Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 22 Jan. 2005 < http://search.eb.com/ebi/article?tocId=9310645&query=RAY%20CHARLES&ct= >. Ray Charles: The Official Site. Comp. Chad Hanson, Ira Merrill, and Raenee Robinson.
Neither George I nor George II held the British throne in high esteem. In fact George I, the first of the Hanoverian monarchs, viewed his ascension to the British throne as little more than an opportunity to “enhance his prestige amongst the other Electors of the Holy Roman Empire” (Clark and Ridley 13). He also saw England as a means, with considerable resources, to ensure the safety of his beloved Hanover. This attitude of ambivalence resulted in George Is leaving the duties of running Great Britain to Parliament while the king acted as little more than a figure-head. George II acted likewise leaving the main governing of Britain to Parliament and failing to be a truly active monarch, instead indulging his attentions in wine and women rather than the politics of the day.
However, collective cabinet government in its formal sense is outdated. It goes back before the development of disciplined political parties. There is copious evidence of the Prime Minister’s dominance over the political system. Fore example, there has most certainly been a decline in ‘Collective Ministerial Responsibility’ in recent years. The premiership of Tony Blair has been marked by criticism over decision-making without adequate debate.
The Whigs' Lack of Political Success in the Period 1783-1815 There are a number if contributing factors, both long and short term that led to the downfall of the Whig party in the years 1783-1815. Firstly, the Whig party itself had alienated themselves from the King, George III. Unlike Pitt, whose success derived directly from the Kings favour, the Whigs had continued to express their views against royal patronage. The Whigs believed the power of the monarch should be reduced and made no attempt to hide their ambitions, during the regency crisis, that the King would not recover. The Whigs had hoped with the King replaced by the Prince of Wales they would soon be propelled into office.
With William Berkeley as the current royal governor, he was in complete control of the colonies, and had not allowed an election in almost fourteen years. His only helpful actionThe government was corrupted, and Great Britain was doing nothing to help. The Americans wanted a representative and responsive government, in which they could elect their representatives and have a voice in the government. Another major factor that caused Bacon's rebellion was the American Indians. Although some were peaceful, many were not.
The then king William of Orange appointed a group of ministers in a cabinet to head parliament. This was the first real delegation of power by a Monarch to parliament but ultimately all key decisions were still taken by the Monarch. It was not until the time of George I that any further progress towards the establishment of a Prime Minister was made. King George did not attend cabinet meetings and so meetings were conse... ... middle of paper ... ...use of commons and also upon popular opinion in the electorate and attitudes in the party’’. -Sir Richard Wilson In theory the PM is the most powerful person in these Isles; however, there are a number of limiting factors placed upon this power.
It established the idea that even the king, being a royal, had to abide by the rules and laws which the charter set up. In like manner, this document brought the idea that a new form of government can be established. Even though there was still a reasonable amount of monarchy in England it was not much of a problem as it had been before. The fact that a completely different and distinct type of government was formed because of the creation of the Magna Carta is astonishing.
Something based on this belief may well be valid but with numerous pieces of evidence that suggest the traditional role of the British Prime Minister is becoming more presidential and modern society adhering less to written convention, it has become far less clear who wields the most domestic power outside of conventional parameters. Both the UK Prime Minister and US president are the key figures in their countries politics. The UK Prime Minister has no formal written role but is rather a product of convention and historical evolution. His main powers include those of patronage, the control of the cabinet and its agenda, and the overall direction of government policy, both of head of government and leader of the party in power. In contrast, the US president has an official outlined role.
While James II was the legitimate heir to the throne, his personality differences between himself and King Charles II and his policy differences forced England to endure yet another period of political upheaval. In truth, the restoration experienced by King Charles II collapsed twenty eight years later in 1688 forcing King James II to lose the crown and seek asylum on the European continent in the process. While this collapse of the restoration has many causes, arguably, King James’s personality played one of the most prominent reasons. During King Charles’s reign, the “Merry Monarch” had created a royal court rife with scandalous behavior and never ending avarice. On the contrary, King James II had been a soldier all his life, and as his life progressed, his Catholic piety increased proportionally.
The powers of government, and its cohesion under the convention of collective responsibility, ensured that the government could maintain a united front in the face of parliamentary opposition. Within such a system, the PM could be described as "primus inter pares" - first among equals - because, although he was the leading member of the government and its chief spokesman, it was the cabinet rather than the PM that dominated the decision making process. Almost 100 years later, when Richard Crossman edited "the English Constitution he was able to state that the doctrine of cabinet government had itself been replaced by one of prime ministerial government.. Later in his diaries Crossman was able to develop his original theory that the PM dominated the decision making process. The PMs powers have grown over the last 100 years for a variety of reasons: the growth of the franchise has placed the elected government in a position of greater authority; the development of national party organisations after 1870 has tended to exalt the position of party leaders a... ... middle of paper ... ...tion to his colleagues. A PM like Home may have been similar to the 19th century "primus inter pares", but mrs Thatcher has displayed a strength of personality that represents a growth in PM power.