Why is King George III so underrated?
American revolutionary rhetoric + he actually sucked
>underrated He was objectively the absolute worst of that lineage
>>18036401Give me a summary of his reign.
>>18036565>comes onto the throne with England at its PEAK after Pitt and his grandfather btfo'd France so hard they needed Nappy to go full retard just to try and save face as a world power >he immediately throws it away over nothing but his own hubris>proceeds to go literally insane There you go, that's all you need to know
>>18036341Literally just decades and decades of American propaganda. Almost everything in the declaration of independence written against him is a lie.>>18036401How were George IV or William IV better? George III greatly expanded British territory and defeated Napoleon. >>18036587He didn't throw it away.
>>18036341He had severe mental illness
>>18036654It wasnt severe til he was old (about 1810) wereas his opponents, the spanish and french kings were removed from power by that point
>>18036607>George III defeated NapoleonHoly fuck what a retarded take. Napoleon's hubris and unmitigated autism is what brought him down. >he didn't throw it away because... because he just didn't, okay?!?!He refused good Englishmen their given rights as Englishmen. He was a tyrannical retard who threw away everything Pitt and his grandfather had just won from the French. You're actually retarded if you can't see how using Kraut mercenaries on Englishmen (I refuse to say "fellow Englishmen" because George was a bastard Kraut who should have never have been sat on the throne) isn't the equivalent of throwing away the countries North American claims. Faggot
>>18037508>Napoleon's hubris and unmitigated autism is what brought him down.Copium.pngIf George III deserves the blame for losing America, then he deserves the credit for defeating Napoleon. >He refused good Englishmen their given rights as EnglishmenColonists never had any right to representation in parliament which is why (aside from the obvious pragmatic reasons) they never given it.> He was a tyrannical retardHe ruled as pure constitutional monarch and did not do a single tyrannical thing. I get that you Americans have to pretend that he was evil for the sake of your founding myth, but try doing a modicum of research on his reign. >because George was a bastard Kraut who should have never have been sat on the throneGeorge III was born in England and spoke English as his first language. As the eldest grandson of George II, he had the best claim to the throne.
>>18037721If he had given those colonists representation like they wanted then England would still be in control of North America.
>>18037729No, they would have rebelled over something else. The representation issue was just a pretext to revolt, not the cause of it. Even the colonists knew that representation for them would be highly impractical
>>18037721>If George III deserves the blame for losing America, then he deserves the credit for defeating Napoleon.Did he take the take field against Napoleon? Did he personally direct or advise any general that fought Nappy in the field? No? Then he doesn't deserve shit. >b-b-b-butNapoleon was brought down by the Coalition of continental European powers, not even the Brits themselves. You're a disingenuous, lying faggot if you seriously think any one person deserves "le credit" for stopping the Corsican autist. >if George deserves the blame for>IF He absolutely fucking does. He greenlit every measure that riled up the colonists from the moment the Treaty of Paris wrapped up the Seven Years War and not only told the colonists to fuck off out of Appalachia, but also handed Canada to those c*thtard swine. He made those two massive blunders and reaped what he showed because of it. >Colonists never had any right to representation in parliamentLiterally why? Give me one reason?And Parliament isn't even the issue you stupid fucking halfwit, it's that he trampled on ENGLISHMEN'S RIGHTS AS ENGLISHMEN. Fucking hell are you ever retarded
>>18037721>He ruled as pure constitutional monarchSo you can recognize there were basic rights enshrined in English law that George should not have violated as monarch but can't recognize that he utterly failed to extend those same liberties to the Englishmen in the colonies? Where do you draw the line, anon? When does an Englishmen born in the colonies to England-born parents lose his English rights?
