History

The Last King of America: The Misunderstood Reign of George III

The Last King of America: The Misunderstood Reign of George III

  • Downloads：3016
  • Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date：2022-01-09 06:51:29
  • Update Date：2025-09-06
  • Status：finish
  • Author：Andrew Roberts
  • ISBN：198487926X
  • Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
  • Download

Summary

The last king of America， George III， has been ridiculed as a complete disaster who frittered away the colonies and went mad in his old age。 The truth is much more nuanced and fascinating--and will completely change the way readers and historians view his reign and legacy。

Most Americans dismiss George III as a buffoon--a heartless and terrible monarch with few， if any， redeeming qualities。 The best-known modern interpretation of him is Jonathan Groff's preening， spitting， and pompous take in Hamilton， Lin-Manuel Miranda's Broadway masterpiece。 But this deeply unflattering characterization is rooted in the prejudiced and brilliantly persuasive opinions of eighteenth-century revolutionaries like Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson， who needed to make the king appear evil in order to achieve their own political aims。 After combing through hundreds of thousands of pages of never-before-published correspondence， award-winning historian Andrew Roberts has uncovered the truth: George III was in fact a wise， humane， and even enlightened monarch who was beset by talented enemies， debilitating mental illness， incompetent ministers， and disastrous luck。

In The Last King of America， Roberts paints a deft and nuanced portrait of the much-maligned monarch and outlines his accomplishments， which have been almost universally forgotten。 Two hundred and forty-five years after the end of George III's American rule， it is time for Americans to look back on their last king with greater understanding: to see him as he was and to come to terms with the last time they were ruled by a monarch。

Download

Reviews

Alex Stephenson ，

Roberts doesn't so much advocate for his subject as he does campaign for him。 This is， for all its qualities， a remarkably opinionated biography， one that is caught up in rehabilitating George's image at the expense of many others （especially Americans - the contempt for Thomas Paine in particular becomes almost comical）。 But it's inarguably very well-researched， and as an American myself， hearing the perspective of events from across the pond is incredibly informative。 Roberts doesn't so much advocate for his subject as he does campaign for him。 This is， for all its qualities， a remarkably opinionated biography， one that is caught up in rehabilitating George's image at the expense of many others （especially Americans - the contempt for Thomas Paine in particular becomes almost comical）。 But it's inarguably very well-researched， and as an American myself， hearing the perspective of events from across the pond is incredibly informative。 。。。more

Michele Weiner ，

You may be surprised to learn that George III was nicknamed the Patriot King for his devotion to Enlightenment principles， his people， and their evolving democratic government。 His family had been offered the British crown because they were the most suitable Protestant royal family to replace the debauched Stewart。 Europe was aflame during most of the reign of George III。 Within England， the opposition to George from the political classes was vicious and unfounded。 There were uprisings， lawsuits You may be surprised to learn that George III was nicknamed the Patriot King for his devotion to Enlightenment principles， his people， and their evolving democratic government。 His family had been offered the British crown because they were the most suitable Protestant royal family to replace the debauched Stewart。 Europe was aflame during most of the reign of George III。 Within England， the opposition to George from the political classes was vicious and unfounded。 There were uprisings， lawsuits and plots， but the king never lost his affection for his difficult countrymen。 In Europe， the dominant power in is time was France， and George spent almost two thirds of his life saving Europe from French hegemony。 When he died， he left England much better， happier， prosperous and peaceful than he found it。The Hanoverians were strange people。 George II hated his son Frederick and refused to speak to him。 Despite his unhappy childhood， Frederick had a happy marriage and taught his son well。 George's reign began when he was 12。 His father was already dead， and his mother became regent despite a campaign of nasty and baseless rumors that had her having an affair with George's first mentor， Lord Bute。 George made a love match with Queen Caroline despite much opposition to his choice， and they had 15 children including 9 sons。 They lived happily together until late in George's last illness， when the Queen moved to another house for good。 His children were always a trial， profligate， narcissistic， disobedient， a source of great anguish and little support。In adulthood， George was a prolific writer of letters， a copier of things he thought were important， a most knowledgeable and conscientious monarch， and a collector of scientific knowledge， art， and music。 He loved Handel， and he would often burst into song。 By the end of his reign， despite the fact that he had been very ill for the last ten years， he was beloved by his people。So what about his illness？ It was triggered by the stress of his job， the tenor of his time， and apparently by a physical illness。 His first spell of mania was mild and brief。 His second came 10-15 years later， and he finally managed to free himself from the torture inflicted by unqualified royal physicians while remaining ill。 He had four spells of illness in total， and during his manias， he was often able to perform his kingly duties。There is so much to this biography involving Revolutionary War Strategy， his attitude towards America， his ministers that included both William Pitts as well as Lord North， the wars he made it possible for England to win， fears of invasion during the French Revolution， his efforts to build alliances in Europe to maintain a balance of power etc etc。 One of the things he did that most impressed me is to insist that his Cabinet work as a team under the Prime Minister， who would direct the government and be the only minister who reported regularly to the king。 This arrangement vastly increased the efficacy of the government and made the king's job less difficult。 。。。more

