Quote of the Day: George III on Rebellion

 

A Proclamation, by The King, for Suppressing Rebellion and Sedition
King George III
August 23, 1775

Whereas many of our subjects in divers parts of our Colonies and Plantations in North America, misled by dangerous and ill designing men, and forgetting the allegiance which they owe to the power that has protected and supported them; after various disorderly acts committed in disturbance of the publick peace, to the obstruction of lawful commerce, and to the oppression of our loyal subjects carrying on the same; have at length proceeded to open and avowed rebellion, by arraying themselves in a hostile manner, to withstand the execution of the law, and traitorously preparing, ordering and levying war against us: And whereas, there is reason to apprehend that such rebellion hath been much promoted and encouraged by the traitorous correspondence, counsels and comfort of divers wicked and desperate persons within this Realm: To the end therefore, that none of our subjects may neglect or violate their duty through ignorance thereof, or through any doubt of the protection which the law will afford to their loyalty and zeal, we have thought fit, by and with the advice of our Privy Council, to issue our Royal Proclamation, hereby declaring, that not only all our Officers, civil and military, are obliged to exert their utmost endeavours to suppress such rebellion, and to bring the traitors to justice, but that all our subjects of this Realm, and the dominions thereunto belonging, are bound by law to be aiding and assisting in the suppression of such rebellion, and to disclose and make known all traitorous conspiracies and attempts against us, our crown and dignity; and we do accordingly strictly charge and command all our Officers, as well civil as military, and all others our obedient and loyal subjects, to use their utmost endeavours to withstand and suppress such rebellion, and to disclose and make known all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which they shall know to be against us, our crown and dignity; and for that purpose, that they transmit to one of our principal Secretaries of State, or other proper officer, due and full information of all persons who shall be found carrying on correspondence with, or in any manner or degree aiding or abetting the persons now in open arms and rebellion against our Government, within any of our Colonies and Plantations in North America, in order to bring to condign punishment the authors, perpetrators, and abetters of such traitorous designs.

Given at our Court at St. James’s the twenty-third day of August, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, in the fifteenth year of our reign.

GOD save the KING.

It was on this day in 1775 that King George III made his proclamation against sedition and rebellion in his colonies and authorized the use of force. What are you doing to celebrate?

Published in Group Writing
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 145 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. KirkianWanderer Inactive
    KirkianWanderer
    @KirkianWanderer

    Arahant (View Comment):

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):
    He didn’t have his first bout of serious mental illness until 1788, and went permanently insane in 1810.

    Pssst, there was a short one in 1765, too, but it didn’t come as close as 1788 in provoking a regency crisis.

    Ah, you’re right! My speciality, such as it is in the 18th century, is much more with party politics than monarchs. Hence the far too many fun facts I have on recall about Charles Watson-Wentworth, 2nd Marquess of Rockingham. He was a big part of the reason I got a first on a 10k word research project, so he (and Frank O’Gorman and Ross J.F. Hoffman in the realm of historians) is someone I regard as something of an old battle buddy. Spent way too many hours pouring over his papers, and the Duke of Newcastle’s (ugh, the soot stains and dust) in the British Library. 

    • #31
  2. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):
    George was an intelligent man, but I think in quite a few ways he was a deeply flawed (and not very good) leader. He overestimated his knowledge of the machinations of British parliamentary politics (which is how he spent most of his early reign being manipulated by Lord Bute), which actually led to the monarchy losing even more practical power, supported the slave trade and mercantilist policies which helped to alienate the American colonies, and made a bigger mess of the East India Company than it already was and would become over a petty dislike of Charles James Fox.

    Imagine that within the next two years you were to find yourself in his shoes. Would you be prepared to run Great Britain and Ireland and ChurHannover? He was twenty-two when his grandfather died. So, yes, he was overly influenced by Bute, and he made mistakes. But he also learned as he got older.

    As for the slave trade and mercantilist policies, what country wasn’t doing the same at the time? Do you know when Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations? (I know you do.) It was a bit late for George III to read it before the Revolution. Britain eventually took the lead on eliminating the slave trade. They were ahead of everyone else, but they were still men of their times, and that time was the time of agricultural civilizations. They were just starting to transition into the Second Wave Industrial Civilization where slavery was less practical. Likewise, the abolition movement was just getting started. You seem to be making the common mistake of evaluating historical figures from our time, not from theirs.

    As for Charles James Fox, well, he was a useless wastrel with some good ideas. Unfortunately, the former affected many more opinions than just that of the king.

    • #32
  3. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    I wonder if Biden’s handlers have been studying George III whose staff shared their current problem —- managing a public figure prone to say utterly batshit crazy things in public and even in official settings.

