My understanding is that by the reign of Queen Victoria, the monarchy was effectively transformed into a constitutional monarchy. The previous monarch, William IV, had done various things that went against the wishes of Parliament. So... would it be him?
But I've read that the monarchy had largely been reduced much earlier, around the reign of King George. So, I'm a bit lost. Who would effectively be considered the last monarch to have real power?
[I once asked a similar question.] (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3kdafv/how_and_when_did_the_british_monarchs_lose_the/)
There's a pretty comprehensive answer, that may help you out.
Edit: A bot just informed me I should provide more information, when I link to a previous post. The comment posted by /u/124876720 explains, that the British more still has indeed a fair amount of constitutional power and how she or he excersises it. The comment then explains briefly how this changed in history and how various monarchs chose to use their power.
That should satisfy the bot, wouldn't want to get on the bad side of our future overlords.
It mainly depends on your definition of "real power." Going all the way back to the Norman kings of England, there were plenty of examples of monarchs being deposed, murdered or otherwise limited by their subjects. Constitutionally they all had "absolute" power, but their political power varied based on their abilities and circumstances.
The two main events (from an English perspective - my background is English constitutional law) for limiting the powers of the monarch are the execution of King Charles I of England (and of Scotland and Ireland) for treason in 1649 (using the modern calendar - 1648 in the calendar used at the time), and the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
King Charles I had claimed divine, and thus absolute power, but his Parliaments had rejected that, trying to curb his authority in various areas. This led to a series of wars (the Wars of the Three Kingdoms) and King Charles's execution for treason. This is probably the clearest indication of the difference between constitutional and political power; constitutionally Charles should have had absolute power, but politically he had none by the end.
After a brief flirt with republicanism, Charles's son was invited back from exile and crowned King Charles II in 1660. In theory, again, Charles II had absolute constitutional power. But his political influence varied depending on the composition of Parliament and how popular he was publicly.
On his death in 1685 his brother James became King James II (King James VII of Scotland). Again, he had absolute power constitutionally, but lost most of his political power, facing two unsuccessful rebellions. He was Catholic and tolerant of Catholics, and the Parliament was primarily Protestant with strong anti-Catholic sentiment. When James finally had a son in 1688, replacing the Protestant, Parliament-friendly heir with a new Catholic one, many in Parliament saw this as unacceptable.
Acting in secret, several Members of Parliament invited William Prince of Orange to invade England and take the throne. William was a grandson of King Charles I, along with his wife (Mary, eldest daughter of James II and presumptive heir before James had a son in 1688), and was Protestant. William invaded in October 1688 with some 11,000 men, and by December James II's rule had collapsed, with anti-Catholic riots breaking out around the country. James II was allowed to escape the country (in theory he slipped past guards, but there is evidence this was deliberate) and William and his wife were crowned joint monarchs, King William III and Mary II.
Having invited the new monarchs to rule, Parliament felt it had the power to impose conditions on them. This included new rules about Catholics (Catholics couldn't vote or hold seats in Parliament), a change to the Coronation Oath adding a part about governing "according to the statutes in parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the same", and most importantly passing the Bill of Rights Act. This Act puts in place certain key restrictions on the Royal Prerogative - including preventing the Crown from having a standing army without the consent of Parliament (hence the UK has a British Army, rather than a Royal Army), or from raising taxes without Parliament's consent (which would lead to the phrase "no taxation without representation" later on). Most of the Bill of Rights is still in force in England and Wales (it is dated 1688 but was passed in December 1689 - the difference is due to fun legal fictions and dating differences).
The Bill of Rights and Glorious Revolution are the main switches between an absolute and constitutional monarchy. Further constitutional changes were made with the Act of Settlement in 1701 (deciding who would succeed King William III) and with the Acts of Union in 1707 (joining the Kingdom of England to the Kingdom of Scotland, creating the new Kingdom of Great Britain).
