Charter colonies had much more self-government than royal and proprietary colonies, especially in how governors were chosen and how laws were controlled.

Core Difference in One Line

In charter colonies, colonists largely governed themselves under a company‑ or colony‑written charter, while royal and proprietary colonies were ruled under authority granted by the king, either directly (royal) or through a proprietor (proprietary).

How Each Type Was Governed

Charter colonies: “Self‑governing under a charter”

  • A charter colony was created when the king granted a charter to a group, usually a joint‑stock company or a corporate body (like in early Virginia or Massachusetts, and later Connecticut and Rhode Island).
  • The charter laid out how the colony’s government was chosen , and colonists often elected their own governors and legislatures.
  • Because the king did not appoint the governor and did not directly run day‑to‑day affairs, charter colonies enjoyed the greatest degree of self‑rule of the three forms.
  • These governments could pass local laws, levy taxes, and manage land with relatively limited royal interference as long as they stayed within English law and the charter’s terms.

Think of charter colonies as semi‑independent “franchises” of England: still under the Crown, but with their own rulebook and local leaders chosen by the colonists.

Royal colonies: “Direct rule by the Crown”

  • A royal (or crown) colony was owned and controlled by the king.
  • The king appointed the royal governor and often the council (upper house), and these officials answered primarily to the Crown, not the colonists.
  • Colonial assemblies might be elected, but the governor (and therefore the king) usually had veto power over laws and could dissolve the assembly.
  • Over time, many colonies that began as charter or proprietary were converted into royal colonies so the king could exert tighter control.

Proprietary colonies: “Rule by an individual proprietor”

  • A proprietary colony was granted by the king to an individual or a family (the proprietor) who effectively “owned” the colony by title.
  • The proprietor had authority to appoint governors, set up courts, and structure the legislature , ruling almost like a miniature monarch under the king’s overall sovereignty.
  • Colonists often had elected assemblies and some local say, but ultimate control rested with the proprietor , not with the broader body of colonists.
  • Examples include colonies like Maryland and Pennsylvania in their early forms.

Direct Answer to the Question

How did the government of the charter colonies differ from those of the royal and proprietary colonies?

  • In charter colonies , most governing power (including choosing governors and legislatures) rested with the colonists and their corporate charters, so they practiced extensive self‑government.
  • In royal colonies , the king and his appointed governor held the real power, with colonial assemblies operating under royal oversight and veto.
  • In proprietary colonies , political authority flowed from the proprietor , who ruled under a royal grant and could organize the government largely as he wished, limiting direct popular control.

Put simply: charter colonies were the most self‑governing; royal colonies were the most tightly controlled by the Crown; proprietary colonies sat in the middle, ruled by a private owner rather than by the colonists themselves.

Side‑by‑side at a Glance

[7][1] [7][1] [1][7] [10][1] [10][1] [8][1][10] [5][1] [5][1] [1][5]
Type of colony Who held main authority? Governor chosen by Level of self‑government
Charter Colonists under a royal charter to a group/company Usually elected or chosen locally under the charter High – broad self‑rule and local lawmaking
Royal King and royal officials Appointed directly by the king Low to moderate – assembly allowed but under royal veto
Proprietary Individual proprietor or family under royal grant Appointed by the proprietor Moderate – some popular input, but proprietor dominated

TL;DR

Charter colonies differed because they let colonists largely govern themselves under charters, while royal colonies were run by the king’s appointed governor and proprietary colonies by a private owner with wide powers.

Information gathered from public forums or data available on the internet and portrayed here.