A lot of people thought that King George lll went mad due to the colonies winning their independence. However, he went insane due to the deaths of 3 of his children: Octavius, Alfred, and Amelia, the last of which sent him over the edge. It was reported in the press of the day, that the king would go around the house calling for his beloved daughter, who he believed was simply hiding from him.

@souperstar7050

Жыл бұрын

Very sad story.

@Ringsfan1

Жыл бұрын

I wouldn't wish that on anybody, burying their child. It's so strange in some ways. I wasn't there when they put my dog down; I never saw his body after he passed, so sometimes it does feel like he's just in another room or something. That's with my dog, I couldn't imagine it being like that for not just one, but THREE of your children, your babies.

@laughingvampire7555

Жыл бұрын

reality is always far more complicated than the simplistic views we make like "good vs bad"

@istoppedcaring6209

Жыл бұрын

@@Ringsfan1 it is especially sad for your dog though we breed and we urge people to, if they ever need to do this, and many will to ease suffering to be there with your dog, don't go in another room, incist that you must be in there with him, ease it's stress, dogs look for their owners in those moments, they want to be with you till the end

@Ringsfan1

Жыл бұрын

@@istoppedcaring6209 Thank you for your condolences, it means a lot. My Mom was with him when he was put down, and he was really her dog, so he wasn't alone

“She produced children with lunar regularity” Okay, that’s so genius I’ve GOT to use it 😂

@mortalclown3812

2 жыл бұрын

Atkinson's writing is filled with comparable wit; I do recommend his books about WWII. I thought I'd read a lot about that conflict, but his research was phenomenal. He's the reason I'm diving into the American Revolution, tbh.

@edp3202

10 ай бұрын

​@@mortalclown3812just bon motif! 😘

*"yoU'LL BE BACK-"*

@gaelitos.s4392

4 жыл бұрын

@@ririzstrudel youll remember you BeLOnG tO MEeE

@spudsbuchlaw

3 жыл бұрын

@@gaelitos.s4392 You'll be back, time will tell,

@sirhoverhaft8039

3 жыл бұрын

Spuds Larsson You’ll remeber that i served you well😉

@ianc.6376

3 жыл бұрын

Oceans rise Empires fall

@birdwholikesmovies

3 жыл бұрын

Ian C. We have seen each other THROUGH IT ALL

That scene in john adams when he bows to king george iii and their discussion left me wanting, fabulous performance there by both

@historygeekslive8243

3 жыл бұрын

I agree. That scene was amazing ! This was a really good video of King George III. Pretty impressive.

@EndOfSmallSanctuary97

3 жыл бұрын

Adams would later go on to say that George III was the most respectable man he'd ever met, which is pretty amazing considering Adams was one of the most die-hard revolutionaries.

@EndOfSmallSanctuary97

3 жыл бұрын

@M O Not sure what that has to do with my comment. I'm well aware that George was a constitutional monarch, but until his final lapse into madness around 1810, he actually did exert a lot of influence on the government and Parliament. He was arguably the last British monarch to do so. But George was one of the strongest opponents of American independence, and outright told Adams he was the last to agree with it, so my comment still is relevant.

@doctordave12

3 жыл бұрын

@@EndOfSmallSanctuary97 yet one of the first to accept it

@meganthomas4768

3 жыл бұрын

@@aleasyah3032 I don’t think that actually happened, Jefferson claimed he turned his back on both Jefferson and Adams and if he did, Adams certainly would have mentioned it. Furthermore, he said it happened at a levy and that George’s wife was there, yet no woman would have been at a levy in the 18th century. I think he probably just made that story up.

"Peevish, but rarely bellicose." Thanks for that.

@pegrathwol

3 жыл бұрын

Whoa there! You've exceeded the vocabulary of 95% of the US population with that statement.

@ghost_type_gaming670

3 жыл бұрын

I don't speak B R I T I S H

@Kapnwill

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah I tapped out.

@spconrad9612

2 жыл бұрын

I'm from Appalachia, I'll pass, how about cowboy caviar?

@ImHereForPearlJamVid

2 жыл бұрын

A five and a half minute video which takes 25 minutes because you have to stop and look up words in the dictionary.

The musical Hamilton took gross liberties with historical truth? I, for one, am SHOCKED!

@mattstearns305

2 жыл бұрын

😢😢😢

@LucidLegend1984

2 жыл бұрын

That "play" is a travesty of humanity

@vdoggydogg3922

2 жыл бұрын

The only white guy in the musical..not an accident

@-aber_vater-8329

2 жыл бұрын

@@vdoggydogg3922 i'm pretty sure lin was also white- as well as anthony-

@-aber_vater-8329

2 жыл бұрын

Are you shocked tho- They usually make it dramatic and cut things- They also failed to mention that Thomas Jefferson's sex scandals were probably twice as bad as hamilton having an affair

He loathed dissent. Had he been more of a negotiator, it's entirely possible that the USA may have developed the way that Canada did. The English Parliament learned from their historical mistakes and were not about to repeat the mistakes in 1867 that their forefathers made in 1776. This is why Canada belongs to the Commonwealth, the US does not.

@11C1P

2 жыл бұрын

If they had even allowed the colonies in America to have just 1 representative in the house of commons, we'd probably still be part of the U.K.

@calum5975

2 жыл бұрын

@@11C1PIt has to be remembered, the House of Commons was far from a democratic or representative body during this era anyway. Most English people did not have the vote - and while i'm aware most Americans too did not recieve the vote until well after independence, much like the system of enfranchisement also present in the UK (technically just Great Britain, the UK formed in 180), it would have been near impossible to grant any reform to the electoral boundaries especially given how even in England many had been unchanged for hundreds of years despite obvious corruption and unfairness. (Research Rotten Boroughs for further information) There's also the very real, legitimate issue of the Colonies simply being to far to have any hope of having up to date and prompt representation in the Commons. No Imperial possession (with the exception of Ireland which was considered a core part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and then the United Kingdom) was granted a seat in the commons because the sheer logistical impossibility of it. It was difficult enough to get Members of Parliament from across the whole island of Britain to attend votes in London (this is also why Politicians are salaried now, previously it was unpaid meaning many members would ignore parliament to focus on their income-creating work), getting representatives to cross the atlantic for every important vote would be an impossibility. There's a reason Canada became a dominion, an autonomous, eventually equal nation within the Empire - it was logistically impossible for Britain to administer it any other way than to grant effective autonomy.

@robwalsh9843

2 жыл бұрын

Maybe in an alternate universe Australia would lead a convict rebellion and fight for independence from Britain instead of the US.

@ds1868

2 жыл бұрын

It was the British Parliament representing England Scotland and Wales. The Sovereign state was Great Britain so we do need to be careful with terminology here.

@AlcyoneSong

2 жыл бұрын

I don't think the US would have ever been satisfied with being part of the Commonwealth

I’ve only started to study about King George and so far I’m impressed, he seemed as though he took his office serious and understood the importance of his work in his time and how he would anchor the future of the empire.

