in the bow.
The Mary Rose had additional decks, though almost nothing remains of them, so historians had to piece together their design using old records. Ships of similar size from the same time were regularly described as having three decks in both castles. This idea is based on the image found in the Anthony Roll and also matches what the gun inventories suggest.
At first, experts thought the Mary Rose was built using clinker planking—a method where overlapping wood panels supported the ship’s structure. But as work continued, it became clear this wasn’t how the vessel was originally constructed. Only part of the sterncastle featured overlapping planks, and even then, not in the traditional clinker style. The rest of the ship used a different building technique altogether.
-
Read this chapter
The Mary Rose was built using a method called carvel construction, which was still relatively new in England at the time. Her hull was shaped using something called the three arc method, a geometric process that produced the cross-sections of the ship. This technique didn’t appear in records again until around two hundred years later, suggesting it was already being used much earlier. Studies of other ships from the 15th century also hint that this method may have been known even before the Mary Rose was built.
The ship's construction started with the keel, backbone of the vessel, and stem and sternpost were set in place. The midships frame and key master frames determined the hull's shape, so floors in those spots were attached to the top of the keel. Planking began with garboards fixed to the keel and already-installed floors. A temporary timber batten called a ribband was placed across fitted floors, and rest were shaped to follow the curve marked by ribbands and garboards. The keelson was then fastened over the top of the floors, and planking continued upward from garboards toward the end of the floors. The first futtocks were installed next, again using ribbands to ensure proper fit relative to the master frames. This process repeated with additional futtocks until deck level was reached.
The Mary Rose was built using a method different from later vessels like those found in the Red Bay wreck 24M. Unlike ships with dove-tailed mortises joining floors and futtocks, the Mary Rose shows less systematic fastening between its frames. There are no treenails connecting frame elements as seen on later ships. This suggests the hull wasn’t built by first constructing the framework and then adding planking afterward. Instead, planking and framing happened in alternating steps, with new futtocks added while planking continued up to the weather deck level. This approach contrasts sharply with how a carvel hull is typically built today.
The way the Mary Rose was built shows how shipbuilding was changing during a time when the carvel method was becoming common in Northern Europe. This particular ship’s construction marks an important step in that shift. The process used for building her reflects the transition period, and the level of detail in how she was put together helps us understand that broader story of evolving shipbuilding techniques.
-
Read this chapter
The Mary Rose carried nine, or possibly ten, sails stretched across four masts and a bowsprit. The mainmast held three sails, while the foremast had two. A lateen sail and a small square sail hung from the mizzen mast, and the bonaventure mizzen carried at least one lateen sail, with the possibility of a square sail too. A small square spritsail was set on the bowsprit. Only the lower rigging fittings remain today, but a 1514 inventory and the sole known contemporary image—found on the Anthony Roll—helped piece together how the ship was rigged. That illustration shows the yards on the foremast and mainmast were fitted with sheerhooks: twin curved blades sharpened on the inside, meant to sever an enemy ship’s rigging during boarding actions.
The Mary Rose operated with a square-rigged system that differed from later versions in several key ways. All the yards were raised and lowered as part of normal sail handling, and the square sails were furled by pulling the bulk of the cloth into the centre of the yard. This meant less work was needed on the yards themselves, since the foot-rope hadn’t been invented yet—most tasks were done from the tops. Reefing points were uncommon on ships of this time, though they did appear on smaller boats’ sails. Instead, a square sail might have a bonnet—an extra piece of canvas laced to its foot. When reefing was needed, the bonnet was simply removed. Lacing for such a bonnet was found on Mary Rose.
-
Read this chapter
The Mary Rose sailed during a time when ships were being fitted with increasingly powerful guns, and her armament reflected that change. By the time she sank, she carried about twice as many heavy guns as before. These weapons included both older wrought iron pieces and newer cast bronze ones, each differing in size, range, and design. The larger iron guns were built from staves or bars formed into cylinders, then reinforced with iron hoops. They were breech-loaded and mounted on simple gun-carriages—some made from hollowed elm logs with just one pair of wheels, others without any wheels at all.
The Mary Rose carried bronze guns that were cast in one piece and mounted on four-wheel carriages similar to those used well into the 19th century. Breech-loaders were cheaper to make and faster to reload, though they couldn’t handle as powerful charges as the bronze guns. These bronze guns typically fired cast iron shot, designed to pierce hulls, while iron guns used stone shot that shattered on impact, creating large, jagged holes. Both types could also fire various ammunition aimed at rigging, light structures, or enemy crew members.
