“Elizabeth was never in control of her parliaments” Assess the validity of this view.

Although there are several examples that suggest Elizabeth I was sometimes out of control of her parliament, the assessment that she was ‘never’ in control can be questioned. Over the course of her reign she effectively dealt with opposition, and on several occasions exemplified masterful political control. One matter where she appeared out of control of her parliament was that of her marriage and succession. Here, the actions of parliament directly contradicted that of the monarch. They desired a strong succession without foreign influence, whereas she understood the succession as a matter of royal prerogative and not to be discussed by ministers. She made this position clear on several occasions, including a letter promising resolution and affirming the royal prerogative in 1559. Parliament ignored these orders by petitioning her to marry an Englishman in 1559 and continued to discuss the succession into the final years of her reign, with puritan MP Peter Wentworth calling for her to name a successor in 1593. Regarding the matter of her marriage and succession, Elizabeth I was unable to stop her ministers speculating, and is an example of her lacking control. However, this is not reflective of the entirety of her reign. She consistently established her personal authority over the commons by effectively dealing with individual opposition in religious matters. In 1571, William Strickland offended the Queen by putting forward a bill proposing a reform of the Book of Common Prayer. She swiftly stripped him of his privilege to sit in the commons, affirming her position as the head of the Church of England and demonstrating effective parliamentary control. Moreover, Elizabeth maintained total control over the legislation that passed through parliament. She denied royal assent to 60 bills that passed through both houses, demonstrating her ultimate and unwavering control. In 1587, Cope put forward and passed a bill regarding the governance of the Church that she flatly refused to read. In terms of concrete matters of legislation, Elizabeth had absolute control over parliament, hence the assessment that she was ‘never’ in control is unjustifiable. Therefore, it would not reflect historical evidence to conclude that she was ‘never’ in control of her parliament. Although there are several examples of parliament acting against her wishes, genuine threats to her authority were dealt with swiftly and effectively throughout her reign.