What can be introduced is that the Monarchy was transformed and was in a fundamentally different place in 1702 (introducing the argument shown). Firstly, conduct an analysis of James II's rule-showing how he thought (based upon previous Kings that can be linked in as evidence) that the King could effectively dictate the religion of the people-using evidence such as the packing of parliaments as to their response to the Test Acts. You then have to show that in the Revolution settlement that the Parliament/convention effectively dictated the terms to William III-showcasing a different balance of power. In the third paragraph, you would show how this worked in practice-looking at how, for example, the financial settlement forced William to keep coming back to Parliament for money-previous Kings would never have to except in times of war. Finally, present a paragraph about foreign policy, where the wars against France and Britain becoming a new power are in contrast to the far weaker position that James had been in (effectively being in their pocket). Conclude by summing up these factors and once more stating that this represents a huge transformation in the Monarchy.