Britain as a Executive Monarch

Do you think it is at all possible that Britain could have become an executive monarch similar to countries like Bhutan, Jordan etc?

If so how?
 
I doubt it Britain has a long history of getting rid of monarchs. Eventually some monarchy would do something parliament wouldnt agree to and then they would try remove the monarch

The Stuarts in some way were an executive monarchy, they were very powerful but still with an elected parliament that wanted concessions. Look what happened there, one King executed and another replaced by one more willing to play by parliaments rules
 
I doubt it Britain has a long history of getting rid of monarchs. Eventually some monarchy would do something parliament wouldnt agree to and then they would try remove the monarch

The Stuarts in some way were an executive monarchy, they were very powerful but still with an elected parliament that wanted concessions. Look what happened there, one King executed and another replaced by one more willing to play by parliaments rules

True enough
 
Interesting question: a more powerful British monarchy seems very difficult to imagine through 21st century eyes though.

I doubt it Britain has a long history of getting rid of monarchs. Eventually some monarchy would do something parliament wouldnt agree to and then they would try remove the monarch

The Stuarts in some way were an executive monarchy, they were very powerful but still with an elected parliament that wanted concessions. Look what happened there, one King executed and another replaced by one more willing to play by parliaments rules

Perhaps if the Stuarts had been somewhat more pragmatic during their dynasty, and somehow avoided serious parliamentary opposition into the 18th century (Charles II has a son and heir who is raised Protestant might be a good start) would it be possible their power could evolve towards something more modern looking i.e. a system of government along modern day presidential lines?

Lots of countries have legislatures whose role is simply to make the laws, and a president and cabinet whose duty it is to execute them (as in, execute the will of the people). Question to my mind is, is England’s parliamentary culture so entrenched and deeply felt by the late 17th century that it will not permit this kind of ‘dual power’ arrangement with a monarch.
 
The House of Stuart was the last reasonable chance for an Executive Monarch. If the Royalists had won the Civil War and the King granted control over annual revenues (rather than Parliament controlling annual levies), then maybe, for a while, this might be possible.

I doubt even then. The King would have had to make some sort of concessions and he probably wouldn't be given cart blanche for new and exceptional taxes (for war for instance). They'd eventually claw power back.

Basically the POD would have to be further and further back. I'm not sure when would be a good time to turn Britain into a "French-Style" autocratic monarchy. Perhaps before the reformation. Even Catholic "absolutist" nations like Austria and France usually had plenty of constraints on power by regional parliaments, especially the purse-strings.
 
The Stuarts in some way were an executive monarchy, they were very powerful but still with an elected parliament that wanted concessions. Look what happened there, one King executed and another replaced by one more willing to play by parliaments rules

But even then, Queen Anne refused royal assent on a few bills passed by Parliament.

I think the Hanoverian succession, even more than the Glorious Revolution, was what did executive monarchy in. The first two King Georges were content to let their prime ministers run the show while focusing on their German lands. And then while George III showed some interest in asserting his power, he went insane (while also living for a very long time). By the time of George IV the precedent for limited monarchy had been established.
 
Top