How The Extent Of Power Changed In The 17th Century
The events and sentiments that ran through 17th century England were perhaps as paradoxical as Charles the 1st’s head being sewn back to his body after his execution. This era saw a polarization of thought, action and outcome in regards to several events, people and institutions. The height of this polarization existed between the monarchy and the parliament, as questions arose in regards to the extent of power the king could wield, and the extent of power Parliament was willing to allow the king to wield. The two ends of the power spectrum were absolute monarchy , which gave the king unlimited powers, or “royal prerogatives” according to the Stuarts due to their “divine right” to exercise it, and the other a constitutional monarchy , where
…show more content…
Historians have debated the powers of the king and parliament for centuries, and the events that molded the power balance between the two institutions. This power balance had been changed to a large extent by the end of the seventeenth century from what it had been at the beginning; as power and control slipped out of the monarchy’s grasp and into parliament’s hands. For could James the 1st have ever imagined that in a few years time his son would be beheaded on the charge of treason, and the monarchy itself would be abolished? Could William the 3rd have contemplated having the power to command a standing army, and conducting a foreign policy independent of Parliament? No one can deny the political changes of this era, however, what can be argued is what form this change took; an evolution or a revolution? Whig historians such as Thomas Macaulay , attribute the changes of the 17th century to culminate into a positive outcome, which was “the growth of liberty, parliamentary rule and religious toleration since the constitutional struggles of the seventeenth century.” (Wilson and Ashplant, 1988) which supports the idea of the transformation being the result of an evolutionary process. Marxist historians’ interpretation of events also supports the claim that the transformation of the English
Historians have debated the powers of the king and parliament for centuries, and the events that molded the power balance between the two institutions. This power balance had been changed to a large extent by the end of the seventeenth century from what it had been at the beginning; as power and control slipped out of the monarchy’s grasp and into parliament’s hands. For could James the 1st have ever imagined that in a few years time his son would be beheaded on the charge of treason, and the monarchy itself would be abolished? Could William the 3rd have contemplated having the power to command a standing army, and conducting a foreign policy independent of Parliament? No one can deny the political changes of this era, however, what can be argued is what form this change took; an evolution or a revolution? Whig historians such as Thomas Macaulay , attribute the changes of the 17th century to culminate into a positive outcome, which was “the growth of liberty, parliamentary rule and religious toleration since the constitutional struggles of the seventeenth century.” (Wilson and Ashplant, 1988) which supports the idea of the transformation being the result of an evolutionary process. Marxist historians’ interpretation of events also supports the claim that the transformation of the English