    You do His Majesty an extreme disservice, sir. While he did have his episodes (1765, 1788, 1810), much of his reign, he was fine. He was an intelligent and learned man. He was up on all manner of science and wanted the best for his people. Admittedly, he did have dementia in his last years, but by then, the Regency Act had been passed and his son was acting in his stead. Joe Biden was never half the man or half the leader King George was.

    First, for the record, I have never accepted the legitimacy of the Hanoverian usurpation. Second, a defense of Mr. Frederick on the grounds that he was a better man than is Joe Biden is not a low bar—it is no bar. Third, despite considerable power he never took a mistress which I believe would be a disqualification for Democrat politicians or at least a black mark. Last, the silly bugger never caught on to the fact that Americans are Americans precisely because we know that royalty is just a stupid idea.

    • #33
  4. KirkianWanderer Inactive
    KirkianWanderer
    @KirkianWanderer

    Arahant (View Comment):

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):
    George was an intelligent man, but I think in quite a few ways he was a deeply flawed (and not very good) leader. He overestimated his knowledge of the machinations of British parliamentary politics (which is how he spent most of his early reign being manipulated by Lord Bute), which actually led to the monarchy losing even more practical power, supported the slave trade and mercantilist policies which helped to alienate the American colonies, and made a bigger mess of the East India Company than it already was and would become over a petty dislike of Charles James Fox.

    Imagine that within the next two years you were to find yourself in his shoes. Would you be prepared to run Great Britain and Ireland and ChurHannover? He was twenty-two when his grandfather died. So, yes, he was overly influenced by Bute, and he made mistakes. 

    As for the slave trade and mercantilist policies, what country wasn’t doing the same at the time? Do you know when Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations? (I know you do.) It was a bit late for George III to read it before the Revolution. Britain eventually took the lead on eliminating the slave trade. They were ahead of everyone else, but they were still men of their times, and that time was the time of agricultural civilizations. Likewise, the abolition movement was just getting started. You seem to be making the common mistake of evaluating historical figures from our time, not from theirs.

    As for Charles James Fox, well, he was a useless wastrel with some good ideas. Unfortunately, the former affected many more opinions than just that of the king.

    I would agree with some of that, though figures like Rockingham and Edmund Burke had figured out that mercantilism was bunk, and were advocating free trade (maybe with slightly different names) even before Smith really came on scene. Likewise with the slavery issue, there was a pretty significant ant-slavery camp, championed by people as prominent as William Pitt, for a good portion of George’s reign. 

    I do take exception to the characterization of Charles James Fox. Did he frequent prostitutes, bars, and gambling houses? Yes, undeniably. But for the time that they worked in tandem, he and Edmund Burke were a Parliamentary dynamic duo, and Fox was an excellent public speaker, something Burke the “Dinner Bell” sorely needed to get his points across. He was fluent in Italian and French, and an excellent diplomat and negotiator. He championed religious freedom (especially for Catholics) and emancipation (even helped to make the end of the slave trade a reality) at a time when such things were deeply unpopular in much of the establishment, and made friends with men of all stations and opinions. While he may have had some very poor personal habits, and wrong options on the French Revolution, he was a deeply humane, smart, able politician, writer, and man. 

     

    • #34
  5. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    First, for the record, I have never accepted the legitimacy of the Hanoverian usurpation.

    A Jacobite? How quaint. If James had not been such a moron, he would have easily kept the throne. Instead, the English people gave it to his daughters.

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    Second, a defense of Mr. Frederick on the grounds that he was a better man than is Joe Biden is not a low bar—it is no bar.

    It took me awhile to determine who Mr. Frederick is supposed to be. Really, at the time had the British gone all French Revolution, they would not have used one of his given names as a surname. They probably would have called him Mr. Hanover, although the French went back past the “Bourbon” name. Perhaps they would have gone back all the way as to refer to him as Mr. d’Este.

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    Third, despite considerable power he never took a mistress which I believe would be a disqualification for Democrat politicians or at least a black mark.

    He was no Jack Kennedy, and that is for certain.

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    Last, the silly bugger never caught on to the fact that Americans are Americans precisely because we know that royalty is just a stupid idea.

    And yet several of the American colonies were revetments of Royalism during the Cromwell years.

    • #35
  6. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):
    I do take exception to the characterization of Charles James Fox.

    Everything you say in this paragraph is true, although I think there is no need to take exception. But putting the king into our time, one might call him a Never-Fox. He was a deeply moral man. Fox was a little too like the king’s heir, and was part of his son’s bad company. I do not personally get all sticky about Trump’s history, nor about Fox’s, but they have both been their own worst enemies at times.

