Customer Reviews

George III: A Personal History

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Historian Christopher Hibbert brings his considerable talent for writing personal biographies to the fascinating subject of Britain's King George III. Not only is Hibbert's scholarship solid, but he also does a wonderful jo of combining all the important elements of the King's life into an entertaining and compelling read. George III was on the throne for almost 60 years during a period of great social and political upheaval throughout the western world, yet many don't know much about him. Americans especially know little more about him that the tyranical caricature popularized during the American Revolution.

The book begins with a chapter about the King's dissolute father whose personality and relationship with his family were remarkably similar to that of George III's own son, the future George IV. Hibbert establishes George III's own unique personality by examing both his early upbringing and the key political players who helped shape his dedication to duty. George III certainly lacked the flamboyance of both his father and son. In contrast, he was sober and prudish, but nevertheless quite interesting and complex. During his reign he weathered both the American and French Revolutions, long periods of war abroad, and various periods of political unrest at home. Throughout, Hibbert paints a portrait of a monarch selflessly concerned about his subjects and dedication to providing thoughtful leadership. As for his personal life, the King was faithfully resigned to an arranged marriage with a rather plain and increasingly unpleasant woman with whom he had 15 children. The family dynamics make for great reading. His relationships with most of his sons were difficult and a sources of much frustration since they frequently refused to comply with his strict mandates. His many daughters were mostly confined to the royal household and were expected to wait attendance on the King and Queen. A few daughters managed to ecape into marriage late in life, and others had scandalous love affairs with the King's courtiers. All of this family drama was further acerbated by the mysterious "madness" that George III began to suffer from periodically in his middle age. By the time the madness begins, Hibbert has done such a wonderful job of establishing the King's decency and dignity that the reader cannot help but be moved as these very qualities are brutally stripped away by his disease. Also, there is an appreciation of the magnitude of the political crisis it precipitated.

My one complaint about this book is that, at least in this American's opinion, Hibbert almost completely glosses over the American Revolution. His general analysis - that the Americans unjustly demonized the King - has some merit, but it virtually ignores the significant economic and social changes that created the Revolution. Perhaps such political theory is beyond the scope of this personal biography, but it should be examined more thoroughly, not only with regards to the American Revolution but also with regards to how these changes were successfully integrated into the British constitutional monarchy.

This book is without a doubt the funniest history book I've ever read! This is not to say that King George III's life was akin to a comedy show...in fact it was punctuated by wars, irresponsible children, incompetent doctors, and constant upheaval in the government, but there is something about the way that Christopher Hibbert conveys the pomposity and ritual of the royal court which made me laugh out loud repeatedly throughout the book. The stories from Fanny Burney, an author in her own right, but for several years one of Queen Charlotte's Assistant Keepers of the Wardrobe, are uproariously funny and intriguing. There were so many witty and brilliant people participating in the court and government of Britain at this time, with John Wilkes stirring up the English rabble in his efforts to emancipate the American Colonies, and the hilarious Horace Walpole, always good for a bon mot in any situation. King George was a sponsor of Captain Cook's voyages, a great lover of books and the compiler of 3 of history's most impressive libraries, and a patron of the theater and comedy. He was inclined to wander into the shacks of peasants along the country roads he would travel to chat with the common folk, to the utter shock of the hosts. Unfortunately his story turns tragic as the King begins to lose his mind and later on goes stark raving mad, frequently confined to a straitjacket. But in the end, King George III was greatly loved by his countrymen, and when he finally passed away, the country went into a deep period of mourning. Keep your dictionary handy because Hibbert employs a masterful and scholarly vocabulary throughout this book. This bio gets my highest recommendation! Enjoy it.

Before I read this biography of George III, I knew very little about him. I knew he liked Handel because we were told when we stood up for the Alleluia chorus of the Messiah that we did it because George III set the precendent way back when. Some of us still stand.

I knew that George III had been depicted as a tyrant by the framers of the Declaration of Independance.

I knew that George III had suffered from an hereditary disease that caused his urine to run purple, hence it's name

I wanted to know more about George III because I am fascinated with the history of the French Revolution and the defeat of Napoleon. I wanted to know why George wasn't rousted from his throne like the French King and the monarchy done away with.

