| Title | : | George III: A Personal History |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 0465027237 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780465027231 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Hardcover |
| Number of Pages | : | 464 |
| Publication | : | First published March 1, 1998 |
George III: A Personal History Reviews
-
Audiobook #236
-
A well-written and evenhanded biography of George III, with an emphasis on his personal life.
Hibbert does a great job fleshing out the pain of the king’s eventual mental illness and its effect on the queen, as well as his thoughtful and selfless approach to public service, as well as his fairness, decency and his dignified bearing. Hibbert describes the king’s difficult relationship with his sons.
The narrative seems a bit drawn out at times. Also, the coverage of the king’s impact in both Europe and North America may not satisfy every reader.
A readable, sympathetic work overall. -
This is a solid, thorough biography of George III with an emphasis on his politics and relations with his ministers. It doesn't delve deeply into the ideas being debated during his reign or the intellectual movements of his era, but it is rich in detail about his character and family--appropriate enough for this very family-oriented monarch. The wars that dominated his reign are also given fairly short shrift here. Hibbert is habitually cautious when it comes to presenting speculation as fact, even refraining from decisively labeling King George's recurrent illness as porphyria (the widespread belief in this diagnosis is mentioned in a footnote). For those looking to learn more about England in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, this book will provide reliable if somewhat narrowly focused information.
-
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. -
A very entertaining biography, although the times and people of King George III are far back in history. It is interesting to see how much more approachable were public figures in those times, and the King made no exeption, despite the different attempted assassination he went through. He was even used to pop, unannounced, into his subjects' homes in Windsor as well as in Celtenham, where he occasionally went for periods of cure. After a "promising start", as states the title of a chapter of the book, his reign was not an easy one. Amongst the major afflictions of George III were certainly the withdrawal of the American Territories from the Crown, the often turbolent relationship between himself and the Parliament, let alone the one with his eldest son, the future George IV. Despite this, the only really sad chapter of the book is the one regarding the King's daughters, their secluded girlhood, and the effect of that seclusion on the rest of their lives. The King went through alternate periods of high popularity and unpolularity; his reign was though the first one to be celebrated by a jubilee, in 1809, very much partecipatd by all kind of people and held just in time before the last and definitive worsening of his mental illness. George III managed to turn it into a kind of "creative" or maybe provocative lunacy, considering dead people still living, sometimes also talking to them, and considering passed away people who were still alive, occasionally including himself in this last category. He referred to some pieces of music that he liked "when he was in the world" and sometimes wore his mourning clothes "in memory of George III, for he was a good man".
-
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. -
Overall, I find one thing interesting about George III - the fact that he went insane. Otherwise, he's a rather dull figure, a family man, a dutiful monarch, favored conservatives in politics, and he loved his wife and his fifteen(!) children. Altogether, this picture makes the first half of his life (and this book) somewhat boring to read about. I was so grateful to finally reach the point of George's declining sanity (and the antics of his children) and I wish the author had gone into more detail about it. An interesting read, but this biography fails to really delve into the character of George III and skims over the last ten years of his life.
-
As the longest reigning king in Britain's history (only Victoria and Elizabeth II have reigned longer) George III, often known as the Mad King or the King that Lost America.
But there were many other things about George III that are revealed in this biography, for example his love of books and the arts.
There are also the problems he had with his numerous children, 15 in all, 13 of whom survived to adulthood!
This book is an extremely in depth and well-written account of his life and manages not to drag on. -
A readable biography of George III. As a "personal history" it's very limited in scope, focusing tightly on the king's character, interests, and of course his health issues - namely his horrific suffering from porphyria. The book only touches on the politics of the era and on the momentous events of his reign, such as the American Revolution and the war with France.