    • #36
  7. KirkianWanderer Inactive
    KirkianWanderer
    @KirkianWanderer

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    I wonder if Biden’s handlers have been studying George III whose staff shared their current problem —- managing a public figure prone to say utterly batshit crazy things in public and even in official settings.

    You do His Majesty an extreme disservice, sir. While he did have his episodes (1765, 1788, 1810), much of his reign, he was fine. He was an intelligent and learned man. He was up on all manner of science and wanted the best for his people. Admittedly, he did have dementia in his last years, but by then, the Regency Act had been passed and his son was acting in his stead. Joe Biden was never half the man or half the leader King George was.

    First, for the record, I have never accepted the legitimacy of the Hanoverian usurpation. Second, a defense of Mr. Frederick on the grounds that he was a better man than is Joe Biden is not a low bar—it is no bar. Third, despite considerable power he never took a mistress which I believe would be a disqualification for Democrat politicians or at least a black mark. Last, the silly bugger never caught on to the fact that Americans are Americans precisely because we know that royalty is just a stupid idea.

    You and Lord Bolingbroke would get along quite well, at least until he abandoned Jacobitism in order to return to England in 1723. 

    • #37
  8. KirkianWanderer Inactive
    KirkianWanderer
    @KirkianWanderer

    Arahant (View Comment):

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):
    I do take exception to the characterization of Charles James Fox.

    Everything you say in this paragraph is true, although I think there is no need to take exception. But putting the king into our time, one might call him a Never-Fox. He was a deeply moral man. Fox was a little too like the king’s heir, and was part of his son’s bad company. I do not personally get all sticky about Trump’s history, nor about Fox’s, but they have both been their own worst enemies at times.

    Fox had the additional impediment of a far too over indulgent father, who thought it was a great idea to teach a teenager how to gamble and bring him to bawdy houses. I think it’s interesting that he and the supremely moral Burke got on so well for so many years. I read, a while ago, a very detailed analysis (about 10 pages) of the end of their friendship in a dissertation, it was heartbreaking stuff for 18th century politics.

    • #38
  9. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):
    Fox had the additional impediment of a far too over indulgent father, who thought it was a great idea to teach a teenager how to gamble and bring him to bawdy houses.

    True, and spoiling Charles even before that. Lord Holland did his son no favors.

    • #39
  10. KirkianWanderer Inactive
    KirkianWanderer
    @KirkianWanderer

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):
    I do take exception to the characterization of Charles James Fox.

    Everything you say in this paragraph is true, although I think there is no need to take exception. But putting the king into our time, one might call him a Never-Fox. He was a deeply moral man. Fox was a little too like the king’s heir, and was part of his son’s bad company. I do not personally get all sticky about Trump’s history, nor about Fox’s, but they have both been their own worst enemies at times.

    Fox had the additional impediment of a far too over indulgent father, who thought it was a great idea to teach a teenager how to gamble and bring him to bawdy houses. I think it’s interesting that he and the supremely moral Burke got on so well for so many years. I read, a while ago, a very detailed analysis (about 10 pages) of the end of their friendship in a dissertation, it was heartbreaking stuff for 18th century politics.

    https://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2694&context=luc_theses 

    This is the dis in question. The whole thing is well done, but the bit I mentioned is pages 71-93.

    • #40
  11. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):
    I think it’s interesting that he and the supremely moral Burke got on so well for so many years.

    All men are tempted by vice. Some may be so upright as not to notice or to be offended by those who make other than the “right” choice. Others acknowledge and understand, maybe not succumbing themselves, but forgiving those who do. Fox was a man of parts. As you have pointed out, many of those were very good parts.

    • #41
  12. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    • #42
  13. KirkianWanderer Inactive
    KirkianWanderer
    @KirkianWanderer

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):
    I do take exception to the characterization of Charles James Fox.

    Everything you say in this paragraph is true, although I think there is no need to take exception. But putting the king into our time, one might call him a Never-Fox. He was a deeply moral man. Fox was a little too like the king’s heir, and was part of his son’s bad company. I do not personally get all sticky about Trump’s history, nor about Fox’s, but they have both been their own worst enemies at times.

    Fox had the additional impediment of a far too over indulgent father, who thought it was a great idea to teach a teenager how to gamble and bring him to bawdy houses. I think it’s interesting that he and the supremely moral Burke got on so well for so many years. I read, a while ago, a very detailed analysis (about 10 pages) of the end of their friendship in a dissertation, it was heartbreaking stuff for 18th century politics.

    https://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2694&context=luc_theses

    This is the dis in question. The whole thing is well done, but the bit I mentioned is pages 71-93.

