"Conflict over the constitution was the single most important factor in the changing role and power of the monarch."

Authors Avatar

“Conflict over the constitution was the single most important factor in the changing role and power of the monarch.”

How valid is this assessment of the changing role and power of the monarch?

        This assessment implies that conflict between Crown and parliament over the law and how England was supposed to be governed, was an issue in the changing role and power of the monarch. Even though it did have an impact on how the monarchy altered, it was not the only factor that existed; social, cultural, economical and religious factors should also be considered.

        Subsequently, as the question suggests, there was conflict between Crown and parliament over the constitution. Both had different aims and views; parliament thought they earned the privileges they had but the monarchy viewed parliament’s power as being granted by them. It wasn’t until the reign of William III and Anne that a powerful central executive and financial revolution evolved. The late 90’s were a turning point in constitutional government, which led to the monarch and parliament working alongside each other. The development of the Cabinet (1965) provided day-to-day control in England whilst William was absent. This did not lead to an erosion of monarch power, as the monarch was still in charge and the Cabinet met with the king/queen present. It is definitely recognisable that the royal prerogative fluctuates throughout the 17th century. In James I’s reign, foreign policy was one of the crown’s prerogative rights, as was choosing ministers, which is why when parliament discussed foreign policy and attempted to remove the Duke of Buckingham, Charles I was not pleased. The execution of Charles I represents the lowest position the monarchy had ever been. But excluding the regicide, early Stuart monarchs had a greater royal prerogative, as oppose to 1715 where the monarchy was limited. Due to the Act of Settlement the monarch was forced to consult parliament about foreign policy and choosing ministers. There was a great deal of conflict between Charles II and parliament over Charles’ admiration of the French Catholic king Louis XIV’s absolute style of government. This emphasised the existing fear of the Crown ruling without parliament and to overcome this, parliament constantly tried to restrict the monarchy’s power by passing acts such as, the Triennal Act, Petition of Rights, Restoration Settlement and the Bill of Rights. There was always great conflict between both for power, but by 1715 it was more common to have conflict within different parties in parliament e.g. Whigs and Tories. By now the monarchy was willing to share power and a working, harmonious relationship between parliament and crown had been established.

Join now!

        The Economical system was a great factor of concern at the start of the Stuart Age that affected the monarch’s changing role and power. Elizabeth I had left a crown debt for James I in 1603, and this combined with his extravagant nature, led to an inevitable financial downfall. However, there were financial attempts to solve the financial problems, for example the Great Contract (1610) and Sir George Downing. Because of James’ inability to restrict his spending, parliament feared granting Charles I full Tunnage and Poundage, which limited the monarchy as he needed money for his foreign policy. By ...

This is a preview of the whole essay