How did Cromwell help to develop a Tudor state? Thomas Cromwell, the chief minister for Henry VIII from 1533 to 1540 was a ruthless politician, who some historians believe to have caused a ‘revolution in government.’ However, other historians believe that the developments of the Tudor state were not due to Cromwell’s farsighted planning, but other factors. To answer the question, we first must identify the components of the Tudor state, and how Cromwell influenced and changed these areas. Perhaps the foremost part of the Tudor State, the Government, underwent a significant change, mostly due to the Royal Supremacy over Church carried out by Cromwell. He was familiar with Lutheran and humanist ideals, and as a lawyer he had the capabilities to carry out his ideological reforms in Parliament.
Namely Cromwell and Cranmer played important roles, and overall I agree with the view that the decisive influence in shaping the reformation was Thomas Cromwell due to his closeness to the king and willingness to entirely devote his time and resources into the reformation. The feeling in Source 7 is that Cromwell played an important role in swaying the mind of the king against the clergy, and into reformation. In his ‘supplication against the ordinaries’ Cromwell attacks the clergy saying they make laws without Henry, some of which “clash with the laws off your kingdom”. Here Cromwell might be referring to the law of preamunire, which forbade the following of a foreign law over that of the kings. His influence over the king on this matter could then be shown to have an effect where in the early 1530’s Henry went on to charge all the Clergy with preamunire, and threatened a few with death.
This facilitated him to becoming the most superior individual and increased overall royal power by building up political influence in the latter years. In 1534 the act of supremacy was passed declaring Henry VIII Head of the English Church in both temporal and spiritual matters. This was the heart of the Henrician reformation as it signified the break with Rome and necessitated other changes, for example, changes in the role and function of parliament, extension of central government in localities, changes in religious practice, destruction of existing institutions and development of new ones. By 1536 royal supremacy in the Church and state was widely accepted showing an increase in royal power as outside powers, such as the Papacy, no longer had influence within England and was seen as the start to a Tudor revolution in government. Elton – Cromwell architect of tudor revolution in govt 1536 – dissolution of monasteries – transferred property to crown, improved royal finances & gained favour and support by selling off church lands to gentry and nobility.
How far do you agree that the role and influence of Parliament increased steadily throughout the years 1485-1603? Tudor Parliaments were an essential aspect of English government and administration in the Tudor period. Parliament was needed by the monarch in order to pass legislation, to secure the power of the monarch, to be a point of contact between the Crown and nation and most importantly for finance by raising money through taxation in exceptional circumstances for example in times of war. However it can be argued that the role and influence of Parliament was limited at this time due to a number of factors; The most important being the monarch had the royal prerogative and power over Parliament as they chose when Parliament was called, prorogued and was dissolved. The monarch also decided what Parliament discussed.
Henry VIII is often remembered as the English monarch who broke with the Roman Church. However, Henry was only attracted to Protestant doctrine in a limited way, as the years 1530-1547 demonstrate. Between the years 1530-1534, Henry tried to secure the Pope's permission to divorce Catherine of Aragon, by threatening first the English clergy and then the Pope's powers in England. When the Pope still did not grant the divorce, Henry undertook the most extreme of measures, claiming jurisdiction over the English Church for himself. The Act of Royal Supremacy of 1534 stated that the Crown was reclaiming powers that it had always possessed; powers that Rome had usurped during the previous four hundred years - a fact which Henry and his advisors firmly believed.
Assess the claim that Thomas Cromwell had carried out a ‘revolution’ in Tudor government by 1540. Thomas Cromwell is a significant man while being a historical element of Henry VIII’s reign. There has been a lot of historical controversy surrounding Thomas Cromwell and the question of him actually creating a revolution in government. The term ‘revolution’ means a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system. Cromwell’s early life consisted of him entering Wolsey’s service in 1516 when he became a counsellor.
By 1531 the Schmalkaldic League was set up as a united defence alliance by protestant princes in response to Charles’s threat of eradicating Lutheranism. Despite the failure of the league itself in 1547, it is considered a success in the way that Lutheranism was now exclusively established and was growing ever more powerful, and could not be eradicated by a brute force. By the end of the Reformation in 1555 Lutheranism was finally recognised as a valid religion by Charles due to the previous treaty the Peace of Augsburg which was primarily a princely movement. The princes were significant in creating an atmosphere in which Lutheranism was successful in that they were able to respond well to Luther’s theological ideas. The German Princes established a national figurehead who they could look to for ideology and bravery to drive the Reformation.
Henry used Parliament to push through his changes. He became the head of the new Church of England. Why was Henry so desperate to have a male heir? TA S K S Put the title, ‘Henry’s break with Rome’. You need to create a diagram showing what Henry did.
This write up is an assessment of whether the reformation was a direct outcome of renaissance in Europe. However, this essay is of the view that the reformation was a direct outcome of renaissance. The Reformation could not have occurred without monumental crisis of the medieval church 1during the renaissance papacy. It was a period of darkness concerning the teachings of the Bible. Most of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church were dogma that could not be challenged or refused by Christians of the middle ages.
We can compare it with the eager way in which some contemporary German princes were adopting Lutheranism in order to govern the church within their boundaries, or with the later insistence of such outstanding Catholic kings as Philip II and Louis XIV that they should have effective control of the appointment of Spanish and French Bishops. Yet, however justified such comparisons might be and however true it is that in sixteenth-century Europe the idea of Absolute monarchy was militating against the traditional Christendom wide authority of Rome, there is no denying that it was more accidental than planned that the Act of Supremacy should have been passed in the thirties. The Act signified the logical end of a remarkable sequence of events, but chance rather than logic determined the route those events should take. Had Princess Mary been a boy, or had Charles V invaded Italy in 1528 instead of 1527, or had pestilence not dispersed a French army south of Rome, the Act of Supremacy would never have been passed in 1534. Whether it, or something like it, would have become law later in the century is an open speculation.