British Monarchs Who Ended Badly, Part 13: Parliamentary Monarchy

The long reign of George III (1760-1820) witnessed the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution in Britain. It also solidified the evolution of the country into a constitutional monarchy dominated by Parliament. The monarch remained titular sovereign but effective sovereignty now resided in Parliament. 

Monarchs had lost most control over the public finances and taxation by the end of the 17th century. They retained their right to veto parliamentary acts, and still do, but the last monarch to use it was Queen Anne (1702-1714). Future monarchs no longer contested the will of Parliament, though they sometimes tried to influence it. 

Queen Anne also was the last monarch to use the royal touch to cure disease. A lot of ordinary people might continue to believe in royal magic, but Britain's elites were embracing the Enlightenment and all that.

During the reigns of the first two Georges (1714-1760), the everyday running of government became the job of prime ministers and their cabinets, who had to have the confidence of a majority in the House of Commons to stay in power. 

Monarchs could help build and maintain a favorable majority for ministers they liked, at least until the early 19th century. But a monarch could no longer keep ministers in power if they lost their majority. They were no longer solely the monarch's ministers. They were Parliament's as well. 

Various reform acts during the 19th century further eroded the monarchy's ability to influence elections. The monarchs also lost much of their ability to reward (bribe) MPs to to support governing ministries. 

The gradual broadening of the suffrage created a more democratic electorate, capped by votes for women [horrors!] in 1918. To win elections it became more important to appeal to the voters than the monarch. 

The role of monarchs became increasingly ceremonial and advisory. They kept their palaces and servants and remained the head of state, but only as a symbolic head, a figurehead. 

Monarchs could no longer interfere in day to day politics or criticize those who governed in their name. His or Her Majesty's Government had morphed into the Prime Minister's Government.* The French Revolution and the fate of Charles I taught them to be content with this situation. 

The sixty year reign of George III was followed by two brief reigns: those of his elderly sons George IV (1820-1830) and William IV (1830-1837). 

George IV had been Prince Regent for ten years prior to becoming king. He was a cultured but extravagant wastrel whose greatest battles were fought with his parents, his wife Caroline, and his waistline. He did leave us the marvelous, exotic Brighton Pavilion. 

George IV was also the first British monarch to visit Scotland since Queen Anne, and he even wore a kilt for the occasion. For good or ill, he made kilts popular again. 

[Images: George IV decked out in Highland garb, by David Wilkie, 1822, and a satirical view by James Gillray, 1792, when George was merely the Prince of "Whales"]

By the late 1820s, due to overeating and drinking, George had become seriously obese. He weighed in at 245 pounds and had a waistline of 50 inches. His health declined rapidly in the late 1820s. He was losing his eyesight, was in constant pain from gout and dropsy, and spent days in a fog from taking laudanum. 

The prestige of the monarchy sank to a new low during his years as regent and king. The great achievement of his reign was Catholic Emancipation, which he opposed. Parliament repealed all the penal laws against Catholics in the United Kingdom, and allowed them to vote and hold public office.  

George IV's ministers and advisors disliked him. They found him lazy, narcissistic and irresponsible. One of his close aides wrote: "A more contemptible, cowardly, selfish, unfeeling dog does not exist ... There have been good and wise kings but not many of them ... and this I believe to be one of the worst." On his death, The Times claimed that no one in the country shed a tear for him.  

George's only child, Princess Charlotte, died in 1817. He had no heir, and his younger brother succeeded him. William IV was a less scandalous figure, although he did live with a mistress, Mrs. Jordan, for many years. 

William IV was the last monarch to choose a prime minister against the will of Parliament: Sir Robert Peel, who had established the first professional police force in 1829. William failed to keep Peel in power, and in other ways acted as a responsible constitutional king. 

