PDF Summary:The Last King of America, by Andrew Roberts

George III's reign as King of Great Britain is often overshadowed by the American Revolution's success and Britain's loss of its American colonies. However, Andrew Roberts' biography, The Last King of America, offers a nuanced portrait of this monarchical figure whose actions significantly shaped the course of history.

Roberts delves into the profound effects of George's upbringing on his character and governing philosophy, detailing his relationships with mentors like John Stuart and his inherent mistrust of the Whig oligarchy. The book examines the complexities of George's statecraft, from his influence in forming colonial policies and American taxation measures, to his efforts to rein in the Whig's power by elevating the conservative Tory faction. George's mental health struggles toward the latter part of his reign also receive in-depth analysis, including the turbulent Regency crisis of the late 1780s and his eventual descent into secluded obscurity.

(continued)...

The monarch's active involvement in American political affairs became clear when he attempted to overturn the Rockingham administration's 1766 repeal of the controversial Stamp Act. The King aimed to modify the Act rather than completely rescinding it, recognizing that his position as a constitutional monarch necessitated his final approval, and he endeavored without success to gain backing for this change in policy from those outside the government's core group. As Roberts points out, the King’s actions on this occasion have been misinterpreted as an indication of a desire to establish tyrannical powers over the colonies. Roberts portrays a complex portrait of a monarch shaping governance through his own convictions while also endeavoring to preserve confidence among the legislative body and the electorate. Andrew Roberts suggests that the king's efforts to influence choices concerning the American territories, rooted in his understanding of royal power, exacerbated conflicts with his counselors and contributed to the unstable and unpredictable condition of British politics at a critical juncture in the ties between America and Britain.

Other Perspectives

• King George III's belief in the supremacy of Parliament may have been a convenient justification for maintaining control over the colonies, rather than a principled stance on constitutional matters.
• The king's initial view of the colonists' discontent as mere opposition to taxes could be seen as a misjudgment of the growing desire for self-governance and independence in the colonies.
• George III's hardening stance in response to colonial opposition could be interpreted as inflexibility and a failure to adapt to the changing political landscape, which may have exacerbated tensions.
• The king's belief that the rejection of parliamentary taxation undermined British sovereignty fails to consider the legitimacy of the colonists' claim to no taxation without representation.
• While George III may have had complex and contradictory views on the colonies, his actions ultimately favored a hardline approach, which could suggest a disconnect between his personal views and his policies.
• The king's opposition to high tariffs on molasses and empathy with some American perspectives might be seen as too little, too late, and not reflective of a genuine willingness to address the broader issues at stake.
• George III's interest in American culture and understanding of colonial strains could be viewed as superficial if not accompanied by substantive policy changes that addressed colonial grievances.
• The king's exertion of sovereign authority and clashes with British ministers over American policies could be criticized as contributing to political instability and a lack of coherent strategy in dealing with the colonies.
• George III's attempts to shape policies and strategies might be seen as overreach, with his active involvement in American political affairs potentially undermining the role of Parliament and ministers.
• The king's attempt to modify the Stamp Act rather than repeal it could be criticized as a failure to recognize the depth of colonial opposition and an underestimation of the consequences of continued taxation without representation.

King George III's efforts to consolidate royal authority and restructure the administration of Britain included his fiscal policies and dealings with political figures.

George's unwavering objective to replace the dominant Whig elite with a broadly endorsed "Patriot" government led to several changes in the leadership of the prime minister and disputes with senior officials.

The king's approach to governance, which involved establishing short-term alliances rather than depending on the conventional Whig Party, led to frequent changes in the prime minister's office and accusations of inappropriate interference with constitutional procedures from a position out of the public eye.

Andrew Roberts' work delves into George's steadfast determination to diminish the Whig supremacy by forming a government that embodies the best qualities of various political factions, in line with his ideal of a Patriot King, as portrayed by Bolingbroke. A sovereign deeply committed to his country. The king regarded the Whigs as an influential aristocratic group that had been steadily eroding the balanced constitution established by the Glorious Revolution over the course of a century. Prior to ascending to the throne, George's father, along with Lord Bute, had endeavored to dismantle the prevailing Whig supremacy by aligning with a group referred to as the Leicester House Set. Andrew Roberts depicts George's steadfast determination to challenge this dominance during his reign, leveraging his kingly power to appoint prime ministers outside the Whig nobility, strategically position Tory advocates, and support policies favored by the Tories.

