Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Political changes in the early modern period europe
Political changes in the early modern period europe
Political changes in medieval society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Political changes in the early modern period europe
“The key factor in limiting royal power in the years 1399-1509 was the king’s relationship with parliament.” How far do you agree with this statement? Due to the unstable political environment of the period 1399-1509, royal power varied from monarch to monarch, as parliament’s ability to limit this power fluctuated. There are several factors in limiting royal power, including the king’s relationship with parliament, royal finances and a king’s popularity, often due to military success. The most significant of these factors, however is the king's finances, as one of parliament's primary roles was to consider the king’s requests for taxation, and thus denying these requests would have been one of the few ways to effectively limit royal power. …show more content…
One monarch who faced limited royal power due to his relationship with parliament was Henry IV. This uneasy relationship was mainly down to the fact that Henry was a usurper, and was exacerbated by his long periods of serious illness later in his reign. Parliament was thus able to exercise a large amount of control over royal power, which is evident in the Long Parliament of 1406, in which debates lasted from March until December. The length of these debates shows us that Henry IV’s unstable relationship had allowed parliament to severely limit his royal power, as he was unable to receive his requested taxation. A king with an amiable relationship with parliament, such as Henry V, and later Edward IV, would be much more secure in their power, as taxation was mostly granted, however their power was also supported more by other factors, such as popularity and finances. Like Henry IV, Henry VI also faced severely limited power due to his relationship with parliament. …show more content…
This was due to parliament’s primary role being to consider the king’s requests for taxation. Refusing this request was on of the few ways to limit royal power. During part of his reign, Edward IV was able to rule with total royal power, after he signed the “Treaty of Picquigny”, which granted him £15,000, and then a pension of £10,000 a year. This money enabled Edward to rule without the need to call for a parliament, meaning he was free from control and criticism. This treaty was important as it signifies parliament losing some of their ability to control the crown. Edward was able to rule with this pension until 1482, to pay troops against Scottish rebels. Edward IV shows us that a king was able to rule with complete royal power, as long as they had the funds to support themselves. This also worked the other way round, with financially struggling monarchs having much of their royal power limited by parliament. The most important example of this is in 1404, when parliament demanded the appointment of “special” treasurers, to ensure taxes were not spent in the royal household. Henry IV later faced further limiting of his royal power, after thirty-one acts were written to control the finances of the royal
Another source of opposition to Charles’ personal rule was that of the parliament and Charles’ financial expenditure. Charles’ personal rule lasted 11 long years in which he didn’t call parliament for any money or subsidies. To finance his problems, he used his position of power as king to call upon favours and rules that enabled him to gain money without calling parliament. One of these was selling titles. Distraint of Knighthood. This was where men who owned estates worth £40 per annum were in theory supposed to present them to be knighted at a new King’s coronation. Charles thus fined people for not doing so even though the practice had...
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... ...
The Challenges to Henry VII Security Between 1487 and the end of 1499 Henry VII faced many challenges to his throne from 1487 to the end of 1499. These included many rebellions and pretenders to his throne. To what extent was the success he dealt with them differs although the overriding answer is that by the end of his reign he had secured his throne and set up a dynasty, with all challengers removed. Lambert Simnel challenged Henry’s security when Richard Symonds passed him off as Warwick. Simnel was taken to Ireland, which had become the centre of Yorkist plotting.
Investigating the Minister Who Did the Most to Preserve and Enhance Royal Authority in France 1610-1715
During the Stuarts, the only people who had the liquid cash to pay for the needs of the modern government were primarily the middle-class and gentry, which were represented by the parliament. The “awkward, hand-to-mouth expedients” (38) of the Stuarts agitated by the differences in expectations of governance, brought them into conflict with their primary tax base. The impatience of the eventual rebels was exacerbated by their Stuart’s disregard for the traditional balance between the crown and the parliament, as they were Scottish royals who had only dealt with a very weak
With any new monarch’s ascension to the throne, there comes with it changes in the policies of the country. From Elizabeth’s new council, to Henry’s documented polices and even to William the Silent’s inaction in response to threats were all policies that needed to be worked out by the new rulers. This group of rulers all had something in common; they chose to let their people make their religious preference solely on their beliefs but they all differed in their ways of letting this come about. This was monumental for the time period in which they lived, but it was something that needed to be done to progress national unity.
