"Royal power then and now?" Topic

So reading Fusiliers. George III was quite keen on continuing the war in America. But how much actual power did he have vs say Victoria or Elizabeth II. Did genuinely have more power or simply meddled in politics with out having any real power. I understand Tory was in power and the king just happen to have the same idea about the war?

Interesting question.

I await the learned responses as I don't have a clue (about this &, indeed, many things).

No, the Tories were in power because they were "The King's Friends". George III meddled in politics on a scale that would have been unacceptable even a generation later. He also had a lot more actual power than modern or even 19th Century British monarchs. Ministers literally served at the King's pleasure, not due to electoral clout. Of course, they did need to have enough votes in Parliament to pass budgets, etc., but with the unreformed franchise and the King's personal wealth, that could be managed.

For a good overview of the system, read Lawrence Henry Gipson's "The British Empire before the American Revolution".

In the eighteenth century, monarchs did indeed have a great deal of power. They'd only managed to obtain royal absolutism the century before and weren't about to give it up easily, and in some places it persisted for another 150 years after the AWI.

I wouldn't be mislead by the presence of "democratic" structures like parliaments, as they were anything but democratic by modern standards.

But England/great Britain didn't have an absolute monarch since the glorious revolution.

Also it's always the prime minister that got praise or blaim for wars and policies.

But that's not what rmaker marti and MartiRapier are suggesting. Despite the introduction of a constitutional monarchy, royal influence in government at the time of GIII was still strong.

And of course the 'prime minister' aka First Lord of the Treasury, took the blame for failure. That's what he was there for §

By what I recall he also had a solid level of patronage he could bestow in relationship to Parliament and he could help finance someones election.

Well, he had more actual power than Elizabeth II or Victoria. How much power he had is difficult to pin down, though.

The thing with the British Constitution is that it is not written down. This enables it to be constantly evolving to meet the needs of an ever-changing world. In practice, the power and role of the monarch has decreased over time while that of parliament has increased.

So George III ruled in conjunction with Parliament. He needed the support of Parliament for any policy to succeed. The last monarch who tried to ignore Parliament was Charles I, and look what happened to him….

As for making war. Parliament controlled the money. War is expensive. I'm sure you can draw your own conclusions!

On a side note. While the navy is the Royal Navy, the army is not the Royal Army. One of the consequences of the constitutional struggles of the 17th Century was that the army was placed firmly under Parliamentary control.

And, hence the annual Mutiny Act.

Even with the Army, the Hanoverian kings exercised a lot more day-to-day control over its structure and administration – George II was the last monarch to command in battle, whilst George III's second son (the Duke of York) is widely acknowledged as one of its finest administrators (cheap – and inaccurate – nursery rhyme notwithstanding). The removal of non-royal liveries, the standardisation of red coats (blue and grey were still common under Anne), etc etc. They even attempted to end the purchase of commissions – a rare failure that Victoria (arguably the last Hanoverian) eventually dealt with.

Read – The Men Who Lost America.

link

This will answer all your questions. Long story short, George III pushed the war, Lord North was against it, but carried out his monarch's wishes. George III was the last powerful monarch in the dynasty where he had some actual say. It is interesting to read about the other ministers, general officers, admirals and the role they all played. Excellent book, can't say enough about it.

Just received my copy of the "Men who lost America." Disappointing. I have reached the Howe chapter and I am finding it pretty thin stuff, militarily; that is to say in terms of military anecdotage.

He airs some hoary old chestnuts, which he manages to garble in his own write.

Apparently 300 Americans were killed after being "surrounded" southwest of Paoli Tavern (blah blah- "Mad Anthony Wayne- blah blah "No Flint" Grey).

Harlem Heights: "elite" light infantry taunts – blah blah- "View halloo" -blah blah- provocation- blah blah

And, apparently, during the battle of Germantown, Washington took the time to return Howe's dog to him with his compliments…

Unforced errors, is the kindest observation I can make.

I shall struggle, on with failing confidence.

link

link

"Extensively researched"- well, one would have hoped so.

If Shaughnessy is concerned with "the dire state of historical knowledge in the United States" he really should do better than carelessly recycle anecdotes from secondary sources, and not always the most reliable ones at that.

I thought the strength of the book was more on the coverage of the King, the various ministers, and the admirals. Considering the chapters are dedicated to different men – and thus limited – I thought he did a good job. The military stuff as been covered in detail elsewhere, but again, the focus on the book is the "men," not the battles. My take anyway.

Fair enough, but if he wanted to add anecdotes such as those I mentioned to add colour, for the detail he did include he should have done some honest research and not written inaccurate rubbish.