The Mary Rose was armed with mostly small iron guns that could be handled by one person, firing over short distances. Two types were most common: the bases, which were breech-loading swivel guns probably positioned in the castles, and hailshot pieces—small muzzle-loaders with rectangular bores and fin-like supports used to steady them against the ship's rail, allowing the structure to absorb recoil. Though the exact design is unknown, a 1546 inventory lists two top pieces that were likely similar to a base but mounted in one or more of the fighting tops.
The Mary Rose changed her guns several times during her service, with a major update happening in 1536 when she was rebuilt. That year, the number of anti-personnel weapons was reduced, and a second row of long guns mounted on carriages was added. Three inventories from 1514, 1540, and 1546, along with records from the Tower of London armoury, show how her armament shifted as gun technology advanced and new types of weapons were developed. In 1514, most of her guns were anti-personnel pieces such as large breech-loading iron murderers, small serpentines, demi-slings, and stone guns.
By 1540, the Mary Rose and the Tower had changed dramatically in the weapons they carried. The ship now held new cast bronze cannons, demi-cannons, culverins, and sakers, along with wrought iron port pieces designed to fire through ship ports. These guns required carriages, offered longer range, and were capable of inflicting serious harm on enemy vessels. In contrast, only a small number of the guns listed in the 1514 inventory were strong enough to pierce another ship’s hull. Most earlier weapons had been built into the ship's structure instead of mounted on carriages. Analysis of that earlier inventory, together with evidence of structural modifications, indicates the main deck gunports were a later addition.
The Mary Rose carried a variety of weaponry, including bronze and iron guns. Different types of ammunition were used for specific purposes: spherical shot made of stone or iron could smash through hulls, while spiked bar shot and chain-linked rounds were designed to damage sails or rigging. Canister shot, packed with sharp flints, created a devastating shotgun effect. Experiments using replicas of culverins and port pieces showed these weapons could penetrate wood as thick as the ship’s hull planking, with an effective range of at least ninety meters. Port pieces, in particular, proved especially deadly when firing stone shot, capable of creating large holes in timber, and even more destructive when loaded with flakes or pebbles as anti-personnel weapons.
-
Read this chapter
The Mary Rose was equipped with a substantial supply of melee weapons to repel boarders, with pikes and bills stored in quantities of 150 each, as recorded in the Anthony Roll, a record confirmed by findings from excavations. Though swords and daggers weren’t listed in official inventories since they were personal items, remains of both have been uncovered in large numbers. Among them is the earliest known British basket-hilted sword, dated to a specific time.
On the Mary Rose, 250 longbows were carried, and 172 have been recovered along with nearly 4,000 arrows, bracers, and other archery gear. In Tudor England, longbow use was required for all adult men, and these weapons continued to be used alongside newer firearms and artillery. On the ship, the bows could only be fired from the tops of the castles or from open areas in the waist, since the lower decks were too low for full use. There were several sizes and types of bows, with lighter ones likely used for precision shooting, and heavier ones possibly fired to launch fire arrows.
The inventories from 1514 and 1546 mention hundreds of heavy darts and lime pots meant to be thrown from the fighting tops onto enemy decks, though no physical remains of these weapons have ever been found. Of the fifty handguns listed in the Anthony Roll, five complete matchlock muskets and fragments of eleven more were recovered. These firearms were mostly made in Italy, with some coming from Germany. In storage, several gunshields were also discovered—a rare firearm type with a small gun mounted in the middle of a wooden frame.
-
Read this chapter
Throughout her 33-year service, the Mary Rose carried different crews, changing in size and composition over time. In peacetime, or when laid up in ordinary, she might have had as few as 17 men. During wartime, her crew typically included around 185 soldiers, 200 sailors, 20 to 30 gunners, and other specialists like surgeons, trumpeters, and staff members of the admiral. That added up to roughly 400 to 450 men. When participating in land invasions or raids—like those in the summer of 1512—the number of soldiers could have risen to just over 400, bringing the total aboard to more than 700. Even with a normal crew of about 400, the ship was packed tight.
Very little is known about the men who served on the Mary Rose, even when it comes to the names of the officers, who would have belonged to the gentry. Two admirals and four captains are known through records, including Edward and Thomas Howard, who served both positions. There were also ship masters, pursers, master gunners, and other specialists. Forensic science has been used by artists to create reconstructions of faces of crew members, and the results were publicised in May 2013. Researchers have also extracted DNA from remains in the hopes of identifying origins of crew and possibly living descendants.
