I'm not entirely sure why the OP has specified the Great Reform Act as something which particularly affected Royal Power in Britain - as it really had little to do with that directly. Nor am I sure what, exactly, we are talking about in terms of Royal Powers here.
If we are talking about the ability to appoint or dismiss Prime Ministers, then that was already on the way out of the window under George III. Whilst in the 1760s and 1770s George III did appoint his own Prime Ministers [although they weren't called that] it quickly became untenable after Pitt the Younger for a number of reasons. One of these was the rise of Party Politics. It was very hard being an appointed Prime Minister like Pitt or North - you had to essentially go to the Commons and cajole/encourage/force/bride a majority of MPs into going along with you over each major decision. As the franchise widened in the nineteenth century and the powers of Government became more complex, this would get harder and harder, and the need to cohesively form a longer term government than on a vote by vote basis was the reason behind the growth of Party Politics. Once the Party system has cemented in Britain it would be near impossible for the Monarch to appoint a PM from the Commons without either going against the will of the electorate [if picking someone from a minority party] or upsetting the power balance of a major party [if picking a PM from a majority party who wasn't the assumed leader already]. George III was already realising this by the 1790s, he was just lucky in finding in Pitt someone who he liked and who could also consistently secure a majority in Parliament.
I'm also not sure about calling Queen Victoria uneducated and reliant on her husband and PMs. She was a female monarch in a man's age, and young at that, so of course she took advice, but in a political sense Victoria was one of the better educated monarchs to sit on the throne. Once on the throne she read widely and very politically, but much of what she read, as was the current at the time, was constitutionally based. Still, she wielded considerable influence, especially when it came to British foreign policy. Her and Albert's ''Liberal Project'' in Europe had long reaching consequences.
You've also got to remember that you can't single out one monarch or moment as a turning point with something like this. The huge currents of thought at the time - Liberalism, Nationalism, Republicanism - all influenced how the monarchy imaged its role in society and politics. Victoria was influenced by the German Liberal Baron Stockmar, her advisor, but also by what was happening in Europe. The collapse of the July Monarchy was a major shock to not just her but many in Europe. Almost exactly what you are asking for here - a early c19th state with a parliament but also a monarch with a little more direct power than in Britain - the Orleanist Monarchy just collapsed when it proved unwilling to bend to political opposition. Considering that Victoria was a great fan of the French historian Guizot, who was Louis Philippe's Prime Minister, she was particularly shocked to see the collapse of a ''modern monarchy'' and 1848 influenced her thinking considerably.
In brief - its a lot more complicated than a single simple POD will allow, the context of what is happening in Europe [especially post-1789] is key, and what precisely is meant by Royal Power is quite vague.
If we are talking about the ability to appoint or dismiss Prime Ministers, then that was already on the way out of the window under George III. Whilst in the 1760s and 1770s George III did appoint his own Prime Ministers [although they weren't called that] it quickly became untenable after Pitt the Younger for a number of reasons. One of these was the rise of Party Politics. It was very hard being an appointed Prime Minister like Pitt or North - you had to essentially go to the Commons and cajole/encourage/force/bride a majority of MPs into going along with you over each major decision. As the franchise widened in the nineteenth century and the powers of Government became more complex, this would get harder and harder, and the need to cohesively form a longer term government than on a vote by vote basis was the reason behind the growth of Party Politics. Once the Party system has cemented in Britain it would be near impossible for the Monarch to appoint a PM from the Commons without either going against the will of the electorate [if picking someone from a minority party] or upsetting the power balance of a major party [if picking a PM from a majority party who wasn't the assumed leader already]. George III was already realising this by the 1790s, he was just lucky in finding in Pitt someone who he liked and who could also consistently secure a majority in Parliament.
I'm also not sure about calling Queen Victoria uneducated and reliant on her husband and PMs. She was a female monarch in a man's age, and young at that, so of course she took advice, but in a political sense Victoria was one of the better educated monarchs to sit on the throne. Once on the throne she read widely and very politically, but much of what she read, as was the current at the time, was constitutionally based. Still, she wielded considerable influence, especially when it came to British foreign policy. Her and Albert's ''Liberal Project'' in Europe had long reaching consequences.
You've also got to remember that you can't single out one monarch or moment as a turning point with something like this. The huge currents of thought at the time - Liberalism, Nationalism, Republicanism - all influenced how the monarchy imaged its role in society and politics. Victoria was influenced by the German Liberal Baron Stockmar, her advisor, but also by what was happening in Europe. The collapse of the July Monarchy was a major shock to not just her but many in Europe. Almost exactly what you are asking for here - a early c19th state with a parliament but also a monarch with a little more direct power than in Britain - the Orleanist Monarchy just collapsed when it proved unwilling to bend to political opposition. Considering that Victoria was a great fan of the French historian Guizot, who was Louis Philippe's Prime Minister, she was particularly shocked to see the collapse of a ''modern monarchy'' and 1848 influenced her thinking considerably.
In brief - its a lot more complicated than a single simple POD will allow, the context of what is happening in Europe [especially post-1789] is key, and what precisely is meant by Royal Power is quite vague.
