George III wasn't mad, Prince Charles says

Discussions on other historical eras.
User avatar
Wm. Harris
Member
Posts: 424
Joined: 04 Mar 2003, 23:10
Location: Festung Kanada

George III wasn't mad, Prince Charles says

#1

Post by Wm. Harris » 26 Jan 2004, 21:47

From globeandmail.com:
George III wasn't mad, Prince Charles says

Associated Press

London — BBC Timewatch, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/timewatch

Royal file on George III, http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page111.asp

——

Prince Charles has spoken in support of his ancestor, King George III, widely — if wrongly — regarded as the “mad” monarch who lost Britain its U.S. colonies.

Interviewed for a TV documentary — excerpts were released Monday — Charles said George III might have calmed American revolutionaries bent on severing ties with Britain if a royal visit had been possible in 1776, the year the 13 colonies declared independence.

George's illness, now believed to have been rooted in the genetic disorder porphyria, was the subject of the award-winning 1994 film The Madness Of King George, in which the monarch was played by actor Nigel Hawthorne.

Charles told Timewatch that George, who lived from 1738 to 1820, was one of Britain's most dutiful, cultured and misunderstood rulers, who studied the arts and sciences and was involved in agriculture, astronomy, architecture and clock-making, as well as collecting books, medals, paintings and drawings.

“For many years, I've been fascinated by my ancestor,” the Prince told the program.

“George III led Britain through 60 years of enormous social upheaval, industrial revolution and terrible hardships inflicted by war with Napoleon.

“Yet history remembered him above all as the 'mad king' or the 'king who lost America.' This is a travesty.”

Like Charles, George loved the countryside and had a strong interest in architecture. And, like Charles, he was mocked for his interest in agriculture: Charles once said he talked to plants, and George was lampooned as “Farmer George.”

“He used to walk around the countryside (west of London) at Windsor and Kew alone, talking to neighbours and farm workers and had a genuine interest in the well-being of every single estate worker,” Charles told the program.

“The sight of the king chatting about agricultural prices, hog breeding, the coming of the harvest and so on, struck some as being eccentric and unbecoming. Cartoonists of the day mocked him for it.”

cybercat
Member
Posts: 2079
Joined: 11 Nov 2002, 22:26
Location: UK
Contact:

#2

Post by cybercat » 26 Jan 2004, 22:29

This is from prince "Big ears" the man who has conversations with his plants.

George III also used to talk to plants. He talked to the trees in the London parks and his courtiers used to put little bells in the branches so that George could actually say that the trees talked back to him.

George III used to bury meat in order to try and grow animals. He was barking mad and I think his descendant "Big ears" is probably going the same way and for him to say that George III wasn't mad is nearly as barking as his Hanoverian ancestor! Charles, as usual, likes to think of himself as an expert, whereas the commentators of the day and all the historical experts agree that George III was as mad as a bag of squirrels.

This is the same Charles, Prince of Wales, who considers himself an expert on architecture, whereas he's actually a pompous, inbred dimwit who can't even dress himself without a manservant to do it for him and hasn't actually formally studied architecture. But he's a royal so we must tug our forelocks deferentially and pay attention to his drivel according to our establishment and the media.

We should get rid of these useless, parasitical, genetically-challenged Germans and have a proper elected head of state like other modern countries that don't live in the feudal past IMHO!


User avatar
Matt H.
Member
Posts: 554
Joined: 15 Aug 2003, 19:34
Location: Keele, Staffs, UK

#3

Post by Matt H. » 27 Jan 2004, 00:03

Here's the full article from today's Times
HIS passion for the countryside was mocked, he had a mania for architecture and some dismissed him as a dangerous eccentric. Now a public rehabilitation of King George III is being sought by the Prince of Wales. Today “mad” King George’s place in history is as the monarch who lost the American colonies. But in a BBC documentary the Prince says that his ancestor’s energy and down-to-earth charm might even have persuaded American revolutionaries to change their minds if only a royal tour across the Atlantic had been possible in the 18th century.

History has obscured the real George III, who demonstrated some of the most attractive traits of any monarch, says the Prince, describing him as one of Britain’s most dutiful, cultured and misunderstood rulers.

For all the bouts of mania, enshrined on film in The Madness of King George, the King was definitely not mad. “I’ve read the doctor’s reports and the King’s correspondence in the royal archives and I concluded that yes, he was ill, but he was not insane,” the Prince says in the BBC Two Timewatch documentary, to be broadcast next week.

The Queen is backing the rehabilitation campaign. In March, Buckingham Palace will stage the first major exhibition of artefacts collected by George III and his consort, Queen Charlotte. The 500 pieces from the Royal Collection present George as the era’s leading patron of music, the arts and sciences.

