<P> During the reign of the Tudor monarchs the modern structure of the English Parliament began to be created . The Tudor monarchy was powerful, and there were often periods of several years when parliament did not sit at all . However the Tudor monarchs were astute enough to realise that they needed parliament to legitimise many of their decisions, mostly out of a need to raise money through taxation legitimately without causing discontent . Thus they consolidated the state of affairs whereby monarchs would call and close parliament as and when they needed it . </P> <P> By the time Henry Tudor (Henry VII) came to the throne in 1485 the monarch was not a member of either the Upper Chamber or the Lower Chamber . Consequently, the monarch would have to make his or her feelings known to Parliament through his or her supporters in both houses . Proceedings were regulated by the presiding officer in either chamber . From the 1540s the presiding officer in the House of Commons became formally known as the "Speaker", having previously been referred to as the "prolocutor" or "parlour" (a semi-official position, often nominated by the monarch, that had existed ever since Peter de Montfort had acted as the presiding officer of the Oxford Parliament of 1258). This was not an enviable job . When the House of Commons was unhappy it was the Speaker who had to deliver this news to the monarch . This began the tradition whereby the Speaker of the House of Commons is dragged to the Speaker's Chair by other members once elected . </P> <P> A member of either chamber could present a "bill" to parliament . Bills supported by the monarch were often proposed by members of the Privy Council who sat in parliament . In order for a bill to become law it would have to be approved by a majority of both Houses of Parliament before it passed to the monarch for royal assent or veto . The royal veto was applied several times during the 16th and 17th centuries and it is still the right of the monarch of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth realms to veto legislation today, although it has not been exercised since 1707 (today such exercise would presumably precipitate a constitutional crisis). </P> <P> When a bill was enacted into law, this process gave it the approval of each estate of the realm: the King, Lords, and Commons . In reality, this was not a democratic process . The Parliament of England was far from being a democratically representative institution in this period . It was possible to assemble the entire peerage and senior clergy of the realm in one place to form the estate of the Upper Chamber . However, the voting franchise for the House of Commons was small; some historians estimate that it was as little as three per cent of the adult male population; and there was no secret ballot . This meant that elections could be controlled by local grandees, because in many boroughs a majority of voters were in some way dependent on a powerful individual, or else could be bought by money or concessions . If these grandees were supporters of the incumbent monarch, this gave the Crown and its ministers considerable influence over the business of parliament . Many of the men elected to parliament did not relish the prospect of having to act in the interests of others . So a law was enacted, still on the statute book today, whereby it became unlawful for members of the House of Commons to resign their seat unless they were granted a position directly within the patronage of the monarchy (today this latter restriction leads to a legal fiction allowing de facto resignation despite the prohibition, but nevertheless it is a resignation which needs the permission of the Crown). However, it must be emphasised that while several elections to parliament in this period were in some way corrupt by modern standards, many elections involved genuine contests between rival candidates, even though the ballot was not secret . </P>

Which of the following are elements of the reformation in england check all that apply