George III was no tyrant despite American propaganda from rebels and liberals | Off Script
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 10. 2021
- George III was neither oppressive nor to blame for the loss of the American colonies. Andrew Roberts joins Steven Edginton to discuss his latest book, a biography of the “most misunderstood” English King and talks about attempts to topple statues. Watch the full video above or listen on your podcast app by searching “Off Script”.
Read more: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/ge...
Subscribe to The Telegraph on CZcams ► bit.ly/3idrdLH
Get the latest headlines: www.telegraph.co.uk/
Telegraph.co.uk and / telegraphtv are websites of The Telegraph, the UK's best-selling quality daily newspaper providing news and analysis on UK and world events, business, sport, lifestyle and culture. - Sport
After listening to this interesting interview, I just reread the article published by Lewis Namier in History Today in september 1953 : Be kind to king George III (available in PastMasters, The best of History Today, 2001) . The rehabilitation by historians (and what historian was Namier !) of George III has started long before M. Roberts wrote this copious (and surely very good) biography. But it's true that Namier concludes "He himself did not understand the nature and depth of his tragedy; still less could others. There was therefore room to the growth of an injurious legend which made that heavy-burdened man a much maligned ruler; and which has long been accepted as history". Namier also mentions the papers of George III at the Royal Archives at Windsor. Quote "They stand on the shelves in boxes, each marked on a white label with the year or years it covers". These papers had been long accessible for researchers like Namier but also Christie or Pares or Thomas I guess... so why M. Roberts tells that these papers are "new sources" ? They surely are not unless some papers were still closed for research which would be strange considering their age. Some more precisions are required here. Historians write books and each author wants to present himself as original and innovative. The attacks against "Whig historians" and "liberal" historians (propaganda !!) are misplaced here in the title of this video. It is the usual business of historians to interpret the past and that's why it's an interesting field of knowledge. For sure this vision of George III by Andrew Roberts is interesting and should stir a debate about the specialists of this period but to label the other historians as "propagandists" is very wrong. Or in that case M. Roberts is as much a propagandist as the others which is nonsense for me (these historians didn't publish their books in a totalitarian regime which impose its vision of History) . Sorry for my mistakes but I'm French by the way.
Pre-war, I think most Americans saw through much of propaganda against George III. We saw him defer to Parliament, so we mostly blamed Parliament for not deferring to us.
That all changed when fighting commenced and George took a hard line with colonial Governors & Lord North. Americans outside New England were forced to get off the fence. In a way, his leniency as a monarch created a feeling of betrayal.
I'm a little surprised that the siege of Gibraltar, and the dilemma that it caused regarding the importance of The Rock to British interests abroad, didn't surface during this really interesting conversation. Basically Britain had to chose between exotic spices, jade, porcelain, silk, gold and treasures galore... or beaver pelts. I think it all worked out pretty well for both sides, seeing that America then went on to continue with Britain's judicial and political system - sort of.
After 1777 the war became a world war and Britain turn much of its attention on France. In effect turning the war in america into a sideshow.
I was taught that the inability of generals to work together was the proximate main cause of the loss of the colonies.
The essence of written history is looking again and again. The practice of history never ends, but better informed and expert historians, like Mr. Roberts, do provide much-needed sounding. We lack this in the discourse.
And it's ok to disagree. If people at the time disagreed then it is unsurprising that the study of their history renews these debates, and creates new ones.
I paraphrase Edmond Burke, but he said something along the lines of to love one's country one must find it loveable. History is one of the processes by which a citizen does this. The examining and reexamining of historical actors is a necessary part of this. In the end, we should arrive at some kind of context-based understanding and that should humble us greatly.
What Harvard Law journal is he referencing? I can't seem to find it.
Great author, love his work.
Absolutely , one for the big screen in Times Square ; perhaps would go down as a led balloon ; but suspect he would attract the American Red Carpet nowadays .
when congress sent him an oliver branch after concord and lexington he had the royal navy attack a fishing village in what is now maine far from boston
People like to talk about how he lost to American capitalists
They don’t talk about his revenge in 1812 🔥🏦🔥
They burned down a Canadian building before anyway.