BA Klapper ，

Interesting and informative， although at times I fear it veers a little too far into the hagiographic。

Stuart Miller ，

A fascinating look at George III that uses a wealth of documentary evidence--much of it now online--that supports the author's assertion that this king has been unfairly treated by too many historians， who wrongfully kept alive the mistaken belief that George III attempted to reassert royal prerogatives in contravention of the Glorious Revolution of 1688， diminish Parliament's role， and impose absolutism。 In fact， Roberts makes a compelling argument to the contrary， arguing that much of this com A fascinating look at George III that uses a wealth of documentary evidence--much of it now online--that supports the author's assertion that this king has been unfairly treated by too many historians， who wrongfully kept alive the mistaken belief that George III attempted to reassert royal prerogatives in contravention of the Glorious Revolution of 1688， diminish Parliament's role， and impose absolutism。 In fact， Roberts makes a compelling argument to the contrary， arguing that much of this comes from the political animus of Whig politicians of the day （and from later Whig-biased historians） that--for political advantage--painted the king as a Charles I if not a Louis XIV。 American revolutionaries used the same tactic in the Declaration of Independence that listed all of the king's "tyrannies"--each one of which Roberts refutes with very convincing evidence。 In fact， the evidence from the king's letters and communications to his ministers depict a monarch who was totally committed to the English constitution and its preservation。 A must read for anyone with interest in English or United States history。 。。。more

Gerry Connolly ，

In The Last King of America Andrew Roberts makes a credible case for a much more complex， multifaceted， inquisitive George III than Thomas Jefferson portrayed in the Declaration of Independence。 Roberts rejects completely the portrait of a doltish autocrat who engaged in suppressing his subjects’ freedoms。 George III was a constitutional monarch who respected his limits while being fully engaged with governance。 But he was also a parochial man （never stepping outside a narrow part of England）， b In The Last King of America Andrew Roberts makes a credible case for a much more complex， multifaceted， inquisitive George III than Thomas Jefferson portrayed in the Declaration of Independence。 Roberts rejects completely the portrait of a doltish autocrat who engaged in suppressing his subjects’ freedoms。 George III was a constitutional monarch who respected his limits while being fully engaged with governance。 But he was also a parochial man （never stepping outside a narrow part of England）， bigoted toward the Irish and Catholic emancipation， and petty in his grievances。 His 59 year reign witnessed the loss of America， the gain of India and the West Indies， the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars。 Prime Ministers were created and cabinets strengthened as parties —Whigs and Tories—emerged as mature political entities。 A consequential reign hobbled by five bouts of bipolar mental collapses and dysfunctional relations with his children。 Not the admirable figure Roberts lionizes but neither the dictatorial demon Jefferson and Paine proclaimed。 。。。more