William's short reign produced some of the most significant legislation of the 19th century. The Reform Act of 1834 reduced electoral corruption and expanded representation of growing urban areas and the middle classes. It weakened the influence of the aristocracy and reinforced the ascendancy of the House of Commons over the Lords in Parliament. Another act of 1833 abolished slavery in the empire. A third act produced the first effective regulation of child labor in the expanding factories. 

The legislation wasn't all good. A fourth major act reformed the Poor Law. The "New Poor Law" with its dreaded workhouses proved to be the most hated piece of legislation of the 19th century, at least among the working classes. 

William IV had eight illegitimate children with Mrs. Jordan, but failed to produce a legitimate heir. When he died, his 19-year old niece ascended the throne. Victoria reigned for 64 years, the longest reign of any British monarch until that of the late Elizabeth II. [Image: The Young Queen Victoria, by Franz Winterthalter]

Victoria's reign became nearly synonymous with the 19th century: "The Victorian Age." This had less to do with anything Victoria did than her longevity during the period of Britain's greatest international influence. 

Victorian Britain had the largest navy, the largest merchant fleet, and the largest empire, spread across every part of the globe. Thanks to its early lead in industrialization, Britain was, for decades, the greatest economic power in the world as well. 

By the end of Victoria's reign, British power had begun to erode. Other countries industrialized, and some of them possessed far greater resources. The United States and Germany matched or exceeded British production in many manufacturing sectors by the late 19th century. Others were not far behind.

Much like Elizabeth II, Victoria was succeeded by her elderly son Albert, who became king as Edward VII. His reign was short (1901-1910). He was most remembered as a royal playboy. 

Edward's more straight-laced son George V (1910-1935) sought to return the monarchy to a higher level of respectability. Much of the pomp and royal "tradition" that surrounds the monarchy today dates from his reign. 

Unfortunately, George V's heir, Edward VIII proved a disappointment. He insisted on marrying "the woman I love," that American divorcee Mrs. Simpson. He abdicated in favor of his younger brother, who became George VI (1936-1952). That brings us back to Elizabeth II and Charles III. 

For all the pomp and ceremony of royal coronations, marriages, and funerals, the United Kingdom monarchs now reign over is a shadow of its former glory. The British Empire continued to grow into the early 20th century. Victory in World War I brought new colonies in Africa and the Middle East in the form of League of Nations Mandates. 

Yet, beneath the surface, British power was showing signs of weakness. The First World War was enormously costly, and it ended with the UK deeply in debt to the United States. Britain had lost and was losing global markets to the USA, Japan, and other countries.

The first crack in the edifice of empire came at war's end. Between 1918 and 1921 Irish Republicans fought for and won virtual independence from the UK -- for most of the island. 

Ulster, or Northern Ireland, which contained a large Unionist (Loyalist) population, was separated from the rest of Ireland. It remained part of the United Kingdom, bedevilling its politics to this day.

World War II accelerated the decline of Britain's wealth, power, and status in the world. India and Pakistan gained independence in 1947. By the 1960s, most the empire dissolved, to be replaced by a weak association of independent nations, the British Commonwealth. 

Much like the monarchy, the Commonwealth is a symbol of former power and glory. Both survive on image, and the belief or illusion that they provide valuable service. How long that will continue is difficult to predict, given the Royal Family's recent but hardly unprecedented tendency to feud with one another. 

The current infighting within the Windsor family, featuring William and Harry, does indicate one item of historical interest: "The Game of Thrones" is not quite over, even if it is now fought out in the tabloids. The tabloids, mass media, and the "people" would not want it any other way. 

Nowadays, British monarchs no longer end quite so badly. The question is, will the monarchy itself end in the near future? Prince Harry's attack on the "institution" has probably done more for the anti-monarchy cause than all the republicans in British history.   

*Government by prime ministers is not necessarily a big improvement over monarchical government, as the recent run of revolving-door Tory prime ministers has shown. To be sure, elected presidents have not been performing so well either. Democratic governments are only as good as the people who elect them. The main advantage is that they are easier to get rid of than hereditary monarchs.

If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks!