Key Questions (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes

Key Questions

Introduction to the thematic framework

The A-Level specification for Stuart Britain and the Crisis of Monarchy, 1603-1702, is organised around six overarching questions. These questions provide a thematic structure for examining the entire period and form the basis for examination questions that typically cover twenty years or more. Understanding these questions helps you to approach the period systematically and to make connections across different events and developments.

The six core questions

1. How far did the monarchy change?

This question requires you to assess both change and continuity in the nature and exercise of monarchical power across the century.

In 1603, the English monarch possessed enormous power relative to Parliament. The King could summon and dissolve Parliament at will, declare war, negotiate treaties, and manage royal finances with limited parliamentary oversight. Yet by 1702, despite the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, the balance of power had shifted markedly.

Consider the extent to which the 1688-89 Revolution Settlement confirmed or accelerated changes already underway. This requires careful analysis of constitutional developments before and after the Glorious Revolution.

Key areas to explore:

• The prerogative powers of James I versus those of William III and Mary II
• The financial dependence of the Crown on Parliament by 1702
• Changes in the monarch's ability to govern without Parliament
• The impact of constitutional settlements (1660, 1689) on royal authority

2. To what extent and why was power more widely shared during this period?

This question directs your attention to the distribution of political power and the expansion of political participation.

In 1603, Parliament met at the monarch's convenience and primarily to grant taxation. By the mid-century civil wars, Parliament had become a regular and essential feature of political life, meeting annually and exercising control over taxation, the military, and aspects of religion. This transformation did not occur smoothly or inevitably but resulted from specific conflicts and constitutional struggles.

You must analyse why the monarchy was compelled to share power—whether through military defeat, financial necessity, religious conflict, or ideological pressure—and assess the permanence of these changes. Understanding the mechanisms and reasons for this power-sharing is crucial for evaluating the period's political transformation.

3. Why and with what results were there disputes over religion?

Religion dominated political conflict throughout this period to an extent difficult for modern students to grasp. The English Civil War is often characterised as the last of the Wars of Religion that had convulsed Europe since the Reformation.

Religious radicalism flourished in the 1640s and 1650s, producing groups such as the Levellers, Diggers, Quakers, Fifth Monarchists, and Ranters. Each challenged established religious and social hierarchies. You must examine why religion provoked such intense political conflict:

• The relationship between religious authority and political legitimacy
• Disputes over church governance (bishops versus presbyterian structures)
• Fears of Catholicism and its association with absolutism
• The challenge posed by religious diversity to social order

You should assess the extent, limitations, and motivations behind this gradual shift toward toleration. Was it driven by principled commitment to religious freedom, practical necessity, or political calculation? The answer likely involves all three factors operating at different times and in different contexts.

4. How effective was opposition?

Opposition took multiple forms and targeted different authorities throughout the century. You must analyse opposition to:

• The monarch (James I, Charles I, Charles II, James II)
• Parliament and its armies during the civil wars
• Oliver Cromwell's Protectorate
• The restored Stuart monarchy
• The Church of England's religious settlement

The effectiveness of opposition varied considerably. Parliamentary opposition to Charles I ultimately led to civil war and regicide. Opposition to Cromwell proved less successful during his lifetime, though his regime collapsed swiftly after his death. Opposition to James II succeeded in forcing his removal in 1688-89.

Opposition was not always effective in achieving its immediate aims, but it shaped how political authority operated and constrained the exercise of power. Understanding this dynamic helps explain the gradual evolution toward more limited and constitutional forms of government.

5. How important were ideas and ideology?

The seventeenth century witnessed an explosion of political and religious ideas that shaped practical politics. Revolution, civil war, and regicide generated intense ideological debate about the foundations of legitimate authority.

Divine right of kings represented the orthodox monarchical theory: kings derived their authority directly from God and were accountable only to God, not to their subjects. This doctrine underpinned royal claims to rule without parliamentary constraint.

Opposing this view, more radical groups challenged traditional hierarchies. The Levellers debated at Putney in 1647, arguing for:

• The sovereignty of the people as the source of legitimate government
• Extension of the franchise
• Legal equality before the law
• Religious toleration

These ideas did not remain abstract but directly influenced political action. You must assess the extent to which ideological commitments drove events versus material interests, military circumstances, or personal ambitions. This requires careful analysis of the relationship between theory and practice, between what people said and what they did.

6. How important was the role of key individuals and groups and how were they affected by developments?

Individual agency shaped the course of events throughout this period, though historians debate the relative importance of individuals versus broader structural forces.

James I earned the description "the wisest fool in Christendom"—intellectually accomplished but politically maladroit. His reign established tensions over royal prerogative, parliamentary privilege, and religious policy that would explode under his son.

Charles I has fascinated historians for generations. His personality—combining inflexibility, duplicity, and religious conviction—contributed directly to the slide into civil war. His execution in 1649 shocked Europe and created a martyr cult that aided his son's restoration.

Charles II presented a stark contrast to his father: politically flexible, outwardly cynical, willing to compromise. Yet his reign witnessed renewed conflict over religion and succession.

Remember!