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…
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
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... ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.