The Mary Rose carried a full crew, but most men who served aboard left no records. Their stories come from bones found at the wrecksite, studied through osteological analysis. Based on what we know from that time, the ship would have had a captain, a master in charge of navigation, and deck hands. There was also a purser to manage money, a boatswain who acted as the captain's second-in-command, a carpenter, a pilot for navigation, and a cook—each with assistants called mates. The ship included a barber-surgeon, along with an apprentice or mate, and possibly a junior surgeon. Only one person is certain to have gone down with the vessel: Vice-Admiral George Carew. Some historians have suggested Roger Grenville, father of Richard Grenville of the Elizabethan-era Revenge, was aboard during the final battle, though maritime archaeologist Peter Marsden has questioned that claim.
The Mary Rose carried a crew of 179 men, all male, most in their twenties or younger, with some as young as eleven or thirteen. Most came from England, especially the West Country, and many were likely following their noble masters into maritime service. A few were from continental Europe—there was at least one Fleming, and the pilot may have been French. Some had southern European origins, and one crewmember was of North African descent. These men were strong and well-fed, yet their bones also showed signs of childhood illness and hard labor. Many had healed fractures from accidents aboard ship.
The Mary Rose carried hundreds of longbows and thousands of arrows, which means a large number of its crew were likely skilled archers. When scientists examined the skeletons of those who died on the ship, they found many men had a shoulder condition called os acromiale. This injury is common among elite modern archers and happens from repeated stress on the arm and shoulder muscles — especially the left arm, used to hold the bow. It’s probable that some of these men trained with longbows from a young age and served as specialists aboard the ship.
A group of six skeletons was found near one of the ship’s two-tonne bronze culverins, close to the bow. The bones showed signs of heavy physical labor — fused spine parts and new bone growth indicated these men were strong and muscled, likely from years of pulling and pushing. Most were clearly part of a gun crew, all of them dying at their battle stations. One skeleton was different, possibly a powder monkey, not involved in the heavy work. They were found together, near the main deck, close to the weapons they used in battle.
-
Read this chapter
In 1512, the Mary Rose entered battle as part of a joint English and Spanish effort against the French. While the Spanish targeted the French in the Bay of Biscay and moved on Gascony, the English were to confront the French and Breton forces in the English Channel. Sir Edward Howard, then 35 years old and recently named Lord High Admiral, took command and chose the Mary Rose as his flagship. His goal was to secure the waters between England and Spain’s northern coast, enabling troop landings near Fuenterrabia. The fleet numbered 18 ships, including the Regent and the Peter Pomegranate, with over 5,000 men aboard. Howard's forces captured twelve Breton vessels and launched a four-day raiding mission in Brittany, engaging local troops and setting fire to several settlements.
In June, the fleet returned to Southampton where King Henry visited. By August it sailed for Brest, where English ships met a poorly coordinated French-Breton force at the battle of St. Mathieu. According to Marsden, the Mary Rose led the English attack, battering the French with heavy gunfire and forcing them to retreat. The Breton flagship Cordelière fought back and was boarded by the 1,000-ton Regent. Either by accident or because the Bretons refused to surrender, the Cordelière's powder magazine exploded, sinking the Regent and setting it on fire. Around 180 English sailors escaped by jumping into the sea; only a few Bretons survived, only to be captured. The captain of the Regent, 600 soldiers and sailors, the High Admiral of France, and the steward of Morlaix all died in the blast, making it a major event in several contemporary accounts. On 11 August, the English burned 27 French ships, captured five more, and landed near Brest to raid and take prisoners, but storms sent the fleet back first to Dartmouth in Devon, then to Southampton for repairs.
In early 1513, the Mary Rose was chosen by Howard to lead an expedition against the French. She had proven herself swift and agile in a race with other ships, earning praise as one of the fleet's most nimble vessels. On 11 April, Howard's force reached waters off Brest, only to find the enemy had reinforced their position inside the harbor. A recent arrival of galleys from the Mediterranean had already damaged two English ships—one sunk and another seriously hurt. After landing near Brest, Howard made no progress against the town and grew short on supplies. On 25 April, he launched a bold frontal assault on French galleys with a small force of oared vessels. Howard himself reached the ship of French admiral Prégent de Bidoux and led a boarding party. The French fought back fiercely, cutting the cables that bound the ships and separating Howard from his men. He was left at their mercy and killed instantly.
The fleet, spirits low after losing their admiral and facing food shortages, made its way back to Plymouth. Thomas Howard, the older brother of Edward, took over as Lord Admiral and planned another push into Brittany, but bad weather and supply issues scuttled the effort. The Mary Rose spent the winter anchored in Southampton. In August, the Scots sided with the French against England, only to suffer a major defeat at Flodden on 9 September 1513. A second attempt the following year included the Mary Rose, though no battles were recorded. Both nations launched raids through the summer with little gain, and by autumn both sides were worn out. The conflict ended in peace.
