The government of the charter colonies differed from those of the royal and proprietary colonies mainly in the source of authority and the degree of self- governance:

• Charter Colonies : These colonies were established by a charter granted by the king to a group or company, such as a joint-stock company, rather than to an individual or directly to the crown. They were largely self-governing, with elected governors and legislatures, and operated with minimal interference from the king. The colonists had significant freedom to make their own laws and manage internal affairs, functioning almost like independent republics under the legal framework of their charter

• Proprietary Colonies : These colonies were granted by the king to an individual proprietor or family, who had almost complete control over the colony’s government. The proprietor appointed the governor and council, and while they generally allowed some form of self-government such as elected assemblies, the proprietor retained significant authority. Proprietary colonies had more autonomy than royal colonies but less than charter colonies, with proprietors responsible to the king but often governing with little direct royal interference due to slow communication

• Royal Colonies : These were directly controlled by the king and the British government. The king appointed the governor and his council, who represented royal authority. Although the colonists elected assemblies to pass local laws, the royal governor had veto power over legislation and could dissolve assemblies. Royal colonies had the least autonomy, with the crown exerting strong control over governance, law, and administration

In summary, charter colonies featured elected governors and a high degree of self-government with minimal royal interference, proprietary colonies were governed by proprietors with moderate autonomy, and royal colonies were under direct royal control with governors appointed by the king and limited colonial self-rule.