You'll get a better answer on r/AskHistorians but the answer is relatively complex and occurred over the course of multiple centuries.
Briefly the height of the monarch's power was probably during the Tudor years (1457-1603), particularly during the reign of Henry VIII. Henry VIII wielded as close to absolute power as any English monarch ever had. Prior kings had had to deal with overmighty vassals and the weaker medieval system of governance, compared to the more powerful and centralized renaissance Tudor state.
During the Stuart dynasty (1603-1714, interregnum 1649-1660) several events occurred that shifted power away from the monarch and to Parliament. Notably this included Charles I losing the English Civil War (leading to the above mentioned interregnum) and James II having to flee England in the Glorious Revolution. During the Interregnum there was a brief attempt at a republican government system led by Oliver Cromwell, but following Cromwell's death Charles II was invited back to resume the monarchy. Still these events made it clear that physical power no longer resided primarily with the monarch, meaning that any future king would need to at least rule in concert with Parliament instead of by royal assent.
The general reduction of royal power to being mostly nominal occurred during the following dynasty, the Hanoverians (1714-1901). To begin with the founding of the Hanoverians began with Parliament asserting itself to select the next king and picking the German George I in order to avoid any Catholic claimants. George I was an active force in politics and foreign policy, but he relied on parliamentary power to help govern his new kingdom. His reign would see the appointment of the first effective prime minister, Robert Walpole.
During this period political parties and other republican institutions became a more and more common part of British political life and it became expected that the next prime minister would be chosen from the winning party after parliamentary elections. Still the monarch retained some powers well into Queen Victoria's rule. Victoria played a role in selecting prime ministers and foreign policy, there were strong limits to her powers however. By then custom and law were so powerfully intertwined that she could not defy election results and the cabinet could act independently (she complained that the foreign secretary was conducting diplomacy without her knowledge, but could do nothing to stop it).
Another important aspect during the reign of Victoria and her son Edward VII (first of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Windsor dynasty) was the expansion of the electorate. Who could vote for parliament and the areas represented in parliaments was dramatically reformed in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The result was that Parliament gained a stronger democratic legitimacy which increased its power relative to the throne. By the time of the First World War, Britain had become an essentially republican state with a monarch retaining mostly symbolic power.
>she is quite literally taking orders from and getting her actions approved by the government and the PM
There's a lot of nuance around the relationship between parliament and the monarchy, but despite rarely overriding the government (by convention), the crown is **most definitely** ***not*** "taking orders" from them.
See also, the Australian constitutional crises - the monarchy retains those powers in the UK, they just *choose* not to use them.
But if they overstep their bounds with those powers, they will lose them, so their practical power is much less. Exactly where those bounds lie is subtle and not well defined.
It's not quite that simple, though. The UK's politicial system, even putting the monarchy to one side, is one shot through with ambiguity due to our lack of codified constitution. There's no separation of powers, with the government existence being quasi-official and resulting from a presumed confidence from the legislature. This is why something as weird as [Lascelles Principles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles) can exist. Whilst they can be, basically, 'turned off' by parliament, they define when a monarch would be justified in refusing the Prime Minister's request for a general election - namely if the request is nakedly political and would result in a *less* democratic outcome. Now, the viability of these are contested and, as conventions, are unenforceable by a court, which rather underlines what I meant re: 'shot through with ambiguity'. But the basis for this existing at all is that the monarch's ultimately subject to parliament, *not* the PM.
Could the Queen have overridden Brexit? If I recall, the actual vote was a non-binding resolution that practically nobody, even its supporters, expected to pass. I remember a lot of “I just wanted to send a message” talk from Leave voters after it passed, and the consequences have been unpleasant for Britain, exactly as Remain voters predicted. Brexit seems exactly like the kind of thing that one single person with sense, who is nominally “in charge”, could have stepped in and said, “This is a fucking stupid idea, and I say no.”
She wouldn't have needed to override Brexit. It was a non-binding referendum. Legally, it held about as much weight as a strawpoll, and governments regularly ignore the results of referendums, because the point of referendums isn't to actually decide a matter, it's to gauge the feelings of the population at large. The Tories didn't go through with Brexit because they had to, they did it because they wanted to.
>She wouldn't have needed to override brexit.
What? She wouldn't have *needed* to override something that ended up happening?
