As late as 1776, however, some British colonials complained about royal interference with the courts:
He [George III] has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries…
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States…
I can see it now: I, Robot II: Westminster Boogaloo.
Yes, in a terrible and unlikely crisis. The noted British political theorist Walter Bagehot famously wrote, however, that the British monarch just has the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn.
For a great book on the British monarchy today, including an interesting discussion of the considerable political usefulness of the Crown in a modern democracy, see: Amazon.com
[QUOTE=Elendil’s Heir]
As late as 1776, however, some British colonials complained about royal interference with the courts:
He [George III] has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries…
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States…
[/QUOTE]
The Act of Settlement only applied in England and Wales, not to courts overseas in the colonies. The Royal Prerogative could run rampant in British North America.
