A Question about British Regencies

The king (through a suitable mouthpiece) can provide a very sound philosophical justification for increased royal power.

The idea of a separation of the powers of the state into legislative, executive, and judicial branches is more commonly associated with the 18C, partly because it is enshrined in the US constitution. But it was first developed by John Locke around the 1670s.

Now, Charles may argue that, under such a construction, Parliament, which should be restricted to the legislative function, has lately usurped much of the functions of both the executive power (the ministers); directing and ordering the King's ministers in wholly executive matters, and of the judiciary - parliament in this period was noted for continually resolving that such and such was illegal.

The King might suggest that Parliament, by good Whig teaching was grown overmighty and should be 'encouraged' to sick to its proper constitutional role of approving new legislation and taxes. Leaving government to the King's ministers.

Of course, it is essential that the King first secure his increased power then bring forward a philosophical justification for it.
 
On the Palace front look at Blenheim Palace, while built for the Duke of Malborough rather than a King it was on a Regal scale and budget and I think the various fights and fueds over it give you an idea of how rebuilding the Palace of Whitehall would go. It's very easy to imagine that in the aftermath of some victory Parliament votes a large sum to build a victory Palace only for it to turn into a running sore as like every other mega-project in history it inevitably goes over budget and schedule.
 
The king (through a suitable mouthpiece) can provide a very sound philosophical justification for increased royal power.

The idea of a separation of the powers of the state into legislative, executive, and judicial branches is more commonly associated with the 18C, partly because it is enshrined in the US constitution. But it was first developed by John Locke around the 1670s.

Now, Charles may argue that, under such a construction, Parliament, which should be restricted to the legislative function, has lately usurped much of the functions of both the executive power (the ministers); directing and ordering the King's ministers in wholly executive matters, and of the judiciary - parliament in this period was noted for continually resolving that such and such was illegal.

The King might suggest that Parliament, by good Whig teaching was grown overmighty and should be 'encouraged' to sick to its proper constitutional role of approving new legislation and taxes. Leaving government to the King's ministers.

Of course, it is essential that the King first secure his increased power then bring forward a philosophical justification for it.

This is good and I might use this later. Though to be honest I'm thinking of either waiting on Whitehall until the reign of the King's son. And as to rebuilding it, I'm considering doing what was done at Hampton Court, demolish and rebuilt the Palace a section at a time. That way the Court and Government aren't homeless and Parliament won't bitch about the huge expenditures. Plus most of the famous architects, like Wren, will be mighty busy in the late '60s and early '70s.:D

I'll have to figure out which plan for Whitehall I want to use though.
 
Top