View Full Version : A message to George III of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
Chizzy
04 Jul 2006, 05:31 AM
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America (http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/)
http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/images/declarationscan.jpg
http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/images/trumbull.jpg
Happy 4th of July!:)
Onionsack
04 Jul 2006, 11:52 AM
Sometimes i wonder what would have happened if the Empire at the time had been more liberal with its control over the great colonies. I mean i beleive it was inevidable at some point the colonies would break away from the motherland, but i wonder if it was a peaceful seperation through like minded people and not through a rebelious group how are country would be governed today.
7-4-1776 was such a radical day, at that time those ideas were absolutly shocking.
The Declaration was before its time.
JBigjake
04 Jul 2006, 11:53 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_III_of_the_United_Kingdom
Legacy
While tremendously popular in Britain, George was hated by the rebellious American colonists. The United States Declaration of Independence held him personally responsible for the political problems faced by the United States. The Declaration does not blame either Parliament or the ministers, and exposure to the views expressed in the Declaration has led the American public to perceive George as a tyrant. This view is a historical consequence of the political climate of the times, wherein the true state of the King's governing powers and mental health were practically unknown by the general public, and even less so by the distant North American colonies ruled under his crown. Another factor that exacerbated American resentment was the King's failure to intercede personally on the colonists' behalf after the Olive Branch Petition.
George was hated in Ireland for the atrocities carried out in his name during the suppression of the 1798 rebellion.
Well, give George credit for one thing: at the end, in 1783, he immediately respected the US's independance and didn't seem particularly sour about it...in fact he greatly admired George Washington.
RichardL
26 Jul 2006, 07:13 PM
it's a bit late for a reply but...
Sometimes i wonder what would have happened if the Empire at the time had been more liberal with its control over the great colonies. I mean i beleive it was inevidable at some point the colonies would break away from the motherland, but i wonder if it was a peaceful seperation through like minded people and not through a rebelious group how are country would be governed today.
7-4-1776 was such a radical day, at that time those ideas were absolutly shocking.
The Declaration was before its time.
at the time the US colonies pretty much were the empire. It was only later that britain went on to set up the richest, most widespread empire the world has ever known, so it was hardly a death knell to imperialistic ambitions.
It could be argued that independence was gained because of the liberal ways the colonies were run. Being so far away a hands on approach wasn't really possible. In the end the colonies wanted a say in parliament, which today sounds reasonable, but back then was an almost outlandish request. Many important cities had no representation in parliament, nor did the majority of the english population.
to be honest it's not a period of history that many really know about here. We generally know vague details, but little more than that. Understandably, to you the events are rather more significant.
I think I gained most of my knowledge of events from the highly acclaimed academic scholar bill bryson. It was kind of strange to read about all these myths of the era being debunked, when I'd never even heard them in the first place.
I think the most significance to me however, is that if it hadn't happened, then on July 4th 2001 I wouldn't have had some madly energetic woman run up to me in a Boston park and give me a free box of wheaties. I was quite peckish, so they did the trick, even if a bowl, spoon and milk would have been handy.
Chizzy
04 Jul 2007, 11:08 PM
Happy 4th of July!
96Squig
05 Jul 2007, 01:15 PM
He was also king of Hanover, you ignorant yanks! (and quite loved there as well)
yossarian
05 Jul 2007, 02:42 PM
He was also king of Hanover, you ignorant yanks! (and quite loved there as well)
Oh, no......we know all about the Hessians.
;)
DoctorD
05 Jul 2007, 02:49 PM
wasn't the message
"Don't make us pay for the French and Indian War? And don't stop us from expanding west either?"
Alex_K
05 Jul 2007, 05:09 PM
He was also king of Hanover, you ignorant yanks! (and quite loved there as well)
Only long after American independence, though - when he became King of Hanover he was already insane, blind AND deaf.
usscouse
06 Jul 2007, 12:40 AM
Perhaps it's time for a title change
A message to George W, dictator of the United States of America
This one really is insane, blind to the needs of his people and deaf to their pleas for reason.
luciusmagister
24 Jul 2007, 11:56 PM
Perhaps it's time for a title change
A message to George W, dictator of the United States of America
This one really is insane, blind to the needs of his people and deaf to their pleas for reason.
Rule by decree or executive order?
Over easy or Benedict?
G.W.B. is George the II will there be a III?
RichardL
28 Jul 2007, 05:04 PM
Rule by decree or executive order?
Over easy or Benedict?
G.W.B. is George the II will there be a III?
not quite the answer you are after, but if Prince Charles becomes king, he will be known as King George III. Apparently he feels the name King Charles in associated with beheading (and spaniels)
by the way, is the USA the only country in the world where normal people will have II or III after their name, as in Davis Love III?
luciusmagister
28 Jul 2007, 06:07 PM
not quite the answer you are after, but if Prince Charles becomes king, he will be known as King George III. Apparently he feels the name King Charles in associated with beheading (and spaniels)
by the way, is the USA the only country in the world where normal people will have II or III after their name, as in Davis Love III?
My brother is a III, but I didn't know the rest of the world doesn't do that sort of thing to a name. :)
Might the world see two George's reigning at the same time? I hope if Charles becomes George III the world takes to him better than it has to George II (the U.S. version) or the last George III from the U.K. (who seemed to have some sort of quibble with his colonies). :D
Long live Cavalier King Charles (the spaniel)!!!!!