>>18037802>Did he take the take field against Napoleon? Did he personally direct or advise any general that fought Nappy in the field?he didn't do any of that for the Revolutionary war either. All I'm asking for is consistency here. >Napoleon was brought down by the Coalition of continental European powers, not even the Brits themselves.Are you unaware that Britain was a part of coalition. It goes without saying that Britain didn't singlehandedly win that war. >He greenlit every measure that riled up the colonists from the moment the Treaty of Paris wrapped up the Seven Years WarHe approved measures which were passed by the democratically elected parliament, as a constitutional monarch ought to do. Are you suggesting he was a tyrant because he DIDN'T throw out parliament's bills?>Literally why? Give me one reason?Because they lived in the colonies. If they wanted representation, they could buy an estate in England. >And Parliament isn't even the issueThis statement is proof that you know nothing about this issue and are just regurgitating the propaganda you were fed in elementary school. Parliament was the one who passed all those bills that the colonies hated. Did you actually think George III himself personally wrote the Stamp Act?>>18037812>When does an Englishmen born in the colonies to England-born parents lose his English rights?When he moves to the colonies.
>>18036341>Loses most populated colonies in the British empire >Goes schizo during Nappy wars so he can’t even take credit for one of the greatest British victories in history
>>18037721Colonists never had any right to representation in parliament because parliament had no right to legislate for the colonies.
>>18038012Whether or not they had the right, Parliament had been legislating for the colonies for as long as the colonies existed.
>>18036607>lieGot proof?
>>18037915>When he moves to the colonies.Right, sounds like the Revolution was completely justified if that’s the logic Britain was operating on.
>>18038116>Be Johnny England>Move to the colonies, I place where I know I won't have any representation in parliament>Mad that I now have no representation in parliament >This is clearly the King's fault, time to chimp out
>>18038084Sure, one example is in the list of grievances the king supposedly committed>For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offensesThis is a bald lie; not a single person was ever transported to England for trial in George III's reign. You will not find the name of one person to whom this happened.
>>18038136>Be a good subject of the King, swear fealty to him>Have certain rights guaranteed to you as his subject>Do nothing wrong, just move to another place within the King’s domains.>I now have no rights because it would be “hard.”Yeah, it is the King’s fault. The buck stops with him. He should have done more to maintain his subjects’ right like he’s supposed to. If he doesn’t want responsibility, then don’t wear the crown. Can’t complain that his subjects are upset by arbitrarily losing their rights.
>>18038160>Have certain rights guaranteed to you as his subjectNot everyone qualifies for them. You need to own land in England to vote. If you don't meet that requirement, then you never "lost" that right; you never had it to begin with.
>>18038168So owning land in one part of the King’s domains is good enough but not others? If I exchanged land in England for land in Scotland, then I just have no rights then? Even if it’s just colonial dirt that isn’t good enough, that sounds retarded and arbitrary. Many Americans ended up owning land too, more than there were Brits owning land. If someone obtains land in England after not having land, then they get the vote, but I magically don’t have any because my dirt is somewhere else within the King’s domain? At this point, why we run our own business and you run yours. If my dirt isn’t good enough for you and the King, then I’ll just do whatever I want without you and the King.
>>180379150/10 you're absolutely shit at this. Even for a /his/tard you are a special kind of retarded
>>18038249Sounds like you have no argument. It's okay, I'm used to it at this point. Better luck next thread, kiddo.
>>18038194>So owning land in one part of the King’s domains is good enough but not others?Yes. Because having representation in another continent poses a host of logistical problems. >At this point, why we run our own business and you run yoursThe colonies had their on legislatures. They WERE allowed their run their own business
>>18038293>durrr no argument Your entire premise of an argument is just spouting blatantly false shit. I'm not going to seriously engage with someone who can't even make a case in good faith>>Literally why? Give me one reason?>Because they lived in the colonies. If they wanted representation, they could buy an estate in England.Prime example. You're not even capable of formulating a case for why George was "achkually le good". Buy an estate. Go fuck yourself you troglodyte
>>18038301Lol just lol. Scots were given the same rights as English in the 1700s. You dont even know what you are talking about
>>18038525>Your entire premise of an argument is just spouting blatantly false shit.You haven't pointed out one false thing in your multiple replies to me yet. It's clear that you can't refute anything I've said. >Prime example.What about this is a lie? A colonist could, in fact, earn their vote and representation in parliament if they did that. Samuel Johnson made this exact argument in his writing on the revolution. >>18038914I was referring to the colonies, Not Scotland. I feel this was pretty clear when I said "in another continent", but I guess some of you Americans are ignorant of basic geography as well as history.