@depreseo

3 жыл бұрын

I don't know if you'd be interested but the BBC did a documentary a few years ago about the opening of an archive which included every letter that George iii ever wrote and recieved,: personal and political. It was incredibly fascinating and it does show how, from his point of view as a monarch whose duty it is to make sure that a government is formed (at one point he even drafted an abdication speech when several MPs of the same party argued with one another instead of coming together and forming a government) and a figure whose duty it is to make sure that the laws of that elected government are adhered to - as far as he was concerned the revolution was an attack not against him, so much as an attack against the democratically elected government of the empire and the ideals of democracy. He was incredibly interesting and not the 2 dimensional villain of modern American history... Because in reality I think a lot of the negative aspects of modern depictions of George iii actually come from his son George iv (who, to be fair, if the revolution happened during his reign I think both the US and Britain might have become republics as he was a terrible king).

@CaptCrewSock

3 жыл бұрын

depreseo Dude that sounds amazing, I LOVE BBC docs, I think they make the best content on most everything doc related. Other than their dumb obsession with pointing out scandal and sexual affairs that some how wiggle it’s way in a lot of their docs I rank them the best in my opinion. Can you post a link to the doc ur talking about if it’s on KZread, Thank you!

@SonofTiamat

3 жыл бұрын

@@CaptCrewSock Did you know he could've taken the title of Emperor of Great Britain and Ireland? But he declined when the offer was put forward

@CaptCrewSock

3 жыл бұрын

I’m sure there are over a 100 good personal and political reasons why he didn’t want that title, I can only imagine a few why he wouldn’t.

@SonofTiamat

3 жыл бұрын

@@CaptCrewSock I heard one reason is that as a prince-elector who also had two seats on the Reichstag of the HRE it would've been weird to have an emperor potentially appointing another emperor Still, the king was pretty much emperor in all but name. At least until the title Emperor of India was created

15 children, nice to know what his hobby was. LOL Seriously though, my Grandmother's family had a farm that they got through a land grant from George III and it stayed in their family until the early 20th century.

@masonmckinney8003

3 жыл бұрын

His Majesty was a good King, a testemt is the land grant. Generous he was.🇬🇧🇬🇧

@bandav_lohengrin

3 жыл бұрын

What happens then?

@faulltw

3 жыл бұрын

@@bandav_lohengrin They live happily ever after, or so the story goes. ;)

@bandav_lohengrin

3 жыл бұрын

@@faulltw oh nice

@LostArchivist

3 жыл бұрын

@@bandav_lohengrin Decades come and go and one gives up the ghost. Then the Just Judge comes and your eternity is cast by He Who is Justice and Mercy both. Seek the latter, lest you fall beneath the former.The great ought most fear these things for more has been entrusted to them. So yes multiply, but conduct oneself according to virtue. God bless you and grant you His Divine Mercy. Through the same Blessed Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the Just Judge, and the Merciful Savior of us all. Amen.

"She produced children with lunar regularity" the proper british way of saying King George couldn't pull out of his driveway😂

@emuuriarte1433

2 жыл бұрын

I mean it's not like a monarch really requires a pull-out game with his wife.

@markberryhill2715

2 жыл бұрын

What was he physically doing that created so much testosterone? A man has to work hard or get a lot of exercise to be able to have that kind of stamina. He has my respect as an old man of 60.

@nick56677

2 жыл бұрын

@@emuuriarte1433 Nope. Especially in those days. Pull out games didn't exist with simple peasants and villagers in fear of God taking their Ox over pulling out.

@BigBlack81

2 жыл бұрын

@@markberryhill2715 His daily fitness regime would be worth considering, I'm sure.

@thiest1205

2 жыл бұрын

@@BigBlack81 he didn't need one, his nightly exercise was plenty 😉😄

My home town of Rotherham Yorkshire England also played a significant role in achieving American freedom. The Patriot movement started as a part of the English Whig Party in 1740. These Liberal Whigs were seeking to extend democracy, reduce the power of the King, end taxation without representation, end slavery and form a sort of United Nations of Democratic Countries. They also believed that freeing America was not only right and moral, but trade with a free and friendly America would be good for the economy. Rotherham was the epicentre of much of this activity. Rotherham’s Earl of Effingham built a monument to the Boston Tea Party. Called Boston Castle, it still dominates the town from a hilltop today. Effingham city Illinois, was named for him, along with at least two counties and three warships. But the local resident who had the most impact was the Marquess of Rockingham. In 1781 the Tory government began to fall apart. Whig Rockingham was invited to become Prime Minister. He did so on two conditions - economic reform at home and that he be allowed to free America. This was immediately after the defeat at Yorktown. The Tories were planning to send more troops. Rockingham stopped the fighting in America, but continued the war with France, Spain and Holland. Following the peace treaty of 1783 America became free and that profitable trade started immediately. A Victory Arch was built at Parlington Hall Yorkshire to celebrate American Liberty ( google it). I spent lockdown writing a little book on all this titled ‘Rotherham and the creation of the USA’. It is being published by our local civic society.

@kennethbrady

3 жыл бұрын

Very interesting! Thanks for sharing.

@markwhite7405

3 жыл бұрын

Wow. Hope it sells well

@mrbrainbob5320

3 жыл бұрын

Whoa a bit of over stretching. By the early 1700s Americans already saw themselves different from Britian

@haleywhitehall7942

3 жыл бұрын

I'm from the United States. Is there a way I could buy a copy of your book?

@johnwilletts3984

3 жыл бұрын

@@haleywhitehall7942 The book is not due out until December. The publisher is the Rotherham Civic Society. Based in Rotherham Yorkshire England. Title: ‘Rotherham and the creation of the USA’. If you can find their web page, just click on the ‘Bookstore’ tab. The cost should be no more than £10 plus postage. They can post overseas and will advice postage cost. Feel free to mail them for information. Thank you for your interest.

Nothing illustrates the feelings of British Whigs at the outbreak of war than this newspaper story dated June 5th 1775 (The Public Advertiser of London). “At a special meeting this day of several members of the Constitutional Society, during an adjournment, a gentleman proposed that a subscription should be immediately entered into for raising the sum of one hundred pounds to be applied to the relief of widows, orphans and aged parents of our beloved American fellow-subjects who faithful to the character of Englishmen, preferring death to slavery, were for that reason only, inhumanly murdered by the King’s Troops at or near Lexington and Concord in the province of Massachusetts on 19th April”. The sum was collected immediately and sent to Benjamin Franklin.

@historygeekslive8243

3 жыл бұрын

😪 The more I read up on the Revolution the sadder it becomes.

@emuuriarte1433

2 жыл бұрын

It's crazy that the British public was sympathetic almost immediately as the War Began.

@grosvenorclub

Жыл бұрын

@@emuuriarte1433 Not really , bearing in mind British folk had been travelling back and forward to America since the 1600's , many from my old area in the UK , the south west . So there where cousins , brothers , sons who had relations across the pond . I have records of a family member who went over in the mid 1700's . There was no animosity between the common folk in both countries as they were related not just by language but personal relations and trade . It was as usual the arrogance of the King and some of his advisors . It's never the common folk who start wars .

Has anyone seen the clocks King George lll made himself, seriously exceptional work I was so impressed.

@siler7

Жыл бұрын

Ironic that you would extol craftsmanship with such a sloppy sentence.

@JulioLopez-xz5kx

Жыл бұрын

@@siler7 Who pissed in your Cheerios?

@burtmaclinfbi3993

Жыл бұрын

@@siler7 Dude, shut your hole.