The author does give a short summary of the character and fate of each of his children. This was not a happy family. -
A delightful, easy-to-read biography of George III. Hibbert's work, as always, is well-researched, and the sections on the king's relationships with family members is especially interesting. However, if you are looking for an in-depth examination of George III's life and reign, you won't find it here. I would consider this bio, a fluff read - which is sometimes exactly what you want. This book would also be a great book for those just beginning to explore Georgian or Regency England.
-
I enjoy a biography that gets to the point and stays on it; not too much fluff. And Hibbert does not disappoint. Whenever I use to hear the name George III I always thought of the madness of King George. But this book paints him in a different light showing who he really was. I think he should have made more of a one sentence mention on the Queens death. Its a good book for Revolutionary War buffs or British history buffs.
-
This was an okay read. The one thing I didn't care for was that the author didn't "tell a chronological story". He handled separate parts of his lives chronologically. So, for example, he had a chapter on his sons. A chapter on his daughters. Many chapters on his illness.
But that technique made it seem rather disjointed. And it was informative, but not an enjoyable read. -
I really enjoyed this book. This is the first british author I've read whom shows blatant contempt for the American Revolution which was quite laughable, but perhaps he was trying to convey George III and the parliament's feelings toward it. Overall, a very informative biography.
-
I was looking for more dirt.
-
Great content but rather dull for such an interesting figure in history. -
A basic poorly written book about a useless king. A great reason to do away with monarchy. Pass on this book.
-
I actually listened to the audiobook - unabriged!
-
This puts a face on someone that popular history may have relegated to insanity.
-
To someone born in the USA, King George III of the United Kingdom was our first focus of national hate; the tyrant that compelled us to rebel, break away from what was then the most powerful empire in the world and seek independence as a sovereign nation. This has been our real only knowledge of the man, and king, for most of the last two hundred and forty years. I don't think we even knew he suffered from madness until the movie, The Madness of King George, came out in 1998.
Yet, the image that emerges through the pages of this fine book by Christopher Hibbert, is of a conscientious, hard-working, sincerely caring monarch who was interested in everything from architecture and science to the common farmers he regularly spoke to on his rambles through the country.
Energetic, engaged, intelligent and a prolific writer he, nonetheless, suffered incredible physical pain and emotional anguish from -apparently - porphyry, a fractious Parliament, the inexplicable loss of his American possessions and strained family relationships.
Hibbert draws extensively from the extraordinary volume of correspondence that has been preserved from his long reign. Much of this is part of the 350,000 page Georgian Papers Programme online and available to the public.
Fascinating details emerge, giving context to well known facts. For example, the British Army was over extended with troops on the continent, in India and in the Americas. There was enough resistance from Parliament and the people to keep home troops at home. If they had been utilized in the war the result may have been completely different.
I also can't help but speculate that if the king had travelled to the American colonies at the right time his ability to charm may have avoided the breach. As it was he never travelled beyond the shores of the British Isles.
Of particular interest was the medical treatment he received at the hands of the top physicians in the realm at the time. The state of knowledge and practice was little changed from medieval times and what he was subjected to was little more than slightly better than the illness he suffered.
Hibbert documents the king's life in chronological order from his promising youth, his devoted marriage to his plain but increasingly irritable wife, Charlotte, his struggles with his largely intractable sons and his adoration of his six daughters.
In time he rightly gained the love and respect of the nation.
Hibberd's style is lucid, accessible and satisfyingly readable. This book helps to give George III the rightful place he deserves in history. A must read about one of the most important British monarchs who ever lived. -
I was passed this book by my mum and I have to confess that before reading I couldn't quite place where abouts George III fell in our Royal timeline and couldn't tell you anything about him other than he was possibly mad at some point (I knew one of the George's had been but alas couldn't tell you which one).
Well having read the book I can confirm he was 'the mad one' and he fits in between 1738-1820 to be precise. Yet Hibbert expertly illustrates why George III was so much more than simply the mad King. He was a patron of the arts and sciences owning one of the largest collections of books of his time, he was intelligent and a kind devoted husband.
