Scan barcode
A review by socraticgadfly
The Last King of America: The Misunderstood Reign of George III by Andrew Roberts
5.0
Simply excellent. Some things in this book I totally knew, like that the latter 2/3 of the Declaration of Independence is propaganda and that George III wasn't a tyrant to the colonies.
Some, I partially knew, like that George wasn't really a tyrant on the home front toward Wilkes, Fox, etc.
Some, I had some unlearning, like the claim that George III tried to expand monarchial powers his grandfather and great-grandfather allegedly lost due to focusing Hanover first and not being English speakers. Rather, Roberts argues convincingly that this is Whig history and wrong.
Roberts is good, very good, on showing how George III made full use of the monarchial powers he had to try to persuade individual cabinet members, or the prime minister, to take a different tack. But, when he couldn't, he followed their directive, even to the point of allowing his name to be used in the Lords in the run-up to its vote to repeal the Stamp Act, even though George wanted it kept in place. (And, he may well have been right.)
The evolution of the British constitutional system later in his reign, to where Pitt the Younger became an actual prime minister, representing the whole cabinet to the king, is also sketched out well. So is George's relations to all of his first ministers.
On the home front, Roberts humanizes a very humanizable king.
That includes his madness.
Roberts says it was real, but that the claim in the 1960s, which had eventually become the "accepted" explanation — porphyria — is not only wrong, but arguably a mix of medical malpractice and the 1960s version of clickbait diagnosis.
Rather, he says, the traditional idea of bipolar disorder rings true. Now, that phrase didn't exist 200-plus years ago, but "mania" did, and in all of his episodes after the earliest, that's how George was eventually treated. (It took a while for him to get anything more than the period barbarism of bleeding, cupping and similar.)
The "triggers" for these episodes — the last of which became permanent — are also thorougly limned out by Roberts.
A must read.
Some, I partially knew, like that George wasn't really a tyrant on the home front toward Wilkes, Fox, etc.
Some, I had some unlearning, like the claim that George III tried to expand monarchial powers his grandfather and great-grandfather allegedly lost due to focusing Hanover first and not being English speakers. Rather, Roberts argues convincingly that this is Whig history and wrong.
Roberts is good, very good, on showing how George III made full use of the monarchial powers he had to try to persuade individual cabinet members, or the prime minister, to take a different tack. But, when he couldn't, he followed their directive, even to the point of allowing his name to be used in the Lords in the run-up to its vote to repeal the Stamp Act, even though George wanted it kept in place. (And, he may well have been right.)
The evolution of the British constitutional system later in his reign, to where Pitt the Younger became an actual prime minister, representing the whole cabinet to the king, is also sketched out well. So is George's relations to all of his first ministers.
On the home front, Roberts humanizes a very humanizable king.
That includes his madness.
Roberts says it was real, but that the claim in the 1960s, which had eventually become the "accepted" explanation — porphyria — is not only wrong, but arguably a mix of medical malpractice and the 1960s version of clickbait diagnosis.
Rather, he says, the traditional idea of bipolar disorder rings true. Now, that phrase didn't exist 200-plus years ago, but "mania" did, and in all of his episodes after the earliest, that's how George was eventually treated. (It took a while for him to get anything more than the period barbarism of bleeding, cupping and similar.)
The "triggers" for these episodes — the last of which became permanent — are also thorougly limned out by Roberts.
A must read.