constitutional monarchy
The queen was the head of state but England had a long history of Parliament dating back to the 7th-11th Century. It was once known as the Witenagemot (meaning "the meeting of wise men"). It was a counsel of elders who advised the king on how to rule.
2006-12-17 13:19:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by blondie 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
In the reign of Elizabeth I, the monarch still had a great deal of power. The idea of a constitutional monarchy didn't come into being until the Glorious Revolution, which took place nearly 100 years after the death of Elizabeth.
Elizabeth I was a brilliant politician who realized that, in order to hold her throne, she had to keep the good will of her people. Since most of them were disgusted by the persecution of the Protestants during the reign of her half-ssiter Mary I, on her gaining the throne Elizabeth aligned herself with the Protestant faction (she'd outwardly conformed to Catholicism during her sister's time on the throne) in England. She herself was quite moderate in her religious views, and wanted only an outward appearance of conformity, saying on one occasion that she "desired no windows into men's souls." To this end, she only insisted that her subjects attend Anglican church services once a month. If, for whatever reason, they had problems of conscience about attending the established church (remember, there were a lot of more extreme Protestants in England as well as those who still followed the Catholic faith), they could pay a small fine for not attending.
It was only after a number of plots, spearheaded by Catholics, to overthrow her that she began a persecution of Catholics. It had begun to seem to the average Englishman that the Catholics in their midst were traitors, but this was not the case at all. Some even became Anglicans, while others practiced their faith in secret but had no intention of betraying either their queen or their country.
Elizabeth ruled with the help of a council of advisors hand-picked for their intelligence, ability, and loyalty. While she never interfered with Parliament (unlike some of her successors), the situation was still a far cry from being a constitutional monarchy.
I suppose, however, it set a precedent for when the country actually became one in fact.
2006-12-21 11:26:35
·
answer #2
·
answered by Chrispy 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
A constitutional Monarchy (meaning a titular head of government and a parliment).
2006-12-17 13:21:27
·
answer #3
·
answered by Kirei Neko 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
It was a constitutional monarchy because she had a prime minister and parliament. However, she still took the initiative to persecute and kill thousands of English Catholics.
2006-12-17 13:38:16
·
answer #4
·
answered by spoongentry 2
·
0⤊
1⤋