>>18038301>Sorry, we can’t give you representation because, well, it’d be hard! Stupid reason. It’s more like the British ruling class didn’t want more people voting than there already were. Let’s just be honest with that.>The colonies had their on legislatures. They WERE allowed their run their own businessExcept they weren’t because a parliament in which they had no representation in was able to override the acts of those legislatures. I’m not really running my own business if you can come tell me what to do without any of my own input or chance to have a say.
Later in life, he suffered severe mental illness. That image of the mad king overshadowed his decades of competent rule.
>>18039097>Stupid reason.Was Benjamin Franklin being stupid when he admitted that American representation was impractical? American MPs would have to spend several months in London, away from their ridings and representatives and thus unable to effectively keep up with events in the colonies. Moreover, news took weeks, sometimes months, to reach Europe from North America, meaning that political developments would always be late for American MPs. >Except they weren’t because a parliament in which they had no representation in was able to override the acts of those legislatures.If you're a commie who doesn't believe that any sort of hierarchy is just, then there's not much more I can say to you on this matter.
>>18039155>If you're a commieThis has nothing to do with commie bullshit. This is dealing with the most basic concepts of self-governance. If my country is subject to the whims of another government, then my country isn’t independent (running its own business). In this case, it wasn’t something like a central sovereign making extraordinary decisions like declaring war or conducting diplomacy, something that would not just be the business of a single province. No, we’re talking about a parliament doing things like levying taxes on people who don’t have a say or any chance to have a say through elected representatives—like other domains of the King had. What good is “running my own business,” when people I didn’t elect come over and say “no, you can’t do that. Btw I’m taking some of your money and declaring martial law when you don’t like it.” The American colonies were even allowed to regulate their own trade without interference from Britain—that’s hardly “running your own business.” It’d be well and good if the colonies had representation or a way to collectively veto these acts, but there wasn’t.I don’t even oppose the idea of monarchy as a concept. I like the British monarchy and its history (I even wish Britain avoided this disaster), but by the logic you’re putting forward there’s no reason why America shouldn’t separate.
under him, Herschel discovered Uranus
>>18036607George III was thoroughly insane and his son ruling as regent when Napoleon was defeated.
>>18039004The revolutionaries specifically stated the Scottish case.
The absolute state of /his/ holy fuck Americans will try to justify everything you do know america was a literal backwater smuggling shithole full of religious outcasts and fuck ups that couldn’t hack it in Europe no wonder your all schizophrenic
>>18039097No you fucking retard it’s cause they couldn’t regulate anything in the colonies it was a massive country witch is why it was so hard to tax them outside of big cities on the east coast let alone giving them the right to vote
>>18036341He is one of the people responsible for a wave of anti-Monarch sentiment in not only the American Colonies but also Europe itself during the Enlightenment era. He was a dysgenic freak who was unqualified for his job and was barely coherent by the end of his life. Which was unfortunately all too common among European monarchs at the time
>>18039004>A colonist could, in fact, earn their vote and representation in parliament if they did that.>earn They already had it, you stupid fuckwit. The colonies were Royal lands. They had every reason to expect their rights as Englishmen to be respected in their home colonies. They had literally just fought to throw off the yoke of French c*thtardism once and for all in a war that the British would have never won without them. And what did they get for it? Their rights revoked. Hell, even in the fucking middle of it all men like Danny Morgan were treated brutally for not acting like good little servile peasants to their """true""" British superiors. >b-b-but Johnson saidThey were subjects of the English Crown and as such ALREADY HAD full rights as Englishmen. George and his goons twisting themselves into pretzels to deny them their basic rights just because there was some salt water between them is what (rightfully) causes the schism to begin with."Just as Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell, and George the Third..."
>EVERYONE ONLY THINKS GEORGE III WAS BAD BECAUSE OF AMERICAN PROPAGANDA>"so he wasn't bad?">NO, HE WAS, IT'S JUST THAT HE WAS NO LESS RETARDED AND STUPID THAN EVERY OTHER BRITISH MONARCHwhat a silly place
>>18040024The Royal families weren't known for sending their best
>>18039342Seethe harder, little bitch monarchfag.
