CP: Marian Counter-reformation

I've been doing the Tudors for my course work & was wondering. What if Mary had passed her religious legislation only through royal proclamation, as Pole suggested, rather than following the advice of her council? Would this have been practicable or would it have resulted in another Wyatt rebellion? I suppose her handling of former monastic lands would be the clincher.
 
It's a difficult topic. People would still have been burnt. Did the Council tone down Mary's wishes or was it vice versa?
Mary & her episcopal bench were driving force behind the English Counter Reformation so would have probably gone further, faster, without compromise with Parliament, though Parliamentary opposition is exaggerated. The more interesting question at this stage is whether the Crown still had the power to make such changes without Parliament's consent. In a strictly legal sense it did until the Civil War or maybe even 1688 but whether it had the De facto power to do so is another question.
 
It is a really interesting point because the original reformation that separated England from Rome and established Henry VIII's supremacy was all done through Parliamentary Act therefore undoing it and making sure that Marian Counter-reformation had some legal foundation was to ensure Parliamentary approval.
A lot of Mary's insistance on Parliamentary approval was because that was how she was deprived of legitimacy and her parent's marriage declared invalid.
 
Top