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 the end of Charles II’s reign, the monarchy was in a stronger position, as revenue was sufficient for him to govern as he wished. He did not need to call parliament in the last four years of his reign because he was receiving funds from Louis XIV as part of the Treaty of Dover. 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. After the execution of Charles I, society would never be the same; the monarchy’s reputation was tainted. At the end of Charles II’s reign parliament tried to pass the Exclusion Bill to prevent Charles’ Catholic brother James II from becoming king, however, according to the Divine Right of Kings, it was James’ right to inherit the throne. Parliament would have had no influence in the early 1600’s of deciding who was next to rule England but by the end of the century, parliament handed the throne over to William and Mary because the birth of James II’s son meant another Catholic monarch was to follow James. They also passed the Act of Settlement, which clarified the next succession ‘in the protestant line’ would be from the House of Hanover. The Divine Right was extremely important in early 17th century and was a main reason for Charles’ execution during the regicide because he refused to accept any settlement the army or parliament offered. By 1715, due to the advance in science and technology, more logical explanations were forming, and people were more sceptical about god causing the Divine Right to deteriorate, which gradually granted parliament more power.
Religion was an essential part of life in the 17th century; therefore it would’ve had a huge influence on the power of the monarchy. Anti-Catholicism was the greatest religious concern over the period, which was heightened by various events such as the Gunpowder Plot (1605) and Popish Plot. Religious views caused the power of the monarchy to change, which is shown in James I, Charles II and James II’s reign. They were all in favour of religious toleration but parliament disagreed, believing it would lead to rebellion and chaos. Parliament disapproved of James I maintaining a broad church, Charles II’s Declaration of Breda and James II’s Declarations of Indulgences. They interfered by passing the Act of Uniformity and Test Act, which was not supported by the monarch, showing the rise of parliament influence over the monarchy. During James II’s reign, he repealed the Test Act, which seriously reduced his popularity and support within parliament. 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.