The Last King of America (Review)
The Last King of America by Dr. Andrew Roberts is a book I have been seeking for nearly fifteen years. Since I first started exploring the Revolutionary War, I soon developed a deep curiosity about the British perspective. As an American reading American authors, it is easy to grow enchanted by the characters who came together as founders of this nation that has overwhelmingly shaped history over the past 250 years.
Yet anyone reading about British-American relations in the late 1700s has to consider the seismic loss of an estimated 2.5 million citizens living in millions of fertile acres that were all under England’s domain. Yes, there were years of tension and then fighting that led to American independence, but I was immensely curious about what King George, parliament, and the English citizenry thought about the change. Fortunately, Andrew Roberts provided just the book I wanted.
As a slight warning, The Last King of America is nearly 800 pages, and it is biography focused more on King George III rather than a general history of the Revolutionary War from the British perspective. For someone like me who was more focused on the 1770s, I had to expel a bit more concentration as George’s life moved further away from the colonies. Yet his story remains both worthwhile and meaningful because he led his country for so many decades.
To reiterate, the title of this book belies how much of the content occurs with only a loose nexus to the American colonies. This focus is not a detriment, but it’s worth noting for expectations. Relatedly, since King George lived to 1820, I expected an analysis of the War of 1812—particularly since the United States came so close to falling back under British rule. This absence reflects that King George had largely become unfit to rule by 1810 and also illustrates that Dr. Roberts’s book is foremost a biography rather than an analysis of English-American relations. With this expectation set, I am grateful that Dr. Roberts wrote and shared The Last King of America. King George is far more than his portrayal in either Hamilton: the musical, Hamilton: the book, or any of the other history books I have read in the past. This books adds another great perspective to understanding the era as it relates to both the United States and Great Britain.
The following notes are some of the points I found interesting:
Roberts set the stage of George III by covering the volatile family life that he faced at birth. He entered life with his grandfather as king but a father who was hated by and estranged from his grandparents. Additionally, their hold on the throne was still tenuous because of their family’s Germanic roots. Finally, England was undergoing a change in its view of monarchy. The idea of a patriot king was a more limited monarchy than had once been the norm. Despite the harsh political conditions, George’s father, Prince Frederick, loved and cared deeply for his children as shown by surviving correspondence.
George’s reputation by some historians is that of a slow student. But his letters show a boy who was bilingual and writing well in English and German by 9 and translating Latin by his teens. He received a well-rounded, enlightened education in history, mathematics, science, and religion.
Another surprise of George’s surviving essays is his value for life, liberty, and the right of private ownership. Further, he described a balance of powers and John Locke’s idea of the social contract. He also wrote a striking contrast between his family, the Hanovers, with that of the Stuarts. George critiques the Stuarts for their despotic nature while highlighting the Hanovers for their constraints on monarchy and restraints on absolute power.
King George had a deep appreciation for music and played the piano, harpsichord, organ, and flute. Musicians who visited his court included George Frederick Handel and Johann Christian Bach. Mozart performed as an 8-year-old at Buckingham House for over three hours. Queen Charlotte commissioned pieces by Mozart. King George also offered significant funds and a summer home to Joseph Haydyn to keep him from returning to Vienna.
The collection King George acquired of fine art is staggering: books, maps, paintings, and more on a scale that is remarkable. As Roberts described George’s library—a collection the king generously made available to all sorts of scholars—I couldn’t help but wonder how the cost of these purchases fit into the equation of Britain’s colonies and taxation. It seems that there was more to Britain’s annual budget than just its warring nature. That does not, however, minimize the immense debt from the Seven Years War, which loomed large over Britain’s decisions in relation to its colonies.
During the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763) between Britain, France, Spain, and others, King George pushed hard for peace. During negotiations to end the war, one motivation for insisting upon taking Canada as a colony from France was maintaining security interests in the 13 American colonies. Britain’s leaders were concerned about losing the colonies to France if Canada followed a Franco path. The Treaty of Paris thus ensured Britain’s control of North America from Hudson Bay to the Gulf of Mexico.
King George was the first monarch since Elizabeth I (1558-1603) to never visit Europe. He never visited anywhere outside his region of England, which gave him an insular vantage. This isolation occurred despite travel to the Americas being relatively common in his lifetime. Interestingly, it would not have been unheard of if George had moved to the American colonies and reigned from there. That’s what his grandfather, King George I, did to secure the Hanoverian Kingdom’s dominion over England when he moved from Hanover to London. How interesting is it to imagine Great Britain’s dominion springing forth from New York or Philadelphia instead of London?
Historians and physicians have concluded that King George suffered from manic depression, which first appeared 1765, just as the American conflict was coming to a head.
The Stamp Act is a good reminder that nations seldom act in unanimity. There was a split in the House of Commons with many MPs demanding no such taxation of the American colonies. Yet we often learn history based on the final decision—in this case taxes by Great Britain. Even King George was less adamant about the taxes than is often presented. This detail is an example of how history is seldom as clear as many teach it.
