Was George III a tyrant?

[Staeny]

The overwhelming American opinion seems to me to be that George III was a tyrant? As a result of the glorious revolution, constitutionally he had no more power than the present Queen Elizabeth II does today? It would seem to me that Parliament, being responsible for the Stamp Tax among others was the real tyranny- if you consider it to have been a tyranny?

[Sibirsky]

Agreed.

[West Vandengaarde]

The overwhelming American opinion seems to me to be that George III was a tyrant? As a result of the glorious revolution, constitutionally he had no more power than the present Queen Elizabeth II does today? It would seem to me that Parliament, being responsible for the Stamp Tax among others was the real tyranny- if you consider it to have been a tyranny?

The fact of the matter is, it was a lot easier to criticize one man who represented the supposed "corrupt" group of politicians in Britain than to attack a democratic institution, whether you were represented or not.
You could easily get people to hate the personification of the nation which is supposedly dictating for you, but to get them to hate a democratic institution which has existed during the entirety of their lifetimes? Not a chance.

[Forsakia]

I think tyrant is a bit harsh in any case. In the narrow form in terms of the colonies lacking any representation, but not really in the wider sense.

If you want to be technical iirc then the government were 'Ministers of the Crown' and wielded George's power on his behalf, but it wasn't him making the policies.

Although he wasn't powerless or apolitical at the time, he could and did get heavily involved in who got the top job, so he certainly had more of a role than the current Monarchy does.

[Serrland]

Well, sometimes he'd wee and it would come out purple. So yes, absolutely.

[SaintB]

Honestly, most of the demands made by Parliament leading up to the war were not that unreasonable. They just refused to take the middle ground and allow the colonies representation. The British Govt. needed money to pay for armies and wars they had raised and fought to protect their colonies so they made taxes, but instead of doing what they had done in the past (tell the colonies they needed them to levy taxes or tariffs to pay for the Royal Army and allow the leaders of the colonies to sort them out) they just passed laws that forced colonists to pay certain taxes. Almost all of those taxes were repealed within a year of being passed because of the sentiment in the colonies but the parliament kept passing new tax laws after repealing the old ones.

The Colonists wanted to raise their own taxes, and Parliament wanted them to know who was boss; it eventually lead up to King George being pressured by Parliament to use the Army to occupy Boston and the outbreak of the revolutionary war. Once volleys were traded upon the common square of Lexington all the colonists realized that to give up then and sue for peace would be the end of their autonomy from Britain unless they could create their own nation.

I don't think George III was a tyrant, he was a man stuck between a rock (Parliament) and a hard place (the American Colonies).

[New Waterford]

He was mentally ill, so even he did what the Americans say he did that made him a tyrant, he may not have been entirely to blame. He didn't really have any real power anyway.

[Serrland]

He was mentally ill, so even he did what the Americans say he did that made him a tyrant, he may not have been entirely to blame. He didn't really have any real power anyway.

The "madness of King George" didn't come until towards the end of his (quite long) reign, iirc.

[Tmutarakhan]

George III did not accept the weak monarchy model of post-1688 England. He wanted to turn the clock back to a time when the king decided what the policies were and who the ministers to implement those policies would be, regardless of any parliamentary elections; when MP's he particularly didn't like were elected, he would have them arrested on trumped-up charges and force a new election: this happened repeatedly in the Middlesex (greater London) districts. It is unknown how far he could have gotten with this, since his increasing mental instability provided a good excuse for declaring him incompetent and putting his son (a dissolute playboy) in as regent.

[Giovenith]

It depends where you go. In some places he is a tyrant, others, not.

[Wirbel]

No. The British asked us to pay for a war that we started. We just were brats and we whined and complained and eventually separated from them.

[Greed and Death]

Honestly, most of the demands made by Parliament leading up to the war were not that unreasonable. They just refused to take the middle ground and allow the colonies representation. The British Govt. needed money to pay for armies and wars they had raised and fought to protect their colonies so they made taxes, but instead of doing what they had done in the past (tell the colonies they needed them to levy taxes or tariffs to pay for the Royal Army and allow the leaders of the colonies to sort them out) they just passed laws that forced colonists to pay certain taxes. Almost all of those taxes were repealed within a year of being passed because of the sentiment in the colonies but the parliament kept passing new tax laws after repealing the old ones.

The Colonists wanted to raise their own taxes, and Parliament wanted them to know who was boss; it eventually lead up to King George being pressured by Parliament to use the Army to occupy Boston and the outbreak of the revolutionary war. Once volleys were traded upon the common square of Lexington all the colonists realized that to give up then and sue for peace would be the end of their autonomy from Britain unless they could create their own nation.

I don't think George III was a tyrant, he was a man stuck between a rock (Parliament) and a hard place (the American Colonies).

Well first parliament did offer representation, however the leadership had instructed Benjamin Franklin under no circumstances accept representation in exchange for taxation. Because the colonies would have been out voted every time. What the colonies wanted was the right to collect their own taxes. I always find it amusing because all American post bellum thought on secession and taxes basically says we were in the wrong.

Yeah once we fought it was do or die.

[Greed and Death]

No. The British asked us to pay for a war that we started. We just were brats and we whined and complained and eventually separated from them.

While fighting in the colonies preceded the 7 years war the Americans were simply not important enough to start what essentially was a world war.

[Greed and Death]

The overwhelming American opinion seems to me to be that George III was a tyrant? As a result of the glorious revolution, constitutionally he had no more power than the present Queen Elizabeth II does today? It would seem to me that Parliament, being responsible for the Stamp Tax among others was the real tyranny- if you consider it to have been a tyranny?

Constitutional crisis of 1782 would suggest that even if he had the same power as Queen Elizabeth, he used it far more effectively.

[Tmutarakhan]

Well first parliament did offer representation

Utterly false.

[GrandKirche]

No. The British asked us to pay for a war that we started. We just were brats and we whined and complained and eventually separated from them.

While fighting in the colonies preceded the 7 years war the Americans were simply not important enough to start what essentially was a world war.

Shush! One of them finally admitted that the cause was the Americans being brats.

Of course he wasn't. Asking someone to stump up for the defence of their homes is fair enough and is millennia old.

He was also a Constitutional Monarch who could go barmy without harming the rise of Britain, which doesn't really say Tyrant.

[Murray land]

I'm an American so... of course he is . But in reality he was merely the face of it. Parliament were the real tyrants.

[Tmutarakhan]

Asking someone to stump up for the defence of their homes is fair enough and is millennia old.

We did not want troops from Britain over here. They were useless during the war, and an intolerable intrusion in peacetime. Without them, we defended ourselves quite well, thank you; extended ourselves all the way to the western ocean, you might notice, while the British said we mustn't go past the ridgeline marking the watershed of the eastern coast because they couldn't "protect" if we "overextended" the frontier.

[Cresilia]

Not really. A bit more of a powerful monarch than we know today in Queen Elizabeth the II, but nothing compared to absolute monarchs in Europe at the time. Somewhat unfortunate that he is so maligned in the present day.

[GrandKirche]

Asking someone to stump up for the defence of their homes is fair enough and is millennia old.

We did not want troops from Britain over here. They were useless during the war, and an intolerable intrusion in peacetime. Without them, we defended ourselves quite well, thank you; extended ourselves all the way to the western ocean, you might notice, while the British said we mustn't go past the ridgeline marking the watershed of the eastern coast because they couldn't "protect" if we "overextended" the frontier.

And never mind those inconvenient natives you slaughtered by the thousand to extend that frontier eh?

You didn't mind them when fighting the French. Also, remind me, when you fought against Britain to try and show how awesome your shiny new country was in 1812, who got their capital burnt to the ground and forced into a stalemate by an enemy fighting you with, at best, the B Army owing to a guy called Napoleon being a bit more of a priority?