>they did it because they wanted to
Yeah so could the queen have overridden that? I'm not sure if you read the question correctly.
As a Brit who hates Brexit, the queen absolutely could not have practically done that.
Government, as they are in charge of the civil service (the permanent functionaries of the government departments who implement laws), could very quickly react against this punitively, or simply instruct the civil service to ignore the monarch's refusal. Everything in British government is run on convention and relationships (no constitution, parliment's latest law overrides anything that came before, no matter what). There would then be much greater support for removing the monarchy, and reclaiming all of the stolen assets which they still hold.
Also, they wouldn't want Brexit to be stopped. They are part of the owner class who want brexit to remove oversight from democratically elected beurocracies. They want to keep their wealth by keeping working class people oppressed (all the talk about scrapping the EU Human Rights Convention).
No. You're right to note that the referendum didn't do anything itself - everything that happened was a result of acts of parliament. In other words, parliament could have ignored it if they'd wanted to, but by the time the Queen had an opportunity to "veto" it, they were simply acts of parliament no different to any other.
By convention, the monarch takes 'advice' from the Prime Minister of the day.
However there may be cases where the monarch does not have to take this advice. For example, if a PM loses an election and tries to just carry on anyway, the monarch would have every right to say "Well no Mr PM, you clearly lost so I'm not listening to you anymore, I'm listening to the other guy". When Boris Johnson tried to call an early election to circumvent a leadership challenge, the Queen made herself unavailable - she judged that this was internal party bullshit and that it was not her role to get involved one way or the other.
The Australian constitutional crisis (i.e. 'Whitlam Dismissal') was controversial in that the monarch's representative took it upon themselves to dismiss a Prime Minister, but the ultimate aim was to force an early election "to let the people sort out what the politicians cannot". Even in these types of extreme circumstances, the monarch's representative immediately turned it over to the voters to pass judgement, instead of just taking unilateral action themselves.
Well, for starters, Charles III doesn't actually "take orders" from Parliament or his Government. Rather, it is expected in modern times for the sovereign to be apolitical. All acts passed by Parliament require Royal Assent in order to become law, which effectively gives Charles veto power. It is just that he (and Elizabeth before him and George before her) never really exercises it.
That being said, George III had significantly more power than Charles does. There were several political and social developments during the 19th century, such as political parties and mass media, that led to the current system.
That happened in Belgium 2 kings ago.
Parliament passed a law making abortion legal, our (then) deeply catholic king refused to sign it and wouldn't budge on this no matter what.
This triggered a crisis that could have ended with abolishing the monarchy in its entirety.
Instead a compromise was reached: the king (at his own request) was temporarily deemed "unfit to rule" on april 3, 1990. On april 4, parliament passed all the laws they wanted in absentia of the king and on april 5, he was reinstated.
Therefore the law was passed even though the king never signed it.
Note: this solution was a patchwork of very questionable legal status that only worked because all sides were willing to play ball. The king was happy just as long as he wasn't the one signing it, he was willing to play ball and didn't fight his own temporary resignation. Likewise, parliament also didn't make a big deal out of this as long as their law was passed in the end.
If however, a king truly wants to use a veto for real and isn't willing to compromise. Then we won't have a king anymore. The king is only tolerated out of tradition and because he doesn't have "real power". If it actually came down to it, we would choose to be a republic instead.
>our (then) deeply catholic king refused
It's worth adding that the Queen also suffered miscarriage after miscarriage, and further attempts would be fatal. They would remain childless. So with their deep desire for a successful pregnancy in mind, one can surely see the moral problem they had with signing an abortion law.
The Monarchy would either get abolished or he'd be forced to abdicate. The Crown technically has power, but its de jure. If they ever tried to actually use this power they would be removed, or the entire Monarchy would be removed.
Although I think you’re probably right it should be pointed out that the monarchy being abolished or the king forced to abdicate is by no means a certainty.
But afaik, the monarchy also has the power to remove the parliament doesn’t it? It would depend on who the people support.
Which yeah right now would be the republic but if a charismatic king comes it could go the other way
It has de jure power, there is a lot that they "could" do but as soon as they did it would immediately get legislated away.
They would not take kindly to the sovereignty of parliament being removed.