@rajkaranvirk7525

Жыл бұрын

@@siler7 I would love to see your English grades?

@siler7

Жыл бұрын

@@rajkaranvirk7525 That sentence should end with a period, not a question mark.

I highly recommend the book "The Strangest Family: The Private Lives of George III, Queen Charlotte and the Hanoverians" by Janice Hadlow. Goes into great detail about the private lives of George III and his family, and shows a much more human, sympathetic side to him than probably any other history ever written.

@markberryhill2715

2 жыл бұрын

He was not the demon he was portrayed to be. He was on the wrong side of history. It was Divine Providence that brought U.S. into existence.

@mortalclown3812

2 жыл бұрын

@@markberryhill2715 I've read enough about him to realize he had many moments of magnanimity, wisdom and reflection. I'm still glad we don't have a monarchy, though; one shudders to think of that lesser ones in his wake.

That was very interesting. I feel like, in looking at historical characters, we often are quick to deify or demonize them, but in reality, they're like all humans: mixtures of good and evil, virtues and vices, strengths and flaws, capable of both performing noble deeds as well as making terrible mistakes. It was nice to see a more holistic representation of a historical figure who is often vilified in American history courses.

@simonalioto2647

3 жыл бұрын

I wonder why he is vilified in American history 🙃

@gunstrokethecybertronian8659

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah I know right? I mean I may have been born in the U.S and all but there were some things I wanted to know on the British perspective especially after the Shot heard round the world was written in the local papers and then on how the news spread like wildfire.

@karenstrong6734

2 жыл бұрын

Everyone needs to stop viewing them in the black and white scenario, there is no such as perfectionism in human beings. Nobody is perfect, we can’t erase them from history even if they didn’t fit our modern values today.

One of my favourite movies of all time is 'The Madness of King George' (the big screen adaptation of the excellent stage play 'The Madness of George III'). I cannot recommend it enough.

@staciarn1

3 жыл бұрын

Alan Sunter Yes you’re right, it is very good!

@allanrichardson1468

3 жыл бұрын

From our 2020 hindsight, we might joke, “How did the British people know King George was mad? Because he tried to keep the American colonies!”

@johnwilletts3984

3 жыл бұрын

I also love that movie. But you need to keep reminding your self that movies are fiction, even when supposedly based on real events. History is written by whatever country has the largest movie audience.

@makinoahcelloduo9008

3 жыл бұрын

Hugh Laurie plays the same part in that movie that he plays in Blackadder. If you haven't seen the latter, by all means, do.

@alansunter2383

2 жыл бұрын

@@makinoahcelloduo9008 Um, no, Hugh Laurie isn't in 'The Madness of King George'. The Prince of Wales is played by Rupert Everett

This past fourth of July I not only remembered my forefathers and my nations founding but I also took time to remember the young men who crossed the Atlantic and fought a long cold bloody struggle in serves to their King and Empire. We Westmen are one people, with many countries!

@dw309

2 жыл бұрын

Indeed, US, UK, Aus, NZ, Canada. We are all one family.

@m.c.58

2 жыл бұрын

@@dw309 All western countries, thanks to the Roman Republic.

@VictorianTimeTraveler

2 жыл бұрын

@@m.c.58 just to be clear when I say Westman I mean Slavic people as well

@emuuriarte1433

2 жыл бұрын

@@VictorianTimeTraveler Don't tell that to Slavic people, they might shoot you. But in all honesty if the Balkans and Russia had some serious Reformation then I could see them joining the fold.

@VictorianTimeTraveler

2 жыл бұрын

@@emuuriarte1433 it's funny you say that because I have told that to Slavic people and they love it. It's not about erasing identities it's about creating Brotherhood between them and recognizing that we (caucasians) one great extended family

“The good of Democracy is Liberty and the Courage and Industry that Liberty begets”. - Written by King George 111.

@lexingtonconcord8751

3 жыл бұрын

It appears this quote comes from King Charles the 1st, my good sir. See source of quote within context. It's actually quite beautiful analysis in my opinion. Enjoy! SOURCE: His Majesties Answer to the Nineteen Propositions of Both Houses of Parliament (1642) "There being three kinds of government among men (absolute monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy), and all these having their particular conveniences and inconveniences, the experience and wisdom of your ancestors has so moulded this out of a mixture of these as to give to this kingdom (as far as human prudence can provide) the conveniences of all three, without the inconveniences of anyone, as long as the balance hangs even between the three states, and they run jointly on in their proper channel (begetting verdure and fertility in the meadows on both sides), and the overflowing of either on either side raise no deluge or inundation. The ill of absolute monarchy is tyranny; the ill of aristocracy is faction and division; the ills of democracy are tumults, violence and licentiousness. The good of monarchy is the uniting a nation under one head to resist invasion from abroad and insurrection at home; the good of aristocracy is the conjunction of council in the ablest persons of a state for the public benefit; the good of democracy is liberty, and the courage and industry which liberty begets.”

@johnwilletts3984

3 жыл бұрын

@@lexingtonconcord8751 I’ve checked this and you are correct. I had no idea that Charles 1 of all people could have come up with something like this. However I still believe George 111 repeated at least this part of the Statement in a letter to Prime Minister Lord North. So either he stole the words or he was just quoting his predecessor.

@caboose.20

2 жыл бұрын

You know it's Roman numerals right? It's capital i's not 1's.

@miko5742

2 жыл бұрын

Those are alot of edwards

@mortalclown3812

2 жыл бұрын

@@lexingtonconcord8751 Good catch.

This was excellent, conveying more perception & insight into George III's personality, character, and mindset in only a few minutes, compared with many other docs of much longer duration.

I have always admired George the third, it's easy to understand why he wanted to keep America in The Empire( though I'm thankful for The success of the Revolution). I'm glad you are expounding upon his true character ,which was for the most part , very admirable.

@FinlandFanHJK

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks, but America should of been mine!

@kinggeorgeiii7515

2 жыл бұрын

@@FinlandFanHJK No, mine.

@cooldudicus7668

2 жыл бұрын

A big problem was that people in Britian itself started to oppose the war with the American colonies. Adam Smith in his book The Wealth of Nations, after saying that the best way to end the revolution would be to just give titles of nobility to the whining rebels, argued that the American colonies were not worth it. He gave a few reasons why. 1) It was too far away to defend without it getting to be too expensive and 2) that while rich in resources, it took took too long to get the stuff back to England. Coasting trade would be a better use of British shipping instead.

@mbogucki1

2 жыл бұрын

A question for you. Canada and nearly all former British colonies universally share the same freedoms as the US of A, yet didn't need to turn traitor nor fire a single shot against the crown. Was the revolution really worth it? 🤔

@mbogucki1

2 жыл бұрын

@@cooldudicus7668 It honestly wasn't worth it. A bunch of plebs were stirred up by rich white men with words of "liberty" because said white men didn't want to pay taxes for a war they gained from. 🤷🏽‍♂️ The Crown fought the war half heartedly so as to not lose face, but also thought the loyalist support would be greater.

King George III is hilarious in Hamilton though, sure not historically accurate but still funny as heck :D

@PlannedObsolescence

3 жыл бұрын

I hate when adults use the word “heck”. I’ve never seen “Hamilton”.