Martin ，

Andrew Roberts wants us to question everything we think we know about America's last monarch， most especially Thomas Jefferson's 28-point indictment of the alleged despot in the otherwise magisterial Declaration of Independence。 The words ratified by the Continental Congress ring down through history: "The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations， all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States。"Roberts Andrew Roberts wants us to question everything we think we know about America's last monarch， most especially Thomas Jefferson's 28-point indictment of the alleged despot in the otherwise magisterial Declaration of Independence。 The words ratified by the Continental Congress ring down through history: "The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations， all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States。"Roberts demonstrates that most of the 28 counts were war propaganda replete with ex post facto justifications for a revolt that had already begun。 King George III was no despot， no tyrant。 And over the course of 784 pages Roberts， a skilled historian and biographer， shows us George was an enlightened， constitutional， conservative yet not reactionary， monarch who protected the best interests of his subjects across the Atlantic -- or at least George and most of Parliament were convinced they did。Indeed， the American colonists were as free as any people in the world in the late 18th century; the King simply wanted his subjects to pay for their own defense after the French and Indian War and heed to the sovereignty of Parliament -- something they had never questioned before the Stamp Act crisis of the mid-1760s。This is also a tragic story， for George III ruled for nearly 60 years that ended with the British Empire the largest in human history （a fact many subject peoples， namely Indians of the subcontinent， probably did not celebrate）， but Whig politicians and generations of Whig historians libeled George III as a brute， corrupt， power-hungry， and unintelligent -- a narrative adopted by historians and critics down to the present day。Clearly he was none of those things， but was he a successful ruler？ Was he good at politics？ At times， yes。 The obstinacy （or principled stubbornness） that served him poorly during the 1770s-1780s with regard to the revolting colonists would serve him well in the Napoleonic Age。 George III was a pious man of principle， no doubt。George's leadership during the American crisis was spotty。 He left it to his ministers to lead when their policies were alienating the colonists to the point of revolt， and he was stubbornly slow to realize the unpopularity of imperial policies and， later， that the war was lost。 George III did not truly know his subjects; he never contemplated visiting the 13 colonies。Also tragic was the last decade of George's life， during which he lived alone and isolated， blind and deaf， suffering from his fifth and last bout of manic depression and bipolar disorder。 Roberts' work plumbing the newly available historical record -- including thousands of letters in George's own hand -- does justice to the King's actual malady rather than the misdiagnosis of porphyria。Most of George's doctors were blind to what really ailed him， and their treatments were torturous and even life-threatening （I am always grateful to have been born in an age of modern medicine）。 It is a testament to Roberts' skill as a scholar and storyteller that the reader truly feels for George during these harrowing manic episodes。 In one bout， George babbled incoherently for 19 consecutive hours。Where Roberts misses most， in my view， is his assessment of the result of the American Revolution。 He ascribes too much self interest， irony， and hypocrisy to the revolutionaries motives and not enough to ideology。 Thus， he concludes that the result of the Revolution was conservative in nature， as Article II of the Constitution gives the president similar powers as the unwritten British constitution gave to the monarch （post-1688）。But as we know from Gordon Wood， the American Revolution was radical -- it marked a watershed moment in the history of the Enlightenment because it overturned an existing order （it was a revolution， after all， not merely a series of battles for a little more autonomy）。Americans were now citizens， not subjects， and the egalitarian principles （not applied to slaves and Indians， of course） for which the revolution was fought fundamentally altered the ordinary person's expectations in life with regard to his or her relationship to government and law， to one another， to family， to church， etc。 Moreover， the Revolution gave birth to what became the antislavery and abolitionist movement on both sides of the Atlantic -- once again， the egalitarian impulse at work。In this worldview， no monarch could ever be legitimate because kings and queens， while able to pay attention to public opinion represented in a burgeoning press， were ultimately not accountable to the consent of the governed。 They ruled for life， their station bestowed by the will of god and the accidents of birth and blood。 The American Revolution was a direct refutation to this idea -- even if George III was no tyrant。Still I recommend this book， although it is a little too long。 It is probably the most comprehensive and accurate cradle-to-grave biography ever written about America's last King。 。。。more

Scott ，

Roberts tends to write “magisterial” accounts of his subjects。 This was definitely among those numbers and his reevaluation of George III is excellent and Lon overdue。 It is interesting that （for me） the strength AND weakness of this book is the amount of time he spends on the American Revolution。 His review of Jefferson’s 28 charges against him was as fascinating as it was compelling - making the point that to go against his elected government would be the way a REAL tyrant would behave AND poi Roberts tends to write “magisterial” accounts of his subjects。 This was definitely among those numbers and his reevaluation of George III is excellent and Lon overdue。 It is interesting that （for me） the strength AND weakness of this book is the amount of time he spends on the American Revolution。 His review of Jefferson’s 28 charges against him was as fascinating as it was compelling - making the point that to go against his elected government would be the way a REAL tyrant would behave AND pointing out that it was Jefferson not George who OWNED hundreds of human beings — so who really was “not fit to govern a free people”？ The flip side of all of this was that the book also read more like a history of the period and it’s players than a more exclusive focus on George。 Again， fascinating， but I think the work could have focused a little tighter on George and been 100 pages shorter。 Perhaps at 52 years old the idea of holding a 700 page book for 2 weeks has wizened a bit。 All in all excellent。 。。。more

Tom Rowe ，

I have long been looking for a book that would look at the American Revolution from the British perspective。 This book satisfies that need。 This book has a lot to teach and a lot of misconceptions to destroy。

Steve Barney ，

Excellent book that gives a balanced look at George III， King of England。 Great to view the American Revolution from a different （and very enlightening） perspective。