After the peace, the Mary Rose was placed in the reserves, "in ordinary." She remained there until 1518, when she received routine repair and caulking, waterproofing with tar and oakum. A small skeleton crew was then assigned to live aboard her until 1522. In June 1520, she took part in a mission with other warships to "scour the seas," preparing for Henry VIII’s journey across the Channel to meet Francis I at the Field of the Cloth of Gold.
-
Read this chapter
On 19 July 1545, the English fleet sat still in port, stuck by calm winds and unable to move. The French galleys approached, threatening to destroy the smaller rowbarges—only thirteen of which could still maneuver without wind. But as the wind began to rise, the sailing ships were able to take the fight to the enemy. Two of the largest vessels, the Henry Grace à Dieu and the Mary Rose, led the charge against the French galleys in the Solent.
As the Mary Rose fought the French galleys, the ship began to list sharply to starboard. Water poured in through gunports that had been left open, and the crew found themselves unable to stop the vessel from capsizing. Men scrambled toward the upper deck as the ship sank fast. The tilt sent equipment, munitions, and supplies tumbling loose, worsening the confusion. A large brick oven in the galley collapsed, and a 360-litre copper cauldron was hurled onto the orlop deck above. Heavy artillery came free and crashed against the opposite side, blocking escape routes or crushing sailors underneath.
The Battle of the Solent saw the sinking of a Tudor warship, the Mary Rose, with most of its crew trapped below deck. For those not killed instantly by falling objects, escape was nearly impossible, especially men manning the guns or fetching supplies. The companionways became bottlenecks, as shown by the skeletons found at the wreck site. What made the tragedy worse were the anti-boarding nets covering the upper decks in the waist and sterncastle. Except for those on the masts, most who reached the upper deck were trapped under the netting, visible to those above but unable to escape. They were dragged down with the ship. Of at least 400 aboard, fewer than 35 survived—a casualty rate of over 90%.
-
Read this chapter
Only one eyewitness account is confirmed, written by François van der Delft, Holy Roman Emperor's ambassador, in a letter dated 24 July. The testimony comes from an unnamed Flemish crewman who said the ship had fired all her guns on one side, was turning to expose the others to the enemy, when a strong wind caught her, tilted her, and caused water to enter through open gunports. In a letter to William Paget, former Lord High Admiral John Russel blamed the loss on "rechenes and great negligence." Three years after the sinking, Hall's Chronicle offered another explanation, citing "to[o] much foly," noting that the ship was "laden with much ordinaunce, and the portes left open, which were low, & the great ordinaunce unbreached, so that when the ship should turne, the water entered, and sodainly she sanke."
Later accounts explain that the ship capsized while turning, with open gunports contributing to the sinking. A biography of Peter Carew, written by John Hooker sometime after 1575, offers the same explanation but adds that unrest among the crew played a role. According to the biography, George Carew had observed instability in the Mary Rose as soon as her sails were raised. During the battle, George’s uncle Gawen Carew passed by in his ship the Matthew Gonson and asked about his nephew’s situation. He was told “that he had a sorte of knaves whom he could not rule.” In contrast, Martin du Bellay, a French cavalry officer who was present, claimed the ship was sunk by French artillery.
-
Read this chapter
Modern historians mostly agree that the Mary Rose sank because the ship was unstable. A strong gust of wind hit the sails at just the wrong moment, and the open gunports let in water quickly. Coates suggested the ship had become unseaworthy over time due to extra weight from years of service, even fighting in rough seas off Brittany. Marsden questioned whether the ship was turning after firing all its guns on one side, pointing out that guns from both sides were still loaded when recovered. That has led some to think something else might have gone wrong, since an experienced crew would likely have closed the gunports before making a risky turn.
Recent surveys of the Mary Rose suggest she was changed toward the end of her time in service, which supports the theory that she became too heavily modified to be safe at sea. One expert, Marsden, has pointed out that the added weight of extra guns would have made the ship sit deeper in the water. He says this meant the waterline was barely a metre — about three feet — from the gunports on the main deck.
James Watt, former Medical Director-General of the Royal Navy, has reinterpreted Peter Carew's claim of insubordination by pointing to records of a dysentery outbreak in Portsmouth that may have left the crew unable to manage the ship. Historian Richard Barker believes the men aboard might have known the Mary Rose was unsafe and chose not to follow orders. Marsden has noted inconsistencies between Carew's biography and eyewitness accounts from both French and English sources, as well as an unusually high count of 700 men on board. The time gap between the event and the biography's writing suggests possible embellishment for dramatic effect. Naval historian Maurice de Brossard dismissed Martin du Bellay's account of French galleys sinking the ship, calling it "the account of a courtesan," since du Bellay and his brothers were close to King Francis I and had reason to portray the event as a French triumph. English sources, even if biased, would have no motive to blame the crew for incompetence rather than credit the feared gun galleys with the victory.