@mankytoes

3 жыл бұрын

The portrayal seems more like his greedy, vain son, the regent George 4 (famously depicted by Hugh Lawrie in Blackadder the Third).

@curtisstapleton7167

3 жыл бұрын

@@PlannedObsolescence .not even on Disney + ?

@themadoneplays7842

3 жыл бұрын

@@mankytoes actually it's funny you mention that as Lin-manuel Miranda who wrote the musical Hamilton met Hugh Laurie on house and at the time Lin was still working on the Musical and got the inspiration for his King George the 3rd from Hugh Laurie so yes it comes full circle :-)

@mankytoes

3 жыл бұрын

@@themadoneplays7842 I assume he knew Laurie played George 4, and not 3? It would be pretty funny (and steretypically American) if Miranda had got his Georges mixed up. George 3 is comparable to our current Queen in some ways- long servicing monarch who understood the way the country had changed, and fulfilled an increasingly symbolic role, with a more controversial heir sitting in the wings. Maybe one day they'll make a play about Kenyan independence, and they'll ridicule her like this play ridicules George!

"I am the King of England!" "No sir! You are the PATIENT!"

Very thoughtful presentation. You would think that with 15 kids, George might have experienced a little rebellion in his own house! :-)

@bluecherry456

3 жыл бұрын

his son, the Prince Regent, did treat him cruelly when he began to show signs of madness. He would have him put him in straightjackets and ice baths. Apparently the madness was hyped up by the press and those who were friends with the Prince Regent.

@pedanticradiator1491

3 жыл бұрын

All of his sons rebelled in their own ways

@theant9821

3 жыл бұрын

15 kids, no wonder he went mad, poor sod.

@WednesdayAddams5

Жыл бұрын

@@bluecherry456 his to youngest two sons died his favourite ones

I did, some years ago decide to research George III. I enjoyed this presentation. Thank you!!

Thanks learned a little about King George III and his mind set. Enjoy watching 👍🐆🐆

this was great. short and to the point. subbed, love it!!

Awesome piece. Thank You for all of Y’all’s hard work in getting these videos up for us

Thank you for posting this video!

His reputation as the Mad King over shines his good attributes, he was quite intelligent, especially for a Monarch of the time.

@Daniel24445

Жыл бұрын

Well it hard for an island of inbred nobility to keep their entitlement egos up without global ambitions. Sounds like most of the comments are ready to accept the modern version of King George III Charles’s Global Magna Carta! We shall see how Americans deal with modern day “Intolerable Acts” already laid out in Patriot Act!

Amazing eloquence. Wish there was more language of this caliber on KZread.

@grantogilvie3458

3 жыл бұрын

There is so much quality content on youtube, the trick is finding it

@SS-wi4tm

3 жыл бұрын

@@grantogilvie3458 got any advice?

@themaskedman221

2 жыл бұрын

@@SS-wi4tm " got any advice?" Yeah, check out the gay pride channel.

A drab Princess indeed! I think Charlette looks awesome!

I'm so happy that GIIIR is finally getting proper treatment. I can't stand most portrayals of him... because they're not accurate. He was actually quite a good wartime leader and a good king for Britain.

@watching99134

2 жыл бұрын

The conventional wisdom on most history is a partial truth...

@jephrokimbo9050

Жыл бұрын

for britain maybe, for The American Colonies that became The United States Of America, ABSOLUTELY NOT!

He was one of the best Kings GB ever had. He loved his country, loved his Queen, and he was surrounded by ‘yes men’ who couldn’t be bothered to talk to actual Americans, or the British military for that matter, about the gravity of the situation unfolding in the Colonies.

@DeltaAssaultGaming

2 жыл бұрын

LORD PALMERSTON!

@matthewszalkowski4719

2 жыл бұрын

Then why did the rest of the world want his tyranny stopped if he was such a Claudius of rome

@matthewszalkowski4719

2 жыл бұрын

It's funny how the county wearing the Jack boot never feels the sole on his neck. Again general Gage was a tryant and a Savage live the rest of the lobster backs forcing there iron law and tyranny on the people you asked to leave. They take what they made. Viva revolution.

@JensontheBasterd

2 жыл бұрын

@@matthewszalkowski4719 mate the king of england or the americans revolution has literally got nothing to do with you its none of your business, who do you think you even are? lmao your people have never rebelled against anything all they have done is move to a country founded by my people haha you are not an anglo saxon

@marypetrie930

2 жыл бұрын

@@matthewszalkowski4719 Have you taken your medicine yet!

But was the signatures on the Declaration of Independence big enough for him to see?

@LordDirus007

5 жыл бұрын

Benjamin Rush is my 1st Cousin 8 times removed. He signed the declaration of Independence

@imperialguard28

5 жыл бұрын

Supposedly John Hancock signed his signature the biggest so King G. Could read his signature without his spectacles.

@valerier3673

3 жыл бұрын

@@LordDirus007 same, most signers of the Declaration were. cousins of mine along with the founding fathers. I'm pretty I'm related to all of them

@speeeee35

3 жыл бұрын

Valerie R How could that be lol they’re from all dif families. Maybe this was a weak joke? Lol

@captainamerica6525

3 жыл бұрын

Hence the signature of John Hancock.

love your command of the English language it elevated the conversation and was much appreciated

As our friends across the pond would say.....BRILLIANT

Why do we always talk about George III and not Lord North, the actual leader of Parliament?

@historygeekslive8243

3 жыл бұрын

Good question. I think he was the actual problem.

@kellycochran6487

3 жыл бұрын

@@historygeekslive8243 He was, really.

@johnwilletts3984

3 жыл бұрын

Exactly. Lord North may have once called himself a Whig but even then his opponents described his as more Tory than the Tories. King George believed that it was his duty to defend his ministers even when they made mistakes. The two men had an interesting relationship. According to gossip at the time the two men were half brothers, George’s father was a friend of North’s mother. The two men certainly looked alike. All this resulted in North’s stupidity rubbing off on to King George.

@stevenlowe3026

2 жыл бұрын

@@johnwilletts3984 Lord North wasn't stupid. He was a very clever man - but he admitted himself unable to come up with a worthwhile strategy to deal with the problem of the American colonies. The British government was not a totalitarian hierarchy but a parliamentary democracy, with all kinds of politicians with their own agendas, just as today. And the governors of the colonies were also greatly at fault in not informing the English government what was really going on in America - because they didn't bother to find out for themselves.

@Trebor74

2 жыл бұрын

The reason is simple,you can't campaign for "no taxation without representation" against a democratically elected prime minister. But you can against a king. Britain,at that time,was the most democratic country around.

George wasn't wrong - if it wasn't for France, the colonies would of lost.

@danielclingen34

3 жыл бұрын

And Spain

@valerier3673

3 жыл бұрын

Add spain, and Holland to the mix. They wanted to injure the british and they thought the American revolution was the perfect opportunity

@johnwilletts3984

3 жыл бұрын

I don’t agree. America was always going to get its independence. The war was completely unnecessary. Right from the end of the seven years war in 1763 factions of the English Whig Party were gaining ground against the Tories in parliament. When Whig Rockingham became Prime Minister in 1781 he did so with a mandate for economic reform at home and to set America free. This was just after the defeat at Yorktown. Tories planned to send more troops. Rockingham stopped the fighting against the colonies but continued the war with France, Spain and Holland. The conflict ended with a different peace treaty signed with each of those involved in 1783.