Michael Locklear ，

Per Kevin DeYoung from Life and Books and Everything （12。20。21）

Brian Willis ，

In the long list of American antagonists - Britain in the early days， Spain， Nazi Germany， the Soviet Union， Al Qaeda， and communism and terrorism in the modern day - George III surely tops the list of the Mount Rushmore of villains。 But should he？ Roberts certainly corrects the historical record that ran away from George， easily reflected by the modern American assertion that "we fought a revolution to get rid of kings ruling over us。"Not at all the truth。 In fact， George III was very keen to k In the long list of American antagonists - Britain in the early days， Spain， Nazi Germany， the Soviet Union， Al Qaeda， and communism and terrorism in the modern day - George III surely tops the list of the Mount Rushmore of villains。 But should he？ Roberts certainly corrects the historical record that ran away from George， easily reflected by the modern American assertion that "we fought a revolution to get rid of kings ruling over us。"Not at all the truth。 In fact， George III was very keen to keep America by conciliating and listening to their concerns （as reflected in the new archival material available for this biography）。 George was an enlightened monarch and much more open minded， curious， and friendly than the first two Hanoverian monarchs。 Good lord， George II - grandfather - was a real piece of work and one of the most awful of English monarchs。 The man let his son - George's father - sit and rot for days after death before allowing him to be embalmed and buried due to lingering animosities。 Perhaps these known character flaws were part of the lingering negative impressions of the Hanoverian family that hounded George III and his political enemies。The book's central major section centers on the American Revolution and the bungling that led to the British losing it。 I found it informative and illuminating to read an account of that struggle from the British perspective。 Yes， a lot of the loss can be attributed to disjointed central management of logistics and strategy， and one of the earliest successful deployments of the insurgency strategy that worked for the Vietcong and ISIS more recently， but to see it from the British perspective reveals that if George were truly the "tyrant" that Thomas Jefferson alleged he was， then a more tyrannical strategy would have succeeded。 Indeed， the British went out of their way not to destroy America in the hopes of a stronger reconciliation afterwards。 In fact， the real disagreement was with Parliament and not George， where the taxation without representation was taking place。 The revolt against George wasn't necessarily personal until very late in the game and mainly because as the face of the mother country， it was easier to target George when in fact it was the machinations of British politics that enraged colonists。 Blame the guy on the money。The book is heavily invested in those political turns， ministries， and Prime Ministers that advised George on his realm。 George was very involved with politics， and knew when to acquiesce and when to question the government when necessary。 He mainly let Parliament conduct the war and taxation， and expressed concern that he wanted to conciliate with America as soon as possible。 In fact， American readers may not be willing to follow Roberts with how far he blames America for the conflict， and how unreasonable Americans were in refusing any taxation at all （Britain repealed all but the Tea Tax by the end， reasoning that America should pay their share in taxes for protection， and that tea was a luxury item that America reasonably had to accept a duty on）。 George was not bitter over losing America， and was very keen at quickly embracing the common bonds that held us together rather than lamenting the loss of a colonial or even commonwealth territory。 The war of 1812 occurred during the Regency， a time when George was hopelessly insane and out of touch with reality。George's private life is covered in as much detail as necessary - a loving marriage for once！ and many children （George IV was an absolute scoundrel， a wastrel and despicable spender and debtor who contributed to the negative impact on the monarchy that poisoned George's reign）。 And the madness is convincingly corrected in the historical record。 The 1969 study that determined he suffered from porphyria is firmly and permanently rebutted here; he was literally mentally ill with a severe form of bipolar disease， with five episodes that progressed in severity。 Because that time had little to no idea how to treat mental illness， the treatment of doctors usually made the illness worse， until the foresight of a Dr。 Willis began to see results by restraining George in his mania and pursuing tranquility in his recovery。 Sad that in modern medicine， medications and a similar treatment probably would have steadied George even more。By the last ten years of his life， George never left Windsor Castle （1810-1820）， hopelessly lost in an alternate reality in his mind， as well as deaf and blind。 What a horrible existence that must have been。 In the end， Roberts restores George to his place as one of the most important British monarchs for the RIGHT reasons， his dedication to science and the arts， his restraint at most times， and his permanent impact on British culture especially during the tumultuous times of the American Revolution and Napoleonic Wars。 I dropped it to four stars personally because it is very dense with names who pass in and out and it began to become tedious at points， even for a reader with interest in such things as I am。 This was one of those times where Prime Ministers came and went very capriciously at the slightest defeat in Parliament， much more unstable than the American presidency at the same time。 That's a failure of the age and not Roberts。 Nonetheless， it's a superb study of Britain， 1760s-1810， with the last chapter on 1810-1820 briefly covering the circumstances of George's final dark days and not Regency politics。 If you visit London today， much of the architecture reflects that period， and it is clear that George III is on the Mount Rushmore of British monarchs。 A solid survey of British politics during that period。 。。。more

