(Poor) King George III

LONDON
Isn’t it typical. The mad, tyrannical, possibly dim-witted King George III is turning into a sympathetic character in the hands of our British hosts.  The first seed of doubt in our US-History-book version of George was sewn the third day we were in London.  Our British lecturer explained to us the “constitutional monarchy” of England.  After Charles I had his head lopped off for repeatedly disbanding parliament, and Cromwell tried his hand at kingless government, the Stuarts were returned to the monarchy.  However, the ruler no longer had power of the former Kings (consider Henry VIII). For Queen Elizabeth II this means that she signs the laws and appoints “her” prime minister, but these acts are purely ceremonial.  For KGIII did this mean it was Parliament, not he, who was calling the foreign-policy-shots with the rebellious colonies?

We next ran into KGIII in Weymouth where he came for many years to enjoy the fresh air and to swim in the sea (in a suitably modest swimming hut rolled out into the waves).  The reports of the grand reception he received, his long, leisurely strolls on the esplanade where he greeted locals congenially greeting the locals, and his small-boat fishing expeditions demonstrated his human touch and popularity with his British subjects.

KGIII in Weymouth - favorite monarch

We began to question our tour guides for their “take” on KGIII.  We learned that to this day he is celebrated as a great collector.  When we visited the British Library we found that literally the “core” of the collection (a glass tower of ancient books at the center of the library) is the collection of KGIII.  At Windsor and in the National Gallery are collections of art he “gave” to the people.

We watched the movie “The Madness of King George” and of course it made us sympathize with the illness that attacked him several times during his reign eventually leaving him mad and alone locked up at Windsor as his mistrusted, playboy-son George IV became Regent in his stead.

So it was with this shifting picture of KGIII that Abby and I went to the London School of Economics Library today to answer the question: Was it King George’s fault that Britain “lost” her 13 colonies in the 1770’s.  We were thrilled to find volumes of George’s letters.  “Real research!” as Abby exclaimed, “Not someone else’s version.”  Here’s a summary of our research.  For the full version you can ask Abby for the five paragraph essay on the topic she wrote for her American History course. 

-George was 20 when he took the throne in 1760.  During his first 10 years as a young, insecure monarch there were seven changes of government and with the exception of William Pitt he was surrounded by ineffective, shallow ministers.

GKIII Book collection - the core of the Br Library

- He was not gifted as a leader and did not demonstrate the moral or courage or visionary leadership which might have helped stabilize the government and set a course which avoided the stubborn, take-it-or-leave-it negotiations with the colonies.

- The Stamp Act of 1765 was the great watershed.  It was Grenville, the prime minister, who conceived and pushed it through Parliament.  The King did not influence the law.  And while he was later blamed for it by Ben Franklin (who was a colonial representative in London at the time), he was in fact suffering from a nervous breakdown at the time and did not sign the act.

– By the late 1770’s KGIII was obstinately determined not to give in on any count to the colonists.  He would not change his views despite evidence and arguments to the contrary.  By that time Lord North, a flexible man, was Prime Minister and KGIII dominated him.

So, I conclude:  During his reign, King George saw and must take responsibility for the independence of the 13 colonies.  However, as a man he had some redeeming qualities and ultimately was a tragic figure.  Finally, the British do not blame him personally for the loss of the colonies. The colonies weren’t that interesting to  Britain at the time anyway.  Good riddance!


Peter