THE LAST KING OF AMERICA

A review of Jeremy Black’s George III: America’s Last King (2006)

(Rating 5 of 5)

Jeremy Black has written a very good biography of one of the most important monarchs in world history: King George III. I think in the end George III was a good king, just not great one. He might have been able to be a great one but his mental health stood in the way of any possible greatness. George III did however provide precedence for the monarch as a ceremonial figurehead of unity rather than an active ruler. He was a person of great abilities and great flaws.

Unlike a lot of his contemporary monarchs of the same time period George III accepted the concept of constitutional monarchy. During this period Gustav III of Sweden suspended his country’s constitution, Louis XVI tried to undermine the constitution forced upon him, and Russians dared not challenge the rights of the Tsar. King George III was not only loyal to the British constitution, but he actually loved the idea of the British system. George III understood that his family’s very claim to the throne of Great Britain was dependent on the very idea of revolution and he was committed to the British ideal.

(King George III)
Unlike his immediate predecessors George III was very British. The Royal Family for the bulk of the last century had been what we would now call an immigrant family. Like most immigrant families after a few generations they embrace their family's adopted home over mother country. George I and II were German princes who were Kings of Great Britain; George III was a British prince. George however had several problems. The first of these problems was even though he believed in his constitution, his constitution was unwritten. Today in the United States we often debate about what our written constitution means, imagine debating what the unwritten one is suppose to mean. And it seems that everyone’s interpretation of this unwritten constitution is the interpretation that gives their political group the most power. George knew he was King and as King he had certain rights under the constitution to govern his country under the law and traditions established.


(King George III, older)

I have some sympathy with George, although I do not agree with monarchy, if you are going to have one does it not make sense to let the monarch do his job? It seems throughout his reign King George would try to his job as the unwritten constitution defined it, only to be criticized as a Stuart want-a-be. He thought he had to job to do, tried to do it, and was criticized for undermining the constitution that he actually loved.


(King George III with a nice hat)

He also had a hard time accepting any change what so ever. He could not see that the House of Commons need to be reformed, he could not listen to the needs and legitimacy of the plight of the American colonists, and he needed to be nudged into supporting the abolition of the slave trade. Most importantly he saw the emancipation of Catholics in Britain to be a betrayal of the Glorious Revolution that brought his family to power.


(What George would like to forget.)

His last major problem was his battles with mental illness. This problem would undermine his reign and destroy his attempts to make an active monarchy. He would have to accept a more ceremonial figurehead role during the Napoleonic wars, although in that role he would have his greatest rise in popularity.



An ironic twist in King George III’s career is although he most known for losing the thirteen American colonies that became the United States of America, under King George III, Britain actually underwent a very large expansion of its imperial borders.

“In 1779, firmly stating his resolution never to grant American independence, George claimed that such a measure ‘must entirely fix the fall of this empire.’ Instead, on the global scale, the reach of British power provided one of the most lasting legacies of George’s reign, and one that, in the shape of political culture, survived the end of the British empire. As a result of this reach, this chapter is necessarily eclectic, but it reflects the range of activities and topics in which George was engaged as a result of the spread of the empire, and the very different ways in which he was of real or symbolic importance. One of the most enduring aspects was naming which marked British imperial expansion with the royal presence. The process of naming is still readily apparent, especially in areas where the end of imperial control was not accompanied by a determination to reject the legacy of the past. The royal nomenclature of place indeed is the most persistent for the Hanoverian period, when empire was largely a case of North America and the West Indies: Georgetowns and Charlottes testify to the reach of British power and the determination to identify colonies with the crown and the royal family.” (p.329)

When he ascended to the throne of Great Britain he had two goals. The first goal was to restore the monarch to a more active role in the government from the more a supervisory role of his grandfather and great-grandfather. The second was to make the monarchy above politics and a symbol of unity. On first point he failed and the second he succeeded. The reason for this is these were contradictory goals. You cannot act political and be above politics.