Michael Reilly ，

Roberts succeeds in establishing， with overwhelming evidence， that George III was not the tyrant described in The Declaration of Independence and he was not the foppish buffoon shown in Lin-Manuel ​Miranda's "Hamilton"。 Roberts does not succeed in his larger project of convincing us that George III was a good and wise King。 He fails because he is too good an historian。This is a full deeply researched archival history。 The papers of George III have just been released to scholars and Roberts makes Roberts succeeds in establishing， with overwhelming evidence， that George III was not the tyrant described in The Declaration of Independence and he was not the foppish buffoon shown in Lin-Manuel ​Miranda's "Hamilton"。 Roberts does not succeed in his larger project of convincing us that George III was a good and wise King。 He fails because he is too good an historian。This is a full deeply researched archival history。 The papers of George III have just been released to scholars and Roberts makes great use of them。 George communicated with his ministers by letters and Roberts uses 1000s of them to show the contours of George's mind。 He has also done a huge amount of research in the other primary and secondary sources。 He frequently comments on what previous historians and biographers have gotten wrong or right。 Three things dominated George's long reign （1760-1820）， the loss of the American colonies， the war with revolutionary and then Napoleonic France and George's severe mental illness。 It is not clear that any King could have kept the American colonies as part of the British Empire， but， as Robert's shows， George knew very little about America and his pride and righteousness kept him from being able to work a compromise that would have kept the Americans inside of the empire on some basis。 By the time of the French wars， George was suffering more and more with mental illness。 He would periodically get involved in particular questions， but his Prime Ministers and generals fought the war。 He was not really a war leader。 He spent more time and energy during that period fighting any attempt to lift the restrictions on Catholics。 He felt honor bound by his oath of office to preserve Protestant ascendency。 George suffered from severe manic depression。 As he got older the bouts were longer and more severe。 During the last 11 years of his reign， he was completely incompetent， and England was ruled by a regency。 Roberts makes the case that George was a better person then most kings。 He had a relatively happy marriage。 He had no known mistresses。 He hardly drank and he did not gamble。 Hs personal life was a cut above most European royals。 Unfortunately， none of that translated into being a particularly effective King。 King George seemed to be mystified by the ungratefulness of the Americans。 Until very late in the war， he did not really believe that most Americans wanted to be independent。 Roberts is offended by the hypocrisy of the Americans。 He has a brilliant analysis of the Declaration of Independence。 He analyzes， paragraph by paragraph， each of Jefferson's charges of tyranny by King George。 Jefferson does not come off well。 Roberts argues that "had King George been the tyrant that Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson made him out to be， Britian might have won the war。" A more ruthless King would have freed and armed the Sothern slaves， burned Boston and New York and armed the Indians。 George did not， because， according to Roberts， he was "a civilized， good-natured， Christian and enlightened monarch。" Roberts repeatedly hits the irony of slave owners accusing King George of tyranny。 He quotes Samuel Johnson's question， "how is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes？"。 It was interesting that， although Roberts is politically conservative， he agrees with the theme of the New York Times "1619 Project"。 He suggests that one of the drivers of the revolution was US southern concern about the anti-slavery movement in England。 In discussing George Washington's efforts to recover former slaves after the revolution， Roberts claims， "when it came to actual slavery， the King had a far better record than the rebel。" Roberts is a lively and witty writer。 He describes the small group of Eton educated incompetents who mismanaged the American war。 He concludes， "The battle of Waterloo may have been won on the playing fields of Eton， but the American colonies had been lost their thirty years earlier。"Some of the Parliamentary intrigue gets a bit dense and the end of the King's reign， as he becomes mentally incompetent， is anticlimactic。This is a big， well written biography of an important figure。 It is a great view of the American Revolution from the other side。 Roberts is a clever and judicious writer。 。。。more

Miguel ，

DNF， although it was not bad - just wasn't a topic that was compelling enough for this reader to devote 36 hours to。 Have seen it made the Economist's top books for 2021。 DNF， although it was not bad - just wasn't a topic that was compelling enough for this reader to devote 36 hours to。 Have seen it made the Economist's top books for 2021。 。。。more

Leonard Singer ，

A brilliantly structured and colorfully written argument that George III was neither a tyrant nor a fool; that the Declaration of Independence was， for the most part， a propaganda piece that would fail a fair fact check。 The King’s mental illness is reviewed and the popular diagnosis rejected。 A principled classical conservative; patriotic; disciplined; well read; thoughtful。 Notwithstanding losing the American colonies， immediately stiffened the Britain’s will against Napoleon。 The author argue A brilliantly structured and colorfully written argument that George III was neither a tyrant nor a fool; that the Declaration of Independence was， for the most part， a propaganda piece that would fail a fair fact check。 The King’s mental illness is reviewed and the popular diagnosis rejected。 A principled classical conservative; patriotic; disciplined; well read; thoughtful。 Notwithstanding losing the American colonies， immediately stiffened the Britain’s will against Napoleon。 The author argues that the King’s communications would be considered Churchillian but for the （unfair） popular portrait of him。 We shouldn’t just accept all of the author’s argument but its points cannot be rejected unless substantial further research so warrants。 Stimulating。 Political and religious machinations; family disfunction; wild characters: Fun。 One of the best books I’ve ever read。 。。。more

Bill Finley ，

My assessment can be stated clearly: too many words。 With access to so many newly released documents， the author couldn’t resist including every jot， thus producing this overlong biography。 Where was the editor？

Matthew Henken ，

This is a hard one to rate。 The research is fantastic; the writing is first-rate。 So what's the trouble？The trouble is that George the III is not *super* interesting as Roberts portrays him。 Roberts' revisionist portrayal of Napolean as a predominantly enlightenment figure was fascinating because we were left with an enlightenment figure who obviously bestrode Europe like a colossus as was fascinating in his own right。But by revising the view that people have of George III， we are left with an e This is a hard one to rate。 The research is fantastic; the writing is first-rate。 So what's the trouble？The trouble is that George the III is not *super* interesting as Roberts portrays him。 Roberts' revisionist portrayal of Napolean as a predominantly enlightenment figure was fascinating because we were left with an enlightenment figure who obviously bestrode Europe like a colossus as was fascinating in his own right。But by revising the view that people have of George III， we are left with an enlightenment figure who， it turns out， isn't all that interesting。 He was a strictly constitutional monarch who had a role， although not at any point the predominant one， in the government。 He remains interesting to a certain extent because he was king at an extraordinary time， was an exponent of enlightenment values， and was （sometimes， and sometimes for a long time） mad。 But since the madness was not， Roberts shows us， tied with tyranny， it is more pitiable than illuminating of George III's reign。But， again， the work is splendidly written and tirelessly marshals the primary sources to offer a portrait that is quite convincing。 。。。more

