BIOGRAPHY

King George III is the most maligned man in American history. His reign was one of the longest in the history of the British monarchy. When George came to the throne Britain was a stable squirearchy of about 7,750,000 people, and when he passed away Britain's population had virtually doubled, and industrial interests had taken shape and were beginning to agitate for power. During his reign the modern party system was developed, which enabled the constitutional monarchy to become established. The king was a devoted public servant who was dedicated to his role as a constitutional monarch, and the mean-spirited attacks against him, accusing him of aspiring to return to the despotism of earlier times, were absolutely unfounded.

The king was personally devastated by the failure of his ministers to keep America within the British Kingdom. Even though the British retained control over Canada, and were expanding trade settlements into a government in India, and were developing the seeds of empire in Australia and South Africa, British colonies were not like Spanish colonies. British colonies consisted of Englishmen who settled overseas, while the Spanish colonies were actually slave-based operations the primary purpose of which was the production of wealth for Spanish grandees. The English settlements in America were part of the English Community, and they were treated like brothers. The notion that there was a tyranny in America due to the British is an invention of propaganda meant solely to turn patriotic Americans against the Mother Country.

George III was the son of Frederick Louis, prince of Wales, and Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha. He was born on the 4th of June, 1738 (New Style). His father, the heir to the throne, followed the Hanoverian practice of heading the party of opposition to the king and to the king's ministers, thus giving that opposition a sort of respectability. At the time the accepted theory was that the king should express the common sense of the country, and opposition to the king or his government was viewed as unpatriotic. The ability of an opposition to form under the protection of the heir to the throne, starting with George II, (who also did not get along with his father, George I), set a precedent which later evolved into the parliamentary practices that accepted a Loyal Opposition in the government.

Due to the influence of his father and mother, the prince and princess of Wales, and their entourage, headquartered at Leicester House, the young prince George developed an unreasonable dislike for his grandfather, King George II, and the policies of his government. George was a sensitive child, moved by emotions but intellectually slow, which made him difficult to teach. He was not able to read properly until he was 11, due to his childhood affection and attachment for his immediate family circle, which dominated his life.

When George was 12 years old his father died, leaving him to focus his love upon his mother and brother, Edward. He was also burdened with the responsibility of being the new heir to the throne, and it is clear that he tormented himself with doubts about his own adequacy. By age 18 his personality traits of stubborn determination blended with deep insecurities about his own abilities, were evident. But at his accession to the throne in 1760, at about age 22, after the death of his grandfather, George II, the young king did not know his own capacity, nor the incapacity of those around him, who were his advisors.

His principal advisor was the earl of Bute, who George deeply admired. As his teacher and mentor, Bute was intended to serve as George's chief minister. However, this was only another instance of the king's affections getting in the way of his better judgment. At his accession George was devoted to his friendship with Bute, and declared that it was more important to him than women. Nonetheless, as king, in 1761, he dutifully asked for a review to be made of all eligible German Protestant princesses, as "marriage must sooner or later come to pass." He chose Charlotte Sophia of Mecklenberg-Strelitz and married her on 8 September, 1761. He entered the marriage in the spirit of public duty, but due to the king's emotional nature, and his need for personal security, and his wife's strength of character, their marriage lasted as a model of domestic bliss for half a century. The earl of Bute's principal contributions to the royal family was to encourage the king's interest in botany, and to influence the royal court with increased respect for the graces of life, including patronage of the arts, which had been absent for the previous 50 years. But politically, Bute encouraged the worst delusions in the impressionable young king, which could only lead to disaster. And when disaster struck, the way out was easy for Bute, he just resigned. There was no way out for the young, inexperienced king.

At the time that George III ascended the throne, the role of constitutional monarch was in a formative period, and the office of king was undergoing changes. The first decade of the reign suffered from such ministerial instability that the government was in complete chaos. According to Edmund Burke and his colleagues, the reason the king could not keep a ministry was because friends "behind the curtain" ruined the king's official ministers. The solution offered by Burke to this dilemma was to urge that solidarity be given to a cabinet by the creation of party loyalty. Thus the older principle of using the king as a unifying agent, was to be replaced by the organization of groups of people unified by their common agreement to principles. Thus the early years of the king's reign inadvertently led to the evolution of modern party politics. Throughout all of this, the king was unfairly blamed for causing the anarchy through intrigues. However, he had no contact with Bute after 1766; and the so-called "king's friends" were not his servants, but politicians who looked to the king for the kind of leadership previous kings had provided. It was not the king's fault that no group inside the house of Commons had the ability to control it. Much of the king's inability to unite the groups in the Commons is properly attributed to his lack of experience, but more importantly, constitutional questions were erupting of a gravity that had not been known since 1714.

