How is the British Constitution most accurately described, given its unique historical development?

Okay, here's an explanation of why "Unwritten" is the most accurate way to describe the British Constitution. The UK doesn't have a single, codified document like the US Constitution. Instead, it's built up over centuries through a combination of statute law passed by Parliament, common law established by judges through court rulings, conventions (unwritten rules and practices), and authoritative works like Erskine May's "Parliamentary Practice." Think of Magna Carta in 1215, which limited the power of the monarch, or the Bill of Rights in 1689, which established parliamentary supremacy. These are key pieces, but they're just parts of a larger, evolving system. So, while some elements are written down in various acts and documents, the constitution as a whole isn't contained in one place. That's why "Unwritten" is the best description. The other options might be tempting because some aspects *are* preserved and documented, but they don't capture the full picture of its unique, gradual development.