I'm researching the Indian slave trade in the Carolinas and Gallay makes the distinction between royally ruled colonies (Virginia and New York) verses colonies with proprietary rule (Carolina). I realized I really had no idea there was a difference.
So, how did governance differ between the two? What were the major strengths or weaknesses of each? Were laws formed and enforced differently between the two styles of governance? What were the repercussions of the different styles moving forward? Finally, what else should I know about this topic that I am not insightful enough to ask?
Thanks.
A royal ruled colony is one that has total control from the crown. It will allow legislatures but the colony had a royal governor who basically can over rule the assemblies. A propriety colony is one that is given to a person or group to do as they wish. . A proprietary colony is also more feudal than a crown or chartered colony. Maryland was the first propriety colony the English created (1632) and Carolina was the second (1663.)
The differences between these colonies and Virginia are large and most effects are seen in the early years of the colony. But after awhile economics takes over and rules the day, and the royals come back and take control.
You can get an understanding by reading more about these colonies founding and development in Rothbard's Conceived in Liberty which is freely available in pdf and audiobook format. Please see Chapters 12 and 13.
Note however that some Crown rule always trumped local rule in the colony. The Navigation Acts of the 17th century applied to all colonies and no one was spared.