Actually the English Parliament has expressed a view regarding the succession at varying points before the Act of Settlement excluding a number of descendants of Charles I and James II from the throne.
You can argue it was one of the many powers that Parliament slowly accrued over the decades or became accustomed to believing that Parliament had a right to express a view or enact legislation when it believed it was in the country's interest to regulate the succession.
Or put simply when you had clear and obvious line of succession as you did from Henry II to Richard II then there was no need for anyone to interfere - from 1399 to 1603 there was very little clear line of succession due to usurpation, dynastic change or a lack of an obvious heir - so Parliament was used by successive monarch's to regulate the succession to their preferences.
During the Wars of the Roses Parliament was used by various King's to post legitimate their claim after deposing their rival - it was last used in that way by Henry VII in 1485 when his first Parliament recognised him as King by Conquest (not by right of descent or by right of his wife).
Henry VIII's marital adventures meant Parliament again was needed to approve new succession laws that either included or excluded Henry's children and relatives he had either declared illegitimate or in case of his sister Margaret disliked.
The culmination of that was Parliament granting him the right to name an heir in his final will.
That will was unsuccessfully set aside by Edward VI when he named Lady Jane Grey his heir (in part because his device had not gone through Parliament, that his father's right to name and heir in his will applied only to him and because his half sister Mary was viewed as the legitimate heir)
Henry's will was forgotten in 1603 when Elizabeth's throne passed to the senior heir general of Henry VII - James VI. However the heir in law was either Edward Seymour Viscount Beauchamp (if you accept the legitimacy of his parents marriage which Elizabeth didn't though James VI clearly did), or Lady Anne Stanley.
Parliament on that occassion rubber stamped the widely considered obvious and most advantageous successor.
From 1603 through to the restoration in 1660 - you again had very clear and obvious succession in place but from the 1660s as it became clear Charles II would most likely be succeeded by James Duke of York then Parliament again began to question the issue largely because of James public Catholicism which was by then anathema to the vast majority of the population.
Most would argue the senior dynastic heir of the Stuart dynasty (and certainly to the throne of Scotland) is Franz of Bavaria
He is also the senior heir general of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York and therefore the senior Tudor and Planagenet claimant to the English throne.
However the problem facing England at the Glorious Revolution ignoring prejudice was the fact that Roman Catholic's owe allegiance to a foreign Prince (the Pope) - in the views of many a Roman Catholic on the throne undermined England's independence and seriously undermined the English Church.
You can argue it was one of the many powers that Parliament slowly accrued over the decades or became accustomed to believing that Parliament had a right to express a view or enact legislation when it believed it was in the country's interest to regulate the succession.
Or put simply when you had clear and obvious line of succession as you did from Henry II to Richard II then there was no need for anyone to interfere - from 1399 to 1603 there was very little clear line of succession due to usurpation, dynastic change or a lack of an obvious heir - so Parliament was used by successive monarch's to regulate the succession to their preferences.
During the Wars of the Roses Parliament was used by various King's to post legitimate their claim after deposing their rival - it was last used in that way by Henry VII in 1485 when his first Parliament recognised him as King by Conquest (not by right of descent or by right of his wife).
Henry VIII's marital adventures meant Parliament again was needed to approve new succession laws that either included or excluded Henry's children and relatives he had either declared illegitimate or in case of his sister Margaret disliked.
The culmination of that was Parliament granting him the right to name an heir in his final will.
That will was unsuccessfully set aside by Edward VI when he named Lady Jane Grey his heir (in part because his device had not gone through Parliament, that his father's right to name and heir in his will applied only to him and because his half sister Mary was viewed as the legitimate heir)
Henry's will was forgotten in 1603 when Elizabeth's throne passed to the senior heir general of Henry VII - James VI. However the heir in law was either Edward Seymour Viscount Beauchamp (if you accept the legitimacy of his parents marriage which Elizabeth didn't though James VI clearly did), or Lady Anne Stanley.
Parliament on that occassion rubber stamped the widely considered obvious and most advantageous successor.
From 1603 through to the restoration in 1660 - you again had very clear and obvious succession in place but from the 1660s as it became clear Charles II would most likely be succeeded by James Duke of York then Parliament again began to question the issue largely because of James public Catholicism which was by then anathema to the vast majority of the population.
Most would argue the senior dynastic heir of the Stuart dynasty (and certainly to the throne of Scotland) is Franz of Bavaria
He is also the senior heir general of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York and therefore the senior Tudor and Planagenet claimant to the English throne.
However the problem facing England at the Glorious Revolution ignoring prejudice was the fact that Roman Catholic's owe allegiance to a foreign Prince (the Pope) - in the views of many a Roman Catholic on the throne undermined England's independence and seriously undermined the English Church.