Jeremy Black wrote a very great book about a very difficult ruler. I only a have few quibbles, for example why is words ‘king’ and ‘king of Great Britain’ not capitalized but the words ‘Elector’ and ‘Elector of Hanover’ are. Also there is slight error; George Washington never preferred the title ‘His Mightiness, President of the United States and the protector of their liberties’. That was John Adams, Washington rejected that, although everything else Black said about Washington is true. Other than those two things the book is perfect.

{Video is from the movie The Madness of King George}

For a Prince Whose Character is Thus Marked by Every Act That May Define a Tyrant… He was not such a bad guy

A review of Christopher Hibbert’s George III (1998)

(Rating: 5 of 5)

As an American citizen, I am a citizen of a very young nation. A past that stretches back only a few hundred years, unlike other nations that have national histories that go back thousands. There is some advantage to that; we can easily separate history from myth with more efficiency than some of our older brother-nations. However, it does however make our past very plain, when studying the Middle Ages the origins of our nation are on both sides of the Atlantic, but neither is really ‘us.’ Although a die-hard republican,* I have always been fascinated by the concept of monarchy. The idea of supreme power—sometimes absolute power—invested in one man or woman just by virtue of birth was always amazing to me. Occasionally children coming to the throne as small children or even infants; King Louis XIV of France was enthroned at age four and ruled for over seventy years. When I first learned of it, I wanted to know exactly how the hereditary succession worked and what all the various titles meant. Nevertheless, what I really found most interesting was how a concept of government that had lasted for over thousands of years suddenly ended.

One of the interesting facts I learned was that a good deal of these last monarchs were not solely responsible for bringing an end to their kingdoms but often they were too stupid to find a way to solve their problems. King Louis XVI**, Tsar Nicholas II, and Kaiser Wilhelm II were all stupid fools who probably did not have to lose their thrones, and, in the case of the French king and Russian emperor, their lives. Still, that ancient way of government did end, and, as a result, citizens of those nations look at monarchy as something that they use to have and is part of their past. Britain, Spain, and many other European nations still have kings and queens, although, with rare exception, they are now mostly just figureheads.

In the United States before we had our successful constitutional government, we had an unsuccessful constitutional government in the Articles of Confederation. We have no direct and apparent link to the world of kings, queens, and emperors. Yet, we were once colonies under Great Britain and other parts of the nation once belonged to Spain and Hawaii itself was once the Kingdom of Hawai’i so we do have some relationship to crowns of old. As this image from colonial Virginia stands out.


(On the top there are three images. The image in the center is of King James I of England, to his left is King James's predecessor Queen Elizabeth I, and to the King's right is his heir Charles, the Prince of Wales.(The future King Charles I))

Therefore, in a way, King George III was our last monarch and there has always been a part of me that is fascinated by the man. In the United States there are generally, five kings that we are aware of. The first is King Tut, although very few of us can say or spell his real name: Tutankhamen. The second would be King Ferdinand of Spain for being Queen Isabella’s husband and sending Christopher Columbus on his missions to the New World. The third would King Ferdinand’s son-in-law King Henry VIII, although we Americans think the number eight had something to do with the amount of wives he had—that were six, not eight—not the line of Henrys the preceded him. Generally, we know nothing about England’s other seven King Henrys. The fourth would be King James for writing the Bible and for Jamestown. Lastly, we know of King George and the American Revolution, although very few American could tell you that it was George the Third, as opposed to any of the other five Georges. Yet, he is the king who is in many ways directly responsible for who we are today, though not in a way which he would approve. Nevertheless, because of his long reign, the fate of many nations would undergo an incredible transformation. His legacy would be consistently redefined he would be lovingly called ‘Farmer George,’ angrily called a tyrant spelled out in the American Declaration of Independence, and mockingly called the ‘Mad Monarch’ due to a life time battle with mental illness.


(King Tut's death mask)

(King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella)

(King Henry VIII and his wives)

(King James I, author of the Bible.)

(King George III, who this book is about)

Hibbert captures all of this in his book. He tells the story of a very powerful but dysfunctional family in the eighteenth century British Royals. When the young prince was born his father, the Prince of Wales, and his grandfather, King George II, were not in speaking terms to state it mildly.


