All this happened, more or less.

most profound constitutional consequences. First, in order to carry out his much more burdensome civil and military duties, the monarch, after a painful but vain struggle, had been forced to call parliaments annually. Secondly because of the state's need to supplement taxes regularly and substantially with various forms of short-, medium- and long-term borrowing, the state had been forced to take into account the views and interests of the moneyed classes and the nature of the institutions which its borrowing had very largely brought into being.
...
Another aspect of the financial revolution has in general been overlooked. It was not simply that the monarch had to borrow that limited his power. When paper money began to exceed metallic money the power of the royal purse became thereafter permanently, irreversibly and progressively diluted. The Royal Mint had always been a main .source as well as a symbol of royal power. Money creation had always been the undoubted and exclusive prerogative of the kin~, As recently as 1630 Charles I had shown how to gain independence of Parliament, at least for a time, by bringing Spanish bullion to his mint. But those days were gone for ever as soon as money could be created independently of the monarch, and even of the monarch as advised by his ministers.

A History of Money, by Glyn Davies. U of Wales Press. 1994. p.280-1.