Royal colonies, as the name implies, were territories directly controlled through the governor and council appointed by the British Crown there were eight of the royal colonies. The royal colonies consisted of a *representative assembly*, meaning that the people, in this case only the landowners, determined the assembly by election. This aspect of **the property owners being qualified to vote** can be referred to as the **concept of the representative government**, which was reflected in the royal colonies.

There is a catch: although the legislature passed the laws, which were then approved by the Crown and the governor, **the royal governors who controlled the royal colonies** often got **directions for action directly from London** (*stern hand*). For this aspect of the government, it can be said that it did not conform to the concept of representative government. The stern hand, eventually down the line, flared the locals into a revolution against the Crown out of bitter indignation at the unfair treatment.

*The Divine Rights of Kings theory* was based on the idea that the divine few were destined to exercise absolute power over the people, who were bound to obey (as they would obey god) in a state that is sovereign, and any contradictory action could have been considered a mortal sin.

*The Petition of Right* was directed against the king because it limited his powers and the king was required to sign the petition so that he can receive more money from taxes in return. **Kings power was limited in several ways**, including that the King could not imprison or punish anyone without lawful judgment (the judgment of his peers or the law of a particular land). Other restrictions, most of which were violent in nature, included the prohibition of military action or the temporary imposition of force over normal civil functions in peacetime, and the right to order landowners to provide for kings soldiers without the owner’s consent. To an ordinary individual this would not mean much or anything, but to someone who achieves his goals by force if necessary, it represented a turning point.

*The Petition of Right* stated that: ” no man should be compelled to make or yield any gift, loan, benevolence, tax, or such like charge, without common consent by act of parliament” and this included the King, which meant that the law was above him. In this way the theory of the king’s divine right was challenged and weakened.

What makes the American Constitution are principles based on individual rights and freedoms. *The Magna Carta* ensures that all actions should be held accountable to the law (due process of the law) and trialed by the jury, which in other words secures a higher level of freedom to the population because it is what protects them from possible unjust actions from the colonizers. It came as an idea from the influence of paying heavy taxes and military regime.

This came about from a group of determined barons who made King John sign the Magna Carta to make sure not only the privileged classes in the colonies enjoyed certain guaranteed rights, or we can say freedoms. To reformulate what Magna Carta means, it means that the king signed an agreement to head a fair government that upholds the law.

Centuries later the territory of royal colonies on which the Magna Carta was intact, fell in hands of the government (Declaration of Independence) whose principles were based on upholding the law, so the Magna Carta **served as a substrate** to the American Constitution.

What makes a democracy is the power people have to participate in the government. This includes the election of representatives, and in this case we are referring to the governor and other officials who run the colonies.

In the royal and proprietary colonies, there was only one body of government that male landowners were allowed to elect, and that was the lower House. On the other hand, the chartered colonies had more democratic freedoms in that they allowed landowners to participate in the election of the governor and other officials, and to note that the laws passed by their bicameral legislative body did not require the approval of the Crown, nor were they subject to the governor’s right to reject proposals from the legislative body. The judges were also chosen by the legislative body, and the legislative body held a certain degree of democratic nature. This was not the case in the royal and proprietary colonies, which required the consent of the governor, who was under the stern hand of London. Historians assume that, just how photography uses negatives to develop, the revolution would not have came about if there was more democratic freedom in the rest of the colonies.

The Charter colonies had more democratic freedoms than the proprietary and royal colonies because **legislative decisions did not require the governor’s and Crown’s approval**, and t**he governors were elected by the property owners**, unlike being appointed by the king in other colonies.

The royal colonies were administered by the king, who had absolute power and, among other things, appointed the governor, who was under the control of the Crown and took further instructions from it (stern hand). This did not benefit *the colonists* because **it restricted their freedom** by requiring them to obey the orders of the governor, whom they could not even vote for. The actions of the governor were biased to the Crown’s strict regimes and perceived as unjust.