George III did not immediately grasp the implications of the changes in the political situation, and sought to perform the duties of king the way he had been taught them. All royals are raised with a solemn dedication to the duties of the royal family in serving the nation, which is something that is totally alien to most private citizens. When George III came to the throne, he did not comprehend that he must deal with men he did not like or trust, or that he had to keep his opinions to himself. The king had been the organizing principle of the government prior to his accession, which changed during his reign, so that the king became less central to the political system. Of course, this began earlier, when George I failed to attend cabinet meetings (because he did not want to encounter his son, the future George II), and the prime minister began to assume control over the executive. It was during George III's reign that kings lost most of their control over the choice of prime ministers, and the authority of parliament to control the government through the cabinet took its modern shape.

Bute convinced the king that his duty was to purify public life, and to substitute duty to himself as king for personal intrigue. This meant that the king believed, due to Bute's influence, that he could purge men he did not trust out of public life. At the time of his accession, the two great men in office were William Pitt, and the duke of Newcastle. Both men were driven out of office, and a new government was formed of second-rate men, under the captaincy of Bute. But out of office Pitt and Newcastle were dangerous as focal points for criticism of the government, at a time when the members of parliament were more ready to criticize than cooperate. The new government had to make peace and restore peace-time finance. And it was humiliating for the new king that he was forced to employ Henry Fox, one of the corrupt politicians he had hoped to purge from public life, to carry through parliament the ratification of the peace treaties and the cider tax, which were needed to accomplish the government's aims.

Though peace was achieved, the treaties resulted in Britain's isolation in Europe, and the country suffered from the new alignments of European powers for almost 30 years. George III's attempts to speak out for his country were not well received, and in 1765 he was vilified by the gutter press organized by John Wilkes, while patriotic gentlemen, like Pitt and Newcastle, suspected that the peace had been botched and that the king was conspiring with Bute against their legal rights. Bute just resigned, but the king knew that he had to battle on. George realized too late that his clumsiness had destroyed one political combination and made another difficult to assemble. He turned to George Grenville, and to his uncle the duke of Cumberland, to Pitt and to the duke of Grafton for help, and all failed him. George Grenville bullied him, and insulted his mother, the princess dowager. Cumberland's nominee, Lord Rockingham, could neither work with Pitt, nor force his own cabinet to agree. And as for Grafton, he succeeded only in causing the king to be accused of trying to establish a tyranny.

The government of England at this time was weak, lacking effective executive machinery. In the past the kings had served as the executives, but after the establishment of the supremacy of parliament, power fluxed back and forth between the king, his ministers, and members of parliament. Overseas trade was expanding, but no method existed for the government to tap private gains for the benefit of the country. The riches of India swelled the coffers of retired nabobs, but the East India company made no significant contribution to the state. The attempt to make the American colonists meet their own administrative costs only aroused them to resistance. Nor was British colonial policy at all consistent. The Stamp Act (1765) was passed by Grenville, only to be repealed by Rockingham in 1766. Indirect taxes, in the form of the Townshend duties (1767) were imposed without calculation of their probable yield, and then were repealed -- with the exception of the tax on tea -- as a political maneuver. George III was blamed for this sorry saga of profitless squabbling, even though all of these things were inaugurated and carried out by ministers over whom he had little actual control.

In 1770 the king finally found in Lord North the only minister capable of leading the Commons since the departure of Pitt (now the 1st Earl of Chatham) to the House of Lords. North continued the Walpolean policy of "letting sleeping dogs lie," which relaxed the suspicions of the independent country Members of Parliament, who were paranoid that the executive was getting too strong. North was also a good financier at a time when the government desperately needed to gets its finances in order. This was appreciated by the financial interests, and by taxpayers. In 1772 a decision of the judiciary abolished slavery in the British Isles, causing slaves throughout the colonies to desert their masters, and seek passage to England, where they would become free. King George thought North was too slow and hesitant, but he valued his loyalty, his even temper, and his skill in debate. The king's affectionate nature took to North, to whom he offered his advice and his support. The result was a dozen years of stable government.

Unfortunately, attitudes and issues survived from the first decade of turmoil, to plague North's ministry. The gutter press could not be muffled. India, under the new Regulating act, fell into the background, but America was the fatal issue, because North could not avoid an issue wherein the whole parliament was united behind the king, that America must pay for its own defense, as well as pay for a share of the debt remaining from a war that was fought principally for the security of the Americans. The opinion was widespread in Britain that those who resist these most fair conditions must be traitors. In an excerpt from a letter written by King George, sometime after the Revolution, the king stated what most Englishmen recognized: "A people spread over an immense tract of fertile land, industrious because free, and rich because industrious, presently became a market for the Manufactures and Commerce of the Mother Country. An importance was soon generated, which from its origin to the late conflict was mischievous to Britain, because it created an expense of blood and treasure worth more at this instant, if it could be at our command, than all we ever received from America. The wars of 1744, of 1756, and 1775, were all entered into from the encouragements given to the speculation of settling the wilds of North America."

