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 James II suspended laws, since a statute bans what a ruler has already done
- Who was offered the crown in 1689, since the Bill of Rights followed that offer
- That Parliament called suspending laws illegal; card C reports James II doing it
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; swearing to govern by Parliament's laws shows they accepted the limits willingly
- Yes; card C shows William came to England in order to limit royal power
Card D says nobles at Versailles "could no longer plot against him." Esme asks whether that shows nobody in France resisted Louis XIV after 1682.
- Yes; if nobles could not plot, then no one in France could resist him
- No; it describes nobles at court, so it cannot speak for everyone in France
- Yes; a reign of 72 years shows that resistance had ended by 1682
- No; a summary written today cannot report events of 1682 at all, whatever it covers
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 suspended them; card C does not say Parliament repealed them
- It repealed them, since a king who sets laws aside has ended them for good
- It repealed them in July 1687, the month Parliament was dissolved
Which claim do cards A and C together back, Kira asks?
- James II lost his throne because he suspended laws in 1687
- Parliament objected to suspending laws, and James II did suspend laws in 1687
- Parliament passed the ban on suspending laws in 1687, to stop James II
- The Declaration of Indulgence is one of the acts named in the Bill of Rights lines
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 came first, so it warned James II before he suspended any laws
- 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
Cards B and D both report a promise or claim about power. Pia asks how they differ.
- Card D gives a reign of 72 years and card B gives April 1689, so they differ in dates
- Louis XIV swore to govern by Parliament's laws; William and Mary answered to God alone
- Both promised to share power, but Louis XIV made his promise in private, away from court
- 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.
- 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
- 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
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.
- Versailles made his power absolute, since the court moved after 39 years of rule
- Versailles came under half-way through his reign, so it began his power
- His power rested on divine right alone, since Versailles was just a late addition
- Versailles came 39 years into a 72-year reign, so it did not begin his power
William and Mary swore the oath in April 1689. The Bill of Rights passed in December 1689. Zee asks what the gap shows about limits in April.
- The April oath bound them to Parliament's laws eight months before the Bill
- They had no limits until December, so they ruled freely for eight months
- The Bill of Rights was drafted first, so the April oath merely repeated its limits
- The oath and the Bill were the same text, passed in two parts, April and December
