Latest news with #GeorgeIII
Indian Express
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Why the US celebrates its Independence Day on July 4
The United States is celebrating its 249th Independence Day on Friday, July 4. This was the day in which the country's founding fathers formally signed the Declaration of Independence, officially ending British rule over the colonies. Here's a brief history. Discontent with crown More than 150 years after the first permanent British colonies emerged in North America, the colonists had grown increasingly frustrated with the Crown. With the 13 original colonies having no representation in the British Parliament in London, the 1760s and early 1770s saw the passage of a series of laws which imposed high taxes and curtailed colonists' activities. Legislations such as the Sugar Act (1764), the Tea Act (1773) and the Intolerable Acts (1774) were seen by Americans as excessive British interference in their lives. With the Enlightenment giving a rise to ideas of freedom and equality, the situation was ripe for an uprising. Boston Tea Party & beyond On December 16, 1773, an anti-British group known as the Sons of Liberty destroyed a shipment of tea sent to Boston by the British East India Company. The so-called Boston Tea Party began a resistance movement across the colonies against the oppressive tea tax — and the British Empire as a whole. The colonists claimed that Britain had no right to tax the colonies without giving them representation in the British Parliament. To decide further course of action, the 13 colonies came together to form the Continental Congress. The Congress initially tried to enforce a boycott of British goods, and meet King George III to negotiate better terms. But their attempts were in vain. This meant that by April 1775, all 13 colonies were fighting a full-blown war of independence against the British Crown. This war went on till 1783 when Britain formally recognised American independence after its military defeat. The American victory, in no small part, was made possible due to the support of Britain's European rivals — namely France, Spain, and the Dutch Republic. Declaration of Independence Years before 1783, while fighting still raged on, the Continental Congress declared American independence from British rule. On July 2, 1776, 12 of the 13 member-states of the Congress 'unanimously' observed that the colonies 'are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states.' As John Adams, who later became the second President of the US, noted: 'The second day of July 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival.' He was off by two days. The formal document solemnising the colonies' independence — the Declaration of Independence — was signed on July 4, the day that is still observed in the US as Independence Day. The Declaration read: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'
National Geographic
24-06-2025
- Entertainment
- National Geographic
Britain's first Black queen? The real story of Queen Charlotte
Scottish painter Allan Ramsay's portrait of Queen Charlotte in her coronation robes has inspired debate over whether she was Britain's first Black queen—a question that persists today, centuries after she ruled over Great Britain and Ireland. Image via ART Collection / Alamy Stock Photo When 17-year-old Sophia Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz caught her first glimpse of the London palace that was to be her home in 1761, she turned pale. She was set to become Queen of Great Britain and Ireland within hours, but she had never set foot in England or met her husband-to-be. What happened next is the stuff of royal history, brought to recent light in Netflix's limited series, Queen Charlotte: a Bridgerton Story fictionalizing the life of the timid German girl rumored to have been Britain's first Black queen. But who was the real Queen Charlotte? How Charlotte became Queen of Great Britain Born in 1744 in Mecklenburg-Strelitz, a duchy in what is now northern Germany, the princess had an unremarkable childhood in what other members of the European aristocracy considered to be a mediocre and provincial dukedom. But this would work in the young woman's favor when a far-off prince became king. In 1760, George III's grandfather died, making him King of England—and elevating his unmarried status as a matter of national alarm. George needed a wife, and he needed one fast, his advisers decided, so they mounted a desperate search for a Protestant princess to share his life and sire an heir. (Who was the first King of England? The answer is ... complicated) Just beneath this oval portrait of Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, you'll see the initials of the royal