by Paul James
April 25 2004
Unlike some of its continental counterparts, England was never an absolute monarchy. From Saxon days, it was subject (to a greater or lesser extent), to the laws and customs of the land. Its monarchs had to be accepted by the other powers in the realm; kings who overstepped the mark were likely to meet opposition from the great magnates, rivals for the crown, and later from Parliament. “Overstepping the mark” did not necessarily mean breaching a high principle – it could have just meant upsetting the wrong people.
The fifteenth-century monarchy was weak and torn apart by rival factions of over-mighty subjects. Towards the end of the century, the Crown began to assert itself, and the rise to aspirations of absolute power began. But some of the means by which that power was asserted also contributed to its own undoing. By the mid-seventeenth century, the Crown was abolished. It was restored eleven years later, but by the end of the century, it was finally subjugated to the ultimate will of Parliament.
Traditionally, the modern era of British history started with Henry VII in 1485. Sharp, clear divisions of history into periods is unrealistic, but given that they are convenient, it might be more appropriate to date the beginning of the modern era to Edward IV (1461-70 & 1471-83), who began the reforms and consolidation of royal power which Henry VII (1485-1509) carried on. By the end of Henry’s reign, the over-mighty subjects of the Wars of the Roses had been tamed, government had become more effective, and the royal coffers were full.
Henry VIII (I509-47) undid some of his father’s work, with a more extravagant court and reckless foreign policy, involving war on the continent. He also asserted the Crown’s power with an iron will, though, particularly when he embarked on the great adventure of separating the English church from that of Rome. He couldn’t do it alone, though, and sought to carry the country with him through Parliament. It was Parliament which, at his behest, passed the great Acts of supremacy which deposed the Pope from the church and placed the monarch at its head. For the first time, Parliament determined the future succession to the crown, rather than simply acclaiming a new monarch at the time of accession. Both Mary I and Elizabeth I came to power because of the parliamentary statute and not simply by heredity. Neither could have inherited by heredity alone since it was not clear that a woman was allowed to succeed, and both were illegitimate under English law. Elizabeth never repealed the act which declared her illegitimate.
I wonder how Henry would have felt if he had known that this newly enhanced Parliament would one day depose and execute his great-great-great nephew, and the architect of that deposition, Oliver Cromwell, would be the great-great-great nephew of a chief architect of his own revolution, Thomas Cromwell?
Henry VIII’s death was followed by a period of instability under the minority of Edward VI (1547-53), during which attempts were made to move England from the semi-Catholic Anglicanism of Henry VIII to a more radical Protestantism akin to that found elsewhere on the European continent. This movement was followed by a complete reversal, with Mary I’s (1553-58) attempt to restore England to Rome’s fold. Her death brought her Protestant sister, Elizabeth I (1558-1603), to the throne. She inherited a divided country (officially Roman Catholic again), but with much of the population still Protestant, and a strong radical Puritan element in her House of Commons.
Elizabeth used her formidable political skill to steer a middle course between full-blown Protestantism and Catholicism, returning England closer to the religion of her father (Henry VIII) than of her brother (Edward VI). She had to rely on a sometimes troublesome Parliament, keen to promote the Protestant cause and crush Papism in the land. She also faced pressure to marry from within Parliament and from outside it. England needed an undisputed Protestant heir, but the Queen had no desire to share power with a husband or to have an heir who could become a focus for malcontents, as she had been during her sister’s reign, at great risk to her own life. She played a canny game, keeping hopes up by entertaining suitors probably without the intention of marrying any of them. The policy was dangerous and could have landed the country in bitter civil war if she had died early, as she very nearly did (of smallpox) in 1564. Only the march of time and events allowed her to consolidate her position and keep England together until an obvious Protestant heir had emerged, in the person of a second cousin once removed, James VI of Scotland.
Much of Elizabeth’s success depended on her own personal skill, intelligence, and political acumen, not to mention the effects of her feminine charms on a traditional male-dominated court and people. She saw her country through religious division, threats from within and from without, and economic crisis. She played a careful political game with her ministers and with Parliament and played the populist card for all it was worth with her people. Perhaps, in those turbulent times, there was no other way, but in many ways, she played a holding game rather than truly resolving issues. It was a game which was heavily dependent on her personality, though, and that was part of the Crown’s undoing.
James I (1603-25), who succeeded Elizabeth in 1603, was educated and knowledgeable but lacked Elizabeth’s “people skills” and appreciation of English political tradition. He wasn’t able to manipulate an assertive Parliament as Elizabeth could, and was inclined to believe in a very un-English view of the authority of monarchy. Where Elizabeth charmed and manipulated, he antagonized. He helped set the stage for the tragedy of his son’s reign.
Charles I (1625-49) was devout and utterly convinced of his own divine right to rule. When Parliament became too troublesome, he tried to rule without it, but in the end found that he couldn’t govern without it. Despite all attempts to raise revenue by extra-Parliamentary means, there came a point when he needed taxation, which could only be raised with Parliamentary approval. When summoned in 1640 (after a gap of 11 years), Parliament had no intention of voting the king money while he continued to pursue policies and extra-Parliamentary revenue raising of which it disapproved. The Short Parliament of 1640 got nowhere. During the Long Parliament that followed, matters came to a head. In due course civil war ensued, leading to the unprecedented trial and execution of the king.
A republic followed. The monarchy of Henry VII, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I had tamed the over-mighty barons, created a strong central government and even deposed Christ’s vicar on Earth from the English part of Christendom. But now it had been crushed by the knights of the shires and burgesses in Parliament assembled. It had pushed its authority and divinely-appointed status too far.
The republic, or Commonwealth, was a failure, and eleven years later the crown was restored. Charles I’s son, Charles II (1660-85), was an easy-going, fun-loving king, in stark contrast to both his father and the austere Commonwealth, but his brother and successor, James II (1685-88), raised the spectre of Catholic rule, or at least Catholic toleration, again. Parliament wanted no part of it, and when James tried to assert the authority in pursuit of his policy, he found himself driven out of the kingdom in the face of a foreign army invited in by the parliamentarians.
Parliament now invited James’s son-in-law and daughter to take the throne, but imposed conditions that guaranteed the Protestant succession and imposed new limits on the power of the crown. In accepting these conditions, William III (1689-1702) and Mary II (1689-94) signaled the end of the Crown’s supremacy and set events on a road that would eventually see executive power fall into the hands of ministers whose primary responsibility was to Parliament rather than the sovereign who nominally appointed them.
As its power declined, the monarchy carved out a new, mostly symbolic, role for itself, and today the crown of Elizabeth II is a mere shadow of that of her sixteenth-century namesake.