How was the king chosen?
In Anglo-Saxon England, the king was chosen by the Witan. This was a council of the richest and most important nobles (the earls) and churchmen (bishops). The king was normally the richest and most powerful of the nobles. By the 1000s, this was usually the Earl of Wessex (see Factfile), who was the biggest landowner in England. This meant that the king usually came from the ruling family of Wessex. However, there were often challenges for the throne, and kingship did not pass automatically from father to son – a brother or uncle might also inherit it.
What was the king’s role?
The king’s most important job was to defend the kingdom. He had the wealth to raise and pay for armies. It was also his job to protect and nurture the Church, to make laws and to ensure that everyone obeyed them. There were many able rulers in Anglo-Saxon times, but a weak ruler could cause instability in the kingdom.
What changed in this period?
In the early 1000s, Anglo-Saxon England was attacked and eventually overwhelmed by the Vikings, and in 1016 the Danish leader Cnut became king of England. However, several features of the Anglo-Saxon system of government remained in place, and many Anglo-Saxon nobles rose to even greater power under Cnut. After Cnut’s death the Witan chose another king from the family of Wessex. By 1066, the Anglo-Saxons were still very much in charge of England.
How was the Anglo-Saxon state run?
Anglo-Saxon England worked on the idea of give and take. The king gave land and influential jobs to important nobles and churchmen. In return, they helped him govern the country. These men:
• advised the king through the Witan
• encouraged ordinary people to be loyal to the king
• spread information about new laws, taxes or other measures
• provided the king with troops when needed
• kept control in their own areas.
Lesser nobles (thegns) carried out the day-to-day business of government, such as collecting taxes and running law courts.
Why did the Normans invade England?
England was a rich prize. It was the wealthiest state in Europe at the time. The Norman leader, Duke William, also believed he had a strong legal claim to the English throne and that the Saxon king Harold Godwinson had taken it illegally.
How did the Normans gain control of England?
When Harold was killed, the Anglo-Saxons had no leader to rally round. Within a few months the leading nobles and bishops had surrendered to William. At first he allowed them to keep their lands, but rebellions soon broke out that were ruthlessly crushed. The Normans built a network of castles and William appointed loyal barons and churchmen to look after land on his behalf. The whole country was controlled by 11 men!
How and why did power change hands in this period?
Anglo-Saxon kings could be challenged by any noble who could raise enough troops and support. The Norman Conquest reinforced the idea that the throne could be won by force of arms. In this period, the personalities changed but power still lay in military strength.
Why did the Norman invasion succeed?
Anglo-Saxon England was a strong kingdom with a powerful army, but in military terms the Normans were even stronger. Duke William was an able leader and his supporters were fiercely loyal to him. William was also lucky. The weather favoured him when he invaded across the Channel. At the same time his rival Harold was distracted by a Viking attack in northern England. Harold also made some mistakes.
How far did the Norman Conquest change England?
The Norman Conquest brought change at the top of society. Virtually all Anglo-Saxon lords and thegns lost their land. The Normans changed the landscape with castles and new cathedrals and churches. They brought their own language, customs, clothing, food and many other aspects of their culture. However, the systems of law, administration and coinage remained. The majority of the population continued to speak English and carried on with their traditional farming way of life.
How powerful was the king?
Even the most powerful monarchs could not rule alone. They relied on the loyalty of the nobles and there was always the chance they might be deposed by someone who could command more power and support. How a ruler gained or lost support determined how successful they were – and sometimes whether they kept their throne at all.
How powerful was the Church?
The Church was a key ally – or potential enemy – for every ruler. It was a wealthy and powerful institution, and it had enormous moral influence because people believed in God unquestioningly. Churchmen were greatly respected as God’s servants. With the support of the Church, a monarch was less likely to be challenged because it seemed that they had been chosen by God. However, monarchs also wanted to control the Church’s wealth and this sometimes led to conflict. The most famous example was the clash between Henry II and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket.
How powerful were the barons?
The barons were a king’s greatest asset – they fought alongside him, provided troops, ran the government in the far reaches of the kingdom and collected taxes on the king’s behalf. However, the barons were also a potential threat. Many of them were extremely wealthy and powerful. A king had to make sure he kept the barons happy in order to ensure their loyalty, but he also had to assert his authority when necessary to avoid seeming weak. Not all the monarchs of the medieval period managed to get this balance right.
Why did parliament emerge?
By the late 1200s, a new force was beginning to emerge – parliament. Members of parliament were usually lesser nobles and wealthy merchants from the towns. They were not as rich and powerful as the barons but they still played an important role in government. Throughout the medieval period, governing the kingdom became increasingly expensive. A king’s personal wealth was no longer enough to run the country and fight wars. To raise the money he needed, a king had to tax his people. In return, the people began to demand a say in how the country was run.
How did the Tudor monarchs increase their power?
