How the British Monarchy Lost Its Power

[Torie]

Just in case anyone wishes to comment on the narrative, I am putting this up. I have always been a bit vague how the UK evolved from the at least perceived power of George III (at least from the American perspective), to the monarchy becoming a symbol of prestige and a tourist attraction. This article gets into the weeds on this issue, whatever the degree of its nexus might be with reality.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/01/how-the-british-monarchy-lost-its-power/

[CumbrianLefty]

It wasn't just "evolution" tbf, parliament took specific steps to limit the monarchy's powers.

[Samof94]

It wasn't just "evolution" tbf, parliament took specific steps to limit the monarchy's powers.

The Bill of Rights in the 1680’s comes to mind.

[EvilSovereign]

This seems like a very stereotypical portrayal of historical narratives, which, more often than not, gloss over important details in order to construct an overarching purpose.

For example, the article compares the War of the Three Kingdoms to the French Revolution, which is a gross misrepresentation. Far more than centering around political upheaval, it was a religious conflict. In fact, the "roundheads" didn't originally intend to abolish the monarchy, much less commit regicide.

Ultimately, the British monarchy lost its power due to a variety of factors, among them to a large degree also the unwillingness of its monarchs to enforce their will. If George III had sought to govern, I'm certain he could've been as influential as George II.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Ultimately, the British monarchy lost its power due to a variety of factors, among them to a large degree also the unwillingness of its monarchs to enforce their will. If George III had sought to govern, I'm certain he could've been as influential as George II.

I think Britain got very lucky, first with a series of foreign kings (William III, George I, George II) who didn't really care to negotiate parliamentary politics, then an aggressively autocratic one who went mad, and then his regent was a dissolute and universally despised playboy who lacked legitimacy (George IV). Sweden is a counterexample of where an autocratic 18th century king managed to effectively roll back parliamentary government.

[EvilSovereign]

Ultimately, the British monarchy lost its power due to a variety of factors, among them to a large degree also the unwillingness of its monarchs to enforce their will. If George III had sought to govern, I'm certain he could've been as influential as George II.

I think Britain got very lucky, first with a series of foreign kings (William III, George I, George II) who didn't really care to negotiate parliamentary politics, then an aggressively autocratic one who went mad, and then his regent was a dissolute and universally despised playboy who lacked legitimacy (George IV). Sweden is a counterexample of where an autocratic 18th century king managed to effectively roll back parliamentary government.

Well George II was actually rather active in government! He and Walpole were very close and worked together regularly. Walpole's ouster from government was a real blow to George's influence of course, but one shouldn't forget that the person behind that scheme was Frederick, George's own son and the heir to the throne.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Ultimately, the British monarchy lost its power due to a variety of factors, among them to a large degree also the unwillingness of its monarchs to enforce their will. If George III had sought to govern, I'm certain he could've been as influential as George II.

George III absolutely sought to govern. He came to the throne imbibed with the Bolingbrokean ideal of a "Patriot King" who would rule Britain in a just and impartial manner without the influence of corrupt ministers. Unfortunately for George, the Whig Oligarchy which had become entrenched during the previous two reigns refused to budge. Even so, George's early attempts at direct rule were significant in that they led to the breakdown of the ruling Whigs and split the party along supporters and opponents of the King. Thereafter George would rely on "Tory" ministers who supported his goals like Lord North and Pitt the Younger since he could not directly enforce his will.

Also, I think you're overstating the influence George II had. The age of Walpole really was the age of Walpole and I don't see the King having much a role in it at all, besides his rule of Hanover affecting British foreign policy. I might be missing something though since I wasn't aware he worked closely with Walpole as you say.