The king's initial optimism, though well-intentioned, often led to the selection of a new prime minister in the early part of his reign, which led to accusations that he was operating an unofficial 'dual Cabinet,' thus undermining the authority of the formal government. Throughout various instances, Bute succeeded Newcastle; following this progression, the leadership sequence moved from Chatham to Rockingham, then to the less diligent Grafton, and finally to the more conciliatory Lord North. After North's prolonged period in office, the Whigs, under Rockingham's leadership, briefly regained power, only to be followed by Shelburne's more favorable government, until the unpopular coalition of Fox and North displaced them. The King ultimately achieved success by giving his support to William Pitt the Younger in 1783. Andrew Roberts is of the opinion that the monarch's attempts to introduce reforms frequently showed an absence of political savvy. Accusations of political double-dealing from the Whigs alienated potential allies and solidified the very power structures he aimed to break down. George's steadfast adherence to constitutional principles unintentionally resulted in the Whigs' rise to prominence as the leading political group in Parliament during the years 1765 to 1783.

King George III's viewpoint on economic stability was influenced by his father's concerns over the nation's monetary commitments.

The King's efforts to maintain what he saw as necessary national financial probity led to clashes with his ministers over government spending.

Roberts illuminates a less familiar aspect of George III's reign, focusing on his commitment to upholding honesty in the management of government funds. His belief was firmly shaped by his own inquiries and initial experiences. George, as the Prince of Wales, thoroughly studied the complexities of governmental fiscal policy and, under his father's tutelage, cultivated a strong conviction that it was the government's duty to maintain fiscal prudence and avoid unnecessary spending. The nation emerged from the Seven Years' War burdened with a greatly escalated debt, a circumstance that, as mentioned earlier in Chapter 2, caused considerable concern for the young George.

Disputes with various governing entities arose over the distribution of defense funding. In 1761, George pledged to contribute £800,000 each year from his own funds in return for control over the Civil List, yet he did not consider the growing size of the royal household, the impact of possible inflation, or the settlement of debts left by his father's lavish court administration. During the 1770s, repeated calls were made to address the escalating public finance deficits, which stemmed from military obligations and the extravagant expenditures often associated with the Prince of Wales, as detailed by Roberts in Chapters 13 and 27. An observer noted that, despite common misconceptions, the King's household was run with strict frugality - his ownership of a vast array of gold, silver, and porcelain dining ware, including a set exceeding 10,000 pieces, was a sharp contradiction to his preference for modest family meals, and he was recognized for his personal moderation. Additionally, he deeply distrusted the aristocratic politicians in parliament who used their roles for their own enrichment, particularly Henry Fox. Nevertheless, George's reputation among scholars and the public did not elevate to that of a paragon of virtue until circumstances compelled him to support the fiscally responsible and morally impeccable statesman, William Pitt the Younger.

King George III was instrumental in revitalizing the once dormant Tory Party, enabling its return to a significant role within the government.

George's attempts to bridge the gap between Whigs and Tories by showing preference to the latter drew criticism for seeming to revive monarchical political maneuvers, sparking worries about undermining the values set forth in the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

Roberts argues that the widespread view of George as a sovereign intent on restoring a form of absolute rule similar to that of the Stuarts is misinterpreted. The monarch sought to strengthen the nation's constitutional framework by expanding the state's reach rather than increasing his personal power. His counselors persuaded him that the significant rift between the two principal political groups was inflicting considerable damage, hindering the sovereign's duty to rule through a cabinet that encompassed a broad range of the country's views. George initiated his rule by assigning individuals with Tory affiliations to roles of considerable importance. Upon ascending the throne, he started to fill court roles with individuals who had shown allegiance to the Tories or had supported his father Frederick.

