Constitutional Monarchy (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
Constitutional monarchy
Understanding constitutional monarchy
The British constitution developed along a distinctive path compared to other European nations. Unlike France or the United States, which adopted written constitutions following their revolutions, Britain's constitutional arrangements remained unwritten. The short-lived Instrument of Government (1654), later amended by the Humble Petition and Advice (1657), represented the only attempt at a written constitution in British history.
Constitutional monarchy refers to a system where the monarch's powers are constrained by Parliament and bound by the laws of the land. This arrangement evolved gradually through parliamentary statutes, legal precedent, custom, and tradition rather than being established by a single constitutional document. By 1702, Parliament held the monarch in check whilst also restraining royal authority through the law itself.
The term 'constitutional monarchy' accurately describes Britain's system by 1702, though this arrangement did not derive from or depend upon a formal written constitution. The British model emerged organically through political developments across the seventeenth century.
The Act of Settlement, 1701
Parliament's passage of the Act of Settlement in 1701 marked a watershed moment in the relationship between Crown and Parliament. This legislation demonstrated Parliament's newfound authority to determine the royal succession - something unimaginable in 1600 when Parliament could not have dictated who would succeed Elizabeth I.
The immediate context for the Act concerned the death of William III's potential heir. Princess Anne, the younger daughter of James II by Anne Hyde, had married George, Prince of Denmark. The couple's only surviving child, the Duke of Gloucester, died in 1700. With William childless and Anne without living heirs, Parliament needed to secure the succession.
The Bill of Rights (1689) had already established that no Catholic could inherit the throne nor could the king marry a Catholic. The Act of Settlement now addressed the succession crisis by building upon these foundations.
The Act established the following provisions:
- Upon the death of William III and Anne without surviving issue, the throne would pass to the descendants of James I's daughter Elizabeth and her husband Frederick, Elector Palatine
- Specifically, the succession would go to Sophia, the Electress of Hanover, and her heirs
This arrangement came to fruition exactly as planned. When Queen Anne died in 1714, the Crown passed to George Ludwig, Elector of Hanover - Elizabeth of Bohemia's grandson.
The evolution of political theory
Divine right in 1603
At the start of the seventeenth century, the Divine Right of Kings dominated political thinking throughout Western Europe, including England. This theory held that monarchs derived their authority directly from God, making any challenge to royal authority a form of blasphemy. The English Reformation under Henry VIII had reinforced royal supremacy by placing the monarch on equal footing with the Pope.
This ideology positioned kings as God's appointed representatives on Earth. To resist or defy royal commands was therefore to resist God's will. Royal authority appeared absolute and unchallengeable within this framework.
Challenging divine right during the Civil War
The execution of Charles I in 1649 posed an enormous problem for those seeking to justify regicide. The revolutionaries needed arguments to counter the prevailing belief in divine right. They branded Charles a tyrant who had violated his coronation oath, drawing on Old Testament examples of kings overthrown with God's approval.
Oliver Cromwell later attempted to legitimise the execution by citing Acts 26:26 from the New Testament: '[T]his thing was not done in a corner.' However, these justifications remained rooted in religious and historical precedent rather than representing genuinely new political philosophy. The arguments looked backwards to medieval and biblical examples rather than breaking fresh ground.
Thomas Hobbes and the social contract
Thomas Hobbes, a philosopher from Malmesbury in Wiltshire, fled to Europe during the English Civil War. Though Hobbes rejected the Divine Right of Kings, he nonetheless argued that subjects bore a duty to obey their monarch. His reasoning, however, rested on philosophical rather than religious foundations.
Social contract theory, as developed by Hobbes, proposed that people had formed an agreement surrendering their freedom to the king in exchange for protection and self-preservation. Hobbes considered civil war the greatest catastrophe that could befall a nation. He therefore believed that even if subjects thought the monarch tyrannical, they had formed a binding contract and should obey the king not because it was right in a moral sense, but because maintaining political stability required it.
This represented a major departure from the 'confessional state' which relied on divine authority. By placing political philosophy onto rational rather than religious grounds, Hobbes and later thinkers like Locke fundamentally altered political discourse.
