"Tudor Despotism is a term that was used from the end of the 19th century through the late 1940s to characterize the governance of the Tudor monarchs. Those who argued for the term Tudor Despotism claimed that the Tudor monarchs hap unquestioned authority that was enforced with violence and with blood. The proponents of this view had no trouble in searching the records to find a number of headless victims to support their claims. The heart of this interpretation centers on the Tudor monarchs' relationship with Parliament. Those who claim that there was a Tudor despotism argue that the Tudor kings ignored statutory laws which placed constitutional restraints on the power of the monarch and simply adjusted the law to suit their personal visions of what the law should be; if in fact, these monarchs ever stopped to consider their place within the law. Although this view has been modified by scholars over the years, it was not seriously challenged until the 1950s when Geoffrey Elton published The Tudor Revolution in Government. Elton argued persuasively that the Tudor monarchs, particularly Henry VIII, were essentially constitutionalist "happy in the meeting of Parliament." Elton further presented his case to include Thomas Cromwell, the central figure of government under Henry VIII, as a man who promoted constitutional law; never allowing himself, or his King to overstep the limits placed on them by Parliament. Elton's claim that Henry and Cromwell did nothing that could be construed as unconstitutional was too much for Professor Joel Hurstfield to bear, and he reopened the debate by arguing that Cromwell and Henry VIII were constitutionalists only in practice, not in spirit, and that they worked with Parliament only because the King and his minister could completely control the decisions made there. Hurstfield contended that because the crown could dominate Parliament, there were no practical limits placed on regal power; and the Tudors, particularly Henry VIII, were, therefore, despots." -- From pages 2-3.