An anonymous Venetian author, perhaps the secretary of La Serenissima's ambassador, writing probably around 1497 concerning England, stated that “In former times the titled nobility . . . possessed no fortresses” (Camden Society, Old Series, 37, 1847, p. 39). Historians, too, have tended to dismiss the Tudor nobility's castles: H. M. Colvin suggested that by the 1520s most castles of importance in southern England and Wales were in royal hands (“Castles and Government in Tudor England,” English Historical Review 83, no. 237 [1968]: 225–34). In part, the inaccurate dismissal of the many and substantial castles still in private hands by that date was a result of the military focus of castle studies throughout much of the twentieth century (and apparently also the late fifteenth). Audrey Thorstad, in her new study, The Culture of Castles in Tudor England and Wales, seeks to correct the older emphasis on military matters, in line with more recent social and cultural approaches by scholars, by exploring the culture of the nobility's castles in England and Wales, and to expand and challenge “the current castle narrative, which is largely focussed on the medieval period, to include Tudor castles” (211).

Thorstad focuses mainly on four castles: Carew Castle (Pembrokeshire), Castle Hedingham (Essex), Cowdray Castle (West Sussex) and Thornbury Castle (Gloucestershire). She draws, at times heavily, on studies of particular owners of these castles and their estates, households, and affinity, notably Ralph A. Griffiths's Sir Rhys ap Thomas and his Family (1993) for Carew; Barbara J. Harris's Edward Stafford, Third Duke of Buckingham, 1478–1521 (1986); Carole Rawcliffe's The Staffords, Earls of Stafford and Dukes of Buckingham, 1394–1521 (1978) for Thornbury; and this reviewer's Foremost Man of the Kingdom: John de Vere, Thirteenth Earl of Oxford, 1442–1513 (2011) for Castle Hedingham. This reliance on previous studies reflected in the fact that Thorstad's case studies do not stray much beyond the periods of ownership by these men, rather than addressing the use and culture of these castles in question over a longer period.

Thorstad takes a thematic approach to the topic, with sections on politics and governance, the landscape, the household, hospitality, private spaces, and memory and commemoration. The primary value of the study lies in her holistic approach, embodied by the inclusion of all of these varied themes, which are rarely brought all together either by historians of the English nobility or by those focusing on their residences. The approach leads to important insights. Valuable emphasis is placed throughout on the commemoration of ancestry and family longevity by the owners, while gender and gendered space are given greater attention than has often been the case. The interplay between the architecture of the castle buildings and the key features of the surrounding landscape is shown to be complex and important. How hospitality was conveyed within the castle, through both layout and service, is fruitfully explored. The Welsh context, and the use of literary sources emanating from the Principality in particular, is welcome.

The approach also has some drawbacks. On occasion, Thorstad struggles to keep the castle itself in focus. This happened in part through a lack of evidence but also because, in some of the thematic strands selected for the case studies, the castle was not necessarily the center of all (or most) activity. The lord did not have to be at Thornbury or Carew to exercise judicial authority as a justice of the peace. It is not always easy to link some functions of the household discussed here (such as military service on campaign or legal advice) with the physical environs of the castle, while sections on the distribution and management of far-flung estates are tangential to the lordly residence itself. Thorstad is right to note the use of heraldry on tombs and on parish churches and the patronage of religious institutions as a way for noblemen to commemorate their lineage and memory, but many of these could be—and were—miles from the noble castle. Therefore, at times, the book reads as a sociocultural study of the early Tudor landed elite (or several members thereof). Such a study is not unwelcome given the current lack of a full-length book on the topic, but it does contrast with other sections, notably those on hospitality, landscape, and private space, where the castle is in clear focus, and the juxtaposition of castle and cultural phenomenon works well.

I have one or two quibbles. The title might have been better as “early Tudor,” given none of the case studies go later than Cowdray under the first earl of Southampton (d. 1542). Thorstad explicitly assumes that each lord had a caput, a “main residence” (22). This is not true in a number of cases, as multiple seats were normal for the higher nobility (to say nothing of London residences). The earl of Oxford spent as much time at Wivenhoe (Essex) as at Castle Hedingham in the early sixteenth century, whereas his nephew and successor, the fourteenth earl of Oxford, seems to have resided as much at Castle Camps (Cambridgeshire) as anywhere else. The duke of Buckingham used Penshurst, Kent, a great deal, and indeed entertained Henry VIII there in 1518 rather than at Thornbury. The impact of multiple residences, certainly in the case of the highest nobility, might have been fruitfully explored.

One cannot be too critical of choice of the case studies, but it is a shame that all four are southern; a comparison with a castle in the north of England, in what remained a more militarized society, might have been instructive. Occasional references to the residences and household of the fifth Percy earl of Northumberland (d. 1527) suggest that focusing on one of his main residences such as Wressle (Yorkshire) or Warkworth (Northumberland) would have brought additional insight.

Despite these quibbles, the book is of value. In bringing a methodologically diverse approach to a subject that crosses interdisciplinary boundaries, particularly history and archaeology, Thorstad's work will be of interest to those working in these fields, and she is surely right to argue that “Castles . . . cannot be interpreted in isolation from the people who occupied them” (210). This fresh approach is very welcome.