Preview

The Government in Tudor-Stuart England and Its Hierarchy of Power

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1083 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
The Government in Tudor-Stuart England and Its Hierarchy of Power
The nature of government in Tudor-Stuart England, 1558-1667, was such that there were 6 parts of which each had separate but interacting and interdependent roles. They were the Privy Council, the Crown or monarch, Court, Parliament, Local Government and Regional Government. These various parts had a hierarchy of power. The Central Government was the most powerful combination of parts, and the Crown was the most singular part.

The Central Government was made up of the Privy Council and the Crown. The Crown was a personal monarchy and therefore their personality could and did affect their reign and choices. The Crown was seen as being chosen by God and ruled by Divine Rule. They held the right to make any final decisions. The Privy Council, while powerful, was simply there to help and advise the Crown on the best way to carry out the Royal Prerogative. The Royal Prerogative, while being the Crowns powers under Common Law, was also their duties to the country. The Royal Prerogative was split into Ordinary Prerogative and Extraordinary Prerogative. The Ordinary Prerogative was for the everyday running and activities of the country. This involved the areas of Defence (military and faith-wise), Foreign Affairs, Law and Order, Power of Appointment, Trade and Commerce, Currency, and Parliament. The Crown was commander-in-chief of the armed forces. They declared war, made peace, signed treaties and trade agreements, and dealt with diplomacy. They were the ‘fount of justice’ dispensing justice through the law courts, making new courts, issuing royal pardons, appointing judges, ministers, advisers, officials and, if there wasn’t one, an heir. If the monarch were male they could determine church doctrine and appoint bishops - if they weren’t they appointed a male to take on this role. The monarch regulated trade by imposing customs and duties. Money could be minted only on authority of the Crown. While Parliament passed the laws the monarch had the power to veto them, and

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    When King Charles I dismissed Parliament in 1629, he was set on the idea of a personal rule without any help from Parliament. This he could manage, as long as he avoided war. His aim was to sort out the country's finances, and with the help of Strafford and Laud, impose a 'Policy of Thorough'. This policy was the idea of a fair and paternalistic government with no corruption. However, within 11 years, Charles' personal rule had failed and England was drifting into war. There are mixed opinions on whether this failure was solely due to the actions of the King, or those of third parties, for example, Strafford or Laud.…

    • 1052 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Charles’s led the country without calling parliament for 11 years from 1629 – 1640. He initiated personal rule for many reasons. Firstly his close relationship with Buckingham alienated Parliament and caused resentment by Parliament. Secondly Charles had very strong believed in divine right and therefore saw no need for Parliament. Furthermore Charles religious policy’s led many to believe of a Catholic Conspiracy, which further distanced the King from Parliament. Lastly the King wasn’t getting substantial financial help from Parliament and decided that he would try and raise the finance without him.…

    • 1197 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Henry was using his meaningful speech that arises from his spirit to convey more trust to his followers. This speech was a good example to show how Henry and all other strong feudal rulers in this era used their strength and unique personalities to amaze and persuade but not to force their people to become their followers. The unique and the highly effective speech and the thoughts of Henry v shows how open were individuals in Elizabethan era about expressing themselves to reveal social or political viewpoints.…

    • 87 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Another major classic type of government depicted in the movie was Monarchy. Monarchy is an idealized form of government, a monarchy where the ruler has the power to rule his or her country and citizens freely with no laws or legally-organized direct opposition telling him or her what to do, although some religious authority may be able to discourage the monarch from some acts and the sovereign is expected to act according to custom. As a theory of civics, absolute monarchy puts total trust in well-bred and well-trained monarchs raised for the role from birth. The way that this government functions in the film is that the queen is the one that makes all the decisions, although she has an advisor by the name of General Mandible which is a form of a unitary system. We know what she runs a monarchy because the term “Queen” obviously belongs in the Monarchy definition. Although General Mandible is able to make decisions on his own, he can always be override by the queen since she has Absolute…