@chideraalexanderdex547

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnwilletts3984 you do know that without the help of France mostly and Spain secondly the colonies stood no chance against Britain militarily and not all Americans wanted full independence... I don't doubt independence would have eventually come, it did for all modern nations born from empires but they would have lost that war without foreign military aid

@johnwilletts3984

3 жыл бұрын

@@chideraalexanderdex547 Yes of course they needed military help to win battles. The majority of Americans had Whiggish views and wanted independence. At first only a minority of Brits had Whiggish views and supported independence. But that minority continued to grow in numbers, organisation and the recruitment of men with influence in Parliament. If only we had a Rockingham Government in 1775 war would never have started. France with its absolute monarchy had no interest in American Liberty, but simply took advantage of the situation to damage Britain. Spain offered no help at all to America, it just wanted to fight Britain and get back Gibraltar. But my point is that it was Rockingham coming to power as Prime Minister that ended the war, rather than just the military defeat at Yorktown (although that may have swung a few more votes) During the peace talks in 1783, Britain with yet another Whig Prime Minister even more radical than Rockingham was able to cut America away from France by offering better terms for America, than France was calling for. And then they gave France nothing.

Thank you! For this informative video 🙏

Excellent. Will purchase book

This was an excellent piece!

@mortalclown3812

2 жыл бұрын

I recommend Atkinson's books in general. His love of history is extremely contagious and entertaining.

He was NOT an English King. He was King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) and Ireland.

@seanmoran6510

2 жыл бұрын

And now it’s time for Britain to be dissolved for the sake of what’s left of England 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

@themaskedman221

2 жыл бұрын

Ireland, at that time, was recognised as a "client state" of Britain, but wasn't actually in the union until 1801. Although many historians claim that the 1800 Act of Union merely formalised what had already been the case - an almost complete economic and political integration between the two "kingdoms".

@cpj93070

Жыл бұрын

@@seanmoran6510 You tw*t

thank you, this helped me with my research project

Wow! I learned a lot in this short clip!

Its always the ones that they dont want you to know that have the best lives.

Wow.. great video about King George III. I'm shocked that Mount Vernon would give the /king his due like this. I like the fact that you put some research into King George III. I feel like we are always trashing this guy. You would think we were all still fighting the Revolutionary War. What is it about this war ? You bring up a good point that he tried to keep it. Now that I am older and have done some research into the REV War, I also noticed that it was eight years ! A long time to be at war. The longest war in U.S. history by far. Maybe that is why there is so much bitterness about him.

@kellycochran6487

3 жыл бұрын

No it's not. Afghanistan and the Indian Wars are/were longer than the Revolution.

Wonderful and insightful summation

The book is better than a movie! A must read.

Da da da dat da dat da da da da ya da!

@sartainja

2 жыл бұрын

I don’t understand your comment.

@condeandrew5745

2 жыл бұрын

@@sartainja I think its a reference to the Hamilton musical

Where was this filmed for the inside portions? It is beautiful.

History is always multilayered with many different levels of understanding. There are historical facts like the declaration of independence or the assassination of archduke franz ferdinand before WW1. But the way how the different sides which have been involved in such historical events viewed those events is always a very complex affair. And one that can never be completely explored if we don't try to understand the people behind it and where the decisions they made came from. It's like a large puzzle where each individual is a peace in it. And historians are trying to make the whole picture.

Very informative. Thanks.

It is surprising how often major historical events turn on the actions of an individual. In this case Lord North, the leader of the British parliament. North it was who advised the king regarding sentiments in the Americas and North again who, once hostilities broke out, failed to adequately support the troops on the ground. There seems little doubt that Britain could have put down the rebellion with ease, had enough manpower been sent but blunders caused by underestimating the opposition's abilities and, perhaps more importantly, strength of feeling were disastrous.

Very interesting to take in to account both sides and why he was stubborn or less willing to work with the colonies.

@johnwilletts3984

3 жыл бұрын

Never forget that a British monarch had very little actual power. It was the Tory government led by Lord North that were the real bad guys, who provoked riots at home and triggered a completely unnecessary war in America.

@captaindestruction9332

3 жыл бұрын

John Willetts true. Though im sure he had alot of indirect sway on opinions/any actions taken. I think even with little power a Monarch still held great power in terms of public opinion and there words and thoughts probably caused politicians to change there minds/reconsider alot. I highly doubt that the policies/treatment of the colonist would’ve continued had he come out against them. At the very least im sure some things wouldve been done differently.

@MrSkeltal268

2 жыл бұрын

@@johnwilletts3984 Ah, but that was due to King George III as well, because he disliked the absolute Whig rule pulling the strings, and sought for himself to unite all of England under the Crown once again (though he was careful not to do this directly, but by influencing the Whig ministers and removing certain people from power) he inadvertently brought back the Tories thus creating two party squabbles again.

Fascinating!

Washington and George III were so alike in many ways. How different might things had been if they had the opportunity to converse.

Getting older I finally enjoy history ! maybe I now have the time ( I hope ) Brought up in the west country of England , have lived in Canada and now Australia and have been lucky to travel quite a bit in the USA . Much of what I have read said that most of the average citizenry had no wish at all to have war with their cousins across the Atlantic and of course in many cases they really were cousins , might even be brothers , sisters or even sons . They could off course be quite a few generations gone but family memories would have been kept of old "Fred" down the road who left for the "colonies ' 50 years ago or so . Even in my family from Bath in England there was an older brother of my great grandfather who went to America and fought in the Indian Wars . As usual it was the King / President or whoever and his flunkies who had probably never travelled who could not see the reality .

@mortalclown3812

2 жыл бұрын

I have not traveled the world, but wish I lived in the UK. The US is falling into fascism in ways I'd never have thought possible. The curbing of voters' rights is only one symptom. Abject ignorance of history is another. God help our young republic.

@grosvenorclub

2 жыл бұрын

@@mortalclown3812 Have faith in the Constitution if not the politicians . I think it might have been Winston Churchill who said that Americans usually come late to a crises but they always come good in the end ( or words to that effect ) !

@tommyl3207

Жыл бұрын

We were and definitely still are family. Whether at all times we like it or not LOL.

Just got this book and can't wait to dive into it.

Very Interesting

Very interesting video!

It was very unusual for a King in that era not to have mistresses.. and to be a family man. I'm guessing he didn't have any because his wife bore him 15 children. I can't imagine having 15 kids now, but back then...yeah, no. Lol

@sirmoonslosthismind

3 жыл бұрын

birthing a child in those times was like playing russian roulette. she did it fifteen times, and yet died a natural death years later. some people really are lucky.

@johnwilletts3984

3 жыл бұрын

Sorry to disappoint you, but George in common with most married men of all classes had mistresses. He was often seen at sporting events with a mistress clinging to each arm. However much of this was just show. He was famously in love with his wife and spent as much time with her and the children as possible. He was also a very kind man and would not want to hurt her.

@neilbuckley1613

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnwilletts3984 There is no record of George having a mistress after he was married to Charlotte. There are two women named as possible mistresses before his marriage, Hannah Lightfoot and Sarah Lennox.

@sirmoonslosthismind

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnwilletts3984 "all classes"? hahaha no.

