• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

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

Extracts from this document...


"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. ...read more.


In order for a monarch to have a sound financial system, co-operation with parliament is needed. Parliament viewed money as a bargaining tool in order to gain more power and influence from the monarch. This becomes apparent in the reign of William III who needed sufficient funding to continue fighting the war against the French. Parliament agreed to grant him excise for life, but increased his dependence on them by only voting him custom duties for 4 years. William agreed to give up his prerogative rights e.g. choosing ministers in exchange for money. It wasn't, however, until the war with France that major, successful changes took place, which headed towards a financial revolution. From 1693-4 the principle of borrowing money was regularly used, for example The Million Loan Act (1693), which led to the establishment of the Bank of England. The Economical system was the strongest it had ever been in the 17th century, as it was working cordially alongside parliament. What also had an impact on the monarch's power were social and cultural factors. England was a Protestant country so the majority of society was not fond of Catholics and much propaganda provoked a great fear of Popery. People accepted that the monarch was chosen by God and viewed the king/queen as saintly figures. This starts to be questioned in Charles I's reign, when the Long Parliament challenges him about his unacceptable behaviour. ...read more.


By the end of the late 1680's religion was less of a concern, especially as the Act of Settlement abolished any fears of a Catholic monarch. A Toleration Act was passed in 1689, which shows how the level of religious issues had diminished. Parliament tried to stop James II from inheriting the throne, due to his religious beliefs, but by 1715 religion no longer had a great impact on the role and power of the monarch. Even though parliament gained more influence and the prerogative rights of the Crown became limited, the status of the crown only got stronger. It went from being weak and unstable, to being abolished, and then gradually improved into a strong position, where financial and political factors had been settled. In reference to the question, I agree that conflict over the constitution had a considerable impact on the power of the Crown, however it was economical factors that caused much alteration in the changing role and power of the monarch. If Charles I's Personal Rule is considered, the only reason that came to an end was the need for finance to deal with the Scottish dispute over their prayer book. Another example is how William III exchanged parts of his prerogative in order to receive money to fight the French. Parliament used finance to slowly gain a powerful voice, as they knew the monarch could not rule effectively without their economical assistance, which is why having a strong financial system was the greatest issue that changed the power of the monarchy. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics essays

  1. How successfully did James deal with religious problems throughout his reign?

    After this threat James and Charles harassed the Puritans so fiercely that many fled to America. Potential threat of William Laud enforcing his views on the church to exclude Puritans caused James to protect the Puritans by refusing to promote Laud as James wanted the church to remain tolerant of the Puritans.

  2. An unmitigated disaster. How valid is this assessment of Oliver Cromwells experiment with the ...

    but also disofficing, disfranchising and sequestering all men in all counties and corporations at their pleasure. Many other scholarly critics have attacked the Major Generals on a number of linked but distinct grounds. Some writers have seen them principally as parvenu social upstarts, who were unused and unsuited to exercising

  1. Henry II (1154 - 1189) is generally seen as the main catalyst in the ...

    and tactical shrewdness in the manner in which Henry II introduced such a ploy.42 Indeed it would appears Henry's desire to erect a new administrative zeal and impetus was evident from the start of his reign may have matured into intense frustrations at the pace, which his reforms took prior

  2. Arabi israli conflict

    The Jewish wanted what they called their homeland back, even though they hadn't been living there for 2000 years it was still promised to them. So a group of people called Zionist's worked together to try and get it, they wouldn't settle for part of another country.

  1. The changing position of women and the suffrage question. Revision notes

    who was or was not a prostitute and thus many innocent young women were arrested and forced to undergo a medical examination and many lost their jobs, or even committed suicide as a result. * The attempt to extend the provisions of the acts to all prostitutes in the land

  2. The changing position of women and the suffrage question

    Women from all social backgrounds joined the Land Army, (WAACS), WRENS or WRAFS. These women were considered as part of the British Army and many others worked as nurses. Women worked hard, long hours, many were killed in accidents and their experience in war work went a long way to dispel pre-conceived notions of the female sex.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work