"The colonies had little occasion to feel or to resent direct royal prerogative"

Albert Bushnell Hart's quote, "The colonies had little occasion to feel or to resent direct royal prerogative", speaks to the relative autonomy and self-governance experienced by the American nests prior to the escalation of tensions leading to the American Transformation. This declaration is encapsulated within the more comprehensive context of colonial America in the 17th and early 18th centuries.

During this age, the British American colonies delighted in a duration of salutary neglect, a term utilized to describe the British government's casual policy of preventing rigorous enforcement of parliamentary laws, thus enabling the nests significant freedom to govern themselves. This autonomy implied that the colonists typically managed their affairs without the imposition of direct royal authority or interference.

Hart's use of the term "little celebration to feel or to resent" recommends that, for a considerable period, the royal prerogative-- the discretionary powers held by the emperor-- was not often exercised in a manner that directly impacted the lives or political activities of the colonists. The lack of direct enforcement of lots of British laws and the infrequent application of royal power permitted the nests to develop their own legal assemblies and local governments. These bodies were mainly composed of regional elites who managed internal matters and issues specific to their private areas.

This distance from direct royal impact cultivated a sense of independence and self-determination amongst the colonies, laying the foundation for a distinct political culture that valued self-governance and agent institutions. As a result, when Britain ultimately enforced more direct control and taxation-- such as with the Stamp Act and other levies to settle debts from the Seven Years' War-- the colonists were unaccustomed and resistant to what they viewed as overreach.

In essence, Hart's quote reflects on an era when colonial life was not greatly strained by disturbance from the British crown, hence explaining the shock and eventual disobedience when this state of affairs altered. It's a commentary on how indirect rule and autonomy prepared the colonies to resist when direct royal authority was felt more acutely.