OK. This may not be fair, as I haven't finished the book. But I find the narrative point of view adopted by the author to be hideously contrived in a way that leaves the reader (and apparently the Man Booker Prize Committee) struggling to separate the use of "he" when it is an antecedent for another character, or for when it simply represents Cromwell himself. Maybe there will come a point (as the other reviewer suggested here) where I won't care about or will actually enjoy this twist of narrative point of view, but right now, it strikes me as a narrative smoke and mirrors meant to distract you from the fact that this isn't a prize-worthy book.
The fact that the book is written in the present tense doesn't bother me at all, and in fact is what drew me into the the first chapter. But the incessant use of "he" representing Cromwell without an antecedent, especially when there are plenty of other male characters for which that pronoun has use, seems affected, like the author sat down and asked herself, "OK, what can I do differently with the usual hideous historical fiction fare?" and answered--"Aha, I can screw with the point of view!"