George III's reign presented significant obstacles for the Whigs and Tories as they strove to reclaim their political sway. For individuals who had steadfastly held their views for a duration of fifty years, the attempts by George to alter the balance of power bore a striking resemblance to the preferential treatment and special privileges they had once criticized in former Stuart rulers. The Whigs were apprehensive that the Tories, who were historically linked with the followers of the defeated Charles I from the 17th-century Civil War and were believed to still hold aspirations for a Stuart comeback, might use their newfound political sway to disrupt the equilibrium achieved after the Glorious Revolution. George's backing inadvertently led to the very concerns it sought to prevent, as it allowed conservative figures such as Sir William Blackstone and Samuel Johnson to argue in favor of a stronger and more prominent monarchy, while they resisted the Whig attempts to reduce its influence. The monarch's commitment to promoting conservative policies widened the rift with numerous liberal figures, exacerbating the tumultuous nature of the 1760s and further hindering his attempts to create a broad and effective administration.

Other Perspectives

• George's aim to establish a Patriot government could be seen as a misguided attempt to centralize power, which may have undermined the emerging democratic principles of the time.
• The frequent changes in prime minister under George's reign could be interpreted as instability and indecisiveness, which may have weakened the government's effectiveness.
• Accusations of interference with constitutional procedures suggest that George's methods may have been at odds with the evolving constitutional monarchy, potentially threatening the balance of power.
• Clashes over government spending could indicate a lack of consensus or cooperation between the monarchy and the government, which is crucial for effective governance.
• While George's commitment to fiscal prudence is commendable, his methods and the practicality of his policies could be questioned, especially if they led to underfunding necessary government functions or social services.
• The revitalization of the Tory Party under George III might have been less about bridging gaps and more about favoring one political ideology over another, which could have contributed to political polarization.
• Criticism of George's preference for Tories could be valid if it led to a lack of diverse political representation and if it indeed mirrored monarchical maneuvers that the Glorious Revolution sought to move away from.
• Strengthening the constitutional framework is a complex task, and George's approach might have inadvertently concentrated power rather than distributing it, which could be seen as a step back from constitutionalism.

During his last year as monarch, George III's reign was characterized by his struggle with mental health problems, resulting in significant changes in how the country was governed.

In 1788, a crisis regarding the regency was triggered by the king's medical problems.

King George III's severe psychological struggles sparked a power struggle, with the factions led by the Queen and the Prince of Wales each revealing their own ambitions for dominance.

Roberts presents a thorough examination of the occurrences between 1788 and 1789, emphasizing the King's early substantial battle with manic depression. The illness emerged gradually and was misdiagnosed by the royal doctors for several weeks before its seriousness was finally recognized. The court's attempts to conceal the true state of the King's health, which had been effectively concealed during his milder episode in 1765 as noted in Chapter 6, further fueled rumors and discussions about its seriousness and possible implications among London's political and social circles. The critical question arose regarding whether the Prince of Wales or the Queen should preside over the Regency Council, tasked with ruling Britain while the King was incapacitated.

The cohesion among the Whigs was primarily due to their shared support for the Prince of Wales. Seizing the chance to implement the decisions made after Parliament rejected the idea of a regency governed by a pre-selected council the previous November, they proposed an alternative scheme that would bestow upon the Prince Regent nearly all the sovereign powers and honors, including the power to bestow noble titles, which would greatly benefit them. The Tories united behind a plan put forth by William Pitt the Younger and the Queen, which sought to appoint the Prince as Regent while imposing substantial restrictions on his power, thereby securing Pitt's continued direction of the government. The king's recovery in February 1789 briefly interrupted the political machinations, but by then, the aspirations of competing factions had become quite apparent.

George's partnership with William Pitt the Younger played a crucial role in tackling the difficulties that arose from the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, despite their occasional disagreements on policy issues.

The king's partnership with Pitt the Younger, while largely harmonious in their political goals, was strained by differing views on Catholic rights, foreshadowing his relationships with future prime ministers.

