Chronicles remained the dominant form of historical writing throughout the sixteenth century, and contained much material about the relationship of parliament and the crown and the wider political community. But how coherent a view of parliament could be derived from the chronicles? That is the question addressed by this essay, primarily through Holinshed, but with reference to the other chronicles on which his account was built. Holinshed included some key texts on parliament, including William Harrison’s reworking of Sir Thomas Smith’s account in De republica Anglorum (1583), significantly enhancing parliament’s role on the succession and church reform, and John Hooker’s Order and Usage (1572), inserted into the Irish section. But Holinshed famously left his chronicles open to variant readings. There was little interest in parliament’s institutional development, or commonwealth legislation, but much more interest in parliament as the bringer of hated taxes, and in the politics of parliaments, particularly relating to monarchical succession. It is argued that readers might take away various understandings from the chronicles, but that in any case the chronicles tended to focus less on institutional structures than on the moral qualities of the country’s leaders who operated them.