Very interesting. Where can I read about these disputes? I'm thinking about doing a timeline with more animosity between the King and parliament in the late 1700s/early 1800s. Looks like it's a good time to have a fight on this issue!
Those opinions being Whig ones? Where did she get her political leanings from, her mother? I'm trying to understand the political sympathies of the Hannovers. George III was obviously pretty strongly Tory, and Victoria pretty strongly Whig. The intermediate generation seems to be a mix of things: George IV was a Whig, William IV seems a mix, and Ernst Augustus was arch Tory. I'm trying to find out about Frederick's views and Edward's views, but can't find much.
Hm I'll have a think about sources. Bear in mind that such arguments were not arguments between King and Commons, they were arguments between King and a great magnate about whose friends and family should get what perks and sinecures.
Geo IV was no Whig, once he became Regent. He affected Whig sympathies before that , but that was just the usual Hanoverian heir apparent opposing the government thing. Once he became Regent he changed his tune. He was arguably more Tory than Wellington , who had a devil of a job forcing him to agree to Catholic Emancipation and Reform. The fact that both Grey and Wellington believed that it would be constitutionally improper (if not impossible) for a government to introduce legislation on such topics without the king's agreement, is an indication that the power of the Crown was by no means extinct.
But George's Toryism was tempered by the fact that he was both silly and timid.
Frederick , Duke of York , was if anything more Tory than George (half way between George and Cumberland) . But he was a lot more discreet and sensible, and knew far better than George when to stick and when to bend. He was very highly regarded in his post of Commander in Chief, even the Whigs agreeing (mostly) that he did a good job. Of course , some of the Whigs, and the Radicals were willing to take shots at him just because he was a Royal, and he had the "faults" (if faults they be) of his time and class.
His famous declaration against Catholic Emancipation effectively postponed the whole discussion until his death. He and George were personally very close, and with Frederick to give him courage, persuading George to agree would have been impossible .
Kent was stupid enough that no-one really worried what he thought. He and his younger brother Susses were Whigs, but didn't really have any intellectual underpinning for their position, they just parroted what their political friends told them to think
Clarence was more liberal than his older brothers (or Cumberland , who he hated). But not politically astute (despite Whig claims, he wasn't actually stupid though). In a way, he was to honest for his own good. By the time he became King, he was old and tired, and decided he couldn't be bothered with the hassle, so he just stood back and let the Ministers have their head. The fact that he had no heir probably greatly influenced this. I recall one of the diarists commenting that he didn't want to leave a contentious relationship between King and Ministers to his niece, because she would not be able to handle that .
Victoria, was not really either Whig or Tory, she was too young to have meaningful opinions . She was very fond of Melbourne , because he was a charming father substitute. So she just took her politics form him, initially, and later from Albert (who was a rampant Whig).