[Tmutarakhan]

We did not want troops from Britain over here. They were useless during the war, and an intolerable intrusion in peacetime. Without them, we defended ourselves quite well, thank you; extended ourselves all the way to the western ocean, you might notice, while the British said we mustn't go past the ridgeline marking the watershed of the eastern coast because they couldn't "protect" if we "overextended" the frontier.

And never mind those inconvenient natives you slaughtered by the thousand to extend that frontier eh?

Not exactly the issue here: shall I start citing the various peoples Britain has slaughtered and/or oppressed in its time? The assertion was that they could not possibly defend ourselves unless we paid people in England to do it for us.

You didn't mind them when fighting the French.

We found them worse than useless when fighting the French. British officers like Braddock led us into horribly mismanaged battles which cost us lots of wasted lives. We had to evade the British "leadership" to hold our own.

Also, remind me, when you fought against Britain to try and show how awesome your shiny new country was in 1812, who got their capital burnt to the ground and forced into a stalemate by an enemy fighting you with, at best, the B Army owing to a guy called Napoleon being a bit more of a priority?

Again, you are deflecting. It is not a question of whether you were a more major military power at the time than we were; clearly you were. Your claim has been that we were helpless without your beneficent aid, which we should have been grateful for the opportunity to be able to pay for.

[Bontivate]

Parliment was the one who decided on 'Mericah's taxation without representation, so I'd call 'em the real tyrants. King George III was just some stupid fat guy with a crown.

[Murray land]

We didn't start any war the British picked a fight on a new front with France out in the Ohio over some bullshit border dispute. Thanks to Col. George Washington's ineptitude (yes G. Washington the one you Brits love to hate) he went commando and killed a French diplomatic package he thought was a scouting party. Should be mentioned that thanks to British army ineptitude Washington rose through the ranks quickly through the exploits of a book he wrote detailing his delivery of his first return from the Ohio with a French response. So the American front of the seven years war is do to British imperialism and ineptitude nothing more.

[Inzaristan]

We did not want troops from Britain over here. They were useless during the war, and an intolerable intrusion in peacetime. Without them, we defended ourselves quite well, thank you; extended ourselves all the way to the western ocean, you might notice, while the British said we mustn't go past the ridgeline marking the watershed of the eastern coast because they couldn't "protect" if we "overextended" the frontier.

And never mind those inconvenient natives you slaughtered by the thousand to extend that frontier eh?

You didn't mind them when fighting the French. Also, remind me, when you fought against Britain to try and show how awesome your shiny new country was in 1812, who got their capital burnt to the ground and forced into a stalemate by an enemy fighting you with, at best, the B Army owing to a guy called Napoleon being a bit more of a priority?

America was still a new nation in 1812, and when Napoleon was initially defeated in 1814 the British sent 12,000 regulars to try and take the Hudson river and we stopped them at Lake Champlaign. Plus we had numerous naval victories like the Battle of Lake Erie and ships captured by the USS Constitution. And in 1814 yee they burned DC after defeating a hastily assembled force that consisted of sailors, militia, and few regulars. And they only burned DC Bc we burned Toronto. Then we turned around and smashed them at the Battle of Baltimore and Battle of New Orleans.

[Old Tyrannia]

Occasionally George III attempted to assert the powers that he nominally held as monarch but which his predeccesors had chosen not to exercise. He was still largely a ceremonial ruler, however, and certainly never did anything very tyrannical. He was more active in politics than his predeccesors but he was no Charles I, and he was actually widely admired during his reign for his support of art, scientific research and agricultural improvments, as well as his humility and thrift. He did suffer mental instability towards the end of his reign, but the fact that this is used to mock or attack him strikes me as rather cruel and intolerant. The portrayl of him as a tyrannical ruler was purely colonist propoganda during the Revolutionary War, and I'm sure those who know me will be aware of my opinion of the so-called 'Founding Fathers' of America and the War of Independance in general.