Sunday, 1 January 2023

Coronation! British Monarchs Who Ended Badly, Part 12: George III

In 1760, the death of George II brought his grandson, an awkward nineteen year old, to the British throne. George III had the longest reign of any British monarch up to that time, sixty years. He was the last king of the colonies that became the United States. 

Every July 4th, Americans celebrate the overthrow of tyrant King George. He is also known as the Mad King, and in some minds, a mad tyrant.  [George III soon after he became king,  by Allan Ramsay, 1762]



He was the third Hanoverian monarch. Unlike the first two Georges,  however, he was born in Britain. He considered himself fully British and cared little for Hanover. At his coronation, he declared "I glory in the name of Britain." He never went to Hanover, or even left England, during his long reign.  

George III considered himself a constitutional or limited monarch. He took his job seriously, maybe too seriously. He venerated the (unwritten) British constitution. His father, Frederick, Prince of Wales, ensured he had a solid education in a wide array of subjects, including  politics and constitutional law. 

At the age of eight George could discuss current politics in speech and writing, in both English and German. He also learned French and Latin. He was also the first British monarch to be thoroughly educated in the science of the day. 

As king, he was a strong supporter of the sciences and arts. He gave a large portion of his income to charity. He amassed a library of more than 65,000 volumes, and opened the collection to renowned scholars such as Samuel Johnson and Joseph Priestley. The collection is now part of the British Library.

Frederick, who died before his father George II, prepared his son George to be a "Patriot King," ruling in the interests of his country and people. Frederick believed rightly that the Hanoverian dynasty needed to improve its image, and he passed that belief on to his son. [Image: George as Prince of Wales, by Jean Etienne Liotard, 1754]




At first, George III had little to do with the actions that angered the American colonists. Most of them were devised by his ministers to help pay the enormous costs of the recent war with France and Spain, the Seven Years War, or French and Indian War in North America. 

They were devised by his ministers and approved by Parliament. The king opposed some of them, notably the Stamp Act of 1765. Part of that was personal. He detested the architect of the Stamp Act, George Grenville. 

In 1766, George was able to push Grenville out. His successor, Lord Rockingham, repealed the Stamp Act with the help of the king and the popular William Pitt the Elder, now Lord Chatham. The king's efforts were applauded in the colonies. New York City erected a statue in his honor. 

In the following year, Parliament re-asserted its right to tax the American colonies. The new taxes, the Townshend Duties, aroused a furor in the colonies. In response, Parliament repealed all the taxes except a tiny tax on tea. Leaving the tea tax in place was intended to maintain the principle that Parliament could levy taxes on the colonies. [Image: George III by Johan Zoffany, 1771]




The king supported Parliament's right to tax the colonies. But it was Parliament's right, not his. After the Civil War of the 1640s, British monarchs could not levy taxes. That was Parliament's prerogative. 

The Declaration of Independence essentially blames George III rather than Parliamenfor the conflict that followed. It was simpler than explaining the intricacies of the British political system. 

The Declaration listed 27 grievances against the British government. Most of them began with "He has...", personalizing the conflict into one of the people versus a tyrannical king. 

George III was no warmonger. One of his first actions as king had been to bring an end to the Seven Years' War with France and Spain at a time when Britain was winning victories everywhere. He was concerned that if Britain seized too much, it would multiply its enemies. 

If we seek the true causes of the American Revolution, we must admit that it was in large part due to British success in the Seven Years War. One of its effects was to remove France as a threat to the colonies and their expansion west. 

Before the war, France had controlled Canada (Quebec) to the north and claimed the lands between the Appalachians and the Mississippi. In the peace treaty of 1763, the French ceded those territories to Britain. 

Prior to this, the colonists had relied on British soldiers to protect them against attacks by the French and their Indian allies. Now, they felt more secure. They looked forward to settling the trans- Appalachian country. 

They became furious when the British government tried to restrict colonists' movement into what they deemed Indian lands. The view in London was that settler expansion would lead to Indian wars and colonial demands for British protection. The government wanted to reduce expenditure, not increase it. 

It is true that once the American War for Independence began, King George was determined that it end in British victory. He obstinately continued to support the war even after the disastrous British defeat at Yorktown in October 1781, when most of his ministers urged him to give up. A few months later, he agreed and authorized the start of peace negotiations.

