George III

[NapoleonicJacobite1066]

Anything to say about mad king George?

Farmer, king, Hanoverian, porphyria sufferer. Who was he To you?

To me George was a medium king, he gained much for Britain, but also lost some.

George was the grandson of George II, his father was Fredrick prince of Wales. He became king in 1760, he had 2 attempts on his life made on May 15th 1800, he was almost shot during a visit to Hyde park and again at the theatre royal in Drury Lane, a quote from the musical director sums it up. "When the arrival of the King was announced, the band, as usual, played 'God save the King'. I was standing at the stage-door, opposite the royal box, to see His Majesty. The moment he entered the box, a man in the pit, next the orchestra, on the right hand, stood up on the bench, and discharged a pistol at our august Monarch, as he came to the front of the box.”

He was a king, but he had very average interests, he was enthused by farming, he often snuck into the royal farm and helped with the work. Ironically the name George comes from the Greek word for farmer.

He was found to be mad and by modern standards tortured, he had a red hot poker pushed against his forehead, he was bound and gagged. His son George IV became prince regient. George IV was hated, his father was more popular with the people.

Uranus was originally named George’s star after him by William Hershel, who dicscovered it.
He lost America, but it wasn’t really his fault, the situation in America was on eggshells for years, no one could’ve stopped the independence movement.

George died in 1820.

George IV reigned from 1820-1830
His brother William IV (sailor king) reigned from 1830-1837
Victoria was the last Hanoverian, she reigned from 1837-1901

 

[NapoleonicJacobite1066]

He is so interesting because of what he went through which his illness.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Yes.

The best songs out of 'Hamilton' are all sung by George III.

The only reason to listen to the soundtrack, IMHO.

 

[NapoleonicJacobite1066]

That guy can sing, that’s for sure.

 

[Director]

George III was intelligent, had decent administrative skills and picked mostly competent ministers. But English court, political and economic life were aggressively opulent and quite corrupt. There was a clear and growing disconnect between the relatively plain and hard-working colonials and the 'place-men' in England who were paid for being noble, or related to someone noble, or for being the favorite of someone noble.

England under George III was the most modern nation in its manufactures, transport and financial arrangements. Immensely wealthy, able to draw on enormous reserves of credit, and able - for geographical and naval reasons - to fight the other great powers of France and Spain to a draw. The English invasion force sent to subdue the colonies was the largest in history up to that point, and no-one believed the colonies could withstand it. And of course they could not - every attempt to meet the English army in open battle resulted in defeat for the Americans. It simply did not seem likely that the colonists could lose battles, give up their major cities, and yet keep fighting, prosecuting the war by asymmetrical means of avoiding battle while not allowing the English to split the army up into pacification garrisons. Eventually, when France and Spain came in, an English victory in America was clearly impossible, though it has been argued that it never was possible.

George III inherited a bad situation, where generations of ministers had tried to get control of the colonies and then backed down under protest. That sort of threaten/back down cycle convinced Americans that the English would always back down, and convinced George III and his ministers that an implacable hand was needed. While his outright refusal to negotiate in the years leading up to armed rebellion did directly provoke the conflict, I'm not sure what else he could have done. There was no established mechanism for creating a dominion (and British offers to do just that were rejected by the colonists - see the Albany Plan etc), English war-related debts were large not least because of money spent on campaigns in America, and the idea of creating American seats in Parliament, in that era of rotten boroughs, was impossible of suggestion let alone execution.

So other than enforcing obedience (and taxes), or acquiescing to the status quo (making money off manufactures, shipping and raw materials instead of direct taxes) it is not clear to me what other course George III had open to him. The real tragedy for England is that the break (or the attempt to redraw the colonial charters for royal or parliamentary control) didn't come earlier, when the colonies were still small enough to be beatable and frightened enough of French Canada to be controllable. The tragedy for both sides was that some accomodation of the status quo didn't hold until a dominion could be created... though by 1850 it would have been the American dominion wagging the English dog, and hence likely unworkable in the long run.

It is worth pointing out that, a generation after losing the most populous and prosperous colonial possessions on Earth, England built a new empire in the east (India) and emerged stronger and more prosperous than in pre-Revolution times. So I have some respect and compassion for George III but no desire to have him and his men as rulers.

 

[The-Doc]

What did George III really have to do with the developments taking place in England then? Nearly all government, which was light and proscribed in its reach, was in the hands of ministers and parliament.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

A dangerous king. Probably the most interfering British king since James II. Had a shambles of a beginning and could have driven Britain off a cliff. Had he not gone bonkers, might have ventured into autocracy late in life.

 

[Arilou]

A dangerous king. Probably the most interfering British king since James II. Had a shambles of a beginning and could have driven Britain off a cliff. Had he not gone bonkers, might have ventured into autocracy late in life.

