The Growth of Royal Power under the Tudors

Royal authority and Parliament were not opposites

Under the Tudors, the monarch was the dominant figure in government. However, strong royal government did not mean governing entirely without Parliament. Parliament could help the Crown turn its policies into laws, obtain taxation and secure the cooperation of influential people.

Parliament contained two chambers. The House of Lords included nobles and bishops; the House of Commons included representatives drawn from the gentry and merchants. It was not a democratic assembly representing everyone equally. Its importance came partly from bringing powerful sections of society into government.

The key distinction is between using Parliament to strengthen royal authority and allowing Parliament to control the monarch. Tudor rulers generally sought the first, not the second.

Henry VIII: from occasional meetings to greater use of legislation

Early in Henry VIII’s reign, Parliament met when the king considered it necessary, rather than sitting continuously. Its functions included passing laws and granting taxation. Henry preferred to make decisions through his Royal Council, the advisers who helped him govern. He could also issue royal proclamations without parliamentary approval.

Thomas Cromwell, Henry’s minister and himself an MP, encouraged much greater use of Parliament. Parliamentary legislation could give royal policies legal authority while involving the nobles, bishops, gentry and merchants whose cooperation helped make government effective. Participation could encourage these groups to support the king’s decisions.

The increase in legislation was substantial: 203 Acts were passed during Henry’s first 22 years, compared with 333 between 1532 and 1540. Parliament therefore became a more active instrument of government. More parliamentary activity did not necessarily mean less royal power: Henry could use that activity to advance his own policies.

The break with Rome transferred authority to the Crown

Before the break with Rome, the English Church recognised the authority of the Pope. This meant that an authority outside England could intervene in important religious matters, including the validity of marriages.

Henry wanted an annulment of his marriage to Katherine of Aragon: a declaration that it had never been valid. They had no surviving son, and Henry believed a male heir was necessary to secure the succession. He also wanted to marry Anne Boleyn. In 1527 he asked Pope Clement VII to annul the marriage, but the Pope refused. Katherine’s nephew, the powerful Emperor Charles V, opposed the annulment, making the Pope’s position politically difficult.

The succession crisis was the immediate driving force behind the break. Other attractions included the power and income Henry could gain by controlling the Church, while reformers around him, including Cromwell, favoured religious change.

Henry used the Reformation Parliament to remove papal authority through legislation. The Act in Restraint of Appeals in 1533 banned appeals to foreign authorities in Church matters. This prevented Katherine from appealing to the Pope against an English decision about her marriage. The Act of Supremacy in 1534 asserted that Henry was the Supreme Head of the Church of England.

These laws changed the reach of royal power. Henry was no longer simply a king governing alongside a Church that recognised the Pope: he now claimed authority to supervise and reform the English Church himself. Payments previously sent to Rome were redirected to the Crown. Religious authority and income therefore moved towards the monarchy.

The government also promoted acceptance of this change. In a proclamation of June 1535, Henry instructed clergy to preach in support of royal supremacy. Parish churches could thus help spread the message that obedience to the king’s religious authority was a duty. Parliament supplied the legal foundation, while preaching helped communicate the change to the population.

Dissolving monasteries increased wealth and support

Monasteries were communities of monks or nuns devoted to religious life. They also owned valuable land, received rents and provided services such as charity, education and care for the sick. Their wealth and influence made their closure a major change in the distribution of power.

Cromwell organised a survey of Church wealth in 1535 and inspections that gathered allegations of wrongdoing in religious houses. Reports of corruption helped justify closure. Henry wanted access to monastic wealth, and the government also regarded monasteries’ attachment to the Pope as a possible obstacle to royal supremacy.

In 1536, Parliament authorised the dissolution of smaller monasteries. The government then pressured larger houses to surrender, and further legislation followed in 1539. By 1540, around 800 religious houses had been dissolved. Their land and property passed to the Crown.

This strengthened Henry in several connected ways. First, the Crown gained wealth that could fund government, warfare and royal expenditure, reducing its immediate need to seek parliamentary taxation. Second, closure removed powerful religious institutions that might resist royal control of the Church. Third, nobles who bought or received former monastic land benefited materially from the changes. Keeping that property gave them a reason to support Henry’s religious settlement.

The gains were not cost-free. Communities lost charitable and other services, and closure caused hardship and unrest in some areas. Henry also spent much of the wealth, including on wars: acquiring monastic property did not make the monarchy permanently free of financial pressures.

The dissolution therefore shows how religious authority, money and political loyalty reinforced one another. Again, Henry expanded royal power through Acts of Parliament rather than by making Parliament irrelevant.

How Henry and Cromwell managed Parliament

Cromwell did not simply leave MPs to decide the direction of government. He controlled proposals, requiring MPs to submit drafts to him before discussion. His legal skills helped him prepare legislation likely to pass, while his position as an MP allowed him to influence members directly.

Persuasion operated alongside pressure. Cromwell used bribes, and opponents could be told that they need not attend Parliament again. Henry also intervened personally: he threatened MPs who opposed the Act of Annates in 1532, which restricted payments to Rome.

These methods explain the apparent contradiction in Tudor government. Parliament’s legislative role expanded, but the king and his minister worked to control how it exercised that role. Parliament became more useful to the Crown without becoming an independent governing authority.

Elizabeth I: governing without a continuously sitting Parliament

Elizabeth also possessed extensive personal authority and made considerable use of royal proclamations. Nevertheless, she needed parliamentary agreement when introducing new laws or new taxation. Maintaining a workable relationship with Parliament therefore mattered, even when she disliked its criticism.

Across her reign of almost 45 years, Parliament spent only about 35 months in session and debate. This illustrates how different Tudor government was from government today: Parliament was important, but it was not continuously directing national affairs.

Elizabeth tried to restrict discussion of matters she regarded as belonging to royal authority, including her marriage, the succession, religion and foreign policy. If MPs resisted her wishes, she could close Parliament. However, disagreement often ended in compromise, allowing the Crown to obtain legislation or taxation while also responding to MPs’ concerns.

Parliament offered a platform for criticism

Elizabeth’s attempts to control debate did not prevent MPs from raising sensitive subjects. Her possible marriage and the succession mattered because they affected who would inherit the Crown. Religious disagreements also created pressure within Parliament.

Some MPs were Puritans, strict Protestants who wanted further changes to the Church. They demanded the abolition of bishops and assurances that Elizabeth’s successor would be Protestant. MPs also criticised Elizabeth’s grants of monopolies to favoured courtiers: these exclusive trading rights made royal favour a matter of wider concern.

Elizabeth treated some opposition harshly, including imprisoning some Puritan MPs. Nevertheless, these parliamentary critics sought changes in policy rather than openly demanding her removal from the throne. Criticism was therefore a constraint and irritation, but not necessarily a challenge to the existence of monarchy itself.

Judging change and continuity in Tudor power

Henry and Elizabeth both remained dominant over Parliament, but neither made it irrelevant. Henry’s royal supremacy greatly extended the Crown’s authority into religious affairs. The dissolution added wealth and helped secure support among landowners who benefited. Parliamentary legislation made these changes possible, increasing Parliament’s importance as an instrument of government.

Under Elizabeth, the need for laws and taxation preserved Parliament’s importance and created opportunities for criticism and negotiation. She controlled its meetings and tried to limit debate, but could not always prevent MPs from raising unwelcome subjects.

The central pattern is that royal authority and Parliament’s importance could grow together. Parliamentary participation helped monarchs govern, while also preserving an institution through which influential subjects could express concerns. This was not yet parliamentary government in the modern sense.