George IV: The Rebel Who Would Be King by Christopher Hibbert

George IV: The Rebel Who Would Be King Reviews

• 
  Adam

  Like Prince Charles is doing now, the future King George IV had to wait a long time before he was crowned king. George was a king, whose life was far from flawless, but it never lacked in interest. An unfaithful, unpleasant husband and a prolific spender, George did have some likeable characteristics. His death was not deeply mourned by most of his subjects.
  
  Christopher Hibbert's meticulously researched biography of George IV is extremely readable. Hibbert conveys history in a style that rivals the best of novelists. George IV's life was more outrageous than the most exuberant of Georgette Heyer's fictional characters, who lived in his times. This long book will keep you amused, informed, and well-engaged.
  
• 
  Leslie

  Reding this biography has further convinced me that certain conditions are utterly corrosive to human character--fame and celebrity, extreme wealth, high social position. Very few people escape the corrosive, damaging effects of them, especially if they grew up under their influence, and if such people wield power over others, as they often do, they can do great damage (I can think of an awful lot of current examples of this, and a certain head of state who shall not be named and his family especially). Fame, wealth, position: these all insulate people from ordinary experiences of actions and consequences, make others respond with deference and a reluctance or inability to hold them to ordinary account, remove conditions of useful struggle and effort, distort human and family relationships, create barriers between people, distort judgement, make people unable to see themselves clearly and honestly, inflate self-opinion while also creating a kind of permanent sense of insecurity (no matter how arrogant they are, people of this sort have to know at some level that they don't deserve their positions, which is why they have such thin skins and are so quick to react to criticism or anything that threatens their position or sense of self). George IV, and pretty much his entire family, frankly, are good illustrations of all of this. He was an intelligent man with all sorts of good qualities, but he was really a pretty monstrous human being. It wasn't entirely his fault that he was such a monstrous human being (someone said of him at the time that if he hadn't been a prince, he'd have been a pretty good man, and that seems true to me), but he certainly never demonstrated any heroic efforts to be better, to choose to be better. A lot of artists benefitted from him, though, and he was responsible for building (though not for paying for) some rather nice buildings.
• 
  Renee

  I find the royal family very interesting and this book had its moments, but it is impossible to keep up with who is who. I understand the people have names and titles but when they’re used interchangeably I get really lost. Im 20% through and I don’t know how many brothers and sisters George had but I’m sure it’s a lot, I had to google what his fathers name was, his daughters name has not been mentioned once, and some people disappear from the story for long stretches when a quick note on where they are might be helpful (Princess Caroline most notably). I’m interested in the story but I think more effort was put into using flowery language than trying to engage the reader.
• 
  Ghost of the Library

  Proper Review to Follow
• 
  Gordon Kwok

  Overall, this is an interesting book but only if you happen to enjoy royal biographies.
  
  The book helps to clarify and dispel while at the same time confirming some of the public perception of him. One of them is that he was a young king or young Prince Regent. He was 57 by the time he became King and in poor health with issues like gout, so there's that. Even while he was a prince regent, he was already in his 30s and well into his 40s. The other public image of him is one of a blithering idiot in Season 3 of Blackadder. The book portrays an intelligent and curious man who was a great patron of the arts and not quite the idiot that is portrayed in Blackadder. However, George IV appeared to be an irresponsible spender. And in a way, he seems to have weakened the power of the throne because every time he was in debt, Parliament would grant him money in exchange for concessions or limitations on his power.
  
  At the end of the book when considering whether he was a good monarch, I lean towards a "no" to an "he was an average monarch." I based this on a few considerations such as contributions, how much he was loved by his people and the most important of all, preserving and passing on the throne to his heirs. His contributions include being a great patron of literacy and the arts, no one can deny that. As far as loved....it seemed like the people hated him and few were sad when he died and at the next Privy Council meeting after his death, no one seemed to care. The last one....he did not do his royal duty of creating an heir and a spare. He only had 1 legitimate child who predeceased him so the throne ended up passing on to his younger brother William (who became King William IV). His great grandfather and grandfather, King George I and II were unpopular because they were seen as foreigners who did not even speak fluent English. King George III was relatively popular but he was also Mad King George. So imagine if you were the public...George I and II were foreigners to whom you felt no connection to. George III was insane and his son George IV was the regent but was known for being out of touch and spending vast sums of money, being extremely overweight to the point that he was mocked by the newspapers and he cheated on his wife and had a public feud with her. As a member of the public, you probably would have asked..."what is the point of having a king then?? Why not just abolish the damn thing?"
  
  I guess the take-away of the book is that putting so much unearned wealth and power in 1 person corrupts and magnifies their flaws and isn't the best idea for a ruler. My view of this period is that the Hanoverian rulers weakened the appeal of the throne and almost got it abolished until Queen Victoria ascended to the throne and in a way, her long reign helped stabilize public support for the monarchy (although it's arguable that she destabilized the throne and public support for the throne by never going out in public for a number of years due to her grief over Prince Albert's death but that's another topic). Another take-away is in a constitutional monarchy, public sentiment is key. With it, anything is possible. Without it, nothing is possible.
• 
  Jeffrey Thiessen

  A comprehensive biography of an interesting character whose personal life was a bit of a train wreck yet whose legacy as King still stands in the Royal residences of Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle.
• 
  Kate

  Some of the details in this book were so delicious that I read them with great interest, even relish. So I continued to read every pageattentively, anxious not to miss out on any of the good stuff. George's official wife, Princess Caroline, was the stuff of which supermarket tabloids are made! (Her exploits and misbehaviors are terrifically interesting in every juicy detail.) The story of his extralegal secret marriage to Maria Fitzherbert (Catholic!!) is fascinating.
  
  On the other hand, George IV's family quarrels, requests for more money from Parliament and his gambling and overspending when he got money were so nearly continuous that they lost the quality of being events at all. I began to feel the same way about his very, very frequent bloodlettings.
  
  I can't complain about this level of detail. If I were writing a biography about an historical personage, I think I would quite treasure-- and want to share-- all the little facts I had been able to accrue. I just think that I would recognize that I might consolidate some of them in order that others could shine more brightly.
  
  I would definitely recommend this book-- but would whisper in your ear that it's okay to skim if you feel so disposed.
  
  
• 
  Dorothy

  Had he not been king he would have been a mediocre nonentity who was self-indulgent, overly fond of drink and drugs, a hypochondriac and shares bi-polar disorder with his father.
  
  What a very odd man given to profuse affections, disaffections and a rather weak intelligence.
• 
  Lisa Dudgeon

  I did like this book. However, in parts it seemed to drag, and other times I had difficulty remembering who everyone was. Also, I did not know when I set out to read the book that it was EIGHT HUNDRED AND SIXTY-FOUR PAGES. Just sayin'.
• 
  Vanessa Cundy-Cooper

  Enjoyable
  
  A very good account of George IV and the history of the time. I am a great fan of Christopher Hibbert's books - they are well researched and very well written. They are never dull or ponderous.