couple: G for George III and C for Charlotte. Despite the queen's initial timidity, historians say that the monarch by all accounts had a happy marriage. Image By Johann Esaias Nilson via BTEU/RKMLGE / Alamy Stock Photo Charlotte was unknown and thought to have no political connections or aims. This was seen as a plus by George's political advisers, who wanted British interests to prevail after the king's marriage. And so, though George had never met Charlotte, in 1761 an emissary proposed marriage on his behalf. Charlotte accepted, and the arranged marriage took place just six hours after the young princess arrived in England. While she spoke no English and had never met her husband before her wedding day, Charlotte was now Queen of Great Britain and Ireland. Everyone wanted to greet the new king and queen. At their coronation, so many well-wishers crowded them that it took two hours for their procession to make it from the street into Westminster Abbey. Soon, Charlotte had her first child, a daughter. She would go on to bear 15 children during her long marriage. Were King George III and Queen Charlotte in love? By all reports, the king and queen had an unusually happy marriage, and George III was a devoted father and husband. But court life was difficult for Charlotte. She clashed with her mother-in-law over the formal rules of the British aristocracy and found the expectation to bear plenty of heirs exhausting. By the time she had borne 14 of her 15 children, she wrote that 'I don't think a prisoner could wish more ardently for his liberty than I wish to be rid of my burden.' Charlotte struggled with the boredom and confinement of court life, but she found her own ways to deal with the crushing expectations of her new role. The year after her marriage, George bought her a large country estate owned by the Dukes of Buckingham. Buckingham House, now known as Buckingham Palace, was called the 'Queen's House,' and there she lived in comfortable domesticity, reading, doing needlework, and playing the harpsichord. These bouts of illness devastated the queen. 'The queen is almost overpowered with some secret terror,' wrote Francis Burney, one of Charlotte's attendants, in 1788. 'I am affected beyond all expression in her presence, to see what struggles she makes to support serenity.' Over time, the bouts turned into lengthy episodes, and the king was isolated and even incarcerated. Social stigma and lack of understanding of mental illness meant it was nearly impossible to help the 'mad' king or gain the kind of support now regarded as key for the caretakers and loved ones of people with mental illness. Eventually, Charlotte's eldest son George (later George IV) took over the throne as regent. But her husband would remain ill for the rest of his life. By 1789 the queen's hair had 'turned white' under the stress of the King's illness. When Charlotte died in 1818, her husband was so ill he didn't understand his wife was dead. (In the succession crisis that followed, this legendary queen was born) George III and Queen Charlotte pose with their children. The queen gave birth to 15 children—a responsibility of her position that she found particularly exhausting. Image By Richard Earlom, via National Museums in Berlin, Art Library / Anna Russ Was Charlotte really Britain's first Black queen? Today, Charlotte is remembered as a faithful wife and a tragic figure connected with the king's mental illness. But some see her as noteworthy for another reason—they claim she was Great Britain's first Black or biracial queen. For decades, historians have debated whether Charlotte's ancestral ties to Portuguese aristocracy meant she had brown skin. Those who believe she had Black ancestry point to portraits that show what they describe as 'African' features. They assert depictions of the queen as light-skinned would have been hiding her ancestry to conform with the era's Eurocentric beauty ideals. Others say the queen's ancestry was so distant it likely didn't affect her looks. They argue that modern conceptions of race drive the belief that Charlotte was Black. (Some describe Charlotte's ancestry as Moorish. Who were the Moors?) Since it's impossible to determine how Charlotte looked in real life, the argument will likely never be settled. Nor will public interest in her life, as evidenced by the Netflix series, which has gained fans and charmed reviewers. But as narrator Julie Andrews says in the show, 'It is fiction inspired by fact,' referencing the real-life Queen Charlotte. This story originally published on May 10, 2023. It was updated on June 24, 2025.
The Hill
22-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Good news: We've already been king-free for 810 years. But there's also bad news.
Resistance to tyranny, suspicion of concentrated power, and a firm belief in the democratic ideals that birthed this republic. It's a noble struggle. But for all their passion and theatrical flair, the historical literacy behind the 'No Kings Since 1776' slogan leaves much to be desired. In fact, the protestors missed the mark by several centuries. Yes, the U.S. declared independence from the British Crown in 1776. But the kind of 'king' these protesters seem to fear had already ceased to exist in Britain long before that. By the time George III ascended the throne, British kings were largely figureheads, bound by constitutional limits and dependent on Parliament to govern. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 had already drastically curtailed the powers of the monarchy. And indeed, if you want to pinpoint when monarchs lost their teeth, you need to look even further back, to 1215, when rebellious English barons forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. That document didn't create democracy, but it did begin a centuries-long process of transferring power away from the crown and into the hands of parliaments and assemblies. So, by the time the American colonies revolted, they were not really rising up against a tyrannical king, but against an unresponsive and overreaching Parliament. The rallying cry of the American Revolution — 'No taxation without representation' — wasn't an anti-monarchist slogan. It was an anti-parliamentarian slogan. The colonists didn't object to authority per se — they objected to being taxed and ruled by a body in which they had no voice. And they weren't demanding the abolition of kingship. They were demanding accountability, proportionality, and representation. They were asking for a seat at the table. Fast-forward to today, and that slogan might resonate more than ever. We don't live under a king, but we do live under a political system that often behaves as if it's immune to public influence. Our Congress — designed to be the voice of the people and a check on executive power — is frequently in lockstep with the president, regardless of which party is in office. Whether through partisan loyalty or political cowardice, our legislators often abdicate their role as a balancing force. They don't deliberate. They defer. They don't question. They rubber-stamp. The real issue isn't kingship but representation. And in the absence of real legislative independence, the presidency has become more monarchical than anything George III ever imagined. And this didn't start in 2025 or even in 2017. Every American president in modern history has wielded powers the British monarch couldn't have dreamed of: Executive orders, foreign military interventions without Congressional approval, surveillance regimes, and massive influence over the national budget. If protesters truly want to challenge creeping authoritarianism, the more accurate message would be: 'No taxation without genuine representation.' That would strike at the heart of the issue. If Congress does not act independently, if it does not reflect the interests and concerns of the people, then we are not truly being represented. And if we are not being represented, then why are we funding the machine? Of course, no one is seriously proposing that Americans stop paying taxes overnight. Civil disobedience has its limits. But protest must have a point, and slogans must have meaning. A movement that aims to hold power accountable must aim at the right target. 'No Kings' is, at best, historically inaccurate, and at worst, a distraction from the deeply rooted, troubling democratic predicament in which we find ourselves. A government system that would have the Founding Fathers turning in their graves. Imagine if all that energy, creativity, and public spirit were channeled instead into a campaign to restore Congressional independence, to demand term limits, to break the iron grip of lobbyists, to push for electoral reform, or to hold legislators to account for every vote they cast. That would be a revolution worth marching for. So, to the protesters in the streets: your instincts are right. Power must be kept in check. But your history is off, and your slogan is weak. Don't fear a king who never ruled you. Fear a Congress that no longer represents you. Daniel Friedman is professor of political science at Touro University.
Irish Times
22-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Irish Times
This is the moment when we find out just how mad a king Donald is
Maybe the mad king, the other one, wasn't so mad after all. 'George III is Abraham Lincoln compared to Trump,' said Rick Atkinson, who is vivifying the Revolutionary War in his mesmerising histories The British are Coming and The Fate of the Day. The latter, the second book in a planned trilogy, has been on the New York Times bestseller list for six weeks and is being devoured by lawmakers on Capitol Hill. As the 'No Kings' resistance among Democrats bristles, and as President Trump continues to defy limits on executive power, it is instructive to examine comparisons of President Trump to George III. 'George isn't the 'royal brute' that Thomas Paine calls him in Common Sense,' Atkinson told me. 'He's not the 'tyrant' that Jefferson calls him in the Declaration of Independence, and he's not the sinister idiot who runs across the stage in Hamilton every night singing You'll Be Back.' READ MORE ('And when push comes to shove, I will send a fully armed battalion to remind you of my love!') Yes, George III had manic episodes that scared people – depicted in Alan Bennett's The Madness of George III, a play made into a movie with Nigel Hawthorne and Helen Mirren. Palace aides are unnerved when the king's urine turns blue. 'He was in a straitjacket for a while, that's how deranged he was,' Atkinson said. 