[Political Interest]

Was the development of the English parliament an inevitability? Apparently from what I have read there was not always a powerful parliament in the UK. It first appeared in full form in the 13th century with the Magna Carta. Even then there was not the same level of liberty as granted to citizens today. So is democracy the only authentic choice for the English as some liberals claim? If I am not mistaken the conflict between monarch and parliament was what led to the English Civil War.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

The first parliament appeared a bit after the Magna Carta - during the revolt against Henry III (John's son), lead by Simon de Montfort. I don't know exactly when you'd say it reached 'its full form', but it's relatively unimportant until Elizabeth I - the first time I can think of a monarch having to actually persuade parliament about something (religion). Through all of the Wars of the Roses, typical history teaching never even mentions parliament - it's just a question of which barons are on which side. Yes, the conflict between monarch and parliament led to the English Civil War, but it's worth remembering the Scottish civil war started before that, as a religious dispute. We might wonder whether the English parliament would have risen against the king if Scotland hadn't done so already.

I think parliaments have been pretty inevitable in most countries. Absolute monarchs can't hold on forever.

[Decky]

I think parliaments have been pretty inevitable in most countries. Absolute monarchs can't hold on forever.

This, Russia is one of the few countries that held on to absolute monarchy (the Durma had very little power) and look where that got it.

[Figlio di Moros]

Far as I remember, parliament evolved from the old Anglo-Saxon Moots, and existed in some form or another. I don't think Britain ever had trully absolute Monarchs, but parliament had very different form and function before the English Civil War, and had evolved a bit throughout the ten centuries leading up to it.