John Locke's revolutionary theory
In 1689, following the Glorious Revolution, John Locke published Two Treatises on Civil Government. Locke developed social contract theory in a more radical direction than Hobbes. He argued that a social contract existed between monarch and subjects similar to a legal contract between businessmen. According to Locke's reasoning:
- People enter into agreements with rulers, surrendering certain freedoms in exchange for protection and good governance
- This contract has nothing to do with religion but rests on philosophical principles, particularly ideas about usefulness
- If the king fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract, the people are released from their duty to obey his commands
Locke's ideas proved enormously influential in shaping modern political thought. In 1776, Thomas Jefferson drew on Locke's theories to justify the American Revolution. Thomas Paine similarly employed Locke's concepts to defend the French Revolution of 1789. Locke's thinking inspired many revolutionary movements throughout the nineteenth century.
However, Hobbes deserves recognition as the first Englishman to articulate social contract theory in a systematic way.
The monarchy in 1603 versus 1702
The position of the English monarchy changed substantially across the seventeenth century, though the extent of this transformation requires careful analysis.
The monarch in 1603
In 1603, the monarch functioned as the sovereign ruler of the kingdom. The law constrained royal power, particularly through Magna Carta and the coronation oath. Parliamentary privileges also placed some limitations on monarchical authority. Nevertheless, the king enjoyed royal prerogatives that enabled him to direct both domestic and foreign policy without parliamentary interference.
The monarch in 1702
By 1702, the king owed his Crown to Parliament, which had determined the succession through parliamentary statute. The King of England at this date wielded substantial power, selecting his ministers, controlling foreign policy, distributing patronage, and forming alliances. The monarch remained Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Despite some toleration for Dissenters, the Church controlled extensive aspects of family law and operated through parishes as an additional mechanism of central government.
The crucial difference lay in the concept of King-in-Parliament - a monarch working in partnership with triennial parliaments to deliver foreign policy that enjoyed broad national support. By 1702, royal prerogatives faced practical constraints through various means:
- Oversight by investigative committees
- Earmarking of funds for specific policies
- Financial controls stemming from the 'financial revolution' of the 1690s
- The 'rage of party' - the political price the kingdom paid for parliamentary oversight of royal policies
Understanding the Change in Royal Power
One could argue that the Crown actually possessed more power in 1702 than in 1603. However, the Crown in 1702 refers to the King-in-Parliament rather than the monarch acting alone. The king's prerogatives were now constrained in numerous practical ways, particularly through parliamentary control of finance.
Britain's exceptional path in European context
Understanding these developments requires placing them in broader European historical perspective. Britain's limited monarchy stood out as unusual in Europe at this time. The dominant trend across the continent moved towards royal absolutism.
European monarchies dominated by the will and power of individual rulers (such as the King of France) proved less dynamic and successful than systems where monarchs and national representatives negotiated and conferred over policy. Limited monarchy of the British type was more likely to enjoy broad political and economic support from the nation.
Britain's constitutional development therefore represented an exceptional path. Whilst most European states concentrated power in royal hands, Britain distributed authority between Crown and Parliament. This arrangement, though achieved at considerable cost during the seventeenth century, would ultimately provide Britain with advantages in terms of political stability and economic development.
Key Points to Remember:
-
Constitutional monarchy emerged in Britain through gradual evolution rather than through a written constitution, with the monarch constrained by Parliament and law by 1702.
-
The Act of Settlement (1701) demonstrated Parliament's authority to determine royal succession, establishing the Hanoverian line through Sophia, Electress of Hanover.
-
Political theory shifted from Divine Right of Kings to social contract theories developed by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, replacing religious justifications for royal authority with rational, philosophical arguments.
-
King-in-Parliament by 1702 meant the monarch worked with triennial parliaments, with royal prerogatives constrained through financial controls, investigative committees, and party politics.
-
Britain's limited monarchy was exceptional in Europe, where most states moved towards royal absolutism, but this model proved more dynamic than systems dominated by individual rulers.