Dominic Fontana, a geographer at the University of Portsmouth, has backed du Bellay’s account of the sinking, using the Cowdray Engraving and modern GIS analysis to reconstruct the battle. By tracking the movements of both fleets and calculating the final actions of the Mary Rose, Fontana concluded that the ship was hit low in the hull by enemy galleys and began taking on water. He sees the vessel’s final heading—straight north—as an effort to reach shallow waters at Spitbank, just a few hundred meters away. A second expert who has worked with the Mary Rose, though not naming her directly, has given partial support to this idea but also suggested the ship might have been attempting to avoid running aground.
-
Read this chapter
Only days after the ship went down, Secretary of State William Paget ordered a salvage effort. The Duke of Suffolk, who was related to the king through marriage, handled the practical side of things. They used the usual method for raising ships in shallow water: strong cables were tied to the wreck and attached to two empty vessels, or hulks. At low tide, capstans pulled the ropes tight. When the tide rose again, the hulks lifted along with the shipwreck. Then they’d drag it into shallower water and repeat the process until the entire vessel was raised.
By 1 August, plans were underway for the recovery of the Mary Rose, with salvage equipment including heavy cables, capstans, pulleys, and 40 pounds of tallow for lubrication. The proposed team consisted of 30 Venetian sailors and a Venetian carpenter, supported by 60 English seamen. Two vessels, the Jesus of Lübeck and the Samson, both with a burthen of 700 tons, were selected as hulks for the operation. Suffolk expressed such confidence in the mission that he assured the king it would take only days to raise the ship. However, this optimism quickly proved misplaced. The Mary Rose had come to rest at a 60-degree angle on the seabed, deeply embedded in clay, which made running cables beneath her nearly impossible and demanded far more lifting force than anticipated. An attempt to attach cables to the main mast ended only in its snapping off.
The first salvage effort on the Mary Rose was only able to recover rigging, some guns, and other objects. At least two more teams were paid in 1547 and 1549 for raising additional weapons from the wreck. Even after that initial failure, people still believed the ship might be raised, at least until 1546, when she appeared in the Anthony Roll, an illustrated list of English warships. It's unclear exactly when hope was given up entirely—perhaps after Henry VIII died in January 1547, or possibly as late as 1549, when the final guns were recovered. The wreck remained visible from the surface at low tide into the late 16th century, according to William Monson, one of Queen Elizabeth I’s admirals.
-
Read this chapter
In mid-1836, five Solent fishermen became curious when their nets caught on underwater timbers. They brought in diver Henry Abbinett, who made history by seeing the Mary Rose for the first time in nearly 300 years. Professional divers John Deane and William Edwards were soon hired with a new rubber diving suit and metal helmet to examine the wreck and salvage items. Among their finds were longbows, bronze and iron guns that sold for over £220 to the Board of Ordnance—about £21,726 in today's money. A dispute arose between Deane, who had brought in his brother Charles, Abbinett, and the fishermen. Eventually, the fishermen were given a share of the gun sale proceeds, while Deane gained exclusive salvage rights at Abbinett's expense. One bronze gun bore an inscription identifying it as from 1537, confirming the wreck was the Mary Rose.
The identification of the ship sparked public excitement, leading to demand for recovered items. Many objects couldn't be preserved then and faded away, though some were recorded in pencil sketches and watercolours that remain today. John Deane stopped work in 1836 but returned in 1840 using more aggressive techniques. With gunpowder from the Ordnance Board, he blew through parts of the wreck. Modern digs found bomb fragments and blast marks, yet no proof he reached the sealed Tudor layers. Deane claimed to have pulled up a bilge pump and lower mast section, which would have been inside the ship. Small wooden items like longbows suggest he did break into the Tudor levels at some point, though this is disputed by excavation leader Margaret Rule. Newspapers from October 1840 said the ship was clinker-built, but since only the sterncastle had that feature, it's thought Deane may have entered just the stern remains, which no longer exist. Still, the Mary Rose avoided the destruction other wrecks faced in the Solent, like HMS Royal George.
-
Read this chapter
The search for the Mary Rose began in 1965 when the Southsea branch of the British Sub-Aqua Club started looking for shipwrecks in the Solent. Historian Alexander McKee led the project, while another team, sponsored by the Committee for Nautical Archaeology and led by Lieutenant-Commander Alan Bax of the Royal Navy, also joined in. Initially they disagreed on where to look, but later worked together. In February 1966, a chart from 1841 helped pinpoint the wreck’s location near a trench McKee’s team had already found. The site was 3 kilometers south of Portsmouth Harbour entrance, in water 11 meters deep at low tide. Diving began in 1966, and sonar scans by Harold Edgerton in 1967–68 revealed buried features. A loose timber was found in 1970, and on 5 May 1971, the first structural parts of the hull were seen after winter storms uncovered them.