“For many years I’ve been fascinated by my ancestor,” the Prince says. “George III led Britain through 60 years of enormous social upheaval, industrial revolution and terrible hardships inflicted by war with Napoleon. Yet history remembers him above all as the ‘mad king’ or the king who lost America. This is a travesty.”

As a statesman, George secured the future of the Hanoverian monarchy, the Prince says. “In his first speech to the Commons, George dedicated himself to Britain, throwing off the sense of distance and foreignness that surrounded his German-born, German-speaking Hanoverian predecessors, George I and George II. He did so triumphantly.

“He immersed himself in the arts and sciences and recognised how his patronage could further their advancement. He was actively involved in agriculture, astronomy, architecture, clock-making and in collecting wonderful books, medals, paintings and drawings.” In 1768, George founded the Royal Academy of Arts and was a generous patron to it. He was the first King to study science as part of his education and made his library of 65,000 volumes available for scholars.

The Prince found the King’s interest in architecture and skills as an architectural draughtsman “particularly appealing”. “Some of his sketches have been found on the back of documents as if he’d been doodling during an idle moment. His daughters complained their father was so obsessed with architecture he suffered from building mania.”

He was lampooned as “Farmer George” for immersing himself in agricultural matters, the Prince says. “He used to walk around the countryside at Windsor and Kew alone, talking to neighbours and farmworkers and had a genuine interest in the well-being of every single estate worker.

“The sight of the King chatting about agricultural prices, hog breeding, the coming of the harvest and so on struck some as being eccentric and unbecoming. Cartoonists of the day mocked him for it.”

In foreign affairs, George’s commitment to taxing the American colonies to pay for military protection led to hostilities. The colonists proclaimed independence in 1776, but George obstinately continued the war until the final American victory in 1781.

The Prince says: “For me, one of the greatest tragedies of George III’s reign is that he never visited the American colonies. If a royal tour could have been a conceivable undertaking in the 18th century, perhaps the leaders of the colonies might have understood the mother country better. It’s possible that his energetic, down-to-earth presence might have changed their minds.”

That energetic presence was destroyed by the illness that gripped George from 1788. Medical experts believe that the root cause was porphyria, a genetic condition that interferes with the nervous system. George was declared medically unfit to rule and his son George ruled as Prince Regent for the last ten years of his life. “It’s deeply tragic,” says Prince Charles, who recorded his interview at Clarence House during the Christmas holiday.
And from TimesOnline
GEORGE III

Born: 1738

Reign: 1760-1820; Britain’s longest-serving king

Children: 15 — nine sons and six daughters

Military record: Victory in Napoloenic wars during incapacitation, but lost American colonies

Passions: Architecture, agriculture, music, science

Often found: Walking in countryside, talking to labourers

Design for life: Built ideal country cottage for estate-workers

Parental strife: Warned dissolute son, George IV, that he was becoming a scandal

Affairs of State: Ministers complained of royal interference in government policy

Mental state: Illness now recognised as porphyria

User avatar
English Channel
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 14 Dec 2003, 09:23
Location: London, UK.

#4

Post by English Channel » 27 Jan 2004, 05:10

cybercat wrote:

We should get rid of these useless, parasitical, genetically-challenged Germans and have a proper elected head of state like other modern countries that don't live in the feudal past IMHO!
Image

Ah yes, like Bush or Chirac......no thanks.

User avatar
Daryl Leeworthy
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 01 Jan 2004, 23:22
Location: Oriel College, Oxford

#5

Post by Daryl Leeworthy » 27 Jan 2004, 22:50

Cybercat's right - though not bush or chirac, how about some one like Mary Robinson?

Farmer George was mad - though apparently they've traced the royal disease "porphyria" to Mary Queen of Scots. Can't remember where I read it unfortunately. Prince Charles has obviously given up on architecture and gardening and decided to become an historian now then!
Last edited by Daryl Leeworthy on 27 Jan 2004, 23:46, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
John W
Member
Posts: 9088
Joined: 03 Jan 2003, 08:12
Location: United States of America
Contact:

#6

Post by John W » 27 Jan 2004, 23:37

Daryl Leeworthy wrote:Caldric's right - though not bush or chirac, how about some one like Mary Robinson?
Caldric?!!?! 8O Dear GOD! What have you DONE?! :lol: :P

Interesting article. Very interesting. I'd still rather take Thomas Paine's view of this any day thank you :)

User avatar
Daryl Leeworthy
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 01 Jan 2004, 23:22
Location: Oriel College, Oxford

#7

Post by Daryl Leeworthy » 27 Jan 2004, 23:44

wait that wasn't me writing Caldric's right was it? Oh dear - I meant Cybercat. My eyesight's going!

