Absolute monarchs, and how England's Parliament limited the king
Grade 10 Social Studies Worksheet - Building Confidence
Circle the best answer.
Read this first
Use this
Cards A to D. Card A, two lines of the Bill of Rights (1689), original spelling, a primary source (as printed in Robertson, Select Statutes, 1904, p. 77): "That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without consent of Parlyament is illegall." and "That Election of Members of Parlyament ought to be free." Parliament passed the Bill of Rights in December 1689. Card B, a summary in our words, written today: On February 6, 1689, Parliament resolved that James II had abdicated and offered the crown to William and Mary together. A Declaration of Rights was read to them on February 13. At their coronation in April 1689 they swore to govern by the laws Parliament agreed on. The Bill of Rights was mostly concerned with James II's misdeeds. Card C, a summary in our words: Parliament resisted exempting Catholics from the Test Act and was dissolved in July 1687. That year James II's Declaration of Indulgence suspended the laws against people outside the Church of England. His son was born in June 1688, giving England a Catholic heir. An invitation to William of Orange from seven leading men is dated June 30, 1688. William landed at Brixham on November 5, 1688, and James left for France. Card D, a summary in our words: Louis XIV was king of France from 1643 to 1715, 72 years. He ruled by divine right, answerable to no one but God. In 1682 he moved his court to Versailles, where nobles lived close to him and "could no longer plot against him."
Card A is two lines of the Bill of Rights, passed in December 1689. Ari asks what it can show about James II's rule in 1687.
- How Parliament saw his rule in 1687, since the lines were written that year
- That Parliament called suspending laws illegal; card C reports James II doing it
- Who was offered the crown in 1689, since the Bill of Rights followed that offer
- That James II suspended laws, since a statute bans what a ruler has already done
Card B is a modern summary of 1689. Bo wants to know what William and Mary privately thought of the limits on them. Is card B enough?
- No; it reports the oath they swore in public, not what they thought
- Yes; the Bill of Rights shows they welcomed its limits when it passed in December
- Yes; card C shows William came to England in order to limit royal power
- Yes; swearing to govern by Parliament's laws shows they accepted the limits willingly
A student says the Declaration of Indulgence repealed the laws against people outside the Church of England. What does card C say, Jun asks?
- It repealed them until William landed in 1688, and then they returned
- It repealed them in July 1687, the month Parliament was dissolved
- It repealed them, since a king who sets laws aside has ended them for good
- It suspended them; card C does not say Parliament repealed them
Which claim do cards A and C together back, Kira asks?
- The Declaration of Indulgence is one of the acts named in the Bill of Rights lines
- Parliament objected to suspending laws, and James II did suspend laws in 1687
- James II lost his throne because he suspended laws in 1687
- Parliament passed the ban on suspending laws in 1687, to stop James II
A student says Versailles shows French kings accepted limits like England's. What do cards B and D show, Luz asks?
- Yes; card D says nobles at Versailles swore to govern by the laws Parliament agreed on
- No; Louis XIV reigned 72 years, far longer than William and Mary, so he ruled differently
- No; William and Mary swore to Parliament's laws, Louis XIV answered to God alone
- Partly; moving the court to Versailles shows Louis XIV chose to limit himself
Card C dates the Declaration of Indulgence to 1687. Card A says the ban on suspending laws came in 1689. What do the two cards show, Milo asks?
- The ban came two years after the practice, so it answers an earlier act
- The ban ended the practice in 1687, and the Bill merely recorded that fact
- Parliament issued the Declaration of Indulgence, as it later passed the Bill of Rights
- The ban came first, so it warned James II before he suspended any laws
Which order of events do cards B and C support, Noah asks?
- Parliament offers the crown, then William lands and James leaves for France
- William lands, James leaves, the son is born, Parliament offers the crown to William and Mary
- Son born, William lands, James leaves, Parliament says he abdicated, crown offered
- Son born, Parliament resolves James abdicated, William lands, then the crown is offered
Cards B and D both report a promise or claim about power. Pia asks how they differ.
- Both promised to share power, but Louis XIV made his promise in private, away from court
- Louis XIV swore to govern by Parliament's laws; William and Mary answered to God alone
- Card D gives a reign of 72 years and card B gives April 1689, so they differ in dates
- William and Mary swore to Parliament's laws; Louis XIV claimed to answer to God alone
Card C dates James II's son's birth to June 1688 and an invitation to William to June 30, 1688. Ren asks what that closeness in time shows.
- Under a month passed, so the plan to invite William began in June and was made in haste
- The birth caused the invitation, since it came first and only a few weeks separate them
- The invitation was meant to make William king, since he was crowned in 1689
- The invitation followed within weeks, which fits the heir mattering but does not prove it
Louis XIV became king in 1643 and moved his court to Versailles in 1682. Tala asks what that gap shows about how Louis XIV's power began.
- His power rested on divine right alone, since Versailles was just a late addition
- Versailles came under half-way through his reign, so it began his power
- Versailles made his power absolute, since the court moved after 39 years of rule
- Versailles came 39 years into a 72-year reign, so it did not begin his power