William IV's child born September, 1819, do they need a regency?

I also think its arguable whether the crown's powers diminished under Victoria - or actually Victoria simply didn't use them in the way her predecessors had done because the politicians and public wouldn't wear it as much - resulting in the 21st c view that the monarch should be "above the fray". Most of the powers reserved to the crown remained hers (and remained her successors). Victoria's long-reign was not without examples of her interfering largely prompted by the raft of her own prejudices though she stopped short of refusing to appoint Prime Ministers who she personally didn't like or want (largely the result of her first experience of unpopularity during the bedchamber and lady Flora crisis and the influence of Albert on her)
The issue is use of such powers has always been how far the monarch was willing to go to get their own way and how willing they were to defend their rights against Parliament.
Interesting I do wonder if William succeeds in getting his way over Russell night that set an example for his successor on the issue of Palmerston
 
Good points and I tend to agree - depends on how far the new King is willing to go in terms of pushing one party or the other - at the end all it is going to achieve is an avoidance of the bedchamber crisis and possibly a more active monarch at the period. Not much changes to be honest

I wouldn't be so sure. It would reinforce the Crown's right to appoint a ministry with or without a majority in Parliament and give the new monarch cred on reading which way the country was blowing. And the Russell veto also means that the Monarch can claim that ministers are indeed responsible to the Crown and he/she can order the PM to dismiss them/ fire them themselves. Basically its setting precedent.

I also think its arguable whether the crown's powers diminished under Victoria - or actually Victoria simply didn't use them in the way her predecessors had done because the politicians and public wouldn't wear it as much - resulting in the 21st c view that the monarch should be "above the fray". Most of the powers reserved to the crown remained hers (and remained her successors). Victoria's long-reign was not without examples of her interfering largely prompted by the raft of her own prejudices though she stopped short of refusing to appoint Prime Ministers who she personally didn't like or want (largely the result of her first experience of unpopularity during the bedchamber and lady Flora crisis and the influence of Albert on her)
The issue is use of such powers has always been how far the monarch was willing to go to get their own way and how willing they were to defend their rights against Parliament.

I meant diminished in the way that the Crown didn't use their powers anymore for various reasons, not legally. Personally I think we could see the Crown as less politically neutral and more guardian of the nation, meaning the Sovereign can and will intervene for the country if they believe that the actions of the government are harmful to the nation in general. Think a watchdog I guess.
 
also think its arguable whether the crown's powers diminished under Victoria - or actually Victoria simply didn't use them in the way her predecessors had done because the politicians and public wouldn't wear it as much - resulting in the 21st c view that the monarch should be "above the fray". Most of the powers reserved to the crown remained hers (and remained her successors).


Indeed. AJP Taylor noted that World War I was declared "as if George V still possessed the undiminished prerogatives of Henry VIII".
 
I wouldn't be so sure. It would reinforce the Crown's right to appoint a ministry with or without a majority in Parliament and give the new monarch cred on reading which way the country was blowing. And the Russell veto also means that the Monarch can claim that ministers are indeed responsible to the Crown and he/she can order the PM to dismiss them/ fire them themselves. Basically its setting precedent.



I meant diminished in the way that the Crown didn't use their powers anymore for various reasons, not legally. Personally I think we could see the Crown as less politically neutral and more guardian of the nation, meaning the Sovereign can and will intervene for the country if they believe that the actions of the government are harmful to the nation in general. Think a watchdog I guess.
I approve of this. I wonder how often this would be used during the course of time. Especially if Williams kid reigns as king as Victoria did
 
A lot will depend entirely on the way in which William acts - he learned a lesson during the reform crisis when he refused to create enough new peers to get the bill through the Lords and Grey resigned and the King tried to restore Wellington and ended up having to reappoint Grey - his popularity sank and he was publicly humiliated - his popularity recovered (his actions were largely blamed on his wife and brother Cumberland a little unfairly to be true given William himself had serious issues with expanding the peerage too much in order to get the bill through).
But again his second attempt wasn't any more successful over the Russell affair as you mentioned - though in OTL he sacked Melbourne's ministry and Peel became PM in the November - but was forced to resign when he failed to gain a majority in the 35 election despite the blatant support of the crown - I am not sure there is a situation where royal support could ensure a Peel victory in 35 - which might set precedent that the King should sack government's at will in defence of the nation's interests- however let's face it his objections to the radical Russell weren't about defending the populace but about his own personal views of Russell and his politics.
Trouble was as mentioned the lack of senior Whigs in the Commons - given Melbourne was a bit stuck with Russell (and they were on diff wings of the party). Of course William eventually realised Melbourne wasn't that radical and they got on ok for the rest of his reign.
You might be able to ramp up extra difficulties between the King and Palmerston who really didn't get along at all lol.

Now active support from the regent Adelaide and the young King to Peel and the Tory's in the 37 election might help push them over the top meaning a Peel administration rather than Melbourne limping on - which might give the implication to the young King that exercising his influence can work and not attract criticism - how that works in the 40s with the growing Chartist movements, revolutions abroad, the corn law rows and the Irish famine is anyone's guess.
 
Very truee there, is there a way in which William can appoint Wellington and convince the man to pass his version of the Reform Act through Parliament? If so what consequences could this have?
 
Top