Constitutionally the powers of the Crown have been eroded at ever since then, with more and more laws of Parliament restricting the Royal Prerogative, and any number of court rulings constraining the power (most recently in the Article 50 case, ruling that the Crown couldn't remove the UK from the EU without an Act of Parliament). However politically those powers have shifted almost completely from the monarch to the Government (ministers). Now the Royal Prerogative is used only "on advice of ministers."
This shift happened gradually, and wasn't one way. It depended on the popularity and thus personal political power of each monarch. To use the example of King George III, he often found himself having to "appoint" Prime Ministers he didn't like, because his choices were rejected by Parliament. At some points during his reign he had enough political capital to exert some control, but at others he was effectively powerless (he doesn't seem to have been allowed to intervene in the build-up to the American Revolutionary War, despite a notable petition asking him to - he was also one of the first to accept the new US as an independent country following the end of the war). During the 1780s he had serious mental health problems and was almost 'replaced' by his son before recovering. During the early 1800s, however, the King's popularity increased and he was able to force ministers to drop some plans he disagreed with (such as allowing Catholics into the military to boost recruitment). Unfortunately, at the peak of his political power he started to go blind, deaf, and his mental health problems increased.
King George III was succeeded by his son George IV who interfered even less in politics, and his successor William IV (another son of George III) generally stayed out of politics, although did still appoint a Prime Minister against the wishes of Parliament - the last monarch to do so. He was succeeded by his niece Victoria in 1837.
I have a piggyback question, if it helps anyone give a more pointed answer. In this context the phrase "real power" makes me think of an individual who doesn't have to answer to others.
At what point did another body, such as parliament, have the ability to approve or deny the crown's wishes, even if only in certain matters? At what point did the Monarch not have the ability to dictate foreign policy singlehandedly, as the sovereign ruler of the state?
It's difficult to tell entirely because we'd need to know exactly what counts as "real power".
King John dropped the ball when he antagonized the barons, clergy and petty nobles and was forced into signing the Magna Carta, this was the first time that the monarchy was curbed by force to adhere to the individual rights of its subjects. Other charters had been signed before but these were just promises made by kings that would immediately break them, the Magna Carta in contrast wasn't a gift from the king but rather a demand from the barons.
Then you have the English civil war (1642–1651)
In the build up to the war, Charles I had a negative view of parliament and saw them as a force that did nothing but interfere with his plans with the country. After rising tensions between the crown and parliament over religion, money and over who controls the military we ended with the civil war.
In June 1642 Parliament presented the Nineteen Propositions to King Charles at York in an attempt to prevent the “…imminent dangers and calamities…”. It proposed that Parliament would control all military resources. Parliament would approve all ministers and officials chosen by the King. Parliament would decide how the Church was to be reformed. Laws against Catholics were to be strictly enforced. Parliament would have a say in the education and marriage arrangements of the King’s children.
King Charles rejected the propositions.
- http://www.britpolitics.co.uk/causes-of-the-civil-war
At the end of the war Parliament had Charlie decapitated and instituted a pseudo-republic under Oliver Cromwell but then handed back the crown to Charles II after Ollie died, with large restrictions of course.
After that it was act after act after act until we reach the point we're at today, where the Queen has no real power. The issue really is that the Queen does in fact operate with an impressive amount of power, as you can read in the other answers.
This question has a top answer that partially answers the question, and I'll add a bit more below.
The basic point is that the monarchy very much lost its power gradually, rather than all in one go (in contrast to other countries where the monarchs were deposed in revolutions, for example) so pointing to a last one with real power would need you to define what "real power" counts as.
That answer points to James II and VII as one good candidate - the last monarch before the Bill of Rights 1689, which was a serious legal limit to the monarch's power (as opposed to a limit by convention alone.)
Of course, after this the monarch still had quite a lot of power, and could in particular veto legislation passed by parliament. The last time this happened was in 1708 under Queen Anne who gets a mention for other reasons in the above answer, though this was in fact on the advice of ministers so arguably doesn't count.
