Why did they call the whig party the whig party?
It was a propaganda based move to invoke people's passion about the revolutionary war, and suggest that Andrew Jackson did not hold the principles upon which the country was founded.
How did the Whig and Tory parties start?
The Whig and Tory parties, from which the modern Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties can trace their ancestry, originated back in the 17th century in the reign of Charles II.Parliament itself had existed since the 13th Century, but this was the first time that two distinct groups began to form and oppose each other.Charles II did not have a successor, so the plan was rather to have his brother, James, succeed him. The only problem was he was at least a Catholic sympathiser, if not a full blown Catholic. And if there was one thing the English government of the time hated, it was Catholics. So a bill was introduced to Parliament called the Exclusion Bill, which would exclude James from the line of succession. Some MPs thought that yes, James was unfit to be King and so the bill should pass. They consequently became part of a faction called the Country Party. Members of this Country Party soon gained an unflattering nickname, an insult which was flung at them; Whig. The name soon stuck. The name “Whig” had first been applied to a particularly extreme sect of Scottish Presybitarian Covenanters.But the Bill was not unopposed. Some MPs thought that James should be King, and so opposed the Exclusion Bills. These became known as Tories, and this name persists as an informal name for the Conservative Party to this day.
When and why did British monarchs stop ruling directly?
The last to chair Cabinet and appoint ministers regardless of a majority in the Commons was Anne (reigned 1702–1714). The reason George I (reigned 1714–1727) and George II (1727–1760) did not run the government themselves is debatable, but in my view there are two main issues:Both were born and brought up speaking German, and neither ever became a fully fluent speaker of English. Moreover, both were brought up in the absolute monarchy of the German state of Hanover, and neither had the patience and attention to detail necessary to run a complex constitutional monarchy like Great Britain.Their main supporters were the Whig Party. The other main party, the Tories, were divided between supporters of the Georges and of their Stuart opponents, James the Old Pretender, and Bonnie Prince Charlie, the Young Pretender. But maximising parliamentary control of government, and implicitly minimising royal control, was the most basic, central Whig policy. The first two Georges may not have fully understood what they were giving up, but by co-operating with their Whig supporters in Parliament, and letting them run the government on their behalf, they helped enable it.For more detail, see Gareth Adamson's answer to When did the British monarchy truly lose power because queen Victoria certainly had power but the current queen does not?
When did the English monarchy lose their political power?
It happened during the reign of George I, when Walpole became the first Prime Minister. King George needed a Prime Minister because he could not speak English! All is explained on this URL:
Does anyone know anything about the jacobite rebellion in scotland and the battle at culloden?
Here's just a quick overview of the Jacobite rebellion: King George Hannover (Who was from Germany and didn't speak English) decided he wanted Scotland. There's a lot of political, religious and who married who stuff about why he thought he was entitled to it but what matters is that he somehow got King James (not the one who had the Bible translated but one of his decendents), the real King of Scotland exiled. So James was in france and George was trying to get Scotland under his rule. James's son, Prince Charles (Bonny Prince Charlie) took matters into his own hands and got George really pissed at him. George then started a war in earnest and kicked the Scot's butts at Culloden in 1745, mostly because he wasn't quite fair (one of his generals got nicknamed "the butcher", that should give you an idea of what the battle was like). Part of his stragety before Culloden and most of his strategy after was to make sure the Scot's didn't have weapons. In 1716 George passed the.Disarmament Act. He called it a "Disarmament Act" but disarming them was only part of it, he also forbade highland dress and almost anything particularry Scottish. If they aren't armed they can't fight back and if they can't wear kilts maybe they'll be act like the English. The Scots found sneaky ways around it, though, like saying a sgian dubh is a hunting knife, not a weapon. And all the act really acomplished was making the Scots hate the English even more. Although Scotland eventually did become part of England, the Disarmament Act of 1716 didn't help any, it only made things harder for both parties.
When and how did the British monarchy start losing its power? How did the British monarch become the powerless figure head of the present day?
If memory serves from my schooldays in the UK during the 1970s, the monarchy's loss of power can be simplified (oversimplified?) into 5 events:Magna Carta 1215The monarchy basically started losing material power with King John of England signing the Magna Carta [1215], which led to the rule of constitutional law in England. Translation: the beginning of the end of absolutism in royal rule in England. This was just 149 years after the Norman Conquest under William I.English Civil War 1642-51Commonwealth of England/The Protectorate 1651-60The monarchy continued to lose power by turns in the years since Magna Carta, culminating in the English Civil War. The Commonwealth of England (later, the Protectorate for the whole of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland) replaced the monarchy under Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland. (We can safely generalise Charles I was a British monarch, even though history books conventionally identify him as "of England.")The Restoration 1660With the end of the Commonwealth/Protectorate in 1658-60, the monarchy was restored under King Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland. However, Parliament limited Charles II's royal prerogative powers on constitutional grounds that he had no right to arbitrarily suspend laws enacted by Parliament. Translation: further loss of royal power.The Glorious Revolution 1688King James II of England and Ireland (and as James VII of Scotland) was overthrown by Parliamentary forces in a joint operation with Dutch forces under William of Orange, who then became "King Billy": William III of England, Scotland and Ireland (in addition to being Stadtholder of various areas in the Dutch Republic). But during William III's reign (jointly with Mary II), there was resistance to his/their validity to the throne (which is too involved to explain here).United Kingdom 1707-1800 / 1801-1927 / 1921-todayThe most prominent political feature of the UK that diluted the power of the monarchy was the Reform Act 1832 refashioned the British electoral system and extended the franchise. Translation: more power to the people and parliament.There are other important events in between those above, of course, but those are the ones most UK-educated people tend to remember at any given moment.
At what time did the British monarch become a figurehead?
There have been a series of changes. The big change was actually before George III; it was William and Mary who came to power as a result of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and became the first properly constitutional monarchs, doing away with divine right and agreeing a Bill of Rights. However, they still had significant power, and subsequent monarchs had different performances depending on their own presumptions of power versus those of Parliament and a changing society. Arguably George III & IV were a step back, as they presumed more power than they actually had and caused all sorts of problems by interfering in politics. They presided over a difficult period that saw large social changes as a result of growing trade and bourgeois values. The days of the country being split between poor peasants and a small powerful elite were becoming a thing of the past, but these monarchs tried to behave as if it were not so. It was really Queen Victoria that rebalanced things. She was from a very different background to the drinking, gambling, profligate lifestyle of her predecessor, and had a strong sense of duty to the nation. She became a strong role model for stability, moderation and family values. As social change continued through her reign, the monarchy and government reached their own levels of balance, with conventions (not legal restrictions) on duties and limits of the monarch's powers becoming well established. While these conventions are not legally binding, they have had far more continuity than many laws. Victoria's reign is regarded as a bit of a heyday. It is this sense of duty and convention that has continued to today, where the present Queen Elizabeth II is symbolic and ceremonial leader, chief diplomat and constitutional backstop, while it is Parliament that exercises executive power. Legally the monarch could still command and impose all sorts of things, but doing so is unthinkable in the present day. Any abuse of such power would cause public uproar and likely end the monarchy. The old legal powers are still there, and if Britain ever had a situation like 1930s Germany with a nasty bunch coming to power in Parliament, the monarch would be in a strong legal position to stop it. Hence the role of constitutional backstop.