Did you know he was the King reviled in the Declaration of Independence? Did you know he was the first monarch to live in Buckingham Palace (or Queens House as it was then known)? I certainly didn't and was fascinated to read about the grandfather of Queen Victoria and a period of history I was more unfamiliar with than I realised. It was refreshing to read about a monarch other than Henry VIII or Victoria (as interesting and brilliant as they were).
I found the book to be very well written by Hibbert, who verged just on the right side of depth without drowning the reader in names, dates and places. He vividly brought George III to life although I would now like to read more about the coming about of the Declaration of Independence as the King in Hibbert's account does not seem recognisable to the King so despised by Americans of that time.
Overall, whilst it's not a breeze to read the 400 pages, it is well worth the effort. I came away far more knowledgeable and didn't feel like I was pulling teeth in the process which I can so often feel like with books of this genre.
If you liked this one Hibbert has also written a personal history of Queen Victoria, or for something a bit different try Scotland the Autobiography short sharp snippets of diary entries, newspaper articles and interviews unlike any other history book I have read. -
This is my first book by Hibbert. His biography of George III is an easy read (most of the time). It dragged in a few places but the narrative was able to become unstuck with little difficulty. Hibbert does an excellent job of putting the reader in the same room as King George. One of the hallmarks of a good historian is to show the reader the life events that mold and form the subject that is being studied. In this, Hibbert is able to guide the reader through George's stormy relationship with his father (Prince of Whales) and grandfather (King George II); his monogamous and faithful marriage to Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz; his own quarrels with his enormous brood of children; and his thrice decent into madness. It is this last subject that is so interesting and pitiful. While there were many moments of levity and happiness in George's life it seems as if everything is darkened by his periodic bouts of insanity. The King became so helpless when he lost his mind that one cannot help but feel an overwhelming sense of remorse and pity. The worst of it was his final years where, incurably mad, the King had to also contend with being blind and deaf - locked away into a world that only he could experience. It must have been very lonely for him at the end.
I was very much impressed with Hibbert's ability to introduce me to this area of British History. I look forward to reading his two volume biography on George III's prodigal son, George IV. -
Britain's King George the Third had a great deal to contend with: the loss of the North American colonies, wars with France, his parliaments, his own sons' wayward behaviour, and so on. On top of this, he had to cope with worrying bouts of mental instability that rendered him incapable of ruling his country for long periods, including the latter part of his long life.
Christopher Hibbert conveys all of this and more in a well-researched and highly readable book with easily digestible short chapters. He portrays the King as a good, if somewhat conservative, ruler of his kingdom. My only 'gripe' is that there was insufficient discussion of the possible medical causes of the famous 'madness' of George III.
As with other books that Hibbert has written, this volume makes for enjoyable and informative reading. -
A biography largely divorced form a concentrated view of historical events during George the Third's reign. Nevertheless, a series of semi-detailed insights. From the cynically amusing cyclical dislike of father and son to George the Third's tumultuous time during the American War of Independence, the reader is enlightened to his reign in huge, shallow jumps. Hibbert focuses on the central theme of George the Thirds' relationships, oftentimes more with his family than his country, although Hibbert dispenses some words for the Gordon Riots and his exceeding displeasure with John Wilkes and Charles James Fox. A solid introduction to George III, but perhaps not the wider societal position during his reign.
-
Hibbert provides a comprehensive and broadly sympathetic overview of the life of George III. Hibbert uses a wide range of historical anecdotes, recorded gossip and popular caricatures to create a glimpse of both the private and public lives of one of Britain’s most iconic monarchs, one whose public reputation underwent a remarkable metamorphosis as his reign evolved.
However, the chronological approach of the chapter ordering that defines the beginning of the book seemingly disappears in the latter half of the book. This causes the examination of George’s relationship with his family (outside of his wife and eldest son who are rightly woven through the narrative) to feel a bit haphazard.