Joe ，

A monumental biography。 Beautifully written and meticulously researched with the fulsome aid of Elizabeth II's Georgian Papers Programme， Roberts crafts an expansive story of George III's reign from his coronation to the loss of the American War of Independence to the Napoleonic Wars and finally to George's sad and lonely death after 6 decades on the throne of Great Britain。 Roberts gives us a nearly year-by-year account of George's political， intellectual and family life based on thousands of h A monumental biography。 Beautifully written and meticulously researched with the fulsome aid of Elizabeth II's Georgian Papers Programme， Roberts crafts an expansive story of George III's reign from his coronation to the loss of the American War of Independence to the Napoleonic Wars and finally to George's sad and lonely death after 6 decades on the throne of Great Britain。 Roberts gives us a nearly year-by-year account of George's political， intellectual and family life based on thousands of his letters to ministers， generals， his family and many others。 For Roberts， George was the "Patriot King，" a noble man of principle whose guiding light was his love of country and his unerring loyalty to the British Constitution。 Thus， this book is more than biography。 It is paean to George and his reign and a serious effort to dispel the widely held （particularly American） view of George as the toady-minded tyrant that lost the American colonies by pushing "his government towards tyrannical measures aimed at provoking a war to crush American liberty。。。" Roberts supplies plenty of evidence for his view， at least in the way he sees it。 For many Americans， myself included， the evidence also reveals a monarch who was a self-righteous and hidebound reactionary whose arrogant inability to adapt to social and political change was at much a cause of Britain's loss of America as any of the many blunders made by his ministers and generals。 Nonetheless， this is a must read for anyone with any interest in 18th century geopolitics。 。。。more

Richard ，

A terrific， well-researched biography which tells "the other side" of a much maligned man and ruler。 He challenges much of the slanted history we were taught in schools of a king bent on repression of his subjects。 Well done indeed。 A terrific， well-researched biography which tells "the other side" of a much maligned man and ruler。 He challenges much of the slanted history we were taught in schools of a king bent on repression of his subjects。 Well done indeed。 。。。more

Anne Morgan ，

A well written and detailed account of the life of King George III， without many of the preconceptions found in other books。 Here， thanks largely to excellent research and the newly release Georgian Papers， myths of the King are demolished and we find a man devoted to the constitution and religion he swore to uphold and protect。 A loving father and husband whose sons were a constant disappointment， a frugal man who tried to draw on skilled minds from both Whigs and Tories and was often best know A well written and detailed account of the life of King George III， without many of the preconceptions found in other books。 Here， thanks largely to excellent research and the newly release Georgian Papers， myths of the King are demolished and we find a man devoted to the constitution and religion he swore to uphold and protect。 A loving father and husband whose sons were a constant disappointment， a frugal man who tried to draw on skilled minds from both Whigs and Tories and was often best known today for the “madness” he suffered， but even that is looked at in new light and re-examined here。 Overall an excellent book， well written and very well researched， I was glad to read such an excellent biography with modern research into newly released papers but without modern judgement on a man very much of his time。 I received an Arc of this book from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review 。。。more

