Despite the emphasis placed on the executive as the primary body to carry out the motive principle of the given prerogative, one may argue in concordance with Lockean theory that the scope for such prerogative is at the behest of the infrastructure of the legislature, thus allowing for the body to play a key regulatory role. Henceforth, it must be taken into consideration that Locke refrains from calling prerogative executive power, rather Locke explicitly makes prerogative into a right of nature.

In spite of Locke’s emphasis on the scope of prerogative right under an executive body, it may be said that such power is not an inherent right, therefore allowing the deliberative assemblies to close in on executive individuals through the use of authority to make laws for a political entity through the use of primary legislation. In this way the balance of power between the two branches of government allows one to maintain Locke’s theory, in contempt with the belief that such a system would endowing the executive with too much power relative to the legislature.

However, it is critical that we consider the basis for Locke’s literature, as set in its given historical context; therefore in order to critically examine and thoroughly interpret Locke’s assessment of the scope of executive prerogative, it is necessary to first understand the context of John Locke’s work as influenced by his political surroundings. Set in the context of mid to late-16th century British politics, Locke’s work is largely influenced by the political landscape of the English Civil Wars, and the later struggle of the monarchy during the Exclusion Crisis followed by the ascension of William of Orange to the throne.