When did the British PM, rather than the monarch, start appointing senior bishops?

Today, positions like the Archbishop of Canterbury are formally chosen by the monarch, but in practice they always follow the suggestion of the Prime Minister. Obviously this wasn't always the case, but when did it change? I know it was by the time of William IV that the monarchy had virtually no power, but did this apply to his status as Head of the Church too? When did it change - did George III, who was pretty assertive in his power when he could, appoint bishops for example?
 
Post Restoration perhaps as a guess so perhaps Charles II or William III after he won the crown. I'm not sure if James II would be happy to let parliament appoint Bishops unless they were also Catholic like he was.
 
Well, Geo II had some major arguments about bishops, and usually won. Geo IV had a notorious dispute about a bishop (can't remember who) and lost.

In practice, I doubt there was any specific time. Even today, in theory, they are appointed by the Queen. I guess that in most cases through the C18 and early C19, the "Prime Minister" and the King would agree on a mutually acceptable candidate (acceptable to the "Prime Minister' being largely a matter of how the bishop would vote in the Lords, and whose family or friend he was). In the time of Geo II , if they didn't agree the King would usually win. Gradually the likely of winning swung over to the "Prime Minister", until by Will IV it was a fairly foregone conclusion.

BTW it is not really correct that Will IV had no power. Geo IV was still very influential, until the last few years of his life, when he was dying. Until then he was able to resist political demands for Catholic Emancipation , and repeal of the test acts, for instance. Will IV could have wielded the same power, he just couldn't be bothered. He too was old and tired, he had no heir, he just wanted a quiet life. So he just went with the flow. It was under Victoria (and following the Reform Act) that the monarchy actually lost its residual influence.
 

Thande

Donor
There is this misconception (born of a Whig interpretation of history) that there was a nice steady 'progress' of history with each successive monarch having less power than their predecessor. This isn't really the case; that may be the broad trend, but in practice there was a lot of back and forth depending on the monarch. Victoria - at least in her early years, before Albert's death - exercised considerably more power and influence than her three predecessors. It was only after Albert died and she withdrew into seclusion that the government clawed back more power for itself. This is particularly noticeable in exactly these kinds of appointments, where Victoria stirred up trouble in her early years from refusing to go along with what her ministers said as readily as her predecessors had - although this was also partly because Victoria had more partisan political opinions of her own than those monarchs.
 
Well, Geo II had some major arguments about bishops, and usually won. Geo IV had a notorious dispute about a bishop (can't remember who) and lost.

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!

There is this misconception (born of a Whig interpretation of history) that there was a nice steady 'progress' of history with each successive monarch having less power than their predecessor. This isn't really the case; that may be the broad trend, but in practice there was a lot of back and forth depending on the monarch. Victoria - at least in her early years, before Albert's death - exercised considerably more power and influence than her three predecessors. It was only after Albert died and she withdrew into seclusion that the government clawed back more power for itself. This is particularly noticeable in exactly these kinds of appointments, where Victoria stirred up trouble in her early years from refusing to go along with what her ministers said as readily as her predecessors had - although this was also partly because Victoria had more partisan political opinions of her own than those monarchs.

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.
 
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.
When the succession went father-eldest son the sons had usually adopted the opposite views to their fathers, precisely because those were the opposite views to their fathers'...
 
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).
 
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).

Thanks for this. Very interesting.
 
Top