>>18039348They couldn’t regulate the colonies but they still imposed taxes, restricted trade, and declared martial law and deployed soldiers when things got tough. Right, fuck off. If you’re not going to give them any sort of representation in parliament because of “logistics”, then don’t do that shit.
>>18040145What that anon doesn't realize is that the Carribean colonies had plenty of representation in Parliament. Curious, isn't it, how the same """logistics"""" made it """impossible""" for the mainland colonies that kept the Carribeaners fed didn't impede the sugar barons of said Islands from getting their way with Parliament. Also, isn't it curious how both France and Britain always put the Carribean colonies first when it came to who would get their respective fleets sent in for defense purposes? Washington almost missed out on wrapping things up at Yorktown because de Grasse was scheduled to be in the Carribean to fend off Rodney and co.
>>18036607>lost America through sheer incompetencethere's a reason we remember the American version of events anon
>>18037721>George III was born in England and spoke EnglishSAAAAR
>>18040210based
>>18039965>And what did they get for it? Their rights revoked>They were subjects of the English Crown and as such ALREADY HAD full rights as EnglishmenThey never had these rights to begin with. At no point in the history of the colonies did they have representation, and they knew this. Your whining doesn't change this historical reality. >>18040024I have pointed out in this thread that George was a constitutional monarch who did not do the tyrannical things the Americans accused him of. Nobody has refuted this yet. Keep coping, retard. >>18040162>the Carribean colonies had plenty of representation in ParliamentReally? Name these MPs who lived in Jamaica and who sat in British parliament. >>18040210What's your point?
>>18040386>At no point in the history of the colonies did they have representationWhy do you choose to blatantly lie like a faggot, anon?
>>18040489Holy shit you are retarded. I'm obviously referring to representation WITHIN the British parliament in London, which is what the colonists claimed to want.
>>18040502>nnnoooo you can't have Parliamentary representation even though you have locally-elected and Royally-appointed legislators in your colonies already because... well, because... BECAUSE YOU JUST FUCKING CAN'T, OKAY?!?! GAGE GET YOUR ASS TO BOSTON AND PUT THEM UNDER OCCUPATION!!!! RRREEEEEEEEEEE!!!No seriously anon, why are you such a disingenuous lying faggot?
ITT: retards who don't know shit about how picrel planted the seed of democracy under Charles II's nose. The same seed that finally produced fruit under the k*aut menace to British liberty that was the dysgenic h*noverian lineNot to be confused with the seed that sadly never took hold in her Majesty Queen Anne's blackhole of a uterus
>>18036607>George III greatly expanded British territory
>>18040502>>18040512>which is what the colonists claimed to wantThey explicitly did not want this. You are both retards whose knowledge comes from memes. The Americans didn't want to be represented in parliament, they wanted to not be taxed by a body in which they were not represented. Their arguments were not to the effect that they should be represented in parliament but that parliament should not tax them. The British response was not that they had never been represented in parliament but that parliament virtually represented all British subjects. You aren't just re-litigating centuries old disputes but you're doing it wrong.
>>18040512Nothing I said was a lie. It’s not my fault that you have no reading comprehension. I didn’t realize your education system was this bad. You’re so stupid that you don’t even realize you made my point for me; the colonies had their own legislatures for their own domestic affairs, and therefore had no need for representation in London. >>18040539That’s why I said “claimed to want”. They didn’t actually want this because they understood it wouldn’t be practical at all. >>18040535Why don’t you show a map of what Canada and India looked like before and after George’s reign?
>>18040539>you're both retarded >proceeds to post the most retarded take in this whole thread>last sentence is a double-negative seemingly written by an ESLfag lol, lmao even
>>18040546>That’s why I said “claimed to want”No, that's why I said "They explicitly did not want this". They explicitly denied that they desired representation in parliament and when it was offered it was rejected. Read a book.
>>180405491. "Wrong" is not a negative, I see you are an actual ESL 2. My "retarded take" is basic historical fact that is uncontroversial among actual historians. Read a book.