Stephen Morrissey ，

Andrew Roberts delivers a tour-de-force biography of King George III， reclaiming the patriot-king from his current descent into a bumbling， mad， bloodthirsty monarch romping across the stage of Lin-Manuel Miranda's "Hamilton。" The reign of George III is impressively long and diverse， stretching from the conclusion of the Seven Years' （French and Indian） War， through the American Revolution， and into the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars。 If George's stubbornness precipitated the failed po Andrew Roberts delivers a tour-de-force biography of King George III， reclaiming the patriot-king from his current descent into a bumbling， mad， bloodthirsty monarch romping across the stage of Lin-Manuel Miranda's "Hamilton。" The reign of George III is impressively long and diverse， stretching from the conclusion of the Seven Years' （French and Indian） War， through the American Revolution， and into the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars。 If George's stubbornness precipitated the failed political and military campaigns to keep America within the empire， that very trait likely saved Britain from sliding into a revolutionary abyss akin to the French or kept underfoot by the Corsican Tyrant （Napoleon）。As with all of Roberts' biographies， the tale is well told， laden with facts， and threaded into a coherent narrative。 Personally， George is the antithesis of the reign of Louis XVI of France: circumspect; respectful of legislative prerogative; humble; and of the same stock as many ordinary Englishmen tending to their farms， small businesses and lives across the countryside。 While responsible for raising a Prince of Wales allergic to the very notion of personal economy and humility， George III remains throughout his reign a personification of English bulldog grit， similar to how Elizabeth II and the modern monarchy has adapted to a more constrained role in British politics。On America， George indeed lost his colonies。 However， Roberts brilliantly untangles fact from propaganda， even engaging in a line-by-line refutation of the charges against the King enshrined in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence。 There was never any massive conspiracy to deprive American colonists of their quasi-autonomous rights; rather， distance and previous lax administration of the colonies rendered their political maturity certain and a clash almost inevitable。 If George III had been the king of patriot propaganda - vain， cruel， ruthless， and dictatorial - he may have， in Roberts' estimation， fared better in his war against the Continental Army。 Instead， George and his generals fought a limited war in America， rarely engaging in slash-and-burn tactics familiar to other mother-country-colonial conflicts。 George fights for America on behalf of Parliamentary power， not in spite of it。 Perhaps the biggest mistake made y George is never travelling to North America， for the colonists may have adopted a much more appreciative posture to George if they had seen the king up close。On Europe， George prevailed。 In a time when Edmund Burke was coming around to a dim view of the burgeoning revolutionary fires in France， George III remained steadfast in preserving British autonomy and power in the face of French threats against the homeland and Continental interests。 Alongside William Pitt the Younger， George charted a steady course that was every bit as bull-headed as the war effort in America a decade earlier。 This time， though， the gambit paid dividends， fostering a growing sense of British pride at hemming in French revolutionary and Napoleonic power for over two decades。No biography of George can escape the mental health issues plaguing the man。 Roberts deftly covers the territory of George's mental afflictions， portraying the king in a generous way in line with modern thinking on psychological issues。 From a manic depressive state to requiring straitjackets during violent episodes， George endured a half-lifetime of struggle against a mental condition that would debilitate men and women of inferior fortitude。A constitutional monarch， at best， is a leader and a humble cog in republican machinery。 The balancing between the two is key: too much energy， and that way dictatorship lies; too much meekness， and the monarchy seems like a meaningless appendage。 George III was one of the best at balancing between those two points， rowing the British ship of state past shoals and into a future that promised greater imperial glory。 。。。more

Jean ，

I have this image of Andrew Roberts sitting in a darkened theater in London watching the musical Hamilton and chuckling while thinking， “ Well that was certainly amusing but let’s clear a few things up here shall we…。。” Roberts references the portrayal of King George III in the musical in the introduction to his beast of a book arguing that the king was very different than the tyrant of Jefferson and Paine’s writing。 As an American I always find British takes on the events of the American Revolu I have this image of Andrew Roberts sitting in a darkened theater in London watching the musical Hamilton and chuckling while thinking， “ Well that was certainly amusing but let’s clear a few things up here shall we…。。” Roberts references the portrayal of King George III in the musical in the introduction to his beast of a book arguing that the king was very different than the tyrant of Jefferson and Paine’s writing。 As an American I always find British takes on the events of the American Revolution fascinating。 It’s like looking through a mirror to an alternate reality。 It looks like the world you’re familiar with， but it’s somehow alien and a bit unsettling。 I know that the view American has of George III is skewed and I was aware of the porphyria diagnosis that gained popularity especially in the 1990s with the play/movie。 Roberts puts forward a strong case that the king suffered from bipolar disorder and depression and the porphyria theory was a result of cherry-picking from available data and accepting questionable accounts。 I’m inclined to agree with this after reading this book。 I’ve also felt for a long time that the loss of the American colonies was more due to internal squabbling among the various British commanders and the politicking/misunderstandings in the British government more than any decisions of George III。 He was a king in the aftermath of the Jacobite rebellion and the brutal suppression of Scotland by his uncle and grandfather。 He didn’t want to be his uncle and he certainly didn’t want to be Henry VIII。 He was badly advised throughout the war by a series of ambitious men who were more concerned with their political fortunes in London than in the goings on of colonies across the sea。 This doesn’t mean George III didn’t make mistakes， but he wasn’t the worst king ever。 Roberts takes you through the king’s entire life and places his actions in the context of the titanic clash of European powers that was happening before the American revolution and lasted long after （hello Napoleon）。 Roberts isn’t shy about calling out hypocrisy from the king’s critics painting him as the enemy to move their own agendas forward。 There’s a lot of detail in here and while I largely agreed with Roberts there were moments where I think he gave the king the benefit of the doubt a bit more than he should have。 However， Roberts did have access to the royal papers of George III that Queen Elizabeth II released in the 2010s， so he is pulling a lot of his analysis from the king’s actual writing。 I think everyone reading this will have to make up their own mind， but I was mostly on board with his main theories。 In my opinion he did a fantastic job and I certainly won’t feel the same about George III going forward。 The ending of this book was surprisingly sad， showing a man who had flaws but believed he was doing his best， abandoned by his family and trapped by his failing mind/body。 I never would’ve thought I would feel sad for a man with so much power but mental illness and the ravages of age combined with the cruelty of his heir （seriously George IV was awful） made me sad。 I recommend this book。 It’s long and there’s a lot of people to track through well known historical events but I was never bored or lost。 。。。more