The historic record reveals that Americans were not alienated by any assertion of the king of his royal prerogative. Americans were disposed to admit his personal supremacy. Americans denied the authority of parliament to legislate over the colonies. Ultimately, George III would be unjustly despised by Americans because he linked himself with the British parliament, in being the British constitutional monarch rather than the king of Massachusetts, of Virginia and New York. Lord North was under pressure from the king and the house of Commons not to appear weak, so it was nearly impossible for him to ignore Boston's flagrant insults. In 1776 the king's authority was usurped, and the Americans were firing at his troops, and the colonials went beyond the point of no return.

The open criminality of the American colonials provoked British coercion that even the British would regret by 1779. However, the king became convinced that Britain was really threatened by a potential "dominoe effect." If criminality and disobedience to the law were seen to prosper by success of the rebels in America, Ireland would follow along the same route, and England might end up alone in a hostile world. Catholic Ireland, of course, has always existed like a dagger poised over the United Kingdom, and the Protestant Succession, as a staging ground for an invasion of Britain. During the reign of George's great-grandfather, George I, the Catholics united more than once to support the Stewart pretenders, and in 1745 the pretender's army came within a 100 miles of London, causing most of the government to prepare to flee.

The king adamantly did not want to lose America. But unfortunately, the king was being served by generals who made some incredible mistakes. Additionally, as the war intensified the brutality increased on both sides, and sentiments began to shift in America towards independence. When the French came to the aid of the rebels it meant that England would face a real army, with naval power, which was able to cut off Britain's supply lines at crucial times. The king prophecied that the French monarchy would go bankrupt by its aid to the colonials. Average Americans, on the other hand, saw the fact that the colonial elite were winning the war, and it was crucial to be on the side of the victors. The collapse of the British armies in north America occurred in the midst of utter chaos. Ultimately, the British lost the will to continue fighting what was in actuality a civil war. A fratricidal war of self-destruction, because ultimately Americans were Englishmen who lived overseas, and you cannot hold together a family by coercion. The Revolution mystified the British generals, because they won all the battles, but lost the war because they could not hold onto territory once they had won it. This was the same situation American generals were faced with in Vietnam, the U.S. Army won all the battles, but lost the war.

Lord North desperately wanted to resign. By 1780 the majority of Members of Parliament believed that the North ministry was responsible for the crises of the country, yet North's government remained in power. As yet there was no alternative that was acceptable, because the opposition had been divided, and portrayed as unpatriotic. Lord North wearily repeated his request to resign, which the king refused, making North appear as a puppet of the king. When North's government finally fell in 1782, it was due to the perception that his government was kept in power solely due to corruption, and that it was incapable of waging war or ending it. All of this cast a long shadow upon the king, whose prestige was at one of its lowest ebbs. However, all assertions by Americans that George III was so distraught over the loss of America, that he contemplated abdication are all actually indulgences in wishful thinking. To Americans the idea that defeat at the hands of Americans caused him to consider abdication infers that he was demoralized with the institution of monarchy itself, and there is no proof of that at all.

The North ministry was followed by Rockingham, who died after only four months in office. The failure of the succeeding Shelburne ministry, which lasted into 1783, took place when George III was at his lowest point of popularity. North now combined with Charles James Fox, and the two partners now imposed themselves upon the king, intending to give royal control a powerful blow. The monarchy was undergoing a significant change, as the political processes became separated from royal authority. The king was not consulted in the designation of junior ministers, and royal direction was being supplanted by party discipline in the parliament. George admitted that he had to "form a ministry among men who know I cannot trust them... making me a kind of slave." He concluded that his only honorable course was abdication, but of course, that was out of the question. Princes were not raised to abdicate.

Within a year the king staged a dramatic turn-around, carrying out one of the most dramatic initiatives of the 18th century. When Fox and North sought to reform the East India company, popular suspicions were aroused that Fox and North intended to perpetuate their power by controlling eastern patronage. By opposing their plan, the king emerged as the guardian of the national interest. He let it be known that anyone who supported the plan in the house of Lords would be his enemy, and the bill was defeated. The ministers resigned. The king was ready with a new "patriotic" leader, William Pitt the Younger. This initiative was risky, because Pitt's government was in a minority in the house of Commons, and the ministers who had been forced to resign were in a mood to threaten a constitutional upheaval. Everything depended upon the general election of March, 1784. The country, moved by real feeling, overwhelmingly endorsed the king's initiative. But the king did not attempt to exploit his victory with any further demonstrations of power. Even though many of Pitt's ideas were unwelcome to him, he contented himself with a few criticisms, and basically kept his mouth shut. Pitt could not survive without the king, but the king -- if he lost Pitt -- would have been at the mercy of Fox. They compromised, but the compromise left most power in Pitt's hands, with the king's happy consent. George III was satisfied to have a minister he could trust to act cautiously and patriotically, in part because he had no ambition to raise his own constitutional status. He was happy to leave things in the capable hands of his young prime minister, largely because he was pre-occupied with his family's concerns.