@jameseverett4976

3 жыл бұрын

Not like he couldn't afford them, or was obligated to help raise them, or even had to work a shittty job to support them.

When I lived in the States I worked in an open plan office. One colleague foolishly asked me if we celebrate 4th July in Britain. I said, 'Yes, that when we finally got rid of you.'. Thankfully the office saw the joke.

@gauravsmatharu

6 ай бұрын

Brilliant 🤣

Fascinating

When are the other two volumes in the trilogy being published? I can’t wait to get them. I’ve held off on reading the first because I want the complete work.

@mortalclown3812

2 жыл бұрын

I wish I'd read Atkinson's WW2 books as they were published vs all at once, in order to stretch out the joy. ☺️

I did not know George 3rd had not left England. It seems he did not even visit other parts of Great Britain. I guess that is part of why King George IV visit to Scotland was such a big deal at the time!

@Daniel24445

Жыл бұрын

Are they really related? The House of Windsor is German you know!

I enjoyed this. And it was a lot more balanced than I expected. Not to be rude, but many Americans tend to have a reflexive, over-simplified view of George/the British in the Revolutionary. Naturally, the opinions are going to differ, but a nuanced and balanced view is always better for everyone. Bravo, great video!

@ronaldlindeman6136

2 жыл бұрын

But then there is the 1994 movie "The Madness of King George" which I thought was considered true. But included humor that was added for drama. Is that wrong, right or not even close? If wrong, better tell people.

@hansellius

2 жыл бұрын

@@ronaldlindeman6136 You know, I love Nigel Hawthorne but I haven't seen the movie. If you have something specific you want to ask about I can try to help. Otherwise I'd need to watch the movie which I might take a while to get around to.

@ronaldlindeman6136

2 жыл бұрын

@@hansellius Thanks for your reply. The movie does not show King George, the Kings court or Britain in a good light at all. I compare it to the debates in the movie 1776 (a musical) made in the United States and it's not hard to see that better value of a functioning Parliament/Congress for a Government than a nuts King/Queen.

@hansellius

2 жыл бұрын

@@ronaldlindeman6136 George III was relatively more involved in the running of the government than the previous couple of George's had been. The post of Prime Minister was actually created because the King at the time could not speak English, only German, so the Prime Minister ran everything on his behalf. George was more involved, much more so. And there were certainly failings of his, but there were benefits too. For example, George III had signed a treaty with the Indians of North America. I use the term Indians deliberately, because that's how the Native Americans are referred to in the treaty. One of the long-running complaints that the American colonists had was that George had (repeatedly) banned them from expanding West. George was being careful not to provoke a war with Spain or the Indians. (Spain had inherited the colony of Louisiana from France at the end of the Seven Years War; so basically, all land west of the Thirteen Colonies was either Spanish or Indian.) The American Patriots claim that they were overtaxed is also somewhat unfair. I will discuss representation in a moment, but - Americans actually paid around 1/10 of the tax a British person was paying at the time. So the idea that Americans were subjected to wildly onerous taxes is thin. It's also worth noting that the taxes were specifically raised in order to cover the cost of defending the Colonies from the French during the Seven Years War. I have a lot of sympathy with President Trump complaining that Europe won't pay for its own defense in NATO, but there is a mountain of irony there. America exists partly because they didn't want to pay for their own defense. And you mention the benefit of a good Congress or Parliament compared to a monarch. I do agree, and I will admit that when it started, Congress was excellent. Not wonderful if you were black, but it was still very good. At home in England, Parliament was terrible. The seats of Parliament had been drawn up literally centuries before, and never updated. For an analogy, imagine if all seats in Congress were divided up based on the original population of the Thirteen Colonies - ignoring the fact that, for example, California is the largest state by population now. That sounds stupid, and it is. But it was the situation in England at the time. Old Sarum was once a thriving town, and it had two MPs. By 1800, the hill had three people living on it. But still had two MPs. There was a parliamentary constituency in the south where two-thirds of it had been claimed by coastal erosion. Still had MPs. In contrast, there were towns like Manchester, with populations in the tens of thousands, with no MPs at all. And the fact the constituencies weren't updated doesn't include rampant corruption of the time. That was all improved in the 1832 Great Reform Act, but _before_ then, English people were paying more tax and often had the same representation as the American Colonists - namely, none at all. Against _that_ background, George III was actually not the worst leader. It's worth noting that France helped the US during the Revolution in order to get revenge for the Seven Years War - and they spent so much that they went bankrupt and had their own Revolution. Thousands were butchered throughout that. The reign of George III doesn't have that. And don't get me wrong - the latter half of his reign, as he went mad, got worse. His son also tried to make him seem even worse, in order to make his (the son's) own reputation seem less terrible. But no. George III was no saint, not at all. But he wasn't a tyrant, there were reasons for the policies England followed, and he did actually genuinely care about his own people (including the Colonists) and others (such as the Indians). I don't mind Americans pointing out his flaws, but I'm also sadly used to Americans thinking that Mel Gibson's Patriot movie - where the British lock civilians in a church and set it on fire - is real history, sanctioned by George. The 'civilians in a church getting burned alive' things is something that _actual Nazis_ did in France. So... yeah. I guess that's what I mean. George III was a bit of a dick, but it's nice to see an American who doesn't try to portray him as a Nazi. Does that make sense? Also, sorry for the long comment.

@stevenlowe3026

4 ай бұрын

@@hansellius Thanks for this well-reasoned and comprehensive account which is a much better description of the way things were than most people ever see.

What do you think things would like here in America if the Brits had said, early on, "Oh, you want to be represented in Parliament? Fine. Elect some reps and send them to London".

@british_knight

3 жыл бұрын

America likely would have become independent during the 20th century rather than the 18th and Britain would, too this day be the world hegemon, or at least would have been until very recently. It's also possible that Australia wouldn't be a nation state as we understand it today due to lack of migration that occured when Britain had to send it's British and Irish prisoners to somewhere other than North America. Politics in continental Europe would be much different as well, but that's far too much to put in this short summary. All I will say is that most major wars that occured since and German unification may have never happened.

@starrynight1657

3 жыл бұрын

They still wouldn't have wanted to pay taxes anyway or the elite would have still wanted power, so they would have rebelled over something else.

@funkyanimaltheearloffunkdo1871

2 жыл бұрын

The French Revolution would never have happened.

@lesdodoclips3915

Жыл бұрын

They literally did say that. But both sides rejected the idea as it was impractical

@Dryhten1801

7 ай бұрын

@@starrynight1657 Slavery most likely

Dam even the soundtrack deep

"He was frugal in an age of excess." He owned 65,000 books.

@TheEpiCool

3 жыл бұрын

Stocked the national library

@johnwatters3431

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheEpiCool Also true

@meeeka

3 жыл бұрын

One of the starts of the British Library. Jefferson's huge library was the start of the UVa library.

@johnwatters3431

3 жыл бұрын

@@meeeka Still not frugal 🤷 😂

@tonfiselier1818

3 жыл бұрын

Undoubtedly this was meant in comparisson to the opulence his counterparts in Continental Europe displayed.

It really sucks that so many Americans miss the importance of the Declaration. It may be the most important document ever written. For it states that we are individual whos lives are no more or less important than a kings , regardless of wealth, family history, or any other attribute that one is born with.

