The primary task of all early modern monarchs was to establish their authority, to be obeyed and, ideally, respected. At the most obvious level the post-Revolution monarchy was successful. William, Mary and Anne were not dethroned or assassinated, and power was transferred peacefully to the Hanoverians. This was by no means a certain outcome when the Act of Settlement was added to the statute book in 1701. While the Jacobite uprising of 1715 would challenge Hanoverian authority, the rebellion attracted most support in Scotland and it was quashed relatively easily. England was different. When George I landed at Greenwich he found a burgeoning culture of loyalism to Protestant parliamentary monarchy already in place, and this strengthened as the Hanoverians became established. The representational efforts of the post-Revolution monarchy materially helped to promote each ruler and they contributed vitally to the cultural process described by Hannah Smith.

Crucially all four members of the Stuart-Orange and Stuart-Oldenburg partnerships were committed to the Revolution Settlement and a Protestant succession, although in the last year of Anne's reign there were those who doubted her resolve. Some suspected Anne of being a Jacobite and after her death Whigs such as Lord Coningsby broadcast his belief that Anne wanted ‘to give us the Pretender’. Ironically, when Anne was alive, it was Whig politicians such as Lord Halifax, not her own ministry, who did most to reassure the elector of her commitment to the Protestant succession. Edward Gregg has since argued that these allegations of Jacobitism were unfounded, and that Anne wanted a Hanoverian to succeed to the throne. This shared political outlook meant that the two royal partnerships adopted similar strategies. In generating loyalty to the new style of monarchy what really mattered were the ways in which the royal family conducted themselves. Members of both royal houses demonstrated their dedication to parliamentary monarchy and the Protestant religion, and newspapers were used to publicise their activities. Nonetheless, there were differences in the political and dynastic problems the two partnerships faced, and their diverse nationalities, personality types and upbringings meant there were considerable variations in their approach.