The team faced a major challenge from the start, because wreck sites in the UK weren’t protected from treasure hunters and plunderers. Sunken ships were legally treated as movable property, so whoever raised them first could claim ownership. The Merchant Shipping Act 1894 said that anything recovered from a wreck had to be auctioned off to pay for the salvage efforts, leaving no protection against theft. To deal with this, the Mary Rose Committee was formed, with the goal “to find, excavate, raise and preserve for all time such remains of the ship Mary Rose as may be of historical or archaeological interest.”
To stop people from stealing items from the ship, the team got a lease from the Portsmouth authorities for the seabed where the Mary Rose lay, hoping that would keep intruders away. That plan was really just a legal trick with no real power in court. But keeping the exact location secret helped protect the work from unwanted attention. It wasn’t until February 5, 1973, when the Protection of Wrecks Act was passed, that the Mary Rose became officially protected as a site of national historic interest. Even then, problems lingered with salvage laws. Personal items like chests, clothes, and cooking tools could still be taken and sold at auction.
-
Read this chapter
After the wreck was found in 1971, the project grabbed public attention and brought in more donations and equipment, mostly from private donors. By 1974, the committee included people from the National Maritime Museum, the Royal Navy, the BBC, and local groups. That same year, Prince Charles offered royal patronage and even went diving at the site. His involvement raised even more interest, funding, and support. The Mary Rose Committee became a registered charity in 1974, which made fundraising easier. The UK government also officially approved their plans to excavate and raise the ship.
By 1978, the initial work had revealed a complete and well-preserved site, with an intact ship structure that was clearly oriented on a nearly straight northerly course, tilted about sixty degrees to starboard and slightly downward toward the bow. Since no records of English shipbuilding techniques from that time exist, uncovering the Mary Rose would offer detailed insight into how ships of her era were built. The excavation also meant removing layers of silt that protected the hull from decay and currents, and this had to be done within a limited timeframe or risk permanent damage. There was also consideration for recovering and preserving the hull itself, which presented new challenges for raising, conserving, and preparing it for public display.
To manage this more complex and costly work, the Mary Rose Trust was formed — a charitable trust with representatives from several organisations. In 1979, the project got a new diving vessel, the Sleipner, which had previously supported operations on the Vasa. It replaced the old Roger Greenville catamaran used since 1971. The team grew from twelve volunteers working four months a year to over fifty people working nearly full-time for nine months. There were also more than five hundred volunteer divers and about seventy staff at the shore base. From 1979 to 1982, divers logged over twenty-two thousand hours, equaling eleven and a half man-years of effort.
-
Read this chapter
Raising the Mary Rose was a delicate challenge, unlike anything attempted before. The only similar operation was the Swedish warship Vasa, raised from 1959 to 1961, but that had been much simpler since its hull was intact and upright on the seabed. The Mary Rose, however, was deeply embedded in mud with only one-third of the hull remaining. If raised conventionally, there was no guarantee it could hold together out of water. Many ideas were considered—building a cofferdam, filling the ship with buoyant objects, or freezing the seabed with brine. In February 1980, it was decided to empty the wreck first, then strengthen it with steel braces and frames. It would be lifted using floating sheerlegs and nylon strops, transferred to a cradle, and recovered before the end of the 1982 diving season, or risk damage from decay and tides.
During the final year of the operation, the enormous task of fully excavating and raising the ship began to strain those working on the project. In May 1981, Alexander McKee raised concerns about how the timbers would be lifted, openly questioning Margaret Rule’s leadership. McKee felt overlooked, despite having started the search for the Mary Rose and other vessels in the Solent, and having been deeply involved in the diving work. Several others shared his worries, fearing the project could end in failure if the ship was damaged during raising. To address this, it was proposed that the hull be placed on a steel cradle underwater to prevent damage. The idea of using nylon strops was dropped, and instead, holes were planned at 170 points through the hull, with iron bolts inserted to secure wires attached to a lifting frame.
In spring 1982, workers began raising the Mary Rose after years of underwater excavation. The operation faced setbacks including custom-built lifting equipment issues and last-minute changes to how the hull would be raised. Royal Engineers divers helped with underwater work. Once the frame was attached to the hull, it was slowly lifted by four legs. The massive crane aboard barge Tog Mor moved the structure to a specially built cradle padded with water-filled bags. On 11 October 1982, at 9:03 am, the ship's timbers finally broke the surface. A second set of air-filled bags cushioned the wood as it was lifted. The whole assembly was then placed on a barge and taken to shore. The mission nearly failed twice — once when a leg of the lifting frame bent and had to be removed, and again when a corner of the frame slipped more than a metre, nearly crushing part of the hull.