The first Tudor king, Henry VII, tried to place the monarch above the nobles. He used royal courts to control the nobility. He also used patronage so the nobles depended on him for important jobs, gifts of land and other privileges.
Henry VIII built on this. He appointed administrators from outside the aristocracy, although he still relied on the great nobles and rewarded loyal allies generously. He was ruthless in crushing his opponents. Henry took royal power to new levels when he made himself Head of the Church of England.
Elizabeth I had to struggle first for survival and then to succeed to the throne. However, once in power she became one of England’s most successful rulers. Like her father, she could be ruthless in crushing rebellions. She could also be intimidating and on several occasions she refused to accept the advice of her nobles. However, she tried to be a more approachable monarch than her father. She presented herself as a mother to the kingdom. She controlled the nobles and parliament through charm and persuasion as much as by power and force.
How did the power of the nobles change?
There was a definite shift in power away from the nobles in this period. Henry VIII’s top ministers, Thomas Wolsey and Thomas Cromwell, were not noblemen. The great nobles found that they had to fight for a place at court to have any influence on important decisions or to be granted a high-ranking job or gifts of land. Henry VIII and Elizabeth were clever in fostering rivalry between nobles for these prizes, which kept them divided among themselves yet loyal to their ruler.
Despite this, the nobility remained very important. The great families still ruled large areas of the country on behalf of the monarch. Without them, the kingdom could not be properly run. The Privy Council remained dominated by great lords. They provided armies when monarchs went to war. Henry VIII and Elizabeth both relied on the nobles to persuade parliament to accept laws, taxes and other measures.
How did parliament change?
Parliament had grown in importance towards the end of the medieval period and this continued under the Tudors. There were two major reasons for this: religion and money. Henry VIII’s decision to break with the Catholic Church was a huge step and he needed a wide base of support for his Reformation. He had to appeal to the lesser nobles and the wealthy merchants in the towns – and they were represented in parliament. Both Henry and Elizabeth were short of money. Government had become too expensive for the monarch to pay for it out of their own pocket. In return for being consulted on important issues, parliament agreed to taxes and other measures to create this much-needed wealth.
What were the causes of the English Civil War?
The Tudors had tried to raise the status of the monarchy to be superior to the nobles. James I took this process further. He argued that he was king by ‘divine right’ – he was appointed by God so he could not be challenged by nobles or parliament and he was not bound by the law. His son Charles believed even more strongly in divine right, but he was not the clever politician that James had been. He relied on a small group of advisers, which left many in the Political Nation feeling excluded from important decisions. Charles introduced unpopular religious reforms and taxes. Opposition to Charles grew and in 1642, the country descended into civil war.
Why was the king executed?
Charles lost the war; he was captured in 1646 and imprisoned. Even so, he was still in a strong position. The people were weary of war, and felt that being ruled by parliament was worse than being ruled by Charles. At the same time, radical new political and religious ideas alarmed many members of the Political Nation. Charles could have negotiated a settlement with virtually no loss of his powers, but he felt that a divinely appointed king should not have to negotiate with his subjects. Instead, he tried to play his enemies off against one another. Charles eventually escaped prison, and this led to the Second Civil War in 1648–49. By this time, his leading opponents in parliament and the army decided the king could not be trusted. Charles was tried and executed in 1649.
How was England ruled without a king?
The monarchy was abolished and so was the House of Lords. England became a republic, ruled by parliament. However, in 1653 Oliver Cromwell was offered the position of lord protector – king in all but name. Britain was deeply divided over the issues of religion and politics. Cromwell had the support of parliament and the army, and the nobles both feared and respected him. For these reasons Cromwell was able to rule the country and keep it fairly stable.
Why was the monarchy restored?
Cromwell died in 1658 and the different factions could not agree on who should succeed him. As army commanders vied with each other to take control, the country nearly fell into civil war again. Eventually, however, all parties agreed that the only acceptable solution was to restore the monarchy. Charles I’s son was invited to return to England and take his place as Charles II in 1660.
How did power change hands in this period and why?
The English Civil War changed the nature of politics in the country. Parliament became much more powerful – strong enough to challenge the king. Another new force emerged in politics: the New Model Army. Its commanders did not just fight; they also wanted a say in the running of the country. Even though the monarchy was restored in 1660, the relationship between king and parliament had changed significantly.
What did James II do wrong?
After the Restoration in 1660, Charles II faced many challenges but he proved to be a reasonably effective ruler. He asserted his authority but he also made concessions to the Political Nation to keep them on his side. James II was much less able. He began to favour Catholics by giving them posts in government and relaxing some of the restrictions that parliament had placed on them. James also acted like his father, Charles I, by listening to his close friends and allies and excluding others from the decision-making process.
What was the Glorious Revolution?
James II’s actions alarmed some of the more powerful members of the aristocracy. This became more serious when James’s Catholic wife gave birth to a son, meaning that the country might one day have a Catholic king. The leading nobles organised a rebellion against James. They invited James’s Protestant daughter Mary and her husband William, the ruler of most of the provinces of the Netherlands (of which Holland was the most powerful), to take James’s place. James fled to his friend Louis XIV of France. Louis gave him an army to try to win back his throne, and James landed in Ireland to gather support from Irish Catholics. He was defeated in 1689.
The Glorious Revolution was an illegal overthrow of a legitimate monarch, so William and Mary, and their rebel supporters, came up with a version of events that made them seem legal. Laws were set in place to guarantee that a Catholic could never rule England.
How and why did power change hands in this period?
The leading nobles in parliament had overthrown one king and placed another on the throne. William and Mary agreed to a new constitution that limited their powers. From this point on parliament became increasingly powerful, while the monarchy’s power declined.
Who had the right to rule?
By the mid-1700s, the monarch’s power was in decline and the country was being run by parliament. However, parliament was dominated by the landowning aristocracy. They sat in the House of Lords, which was the senior house. The leading ministers were always lords, and they could override anything the elected House of Commons wanted to do. The right to rule England was to own (a lot of) land and to be very wealthy! The most powerful politicians came from noble families that had been running Britain for centuries.
Despite this, a key change had taken place: the idea of divine right was no longer accepted. Britain was ruled by parliament and in order to do this it had to have the consent of the people, even if this was only a small proportion of the people. They could show their approval or disapproval of parliament and MPs in elections. To some extent, parliament had to listen to the views of the population.
Who had the right to vote?
In 1800, very few people could vote. This began to change as Britain itself began to change. The population expanded rapidly. Industry overtook farming as the most important sector of the economy and by 1851 more people lived in the towns than in the countryside. Parliament no longer seemed to represent the interests of the majority of the population. More and more people began to demand the vote. Parliament was slow to respond to these pressures, but through a series of measures more sections of society gained the right to vote.
How did working men and women win the right to vote?
By the later 1800s and early 1900s, many working-class men and women still toiled in poor conditions. They felt that the existing political parties did not really represent them in government. This led to the development of a mass labour movement, led by trade unions, and eventually of a new political party, the Labour Party. At the same time, another excluded group – women – also campaigned for the vote. Campaigners tried a range of methods to persuade parliament to give them the vote and they eventually succeeded in 1918.
Should governments stay out of ordinary life?
Throughout most of the history of Britain, people believed that they were better off if the government stayed out of their lives. Governments ought to handle big issues like wars or the economy. Looking after the sick and others in need was the responsibility of family, neighbours, local officials or the Church. By the early 1900s, however, this attitude was changing and governments were beginning to pass measures on welfare and similar areas. This process accelerated when the First World War broke out in 1914. The war required a huge effort by everyone in Britain and it needed strong government control to co-ordinate it.
How did the two world wars change government?
During the world wars, a consensus emerged about the relationship between government and people. Many people believed that increasing government control made life better for the majority of the population. After the First World War, however, governments seemed to do less to help people. There were high levels of unemployment and poverty, and this caused resentment. After the Second World War the people of Britain voted for a Labour government, which promised a welfare state that would look after its people.
How and why did power change hands in this period?
Politicians of all parties agreed that governments should be heavily involved in the lives of the people in areas such as the economy, health, education and welfare. This consensus lasted from the end of the Second World War in 1945 until the late 1970s. People accepted a much greater level of control over their daily lives in return.
How did politicians change the role of government?
Conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher attacked the post-war consensus. She questioned whether it really was the job of parliament to deal with major social and economic problems. She believed that individuals, communities and businesses should tackle their own problems. Labour prime minister Tony Blair also believed that parliament could not solve all Britain’s problems, but should instead work with businesses and other groups. Both prime ministers tended to bypass parliament and even their own parties. They used the media to talk directly to the population, more like US presidents than traditional British prime ministers.
Who challenged the power of parliament?
Many groups felt that parliament did not understand or care about their views and would not listen to them. Organisations such as CND and the National Union of Mineworkers challenged the power of parliament in the 1980s.
The regions of the UK (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) demanded greater powers to govern themselves, and this resulted in a devolution of power from 1999 onwards. New parliaments were set up in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh.
Another challenge came from membership of the European Union. Many aspects of law (such as human rights) were decided in the European court, which could overrule British courts. Certain aspects of the economy and areas such as business regulations were also heavily influenced by the EU.
How did voters react?
By the early twenty-first century, many groups were disillusioned with parliament. They felt that MPs, civil servants, journalists and wealthy business people were part of a cosy club who looked after each other and did not really represent ordinary people. Fewer and fewer people turned out to vote at elections, and radical political parties began to gain support. In 2010, Britain ended up with a coalition government because no single party could gain the majority of support from the British people.