The English are monarchists.

Even at the height of the puritan revolution

doctrinaire republicans were few in number. The early modern political
nation believed in responsible, even balanced, monarchy and expected
monarchs to respect the law, liberties, and property of their subjects.
English laws "are our ancient title to our lives, liberties, and estates; and
without which this world were a wilderness."18 The ill-defined liberties
protected by the law were essentially negative: the English propertied class
saw itself as free from the encroachments of both the crown and those
without property. Unfortunately Charles I and his two sons gave the
English a distinct feeling that their law, liberties, and property were under
threat. Although it is often asked whether the Stuarts aspired to an
absolute monarchy on the model of that of their French Bourbon cousins,
this is a misjudged question. Stuart intentions, or indeed abilities, were far
less pertinent than the interpretation their subjects placed on their actions.
The revolution of 1688 was essentially defensive. All who made the
revolution, Whig or Tory, were convinced that the English enjoyed their
liberty and property "as a right inherent in themselves, and never
transferred, alienated or conveyed to any king."19 In other words, the
revolution was a reassertion that their rights were inalienable personal
property, not the gift of a ruler. The people were supposed to have a
"property" in their laws - laws, after all, made for the public good - and
in their religion, and neither of these properties could be touched by a
king acting without parliament. There is no doubt that the revolution
located sovereignty in "the king-in-parliament," that is, in laws made by
parliament and king together. The reality was plain to anyone who
compared Henry Vffl's or Edward VI's ability to impose a religion on
their subjects with the fate of James II or the stipulation in 1701 that the
monarch be an Anglican. In 1689 parliament became the guarantor of
English rights. "We have had such violation of our liberties in the last
reigns, that the Prince of Orange cannot take it ill, if we make conditions
to secure ourselves for our future," asserted one MP in 1689.20 But the
constitutional conditions were nebulous and needed constant reassertion.
Parliament's real power grew through the more gradual process of
political and procedural maturation.
Despite, or perhaps because of, its successes in the 1640s, parliament did
not see itself as part of the government of the country after 1660. John
Miller has argued that parliament was emphatically not seizing the
initiative during the 1660s and 1670s - which simply makes the developments
after 1678 all the more novel.21 The pressure for the statutory