Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Glorious Revolution and the period called the Commonwealth lead to one very important thing for us in the lands of America a century leader. Parliament invited Charles Stuart's son to wear the British crown but with conditions. When it came to making British Law , making war in the name of the British people or running the Law Courts, Parliament not the Monarchy would be supreme and the head of Government The Prime minister would be chosen in Parliament. British government would draw its legitimacy from the Crown as The Sovereign who would reign but not rule Great Britain and would go through the ritual of saying the Government was the King or Queen's government, The navy and army were The Royal Navy (with His or Her Majesty's Ships where the HMS abrev. comes ) and Royal Army makes its oath to the King or Queen and the top British Judges the Law Lords would be Kings or Queens Judges Baristers allowed to present cases before these judges are Kings or Queens Counsuls ) . What Britons created was the modern so called constitutional monarch (The only form of monarchy that survives in the Western world today. Funny thing in all these years Britain has never seen the need to write this all up in a British Constitution. There is no British Constitution.
What is important for us former subjects of the Crown until 1783 was we had the idea of an elected legislature calling the shots in our lands. America might have been a very different place if Britain still had the Divine Right of Kings an we lived in an authoritarian world like Spain , France before 1789 or Russia and their colonies.
Last edited by mwruckman; 06-12-2015 at 10:01 PM..
The Glorious Revolution and the period called the Commonwealth lead to one very important thing for us in the lands of America a century leader. Parliament invited Charles Stuart's son to wear the British crown but with conditions. When it came to making British Law , making war in the name of the British people or running the Law Courts, Parliament not the Monarchy would be supreme and the head of Government The Prime minister would be chosen in Parliament. British government would draw its legitimacy from the Crown as The Sovereign who would reign but not rule Great Britain and would go through the ritual of saying the Government was the King or Queen's government, The navy and army were The Royal Navy (with His or Her Majesty's Ships where the HMS abrev. comes ) and Royal Army makes its oath to the King or Queen and the top British Judges the Law Lords would be Kings or Queens Judges Baristers allowed to present cases before these judges are Kings or Queens Counsuls ) . What Britons created was the modern so called constitutional monarch (The only form of monarchy that survives in the Western world today. Funny thing in all these years Britain has never seen the need to write this all up in a British Constitution. There is no British Constitution.
What is important for us former subjects of the Crown until 1783 was we had the idea of an elected legislature calling the shots in our lands. America might have been a very different place if Britain still had the Divine Right of Kings an we lived in an authoritarian world like Spain , France before 1789 or Russia and their colonies.
Actually it's equally possible the Crown would give up earlier on their own.
British merchants did not want to lose the lucrative American market. On the other hand, England had a war to fight where the 13 colonies were but one of the theaters. If it was up to the king (and if it was someone different from George) chances are it could go either way - keep on fighting stubbornly, or make a peace with colonists and concentrate on other areas. Likely it would turn out just like it did in real life. Even before the English Revolution, the King needed Parliament's approval to raise money for war, so it's not like he'd be able to gather a bigger army.
Actually it's equally possible the Crown would give up earlier on their own.
British merchants did not want to lose the lucrative American market. On the other hand, England had a war to fight where the 13 colonies were but one of the theaters. If it was up to the king (and if it was someone different from George) chances are it could go either way - keep on fighting stubbornly, or make a peace with colonists and concentrate on other areas. Likely it would turn out just like it did in real life. Even before the English Revolution, the King needed Parliament's approval to raise money for war, so it's not like he'd be able to gather a bigger army.
I always seem to detect a lot of negativity from Americans towards the "tyranny" of George III, but even leaving aside the mental state of the King at the time, they dont seem to realise he was very largely powerless and detached from the ultimate decision making at the time. Maybe he was just a little more influential than the present monarch on policy - who has only slightly more influence as I have on current government policy - but he was a convenient hate figure for Washington, Franklin, the Adams', Jefferson and the lads to focus on for your over elaborate tax evasion policy....Which , lets face it, was what your declaration of independence really was.
