The colonists in charter colonies were allowed to elect their governors and both Houses. Colonists in the royal and proprietary colonies were only allowed to elect the Lower House, not the Upper House and governor.
Corporate colonies were funded by joint-stocks and allowed the investors to have a say in how to run the colony. It was the least concreted to the king because anyone could have a say in how to run them. Royal… Full Answer
proprietary was the most independent. Royal colonies were governed directly by the monarchy and charter colonies were basically proprietary colonies that were granted by the monarchy and once the charter was revoked they usually became royal colonies.
Colonies were divided into three types of government - Royal colonies, in which the king of England chose the governor and the upper house representatives, people would choose the lower house representatives.Proprietarycolonies- in which thepropitiatorychose the governor and the upper… Full Answer
Virtual representation was a scapegoat to let Parliament tax the colonies even though the colonies couldn't elect members for Parliament. It meant Britain could tax the colonies without colonial representation.
There were 3 types of colonies: Royal, Charter, and Proprietary. Charter colonies were given by the king, and some group had the power in that colony. Royal colonies were ruled directly by the king. Proprietary colonies were usually given to… Full Answer