@danielclingen34

3 жыл бұрын

In reality it was nothing more than words. The country it created didn’t live by ideas of equality. The ruling elites in the colonies just didn’t want English elites interfering. The idea was basically “we don’t want the king to oppress, we want American elites to do that “

@thecoolunclea.k.a.unclebea1158

3 жыл бұрын

Maybe so, but those words were understood to be hypocritical by the way other races and genders were treated. And was the foundation for the fight for those rights that have led to the betterment of generations of people of every race, gender , or religion. Regardless of how they intended it. It has been the document it self that continues to protect the rights of every American regardless of what conditions they were born in. Not everyone was born with equal circumstances. But anyone regardless of circumstance can live for the pursuit of happiness and live better than 90 percent of the world.

It should also be noted he did loose his niece at the time, whom he loved dearly,

Interestingly the British empire was at it's peak around 1920. 137 years after the treaty of paris when Britain formally recognized the independence of the United States of America.

@Daniel24445

Жыл бұрын

The U.S. has been under the foreign sovereignty of Declaration of St. James Place since 1945 right?

I used to think that Farmer George was assigned too much responsibility for how the Colonies were governed but then I wondered: Correct me if I'm wrong, but was it because the Colonies were considered legally to have been created by Royal charter-a few by that (at the time) most Royal creatures, limited liability corporations-that they were considered to be the King's business and not Parliament's (and why their subjects were not given Parliamentary representation)? That is, weren't the Colonies legally more like King Leopold's Congo than (say) French West Africa or Martinique, or in the Empire as a matter of personal union than as members, like Scotland before the Act of Union?

King George 111 has long suffered an unjust bad press in America. Since the English Civil War and the English Bill Of Rights in the 17th century, British monarchs have had very limited powers. George himself wrote in favour of this limited monarchy and the dominance of parliament. He was a long way from the absolute monarchy found in France. His big mistake was in believing that his duty was to support his Ministers. Even if they were Tory Hawks, like Lord North causing trouble at home and in the colonies. During the first year of war, George Washington referred to British soldiers as ‘Ministerial Troops’ to separate the Good King from his evil Ministers.

@BolshevikCarpetbagger1917

2 жыл бұрын

Mistake and policy are two different things. George III's relationship with parliament was ensuring the British Empire remain wealthy and strong, which as we know meant parasitizing off the resources and revenues of the colonies and suppressing dissent.

@WhatsCookingTime

2 жыл бұрын

He only gets bad press cuz he was the king at the time of the revolution I mean it's like the Americans or what would become America didn't hate the British the hate was for the Redcoats and of course for King George

Busted with reference

The blame falls on the monarchy, but one of the main antagonists of the colonies was the wealthy merchant class in Britain who saw the Americans as rivals

According to what I have read, one of the things the colonials objected to was an agreement existed between himself and the Native Indians not to take any more land, also the rebels did not like others to have a different opinion. The result was a population increase for Canada.

@FireFlanker1

3 жыл бұрын

Now look were Canada is at compared to those "rebels"

@rajkaranvirk7525

Жыл бұрын

@@FireFlanker1 ? It's prosperous

There was also a serious financial aspect. The lengthy wars with France had drained England's coffers near dry, they had to recoup the money somehow and they couldn't raise the taxes at home, not without starting a major civil war, so they taxed the colonies. The colonies and the Americas were rich in resources, and they were far away after all and didn't have a voice in Parliament, they could be taxed up the Ying-Yang and nobody at home would care. So that's what they did.

@Adamdidit

3 жыл бұрын

Also that's where the money was actually spent. And in some eyes, the colonists kinda started it.

@ccreasman

3 жыл бұрын

FerretJohn Well, technically they only brought taxes on British colonies up to the same level as citizens at home. And they actually never got there...as I am sure you know, both the Stamp tax and the various taxes of the Townsend Act all were rescinded, gaining little tax money. Yes, the citizens in the colonies never had a direct representative, but they did actually have representation. Ben Franklin was one of them, and he and other colonial representatives gave tacit approval to the Stamp Act.

@jameswhite3415

3 жыл бұрын

@FerretJohn England offer to give representation in exchange for being taxed at the same rate as her subjects in England. America refused. America started the war over not wanting to pay for a war they started. Of course, England could of won the war if they really wanted-France gambled British would send in the troops to win the war. Instead Britain was more concerned with France, which caused France to lose the war and the French monarchy to lose power a decade later.

does anyone know the music that starts strong in the beginning and continues in the background?

@mountvernon

4 жыл бұрын

The song is Trampoline by Maurizio Lampugnani .

@philippayne4951

4 жыл бұрын

Its by Handel, Handel wrote many pieces. It may be the queen of sheba, Its not the water music, or fire work suite,

@philippayne4951

4 жыл бұрын

@@mountvernon Nothing of the sort, its Handel.

Never thought he was a ninny. Never taught this part of history in school. Interesting. Thank you!

Okay but you didnt have to drag hamilton like that

@bluesnail5042

4 жыл бұрын

Hamilton is a major distortion of history

@rrrirrrrrrirrr5231

3 жыл бұрын

@@bluesnail5042 W h y

@JPQFilms

3 жыл бұрын

Blue Snail Still a dope musical nevertheless

@elizabethhenning778

3 жыл бұрын

@@bluesnail5042 It's musical theater, not a history lesson.

@cerisemin

3 жыл бұрын

@@bluesnail5042 even still, taught me more correct history than American curriculum did

for all those calling him a tyrant etc how many world leaders do you know that would willingly give up a billion acres of land just like that???

@DeltaAssaultGaming

2 жыл бұрын

The UK eventually gave up Canada, India, and Australia willingly like that…

Mkay Rick.

If you’re really interested in this part of history read Rough Crossings by Simon Schama

It was all over for us once the rebels overran the airfields 😉🇬🇧

@watching99134

2 жыл бұрын

According to Frederick Douglass?

Second Question: Mr. Atkinson if, all of what you say is true how is it that our understanding and recognition of KGIII morphed into something entirely different? To us in succeeding centuries he's comes down to us as a bumbling old ninny. Thoughts and theories: Alternatively, could these perspectives have come about as negative propaganda by those that fought him? Why did we never get to 'see' this side of him? It was even said that although Washington did not agree with a lot of his decisions back in 'merry old England' he certainly did not dislike him either. One well known truism has always been, "History is written by the victors of war". I'd like to hear what you have to say on this matter, too. One side note. Although, George never traveled to England. He did have familial ties there. His own forefathers were from England and even had a mansion house in Sulgrave Manor. He had known about such a connection as a youth. But that information was lost to history in his lifetime. From what I understand from English friends of mine either George's father or grandfather couldn't remember where EXACTLY in England the family came from.

@johnwilletts3984

3 жыл бұрын

The Washington family originated in the North East of England. They were once Lords of the Manor of Washington. Washington today is an unremarkable little town. I’m from Yorkshire but have friends in Washington ( that’s something to brag about). Carved into the wall of Washington’s medieval church is the Washington coat of arms. It has three stars, above horizontal stars.

