Final answer:
The colonial rulers had limited power, with colonial governors able to veto legislation but within the constraints of the charters. Colonial assemblies had a significant role in the budget and legislation but were not fully autonomous.
Step-by-step explanation:
Under the system of colonial charters, the colonial rulers had limited power. Colonial governors, often appointed by the king in the case of royal colonies, had significant authority but did not wield absolute power. They had the right to veto legislation passed by the colonial assemblies, but their power was not without constraints. This veto power is confirmed as true, meaning that colonial governors did possess this authority. During the eighteenth century, colonial assemblies expanded their power and influence. These assemblies controlled the budget by voting on all taxes and expenditures and had the power to initiate legislation. They played a significant role in colonial administration but operated within the limitations set by the English Crown and the colonial charters.
Proprietary charters differed by giving governing power to proprietors, whereas royal charters provided more direct rule from the king. Regardless of the charter type, all colonial charters assured certain rights to the colonists which would later become significant during the Revolutionary Era. The power structures of colonial governments were complex and reflected a mix of direct and indirect controls, with varying degrees of autonomy granted to local assemblies.