Sunday 25 April 2004
The Rise And Fall Of The Mighty Crown
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 and 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 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 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 Elizabeths "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 which 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 which 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)
signalled the end of the Crown's supremacy and set events on a road which 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.
- Paul James
|