Divine Right and parliamentary authority

Model answer

X is the Lord Protector, and the first person to hold the position was Oliver Cromwell.

Model answer

Source A is very useful for studying why the trial of Charles I was controversial because it records the King's main objection in his own words. Charles refused to answer the charge and demanded to know 'by what authority, I mean lawful', he had been brought before the court, comparing it to 'thieves and robbers by the highways'. This was the central problem with the trial: there was no law or precedent for putting a king on trial. The court had been set up by the Rump Parliament after Pride's Purge in December 1648, when soldiers had excluded the MPs who wanted to negotiate with the King, and the House of Lords had refused to agree. Of the 135 commissioners named to try him, many stayed away, including Sir Thomas Fairfax, and only 59 signed the death warrant. Charles's question therefore pointed to a real weakness in the court's legitimacy.

The provenance adds to the source's value but also needs care. It comes from the official record of the trial, which was published by the new regime, so it is unlikely to have exaggerated the strength of the King's case. However, Charles's words reflect his own beliefs and purpose. He claimed a trust 'committed to me by God, by old and lawful descent', which shows that he still believed in the Divine Right of Kings and would not accept that he was accountable to his subjects. He also wanted to appear as the defender of the law and of his people's liberties, which helped royalists portray him as a martyr after his execution.

The source does not show the other side of the argument. The army and the Rump argued that the King had broken his trust by making war on his people twice, including the Second Civil War of 1648, when he had allied with the Scots, and many soldiers called him 'that man of blood'. Overall, Source A is very useful for showing why the trial was controversial, but it presents only the King's case.

Model answer

The Commonwealth and Protectorate were significant for the relationship between Parliament and the monarchy because they showed both that the monarchy could be abolished and that governing without it was very difficult. In 1649 the Rump Parliament abolished the monarchy and the House of Lords and declared England a Commonwealth. For the first time Parliament ruled without a king, which showed that the monarchy was not a fixed part of God's order but could be removed by human decision.

However, the years that followed showed the problems of government without a monarch. The Rump was unpopular and slow to reform, and in April 1653 Cromwell dissolved it with soldiers. The Barebones Parliament also failed, and the Instrument of Government of December 1653, Britain's first written constitution, made Cromwell Lord Protector. Cromwell could not work with his parliaments either, dissolving them in 1655 and 1658, and he relied on the army, especially under the Major-Generals. In 1657 Parliament offered him the crown in the Humble Petition and Advice. He refused the title, but accepted a second chamber and the right to name his successor, so the Protectorate was becoming more like a monarchy. This suggests that many in Parliament had come to believe that a king, limited by law, was the best way to keep order.

In the long term the period shaped the settlement that followed. After Cromwell's death the regime collapsed, and Charles II was restored in 1660 after promising in the Declaration of Breda to leave disputed issues to Parliament. The prerogative courts were not restored and the King depended on Parliament for money. The governing classes now feared both republican chaos and military rule, so they supported a monarchy that worked with Parliament. When James II threatened this balance, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the Bill of Rights of 1689 confirmed that Parliament, not the monarch, held supreme power.

Model answer

Individuals have played a very important part in bringing about political change, because rulers and their opponents made the decisions that shaped how and when change happened. However, individuals usually succeeded only when wider factors such as war, economic change, religion or mass protest created the right conditions, so the role of the individual was important but rarely the main factor.

Some individuals clearly brought about major changes. Simon de Montfort led the barons against Henry III, defeated him at Lewes in 1264 and summoned the Parliament of 1265, which included knights and burgesses for the first time. Henry VIII, with Thomas Cromwell, broke with Rome, made himself Supreme Head of the Church and dissolved the monasteries; when the Pilgrimage of Grace challenged him in 1536, his deception and the execution of about 200 rebels strengthened royal authority. Oliver Cromwell led the New Model Army to victory, played a central role in the execution of Charles I and ruled as Lord Protector. In the nineteenth century Earl Grey pushed through the Great Reform Act of 1832, Peel repealed the Corn Laws in 1846, and Disraeli passed the Second Reform Act in 1867. In the twentieth century Lloyd George's People's Budget led to the Parliament Act of 1911, and Margaret Thatcher's trade union laws changed the balance of power between unions and government.

Individuals could also bring about change through their mistakes. Charles I's belief in the Divine Right of Kings, his Personal Rule and his attempt to arrest the Five Members in 1642 helped to cause the Civil War. Robert Aske's trust in Henry VIII led him to disband the pilgrims, which allowed Henry to crush the rising.

However, these individuals depended on wider factors. Grey succeeded in 1832 because industrial change had created new towns without MPs and because the riots of 1831 and the Days of May made reform seem necessary. Lloyd George's government gave women the vote in 1918 largely because of the First World War and the years of campaigning before it. Henry VIII's Reformation was made possible by Parliament and by religious change across Europe, and Charles I's defeat owed more to Parliament's control of London and its money than to Cromwell alone. Religion was crucial in the 1530s and 1640s, and ideas of democracy, spread by the Chartists and suffrage campaigners, explain why the vote was extended. Mass movements also mattered: the Anti-Corn Law League's organisation helped persuade Peel, and the suffrage campaign involved hundreds of thousands of people, not just the Pankhursts.

Individuals who opposed the government often failed when conditions were against them. The Levellers' leaders, such as John Lilburne, could not overcome the army leaders, and the Chartist leaders could not persuade Parliament. This suggests that individuals were most effective when they held power or when wider forces were on their side.

Overall, individuals were often decisive in shaping the timing and form of political change, as Henry VIII, Cromwell and Grey show. But the main causes of change lay in wider factors, especially war, economic change, religion and ideas, which created the opportunities that individuals used. The role of the individual was therefore an important factor, but not the main one.