Sits back and waits for stateside abuse
If you have to blame anyone, then blame Lord North's government, who, in fairness, had to fight a war on several fronts with limited resources, and also take into account that the colonists grievances had quite a considerable amount of support in Britain at the time too. Remember that they were regarded as fellow Britons across the sea rather than some uppity foreign agitators.
Last edited by BarringtonNI; 06-13-2015 at 11:45 AM..
I always seem to detect a lot of negativity from Americans towards the "tyranny" of George III, but even leaving aside the mental state of the King at the time, they dont seem to realise he was very largely powerless and detached from the ultimate decision making at the time.
Sits back and waits for stateside abuse
If you have to blame anyone, then blame Lord North's government,
Well you'll get no abuse from me because on one of the above posts you could read my lamentation about the paucity of information regarding the domestic British politics and there relationship to the colonial independence movement. Information that I doubt that you would find in even in college level history courses.
.... although I have to admit that delving into the British system of governance can be absolutely byzantine as you try to chase down real names hiding behind sentence long titles. etc, etc, etc,
Well you'll get no abuse from me because on one of the above posts you could read my lamentation about the paucity of information regarding the domestic British politics and there relationship to the colonial independence movement. Information that I doubt that you would find in even in college level history courses.
.... although I have to admit that delving into the British system of governance can be absolutely byzantine as you try to chase down real names hiding behind sentence long titles. etc, etc, etc,
Nah, I was awaiting stick for my mischievous suggestions about the tax evasion jibes.
But some of us over here we are slightly more bemused that there does seem to be a tendency for quite a few stateside to think that our monarchs rule over us in the style of Caligula or Herod. They do reign over us but not rule, and effectively haven't done in any serious measure since 1688, as mentioned earlier by mwruckman.
I can understand that a lot of you have a distaste for dynastic hereditary hegemony, so I won't mention the names, Kennedy, Clinton, Bush and - just wait and see - Obama.
Last edited by BarringtonNI; 06-13-2015 at 02:34 PM..
I can understand that a lot of you have a distaste for dynastic hereditary hegemony, so I won't mention the names, Kennedy, Clinton, Bush and - just wait and see - Obama.
I don't know how that would be considering how much ink is used by our media worrying about the latest escapade, divorce, marriage and baby popped out by the Royals. Somedays you'd think that we never left.
Re: "Well it wasn't like Charles II rode into London at the head of a massive army of rightful vengeance. In order to return from exile Charles II issued the Declaration of Breda which pardon all most of those involved in the ouster of his father, a promise of religious tolerance, and certain powers of Parliament"
You know there's history on what happened to those who signed Charles' death warrant. And it wasn't pretty and nobody I'm sure would have wanted to be in their shoes. I think many of them were hunted down and executed. No need to describe here but those who were caught suffered great deaths. Charles from the grave saw his revenge!
No need to describe here but those who were caught suffered great deaths. Charles from the grave saw his revenge!
Why not, the drawing and quartering scene in Braveheart was a big hit here in the U.S.
"six Commissioners and four others were found guilty of regicide and executed; one was hanged and nine were hanged, drawn and quartered. In 1662 three more regicides were hanged, drawn and quartered. Some others were pardoned, while a further nineteen served life imprisonment and three already dead at the time of the Restoration had their bodies desecrated."
Why not, the drawing and quartering scene in Braveheart was a big hit here in the U.S.
"six Commissioners and four others were found guilty of regicide and executed; one was hanged and nine were hanged, drawn and quartered. In 1662 three more regicides were hanged, drawn and quartered. Some others were pardoned, while a further nineteen served life imprisonment and three already dead at the time of the Restoration had their bodies desecrated."
But, didn't Charles II pretty much had Parliament's OK to do this ? As someone already mentioned here, even the members of the original rebellious Parliament were absolutely shocked and distraught that the king had been beheaded. They wanted to limit the powers of the king and may be initiate a dynastic change, not to destroy the very institute of monarchy that for many of them was an integral part of the "natural order of things".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
