essay

« role of king and the parliament.

It changed the role of the king and the parliament so that is why it's a radical document and not a traditional.

It brought changes and not continuity.

More power for the parliament was wanted. The Bill of Rights marked a dramatic turning point in English history.

  The monarchy was new which proved the rights of English subjects were no longer to be dispensed on King's decision.

It was a new monarchy because new laws were added to the Bill and it marked a change in kingship. As an example, we can say that the King was no longer allowed to suspend laws without the consent of Parliament.

The Bill limited the power of the Crown and set out the rights of Parliament.  That is the main reasons why she said the Bill of Rights enabled to establish a new type of monarchy.

  The second argument can be seen through the battle that happened from 1688 to 1689 because during that time the king was very criticized which result to a less powerful king in the Bill of Right.

 For example we can see in the article the King “was denied the power to suspend laws or their execution without the consent of Parliament” that proves the contentment of the parliament is important.

Many times in the article it is mentions that the king needs the consent of the parliament which proved that the parliament shaped the royal prerogatives and the king is influenced by it.

Moreover it was only in 1688-1689 that reforming the monarchy began.   This new monarchy in favor of Parliament is seen as the main reason why the Bill of rights has to be seen as a document which changed the British monarchy.     2) Even though she does not mention John Locke's Two Treatises of Government (published anonymously in December 1689, after the Declaration of Rights) she also (from p 229 onward) points at the ongoing debate through the XVIIth century on the need to reform kingship.

How was it reformed ?. »