![]() |
| Page 24 | Book Reviews Non-Fiction | August 2006 |
|
Books -
Children & Youth
George III
|
By Alidė Kohlhaas A very compact, but well-written biography of George III makes a fine addition to any history buff's library. The book isn't large, just 144 pages in length that include numerous fine reproductions and an index, nor does it go very deeply into the history of George III. Yet, it clarifies our perception of this king. We Canadians, strangely enough, tend to view this English king through the eyes of Americans. He is the villainous mad king who caused the American Revolution, or War of Independence, whichever one wants to call it. But George III is a much more complex personality than we have allowed him to be; as for him being mentally ill, that is a sad affair deriving from a then unknown and misunderstood illness called porphyria. Today he would be treated very differently and history might have been changed had his doctors known what ailed him. Porphyria is an inheritable disease, and obviously ran in the family as the father of George's cousin, Frederick the Great, also suffered from the illness. King Frederick William of Prussia's illness was not as pronounced, however, as that of his nephew's. But then, he also did not reach the high age that George III reached. George died at 82 a lonely, blind and finally deaf old man, who had been kept a virtual prisoner for many years at Windsor Castle. Frederick William died at age 52 and so was spared the worst of that terrible illness. I've just added this information because Christopher Wright wrote a basic biography and so didn't mention this family connection, only that porphyria is inheritable. Wright gave us a short but succinct story of George's life, the people who influenced him, such as his tutor Bute, and the politicians with whom he had to deal. Like his father, Frederick Lewis, Prince of Wales, who died when George was still an under-aged boy, he was a devoted family man. Yet, of his 14 children, only two produced possible heirs to the throne. George IV's only daughter, Charlotte, married the future and notorious Leopold of Belgium, and died in childbirth, leaving no heirs. Then Edward, Duke of Kent, who spent many years in Halifax as governor, finally did his royal duty and married a princess. His only legitimate child turned out to be the remarkable Victoria. Strangely enough, Wright only refers to Edward spending a year away from England in Hanover, but never mentions the years he spent in Canada. All of the boys, except for the Prince of Wales, who became Regent in 1811 when his father became incapable of ruling, were sent abroad when they grew older. George felt that he, as a child and youth, had led too sheltered a life and wanted his sons to be more worldly. But he was also disappointed in the boys because they were rather unruly and, unlike himself, lived very extravagantly. One of the reasons that the six sons left only one female heir may have been that in 1772 he "had forced the Royal Marriage Act through a restive Parliament so that his consent would be needed to render any future such (royal) marriage legal." Two of his brothers, the Dukes of Gloucester and Cumberland, married undesirable women. Hence, son Edward's mistress, who shared his life in Canada, had to be abandoned when he was called to marry to provide an heir to the throne. Of course, the laws have changed since again, or Charles, the current Prince of Wales, would not have been able to marry his Camilla. George's marriage was an arranged one, which was the custom of the day. Unlike many of other such marriages, his was a great success. George was just 23, his bride, Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, a mere 17 when they married on the evening of September 1761, the very day she had arrived in London after a week's sea journey to England. Two weeks later they were crowned King and Queen of England. It must have been love at first sight for both of them because they became absolutely devoted to each other. One of George's very first proclamations was 'for the encouragement of piety and virtue, and for the preventing and punishment of vice, profaneness and immorality'. In his own life he followed this proclamation to the letter, although height of his illness would utter many profanities. But that is not something to laugh at. One wonders what he would think of his beloved England (he was the first of the Hanoverian kings to be born and raised entirely in Britain) now where profanities abound.
George III inserted these lines in his own hand into the speech he gave to his first Parliament to indicate his desire to be seen as British rather than German - Red underline inserted by reviewer because many documents indicate a misspelling of the word Britain as 'Briton', which is clearly not the fact. While he has been blamed for the causes of the American Revolution, including the 'Boston Tea Party' and its aftermath, Wright quite properly points out that "[he] had initiated none of the unpopular legislation but, as a constitutional monarch, he saw it as his duty to support his ministers." He felt that the unrest in the colonies was no different from that in Britain, where taxes were just as unpopular and caused disturbances. The real problem was that neither he nor his ministers understood the nature of the North American mind. "Even amongst the loyalists of Canada, Governor Thomas Parr observed in 1786: 'it's the natural Disposition of People on this side of the Atlantic, to kick against the King's Government; I have seen a good deal of it, as well as a natural leveling principle which they inherit by Instinct.'" So, we remember him for the North American wars (he most likely was completely unaware of the second one in 1812-14]. What we have forgotten is that George III actively supported the latest advances in science, unlike the French monarchy of his time. He also was a voracious buyer of books, and eventually his collection doubled the size of the national library, now The British Library. While George was out of the view of his subjects for the last 10 years of his life, he remained a popular king and his subjects mourned him deeply upon his death on January 29, 1820. Wright gives us an excerpt from The Times that describes his funeral: "Thus ended the most awful and magnificent ceremony which any British subject now living ever witnessed in this country; a ceremony . . . rendered sublime by the voluntary and heartfelt homage of countless thousands of affectionate subjects, who had thronged to the last obsequies of their King, not from the idle curiosity of seeing a grand exhibition, but to shed a last tear over the grave of a father and friend." In the eyes of his people he represented "the unpretentious virtues and simple pieties that were the lifeblood of the nation." Some of his descendants might benefit from reading this and reform their lifestyles. Alas, it is a different age now, and the Royals have become less and less relevant not just to us here in Canada, but also in Britain. |