Arguably ministers were more responsible than monarchs for the government in England within the context of 1529-1629. There is evidence that they controlled most of the decisions and changes made to the government during this time. Thomas Cromwell made the change of medieval to modern government under the monarch Henry VIII and “…in ten years he changed the face of England” . Also, ministers such as William Cecil, Northumberland and Somerset, all closely advised their monarchs in government decisions as they were young. However, there are also examples of how the monarchs have the responsibility for government, as during Edward IV’s reign, who became more involved in government as he got older, much like Elizabeth I. Also, Mary I took advice …show more content…
from her minister, but mainly followed her own agenda. The way in which James I and Charles I dissolved parliament also suggests that monarchs were more responsible. Up until 1529, Cardinal Thomas Wolsey was minister to King Henry VIII. Wolsey was a very influential minister, this however, did not mean he was successful, as he failed to bring about The King’s Great Matter, ultimately leading to his downfall. Historians argue whether Wolsey was a master or a servant. The traditional viewpoint demonstrated by Pollard was that Wolsey achieved a ‘prime ministerial’ dominance over policy making for 14 years. Elton stated that Wolsey tried to rule as King when he was not, therefore being a master rather than a servant by manipulating his influence over the King, meaning that he assumed great personal power, making him able to determine English foreign policy and dominate the court of Star Chamber. However, the revisionist view highlighted through S.J Gunn was that Wolsey desired peace not power, but was forced to declare war to satisfy the King, therefore demonstrating that he was Henry VIII’s servant. After Wolsey’s fall in 1529, Henry VIII appointed Thomas Cromwell as his replacement, who agreed to tackle what Wolsey couldn’t, the King’s Great Matter. Historian, Christopher Morris, suggests that, “… Cromwell did as much governing as Wolsey, if not more” , this highlights how significant Cromwell was as Wolsey was referred to as an alter- rex because he acted as if he were equal to the King and therefore was as responsible for running government, if not more. The biggest historical argument surrounding Cromwell was his role in government due to the Elton thesis. Arguably, Cromwell made a massive change in government by changing it from Medieval to Modern. Medieval government consisted of the monarch alone, meaning that Henry was fully responsible for government. However, Cromwell reformed this to be the modern government, meaning that there was a larger body of people, and there were more specialised jobs. Elton argued that Cromwell brought about a revolution, “In eight years he engineered one of the few successful revolutions in English history” . He did this by through his work in the Reformation Parliament. Most significantly he created a nation of sovereignty through the Act of Supremacy in 1534, a state free from foreign influence, including the Pope. This was revolutionary as the country was being run differently. However, Scarisbrick argues that there was no revolution, the government was more centralised, “… the growing authority of his servants in central and local government greatly strengthened the lines of force which ran between King and subject” . Historian David Loades also disagrees and argues that Cromwell was a “systemiser” and did not create new structures. Therefore, he did not create a revolution, but readjustment. John Guy also disagrees with Elton, arguing that it was flawed and suggests that Cromwell should not be so highly praised as the Privy Council changes were more Wolsey. Therefore, Cromwell was more responsible for government in England, as it was his work and ideas that made it effective, “…in ten years he changed the face of England” . In addition, during Elizabeth I’s reign the Duke of Norfolk was a significant player in making her rule successful, this was because he was powerful. Norfolk was an able man and owned one palace and five minor houses, meaning that he had large retinue which enabled him to use private armies if he wanted. This factor made him a useful tool for Elizabeth as she would have an instant army if she needed one. Also, he controlled the Norfolk Commission of the Peace and was responsible for appointing half of the country’s Justices of the Peace, resulting in their loyalty. Meaning that the Queen would have to get him to work with her because then Norfolk could make the JP’s support her and carry out her new policies. Therefore, the minister had responsibility in running the government in England as the Queen needed him in order for her new policies to be recognised. With him she would gain more supporters. However, this was a two way relationship as Elizabeth I would have given Norfolk patronage in order to make him co-operate, therefore it can also be argued that she worked well with the able men she had. Somerset under Edward IV created religious confusion due to him trying to please both Catholics and Protestants through the Act of Uniformity in 1549. Transubstantiation was allowed whilst Catholic rituals were meant to have disappeared. This caused the Western Rebellion which was significant as it shows that they were unhappy enough to rebel. Another cause was through their hatred of the gentry. Northumberland, again under Edward IV, also tackled religion. There was confusion left by Somerset after his fall in 1549, therefore, Northumberland made England fully protestant in 1552 by introducing the Treason Act and the Second Act of