(King George II, grandfather)

(Prince Fredrick, the Prince of Wales, father)

Royal families, like most families, find that such dysfunction works in circles carrying down the generations. As the Prince of Wales, King George II was in consistent disagreement with King George I. When Fredrick, the Prince of Wales, dies in 1751 and new young prince—Fredrick’s son, George, was granted the traditional Prince of Wales title, the dysfunction continued. As the King, George III would prove no better a father to his heir; struggling with his son for decades as his own Prince of Wales would continue to disappoint him.


(George III as Prince of Wales)

(George, the Prince of Wales, son and successor)

“His grandfather, the King, took little interest in Prince George’s progress. He nominated him a Knight of the Garter soon after his eleventh birthday; but he did so only because he was advised that he would be harshly criticized by the Opposition for the neglect if he did not, and he seems not to have answered Prince George’s respectful and dutiful letter of thanks for the honour, merely sending it on to one of his Secretaries of State.” p.11

Hibbert describes a monarch who accepts the concept of constitutional monarchy, the king’s power having legal limits, but is determined to use the powers that are rightfully his. Growing up, he was closer to his mother and the Dowager Princess of Wales would instruct he son to ‘be a king’ not to reign but to rule. The King would rule long enough to see all that he believed in challenged both at home by Charles Fox, in his colonies by the American Revolutionaries, and across the English Channel by French Revolutionaries who deposed his hated rival King Louis XVI claiming that they would bring an end to monarchy. This would unite the monarchs of Europe like never before, King George would even go out of his way to help the Jacobite pretender, the Cardinal Henry Stuart.

“He was well aware that theoretically nothing in either the Bill of Rights of 1689 or the 1701 Act of Settlement stood in the way of his declaring war, nominating peers, appointing bishops and summoning or dissolving Parliament. But in practice he was constrained from doing so, since the Civil List Act of 1698 was intended to give the monarchy finances enough only for the Court and the civil service. It was Parliament which voted money each year for the Army and Navy and for servicing the national debt. The King, therefore, needed Parliament’s approval of his Government, and he soon came to realize that his undoubted power of appointing Ministers was qualified by the necessity of gaining parliamentary support for their measures. That requirement was not, however, such a restriction as might have been expected, since there was a widespread belief that any King’s Minister ought to be given a fair chance to prove himself and since the existence of a large ‘court party’ of office-holders in both Houses of Parliament ensured that the resignation of a First Minister was rarely brought about by parliamentary defeat.” p.76-7

However there is also a very human side to this famous king, he was in person very kind and charitable, he gave a great deal of his personnel funds to help those in need, and he could very forgiving to those had wronged him, even those who a tried to kill him.



In government, the King believed that the monarch should be beyond politics. Unfortunately, the King also felt that he should govern directly as he felt strong monarch should. Thus you have a contradiction for one cannot act in a political manner and remain apolitical***. He saw criticism of him as an attack on the state itself and any attack on the state to be an attack on him. This attitude would help drive colonists in America towards more permanent solution to their problems with Britain by declaring George a tyrant and unfit to rule them. The American Revolution broke the spirit of the old King, five years after he would have to battle to regain his senses when he lost control of his mind in 1789. He recovered but would have to battle mental illness attacks for the rest of his life.


(King George III during the American Revolution.)

King George III left a strange legacy. He was neither a bad person nor a terrible king. Nevertheless, his legacy in America is one tyranny that led to the independence of the United States; and his legacy in Britain as the ‘Mad Monarch’ would led to a tradition of the monarch being, although powerful on paper, a ceremonial figurehead who reigns but does not rule—the exact opposite of what King George wanted—and government ministers who would govern from and be responsible to the House of Commons in Parliament.

*That is republican with the little ‘r,’ politically I am a moderate left-leaning Democrat, I refer to republican as one who supports having a Republic as the best form of government.

**Technically, he was not the last king of France but essentially monarchy, as it existed, did end with his reign.

***Interestingly, the way George III viewed the monarchy is the same way George Washington view the American presidency. That is my personal view not that of the author.

{The video is from the film The Madness of King George}