Down with the monarchy!

User avatar
Allen Milcic
Member
Posts: 2903
Joined: 09 Sep 2003, 21:29
Location: Canada

#8

Post by Allen Milcic » 28 Jan 2004, 01:28

I find it interesting that loyalty to the Royal Family is stronger here in Canada than in Great Britain itself...then again, this country is descended from the British North American colonies that stayed loyal to the Crown during the American Revolution, as well as the thousands of 'American' United Empire Loyalist refugees at the war's end.

Though I am personally not a monarchist, I do appreciate the link to Canada's founding roots that the Queen, as head of the Canadian state, represents. As much as I despise the current Governor-General, and think the office is a bloody waste of Canadian tax-payer's money, I would sadly miss seeing Elizabeth's face on our coins, I would miss the crowns on our military and police uniforms...I would miss the hundreds of other everyday reminders we have of who the mother country, that gave us our laws, customs and so much of our national identity, was.

Regards from Loyalist Land.
Last edited by Allen Milcic on 28 Jan 2004, 18:54, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
English Channel
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 14 Dec 2003, 09:23
Location: London, UK.

#9

Post by English Channel » 28 Jan 2004, 02:14

croat wrote:I find it interesting that loyalty to the Royal Family is stronger here in Canada than in Great Britain itself...then again, this country is descended from the British North American colonies that stayed loyal to the Crown during the American Revolution, as well as the thousands of 'American' United Empire Loyalist refugees at the war's end.

Though I am personally not a monarchist, I do appreciate the link to Canada's founding roots that the Queen, as head of the Canadian state, represents. As much as I despise the current Governor-General, and think the office is a bloody waste of Canadian tax-payer's money, I would sadly miss seeing Elizabeth's face on our coins, I would miss the crown's on our military and police uniforms...I would miss the hundreds of other everyday reminders we have of who the mother country, that gave us our laws, customs and so much of our national identity, was.

Regards from Loyalist Land.
Image

Thanks for that pal. I am a monarchist and what you said about the 'mother country' applies to me as royal supporter. I know it's a hackneyed old phrase but it's still true that the monarchy does give us a sense of continuity. Yes, the days roll by and we all have to make our way but when something hits us, the Queen (or whovever is on the throne) and the institution can really help. An example: When those planes were driven into the Twin Towers, all the world was appalled. Every country gave sympathy to the US and offered help. But ask many Americans (who have a healthy sense of paranoia) what events helped them. They'll tell you the Mayors calmness and humanity and other things. They'll also tell you how moved they were to see the Queen and the US ambassador, standing side by side, whilst for the first time ever, the Guards played the 'Stars & Stripes' outside Buck House. For some reason, Australia has a higher profile here in GB than Canada, probably because Canada sits in the American shadow. But many Brits appreciate Canadas loyalty and sacrifice and I have to admit that when I'm travelling, I enjoy the company of Canadians more than any other 'foreigners'. Why? Because despite the accent, they don't 'feel' foreign. Canadians have always welcomed me and my family when they learn we're Brits. My brother and sister-in-law are moving to (I think) Vancouver this year. And there's something very special about the commonwealth. Many diverse nations, representing hundreds of millions of people (I think it's about a billion), all sorts of societies and all equal under the Queen. Long may it last eh?

User avatar
English Channel
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 14 Dec 2003, 09:23
Location: London, UK.

#10

Post by English Channel » 28 Jan 2004, 02:59

Image

http://www.royalty.nu/Europe/England/Ha ... geIII.html

Maybe we should ridicule old King George a bit less. Suffering from depression, who wouldn't go mad being treated like this?

cybercat
Member
Posts: 2079
Joined: 11 Nov 2002, 22:26
Location: UK
Contact:

#11

Post by cybercat » 28 Jan 2004, 03:26

croat wrote:I find it interesting that loyalty to the Royal Family is stronger here in Canada than in Great Britain itself...then again, this country is descended from the British North American colonies that stayed loyal to the Crown during the American Revolution, as well as the thousands of 'American' United Empire Loyalist refugees at the war's end.

Though I am personally not a monarchist, I do appreciate the link to Canada's founding roots that the Queen, as head of the Canadian state, represents. As much as I despise the current Governor-General, and think the office is a bloody waste of Canadian tax-payer's money, I would sadly miss seeing Elizabeth's face on our coins, I would miss the crown's on our military and police uniforms...I would miss the hundreds of other everyday reminders we have of who the mother country, that gave us our laws, customs and so much of our national identity, was.