-
Read this chapter
The Mary Rose project stood out as a groundbreaking effort in maritime archaeology, setting new standards in the UK. It was among the first shipwrecks to receive protection under the newly passed Protection of Wrecks Act in 1973. This privately funded operation became the first in Britain to fully apply modern scientific methods without needing to sell off artifacts to cover costs. Unlike earlier excavations that recovered only parts of the finds, every object linked to the Mary Rose was brought up and carefully documented. The recovery of the ship made it possible to create the first officially recognized historic shipwreck museum in the country, one that received government support. The work at the wreck site also showed that underwater excavation could reach the same level of accuracy as digging on land.
Throughout the 1970s, the Mary Rose was carefully surveyed, excavated, and recorded using the newest techniques in maritime archaeology. Working underwater meant land-based methods couldn't always be used. Although mechanical tools like excavators, airlifts, and suction dredges were employed to find the wreck, more delicate methods took over once excavation began in earnest. Many objects were well-preserved but fragile, needing careful handling. Artifacts were supported with soft packing materials such as old plastic ice cream containers, and some arrows, which were "soft like cream cheese," had to be brought up in special styrofoam containers. Airlifts continued to be used, but with greater precision to avoid damaging the site. The layers of sediment helped date the objects and had to be recorded carefully. Accretions and chemical remnants offered clues about items that had long since decayed, requiring careful treatment.
The ship was raised from the seabed in the 1970s and early 1980s, ending diving operations, though part of the bow and scaffolding stayed on the ocean floor. Conservators faced the overwhelming task of treating tens of thousands of artefacts, and the expense of storing and displaying them left no money for further underwater work. In 2002, the UK Ministry of Defence began planning new aircraft carriers, requiring a survey of Portsmouth's outlet to ensure safe passage for the vessels. The planned route came close to the Mary Rose wrecksite, which led to renewed funding for excavation. Although the carriers were later downsized and no changes needed to be made to the outlet, the excavations had already uncovered important timbers and were completed by 2005. Among the most significant finds was a ten-metre stem, the forward continuation of the keel, offering clearer details about the ship's original shape.
-
Read this chapter
Over 26,000 artefacts and pieces of timber were raised from the sea, along with remains of about half the crew. Some of the crew members’ faces have been reconstructed from their bones. The skeletons show many suffered from malnutrition, and had signs of rickets, scurvy, and other deficiency diseases. Life at sea took its toll—crew members developed arthritis from heavy lifting and years of maritime work, and some had suffered bone fractures.
The Mary Rose carried enough provisions to sustain its crew as a self-contained unit at sea. Among the items recovered were storage casks that resembled those from a Basque whaling vessel lost in Red Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador, around 1565. Yet the casks from the Tudor warship stood out for their superior build, durability, and dependability. This suggests that the navy of the time placed great importance on supply quality, setting demanding standards for the makers of such containers.
The Mary Rose held more than just weapons and wood — it was a snapshot of life aboard a Tudor warship, with personal items left behind by its crew. Among the finds were clothing, games, religious or leisure objects, and things used for daily tasks like hygiene, fishing, or sewing. A chest belonging to the master carpenter gave a glimpse into his world: it held a backgammon set, a book, three plates, a sundial, and a tankard — items that suggest he was relatively well-off.
The Mary Rose carried skilled craftsmen ready to handle both regular upkeep and serious repairs after battle. In one spot on the main deck, near the sterncastle, archaeologists discovered a remarkable collection of woodworking tools. It was unlike anything found before in terms of variety and scale. The tools were stored in chests, along with mallets and tar pots used for caulking. These belonged to the ship’s carpenters, who kept the vessel in working order.
The Mary Rose yielded a wealth of information about 16th-century weapons, especially through the cannons and armaments recovered from the ship. Among the most significant finds are the gunshields, nearly all of which came from this vessel. Also unique are four small cast iron hailshot pieces — the only known examples of their kind. These artifacts offer rare insight into the technology and tactics of naval warfare during the Tudor period.
Among the remains recovered from the Mary Rose are the bones of a dog, a rat, and a frog. The dog, an English Toy Terrier in black and tan, was between eighteen months and two years old, and was found near the carpenter’s hatch, likely brought aboard to control rats. Nine barrels contained cattle bones, showing they were filled with beef stored as ship's rations. Pig and fish bones were also discovered, packed in baskets.