In England, the parliament because of this need, grew to have power over the king and cause great toleration of people's
An Appendix entitled “Royal Lines of Descent” summarizes lineages for ruling monarchs in the seven English dynasties that have ruled England from Saxon to Modern Time. The appropriate part of this table is repeated in the introduction to each dynasty as it is introduced in the text; the seven lineages are 1. Saxon—Wessex Earl-King Dynasty (802-1066); 2. Norman Dynasty (1066-1154); 3. Plantagenet Dynasty (1066-1485); 4. Tudor Dynasty (1485-1603); 5. Stuart Dynasty (1603-1714); 6. Hanover Dynasty (1714-1901); 7. Saxe-Coburg-Gotha—Windsor Dynasty (1901—present). Queens of the Stuart, Hanover and Windsor dynastic lines are subjects for a work-in-progress volume to follow.
Throughout Charles I’s Personal Rule, otherwise known as the ‘Eleven Year Tyranny’, he suffered many problems which all contributed to the failure of his Personal Rule. There are different approaches about the failure of Personal Rule and when it actually ended, especially because by April 1640 Short Parliament was in session. However, because it only lasted 3 weeks, historians tend to use November 1640 as the correct end of the Personal Rule when Long Parliament was called. There was much debate about whether the Personal Rule could have continued as it was, instead people generally believed that it would crumble when the King lost his supporters.
Parliament was used to "manage the Crown's business (Loades 90)." The parliament was also used to pass bills and legislature, but each time a bill was presented, it was mandatory that it would go through each house at least three times. As the age of the Parliament became older, it's procedures grew "more sophisticated, and more strictly enforced." (Loades 92) The Parliament also became a place at which "provided a very good platform for a monarch who wanted to say something of particular
...n so be argued that Parliament's victory was not entirely due to their own doing, but also to the king's inability.
These types of decisions define why Louis XIII is an important example of the primacy of the king over all other sources of political and governmental power in the 17th century. Certainly, Louis XIII’s rise to power defines the lack of checks and balances that would typically be a part of a lesser monarchy in which the aristocracy could have an influence on governmental decisions. However, this was not the case with Louis XIII, since he had gained complete control over the government through military might and the wealth of the royal family. This historical example defines the primacy of the absolute monarch within the context of the king’s role in governing in 17th century
King Henry IV held power in 1399 (Griffiths 1). He was very ambitious causing rebellion in his reign, which all began once he celebrated his first yuletide (Lunt 259-260). During his reign, the commons established precedents that secured privileges of freedom of speech and arrest. This declaration helped them have a say in political and local issues (Lunt 270). After Henry IV’s reign was terminated, Henry V accepted power (Phillips 1). Once he was crowned in 1413, he controlled the majority of England’s army, which at the time England needed a reliable army (Lunt 261).
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 the court declared it to be within the Monarch’s power to determine a state of emergency, requiring tax raising, the Ship Money Act 1637 was passed, making it illegal for the monarch to raise taxation.... ... middle of paper ... ... Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials by Andrew Le Sueur, Maurice Sunkin, and Jo Murkens (Paperback - 12 Aug 2010).
During the reign of Charles I, the people of England were divided into two groups due to their opinions on how the country should be run: The Royalists, and the Parliamentarians. The Royalists were those people who supported Charles I and his successor, while the Parliamentarians were those who supported the idea that Parliament should have a larger role in government affairs. Milton was a Parliamentarian and was an outspoken enemy of Charles I, having written numerous essays and pamphlets regarding his ideas as to how the government should be run, and “In one very famous pamphlet, he actually defended Parliament's right to behead the king should the king be found inadequate.” Charles I was seen as a corrupt and incompetent ruler, and “the Parliamentarians were fed up with their king and wanted Parliament to play a more important role in English politics and government.” This belief was held because of the unethical and tyrannical behavior of ruler Charles I. During his reign, he violated the liberties of his people and acted with hypocrisy and a general disregard for his subjects. Examples of his abuse of power in...