The king adored his children with that possessive force he had always shown in relations with those close to him. He was not happy when his eldest son came of age, because it freed his son from the family, but also because the occupant of the throne must always see in his heir, the prince of Wales, a memento mori. The king was soon enraged by his son, who began to run with Fox's Whigs politically, and his gaming friends socially. In contrast to King George's strait-laced court, the prince's circle was dissolute. The king's family had been the model of domesticity, and the king was widely derided as "Farmer George." But as the king's sons grew up, they escaped him one by one, into the clutches of moneylenders and loose women. In the face of any intractable problem, regardless of whether it was personal or political, the king would oscillate between excitement and despair. By 1788 it was realized that the king had more serious health problems than depression. The stresses endured by this hard-working man were more than sufficient to cause his violent breakdown, but 20th century medical investigation revealed that the king had an inherited condition known as porphyria. An excess of purple-red pigments in the blood intoxicated the entire nervous system, resulting in agonizing pain, paralysis and delirium, which the king suffered in an acute form at least four times during his reign.

The incapacitation of the king caused a political firestorm. But while Pitt and Fox battled over the powers the prince of Wales would enjoy as regent, the king suddenly recovered in 1789. The king, however, was never the same again, living with the persistent fear that he might once again lapse into the horror of madness. For the last decade of the 18th century, the king bothered more about the details than the main lines of policy. He was increasingly contented with Pitt's policies, whose following gradually grew to absorb most of Lord North's old connections, and even some of Fox's. After the outbreak of war against revolutionary France in 1793, all but the most radical elements joined the government, leaving Fox in a hopeless opposition.

The war with France was perceived by the majority of Englishmen as a war of national survival. The king felt this too, and he became more popular than he had ever been before. The old man, a man who had been the object of compassion in his collapse, an obviously well-meaning man, was soon a symbol of the English civil order of individual liberty for which the country was fighting. His potential power in politics was thus greatly increased, but his will to use such power, except in the most dire emergencies, did not exist. George III enjoyed himself encouraging farmers to grow more food for a nation at war, or he talked for hours about past conflicts or military tactics, or he played to himself on his harpsichord. It was from these pastimes that the king was roused by Pitt's proposed emancipation of the Catholics, which ran against the king's grain, not to mention the majority of backbenchers in the house of Commons. Of course, the issues were not as clear-cut as they are today, because religion was still significant to political power. The Hanoverians only came to power in Britain because they were Protestant, so they had an ancestral connection with preserving the Protestant social order.

Upon the death of Pitt in January, 1806, the king accepted Fox as foreign secretary in the "ministry of all the talents," and he even felt affection for Fox, sufficient to lament his death in September. During the short period of the Whig administration the king allowed his ministers to discuss peace with Napoleon, and to abolish the slave trade. He asserted himself only when they dared to propose laws that relaxed the total ban on Catholicism in Britain, which came about in circumstances that gave witness to George's declining health. He was almost blind. Lord Grenville thought the king had agreed to give his assent to a document that would have granted higher rank in the army to Catholics. The king thought his ministers were trying to trick him when his secretary explained to him what the paper said. He demanded that his ministers promise not to bring the subject up again, afraid that he might be tricked into betraying his sworn duty to the Church of England, but they resigned, refusing to pledge themselves for the future. This brought down the Whig ministry, which was succeeded by a succession of Tory ministries, under Lord Portland (1807-09), Spencer Perceval (1809-12), and Lord Liverpool (1812-1827).

The remainder of the king's life was a living death. The death of his youngest child, Princess Amelia, in 1810, was a bitter blow. She had been his companion at Windsor, and had consoled him in his disappointment over his sons. The worst of all was the return of the king's illness. In 1811 it was acknowledged that the poor king was violently insane. The doctors continued to hope for recovery but parliament enacted the regency of the prince of Wales, and decreed that the queen should have custody of her husband. He remained incapacitated, with intervals of senile lucidity, until his death at Windsor castle on 29 January, 1820.

The tragedy of George III's reign was that he was a well-intentioned man who was faced with problems that were too great for him to solve, but which his conscience prevented him from trying to escape. He was incapable of the intellectual effort required to look at any situation objectively, which was only accentuated by his emotional nature. Constitutionally, King George's reign saw the emergence of party politics, which eventually diminished royal influence, and established the precedents for parliamentary control of the government. King George is a misunderstood figure, who deserves to be redeemed from the slander that his reputation has suffered under. He did the best that he could against all odds, and he should be remembered for the sacrifices he made for his countrymen.

Observances of
King George III, king of America
Born 4 June, 1738