After this, the monarch could still dissolve parliament and appoint the Prime Minister even if he or she did not veto laws. The monarch's real ability to do this waned gradually. /u/zirfield links an answer which points out that Elizabeth II has still done this on two occasions, but this has been in "edge cases" rather than to exert her will on those situations. In the intervening period, then, you have a gradual decrease in the remaining influence, which was dictated more or less by how willing parliament was to take it. George III was able to defeat the Prime Minister and dismiss him and his government from office and replace him with another, and he did the same to his successor! Though the Bill of Rights guaranteed elections to parliament, it didn't guarantee who would form a government and lead it. It's important to bear in mind that the party system which now dominates British politics was not fully developed at this stage, and so who should be prime minister was not as simple as "the leader of the largest party." It's worth pointing out, too, that the "edge cases" in which the Queen has chosen the Prime Minister are echoes of this power. In some ways the development of the party system, by making it obvious who should form the government in almost all cases, has itself taken some of the monarch's power.
Later monarchs, including Queen Victoria, exercised some control over who was in the government, according to their own wishes, and the monarch still meets with the Prime Minister every week to this day. Though she can no longer expect to be able to just fire the PM without consequence, she can still talk to her, reason with her and cajole her, which is more than most can expect.
The history of the British monarchy is interesting in the rather pedestrian way it declined in power: I hope the above illustrates that there is no sudden fall from absolute power to mere figurehead, and gives you some idea of where your idea of real power became out of reach to historical kings and queens.
(P.S. I don't usually post answers in this sub and am not a historian. Hopefully I am within the bounds of the rules, though I expect only just.)
What you have to understand is that the British monarch does have real power. Remember that the Parliament's right to rule comes from the Crown (which acts as a vassal of God). So, in the de jure sense, the Monarchs have never lost "real power." However, I assume that we are speaking about the Monarch's exercise of power in practice. In that case, my short answer would probably have to be during the co-rule of William of Orange and Anne.
The restrictions on the Monarch symbolically start with the signing of the Magna Carta. Drafted to make peace between the English King John and a group of rebellious barons, the Magna Carta (in my opinion) is the first stone laid to help transform the Kingdom from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy. While the Magna Carta is significant, I do not see it as the start of the transition.
Rather, I believe that the groundwork was laid much earlier than what most perceive. I would look to Henry VII as the man who laid the groundwork for the transformation. His transformation of Parliament from a tax-approving body to an institution fairly similar to what we have today is perhaps what started the democratization of the Kingdom.
Parliament proved that it was indispensable and here to stay during the Scottish Bishop's War. The bouts between Charles I and Parliament proved that Parliament was slowly becoming less of a rubber-stamp institution and more of an actual legislative body with actual influence.
The execution of Charles I is probably one of the biggest factors, if not the biggest factor, in the transition. It proved that (1) Parliament (Roundheads) would be obeyed and (2) the King's power was in fact not absolute and sacrosanct. The English Civil War is probably what amplified the transition.
While I do not believe that the republic (Commonwealth) was a "republic" in any sense of the word, I do believe that Cromwell and his pseudo-kingship over England, Scotland, and Ireland (Cromwell was officially Lord Protector but actively ruled like an absolute monarch and a military dictator) was also influential where the shift between absolute and constitutional monarchy is concerned.
The return of the monarchy under Charles II marked the short return of the absolute monarchy under a King. It was Charles' son, James II, who would be the deciding character. James II was a Catholic, a minority group in his Kingdom and an exceedingly ostracized one at that. James II also had closer than comfortable ties to the French Parliament, being a majority Protestant and Protestant influenced institution, was extremely dissatisfied with their monarch.
Luckily for Parliament, James II was forced to raise Protestant children at the behest of Charles II. Mary, his eldest, was conveniently married to a protestant William of Orange. Parliament secretly extended Mary and William an invitation to basically invade Britain and usurp James II.
