George III, Part II

Recap: George III, King of England, pretty tyrannical. Here's his picture again, for those of you who are still a little hazy (or lazy, and don't want to scroll down to the previous post).

So last time, I told you about how this man was tyrannical and idiotic. The Whigs detested him, he detested the Whigs, and it appeared that he wanted to destroy the Parliamentary system as it had operated for centuries (sort of). He wanted to be a benevolent despot. He even threatened to the leave the country twice because he was unhappy with the way things were going for him. But then, what if all of the tryanny was a simple misunderstanding? What if George III was simply misunderstood?

Let's look at his upbringing. First of all, the House of Hanover had been established in England in 1715 after the death of Queen Anne. George's predecessors were quite Germanic and in their home they ruled as absolute monarchs. Even though George had been born in England and spoke English as his first language, he was both a constitutional monarch in Great Britain, and an absolute monarch in Hanover. Plus, he was brought up in Kew Gardens (it's a house, not just a garden) by his mother, Augusta, and-- get this-- Lord Bute. Interesting, no? His mother and Bute kept him from Court, kept him from politics, kept him even from his grandfather King George II, and taught him to despise constitutional monarchy; Augusta herself revered Frederick the Great. She told him to fashion himself as "The Patriot King" of the people and to free himself of the Whigs, who purported to speak for the people and to defend the constitution. And there were rumors that Augusta and Lord Bute carried on a torrid affair...

So, when George became king in 1760 at the age of 22, he didn't really know anybody involved with either the court or parliament. He had been too sheltered. He didn't really know anything about being king, especially not as a constitutional monarch. He was a young, unknown king who needed guidance, which made politicians believe that they would have the upper hand for awhile. What actually happened, though, was that George dismissed them and put Lord Bute in their place, because he needed someone near him that he could trust. Lord Bute was literally one of the only people he knew who had the qualifications necessary for politics. He just wanted someone near him that he could trust. Plus, after interviews with Chatham and Newcastle-- the Whigs he dismissed-- he cried. They were just too much for him.

Moreover, he was shy, he stammered, he was physically frail, and had a chemical imbalance in his brain which we now know was porphyria, an extremely painful disease which now we can treat. It manifests as a neurological disorder, or "madness", though the patient isn't actually mad. We know that now; then, however, they just knew that he passed purple urine sometimes and had bouts of insanity. Given all of this, no one really took him seriously. They thought he would die soon, so they searched for an heir and regent-- politicians listened to Augusta and her friend, the Duke of Cumberland, but not George. This was upsetting to the young King.

And here's another a kicker-- he didn't inherit a united Whig party. His chaotic government can't exactly be blamed on his dismissing the Whigs, because though they presented a united front until 1760ish, looking back to 1756-1757 we can see that their public unity hid the fact that Newcastle and Chatham hated each other and that the Bedford faction ran their own brand of politics. If anything, we could accuse George III of not having enough experience to impose unity on the factionalism he inherited. (Seriously, there were more Whig parties and coalitions and factions than you can shake a stick at. Perhaps one day I'll actually try to explain it all, but right now it's just too much and not pertinent to my defense of George.)

Oh, and that General Warrants affair, in which he arrested John Wilkes? He didn't just pull that concept out of the air. He consulted with Lord Halifax, a senior lawyer, about what to do with the insulting and somewhat subversive situation, and Lord Halifax suggested that the best legal recourse would be general warrants. He was actually trying to work within the boundaries of the law that time!

The American situation, of course, came hot on the heels of the general warrants affair, and George III wanted to win badly, even after the rest of the country had given up. Why? Well, to use a Cold War anachronism, he thought it would create a domino effect. If the 13 colonies went, then next might go the West Indies, Canada, and all of Britain's empire... and he was kind of right, because in 1779-1782 Ireland rose up in a serious patriot movement. And those Whigs, who sympathized because they believed George a tyrant? They provoked his hatred by parading around court in buff and blue, the colors of Washington's army.

Finally, the forcing out of the Fox-North coalition seemed to George within his rights. The monarch, at the time, selected the prime minister. It was his prerogative. But the Whigs had challenged that prerogative by forcing themselves on George and 'storming the closet', as it were. George, in fact, said that their coalition challenged the constitution, which they themselves swore to protect! As King, he felt that he had the right to dismiss them after their behavior. Perhaps he didn't do it in the nicest way, but Charles James Fox had been one of those Whigs who but a few years earlier paraded around court in his buff and blue. But then, he and Fox never got along.

In fact, during one bout of porphyria, everyone knew he truly had gone mad when he called Pitt the Younger his enemy and Fox his friend. CRAZY!

Overall, you could argue that George III defended the traditional role of a monarch. Many things he did, which Whigs construed as controversial, had never been contested by any parliament in the past. He really felt that he had done nothing wrong and that it was Fox and the Whigs who affronted constitutional practices... but don't forget that I did tell you that he despised constitutional monarchy and wanted to be a benevolent despot...

So what do you think??? Was George a tyrant or misunderstood? And remember, as my tutor Leslie taught me, every professor (or person who writes blogs?) is a con-man. We want you to believe our point of view, so we are going to present evidence which upholds our arguments. History is kind of like one big debate round, where each side tries to establish a certain truth which might have never even existed, or, if it did, only for a brief long-past moment.

Just another little lesson on taking sides, from your friend here at Why History.