‘Was William III a weaker monarch between 1688-1702 than both James II and Charles II in the years
1681-1688?’
Between the years 1681-1702, England witnessed the reign of three monarchs in Charles II, James II
and William III. By 1702 William was undoubtedly a weaker monarch than both James and Charles.
William had permitted the slow erosion of the crown’s powers between 1688-1702, from the
beginning of his reign with the 1690 bill of rights up to the end with the 1701 act of settlement in
order to gain parliamentary support and finance for the nine years war (1688-1697). William’s aim
was not centred on preserving the concept of divine right but rather focused on defending
Protestantism from Louis XIV’s Catholicism. Charles II in this period on the other hand was arguably
the strongest Stuart monarch, ruling without parliament from 1681-1685 due to the end of the
exclusion crisis and receiving financial aid from the French King Louis XIV. James II also remained a
strong monarch between 1685-1688 in contrast to William, inheriting Charles’ strong position and
was able to rule without much say from parliament. Overall, William III was in fact a weaker monarch
than Charles II and James II.
Charles II’s reign during 1681-1685 was characterised by strength in the powers of the monarchy.
Charles was now able to rule without the input or hindrance of parliament, gaining financial
independence. Following the exclusion crisis of 1679-81, Charles dissolved his fifth parliament in
March 1681 as he was now able to secure an annual sum of £115,000 and an immediate £40,000
from French Catholic King Louis XIV. This was a stark contrast to William, who in 1690 accepted £1.2
million which led to the creation of the public accounts commission in the same year, which
essentially consolidated parliament’s control over the crown’s finances. Charles’ financial
independence from parliament means that he was a stronger monarch than William III. It also meant
that Charles did not have to accept any acts that he hadn’t fully agreed with. Furthermore, Charles II
had the support of the majority of his subjects following the exclusion crisis, with popular support for
toryism having been created as a result of tory propaganda in 1681 portraying exclusionists as men
who wanted to restore the republic. This meant that loyalism had returned in 1681 and only worked
to strengthen Charles II’s position. Charles II’s ability to have full control over his finances in the 1681-
1685 period, and his strong support from his subjects, meant that he was a stronger monarch than
William III.
James II was also a stronger monarch than William III, as he ruled between 1685-188 with little say
from parliament, similar to Charles II before him. James II’s accession to the throne in 1685 saw him
in an extremely strong position, due to the strength of the Stuart monarchy in alliance with the tory
reaction. He had also inherited no debt from Charles II. James II also had a strong army which only
aided in consolidating the strength of his position. The strength of James’ army of 20,000 men was
exercised in the victories against Argyll and Monmouth’s uprisings in May and July 1685 respectively.
Despite James’ aims of implementing a catholic status quo in England being in direct opposition to
that of the political nation, following parliament’s prorogation in 1685 as a result of opposition to
James’s appointing nearly 90 catholic army officers (sparking fears of absolutism), they had little to
no say on how he could rule. James’ position arguably did show signs of weakening as early as 1686
however, with England seeing a plethora of anti-Catholic riots occur as a result of James’ disregard
for statute law expressed in the Godden v Hales case and removal of 6 bishops in July 1686. James’
strength as a monarch was completely eroded by 1688 however, via the glorious revolution caused
by the immortal seven’s invitation to William III to take the throne, motivated by a resentment
shared by the political nation to James’ increasingly apparent inclination towards catholic absolutism
1681-1688?’
Between the years 1681-1702, England witnessed the reign of three monarchs in Charles II, James II
and William III. By 1702 William was undoubtedly a weaker monarch than both James and Charles.
William had permitted the slow erosion of the crown’s powers between 1688-1702, from the
beginning of his reign with the 1690 bill of rights up to the end with the 1701 act of settlement in
order to gain parliamentary support and finance for the nine years war (1688-1697). William’s aim
was not centred on preserving the concept of divine right but rather focused on defending
Protestantism from Louis XIV’s Catholicism. Charles II in this period on the other hand was arguably
the strongest Stuart monarch, ruling without parliament from 1681-1685 due to the end of the
exclusion crisis and receiving financial aid from the French King Louis XIV. James II also remained a
strong monarch between 1685-1688 in contrast to William, inheriting Charles’ strong position and
was able to rule without much say from parliament. Overall, William III was in fact a weaker monarch
than Charles II and James II.
Charles II’s reign during 1681-1685 was characterised by strength in the powers of the monarchy.
Charles was now able to rule without the input or hindrance of parliament, gaining financial
independence. Following the exclusion crisis of 1679-81, Charles dissolved his fifth parliament in
March 1681 as he was now able to secure an annual sum of £115,000 and an immediate £40,000
from French Catholic King Louis XIV. This was a stark contrast to William, who in 1690 accepted £1.2
million which led to the creation of the public accounts commission in the same year, which
essentially consolidated parliament’s control over the crown’s finances. Charles’ financial
independence from parliament means that he was a stronger monarch than William III. It also meant
that Charles did not have to accept any acts that he hadn’t fully agreed with. Furthermore, Charles II
had the support of the majority of his subjects following the exclusion crisis, with popular support for
toryism having been created as a result of tory propaganda in 1681 portraying exclusionists as men
who wanted to restore the republic. This meant that loyalism had returned in 1681 and only worked
to strengthen Charles II’s position. Charles II’s ability to have full control over his finances in the 1681-
1685 period, and his strong support from his subjects, meant that he was a stronger monarch than
William III.
James II was also a stronger monarch than William III, as he ruled between 1685-188 with little say
from parliament, similar to Charles II before him. James II’s accession to the throne in 1685 saw him
in an extremely strong position, due to the strength of the Stuart monarchy in alliance with the tory
reaction. He had also inherited no debt from Charles II. James II also had a strong army which only
aided in consolidating the strength of his position. The strength of James’ army of 20,000 men was
exercised in the victories against Argyll and Monmouth’s uprisings in May and July 1685 respectively.
Despite James’ aims of implementing a catholic status quo in England being in direct opposition to
that of the political nation, following parliament’s prorogation in 1685 as a result of opposition to
James’s appointing nearly 90 catholic army officers (sparking fears of absolutism), they had little to
no say on how he could rule. James’ position arguably did show signs of weakening as early as 1686
however, with England seeing a plethora of anti-Catholic riots occur as a result of James’ disregard
for statute law expressed in the Godden v Hales case and removal of 6 bishops in July 1686. James’
strength as a monarch was completely eroded by 1688 however, via the glorious revolution caused
by the immortal seven’s invitation to William III to take the throne, motivated by a resentment
shared by the political nation to James’ increasingly apparent inclination towards catholic absolutism
