Once we have developed all the points of our work, we must add the general conclusions that we obtain from our study of the medieval parliament in England and we will present them following the expository scheme of the index: first, we see everything related to the historical context, followed by the regulatory framework; thirdly, the topic on the internal aspects of the organ and a final section on exceptionalism or its absence within the English space.
Regarding the historical context, it is worth highlighting its tripartite development within the thirteenth century with the reign of John I, Henry III and Eduardo I, which has allowed us to know the political evolution of the Kingdom of England as a means to know the changes that occurred within the monarchy and the elites to give rise to two noble revolts that crystallized in their respective constitutional changes.
Finally, we see how during these reigns the Plantagenet dynasty lived its worst moments and all this due to the loss of the Angevino Empire, which had endowed it with great power, wealth and prestige, not forgetting the unusual weakness of John I and Henry III, never known by the founder of the dynasty in England Henry II. Juan I and Enrique III, not ceasing to try to recover those territories, moved away from a nobility more concerned with English affairs than with continental ones and hoarded the royal power by exploiting the English counties for an issue that did not concern anyone but themselves and it was their loneliness that ended up forcing a noble rebellion, which fed on the provincial and local sectors forcing the reform of the kingdom. Eduardo I took the witness of his grandfather and his father and was much more conciliatory, which allowed him to reinforce the real authority lost by his predecessors and carried out reforms, but from the real perspective, without yielding an iota of sovereignty.
As for the creation of the constitutional corpus, we have pointed out numerous legal texts, which were supporting the creation of parliament and it has been said, and we share it, that from the Magna Carta, through the Oxford and Westminster Provisions to the different statutes Edwardians, what was sought was to temper and soften the rigor of the prevailing Norman feudal system that had been brought by the conquerors and, therefore, retake the old principles of the old Anglo-Saxon law, much more egalitarian. Similarly, the origins of the parliament must be sought in the “common council of our kingdom” enshrined in the letter, in that search for consensus among the English state forces to make a policy representative of the interests of the community.
Knowing who can reach pacts with the king is important and therefore, the generation of the kingdom community and its origin must see them in the great council of 1225, who was the creator of the pact because he clarified who could decide, at a special moment as it is a minority of a monarch and the emergency situation for a war against France, which involved joining everyone’s efforts to save the kingdom. In addition, within this great pact, the maximum “quod omnes tangit” is of vital importance for the call of the representatives of the counties and of the cities and in that ideological baggage brought by the Church, it is necessary to emphasize the formation of the presumption within the powerful that they could not reach that consensus without giving representativeness to all social sectors that mostly suffered royal impositions.
Likewise, we must discard the myth of the model parliament, since we have seen that because of the tax interests of the kings and the needs of support of the nobles, as well as the ecclesiastical maxim, the knights and bourgeois were called before the parliament and although its presence is important, even more so is the attainment of political power by the parliament although only for We do not want to forget the political marginalization of the peasantry in a historical moment in which they had no right but quite the opposite, their deprivation of liberty and dependence, prevented their political development and their prostration continued until the 19th century.
We do not want to forget the political marginalization of the peasantry in a historical moment in which they had no right but quite the opposite, their deprivation of liberty and dependence, prevented their political development and their prostration continued until the 19th century.
If we write about the third leg of these conclusions, the internal organization of the parliament, we must highlight, above all, the representation between two groups, the lords and the commons, which form two economically and socially differentiated groups in the Middle Ages, which results after all in political inequality, so it is likely that many representatives of the commons did not influence the king, but for this we must see in the long term the events of the seventeenth century when The Bill of Rights (1689) was approved being the parliament of medieval origin its center of reaction against the royal tyranny. The parliamentary functions were also very precarious in the Middle Ages, but it was undoubtedly the fiscal control, at the end of the availability of money by the king, which resulted in the pressure capacity of the parliament to the crown, being decisive, in this point, the Commons as the majority force of the tributaries. Likewise, a ceremonial and a lavishness that benefited the king and