“The key factor responsible for changing the relationship between Church and state 1485–1603 was Parliament.”

intro

• The Tudor period saw major shifts in Church–State relations, from medieval clerical independence to royal supremacy.

• Parliament played an important role in formalising these changes through statute law, especially during the Reformation and Elizabethan Settlement.

• However, parliamentary influence was often dependent on monarchic will, factional politics, and wider ideological pressures.

• Overall judgement: Parliament was significant, but not the key driver — royal authority and political context mattered more.

Paragraph 1 — Parliament as a driver of change (support)

• Reformation Parliament (1529–36) passed Act of Supremacy (1534), Act in Restraint of Appeals (1533).

• Statute law replaced canon law → fundamental shift in Church–State hierarchy.

• Parliament gave Henry VIII’s break with Rome national legitimacy.

• Analytical point: Parliament provided the legal mechanism for change, embedding royal supremacy in law.

Body Paragraph 2 — Parliament shaping long‑term religious structure (Support)

• Elizabethan Settlement (1559): Act of Uniformity + Act of Supremacy re‑established Protestantism.

• Dissolution of the Monasteries required parliamentary sanction → massive transfer of Church wealth to the Crown and nobility.

• Growing Commons assertiveness (Wentworth) shows Parliament increasingly involved in religious governance.

• Analytical point: Parliament helped institutionalise the Church of England and embed state control.

Body Paragraph 3 — Monarchs, not Parliament, drove religious change (Challenge)

• Henry VIII used Parliament to rubber‑stamp decisions already made.

• Mary I reversed Protestant reforms with minimal parliamentary resistance.

• Elizabeth I tightly controlled debate; forbade discussion of religion + succession.

• Analytical point: Parliament was reactive; monarchic will determined religious direction.

Body Paragraph 4 — Wider ideological and political forces mattered more (Challenge)

• Humanism, anti‑clericalism, and printing press reshaped religious attitudes.

• Foreign policy pressures (e.g., threat from Catholic Spain) influenced Elizabeth’s settlement.

• Popular resistance (Pilgrimage of Grace) shows Parliament didn’t reflect national consensus.

• Analytical point: Broader ideological and geopolitical forces had deeper impact than Parliament.

conclusion

• Parliament undeniably shaped Church–State relations by giving religious change legal force and institutional permanence.

• Yet its role was largely reactive, directed by monarchs who controlled the agenda and used Parliament to legitimise decisions.

• Other forces — royal supremacy, personal belief, foreign threats, and ideological shifts — had deeper influence.

• Therefore, Parliament contributed to change, but it was not the primary or decisive factor across 1485–1603.