A J ，

This book is what we’ve been waiting for and an absolute masterpiece by Andrew Roberts。 Possibly his best work if not coming alongside his Churchill biography。 This is history at its best。 Roberts has able to paint a picture of George III in his times so that your really feel you ‘know’ him。 His arguments are solid as he looks to unpick the propaganda of Whig or American historians which has tainted the view of George to be seen as possibly one of England’s worst monarchs。 But was he on par with This book is what we’ve been waiting for and an absolute masterpiece by Andrew Roberts。 Possibly his best work if not coming alongside his Churchill biography。 This is history at its best。 Roberts has able to paint a picture of George III in his times so that your really feel you ‘know’ him。 His arguments are solid as he looks to unpick the propaganda of Whig or American historians which has tainted the view of George to be seen as possibly one of England’s worst monarchs。 But was he on par with King John or Richard II？ No， he couldn’t be further away from them。 George was a pious， patriot king of a limited monarchy and fulfilled the role excellently。 It speaks volumes of a man that people who knew him the most liked him the best。 Was he a tyrant？ It’s hard to see how， as Roberts argues if he was then he would have come down like an iron fist on the cartoons and press that freely were able to kick him and he would have vetoed acts of parliament he did not agree with。 He in fact left the press to it and never intervened on an act。 He was against slavery as his personal letters show。 He did not own one or profit from the trade。 He didn’t speak up in support of the abolitionists when it can to the debate， but again he was a limited monarch who did not intervene so history should not judge him harshly here。 This was in the backdrop of the French Revolution and following the Gordon Riots where people justifiably feared any rock to the status quo could have ended in disaster。 He was an advocate of religious freedom， free thought and liberty and a patron of academia and the arts。 It is a shame he didn’t support Catholic Emancipation， however he was a down to earth and approachable monarch。 He loved his people and they loved him。 The book is well written， the building of 18th century society by Roberts is utterly mind blowing and his conclusion is fantastic。 I loved it and couldn’t put it down。 。。。more

Helen ，

Rating based on an abridged audiobook。

Mat ，

TelRev5

Richard Cohen ，

Andrew Roberts has again benefitted by being given access to hitherto classified archives held by the Queen。 He has also ably mined the diaries of Frances Burney "Keeper of the Queen's Robes"。 His scholarship shows as does his humane but not uncritical sympathy with his subject who contrary to the musical "Hamilton" is no pantomime cut out。 Professor Roberts dissects the 28 accusations in the Declaration of Independence， 26 of which he proves to be false or exaggerated。 His description of the fi Andrew Roberts has again benefitted by being given access to hitherto classified archives held by the Queen。 He has also ably mined the diaries of Frances Burney "Keeper of the Queen's Robes"。 His scholarship shows as does his humane but not uncritical sympathy with his subject who contrary to the musical "Hamilton" is no pantomime cut out。 Professor Roberts dissects the 28 accusations in the Declaration of Independence， 26 of which he proves to be false or exaggerated。 His description of the five bouts of madness endured by the King is poignant and he comprehensively dismisses the false diagnosis of Porphyria。 George did suffer from intermittent episodes of manic depression or bipolar syndrome。 Nevertheless， he had a happy marriage although did not get much joy from his fifteen children。 He was the first Hanoverian Monarch who felt more English than German and was the last King who ruled as well as reigned。 The loss of the colonies is addressed with much erudition and there is a great deal that is new to be learned。 On the credit side， Napoleon's adventures were subdued under his reign。 I particularly liked the portraits of the fifteen Prime Ministers who served under George including the less well-known ones "Pitt is to Addington as London is to Paddington"。 In short， there is plenty here to commend to an academic historian and to the general reader alike。 。。。more

Richard Munro ，

Obvious many TV interviews and much journalism are ephemeral。 But books are much more serious and lasting expositions of ideas and analysis of events and personalities。 Andrew Robert's books， as I have said many times， have that granite feeling of permanence and are a high example of the best of modern English prose。 George III is another modern masterpiece by Andrew Roberts。 Obvious many TV interviews and much journalism are ephemeral。 But books are much more serious and lasting expositions of ideas and analysis of events and personalities。 Andrew Robert's books， as I have said many times， have that granite feeling of permanence and are a high example of the best of modern English prose。 George III is another modern masterpiece by Andrew Roberts。 。。。more

Reference

google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=The Last King of America: The Misunderstood Reign of George III

hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=The Last King of America: The Misunderstood Reign of George III&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft

The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,The Last King of America: The Misunderstood Reign of George III&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0