How strong was the royal power during the Tudor period?
Did it decline when the Stuarts took over?
>>1193030
>King Francis, I'm VIII
>Huh, you don't get to bring catholics
>>1193030
>How strong was the royal power during the Tudor period?
Extremely.
>Did it decline when the Stuarts took over?
Wouldn't say it declined; rather it stagnated and proved unfit to face the challenges of more modern statesmanship. Stuarts had their own style of doing politics which was at odds with the expansion of parliament and gentry power, but even as late as 1700 English Monarchs were style pretty dominant. The real objective decline only came under the Georges imo.
>>1193030
>How strong was the royal power during the Tudor period?
relative to what? anyway, yes, the Tudors were strongwilled kings generally. Henry VII attainted (i.e. accuse of treason and thereby seized the land and wealth) of dozens of leading peers in the realm, leading to a great drop in the number of noble families, as Henry didn't create as many peers as he destroyed.
He stretched the feudal system to the limit by collecting all sorts of dues and fees that were totally legal, but rarely exercised in practice by the king. This has generally been called "bastard feudalism", because feudal relations were no longer personal bonds but commuted to the collection of fees.
The most prominent of these were legal fees and the king's assertion of wardship over underage peers, during which he basically looted their estates and collected the revenue as his own. Henry basically continued this legacy, though he was not as miserly as his father. He was not afraid to bring any noble to heel that disobeyed him and he generally was able to get parliament to raise extraordinary revenue for his military ventures. The 1530s saw experiments in centralization under the direction of Thomas Cromwell. The liquidation of the monasteries brought in huge sums of gold and silver plate melted down. All opposition to Henry's elimination of papal jurisdiction was eliminated (see, Thomas More and the Pilgrimage of Grace). Mary and Elizabeth were more of the same, though the fiscal situation went to shit late in the century, with the Spanish war. Elizabeth though was not as financially vigorous as the other Tudors either. Also, Ireland came under control during the Tudor century, but at a huge financial cost to Elizabeth and created deepseated bitterness among the Irish. Wales, though, was politically united under VIII in the 1530s and the area was administratively, legally and financially incorporated into England, as Scotland would be in 1707.
>>1193192
>3 posters
>4 actual posters
>>1193192
o wait nvm rofl I only wrote the second
>Did it decline when the Stuarts took over?
Yes, James I and Charles I were not as powerful as the Tudors because their fiscal and administrative structures were not as well run. Post-1660, the tariff collection became more efficient with the professionalization of customs. This foreshadowed the financial revolution of the 1690s, but Charles II was still constrained by the legacy of the English civil war and the need for moderation toward parliament.
>>1193030
>How strong was the royal power during the Tudor period?
Very strong Indeed. Prior to Henry VII's usurp to the throne, English ideas of kingship had been relatively weak. The kings had not imposed themselves upon their subjects in comparison to the Tudors nor had the nobility really seen the king as any greater than themselves. Many held the belief that the king was to be their representative and voice rather than ruler.
Henry VII really did turn this on its head somewhat. Obsessed with the perpetuation of his dynasty, Henry set out to place the crown so far above the nobility that they would not be able to cause a threat. Demanding constant loans and indulgences from his wealthier subjects whilst simultaneously fracturing the nobilities power in parliament set the nobility against him yet they where unable to act against him, nor his son Henry VIII. Parliament without noble backing effectively became a rubber stamp until the rise of Thomas Cromwell who's radical governmental reform once again increased parliamentary influence in the nation.
>Did it decline when the Stuarts took over?
Somewhat, whilst the Stuarts where by no means as wilful as the Tudors they had access to the same degree of power. If they had acted as strong as the Tudors before them they could have had the same power alas they did not and as a result, both the nobility and government took some power back over the king.
It was not until the deposing of Charles II and the ascension of William of Orange where the crown really lost its power. Following the disastrous reign of both Charles II and Oliver Cromwell, the appointment of William suggested that for the first time, English people saw the crown not as appointed from divine right but by the subjects of the realm. The king was to serve the people, not the people serve the king.
>>1193698
>English ideas of kingship had been relatively weak
not true. The early English kings had great power. Edward VI and Richard III, both of whom came before Henry VII, were also strong kings. It was Edward who started to cut the nobles down to size.
>>1193809
a few more things:
>Many held the belief that the king was to be their representative and voice rather than ruler.
this depended on the circumstances. ideas of kingship were always in flux and a strong king could always force the nobles into submission.
>Thomas Cromwell who's radical governmental reform
this is a meme. Cromwell was Henry VIII's servant first and foremost. If anything it was the privy council and privy chamber which became stronger in the 1530s, not parliament. Ultimately, these were instruments of VIII, even if he was too lazy to run the government personally. Moreover, parliament was always a force that had to be reckoned with. It could be coerced into giving loans during the reign of a willful king like Henry, but it also gained concessions and pressing them it too hard could backfire. A skillful minister like Cromwell or Wolsey could manipulate parliament but in the hands of a lesser official this things could go sour.
> If they had acted as strong as the Tudors before them they could have had the same power alas they did not and as a result, both the nobility and government took some power back over the king.
Not exactly. The Tudors had a better eye for talent (Wolesey, the Dudleys, the elder and younger Cecils, just to name the most famous) than the Stuart kings and better administrative tools at their disposal. The privy council was one such tool but the Stuarts sidelined it and relied on favorites and informal committees to govern. This type of personal government was very inconsistent and had little continuity from generation to generation.
>deposing of Charles II
you mean James II
>Following the disastrous reign of both Charles II and Oliver Cromwell,
You mean Charles I, the king executed in 1649? As for Cromwell, he may have not been legitimate, but he ruled England effectively. For his part, Charles II was a decent ruler whose conciliatory policy revived faith in the Stuarts.