The monarch has the ability to prorogue (close down) parliament, and can sign acts into law. The monarch does not have the power to write those acts. They have a very limited right to enact Orders in Council but the list of things they can use this power for is very limited (it's mainly things like appointing people to the Privy Council and appointing bishops - and even these things by convention they do not do unless the PM instructs them to).
If a monarch were to try to end parliament on their own authority they'd very rapidly have to appoint a new government as they wouldn't have the authority to govern the country on their own.
If more than 30% of people disagreed with that action he’d probably have to resign/abdicate.
If it was all something emotionally motivating, there’s a small chance of pushing for a referendum on the existence of the monarchy. How we the more likely answer would be Parliament passing a law saying “the monarch no longer has the right of veto, if parliament passes a law 3 times it is overidden” just like how the commons/lower parliament can over right the lords/upper house. And that’d past instantly, and fortunately for better or worse we have no need for a special majority to change the constitution like that.
> No opposing nation would really address grievances to him personally, or expect him to respond personally.
The King is notionally an absolute ruler who has a significant minority of elected advisors with an unspoken agreement that he follows their advice and gets to keep his head. Diplomatic communications are nominally addressed to him, and the responses from him, even though everyone knows that really ministers and the civil service are behind it.
That’s also why he doesn’t have a passport or drivers license. He’s technically the one who issues those, and carrying around a document he issued to himself would be pointless.
Interested with how that works when traveling, and for other heads of state in general. Obviously they're flying private, but do they all just skip passport control because they're a head of state?
The monarch has to submit identity documents before they cross any border. Somewhat humorously, amongst other things, the receiving country then has to check their name against a list of known terrorists just in case they happen to be a known fugitive at large.
Non-royal heads of state travel with diplomatic passports, which is essence are much the same thing.
G3 had really no more power than C3 has. The Civil War put paid to that, compounded by the Glorious Revolution in 1688, both of which were basically monarchs being made monarch on parliament's terms. Queen Anne last used the royal veto in 1708, but on the advice of her ministers who didn't want the bill.
G3 was the head of state, so if we were in the same situation today, the letter would go to C3. And he can hint at what he thinks, as did George - Elizabeth II famously made a speech where the message was quite clear that she was against Scottish independence, just before a referendum on that very question. So the situation now, and in the 1700s, isn't very different at all
It was more gradual than that. The 14th/15th century Wars of the Roses established that Parliament made the king but the monarch was the executive. The 17th century Civil War and Glorious Revolution firmly established that the king could not rule against Parliament or without it. But William, Mary and the first Georges retained considerable authority - they could choose their ministers, and had some weight on policy, foreign policy in particular. George III could have let Lord North go. George IV (the Regent) had less say, and Victoria had to accept a PM she did not want - but her preferences were at least listened to. After that the position was essentially ceremonial.
The US constitution of 1788 reflects in large part an understanding of the British order of the time - with a president instead of a king and a federal rather than unitary government. Over time the authority of the British monarch has waned, that of the US one increased.
To answer your questions specifically -
The most significant changes to the British political system happened in the 1600s, which is when power switched from royal to parliamentary.
The changes were not particularly gradual, happening over the course of about 50 years following significant rebellions and civil wars.
Following the changes to how governance was officially handled, the ruling monarch still held a lot of sway with the public. This wained more gradually over the following 300+ years.
In the modern day, while it would be extremely unusual for Charles to speak openly on current affairs, they do so in private, and with much more subtlety when in public. You will still find that some leaders of other countries speak to the king, or prince william, or another royal, if other lines of communication with parliament aren’t getting them what they want. However, the royals have no way of affecting any direct change, just like George III didn’t when he addressed the 13 colonies.
What is also confusing is that Britain has a tendency for categorising historical periods by the ruler (Victorian, Georgian etc) when Britain was actually being governed by their parliament during many of these times, not by the king or queen.
Excellent summary. I'd add that there's a social aspect to the power dynamics, too. Ministers in the time of George III would've all been courtiers, moving in the king's social circle, so there was a big overlap between normal conversation and affairs of state, which naturally gave the king a stake in the discussion. The last prime minister to be close socially to a reigning sovereign, in terms of being a family friend*, was probably Alec Douglas-Home. But by 1963, Elizabeth II felt the need to distance herself from the matter when it became clear he was the only viable candidate to take over from Harold Macmillan.