Agreed, he was dangerous precisely becuase he was quite shrewd. His rule showed how fragile the british political arrangements at the time were, and how easily the advancements could be undermined by a determined monarch.

I remember reading once that "The american revolution probably ended the monarchy in France and preserved it in Britain." The loss (combined with George going crazy) kept the situation from becoming volatile (which if George had tried to asser thimself could have resulted in another civil war) meanwhile the french economic issues that resulted from the war paved the way for the French revolution...

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Agreed, he was dangerous precisely becuase he was quite shrewd. His rule showed how fragile the british political arrangements at the time were, and how easily the advancements could be undermined by a determined monarch.

Shrewd might be overstating it. He was notoriously very obstinate and self-righteous, and felt that he should play the part of king, as kings were meant to be, that is, more hands-on than his predecessors (and successors). But I wouldn't consider him having particularly good judgment. His stubbornness got him his way a lot, but usually at pretty high cost in terms of policy.

 

[yerm]

George III is wildly overrated. His efforts towards the Americans were repeated mistakes. You have to pick a rational policy and make it work, not just haphazardly try to force the way it is as tension grows. Do you want the colonies to pay for their own maintenance/defense? Do not draw a boundary line down the Appalachian mountains. Do you want to levy taxes overseas? Allow them some semblance of token representation. Virtual representation was an awful strategy as a response, and rotten boroughs were a hindrance that went away shortly after George III anyway.

The real problem with the American colonies was pathetically weak negotiation. Tax stamps, repeal tax, tax tea... Either tax or don't, but if you do you also give something in exchange. It seems to me that in large part these taxes were less about revenue and more about asserting dominance arbitrarily.

Not all of this is on the monarch or course, but if you are going to fiddle with parliament and play politics like he did, he deserves at least the majority of blame. Britain should have been hitting its apex under his reign, following 7 Years War success and industrialization supremecy, and instead he set back British "superpower" potential almost a century.

 

[Director]

@yerm - I agree with you that a real reason for the growing crisis lay in successive ministries trying to impose taxes and then backing down. An earlier attempt to redraw the colonial charters and give real power to royal governors might have worked, too.

Drawing the boundary line and not permitting colonists to cross the Appalachians was a defensive and economic policy. Settlers moving west would trigger Indian raids and reprisals, requiring troops to be stationed and forts to be built. Better, they thought, to avoid the French-claimed interior until they could pay the war debts down.

Of course, part of the problem of governing the colonies is explained by unrest and uncertainty at home. From the founding of the colonies we have the English Civil War and Restoration, Glorious Revolution, Jacobite insurrections, at least one regency, a sucession of foreign wars and so forth. Dealing with the colonies required a stable government (strong monarch and Parliament) and the foresight to see that the issue really needed a solution sooner rather than later.

British finances and power recovered pretty quickly after the Revolution. Trade with the colonies didn't suffer except for the Embargo years, and Britain developed alternative markets in places like India.


A better topic might be, What course should George III and his ministers have pursued instead? Or what should the colonists have done?

 

[Fishman786]

Now that we're discovering exoplanets this might finally be his chance!

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

@yerm - I agree with you that a real reason for the growing crisis lay in successive ministries trying to impose taxes and then backing down. An earlier attempt to redraw the colonial charters and give real power to royal governors might have worked, too.

Drawing the boundary line and not permitting colonists to cross the Appalachians was a defensive and economic policy. Settlers moving west would trigger Indian raids and reprisals, requiring troops to be stationed and forts to be built. Better, they thought, to avoid the French-claimed interior until they could pay the war debts down.

Of course, part of the problem of governing the colonies is explained by unrest and uncertainty at home. From the founding of the colonies we have the English Civil War and Restoration, Glorious Revolution, Jacobite insurrections, at least one regency, a sucession of foreign wars and so forth. Dealing with the colonies required a stable government (strong monarch and Parliament) and the foresight to see that the issue really needed a solution sooner rather than later.

British finances and power recovered pretty quickly after the Revolution. Trade with the colonies didn't suffer except for the Embargo years, and Britain developed alternative markets in places like India.


A better topic might be, What course should George III and his ministers have pursued instead? Or what should the colonists have done?

An interesting way of putting it.

I have also wondered if Britain's shock over losing America didn't soften her stance and lay the foundation for the highly successful Commonwealth rather than try for the type of rigid control France used unsuccessfully in Southeast Asia

 

[Fire_Unionist]

An interesting way of putting it.

I have also wondered if Britain's shock over losing America didn't soften her stance and lay the foundation for the highly successful Commonwealth rather than try for the type of rigid control France used unsuccessfully in Southeast Asia

You would consider the Commonwealth to be highly successful?

I would have to disagree with you and counter that France seems to have significantly more influence over its former colonies than Britain does over its own.