@@johnnotrealname8168 and Canada always gets their revenge
Too many 'kind of' by the interviewer, otherwise another interesting episode in a series of interesting episodes. To suggest that statues be put up to celebrate the disable or BAME for no reason other than that they are disabled or BAME is outWokeing Woke.
Bought Austrian gold Philharmonic coin valuable Thomas. £105. Then bought Austrian gold Philharmonic coin £230. Told Art Bezrukavenko he it £400 and £210. Gold dealers earn $100000 per year in USA Thomas.
George the third of Britain was not a tyrant at all , he did not have that kind of power even in Britain, the parliament was responsible for the loss of the colonies.
He who believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them. JOHN 3:36.
Martin sellner Tories no Thomas. He socialist he doesn't need the Welfare state. He super rich Thomas.
Ï remember when I was driving through the beautiful countryside of Brandywine Valley, Delaware, I had some really gruesome intuitions/flashbacks/hallunications of gentlemen farmers shooting the redcoats over some trivial taxes even though the Brits had virtually bankrupted themselves recently to win the French and Indian War for the soon-to-be USA. I felt really disgusted becauise it was so petty and materialistc, nothing heroic at all unlike the Mohicans and Europeans fighing desperately over incompatible lifestyles and beliefts. In fact that phase of the War of Indendence was so petty and unwarranted it really jusified coining the term "New Tea Party Movement" for the creepy hyperpoliticized Trumpian conspirators.
Even as an American, I will not disagree. Other than how US prisoners of war were treated during the War of 1812, the British were not tyrannical.
The revolution was brewing for decades. It wasn't just taxes, it numerous reasons.
but the people of america are upset the war before the french indian war the american colonies ship and men took the main french supply port in canada but saw hand right back in the peace treaty that ended that war the colonist saw there son have to fight and die to take that fort again by british order they wore not allowed to make peace with their french neighbors but had to fight
Very, very poor interviewer, I’m only 8 mins in and he’s asked 3 questions which were literally just answered previously. This doesn’t feel like a conversation, the interviewer clearly isn’t listening and it’s making this very interesting topic a bit unwatchable. Try harder!
He was a moor!!!
That was his wife and she was not a moor.
Of course the Author of this book is British. I’m all set on the conclusion of this statement. If George the 3rd was that great then the American colonies , and what my Grandfathers fought for wouldn’t have fought for what they fought for. George the 3rd was an oppressive tyrant.
1- Plenty of Americans were loyalists
2- It could have been in your ancestors personal interest
3- Your ancestors could have been wrong
4- Your ancestors are much more likely all majority European immigrants who came to American after the revolutionary war was long over (immigrants plus loyalist genetics of an American MUST be lower than revolutionary ancestors from the basic numbers)
Please address the actual arguments
Uh Oh looks like someone cant handle facts XD
@@Cipher00007 Who though? That’s the question. All my statements still stand as the immutable truth, which are the facts.
“If George the third was that great…” George III was a constitutional monarch - good, bad, or great - his say over actual policies, towards America or anything else, was rather limited.
A tyrant he was not. He ultimately sided with Parliament. One could argue his constitutional role at the time included, or should have included, listening to the locally elected assemblies and legislatures of his American subjects, but considering that England had a bloody civil war only a few generations before which established the supremacy of the Parliament at Westminster, the King really seemed to do his best not to challenge that again.
Well, the British abolished slavery before we did. They also had and still have an amazing form of government that we essentially copied except for the Royals. Parliament is very similar really to Congress.
This is just English propaganda.
Not like the American propaganda that the colonies had no choice but to wage war to escape the clutches of an evil tyrant from across the Atlantic Ocean. Really, give me a break.
@@robertparsons313 the colonies tried for peaceful negotiations but were just met with more abuse.
@@RK18771 Only a cruel tyrant could have rejected something so beautifully called The Olive Branch Petition, right?
@@robertparsons313 yeah your right! The colonists rebelled for no reason they just wanted to!🤦♂️
@@RK18771 - That's just American propaganda!