Uniformity. However, this created problems as Northumberland had realised that Edward VI was dying and that he would only stay in power if Lady Jane Grey came to throne, and not Catholic Mary Tudor. Therefore, he took control and “…was lead to make his desperate gamble to alter the succession…” by bringing about Edward VI’s idea, The Devise, which stated that Lady Jane Grey was next in line to the throne. Dale Hoak argues that The Devise could not have been Edward VI’s idea as he was a, “… somewhat pathetic figure of an articulate puppet far removed by the realities of government” . G. R Elton supports the view that the minster was responsible for this and stated that, “This major administrative reform was planned by Edward’s ministers and carried out by them in the next reign”. Lady Jane Grey was proclaimed queen July 10th 1533, which highlights how Northumberland had successfully changed the succession and was responsible for the government of England. On the other hand, it can also be argued that the monarchs were more responsible for government between 1529 and 1629. A significant reason for this was through prerogative powers that monarchs held, because this meant that they had the final say as they were the monarchs and therefore in charge of the country and the most powerful. Even though ministers may have guided them and may have done work for them, they had to get there ideas passed through the monarch before they were introduced. A significant example a minister being aware of these powers was Cecil. He stated that, “… as long as I may be allowed to give advice, I will…” and G. R Elton reinforces this with “of course, the queen ruled over all.” Elizabeth I had success in governing England with her prerogative powers, “…Elizabeth made swift and sweeping changes among the leading ministers and couriers” .
Most significantly was her control over the Privy Council. Haigh argues that she had control because, “…she had a council of hand-picked officials rather than men whose power forced them upon her” . She also did this by participating in discussions whilst taking notes, and by using affection as well as anger. This would have worked because it highlighted to the council members that she was in charge and that they couldn’t try to take advantage of her age and gender. The big debate on parliament between Neale and Elton highlights how significant Elizabeth’s was. Neale argues that the power of the House of Commons increased in her reign through her conflict with individual MPs. Stating the later problems for the Stuarts being evidence for this. The 1640 Civil War’s roots started here as the Commons developed a growing awareness of their increasing powers. However, Elton argues that parliament is doing its job as normal despite the conflict as there were 424 acts passed. Arguably he is correct as parliament did succeed in passing acts. At the end of her reign Cecil had died leaving the Queen to deal with the issues of monopolies. She highlighted her governing skills when she delivered her Golden Speech in 1601 as, “the wounds were healed” with parliament after this. Suggesting that she could govern England on her own. Elizabeth I’s Religious Settlement was effective as she successfully established a via media, by changing the words said by the priest as he consecrated the bread and wine in the Book of Common Prayer, therefore, denying the presence of Christ during the communion service This also shows that the monarch was responsible as her doctrine is similar to the modern one used today, therefore emphasising how influential it was. Her Act of Supremacy in 1559 highlights how she pacified both Protestants
and Catholics as it gave the Queen the title of Supreme Governor rather than Supreme Head. Also, the Act of Uniformity in 1559 included concessions to Catholics, again pleasing both religions. She handled opposition to these acts by arresting bishops for disobedience. This shows how Elizabeth I was governing England as she was working with both religions effectively, and consolidating her authority by dealing with opposition. In addition, arguably Henry VIII had sole control over foreign policy. Dickens suggests that Cromwell was not successful in foreign policy as, “Wolsey had not given him diplomatic experience” . He had been pushed straight into administrative reform and ecclesiastical policy. Making him not responsible for foreign affairs, therefore, “…Henry had personally assumed… external relations” . The legacy left by the monarchs is significant in showing their responsibility in governing England. There were many challenges left behind by Henry VIII’s “… legacy of foreign debt… debased coinage, and the enmity of both France and Scotland” . Somerset had to face these in 1547. Henry left the country with a £100,000 foreign loan, which led to a debased coinage in trying to overcome the debt, this was due to his mistakes in trying to start a war against France near the end of his reign. Therefore the monarchs were more responsible for government in England, as monarchs legacies dominated decision making. To conclude, it is apparent that between 1529- 1629 monarchs needed their ministers for guidance in the governing of England. However, their prerogative powers made them responsible for running the country as they chose who to take advice from, for example, Thomas Cromwell’s role in The Reformation under Henry VIII. The monarchs had the final say, therefore making them in charge of governing England. Also, by the end of the time period, it can be said that the power struggle was more between the monarchs and parliament rather than with the ministers. Therefore, highlighting that ministerial influence was not always needed, whereas, the monarchs were.