The lack of continuity in parliament during the years leading up to the American Revolution is interesting in hindsight. New prime ministers took power and new ministers oversaw policies that affected the colonies. These changes led to a back and forth on taxation and posture toward the colonies, which must have contributed to the frustration by America’s leaders.
King George was a man of the Enlightenment Era, and he actively supported scientific advancement through his patronage and scientific understanding for himself. One venture was the James Cook mission to Tahiti to observe the transit of Venus as it passed across the sun. This observation allowed astronomers to calculate the size of the sun (and thus the solar system) because it had the ratio of the distance from the sun to the earth to Venus.
England’s leadership class believed that a majority of American colonists supported Britain’s sovereignty; it was only a small minority that wanted independence. Further, they believed America would crumble if Great Britain put up a show of force. Yet the reality was that Britain had given the colonies so much autonomy that it was more the taste of self-governance that prompted the revolution rather than King George’s tyranny. Consequently, any taxation provided a strong reaction because it impinged on previously enjoyed freedom.
The Intolerable Acts intended to hit Massachusetts hard and cause the other colonies to distance themselves from the Tea Party State. Instead, it had a galvanizing effect that bound the colonies together.
The Quebec Act, which sought to assimilate the French-Canadians in Quebec by granting free practice of Catholicism, was another detail that did not remain from my formal schooling. There were general mentions of religious liberty, but the specifics of connecting Protestantism against Catholicism and France was unfamiliar to me as Roberts addressed this law.
An interesting point that Roberts raised is that if Great Britain was as tyrannical and restrictive as is often presented, there would have been no allowance for the colonies to form a continental congress.
Massachusetts Governor, Thomas Hutchinson, returned to London in 1774 to debrief parliament on the status of Boston and America. He had a two-hour audience with King George, who asked about a bevy of subjects from specific American leaders (Hancock and Samuel Adams) to crop production (including the development of maize and rates of wheat production), and finally the status of Native Americans and their long-term prospects. After their discussion, Hutchinson wrote in his diary how expansive the king’s knowledge was of the colonies. Roberts concluded from this exchange that the Americas did not slip away due to indifference by King George.
Roberts gave an interesting analysis of America’s Olive Branch Petition, which the Second Continental Congress adopted in 1775. The petition asked King George to reconcile with the colonies, beginning with repeal of the Coercive/Intolerable Acts. King George refused to receive the petition because he knew the contents asked him the overrule parliament. This illustrates an irony in the colonists’ messaging: the constant refrain was that King George was tyrannically seeking power. Yet the colonists continuously asked the King to use a power that Britain’s constitution did not allow—overruling parliament.
In response to the strongest critiques of King George in the Declaration of Independence, Massachusetts Governor, Thomas Hutchinson, wrote the following: “A tyrant, in modern language, means not merely an absolute and arbitrary but a cruel, merciless Sovereign. Have these men given an instance of any one Act in which the King has exceeded the just Powers of the Crown as limited by the English Constitution? Has he ever departed from known established laws and substituted his own will as the rule of his actions?” His point is interesting in that I did not give any consideration to Parliament being in place when I think back to my study of the American Revolution, which always focused on the colonists versus the King. The colonists wanted King George to overrule Parliament and substitute the colonist’s desires in place of Parliament’s laws. Prior to reading this book, I think I would have presumed that King George dictated the laws himself in the late 1700s rather than the structure England actually had in place.
A primary reason that King George persisted in continuing the war was his concern that Britain’s other colonies would follow suit and demand their own independence. The effect would be permanent crippling of England.
While I knew of France’s concurrent war against Britain during America’s Revolutionary War, I did not know that other European countries joined the attack and that England was beset by the Gordon Riots, an anti-Catholic uprising. England was undoubtedly focused on issues other than merely defeating the colonists.
Within four days of signing the Treaty of Paris and bringing peace with France, Spain, and America, King George began writing his thoughts on the potential advantages of restoring friendship with the United States. Yes, Great Britain tried to return America to British control just two decades later, but George was prescient to see the economic virtue in adding an ally.
Frances Burney served as “Keeper of the Robes” to Queen Charlotte during George III's reign. She received the position because of her skills as a writer. During her time as Keeper of the Robes, Burney wrote diaries that offer great insight to the royal family. Burney was, however, no monarchist. Her politics were more republican and aligned with the Whigs of the day, and her writings were published after her death. Dr. Robert’s summarized Burney’s writings on King George as follows: “Inquisitive, gently teasing, and immensely good natured—preferring to let others speak rather than himself.” Burney also described the relationship between King George and Queen Charlotte as one of not only love but mutual affection; George seemed to deeply welcome Charlotte’s thoughts and did so with admiration and respect. This picture is far different from what I would have drawn based on my study of the Revolution.
Despite George’s numerous bouts with mental illness, his royal physicians failed to study any of the new medical books that addressed the subject during the time between his previous manic phase in 1804 and his final loss of sanity in 1810.
Dr. Roberts gave me a significant amount of insight that my previous reading overlooked. The insight to King George, parliament’s inner workings, and the general English perspective. His thesis—that America was less fighting a tyrant than it was fighting for autonomy—held firm throughout the book. For anyone who finds the Revolutionary Era interesting, you should add The Last King of America to your reading list.
