Britain, an Executive Monarch, deadline?

So, I've come up with a few theories on different types of monarchy, and for Britain, I was wondering when the latest possible time would be for the British monarch to be what I call an executive monarch, their powers would be:

· the monarch can call for fresh elections, can prorogue and dissolve Parliament as they wish,

· the monarch can appoint and dismiss the prime minister and cabinet ministers.

· government does not necessarily need to be the party with the largest number of seats in the house of commons, if the monarch thinks they will compromise national interest.

· The monarch cannot impose or collect new taxes without an Act of Parliament.

· The Monarch can suggest new laws to the Prime Minister, and can suspend cabinet if they feel cabinet is acting against the nation's interest. The monarch can also freely reject legislation put before them. And can introduce bills to Parliament.

· They can declare war with Parliament's approval, and can declare peace.

· They can sign treaties, and have those treaties change law, if they think it is worth while

· To add to this, in their role as head of the church, the monarch can appoint and dismiss clergymen and women, and can decide on doctrinal matters as they see fit.


Would this be possible up to the Glorious Revolution, the Civil War? Could the Hanoverians achieve it?
 
Sorry, we aren't getting more power after the Glorious revolution. From there monarch either maintain power (Mary, Anne, Victoria, George II) or lose power (George I, George III, William IV).

Given the very nature of the Glorious Revolution, I don't think any monarch would be able to consulate any more power than his predecessor.

Can prorogue parliament without approval, freely reject legislation put before the monarch, and can sign treaties that don't interfere with laws passed by parliament already are possible. They legally have that power now, but de facto lost them around George III's time.
 
Sorry, we aren't getting more power after the Glorious revolution. From there monarch either maintain power (Mary, Anne, Victoria, George II) or lose power (George I, George III, William IV).

Given the very nature of the Glorious Revolution, I don't think any monarch would be able to consulate any more power than his predecessor.

Can prorogue parliament without approval, freely reject legislation put before the monarch, and can sign treaties that don't interfere with laws passed by parliament already are possible. They legally have that power now, but de facto lost them around George III's time.

Alright, so essentially anything before the Glorious Revolution is possible for them to have and keep the powers I outlined before.
 
Alright, so essentially anything before the Glorious Revolution is possible for them to have and keep the powers I outlined before.

Yes.

Here are ways for monarchs to lose power:

Be insane (Henry VI, George III).

Lose prestige (John I, Richard II, James II, George IV and Edward II)

Lose to a rebellion (John I, Charles I, and James II).

Delegate power willingly (usually to supporters) (William II, Henry III, Edward VII, and George V).

However, up til the Glorious Revolution, monarchs have also taken back power. For example, for most of Henry III's reign, he probably had less power than Victoria! Later, he won some battles against rebellious barons and roughly Henry II's level. Closer to the end of his life, he delegated royal power willingly to a parliament more... Plantagenet friendly than he started with.

I can imagine James II defeating the rebels. He might have to increase some aristocratic privileges (delegating power willingly) to drum up some support on the Protestant fence sitters, especially when he raises his son as a Catholic.

Likewise, he would have to be careful and pick the times he fights a parliamentary majority since in the eyes of the Protestant population, he is a filthy Papist. However, this is not a permanent shift in power. While friendly towards Catholics, James II and his successors simply need to show they aren't intending to convert the Island back, and the prestige of the monarchy can rise, preventing further erosion. Like I mentioned before however, the traitors had a good propaganda machine even while James II was sitting on the throne, so it's a tightrope until years of prosperity and tolerance beats their slander.
 
Yes.

Here are ways for monarchs to lose power:

Be insane (Henry VI, George III).

Lose prestige (John I, Richard II, James II, George IV and Edward II)

Lose to a rebellion (John I, Charles I, and James II).

Delegate power willingly (usually to supporters) (William II, Henry III, Edward VII, and George V).

However, up til the Glorious Revolution, monarchs have also taken back power. For example, for most of Henry III's reign, he probably had less power than Victoria! Later, he won some battles against rebellious barons and roughly Henry II's level. Closer to the end of his life, he delegated royal power willingly to a parliament more... Plantagenet friendly than he started with.

I can imagine James II defeating the rebels. He might have to increase some aristocratic privileges (delegating power willingly) to drum up some support on the Protestant fence sitters, especially when he raises his son as a Catholic.

Likewise, he would have to be careful and pick the times he fights a parliamentary majority since in the eyes of the Protestant population, he is a filthy Papist. However, this is not a permanent shift in power. While friendly towards Catholics, James II and his successors simply need to show they aren't intending to convert the Island back, and the prestige of the monarchy can rise, preventing further erosion. Like I mentioned before however, the traitors had a good propaganda machine even while James II was sitting on the throne, so it's a tightrope until years of prosperity and tolerance beats their slander.

Okay that does make a lot of sense. The one thing I've always wondered is if Charles II had ahd a son or multiple sons, or if James II had had sons earlier on than when he became King, say around the 1660s or early 1670s mark, does this make Parliament less hostile toward him as it means that they'd only have to tolerate a Papist for a few years before having a Protestant King? And in the case of Charles II, I imagine they'd be fully Protestant and thus have far more bartering power.
 
