Did the Great Reform Act start/cause the decline of the British Monarchy?

H
I hadn't considered just how surprising the fall of the July Monarchy must have been. That would explain at least some of it but not all; Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and Belgium were all constitutional monarchies where the Sovereign has significant powers and three of the four never fell. But yeah 1848 was highly significant for Europe and many monarchs learned different lessons from it.

I don't know how the other monarchs felt at the time, but it really should not have been that shocking. Louis-Philippe had taken the throne in a revolution against his cousin; his legitimacy was always a bit dodgy for that. If it was OK to revolt against the sovereign in 1830, why not again?

Plus, the legitimists, republicans and Bonapartists all disliked him, there were numerous uprisings during his reign, and there were several assassination attempts.
 
Wasn't the Magna Carta the first chip to the Royal authority of the King of England?

Not really. It is much celebrated in later British myth, but it didn't really limit the monarch's power that much in practice and didn't stop the development of Tudor-style power. Similar agreements were signed in places that became absolutist monarchies and thus went down as historical footnotes. As others have said, the power declined continuously from the Tudor period, with particular leaps during the Civil War, Glorious Revolution and Hannoverian Succession.
 
I don't know how the other monarchs felt at the time, but it really should not have been that shocking. Louis-Philippe had taken the throne in a revolution against his cousin; his legitimacy was always a bit dodgy for that. If it was OK to revolt against the sovereign in 1830, why not again?

Plus, the legitimists, republicans and Bonapartists all disliked him, there were numerous uprisings during his reign, and there were several assassination attempts.

Yes, but we look back with historical hindsight. People at the time events happened always overinterpret recent events to be the direction of the future. During the 1800s, the view (especially in Britain) was that constitutional monarchy was the modern way forward that steered the ship of state through the dangerous waters of autocracy on one side and French Revolution-style rule of the mob on the other. They thought the July Monarchy had finally found this balance and France had a bright British-style future.
 
Guarantee is such a strong word - and democracy still more than a century away - that I agree with you. But certainly the pressures over the next century are overwhelmingly towards greater representation in the constitutional setup. The rising wealth of the mercantile class and the associated intellectual assault on monarchic power were already baked in by the 1700s. George III's resurgent power was already widely disliked in parliament. Bolingbroke's image of the Patriot King was already considered a "Tory" text, antithetical to Whiggism, and therefore good governance and liberty. If he had gone so far as to chair cabinet meetings it would undoubtedly be seen as continental despotism and invoked a moral panic in the UK. There also was a very established dynamic of anti-Hannoverian sentiment in this vein used by whichever group of Whigs were in opposition at the time. This line of argument was very effective in causing govts to become unpopular and this would take it to the tenth level. I can't imagine any of the leading Whigs (Pelham, Newcastle, Pitt, Rockingham, Fox) being willing to serve in such an administration where the King is effectively own PM due to a combination of ideological opposition and knowledge they would be electorally disastrous. Without those figures, there isn't a majority in the Commons for legislation.

Hm, I see what your saying. I mean legally the Monarch had a huge amount of power even with the Revolutionary settlement, but it hadn't been exercised in nearly 50 years. Would there be a way for George III to do be able to make himself seen as protecting the constitution against the aristocratic Parliament, a la enlightened despotism? OK not the best example but I'm meaning a way to bring the Enlightenment thinking in line with royal power? As for the Tory part, is that really so bad? I mean from what I remember from my Jacobite research the Tories technically won every election between 1714 and 1747 if the number of votes cast corresponded to the number of seats. Though I have no information for after the '45 rising, so that might no longer have been the case. A monarch could pull the charters from some boroughs and grant charters to more pro-royal areas, but realistically that would cause riots at best and a potential deposition at worst. So the Cabinet thing would be more or less off the table, at least not right away. I wonder if it would be possible for a financially stronger Crown to take control of some of the Rotten and pocket boroughs, to better allow support the government? Probably not realistic but maybe possible.

Then of course, the fear of tyranny in the American colonies, already high in our timeline, would be exacerbated here. An underexamined part of the American elite thinking was the movement towards the absolutist state in Europe and Bourbon America was where Britain was heading. It was this broader context that had them so worried about renewed centralisation efforts from the Stamp Act onwards.

Then in the longer term, you have economic power moving towards the middle class, who are even more liberal than the current parliament. It was delayed about as long as possible in our timeline, mainly from the French Revolution causing more scepticism of mass politics. Even then, the UK came close to revolution a couple of times because Reform was delayed so long.

To be honest hadn't considered the Colonies reaction; I guess I had already wrote them off subconsciously. Though wouldn't it depend on the situation? I mean for a while George III had high popularity in the Americas and it was Parliament that was seen as the villain. A more active Crown that's willing to at least listen to the Colonial concerns could completely change the revolution's trajectory. Your probably right about reform, though would a POD nearly seventy years before the Reform act passed it's hard to really predict and could go either way.

Given the continuity between the English and the British monarchy, this is a rather moot point.

As to the OP: By the 1830s, the principle of parliamentary rule was firmly rooted in British society. Liberal thought (but most tory MPs wouldn't have disagreed) considered the ministers responsible for their monarch's acts. Government was accountable to both the King and Parliament, and both could dismiss it. I don't see I you can save much of the monarchy's influence, save for a royal coup against parliamentary monarchy.

Being responsible to both technically means the Crown has the right to lose confidence in the government just the same as Parliament could. So I still think that it should be possible for the Crown to appoint who it wants as PM from within the ruling party and veto potential ministers if possible. Though I will say a royal coup could be very interesting. Not sure if it would be possible in the 19th century; maybe something with the Chartists? I don't know.

I don't know how the other monarchs felt at the time, but it really should not have been that shocking. Louis-Philippe had taken the throne in a revolution against his cousin; his legitimacy was always a bit dodgy for that. If it was OK to revolt against the sovereign in 1830, why not again?

Plus, the legitimists, republicans and Bonapartists all disliked him, there were numerous uprisings during his reign, and there were several assassination attempts.

That's basically what I was thinking. This was, what, the fourth regime change France had sense 1800? Saying that a fifth revolution in France was shocking seems a little disingenuous. Though I suppose it might have been a surprise for Victoria and Albert, who tended to be a bit ignorant, or perhaps naive would be a better word, when it came to

Yes, but we look back with historical hindsight. People at the time events happened always over-interpret recent events to be the direction of the future. During the 1800s, the view (especially in Britain) was that constitutional monarchy was the modern way forward that steered the ship of state through the dangerous waters of autocracy on one side and French Revolution-style rule of the mob on the other. They thought the July Monarchy had finally found this balance and France had a bright British-style future.

Again completely agree with you. Britain wanted a moderate path between absolutism and revolutions. But even the July Monarchy was more powerful than the British Crown.

In all Honesty though, outside of Britain the real death blow to monarchy was WWI.

True that.
 
Though I will say a royal coup could be very interesting. Not sure if it would be possible in the 19th century; maybe something with the Chartists? I don't know.

You might want to read something about Gustav III of Sweden. Basically, Sweden was a constitutional monarchy until 1772 (The Age of Liberty), when Gustav staged a coup, ending the rule of Sweden's two opposing parties. He (tried to) slowly transformed Sweden into an absolute monarchy, behaving like an enlightened despot. He weakened the power of the nobility, and at the same time strengthened the monarchy at the expense of the Riksdag.
 
No. The British monarchy had been losing powers since Henry VIII. William IV was probably the very first monarch to be truly ceremonial though.
I would say that is true, but only because Henry VIII had accumulated more power than any king that any other had for quite some time. He brought back Parliment to an extent though, and their started gaining power later on down the line. The Great Reform Act might have removed some more power from the landed gentry, but I am unsure if it removed it from the king officially. I forget, but was this act one that prevented the King from using treasury funds in order to fund the lifestyles and elections of MPs to rotten and pocket boroughs?
 
You might want to read something about Gustav III of Sweden. Basically, Sweden was a constitutional monarchy until 1772 (The Age of Liberty), when Gustav staged a coup, ending the rule of Sweden's two opposing parties. He (tried to) slowly transformed Sweden into an absolute monarchy, behaving like an enlightened despot. He weakened the power of the nobility, and at the same time strengthened the monarchy at the expense of the Riksdag.

Gustav III is actually one of my favorite 18th century monarchs! I'd never really considered a Royal coup in Britain under the Hanoverians; probably because I've always been a Jacobite and hadn't became interested in the reign of George III until recently. Not sure how to get from A to B though. Maybe if Britain loses the Seven years war and the blame it laid at Parliament's feet? Or perhaps some kind of scandal, like the South Sea bubble of the 1720s, discredits the Whigs and increases public distaste at the aristocracy? IDK, I'll have to look into this.
 
Gustav III is actually one of my favorite 18th century monarchs! I'd never really considered a Royal coup in Britain under the Hanoverians; probably because I've always been a Jacobite and hadn't became interested in the reign of George III until recently. Not sure how to get from A to B though. Maybe if Britain loses the Seven years war and the blame it laid at Parliament's feet? Or perhaps some kind of scandal, like the South Sea bubble of the 1720s, discredits the Whigs and increases public distaste at the aristocracy? IDK, I'll have to look into this.

Well, anyway, one might think that the British monarchy learned its lesson after the First British Republic. In this TL, it obviously didn't... or forgot it.
 
Like I said in my first post, that's simply what I've heard before. Didn't know if it was true or not so that's part of the reason I made this thread in the first place. Anyway I never really understood why Queen Victoria couldn't appoint anyone she wanted as PM. Many continental, constitutional monarchs were easily able to do so even with universal suffrage, so why couldn't the same work in Britain? Was it because the British had a head-start in party politics when compared to the Continent or was it merely a monarch never risked it? As for appointing whomever you want from within the party in power, why couldn't that work? I mean there would be objections but in the mid 1800s that convention that the Party leader had to be PM has only just emerging. So in theory whomever was able to form a government should be PM, that man might not necessarily be the Party leader.

Because its about having the support of both monarch and parliament, as I explained, that makes being an appointed PM so difficult. As George III increasingly found, you either find someone who shares your views but struggles to get MPs to support him, or lump for someone with the power to build coalitions but who may not be as keen on your personal brand of politics as monarch.

I don't know as much about continental monarchies, but my feeling is that it ''worked'' [and in many cases it didn't] because either the monarchy already had more powers to begin with or some monarchs [like Nicholas II with Stolypin] were relatively keen to delegate power to a chief minister, allowing that man to wield power and influence on their behalf and thus form political patronage networks that garnered support.

Doing this with party politics is difficult - if as monarch you pick someone who isn't the established leader as PM, you snub the chosen leader and his power networks in the party. What incentive do they have to work with your hand-picked PM?

I would from looking at her childhood and the Kensington system. She was raised to be dependent on her mother and Sir Jon Conroy, something she rejected but ultimately became dependent first on Lord Melbourne and later Prince Albert. Victoria herself admitted her education was woefully lacking. Though I won't deny that in her middle and post Albert years she definitely became a great monarch, in the early years (say 1837-1850 or so) she was very much a cipher. And I wouldn't call their Liberal project all that successful; in fact I'd go so far as to call it a failure. It hinged totally on a liberal Germany, which never happened. I suppose you could give them some credit for Italy but that was more Palmerston and Russell.

I think you need to read a more recent biography of Victoria [and Albert] and think again about what you mean in terms of 'power' and 'education'. She took advice, of course, but wasn't merely a cypher or puppet as you claim. You need to look at a much wider definition of power than just directly shaping the course of government.

Also, I don't think its in any way fair to just dismiss their Liberal project as a failure. It was much more than a liberal Germany, for which they can't be blamed for the untimely death of Frederick III, but was about an inter-connected web of marital alliances that was supposed to maintain the concert of powers in Europe. The fact that a relative balance of power in Europe, much to the advantage of British foreign policy and commerce, was maintained between the 1850s and 1910s was by no means solely their doing, but they did have a major hand in shaping it.


I hadn't considered just how surprising the fall of the July Monarchy must have been. That would explain at least some of it but not all; Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and Belgium were all constitutional monarchies where the Sovereign has significant powers and three of the four never fell. But yeah 1848 was highly significant for Europe and many monarchs learned different lessons from it.

So ultimately a POD would need more than a monarch with a different personality and would instead need something farther back, like George III accession in 1760?

I don't know how the other monarchs felt at the time, but it really should not have been that shocking. Louis-Philippe had taken the throne in a revolution against his cousin; his legitimacy was always a bit dodgy for that. If it was OK to revolt against the sovereign in 1830, why not again?

Plus, the legitimists, republicans and Bonapartists all disliked him, there were numerous uprisings during his reign, and there were several assassination attempts.

That's basically what I was thinking. This was, what, the fourth regime change France had sense 1800? Saying that a fifth revolution in France was shocking seems a little disingenuous. Though I suppose it might have been a surprise for Victoria and Albert, who tended to be a bit ignorant, or perhaps naive would be a better word, when it came to

As @Socrates has said, you are looking at this with far too much hindsight. It was very much a shocking event in 1848. Remember for Britons the earlier revolution of 1830 was seen as a natural 'evolution' or 'correction' - a shift from overly autocratic government to the sort of constitutional rule that British people largely felt was the normal state of affairs.

This from The Times of March 3rd 1848:
The event of last week spoke like an earthquake to the political confidence of all parties and classes of men. Both at London and at Paris the Stock Exchange witnessed an absolutely unprecedented fall.

As for calling Victoria and Albert ignorant and naive, I'm not even going to go there...
 
Top