Inspired by the recent Truss and Sunak try to lead the UK threads. When did the UK monarch lose the majority of their powers? As an American I didn’t really get an education in most of 19th century British history, which is when I assume the bulk of the transition occurred. One of my two points of reference is the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence, which was of course addressed to King George III rather than whoever was prime minister at the time. The other is WWII, when the UK was led by Winston Churchill rather than whoever was monarch at the time (George VI). At what point did the flip occur, so that a historical event would be better described by the UK being led by Prime Minister Jones (or whoever) rather than whoever was monarch at the time?
You need to go back a fair bit from your frames of references. The supremacy of Parliament over the Monarch had been slowly taking shape throughout the 1600s, and was the chief reason for the English Civil War, which saw Parliament and the King quite literally at war with each other.
But the definitive moment occurred in 1689, with the publication of the Bill of Rights. You may be interested to know that it was used as a model for the US Bill of Rights.
Which all means that we are often quite confused about the US obsession with King George III.
You can read more about Parliamentary sovereignty from the horse’s mouth here
I think it would be fair to say that if we still had an absolute monarch at around the same time as the US Revolution, we may not still have a monarchy today. I mean, just look at France.
I was a little light on the reason why it occurred in 1689. That was after James II had been turfed out for being a terrible King and a Catholic, and Parliament invited William of Orange to take the throne. The invitation was loaded - you can have the Crown, but we are now the boss.
It’s not just 21st century Americans obsessed with George III, it was 18th century Americans. After all, this little document, which declared the colonies to be in open rebellion, was a response by George III, not the prime minister. If the UK monarch was that powerless at the time, why were the American colonists negotiating with / fighting against George III, as opposed to the prime minister? Surely they would have known better than to address the Declaration of Independence to a figurehead monarch.
I suppose that would be because of a popular interpretation of what at the time were political formalities – after all it’s “His Majesty’s Government”, not “Lord North’s Government”, and everything that went on officially would be proclaimed in the name of the King, as seen above (sure the proclamation is from the King, but HE likely did not write it), so the grievances in the Declaration of Independence are addressed to the King, embodiment of the state and the continuity of the old system, rather than to Lord North, easily replaceable official your average farmer has never heard of. The people just knew that there was a King and the King’s men were the opposition, so King’s the Baddie and it stuck.
I believe yes, the “Glorious (for the gentry, I suppose) Revolution” would be the tipping point. Of course, cementing and solidifying the transfer of power to the political class was assisted in the following century and a half by counting among the monarchs one who was a foreigner who did not even speak the language, one who stayed on the throne through years of mental disability, one who knew he was just a placeholder, and a teenage girl.
As a political manifesto, it was easier in the Declaration of Indepence for the elected governments of the colonies to put the blame on a single king, rather than acknowledge that the policies were supported by an elected House of Commons. “Monarch bad, elected governments good!” was a nice catchphrase, so best not to flag that the British government had a strong elected component to it.
Government in Britain is carried on in the name of the monarch, so the proclamation in question would be issued in the King’s name. That doesn’t mean George III was an absolute monarch, like Louis XIV. He was the head of a mixed government that needed to retain popular support in the House of Commons and aristocratic support in the House of Lords.
(Note: acknowledging that the franchise was much more restricted in 18th century Britain than by modern standards, but the British system had been held up as an example of the separation of powers by no less than Montesquieu, one of the key writers on checks and balances.)
Getting back to the OP, there was no clear transition date. The British Constitution has evolved over centuries. The Civil Wars, the Glorious Revolution, the Bill of Rights, and the general trends in the 18th century of greater popular political power, all played a role. The definite breakpoint was likely when William IV dismissed the Grey ministry, and then found that because Grey had solid support in the Commons, William had no choice but to climb down and invite Grey to form a new ministry. However, as late as the reign of Elizabeth II, Her Majesty made a personal choice of which Tory leader to appoint as Prime Minister on one occasion when the Tories were themselves divided.
It’s not like the founding father’s and the colonists were clueless as to how the British system works/ed. After all the slogan was No taxation without representation, not No taxation without us also being king.
My understanding is that there was a long process, even after 1688, of shifting the balance as between being the more proactive or reactive partner, with implicit “court” and “country” parties.
Even after the general principle of the monarchy being a relatively passive position “above the fray” had been accepted, there were moments when monarchs acted. Edward VII actively promoted the Entente Cordiale, George V tried (and failed) to get all the parties into a consensus over Irish Home Rule, and was active in the creation of the National coalition to deal with the economic crisis of 1931, George VI in 1945 persuaded Attlee to swap over his initial choices for Chancellor and Foreign Secretary (on grounds of personality rather than policy).