    • 927 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    England’s choice of limited government had positives and negatives. In England before the bill of rights they had a monarchy. James I wrote that “for kings are not only Gods lieutenants upon earth and sit upon…

    • 817 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Both Charles I and James I tried to rule without parliament’s consent, but parliament’s control at the time was so great that neither Charles nor James were able to successfully decrease its role in English government. In the Bill of Rights, it is declared by parliament that certain actions are illegal without consent of parliament. For example, “The king’s supposed power of suspending laws without the consent of parliament is illegal” (James Madison). The English were not ready to give all the power of government to a single person because they had been under the combined rule of both the king and the assembly for such an extended time. Parliament, where members could be elected and changed as necessary, as opposed to an absolute monarch with no restraints, was supported by land-owning nobles and merchants. In 1642, differences between parliament and Charles I sparked England's civil war, which was partially caused by the refusal of parliament to give up their power in government and partly by royal stubbornness to share control of the country. This was the chief turning point for absolutism in England. Beginning with Charles II, monarchs realized the amount of power Parliament had and knew that instead of working against one another, they had to work with each other. Since parliament was so centralized and so stalwartly entrenched into the…

    • 949 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    From this struggle for power, Somerset emerged as leader. It is evident that he did not have enough support in the government, as he had to resort to the use of proclamations. Government under Henry VIII had been strong. However the same system, whereby the power of the monarch was based in Parliament, was not workable with a king who was only a minor,…

    • 1997 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Empire In Transition

    • 1668 Words
    • 7 Pages

    - During the early eighteenth century, the British Parliament established a growing supremacy over the King. The two German kings, George I and George II, were not used to English ways, and the Prime minister and his cabinet ministers became the nation’s real executives. They did not hold their control by the king’s favor, but by their ability to control majority in Parliament. So during this time the king and parliament were still together in overseeing the colonies, but they had different roles in governing and controlling them.…

    • 1668 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Elizabethan Government

    • 803 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The Elizabethan government was a monarchy. Cities and towns had various officials to control matters (Thomas). The prince could do anything within his guidelines. Natural law was morals and natural sins. Personal ruler ship is power in war and enforcing laws. Humanism was the main form of government for hundreds of years in England (Collins). The Nobility and Gentry aided the monarch in ruling parts of Europe…

    • 803 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Socials 10 notes

    • 1141 Words
    • 5 Pages

    2. Crown has ultimate power, beyond that held by any particular government at any particular time, it is vested in the queen, and in governor general as her representative. For example, if prime minister were to decide not to call an election within five years as required by law, governor general could order…

    • 1141 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    These early ideas of government and the tyrant ruler of England contributed to the future creation of the three branches and the checks and balances which we use in the present…

    • 749 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Tudor dynasty experienced differing uncertainties throughout their reigns on the throne of England. From politics and war overseas, to succession difficulties. Each Monarch throughout early modern England faced conflicting challenges and hardships, nevertheless Henry VIII stands out among them all. Henry’s turbulent years on the throne presents an evolution throughout English society, culture, religion and politics, to name a few. Henry was not expected to become King, being only the third child of Henry VII, himself also an unexpected King, winning his throne on the battle field against Richard III in 1485. His early youth was not that of the first in line to the throne, due to the unexpected death of this elder brother Arthur, Henry…

    • 353 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The King also greatly affected their legislative powers. He wouldn't let people be elected, he caused innocent people to be convicted of crimes that they didn't commit, and he even made it so laws couldn’t be passed without his consent, but when the time would come for the law to be passed, the King wouldn’t show up. He would also call the legislative bodies together when he knew that the officers couldn't show up without difficulty.…

    • 375 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    played a big rule in the whole army thing because they thought I have already raised taxes so I can do anything and it will happen without a doubt.people that were in the Monarchy believed in the divine rights…

    • 218 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Overview: both the continuity of the monarchy, and its involvement in the world outside Britain, gives it a valuable overview that is often lacking with other kinds of government.…

    • 663 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays