So I've always heard that the passage of the 1832 Great Reform act is what started the decline of the British monarch's powers but is this true? I mean within two years of the Act William IV appointed a Prime Minister who wasn't from the majority party. The attempt failed, but that was due to the Tories being unable to win an election and not because anyone questioned the Sovereign's right to do so. Or should the fault lay with Queen Victoria, an uneducated monarch unaware of her own prerogatives and who relied heavily on her Prime minister and then her husband to assist her? Basically who's to blame for the decline of the Monarchy's power and more importantly can it be stopped?
Did the Great Reform Act start/cause the decline of the British Monarchy?
- Thread starter Emperor Constantine
- Start date
That's a gross oversimplification and doesn't contribute at all. OK how can the British Monarch preserve the powers enjoyed under the first three Georges for as long as possible?
Categorically disagree. This isn't the Glorious Revolution with a Stuart Monarch seeking absolutism and we're not talking about regaining, but rather preserving powers that had been exorcised fairly recently. There's no reason to think that a better educated monarch with some political skill couldn't preserve the prerogatives of the Crown in use under previous Hanoverian monarchs. Al alternate Queen Victoria (either her better educated or one of the Clarence children surviving) could easily play the role I'm suggesting.
No, the British monarch cannot try to rule
alone(I remember reading that once Julie
Nixon, Richard's daughter, asked Prince
Charles if there would be anything he could
do if Parliment passed a law putting his
parents to death & he replied, no. That's
how limited the British monarchs' powers
now are)
That's a modern belief after centuries of the monarch not using their powers and the change in public expectation of what the monarch can and cannot do.George III for example basically told parliament to fuck itself and appointed Prime Ministers who did not have the confidence of parliament.Queen Anne in particular vetoed a law passed by parliament.
I'm talking about what would happen if a reasonably competent monarch in the late 1700s or early 1800s decides to take government into his/her own hands and rule like the US president.That can potentially restore quite a bit of power for the monarchy.
Be difficult for the British monarchy to lose power prior to its existence
In theory yes. The office of Prime Minister doesn't legally exist and the holder only derives power from being First Lord of the Treasury and Minister of the Civil Service. Hell the position wasn't even mentioned in an Act of Parliament until 1917 with the Chequers Estate Act, which designated Chequers as the official country residence of the Prime Minister. That said it would be very difficult. From 1660 British monarchs had delegated control to Chief ministers, with exceptions like the Cabal, Privy council and Chit ministries, which had leading ministers but no overall leader. So there's no real tradition in Britain of a "personal rule" by the monarch. Plus the last Sovereign to personally chair Cabinet meetings was Queen Anne. So even if a Monarch ruled through a favorite instead, he'd still be appointed PM to give him legitimacy.
However I suppose we could see a monarch decide to once again personally chair Cabinet meetings, putting the Majesty back in "Majesty's Government" and reducing the PM to merely being the First Lord of the Treasury. In this case I think George III or an alt Queen Victoria would be the best candidates, young monarchs eager to prove themselves or reclaim lost glories. Or have a Monarch appoint a PM but invest someone else as First Lord of the Treasury, breaking up the office's power and making it a personal grant from the Sovereign rather than the leader of Parliament. Honestly though, can't see a Monarch wanting to take over the day to day domestic policy on top of their ceremonial duties, public duties, foreign affairs and the Royal Court. Most European monarch preferred to leave domestic affairs and day to day government to Ministers, leaving the "important" duty of foreign affairs for themselves.
Your talking about the modern era. We're talking about the 18th and early 19th centuries. Obviously what a monarch could do in 1760 would in no way be the same as 1976. That's like saying apples and oranges are the same because they both come from trees.
This is more what I'm thinking. Though from my research the reason Monarchs stopped vetoing bills was because they feared Parliament would deny them money in retaliation, something quite realistic. You would need a civil list act that was guaranteed to be payed by the treasury to get a veto revived. Maybe George III's civil list is better handled or more money is voted? As for the US idea, not likely. The US has strict separation of power between the branches of government, something unheard of in Britain. Your would need a more subservient Parliament or scandals to hit both Whigs and Tories enough to get the ruling class to back direct rule by the King. Not impossible but difficult.
LOL true. So do we count British monarchs from the Union of the Crowns or the Act of Union?
I won't rest my sword until history itself is changed.
Reasonably enough though British monarchs had different powers, and if you diverge before the acts of Union I don't see any reason to think that the Stuarts would inherit England under a personal union again.
In that case you could have British monarchs with significant divergences in power, and indeed if you super buffed the Scottish or English monarch, and they inherited the other Kingdom I have no doubt that they would want their power to be equivalent in both.
Obviously the history of the English and Scottish monarchy will impact the British one so I was being facetious of course, but I think people forget how unlikely it was for a peaceful union of the British Isles.
True, the monarch's powers were different-
& larger- in the 18'th & early 19'th centuries,
but I would wager that the memory of what
had happened to Charles II was a lot fresher
too. That alone might have kept any En-
glish monarch from getting out of line.
Plus, would Parliment have stood for it?(In
fact I wonder if such a move wouldn't have
touched off Civil War. Would even George III
have gone that far?)
& larger- in the 18'th & early 19'th centuries,
but I would wager that the memory of what
had happened to Charles II was a lot fresher
too. That alone might have kept any En-
glish monarch from getting out of line.
Plus, would Parliment have stood for it?(In
fact I wonder if such a move wouldn't have
touched off Civil War. Would even George III
have gone that far?)
Last edited:
I doubt it very seriously. George III would be violating no law or statute, just conventions. Look at Britain in the 1760s; the Government was weak and unpopular and the decades proved to be a revolving door of Ministries when compared to previous years up until the formation of the North Ministry in 1770. I think you vastly overestimate Parliament's freakout threshold. This isn't the 17th century; Britain was very stable at this point, especially after the failure of the '45 Jacobite rising and as the first English-born Hanoverian Monarch George III had great personal popularity. If Parliament doesn't like it then they should have limited the Crown's powers further in the Revolutionary settlement. The Monarch is still appointing a First Lord of the Treasury, who would likely emerge as Prime Minister. The Lords and MPs would see that any Sovereign would likely try to act as their own PM for a few years at best before getting overwhelmed and backing off.
The power of the monarchy could be extended longer but only at George III levels of influence, nothing more. George and his advisors did their best to have as much influence as possible, and modelled him as a Patriot King above partisan politics, changed the system of patronage so it was in the hands of whoever was PM rather than those who knew the system best (i.e. the Pelhams), and would thwart potential PMs he disliked.
However, ruling directly like a US President is simply off the cards. Through his best efforts, he was the most powerful political stakeholder in the system but still a stakeholder. The UK is clearly a parliamentary system at this point and George had to operate through that, using patronage and threats to cultivate his own faction and make alliances with others. It is also a parliament with the vast majority of MPs being Whigs, formally or informally. This was defined as respecting the constitutional settlement of 1689. The end of the Jacobite movement in 1745 actually makes the monarchy weaker, because it ends the sense of "better the Hannovers than the Stuarts".
As mentioned, what could happen is a longer continuation of George III's level of influence. IOTL the monarchy continued to decline in power to be virtually fully ceremonial by the beginning of Victoria's reign. If you avoid George III's madness that helps, and you would also need more activist sons who are both politically focused and leaning more autocratic than OTL. However, you are fighting a general dynamic towards being a more and more parliamentary and democratic country. Kings can maintain or diminish their power, but it's very very hard for them to increase it. That means a trend towards ceremonial monarchy sooner or later.
However, ruling directly like a US President is simply off the cards. Through his best efforts, he was the most powerful political stakeholder in the system but still a stakeholder. The UK is clearly a parliamentary system at this point and George had to operate through that, using patronage and threats to cultivate his own faction and make alliances with others. It is also a parliament with the vast majority of MPs being Whigs, formally or informally. This was defined as respecting the constitutional settlement of 1689. The end of the Jacobite movement in 1745 actually makes the monarchy weaker, because it ends the sense of "better the Hannovers than the Stuarts".
As mentioned, what could happen is a longer continuation of George III's level of influence. IOTL the monarchy continued to decline in power to be virtually fully ceremonial by the beginning of Victoria's reign. If you avoid George III's madness that helps, and you would also need more activist sons who are both politically focused and leaning more autocratic than OTL. However, you are fighting a general dynamic towards being a more and more parliamentary and democratic country. Kings can maintain or diminish their power, but it's very very hard for them to increase it. That means a trend towards ceremonial monarchy sooner or later.
Not really given it was the same monarchy, just ruling over a smaller kingdom.
That's not true at all. The Stuarts inherited the English throne and were under completely separate legal boundaries in Scotland.
Well, to be extra pedantic, while the governments remained separate the Stuart Monarchs did almost immediately start adding King of (Great) Britain as their primary nominal title. I think it's fair to speak of a British Monarch post-1603 as long as one makes clear these distinctions with regards to such things.
I do obviously agree however, that to speak of the personal unions as if they were a matter of Scottish vassalage is highly misleading and to speak as if Scotland served England in all things.