Regards from Loyalist Land.
Jebi ga covjece trebas da bolje razumijes!
hehehehe

cybercat
Member
Posts: 2079
Joined: 11 Nov 2002, 22:26
Location: UK
Contact:

#12

Post by cybercat » 28 Jan 2004, 03:28

English Channel wrote:
croat wrote:I find it interesting that loyalty to the Royal Family is stronger here in Canada than in Great Britain itself...then again, this country is descended from the British North American colonies that stayed loyal to the Crown during the American Revolution, as well as the thousands of 'American' United Empire Loyalist refugees at the war's end.

Though I am personally not a monarchist, I do appreciate the link to Canada's founding roots that the Queen, as head of the Canadian state, represents. As much as I despise the current Governor-General, and think the office is a bloody waste of Canadian tax-payer's money, I would sadly miss seeing Elizabeth's face on our coins, I would miss the crown's on our military and police uniforms...I would miss the hundreds of other everyday reminders we have of who the mother country, that gave us our laws, customs and so much of our national identity, was.

Regards from Loyalist Land.
Image

Thanks for that pal. I am a monarchist and what you said about the 'mother country' applies to me as royal supporter. I know it's a hackneyed old phrase but it's still true that the monarchy does give us a sense of continuity. Yes, the days roll by and we all have to make our way but when something hits us, the Queen (or whovever is on the throne) and the institution can really help. An example: When those planes were driven into the Twin Towers, all the world was appalled. Every country gave sympathy to the US and offered help. But ask many Americans (who have a healthy sense of paranoia) what events helped them. They'll tell you the Mayors calmness and humanity and other things. They'll also tell you how moved they were to see the Queen and the US ambassador, standing side by side, whilst for the first time ever, the Guards played the 'Stars & Stripes' outside Buck House. For some reason, Australia has a higher profile here in GB than Canada, probably because Canada sits in the American shadow. But many Brits appreciate Canadas loyalty and sacrifice and I have to admit that when I'm travelling, I enjoy the company of Canadians more than any other 'foreigners'. Why? Because despite the accent, they don't 'feel' foreign. Canadians have always welcomed me and my family when they learn we're Brits. My brother and sister-in-law are moving to (I think) Vancouver this year. And there's something very special about the commonwealth. Many diverse nations, representing hundreds of millions of people (I think it's about a billion), all sorts of societies and all equal under the Queen. Long may it last eh?
Blah blah (sad and less than intelligent) blah - you monarchists give me the boak!

User avatar
English Channel
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 14 Dec 2003, 09:23
Location: London, UK.

#13

Post by English Channel » 28 Jan 2004, 03:34

cybercat wrote:[

Blah blah (sad and less than intelligent) blah - you monarchists give me the boak!
Image

Good. God save the Queen.

Sad?....Who knows?
Less than intelligent? You would seem to know more about that than me.

cybercat
Member
Posts: 2079
Joined: 11 Nov 2002, 22:26
Location: UK
Contact:

#14

Post by cybercat » 28 Jan 2004, 03:41

OK - I'll buy you a nice little plastic Union Flag to wave at the next sad little royalist get-together - get a life!

User avatar
Wm. Harris
Member
Posts: 424
Joined: 04 Mar 2003, 23:10
Location: Festung Kanada

#15

Post by Wm. Harris » 28 Jan 2004, 03:48

Well, although I hope this thread doesn't turn completely into a monarchy/republic debate (that's more Lounge material, and I cannot post there!), I would like to add that I agree with Croat and English Channel. From my perspective, our constitutional monarchy does have its flaws, but it is worth keeping in place simply because the alternatives would probably be worse. An elected Head of State would invariably just be one more politician who achieved the position through corporate bribery, party politics and shameless self-aggrandizement. We have enough of that in the elected positions we already have, thank you.

Besides, any move in this country to become a republic would probably result in the position of HoS becoming an appointed one, not an elected one. More fat patronage for loyal supporters of whoever happens to be the Prime Minister. If we want more elected positions in this country, let's have an elected Senate.

I have several United Empire Loyalist ancestors, so I must admit that there is something of a sentimental attachment there for me as well :)

Getting back to the original topic, this passage from the Times article puzzled me:
In foreign affairs, George’s commitment to taxing the American colonies to pay for military protection led to hostilities. The colonists proclaimed independence in 1776, but George obstinately continued the war until the final American victory in 1781.
Wasn't taxation for defence a Parliamentary prerogative? How much say did the King even have on this matter?

Post Reply

Return to “Other eras”