-
Read this chapter
The Mary Rose’s recovery was just the beginning—preservation became the main challenge from the start. Most artefacts had survived buried in silt, but being underwater for centuries made them fragile when exposed to air. Archaeologists and conservators worked together from the beginning to stop things from falling apart. After the ship came up, objects went into what’s called passive storage—protecting them before full conservation could begin. How they stored each item depended on what it was made of. Wooden items, like smaller finds, were sealed in polyethylene bags to keep moisture in. Larger pieces, like timbers, went into unsealed water tanks. To stop fungi and microbes from eating the wood, workers used low temperatures, chemicals, and even pond snails that ate the organisms but left the wood alone.
The preservation process involved keeping organic items like leather, skin, and textiles in moist conditions, either in tanks or sealed plastic. Bone and ivory were cleaned of salt to prevent cracking, a treatment also given to glass, ceramic, and stone. Metal objects made of iron, copper, or copper alloys were soaked in a sodium sesquicarbonate solution to stop oxidation and damage from chlorides that had penetrated the surface. Lead and pewter alloy items remained stable in normal air and generally did not need special handling. Among all the materials, only silver and gold did not require any special storage conditions at all.
Conserving the hull of the Mary Rose was the most complex and costly part of the project. In 2002, a £4.8 million donation from the Heritage Lottery Fund and support from local councils helped keep the work on track. During passive conservation, the ship couldn't be fully sealed, so it was regularly sprayed with filtered, recycled water kept at 2 to 5 °C to prevent drying. Without proper treatment, waterlogged wood from centuries underwater would shrink and crack as it dried. Polyethylene glycol, or PEG, had been used before on archaeological wood, including the Vasa. After nearly ten years of small trials, a three-phase conservation program began in 1994. The first phase, from 1994 to 2003, used low-molecular-weight PEG to replace water in the wood. From 2003 to 2010, higher-molecular-weight PEG strengthened the surface. The final phase, ending in 2016, involved controlled air drying. Researchers are now planning to use magnetic nanoparticles to remove iron from the wood and stop sulfuric acid from damaging it further.
The Mary Rose wreck site is protected by the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973, requiring licences for any interference. Historic England officially recognises the site for its historical, archaeological, and artistic importance, ensuring Tudor warship remains are preserved for future generations. The 1973 legislation applies directly to where the Mary Rose sank, prohibiting disturbance or artefact removal without licence. This protection reflects the site's significance as both naval history and archaeological resource, guaranteeing researchers can study it properly while maintaining the ship's story intact. The legislation extends beyond the vessel itself to cover everything connected to its discovery and preservation. Historic England plays a key role in upholding these standards, safeguarding the Mary Rose's legacy for as long as possible.
-
Read this chapter
After the decision to raise the Mary Rose, discussions began about where she would eventually be displayed permanently. Early on, the east end of Portsea Island at Eastney was considered but turned down due to parking problems and its distance from the dockyard where the ship was originally built. In July 1981, it was proposed that she be placed next to HMS Victory, Horatio Nelson’s famous flagship, at Portsmouth Historic Dockyard. At the time, there was widespread scepticism about the dockyard location, and a county councillor even threatened to withdraw promised funds if it remained only an interim solution. Although author David Childs writes that in the early 1980s “the debate was as a fiery one,” the project endured.
Since the Mary Rose was raised from the sea in the 1980s, its hull has been stored in a covered dry dock while conservators worked to save it. The ship has been open to the public, but for many years visitors were kept apart from the hull by glass. By 2007, the specially built ship hall had welcomed over seven million people since it first opened on 4 October 1983, just under a year after the wreck was brought up from the seabed.
A separate Mary Rose Museum opened on 9 July 1984 in a building called No. 5 Boathouse near the ship hall, where visitors could learn about the ship’s history and see a small selection of conserved artefacts, including bronze cannons and household items. In September 2009, that temporary display hall closed to make way for a new museum building costing £35 million — which in 2025 would be worth £55.8 million. The new facility opened to the public on 31 May 2013.
The new Mary Rose Museum was built by Warings over the ship in a dry dock that's a listed monument, with architects Wilkinson Eyre, Perkins+Will involved in the design. During construction, the hull stayed inside a sealed "hotbox" while conservation continued. In April 2013, the polyethylene glycol sprays stopped and airdrying began. By 2016, the hotbox was removed, revealing the ship dry for the first time since 1545. The museum now displays most of the artefacts found aboard, shown alongside the conserved hull. As of 2018, over 1.8 million people had visited, with 189,702 in 2019 alone.
Read
Free to download, keep and share. For general information only — not professional medical, legal or financial advice. Please consult a qualified professional.