Stronger British Monarchy

[Venocara]

The United Kingdom of 2021 is very much a constitutional monarchy with the de facto power vested firmly in the representative government; whilst the monarch's de jure powers are rather vast, in reality they aren't actually allowed to use them anymore except in extraordinary circumstances. For example, in 1834 William IV removed Lord Melbourne from his post as Prime Minister despite the fact that he had the support of the Commons; however by the time his successor died the idea of a British monarch doing such a thing would have been nearly unthinkable. So my question is, with a POD no earlier than 1834, how much de facto power can the monarch retain by 2021? Did the accession of Queen Victoria in 1837 have a major impact on the decline in the monarch's powers or was William's failure to keep Melbourne and Russell out permanently the most important factor?

 

[Indicus]

For example, in 1834 William IV removed Lord Melbourne from his post as Prime Minister despite the fact that he had the support of the Commons;

And Lord Melbourne came back into power a year later after an election confirmed the Whig majority. William IV’s dismissal of Lord Melbourne was largely regarded as a failure at the time as a result of this.

One of the reasons for the Great Reform Act was a belief among the Whigs that George III’s successful dismissal of the Fox-North ministry was a harmful act which brought Pitt, who they viewed as an authoritarian figure, to power. Whigs believed that reforming the composition of the Commons to make it more representative would keep the Crown from being able to unilaterally overthrow ministries they didn’t like, and they thought it would keep the Crown from using its influence to make the Commons agree. As such, the power of the Crown to unilaterally dismiss ministries was one which was in decay post-1832, with 1834 being very much a failed case.

You could have a stronger monarchy with a POD after 1834, certainly, but the power of the monarch to unilaterally dismiss ministries would not be an accepted power.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

A more powerful monarchy probably requires a more authoritarian Britain generally; perhaps a spin on the old 'King Ernst Augustus' idea? Normally that's used to give rise to a revolutionary Britain, but if we generally encourage the worst aspects of British authoritarianism in the early nineteenth century- let's say a surviving French Republic and some sort of British loss in the resulting wars means that the siege mentality that pervaded much of the establishment's thinking persists. You see the same general increase in heavy handed policing; the old saw about how violence in an empire is eventually brought home to the metropole could be another useful way of ratcheting up the oppression. Say there's another severe rising in Ireland in the 1820s* which leads to more repression in the booming cities generally, which means more hanging and transportation of radicals.

This all encourages hostility to reform acts, and you see an authoritarian parliament backed- ideally- by a conservative monarch. By the 1830s, there's probably been widespread unrest, but as 48 shows us that doesn't need to lead to actual reform. The reactionary state could persist. In fact, Ernst probably isn't needed- I think that the young Victoria would be perfectly aligned in temperament and politics with this sort of thing.

The tricky thing is how to do this without leading to a republic.

Let's say that the Reform Acts do eventually begin to be passed- but decades behind schedule. Eventually some British Bismarck figure (Disraeli's the most obvious, but probably he wouldn't rise in this environment, what with Not Being the Right Sort) realises that they can try to channel the change or be swept away by it, and you see some great speeches about constitutional reform.

The result is a Britain that's something similar to the Second Reich- lots of nominal democracy, but still massively dominated by landowners, with a great deal of power vested in the crown.

This isn't convincing me, to be honest; after 1688 I tend to think that an authoritarian, traditionalist Britain would see power stay in the hands of the Lords, not the Crown. That's not just a matter of actual practical politics- by then, even the right wing had invested a great deal of their mythology in the idea of parliament, not the monarchy, being the source of authority.




*I swear to god that I'm not trying to open that can of worms again, I just think it would be more traumatic than a loss in India in the 1820s would be.

 

[Creekmench]

Yeah, In my reading of history to have a stronger monarchy centered UK I think you would need a more successful Stuart dynasty. Your idea of a traditionalist oligarchy is really plausible as well.

 

[OwenM]

It's not post-1834 but @Ciclavex's argument that if it was Alexander IV instead of Victoria he'd have been somewhat more successful in influencing things than his ATL sister and so retained more reserve power has something to it IMO.
Though I think even that would be less Second Reich and more mid-20th century Netherlands or maybe the modern President of Finland by the 20th century.

 

[Venocara]

And Lord Melbourne came back into power a year later after an election confirmed the Whig majority. William IV’s dismissal of Lord Melbourne was largely regarded as a failure at the time as a result of this.