So William invaded England in what we know today as the Glorious Revolution. William crossed the English Channel with an invasion force in November 1688 where he landed at Torbay. This Glorious Revolution was quite bloodless, with minor skirmishes between the armies of William and James and riots in different towns against Catholics. After James' defeat at the Battle of Reading, he fled England for France.
William convinced Parliament to make him and Mary co-monarchs. However, Parliament learned its lesson and decided that this time, the monarchs would not have free reign. First, Parliament targeted the big fish, Catholics. Laws were passed barring Catholics from assuming an office in Parliament, barring Catholics from voting, barred Catholics from joining the army and barred Kings from being or marrying Catholics.
More pertinent to your question, the passing of the Bill of Rights Act is probably the point when the switch was finally complete and the monarchs lost their absolute power. Now, that is not to say that the change between absolute and constitutional monarchy was complete per se. That would still require the passing of the Acts of Settlement (1701), Acts of Union (1707), etc. I would argue that it was after George III, who violated the rights of the American colonists by taxing them without their consent, that the Monarch finally took the bystander role. George III may have been the last hope for absolute monarchy in the Kingdom, but I doubt that his mental state during his later years and the loss of the American colonies (as well as the respect of the American federalist elite after the War of 1812) finally put the idea of an absolute monarchy to a rest.
Starting with George IV, the Monarchs have largely had their power eroded as time goes on. While in a legal sense the Parliament gets its power from the King, the reverse is true in the practical sense. Since George III gave the Parliament rights to lands owned by the Crown, the Monarch has practically been living and existing at the mercy of the Parliament, for better or worse.
Finally something I can help with! I will not be answering the historical part of this question, but clarifying the politics because at the time of posting this, there are many who are confused about the phrase 'real power'. I'm going to be making some liberties for the sake of summary for the layman, so please be gentle.
What the poster is unknowingly referring to here is Legislative and Executive power.
In government, there are generally three branches in which one can hold 'real power':
The British government involves a sharing of supreme Executive power between Parliament and the Crown - a Dual Executive. This Dual Executive includes the Head of State (which is seen to represent the sovereign existence of the state) and the Head of Government (which represents the government of the day and leads the country’s political efforts). As an aside, in a Presidential system, the elected President combines these roles. The President is both the Head of State and the Head of Government. In Britain this is not the case. Instead, the Queen is the Head of State and the Prime Minister is the Head of Government. So the Crown still holds executive ('real') power as the Head of State of Britain, while the Prime Minister holds executive power as the Head of Government.
The Queen still holds executive power as the Head of State. While it's true that she has undertaken a more ceremonial role for herself, that is more strategic thinking to avoid potential anti-monarchical sentiments, rather than an objective loss in legal terms. Whether or not she would cause a constitutional crisis by trying to use some of this power is an open question - it largely would depend on the reaction of the people. But if it were to cause a constitutional crisis, it would be extremely damaging to Britain, causing all sorts of problems. It wouldn't be in the best interests of the legislative body of the government, so I do not find it convincing that a rational legislative body would oppose the Queen and thereby cause a constitutional crisis. There have been all sorts of recent irrationalities in politics, so it's possible... But this strays into the territory of the 20 year rule, so I will leave it there.
So taking all of this into account, I believe we can narrow this question down to become more specific: When did this separation of executive power occur in Britain? When did the Dual Executive fully come into existence?
My answer would be that this occurred during the Glorious Revolution, which you can read about in the lovely comments that some kind contributors have also left on this page.
I hope this helps to give you an understanding of this topic!
Thanks for all the info, everyone! It's been very interesting reading up on the history of the monarchy and seeing where people differ on which monarch was the last to have "real power."
BTW, I should have clarified my question... By "real power," I meant what many have alluded to already: when a monarch was able to ultimately make a decision that they didn't have to answer for, and was able to directly influence things like mobilizing for war, taxes, etc.
Thanks again for the info!