@JukeboxTheGhoul

3 жыл бұрын

It's because George III is part of your founding mythology as the titans for which battle against to throw the chains off if you will. A complex view of the King certainly exists, but in history books and universities, not high school systems (which rarely give the complexities.) In order to justify the Declaration of Independence George III was cariacatured. Imagine people teaching kids "oh george iii was pretty competent, and america brought prosperity to Britain so obviously they sent troops to stop us seperating." It would make good and bad somewhat murky and that's not very effective in foundation mythology. To answer why other history may follow a similar negative view of George. George eventually went mad and had to have a regency but not when the revolution happened. The colonies had grievances they wanted to settle. And since 60s and 70s, most historians have been generally anti-imperialists and that has become, rightfully so, a prevailing perspective. If you're asking about the nitty gritty... historians don't need to focus on the morality or motivations when focusing on the war in america only. The sources can point any way you want. But the fact remains the war happened and so you can express opinions on events during rather than the causes. It's not like George III kissed the poor and set up a welfare state. He was still a king and so only the most panegyric of historians would elevate him to Godhood. And when George Washington was a living embodiment of Cinncinatus, the soldier who serves and saves the empire and then resigns his commission George III is hard to compare on an anywhere near his level.

@johnwilletts3984

3 жыл бұрын

@@JukeboxTheGhoul The one man really to blame for the propaganda against King George was the English writer Thomas Paine. His best selling pamphlet Common Sense was published at the start of the war and was meant to drive unrest and anger amongst ordinary people on both side of the Atlantic. The book is a rabble rosing rant against both the King and the British Parliament. The word Tyranny appears often. Britain is described as a ‘barbarous and hellish power’. All very much over the top. George was in fact a supporter of limited monarchy and the dominance of Parliament. He did not help himself when he considered it his duty to speak in defence of parliament, even when it was controlled by Tory Hawk Lord North and his team.

Although the American Revolution was far from perfectly tidy (after all, flawed humans were involved) its aftermath was much less chaotic and disastrous than the French and Russian revolutions and it gave birth to a nation that is exceptional in every category.

What's the soundtrack in the beginning

King George has often been villified in our sort of national myth. In reality he was a constitutional monarch who really had little say in the day to day runnings of the Empire and was more than happy to let his ministers run the show so long as he could wear the crown.

@emilykozak7249

3 жыл бұрын

So George lll was the opposite of Frances king?

@georgemiser

2 жыл бұрын

So, who's the real villain? Lord North?

@emilykozak7249

2 жыл бұрын

georgemiser yes

@almacmathain6195

2 жыл бұрын

The US constitution has the federal government as a approximate copy of the late 18th Century government the powers of the House, Senate and President are quite similar to those of the 18th Century House of Commons, House of Lords and the Monarch, the main difference is that the President has more power than a 18th Century British King. Of course the Brits have modernised the constitution quite a lot since then, while the US seems to have turned their constitution into Unalterable Holy Writ. Some nations write into their constitution a National Convention that is called ever twenty ot so years to revise their constitution to keep it relevant to the changing times. Why for example has the US an executive President who is not elected on a vote of the whole people instead of a College of Electors, so many US Presidents seem to be the candidate with the second highest number of votes?

@DeltaAssaultGaming

2 жыл бұрын

@ Al MacMathain Nonesense. There are plenty of amendments. It can be amended at any time.

What would North America look like had war been avoided?.... Probably quite a bit like Canada? Independent....but still with the Queen's mug on the notes!

@mrbrainbob5320

3 жыл бұрын

Hard to tell Canada would mostly not exist except maybe Quebec. India Australia and New Zealand would also not exist

@Valencetheshireman927

3 жыл бұрын

The a British empire might not have fallen because the war of independence not happening would have changed everything.

@theant9821

3 жыл бұрын

@@mrbrainbob5320 more than likely after the napoleonic wars Britain would have supported the western frontier to rid north America of French and Spanish influences (Britain did that anyway, gave huge support to the USA in the push west to weaken its European rivals), and America would have joined both world wars from the start as Canada did and Britain would likely be still considered a world superpower as ww1 would have been won in months with commonwealth forces nearly doubled so the war wouldn't have cost Britain that much money, and America might have become the new centre of the empire having much more industrial potential with more population and land to spare, the Russian revolution might not have happened if ww1 had ended sooner, ww2 might not have happened but if it did would have been won before France fell as the fear of war wouldn't have been so significant, so war would have begun earlier, we'd have more resources and the enemy fewer resources. The empire would certainly still be the leading world superpower but the biggest question is would London still be its capital? Or would it have found a new capital in the new world.

@samueladams1775

3 жыл бұрын

I thank God that our founding fathers did separate from England rule. We were and are much better off.

@MHurtado09

2 жыл бұрын

@@samueladams1775 Ah yes. Income tax, sales tax, corporate tax, gas tax, inheritance tax, property tax, alcohol tax, tobacco tax, tolls, maybe a carbon tax soon. A culture based on reverence for a document where we can't even agree what it means. Thousands of the best and brightest dying in far away lands for people who don't want us there. The largest ethnic and religious groups in the country slandered left and right. Yea, we're doing just fine. If your national pride rests solely on economic power (materialism) and military prowess (insecurity) then you are taking pride in a dying nation. America has all but run her course.

I just dug up an Admiral Edward Vernon cuff button here in the deep woods of St Augustine Florida

I recommend the book Liberty's Exile by American author Maya Jasanoff. An account of the diaspora of the colonists who remained loyal to their king.

There’s a lot of myths about the War of Independence but the truth is far more interesting... the war would most likely have been avoided if Pitt had been Prime Minister, largely because he would have likely granted freedoms to Washington and the colonists, and also due to the immense respect he was held by them. I always thought that British troops were defeated by irregular riflemen, however what is more remarkable is that they were defeated in the field by Washington who performed heroics keeping a standing army together through a series of early defeats. Of course the role of the French is traditionally down played but they had the largest army in the field during the war. The cost of which led to their own Revolution...

@EndOfSmallSanctuary97

3 жыл бұрын

The Americans lost more battles than the British did, and Washington in particular was a mediocre at best general. Until Yorktown the outcome of the war could have gone either way.

@neilhayes4166

3 жыл бұрын

WheresWallace4883 - I think his greatest achievement was simply keeping his army in the field. I think there was a ruthlessness in him that was lacking in the competent British generals. I agree it certainly could have gone either way. What also not often recognised is how unpopular a war it was in Britain. There wasn’t much genuine public enthusiasm for it at all.

yo why this dude gotta be in so many different rooms

Interessante.

Good man George

King george and old england forever! Also scotland ireland wales and the isle of man!

@jollyswashbuckler

3 жыл бұрын

@Tom Sanders the whole commonwealth and former empire too!!!!

@themaskedman221

2 жыл бұрын

@@jollyswashbucklerheah heah!

3:51 India was not part of british empire in 1770's . It became a colony in 1858

@thejoin4687

3 жыл бұрын

@Mr. Anonymous Good old Manikarnika

@kellycochran6487

3 жыл бұрын

@Mr. Anonymous Also, Cornwallis is buried there and if I'm not mistaken is well thought of because he was decent to the natives.

@TheAaronChand

2 жыл бұрын

The East India trading company was ruling India as a Brtish colony. So India was a colony of England in the 1700s Brtish rule of India started in 1757

@rajkaranvirk7525

2 жыл бұрын

Parts of it were in the 1770s particularly Bengal

GOOD LUCK!

this video is like a living thesaurus and i love it