It's true that the so-called "white" commonwealth stuck with Britain into WW2 and arguably to a limited extent afterwards, but I see that as having more to do with the nature of settler colonies than anything about the Commonwealth as an organization.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

You would consider the Commonwealth to be highly successful?

I would have to disagree with you and counter that France seems to have significantly more influence over its former colonies than Britain does over its own.

It's true that the so-called "white" commonwealth stuck with Britain into WW2 and arguably to a limited extent afterwards, but I see that as having more to do with the nature of settler colonies than anything about the Commonwealth as an organization.

Historically, yes, I think it is a logical next step and successful from that regard. And WWII is the cornerstone of that argument, where each part contributed mightily to Britain's defense and prosecution of the war. Same with the Gulf Wars; but as you well know I have serious, serious problems with the Gulf Wars and am not a fan in any way, shape, form or fashion.

Do i think all the peoples in the Commonwealth have a postitive view of the historical British Empire? Absolutely not.

 

[Fire_Unionist]

Historically, yes, I think it is a logical next step and successful from that regard. And WWII is the cornerstone of that argument, where each part contributed mightily to Britain's defense and prosecution of the war. Same with the Gulf Wars; but as you well know I have serious, serious problems with the Gulf Wars and am not a fan in any way, shape, form or fashion.

Do i think all the peoples in the Commonwealth have a postitive view of the historical British Empire? Absolutely not.

I think that if you are looking at anything past Korea, the ties between individual Commonwealth countries and the United States are more predictive than membership in the Commonwealth.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

I think that if you are looking at anything past Korea, the ties between individual Commonwealth countries and the United States are more predictive than membership in the Commonwealth.

I will take it a step further and will state that since the Intelligence Act of 1947 solidified the wartime ties created by Little Bill and Big Bill, giving birth to CIA (cursed be its name), the combined will of the US/UK/Commonwealth move as a coherent block as a general rule militarily.

 

[Fire_Unionist]

I will take it a step further and will state that since the Intelligence Act of 1947 solidified the wartime ties created by Little Bill and Big Bill, giving birth to CIA (cursed be its name), the combined will of the US/UK/Commonwealth move as a coherent block as a general rule militarily.

Not really though, I mean New Zealand has largely left the gang (they remain part of 5 eyes I believe but haven't been a US ally in a while), during the Vietnam war the UK and Canada didn't come along, during the second gulf war Canada and New Zealand didn't come along, when we were about to strike Syria a couple of years ago Britain wasn't interested but France was.

I think countries tend to weigh their own individual interests more than they act as blocs.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Not really though, I mean New Zealand has largely left the gang (they remain part of 5 eyes I believe but haven't been a US ally in a while), during the Vietnam war the UK and Canada didn't come along, during the second gulf war Canada and New Zealand didn't come along, when we were about to strike Syria a couple of years ago Britain wasn't interested but France was.

I think countries tend to weigh their own individual interests more than they act as blocs.

Yes, I mean in general guideline, not a hard and fast rule.

For example, Britain, politically, could not send ground forces into Vietnam. That did not stop them providing extensive intelligence assetts, training and equipment for jungle fighting based on their experiences, and allowing seasoned troopers to resign from the British military to join the US in a manner similar to US pilots flying for Britain during the WWII.

 

[yerm]

@yerm - I agree with you that a real reason for the growing crisis lay in successive ministries trying to impose taxes and then backing down. An earlier attempt to redraw the colonial charters and give real power to royal governors might have worked, too.

Drawing the boundary line and not permitting colonists to cross the Appalachians was a defensive and economic policy. Settlers moving west would trigger Indian raids and reprisals, requiring troops to be stationed and forts to be built. Better, they thought, to avoid the French-claimed interior until they could pay the war debts down.

Of course, part of the problem of governing the colonies is explained by unrest and uncertainty at home. From the founding of the colonies we have the English Civil War and Restoration, Glorious Revolution, Jacobite insurrections, at least one regency, a sucession of foreign wars and so forth. Dealing with the colonies required a stable government (strong monarch and Parliament) and the foresight to see that the issue really needed a solution sooner rather than later.

British finances and power recovered pretty quickly after the Revolution. Trade with the colonies didn't suffer except for the Embargo years, and Britain developed alternative markets in places like India.


A better topic might be, What course should George III and his ministers have pursued instead? Or what should the colonists have done?

Actual negotiation might have looked something like drawing the line, but agreeing to withdraw it if the Americans pay for their own troop upkeep.

You want tax revenue, upkeep covered, prestige, commerce fueling industry at home? Accept that you may need to agree to a compromise that gives you some but not all. Maybe Charles V might be forgiven for trying to do too much and having a rich possession declare independence, but by G3 the British should know better, you have to compromise somewhere.