Once independence was conceded, he became resigned to the new relationship with the former colonies. In 1785 he told John Adams, the first American ambassador to Britain, "I was the last consent to the separation; but the separation having been made ... I have always said, as I say now, I would be the first to meet the friendship of the United States as an independent power." 

British rule in the colonies was often insensitive and infuriating. The frustrations were increased by the immense distance between Britain and America. But no colonies of the time were as loosely governed by an imperial country as the thirteen who declared independence in 1776. 

The true tranny in the American colonies was the enslavement of a large part of the population. British politicians had helped make that possible. But the power of Parliament over the colonies meant they could also end slavery. One reason many southern leaders supported the revolution was the fear that Parliament might do exactly that, especially after Chief Justice Mansfield ruled slavery in England illegal in 1772. 

George III is often referred to as “Mad King George.” But he did not show any clear signs of mental illness until 1788, 28 years into his reign. This is the event portrayed in Alan Bennett’s play The Madness of George III and the film based upon it, The Madness of King George

That episode lasted a few months and produced what historians call the Regency Crisis. It threatened to bring down the government, led by William Pitt the Younger. Many opposition MPs were demanding that the Prince of Wales be installed as regent to rule in his father’s name. 

The contemporary cartoon below shows Tory and Whig leaders "pulling for a King." George III is restrained in a chair in the rear, a pawn in the struggle for power.





Prince George favoured the opposition Whigs, who believed he would help them gain power. George III's recovery ended that prospect. [Image: George, Prince of Wales, later George IV, c. 1789, by Mather Byles Brown]




George suffered more attacks of his illness in 1800 and 1804, but recovered quickly. In 1810, the disease returned and on this occasion he agreed to a regency. by now the Prince of Wales had become disillusioned with the Whigs, some of whom had shown a tendency towards radicalism. The Tories remained in power until 1830.

The king's malady proceeded to dementia, blindness, deafness. He was in great pain from rheumatism. He had become Shelley’s “old, mad, blind, and dying king.” [Image: George III in his last years, sketched by Henry Meyer]



George III clung to life for another ten years, dying at age 82 in 1820. Upon his death, The Prince Regent became king as George IV (1820-1830). His twenty years as Regent and King are still referred to as the Regency Period. 

Biographers and Historians of Psychiatry have long debated the nature of George III’s illness. In the late 1960s, psychiatrists Ida Macalpine and Richard Hunter argued that George suffered from a genetic metabolic disorder called porphyria, which among other things, can cause one’s urine to turn dark red or purple. Bennet’s play and film highlights the king’s dark urine and the bumbling doctors who think it unimportant. 

Other researchers have questioned the porphyria diagnosis. They argue that the king showed symptoms of psychoses such as dementia, mania, and manic-depressive or bipolar disorder. A study of his hair in 2005 revealed that he had consumed large amounts of medicines or cosmetics containing arsenic, a poison that might have precipitated his disease.  

Interestingly, George III was attacked on several occasions by people later declared insane. In 1786, a woman named Margaret Nicholson tried to stab him with a small dessert knife. The king easily fended of the blow and told his attendants to treat her kindly. “The poor creature is mad. Do not hurt her. She has not hurt me.” (Image: Contemporary print showing Nicholson's attack on the king)




In 1790 he reacted with similar sympathy when John Frith, who believed he was St. Paul, threw a rock at the king’s coach. A third assailant, James Hadfield, tried and failed to shoot the king in 1800 at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. The king seems to have been unfazed by the incident. He fell asleep during the interval. 

All three assailants were sent to Bethlem Hospital for the Insane, Hadfield after being declared not guilty due to insanity during his precedent-setting trial for treason. [Image: Contemporary print showing the "Horrid" Hadfield's attempt to shoot the king].




If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks! 

2 comments:

  1. So interesting. I was living in Leicester when "The Madness of King George" was released. It strongly influenced my image of George III and IV. You have definitely provided a strong counterpoint.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you, I used to show that film in my history of Georgian Britain class. It always sparked good discussion. Cheers, Peter

    ReplyDelete