Pretty much the same things happens today, The Government is still His Majesty’s Government, and every bill will be signed into law by Charles. But he doesn’t get to decide the law, or whether to sign it, indeed.
True, but the Declaration of Independence was a political broadsheet, not a learned political science treatise. Adams and Jefferson wanted it to be as politically persuasive as possible, not be a basis for academic discussions. They emphasized the aspects of the British government that were most likely to win popular support in the colonies, and that included demonising the King, not the more complex British government as a whole.
Indeed, but No taxation without representation is a straightforward way to show that the OP is wrong to use only the declaration to get an idea of the power balance at the time.
I understand that George III wasn’t an absolute monarch, but I also have the impression that he had more power than say, Elizabeth II or Charles III. Sort of like the current relationship between the present day French president and prime minister, or even between the US POTUS and Speaker of the House.
The American Revolution had defenders in Parliament as well as among the British public. Using the King as proxy for all of the British policies that made independence necessary was a very conscious and pragmatic decision by Jefferson and other members of the drafting committee to avoid offending their British allies.
Yeah, the monarchy didn’t lose its power all in one fell swoop. (Well, it did in 1649 but it got better). The big dates in the UK’s struggle with the monarchy are:
1649: Execution of Charles I
1660: Restoration of the monarchy (Cromwell essentially failed to set up a working alternative)
1689: Glorious Revolution (Parliament goes monarch-shopping, but sticks with the Stuart dynasty, and limits the power of the monarch with Bill of Rights, as @SanVito said)
1715: Hanoverian Succession (Parliament ditches the Stuarts, goes monarch-shopping again but with much stricter rules about who can and cannot hold the throne)
After that there are no more events on this scale, but there are a series of smaller struggles, which are generally either won by Parliament or which turn out to be pyrrhic victories for the Crown. Most of these involve what comes to be known as the office of Prime Minister. Nowadays, it is well understood that Prime Minister is the person who can command a majority of the House of Commons - e.g., can get legislation passed. But the Prime Minister also has executive power, which to this day derives from the Crown. The monarch has essentially devolved executive power to Parliament in the role of the PM. This devolution didn’t happen easily. At first, the PM had to command not only the confidence of Parliament but also of the monarch - they were the person the monarch trusted to act for them in Parliament. The relationship dynamics between PM and monarch varied quite a bit. George I and George II were not tremendously invested in the UK, (George I spoke very little English, even) so their ministers had more freedom to act, and indeed the office of Prime Minister dates from George II’s reign. George III was more hands on, took an active interest in policy and tried to influence the selection of government and PM, and government policy, through a mix of constitutional power, patronage and the dignity and literal majesty of his office. Even Victoria in her early years caused a minor crisis by trying to work with Lord Melbourne, who had recently lost the confidence of Parliament, rather than accept that Sir Robert Peel was the effective Prime Minister. But every battle lost (Victoria accepted Peel ultimately) was another loss of power for the Crown, and even where battles were won Parliament was spurred to ensure that victory was a one-off.
Soft power - e.g., the ability to advise, to browbeat, to reward with honours, to dazzle with majesty, to speak directly to the people - lasted longer than hard power but even then any sign that the monarch was putting a thumb on the scales of a narrow debate or attempting to interfere with or countermand Parliament would risk further curtailing of the monarch’s role.
He certainly did, but your OP was worded like his power at the time was the starting reference for moving power from the king to parliament, when in reality power had already shifted substantially to parliament.
Yes, I think one can date a couple of shifts to:
- Georges I and II being more German than English and concerned with issues to do with Hanover
- George III’s long illness and the general uselessness of George IV as Regent and King
- as noted above, William IV agreeing to let the government force the Reform Bill through
- Victoria (eventually) accepting the PM’s right to impose lady companions for her who were connected to his party
Even so, that covers 100+ years!
That’s on me for wording the OP poorly 
.
With respect to the colonies (including, but not limited to, the American ones), how did the power balance between monarch and parliament evolve? In particular, there were various types of colonial charters. Did the monarch have more or less power over these compared to parliament?
I’m sure people like Jefferson and Adams were not unaware of the political realities of the parliamentary system.
However, when drafting and distributing a general statement of principles regarding sovereignty, it makes perfect sense to address it to the nominal sovereign. It’s like the way someone standing up in parliament nominally addresses all comments to the speaker, even though e is really talking to other people in the room.