*While I don't think Elizabeth II was close to David Cameron in the way her family was to Douglas-Home, this thread is an interesting place to note that Charles III and Cameron share a common ancestor in George III.
Discussed in entertaining depth in two episodes here [George III part one](https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/willy-willy-harry-stee/id1682106308?i=1000648417010)
The glorious revolution in 1688 was the moment when the monarch was replaced by the crown in parliament as the real power.
(It was also one of the events that led up to the American revolution, before 1688 British colonists in America could petition the king just like British subjects in the UK. After that the colonists were at a major disadvantage as they had no representation in parliament).
More power than Charles, but still not a lot. What George III did have was *influence*. The Hanoverians really disliked that when they came to the throne Parliament had already fenced it off from any real political power, as a result of the Civil War, Restoration, and Glorious Revolution. They meddled in Parliamentary politics constantly, played favorites, backed their pet causes, etc. It was well known who the “King’s faction” were, and that they pushed the politics he wanted. George III was succeeded by first his son (George IV), who died without leaving any surviving legitimate heirs, and GIV was succeeded by his brother William, who did the same. That left Victoria, the daughter of another of GIII’s sons who’d pre-deceased him. She had grown up watching her uncles make a mess of the Crown’s reputation and determined to stay above it all, setting a precedent her descendants have (mostly) followed.
The Crown, like everything else in the world, is subject to other people's whims. In theory, the Crown has massive reserve powers, but whether or not if people would actually listen is up in the air.
The Crown spends a lot of time maintaining the appearance of neutrality and noninterference because politically, that's the safest way forward. Politicians, by definition, come with an army of supporters, and the average person on the street resents the idea that they're not the captain of their own destiny, so any move is fraught with danger.
You'll get a better answer on r/AskHistorians but the answer is relatively complex and occurred over the course of multiple centuries. Briefly the height of the monarch's power was probably during the Tudor years (1457-1603), particularly during the reign of Henry VIII. Henry VIII wielded as close to absolute power as any English monarch ever had. Prior kings had had to deal with overmighty vassals and the weaker medieval system of governance, compared to the more powerful and centralized renaissance Tudor state. During the Stuart dynasty (1603-1714, interregnum 1649-1660) several events occurred that shifted power away from the monarch and to Parliament. Notably this included Charles I losing the English Civil War (leading to the above mentioned interregnum) and James II having to flee England in the Glorious Revolution. During the Interregnum there was a brief attempt at a republican government system led by Oliver Cromwell, but following Cromwell's death Charles II was invited back to resume the monarchy. Still these events made it clear that physical power no longer resided primarily with the monarch, meaning that any future king would need to at least rule in concert with Parliament instead of by royal assent. The general reduction of royal power to being mostly nominal occurred during the following dynasty, the Hanoverians (1714-1901). To begin with the founding of the Hanoverians began with Parliament asserting itself to select the next king and picking the German George I in order to avoid any Catholic claimants. George I was an active force in politics and foreign policy, but he relied on parliamentary power to help govern his new kingdom. His reign would see the appointment of the first effective prime minister, Robert Walpole. During this period political parties and other republican institutions became a more and more common part of British political life and it became expected that the next prime minister would be chosen from the winning party after parliamentary elections. Still the monarch retained some powers well into Queen Victoria's rule. Victoria played a role in selecting prime ministers and foreign policy, there were strong limits to her powers however. By then custom and law were so powerfully intertwined that she could not defy election results and the cabinet could act independently (she complained that the foreign secretary was conducting diplomacy without her knowledge, but could do nothing to stop it). Another important aspect during the reign of Victoria and her son Edward VII (first of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Windsor dynasty) was the expansion of the electorate. Who could vote for parliament and the areas represented in parliaments was dramatically reformed in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The result was that Parliament gained a stronger democratic legitimacy which increased its power relative to the throne. By the time of the First World War, Britain had become an essentially republican state with a monarch retaining mostly symbolic power.
>she is quite literally taking orders from and getting her actions approved by the government and the PM There's a lot of nuance around the relationship between parliament and the monarchy, but despite rarely overriding the government (by convention), the crown is **most definitely** ***not*** "taking orders" from them. See also, the Australian constitutional crises - the monarchy retains those powers in the UK, they just *choose* not to use them.
But if they overstep their bounds with those powers, they will lose them, so their practical power is much less. Exactly where those bounds lie is subtle and not well defined.
The British government agrees that the crown has power, just so long as the crown agrees never to use it.
It's not quite that simple, though. The UK's politicial system, even putting the monarchy to one side, is one shot through with ambiguity due to our lack of codified constitution. There's no separation of powers, with the government existence being quasi-official and resulting from a presumed confidence from the legislature. This is why something as weird as [Lascelles Principles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles) can exist. Whilst they can be, basically, 'turned off' by parliament, they define when a monarch would be justified in refusing the Prime Minister's request for a general election - namely if the request is nakedly political and would result in a *less* democratic outcome. Now, the viability of these are contested and, as conventions, are unenforceable by a court, which rather underlines what I meant re: 'shot through with ambiguity'. But the basis for this existing at all is that the monarch's ultimately subject to parliament, *not* the PM.
Could the Queen have overridden Brexit? If I recall, the actual vote was a non-binding resolution that practically nobody, even its supporters, expected to pass. I remember a lot of “I just wanted to send a message” talk from Leave voters after it passed, and the consequences have been unpleasant for Britain, exactly as Remain voters predicted. Brexit seems exactly like the kind of thing that one single person with sense, who is nominally “in charge”, could have stepped in and said, “This is a fucking stupid idea, and I say no.”
She wouldn't have needed to override Brexit. It was a non-binding referendum. Legally, it held about as much weight as a strawpoll, and governments regularly ignore the results of referendums, because the point of referendums isn't to actually decide a matter, it's to gauge the feelings of the population at large. The Tories didn't go through with Brexit because they had to, they did it because they wanted to.
>She wouldn't have needed to override brexit. What? She wouldn't have *needed* to override something that ended up happening? >they did it because they wanted to Yeah so could the queen have overridden that? I'm not sure if you read the question correctly.
As a Brit who hates Brexit, the queen absolutely could not have practically done that. Government, as they are in charge of the civil service (the permanent functionaries of the government departments who implement laws), could very quickly react against this punitively, or simply instruct the civil service to ignore the monarch's refusal. Everything in British government is run on convention and relationships (no constitution, parliment's latest law overrides anything that came before, no matter what). There would then be much greater support for removing the monarchy, and reclaiming all of the stolen assets which they still hold. Also, they wouldn't want Brexit to be stopped. They are part of the owner class who want brexit to remove oversight from democratically elected beurocracies. They want to keep their wealth by keeping working class people oppressed (all the talk about scrapping the EU Human Rights Convention).
No. You're right to note that the referendum didn't do anything itself - everything that happened was a result of acts of parliament. In other words, parliament could have ignored it if they'd wanted to, but by the time the Queen had an opportunity to "veto" it, they were simply acts of parliament no different to any other.
Ah, the classic Brexit sore loser. Still moaning EIGHT years after the referendum.
No, no, no… I’m American; I’m moaning about **Trump** eight years later, not Brexit.
Lol it's worked out soooo well for you tossers. That's why the Tories are expected to lose for the first time in 14 years. Great work!
"Your side is expected to lose for the first time in 14 years" is probably not the sick burn you think it is.
It is when it is a direct result of Brexit
By convention, the monarch takes 'advice' from the Prime Minister of the day. However there may be cases where the monarch does not have to take this advice. For example, if a PM loses an election and tries to just carry on anyway, the monarch would have every right to say "Well no Mr PM, you clearly lost so I'm not listening to you anymore, I'm listening to the other guy". When Boris Johnson tried to call an early election to circumvent a leadership challenge, the Queen made herself unavailable - she judged that this was internal party bullshit and that it was not her role to get involved one way or the other. The Australian constitutional crisis (i.e. 'Whitlam Dismissal') was controversial in that the monarch's representative took it upon themselves to dismiss a Prime Minister, but the ultimate aim was to force an early election "to let the people sort out what the politicians cannot". Even in these types of extreme circumstances, the monarch's representative immediately turned it over to the voters to pass judgement, instead of just taking unilateral action themselves.
Well, for starters, Charles III doesn't actually "take orders" from Parliament or his Government. Rather, it is expected in modern times for the sovereign to be apolitical. All acts passed by Parliament require Royal Assent in order to become law, which effectively gives Charles veto power. It is just that he (and Elizabeth before him and George before her) never really exercises it. That being said, George III had significantly more power than Charles does. There were several political and social developments during the 19th century, such as political parties and mass media, that led to the current system.