What I discovered about George III was that he was a good man, a loving father, and a beloved king. I learned he was religious, loved Handel to excess, and was opposed to slavery. I learned that he had all kinds of charities, cared about the poor and the sick, and lived relatively frugally all his life. He admired the Methodists because of their "simple" ways, even though he was High Church Anglican. He lived until he was in his 80's and his madness did not finally put him under until he was 72. He had many children, most of whom disappointed him. He and his wife spoke German behind closed doors, and he owned lands in Hanover in Germany.

I learned a lot more, and I enjoyed reading this book even though I wasn't sure I would. Hibbert writes well, his text is interesting and his research thorough. The story is about the private life of George III, so not a lot of political or economic history is discussed although it is always in the background. This is the story of the "upstairs" at Windsor, Buckingham, and Weymouth.

I did enjoy this book, Hibbert has a way of including small details of life within the larger context of of his subject which gives wonderful insight into both his subjects and the time he is writing of. For instance the quotes from Fanny Burney's diaries of life in Court and the stiflingly formal dress and code of conduct to which they had to adhere.

In some ways I found the chapters a bit muddling. The book doesn't follow a complete continuum of time from start to finish. The chapters are all in an ordered timeline, but often the subject digresses and they will discuss events that take place years in advance. It isn't a complaint, I just found it an interesting way of approaching the topic, and quite different from the previous books of Hibbert's that I have read.

This is a very sympathetic biography but very interesting. It is easy to see the King slipping into madness and why - and to pick the signs (such as his frenetic energy). It is also more than just an account of a mad King though and I enjoyed it for the depth of focus it bought.

Well worth reading.

Christopher Hibbert has once again produced a well researched account of another interesting and great man. Following on from Nelson and Wellington comes this very readable biography of the English King, George III. I'm not too sure what sort of reception this book will receive in the United States where I take it he was not so well liked in his time but its a very enjoyable book and offers a very interesting and detailed look at, by all accounts, a popular King. The book took a little to get into but after a few chapters it was becoming one of those books that you find hard to put down. The author covers every facet of George III's life including his family, politics, social life and his madness. The King appears to have been a very kind and considerate Monach and took great interest in his subjects and the humanities. Its a great yarn and I'm sure that readers both sides of the Atlantic will enjoy the story.

Christopher Hibbert is one of those historians that seems to write about everything. Peter Gay is another that comes to mind. Hibbert provides us a very readale account of George's life. The early years are a bit confusing keeping track of the lineage and order of succession in the Royal family. Many biographies of monarchs suffer from this problem because there are so many family connections to keep track of. Once we get past this point and the young george becomes king, the book starts to pick up.

What becomes apparent is that George III was extremely fare and decent man for his time. We should have such politicians today with this kind of integrity! The emphsasis in this bio is on George's private life. His dealings with his German Queen Charlotte, his son and sucessor the future George IV, who was a continual source of stress for him. The chapters on his dealings with the colonies provided a much less bias account than one normally hears from most US historians. The King was willing to come to any reasonable settlement short of independence. This book shows how he tried to grapple with the American problem, but that it just got out of control.

His dealings with the various parliamentry governments provides a classic example of how personalities shape governments. Petty likes and dislikes lead to complete policies that are often inane. Still, the British people stuck by their old George, espesically when the excesses of the French Revolution became known.

The book gives a good account of some of the other Royals, including George IV, the Duke of York, etc. Most come across as aristocratic fopps and losers, but some manage to have some merit. Over all a great book which chronicles both the life and times of Georgian England. The life of George III was indeed that of England in its heyday. A great read for the time and persoanlities concerned.

Being American I was taught the typical view of "Crazy, tyrannical King George III", who forced the American colonies to rebel. After reading this biography I have a new respect for George III. He was a good and honest man in the things he tried to do. He was sheltered and Royal so his view of the world was a little different than others. He did his best for his nation and his family. Maybe a little controlling in the fact of his Royal Marriage Act and how his son's had so many mistresses and natural children or the fact that his daughters, if they married at all they did it late in life. This book makes me believe he probably would have been a happier man if he were just a country gentleman and/or farmer. After reading this bio I do not believe he can be said to lack for love of his family or his country. Parliament had more to do with the American Revolution than George III. May more people read and see the good man George III tried to be, both in family life and as a national leader.

This is a very readable account of the life of King George III, with wonderful insights into his sometimes troubled private life. Mr. Hibbert brings the 18th century to life in vivid color and I recommend this book to anyone who loves history, whether or not you know anything about George III.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I used this book extensively for a research paper I wrote on George III. This book does a great job at dispelling the myths about George III and his character.