The place to start on English political thought (particularly on the constitution) is J.G.A. Pocock. His first book The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law is a classic. The English "discovered" their ancient constitution in the early seventeenth century. They imagined it as an uninterrupted series of customs ingrained in the English culture. However, throughout the seventeenth century, they began to discover discontinuities in English history (including invasions, the growth of a "feudal" structure, and the development of parliament). By the time of the Glorious Revolution, we see the results of this doubt in Locke's ahistorical theory of politics.

More recent scholarship has complicated Pocock's scheme (particularly in the lead-up to the Civil War). Glenn Burgess argues that common law, ecclesiastic law, and civil law all coexisted within a consensus. Each mode of law had its own separate realm (domestic, church, and international, respectively). Charles failed to distinguish between these different languages of law. His misuse of the generally understood paradigm raised questions about the limitation of the king's power and ultimately led to the war.

J. P. Sommerville disagrees and instead suggests a model of conflict leading up to the Civil War. Some people believed in the divine right of an absolutist monarch, while others believed in the authority of parliament under the constitution.

I think you need to specify your time period more. The answer would be substantially different for the time before Cromwell, the Cromwell period, the restauration and again the time after the Glorious revolution.