How convincing do you find the view that the crown was heavily dependent on parliament?

In light of differing interpretations, how convincing do you find the view that, as a result
of the financial settlement of the Glorious Revolution, the crown was “heavily dependent
on parliament?”

The crown was “heavily dependent on parliament” because of its need to finance the 9
Years War, which created the conditions for the financial settlement of the Glorious
Revolution. Extract 11 shares this point of view, agreeing that the crown was “heavily
dependent on parliament” as a result of the financial settlement of the Glorious Revolution.
In contrast, Extract 3 claims that the crown was only dependent on parliament to a certain
extent, and that this was the result of “the subsequent war against France,” rather than the
revolution itself.
Extract 3 states that the monarchy “became limited, bureaucratic and
parliamentary,” therefore acknowledging that it was dependent on parliament to a degree.
Harris goes on to claim that “it became a monarchy with more real power,” hence
disagreeing with the argument that the crown was “heavily dependent on parliament;”
rather suggesting that the crown was only partially dependent on parliament as it still
retained significant prerogative powers. Furthermore, Harris attributes the changes in the
monarchy to “the creation of the fiscal-militant state” rather than “the result of the Glorious
Revolution itself.” Therefore, not only does the extract disagree that the crown became
“heavily dependent on parliament,” it also disagrees that any dependence of the crown on
parliament was the result of the financial settlement of the Glorious Revolution; claiming
instead for this partial dependence to be a result of the 9 Years War. However, arguably the
9 Years War dictated many terms of the financial settlement of the Glorious Revolution, and
these terms did demand that the crown be “heavily dependent on parliament.” From this
perspective, despite Harris’ claims, it is still convincing that the crown was “heavily
dependent on parliament” as a result of the revolution’s financial settlement.
Extract 11 states that the crown was “heavily dependent on parliament.” Whilst
Coward acknowledges that “England under William III… became a major European power”
he also states that the monarchy had to pay a “constitutional price” for this new financial
power; the result of which bound the crown to parliament. Coward is not denying that the
crown became more powerful than it was before the Glorious Revolution, rather he argues
that the crown would not have come into this new power and wealth without majorly
relying on parliament. Extract 11 is convincing in arguing that this heavy dependence of the
crown on parliament was a result of the “financial measures” of the Glorious Revolution.
Specifically, Coward cites “the King’s debt becoming National debt” as major reason for the
crown becoming “heavily dependent on parliament.” The creation of “the National Debt”
was part of the financial settlement of the Glorious Revolution, therefore the extract is
implicitly attributing the crown’s heavy reliance on parliament to the settlement of 1688-9.
The primary issue on which the sources disagree is the crown’s power over
parliament. Harris argues that the crown “became a monarchy with more real power” whilst
Coward argues that the crown had to make “huge constitutional concessions” to
parliament. Extract 3 is not as convincing as Extract 11 as it undermines its argument that
the crown was not “heavily dependent on parliament” by admitting that the monarchy was
indeed “parliamentary” and acknowledging “the conservatism of the Declaration of Rights.”
Extract 11 convincingly outlines the “limitation of the crown’s power of calling and
dismissing parliament.” Coward is implying that William III had less power over parliament
than the Caroline monarchs before him because he could not decide when parliament was