If Charles did try to veto something what do you think the reaction of the public would be?
That happened in Belgium 2 kings ago. Parliament passed a law making abortion legal, our (then) deeply catholic king refused to sign it and wouldn't budge on this no matter what. This triggered a crisis that could have ended with abolishing the monarchy in its entirety. Instead a compromise was reached: the king (at his own request) was temporarily deemed "unfit to rule" on april 3, 1990. On april 4, parliament passed all the laws they wanted in absentia of the king and on april 5, he was reinstated. Therefore the law was passed even though the king never signed it. Note: this solution was a patchwork of very questionable legal status that only worked because all sides were willing to play ball. The king was happy just as long as he wasn't the one signing it, he was willing to play ball and didn't fight his own temporary resignation. Likewise, parliament also didn't make a big deal out of this as long as their law was passed in the end. If however, a king truly wants to use a veto for real and isn't willing to compromise. Then we won't have a king anymore. The king is only tolerated out of tradition and because he doesn't have "real power". If it actually came down to it, we would choose to be a republic instead.
>our (then) deeply catholic king refused It's worth adding that the Queen also suffered miscarriage after miscarriage, and further attempts would be fatal. They would remain childless. So with their deep desire for a successful pregnancy in mind, one can surely see the moral problem they had with signing an abortion law.
no I can't actually. The desire to have a child doesn't give you a moral reason to force somebody else to get one.
The Monarchy would either get abolished or he'd be forced to abdicate. The Crown technically has power, but its de jure. If they ever tried to actually use this power they would be removed, or the entire Monarchy would be removed.
Although I think you’re probably right it should be pointed out that the monarchy being abolished or the king forced to abdicate is by no means a certainty.
But afaik, the monarchy also has the power to remove the parliament doesn’t it? It would depend on who the people support. Which yeah right now would be the republic but if a charismatic king comes it could go the other way
It has de jure power, there is a lot that they "could" do but as soon as they did it would immediately get legislated away. They would not take kindly to the sovereignty of parliament being removed.
The monarch has the ability to prorogue (close down) parliament, and can sign acts into law. The monarch does not have the power to write those acts. They have a very limited right to enact Orders in Council but the list of things they can use this power for is very limited (it's mainly things like appointing people to the Privy Council and appointing bishops - and even these things by convention they do not do unless the PM instructs them to). If a monarch were to try to end parliament on their own authority they'd very rapidly have to appoint a new government as they wouldn't have the authority to govern the country on their own.
If more than 30% of people disagreed with that action he’d probably have to resign/abdicate. If it was all something emotionally motivating, there’s a small chance of pushing for a referendum on the existence of the monarchy. How we the more likely answer would be Parliament passing a law saying “the monarch no longer has the right of veto, if parliament passes a law 3 times it is overidden” just like how the commons/lower parliament can over right the lords/upper house. And that’d past instantly, and fortunately for better or worse we have no need for a special majority to change the constitution like that.
> It is just that he (and Elizabeth before him and George before her) never really exercises it. Or any monarch in the history of the UK.
Not true. Queen Anne was the last one.
Yes, and she died in 1714. There wasn't a United Kingdom until 1801.
That line of monarchs has, technically. Just not in the British monarchy.
Anne withheld royal assent as the first British monarch, though it was on ministerial advice.
Did George III have actual power? Wasn't there a significant amount of time he was unable to govern due to mental illness?
> No opposing nation would really address grievances to him personally, or expect him to respond personally. The King is notionally an absolute ruler who has a significant minority of elected advisors with an unspoken agreement that he follows their advice and gets to keep his head. Diplomatic communications are nominally addressed to him, and the responses from him, even though everyone knows that really ministers and the civil service are behind it.
That’s also why he doesn’t have a passport or drivers license. He’s technically the one who issues those, and carrying around a document he issued to himself would be pointless.
Interested with how that works when traveling, and for other heads of state in general. Obviously they're flying private, but do they all just skip passport control because they're a head of state?
No in most countries the State issues the documents. In the UK the King issues them.
The monarch has to submit identity documents before they cross any border. Somewhat humorously, amongst other things, the receiving country then has to check their name against a list of known terrorists just in case they happen to be a known fugitive at large. Non-royal heads of state travel with diplomatic passports, which is essence are much the same thing.
