Elizabeth

How far do you accept the view that relations between Elizabeth and her parliaments in the years 1566-1588 were characterised more by co-operation than by conflict? During the Tudor dynasty Parliament was an important institution, but its sessions were occasional not continual. It sat for about three of Elizabeth's forty-five years. In many years, Parliament did not meet, and it usually sat for only about three months when it did meet. This highlights how in the time of the Tudors, especially in the reigns of Henry VIII and Elizabeth, the power of parliament had been much lessened.’ So wrote H. E. Marshall in Our Island Story. However the relationship between Elizabeth and her Parliament left historians divided on the matter. The term conflict indicates that within Elizabeth’s Parliament there was a state of opposition between her ideas and theirs causing huge disagreements. But others believe that Elizabeth was a tactical politician and even though her Parliament may have caused opposition it did not result in a full blown conflict as some would believe. On the other hand Elizabeth and her Parliament enjoyed clear co-operation with one another as they were clear that Elizabeth as the ruling Monarch was who they had to please. Thus instead Elizabeth’s Parliament had the act of working together to the same end at which the wealth fare of England’s people was their main goal. The opinions of Sloan and Randell are among many historians that have a clear opinion on the relationship between Elizabeth and Parliament. On the one hand Sloan can ‘imagine how the assertiveness posed problems for a monarch’, highlighting how he noticed the problems that Elizabeth faced but not necessarily to the extent of conflict. In contrast Randell highlights the importance of keeping the governor and the governed on a peaceful path to emphasise Elizabeth trying to keep her and Parliament on mutual terms.
The traditional view of Tudor parliaments presented a weak institution,