I did mention that William IV had failed in the last line of my paragraph. In any case, is it possible for him to succeed? What would it take for this outcome to happen, and what would be the effect if he had?

You could have a stronger monarchy with a POD after 1834, certainly, but the power of the monarch to unilaterally dismiss ministries would not be an accepted power.

If William IV does fail as OTL, what would need to happen to allow the Crown to retain as much of its remaining power as possible?

 

[Indicus]

I did mention that William IV had failed in the last line of my paragraph. In any case, is it possible for him to succeed? What would it take for this outcome to happen, and what would be the effect if he had?

If the 1835 election returned a Tory majority, then I suppose that would be a success. But that is simply not possible, as the 1832 parliament was extremely Whig - it would have taken a really ludicrous swing for it to return a Tory majority. The OTL result was probably the best case for the Tories, resurrecting their hopes and ensuring they’d remain a competitive party post-reform. It’s highly unlikely it could have been better for them.

But if we handwave the 1835 election and say it magically returns a Tory majority, then yes, Peel would have remained PM. However, this would induce panic among the Whigs, because it was a longstanding Foxite principle that the monarch had no power whatsoever to overthrow ministries maintaining the confidence of the Commons. The Whigs would try their utmost to bring down the Peel ministry at any cost. Even if those efforts would fail, the next time a monarch would try to dismiss a ministry, with such an intense opposition from the Whigs the monarch would be defeated. If you want the monarch to maintain the power to overthrow ministries, you need to go back to the Fox-North coalition, possibly the Earl of Bute ministry.

 

[Venocara]

If the 1835 election returned a Tory majority, then I suppose that would be a success. But that is simply not possible, as the 1832 parliament was extremely Whig - it would have taken a really ludicrous swing for it to return a Tory majority. The OTL result was probably the best case for the Tories, resurrecting their hopes and ensuring they’d remain a competitive party post-reform. It’s highly unlikely it could have been better for them.

Fair enough. As an aside, what if Melbourne was brought down by the Norton scandal in 1836?

because it was a longstanding Foxite principle that the monarch had no power whatsoever to overthrow ministries maintaining the confidence of the Commons.

George III dismissed the Grenville ministry in 1807 whilst it had the support of the Commons and it was so successful it kept the Whigs out for another 23 years. Just because the Whigs wouldn't have liked it doesn't mean that they would have been able to do anything about it.

The Whigs would try their utmost to bring down the Peel ministry at any cost.

They likely wouldn't have the opportunity to do so though, as there were no major non-personal [1] crises in British politics until the repeal of the Corn Laws eleven years later, by which time the Whigs would have been severely weakened by so many years in opposition - in TTL's 1846 they would have spent 57 of the previous 62 years in opposition.

[1] Things like the Norton scandal and the Bedchamber Crisis would be personal crises.

 

[Indicus]

George III dismissed the Grenville ministry in 1807 whilst it had the support of the Commons and it was so successful it kept the Whigs out for another 23 years.

The Ministry of All Talents had already collapsed over the issue of Catholic emancipation and that’s why it could be easily dismissed - it’s not really the same thing as overthrowing a stable ministry. Also, that was before the Great Reform Act, which makes all the difference. More to the point, the Whigs were much, much stronger in the 1830s than they ever were during the long period of near-total Tory domination before the Great Reform Act. They were in more of a position to get their principles recognized.

They likely wouldn't have the opportunity to do so though, as there were no major non-personal [1] crises in British politics until the repeal of the Corn Laws eleven years later, by which time the Whigs would have been severely weakened by so many years in opposition - in TTL's 1846 they would have spent 59 of the previous 64 years in opposition.

[1] Things like the Norton scandal and the Bedchamber Crisis would be personal crises.

They would have tried to force the government to hold an election, to fight in the post-Great Reform Act electoral climate in which they had a much greater chance to win. Being in opposition for a long time wouldn’t weaken the Whigs (and it didn’t weaken the Whigs in OTL), especially with a recent period of government behind them and the electoral system being far more competitive; it would just make them more eager to win.

Beyond that, even before the Corn Law repeal Peel was facing grave issues over party unity. He was more moderate than the rest of his party, and stuff like the Maynooth Grant controversy weakened his position enormously. Assuming the Tories wouldn’t lose an election, there is a definite possibility for a loss of Conservative party cohesion.