'His last 10 years were spent at Windsor, basically in a cell. He went blind and deaf. He had long white hair, white beard.' This is a poisonous moment for our country, with Trump unleashing our military on American citizens and letting ICE officers rough up Democratic lawmakers King George was relentless about his runaway child: America. 'He's ruthless,' Atkinson explained, 'because he believes that if the American colonies are permitted to slip away, it will encourage insurrections in Ireland, in Canada, the British Sugar Islands, the West Indies, in India, and it'll be the beginning of the end of the first British empire, which has just been created. And it's not going to happen on his watch.' Unlike Trump, who loves to wallow in gilt and repost king memes and rhapsodise about God's divine plan for him, George III did not flout the rule of law. 'The stereotype of him as an ogre is not historically true,' Atkinson said. 'He's called Farmer George because he's interested in agronomy and writes essays on manure.' The historian added: 'You can dislike him, but he's not a reactionary autocrat. He is very attentive to the requirements imposed on him as a consequence of the reforms in the 17th century, where he must be attentive to both houses of parliament. 'He's a child of the Enlightenment. He is a major supporter of both the arts and the sciences.' He plays the harpsichord and the organ and he's a great patron of the theatre.' (And doesn't try to co-opt it or force people to watch Cats.) Unlike Trump, Atkinson said, George III is not a narcissist: 'He's very committed to the realm, to his family. He marries this obscure, drab German princess, Charlotte, as in Charlottesville, Virginia, and Charlotte, North Carolina. They marry six hours after they meet. She learns to play God Save the King on the harpsichord on the voyage from Germany to England. He has the marriage bedroom decorated with 700 yards of blue damask and large basins of goldfish. 'Because, as you know, nothing says 'I love you' like a bowl of goldfish. He's devoted to her through 15 kids.' Atkinson said the only similarity between the pious monarch and the impious monarch manqué is 'the use of the military against their own people to enforce the king's will. There are incidents, the Boston Massacre, the Boston Tea Party.' He added: 'This proclivity for using armed forces for domestic suppression of dissent. That's a slippery slope in this country. It led to an eight-year war when George did it, and Lord knows where it's going to lead this time.' This is a poisonous moment for our country, with Trump unleashing our military on American citizens and letting ICE officers rough up Democratic lawmakers. He's still posting, madly, about the 2020 election being 'a total FRAUD,' and now he's calling for a special prosecutor to look into it. With the juvenile delinquent Pete Hegseth leading our military, Trump is recklessly jousting with Iran and threatening to assassinate the Iranian leader. The former opponent of forever wars in the Middle East is debating dropping bombs in the Middle East without military provocation against the United States – which did not work out well for us in the past – and dragging us into another unpredictable, interminable war. We find this truth to be self-evident: this is the moment when we find out just how mad a king Donald Trump is. Atkinson concedes he is as mystified as the rest of us by Trump's affinity for 'those who aren't bound by the rules by which we insist our leaders be bound. The fact that we're looking for a monarch to draw parallels to him is telling in and of itself, because that's not what we do. That's what the whole shooting match was about in the 1770s.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times
New York Times
21-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Who's the Mad King Now?
Maybe the mad king, the other one, wasn't so mad after all. 'George III is Abraham Lincoln compared to Trump,' said Rick Atkinson, who is vivifying the Revolutionary War in his mesmerizing histories 'The British Are Coming' and 'The Fate of the Day.' The latter, the second book in a planned trilogy, has been on the New York Times best-seller list for six weeks and is being devoured by lawmakers on Capitol Hill. As the 'No Kings' resistance among Democrats bristles, and as President Trump continues to defy limits on executive power, it is instructive to examine comparisons of President Trump to George III. 'George isn't the 'royal brute' that Thomas Paine calls him in 'Common Sense,'' Atkinson told me. 'He's not the 'tyrant' that Jefferson calls him in the Declaration of Independence, and he's not the sinister idiot who runs across the stage in 'Hamilton' every night singing 'You'll Be Back.'' ('And when push comes to shove, I will send a fully armed battalion to remind you of my love!') Yes, George III had manic episodes that scared people — depicted in Alan Bennett's 'The Madness of George III,' a play made into a movie with Nigel Hawthorne and Helen Mirren. Palace aides are unnerved when the king's urine turns blue. 'He was in a straitjacket for a while, that's how deranged he was,' Atkinson said. 'His last 10 years were spent at Windsor, basically in a cell. He went blind and deaf. He had long white hair, white beard.' King George was relentless about his runaway child, America. 'He's ruthless,' Atkinson explained, 'because he believes that if the American colonies are permitted to slip away, it will encourage insurrections in Ireland, in Canada, the British Sugar Islands, the West Indies, in India, and it'll be the beginning of the end of the first British Empire, which has just been created. And it's not going to happen on his watch.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