A1. England was run by a Parliament and per history had very limited involvement of the monarchy or direct rule by the king. As well as the colonial legislatures; members were elected by property-holding men and governors were given authority to make decisions on behalf of the king. This system our leadership and how it controls its people the reason many
She had grown up as a 'committed and conventionally pious Protestant' and these views obviously effected the way she ran her household and country, and consequently influenced her decisions over the religious settlement. Another evident influence was the views of the Privy Council and of her chief councillor, William Cecil. It has been argued that their opinions forced Elizabeth into a more protestant settlement that she originally desired. There are also many debates over the role of parliament and how their personal views dictated the outcome of the settlement. In particular, historians argue about whether the Commons or the Lords shaped the religious settlement to a greater degree.
Absolute monarchs ruled though the policy of absolutism. Absolutism declared that the king ruled though divine right with a legitimate claim to sole and uncontested authority (French State Building and Louis XIV). On this basis, Louis XIV of France and Suleiman I of the Ottoman Empire were both absolute monarchs. Each ruler believed that his power belonged to him and him alone due to divine right. They showed their absolute power by living lavishly, increased their power by waging wars, and kept their power by ensuring complete loyalty of their subjects.
New monarchs paved the way for a more profitable future for the most powerful countries in Europe. Fledgling countries such as Spain, France, and England, profited from their new monarchs, ultimately becoming the powerful world powers they are today. The key components of a new monarch include limiting the nobles' power, increasing economic prosperity, uniting their nation, and stabilizing their army. The monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, King Louis XI of France, and King Henry VII of England, are prime examples of new monarchs. New monarchs strengthened their nations considerably, in more ways than one.
Finally, the Post-Revisionist historians believe that the relationship between Elizabeth and her parliaments was one of “cooperation and consent” in some cases, and “conflict and consent” in others. In cases where they believed that there was conflict, they believe that it came from the Privy Council. In order to answer the question, the different schools of thought need to be taken into account, along with the events that back these views up, and the relationships at the individual parliaments need to be assessed, e.g. Religion, succession, free speech, and the monopolies parliaments. Firstly, take religion, which was discussed at the session in 1559. It can be argued that at this individual... ...
In today’s world, there are several types of governments that control their countries. There are democracies, dictatorships, republics, monarchies etc. Absolute monarchy was a very common form of government centuries ago. Throughout this time period, many leaders, dictators, monarchs made mistakes that the government looks at today. The abuse and misuse of power by absolute monarchs inexorably led to the rise of modern democracy. This is shown through leaders abusing their powers as absolute monarchs, the unreliability of monarchy, and corrupt governments.
Through her speech, Queen Elizabeth inspired her people to fight for the country of England against the Spaniards. Queen Elizabeth persuaded the English troops to defend their country with rhetoric devices such as diction, imagery, and sentence structure to raise their morale and gain loyalty as a woman in power.
Her first order of business was to eliminate religious unrest. Elizabeth lacked the fanaticism of her siblings, Edward VI favored Protestant radicalism, Mary I, conservative Catholicism, which enabled her to devise a compromise that,basically, reinstated Henrician reforms. She was, however, compelled to take a stronger Protestant stance for two reasons: the machinations of Mary Queen of Scots and persecution of continental Protestants by the two strongholds of Orthodox Catholicism, Spain and France. The situation with Mary Queen of Scots was most vexing to Elizabeth. Mary, in Elizabeth's custody beginning in 1568 (for her own protection from radical Protestants and disgruntled Scots), gain...
...ide throughout history and to this day. In addition, the Elizabethan Settlement has demonstrated to the world the peace that can emerge from religious compromise and toleration between specific conflicting views. Lastly, the Privy Council, cabinet-type, advisory group that was first most prominently used by Elizabeth has been adopted by many thriving nations, such as the United States today. Ultimately, from all of these actions during her forty-six year reign, Queen Elizabeth I has truly been a molder of England, artistically, religiously, and politically.
Elizabeth was under tremendous pressure from the beginning to create a unified country through a stable religion, however even after the Elizabethan settlement the pressure had not dissipated as both religions in England, Protestant and Catholic were unhappy with the compromise. Elizabeth had gone ahead with the settlement as the factors of her religious preferences, creating a unified country along with a parliament who supported her drove her to do. This settlement however created dire consequences as Elizabeth was now under constant threat, many of the English people opposed her while two major powers watched from a distance. The Elizabethan settlement was definitely an important decision in history, as it would decide the outcome and future of England.
Monarchies have shifted to less political importance over the years in favor to parliament and a democratically elected prime minister. The film The Queen is a great example of the limited power of Queen Elizabeth II in present-day and shows the ceremonial purposes of her role. The main reasons that this role shift has happened is because monarchs abused their unlimited power repeatedly. Oliver Cromwell was one man who did not like the way his King, Charles I, was controlling the country and decided to do something about it. What some find startling is that Charles I reign ended by being sentenced to death, and by being beheaded under the weight of an axe.
To begin, in 1830, William IV became king of Britian. Many events through William’s time as the king made it so that the monarchy lost power and influence on the country. First, in 1832, William went against his wishes and conceded to the public’s demands. He signed the Great Reform Bill of 1832, thus limiting what political powers the monarchy had. As time grew on the organization of the parties became stronger and the party leaders grew more defined, giving more attention and power to the parties and less to the monarchy. Many people found him to be ignorant and weak. This led to the political influence of the British monarchy to decrease even more than it already had with the Great Reform Bill of 1832.
Generally, the English people had a great celebration when Charles II returned to the throne in May of 1660.1 Many believed that restoring the monarchy was the only way to secure constitutional rights. In fact, there was an expectation that bringing back the king would return life to the way it was before 1642 and the rule of Cromwell. Charles II was responsible for improving the government for the people. However, despite some achievements, the king was not very successful in creating a stronger and more effective monarchy. He was dependent on his advisors and other parts of the government from the very beginning of his reign. There were constant conflicts between the king and Parliament over religious issues. When Charles II finally did gain some independence, he still did not accomplish much to improve the monarchy. Overall, the government was very inconsistent during the 1660s and 1670s, and the people became disillusioned with the monarchy. The king did not hold all of the responsibility for what happened to the government, though. The people should have taken charge and worked for a change in the system. The rule of Charles II helped show the English citizens that they could not rely on the government so much, but they needed to take more of the power into their own hands and become more autonomous.
Ministerial Accountability Under the UK Constitution “The prerogative has allowed powers to move from Monarch to Ministers without Parliament having a say in how they are exercised. This should no longer be acceptable to Parliament or the people.” Discuss whether ministerial accountability is adequately addressed under the UK constitution The Royal Prerogative has allowed a wide array of discretionary powers to be delegated from the Monarch to ministers without a need to seek parliamentary approval. This system is both unjust and undemocratic as it leaves a number of largely unchecked powers in the hands of a privileged few. These powers, including the ability to ratify treaties, declare war, regulate the civil service and appoint ministers, have a profound effect on the lives of the citizens of the United Kingdom and therefore it is necessary for them to be regulated by Parliament, the democratically elected body of the British people.
The challenges to the power of the Monarch was by the reign of James I (1603-25) the monarch was faced with an increasing effective Parliament, culminating in the temporary abolition of the monarchy in (1625). Consequently, the monarchy’s powers were eroded by both revolution and by legal challenges, which included the case of Proclamations (1611) , the monarchy could not change the law by proclamation. The law of the land, which required that the law be made by Parliament, limited the prerogative. In the case of Prohibitions Del Roy (1607) the Monarch had no right to act as a judge, and in the case of the Ship Money Case (1637), although th...