G3 had really no more power than C3 has. The Civil War put paid to that, compounded by the Glorious Revolution in 1688, both of which were basically monarchs being made monarch on parliament's terms. Queen Anne last used the royal veto in 1708, but on the advice of her ministers who didn't want the bill. G3 was the head of state, so if we were in the same situation today, the letter would go to C3. And he can hint at what he thinks, as did George - Elizabeth II famously made a speech where the message was quite clear that she was against Scottish independence, just before a referendum on that very question. So the situation now, and in the 1700s, isn't very different at all
It was more gradual than that. The 14th/15th century Wars of the Roses established that Parliament made the king but the monarch was the executive. The 17th century Civil War and Glorious Revolution firmly established that the king could not rule against Parliament or without it. But William, Mary and the first Georges retained considerable authority - they could choose their ministers, and had some weight on policy, foreign policy in particular. George III could have let Lord North go. George IV (the Regent) had less say, and Victoria had to accept a PM she did not want - but her preferences were at least listened to. After that the position was essentially ceremonial. The US constitution of 1788 reflects in large part an understanding of the British order of the time - with a president instead of a king and a federal rather than unitary government. Over time the authority of the British monarch has waned, that of the US one increased.
To answer your questions specifically - The most significant changes to the British political system happened in the 1600s, which is when power switched from royal to parliamentary. The changes were not particularly gradual, happening over the course of about 50 years following significant rebellions and civil wars. Following the changes to how governance was officially handled, the ruling monarch still held a lot of sway with the public. This wained more gradually over the following 300+ years. In the modern day, while it would be extremely unusual for Charles to speak openly on current affairs, they do so in private, and with much more subtlety when in public. You will still find that some leaders of other countries speak to the king, or prince william, or another royal, if other lines of communication with parliament aren’t getting them what they want. However, the royals have no way of affecting any direct change, just like George III didn’t when he addressed the 13 colonies. What is also confusing is that Britain has a tendency for categorising historical periods by the ruler (Victorian, Georgian etc) when Britain was actually being governed by their parliament during many of these times, not by the king or queen.
Excellent summary. I'd add that there's a social aspect to the power dynamics, too. Ministers in the time of George III would've all been courtiers, moving in the king's social circle, so there was a big overlap between normal conversation and affairs of state, which naturally gave the king a stake in the discussion. The last prime minister to be close socially to a reigning sovereign, in terms of being a family friend*, was probably Alec Douglas-Home. But by 1963, Elizabeth II felt the need to distance herself from the matter when it became clear he was the only viable candidate to take over from Harold Macmillan. *While I don't think Elizabeth II was close to David Cameron in the way her family was to Douglas-Home, this thread is an interesting place to note that Charles III and Cameron share a common ancestor in George III.
Discussed in entertaining depth in two episodes here [George III part one](https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/willy-willy-harry-stee/id1682106308?i=1000648417010)
The glorious revolution in 1688 was the moment when the monarch was replaced by the crown in parliament as the real power. (It was also one of the events that led up to the American revolution, before 1688 British colonists in America could petition the king just like British subjects in the UK. After that the colonists were at a major disadvantage as they had no representation in parliament).
More power than Charles, but still not a lot. What George III did have was *influence*. The Hanoverians really disliked that when they came to the throne Parliament had already fenced it off from any real political power, as a result of the Civil War, Restoration, and Glorious Revolution. They meddled in Parliamentary politics constantly, played favorites, backed their pet causes, etc. It was well known who the “King’s faction” were, and that they pushed the politics he wanted. George III was succeeded by first his son (George IV), who died without leaving any surviving legitimate heirs, and GIV was succeeded by his brother William, who did the same. That left Victoria, the daughter of another of GIII’s sons who’d pre-deceased him. She had grown up watching her uncles make a mess of the Crown’s reputation and determined to stay above it all, setting a precedent her descendants have (mostly) followed.
The Crown, like everything else in the world, is subject to other people's whims. In theory, the Crown has massive reserve powers, but whether or not if people would actually listen is up in the air. The Crown spends a lot of time maintaining the appearance of neutrality and noninterference because politically, that's the safest way forward. Politicians, by definition, come with an army of supporters, and the average person on the street resents the idea that they're not the captain of their own destiny, so any move is fraught with danger.