>>18040546>At no point in the history of the colonies did they have representationSo this wasn't a lie? >NONONONO I MEANT THIS TOTALLY OTHER THING THAT I JUST DIDN'T EXPLICITLY SAYRight, sure, and that absolves you of being a lying faggot because...?
>>18040557>You aren't just re-litigating centuries old disputes but you're doing it wrong.Read this out loud and tell me again who's a retarded ESLfag, anon.
>>18040562It's still you, I'm sorry. Mexican? Frenchman?
>>18040558It wasn’t a lie because anyone with basic literacy skills can recognize that I was referring to representation in British parliament. I didn’t need to state it explicitly because it was obvious enough to go without saying (though apparently not obvious enough for some brought up in the American education system.) Once again, it’s not my fault that you’re too much of a troglodyte to grasp the basics of the conversation.
>>18040489>>18040512>>18040558>>18040562The absolute state of Amerimutt education. He literally can’t even read
>>18040546>Why don’t you show a map of what Canada and India looked like before and after George’s reign?Did claiming a bunch of undeveloped wilderness and hostile pajeet shitholes somehow compensate for the enormous loss of America? Next level britbong cope
>>18040386>they never had rights>King George was never tyrannicalYou refute yourself in your own post.
>It wasn’t a lie because anyone with basic literacy skills can recognize that I was referring to representation in British parliament. I didn’t need to state it explicitly because it was obvious enough to go without saying (though apparently not obvious enough for some brought up in the American education system.) Once again, it’s not my fault that you’re too much of a troglodyte to grasp the basics of the conversation.
>>18040576My point was that he expanded British territory and I provided two examples of it. You coping about how much the land was worth is irrelevant.
>>18040586This is pathetic. You can't even basedjak quote me correctly. Maybe once you've spent more than one summer posting here, you'll get better at this.
>>18040589If only he had claimed the moon, then he really would've expanded British territory
>>18040577If this is your criteria for tyranny, then do you admit that the American government was just as tyrannical for baring blacks and non-land owners from voting?
>>18040591>You can't even basedjak quote me correctlyLMFAO way to out yourself as a newfag you fucktard
>>18040597>whataboutismWeak argument, but yes. It’s tyrannical to inconsistently extend rights to some and not to others based on jack and shit. It’s one thing to have certain requirements to vote, but to not extend rights to good subjects who otherwise meet those requirements just because is tyrannical.Your logic throughout this thread has been inconsistent. Even if we take everything you say as true, then the revolution is still justifiable.>just accept that you never had rights, don’t have rights, and be happy with itNo thanks.
>>18036341He was just a figurehead. Even later monarchs like Queen Victoria held more real power. George III was clinically insane and incompetent and hardly made any decisions. Parliament did almost all the work. Including what happened in the American Revolution.
>>18040605>n-no you!Compelling
>>18040622>but to not extend rights to good subjects who otherwise meet those requirements just because is tyrannical.The colonists didn’t meet those requirements because they didn’t own property in Britain. That’s what I’ve been arguing.
>>18036401the ones before him were objectively much worse, what the fuck are you talking about?
>>18041055Quit while you're behind. I can tell you weren't here before 2022 faggot
>>18041063Incidentally, it was not your forefathers argued. Nothing about British law required the landowner to own land on the island of Britain. It required them to own land, and be subjects of the British crown. The Americans met both requirements and the British response to their argument was not to deny that they had this right but that it was being infringed (this was the concept of "virtual representation", that each individual MP represented each and every British subject and not only his own constituents. This ran directly against the American theory of representation, where the representative represented his constituents and their interests alone, like an attorney).
>>18041083Give me one reason why George I was bad then
>>18037729the american colonists were bitching and moaning and protesting and rebelling constantly since the 17th century over some bullshit. the revolution wasnt a one-off thing. they were revolting all the fuckin time. and to make matters worse they were demanding rights that people in britain themselves did not even have, and ironically at no point did they demand those people get the rights they wanted.
>>18041094He didn’t speak English or even really give a shit about the place
>>18041108Nigger are you even trying
>>18040489This is the most retarded post in this thread you are a real piece of shit and I’m disgusted I have to share a country with braindead hicks like you
>>18041131Bot post