Roberts argues that understanding the king's cooperative relationship with William Pitt the Younger is crucial to comprehending the early stage of Pitt's prime ministership, a time when Britain rose to a leading international role amid the French Revolution. Pitt, alongside George, held a mutual contempt for the political views of Charles Fox and collaborated closely to establish a fiscally responsible administration that advocated for lower taxes; they concurred on the supremacy of Parliament's power in the UK's administration; they supported the idea of limited government involvement in the economy; they were steadfast in their resolve to defeat France; and they both respected the constitutional duties and rights of the Monarchy. Despite the events detailed in Chapters 20, 21, and 24, the King still voiced his opposition to certain policies of Pitt, which resulted in the Prime Minister retracting his stance on matters related to the appointment of bishops and curbing his inclination to grant his relatives peerages, thereby showing his willingness to assert his kingly power even when interacting with a dominant personality such as that of the Prime Minister.

The single occasion on which Pitt stepped down, sparked by a disagreement with the monarch over Catholic rights, might seem at odds, especially when examining the King's position on the issue, which reveals it to be backward and bigoted. Roberts emphasizes the significant influence of the King's deep-seated spiritual beliefs and his consciousness of his family heritage on his worldview. In Chapter 25, the narrative clarifies that the King firmly believed that granting additional rights to Catholics would breach the solemn vow of his Coronation Oath to uphold the Protestant religion, an obligation steadfastly upheld by every monarch since William III. The king, who staunchly supported the Church of England, viewed the issue of extending rights to Catholics as intrinsically connected to the pivotal events and constitutional principles that had secured the reign of his family, a legacy he was committed to maintaining. The upheaval known as the Gordon Riots illustrated that, despite some progress toward religious tolerance, true parity among different faiths continued to be out of reach. Throughout his later years, George remained actively engaged in the production of numerous memoranda, fervently maintaining his position.

George's last decade as monarch was marred by ongoing health problems, family scandals, and a transfer of power.

The decline in both mental and physical well-being of King George III ultimately led to the shift of political authority to the Prince Regent and later governments, signifying the end of his sway over the politics of Britain.

The last decade of George III's reign was marked by a deterioration in both his mental and physical health, as detailed by Andrew Roberts. Between October 1809 and January 1820, the monarch's health declined irreparably, plunging him into a severe state of manic depression, which was further aggravated by his advancing years and failing eyesight. In 1811, after a prolonged period when the King was unable to perform his duties, Parliament, with the backing of the Prince of Wales, passed a Regency Act that designated the Prince as the Regent. However, as outlined in Chapter 28, following the death of Pitt the Younger in 1806, the Whig party leaders who had expected to regain political influence were kept out of power in the new government. The Prince Regent chose to keep Perceval as Prime Minister, influenced by his increasing doubts about granting freedom to Catholics. Despite Perceval's assassination in 1812, he did not advance his former Whig colleagues; rather, he appointed the second Earl of Liverpool to a significant role.

In the twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth chapters, the depiction of the Prince Regent unveils a conniving character reminiscent of his father's, yet devoid of comparable moral qualities. The passing of the Queen, his mother, in 1818, following a six-year separation from her husband, and the loss of Princess Charlotte, his only child, in the subsequent year, highlighted the critical need for the Prince to officially part ways with his wife Caroline, since they lacked children to continue the Hanoverian line of succession. The Prince Regent's relationship with his father was strained, not solely because of his extravagant lifestyle and dubious associates, but also because he was disloyal when the King first began to experience mental health issues. Roberts highlights the king's profound obliviousness to these political and personal events. George, whose senses of hearing and sight had diminished, spent ten years secluded in his personal chambers at Windsor Castle, with his condition steadily advancing.

Practical Tips

• You can explore the impact of leadership on personal relationships by journaling about times when your decisions at work or in a group setting affected your personal connections. Reflect on any parallels between your experiences and the strained relationships within the historical context, such as the Prince Regent and King George III. This can help you understand the balance between professional responsibilities and personal relationships.
• Create a simple timeline of your own life's challenges and pivotal moments to gain perspective on how you've managed adversity over time. This mirrors the gradual emergence and impact of King George III's health issues on his reign. By doing this, you can identify patterns in your resilience and decision-making during difficult periods.
• Engage in role-playing exercises with friends or family to simulate decision-making during a crisis, assigning roles such as a leader, an advisor, or a rival. This can give you insight into the dynamics of power struggles and alliances, similar to the factions in George III's court, and improve your negotiation and conflict-resolution skills.