Okay that does make a lot of sense. The one thing I've always wondered is if Charles II had ahd a son or multiple sons, or if James II had had sons earlier on than when he became King, say around the 1660s or early 1670s mark, does this make Parliament less hostile toward him as it means that they'd only have to tolerate a Papist for a few years before having a Protestant King? And in the case of Charles II, I imagine they'd be fully Protestant and thus have far more bartering power.

If Charles had a son, that would be the heir. If James II had a son being raised as a Protestant due to having that son earlier, I'd say maybe 75-25 that they put up with James II. Even if James II loses that fight if it happens, it might not be as bad as the Glorious Revolution. After all Richard II was deposed when he tried to escheat his cousin of his Lancaster land without any justification other than "I'm greedy today," the throne went to Henry IV and then Henry V, the latter of which was a strong king.

With a Catholic son like OTL... well a fight was going to happen sooner or later. The question is what do the Protestant fence sitters (which actually make up the majority of the nobles) do.

Don't forget earlier PODs that can avoid the scuffle. Jane Seymour living for one. Or perhaps henry VI wins the Hundred Years War (you'll need to find an excuse for a Britain with France to make a navy, or they'll end up falling behind Spain like OTL France did to Britain). Or maybe even as early as Henry II's sons. As long as we avoid anything like OTL Glorious Revolution, it's possible.
 
If Charles had a son, that would be the heir. If James II had a son being raised as a Protestant due to having that son earlier, I'd say maybe 75-25 that they put up with James II. Even if James II loses that fight if it happens, it might not be as bad as the Glorious Revolution. After all Richard II was deposed when he tried to escheat his cousin of his Lancaster land without any justification other than "I'm greedy today," the throne went to Henry IV and then Henry V, the latter of which was a strong king.

With a Catholic son like OTL... well a fight was going to happen sooner or later. The question is what do the Protestant fence sitters (which actually make up the majority of the nobles) do.

Don't forget earlier PODs that can avoid the scuffle. Jane Seymour living for one. Or perhaps henry VI wins the Hundred Years War (you'll need to find an excuse for a Britain with France to make a navy, or they'll end up falling behind Spain like OTL France did to Britain). Or maybe even as early as Henry II's sons. As long as we avoid anything like OTL Glorious Revolution, it's possible.

Very, very true. Is this simply for executive monarchy, or more broadly for absolute monarchy as well?
 
Okay that does make a lot of sense. The one thing I've always wondered is if Charles II had ahd a son or multiple sons, or if James II had had sons earlier on than when he became King, say around the 1660s or early 1670s mark, does this make Parliament less hostile toward him as it means that they'd only have to tolerate a Papist for a few years before having a Protestant King? And in the case of Charles II, I imagine they'd be fully Protestant and thus have far more bartering power.
For what it's worth, Charles II did have sons. It's just that they were... illegitimate. (Although the Duke of Monmouth tried to claim that his father had undergone a secret marriage to his mother, and to overthrow his uncle, James II, after Charles died; Monmouth and his rebellion came to a sticky end.)
 
For what it's worth, Charles II did have sons. It's just that they were... illegitimate. (Although the Duke of Monmouth tried to claim that his father had undergone a secret marriage to his mother, and to overthrow his uncle, James II, after Charles died; Monmouth and his rebellion came to a sticky end.)

Indeed he did, sorry meant legitimate sons, often wondered what would've changed in the dynamic had that been the case.
 
Would this be possible up to the Glorious Revolution, the Civil War? Could the Hanoverians achieve it?

I think an intellectual POD would be better than a political one here. IOTL political thought during the 17th and 18th centuries moved from seeing monarchy as a good thing to seeing it as a bad and outmoded thing. This meant that any king attempting to take back power would be swimming against the tide and would find it very difficult to get enough people to support him. If monarchical government was still seen as good, many more people would be happy for a good monarch to take back royal power after a bad monarch had lost it, so you'd get more of the pre-GR seesaw Alex Zetsu alludes to.
 
An intellectual POD works best, but it needs to be pre-Glorious Revolution. A political POD works as long as it butterflies into intellectual thinking (I mean, with a different king, there would be a different reshuffling of intellectuals and they could come to different conclusions than their OTL counterparts)

Henry I was the last absolute monarch. Henry II and even John differed to their nobles, although for John it was not quite enough for them. Once taxation is in the power of parliament, that's obviously a rescritiron

But even post Magna Carta we can have an absolute monarchy. I imagine a POD in the 1600s an executive monarchy going into the 1900s where TTL intellectuals favor monarchism and a crisis happens and it's just the right guy/girl leading Britain out of the crisis.
 
Alright I can see that. I've always been of the opinion that the intellectual shift away from monarchism happened with the civil war and that thing called a commonwealth
 
I think John Locke did more than Cromwell do starts the intellectual shift (I mean, all he proved was that Britain's first republic was a dud, even to those who thought it was relatively better than Charles I).

Mind you, my suggestion for an absolute monarch isn't the most likely sequence of events and would require coincidences and luck ("divine providence" as George Washington called the weather and a few political events during the revolution), but it's at least possible.

Most likely, your suggested POD would end us somewhere around James II to Henry IV's power, but with hundreds of years to work with it can end up an absolute monarchy or end up like today's House of Windsor. It's really limited mostly by your imagination
 
So, for the executive monarch theory here, one needs the intellectual theory to hold up to monarchs still being viewed as good, which could well be helped along by having intellectuals who are sponsored by the crown, as well as having things that severley disprove any other theory of government as being even remotely good
 
Top