    No one would ever make it, because the topic is too niche, but I think a Burke-Fox buddy pic would be fabulous. Especially if you started it with the May 6th, 1791 House debate that ended their friendship, then went back in chronological order through their 25 years of association, and ended it with the two passing each other on Dover Street, Burke asking Malone after Fox passed him by “Did he look at me?” (Welcome to ‘what KW would do if she had $1o million.’)

    • #43
  14. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):
    The whole thing is well done, but the bit I mentioned is pages 71-93.

    It does look interesting.

    • #44
  15. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):
    (Welcome to ‘what KW would do if she had $1o million.’)

    Where is that rich Russian oligarch?

    • #45
  16. KirkianWanderer Inactive
    KirkianWanderer
    @KirkianWanderer

    Percival (View Comment):

    I blame you for reminding me that I have a (frankly excessive) collection of 18th century memes on my phone: 

    • #46
  17. GLDIII Temporarily Essential Reagan
    GLDIII Temporarily Essential
    @GLDIII

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Apparently, if George III ever heard of a run-on sentence, he liked the idea. That big ol’ paragraph up there is a single sentence.

    So this means you will stop badgering this G the III for his punctuation transgressions, I mean if the King gets a pass……

    • #47
  18. KirkianWanderer Inactive
    KirkianWanderer
    @KirkianWanderer

    Arahant (View Comment):

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):
    (Welcome to ‘what KW would do if she had $1o million.’)

    Where is that rich Russian oligarch?

    “Mom! I know William Shatner is 89, but he’s single and I could have the money to make that Burke-Fox buddy film I’ve always wanted. And maybe even enough left over to make Bernard of London: Take that Lawrence of Arabia!.” 

    • #48
  19. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    I blame you for reminding me that I have a (frankly excessive) collection of 18th century memes on my phone:

    That is a very fine collection.

    • #49
  20. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    GLDIII Temporarily Essential (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Apparently, if George III ever heard of a run-on sentence, he liked the idea. That big ol’ paragraph up there is a single sentence.

    So this means you will stop badgering this G the III for his punctuation transgressions, I mean if the King gets a pass……

    Fat chance, George III!

    • #50
  21. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):
    (Welcome to ‘what KW would do if she had $1o million.’)

    Where is that rich Russian oligarch?

    “Mom! I know William Shatner is 89, but he’s single and I could have the money to make that Burke-Fox buddy film I’ve always wanted. And maybe even enough left over to make Bernard of London: Take that Lawrence of Arabia!.”

    Well, there you go.

    • #51
  22. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):
    “Mom! I know William Shatner is 89, but he’s single and I could have the money to make that Burke-Fox buddy film I’ve always wanted. And maybe even enough left over to make Bernard of London: Take that Lawrence of Arabia!.” 

    And wasn’t he in a show that was set in Massachusetts?

    • #52
  23. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    This has been fun. Do any of you want to do tomorrow’s Quote of the Day?

    • #53
  24. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Apparently, if George III ever heard of a run-on sentence, he liked the idea. That big ol’ paragraph up there is a single sentence.

    Pretty common writing style in those days, though that one is remarkable. One of the things you notice when reading The Personal Memoirs of Ulysses. S. Grant is how much more modern his style is compared to his contemporaries.

    • #54
  25. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Percival (View Comment):
    Pretty common writing style in those days, though that one is remarkable. One of the things you notice when reading The Personal Memoirs of Ulysses. S. Grant is how much more modern his style is compared to his contemporaries.

    He was Hemingwayish before his time.

    • #55
  26. KirkianWanderer Inactive
    KirkianWanderer
    @KirkianWanderer

    Arahant (View Comment):

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):
    “Mom! I know William Shatner is 89, but he’s single and I could have the money to make that Burke-Fox buddy film I’ve always wanted. And maybe even enough left over to make Bernard of London: Take that Lawrence of Arabia!.”

    And wasn’t he in a show that was set in Massachusetts?

    Yep, Boston Legal. I haven’t watched it, but I know he played Denny Crane, an Alzheimer’s plagued trial lawyer.

    • #56
  27. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):
    “Mom! I know William Shatner is 89, but he’s single and I could have the money to make that Burke-Fox buddy film I’ve always wanted. And maybe even enough left over to make Bernard of London: Take that Lawrence of Arabia!.”

    And wasn’t he in a show that was set in Massachusetts?

    Yep, Boston Legal.

    See, made for each other, and he has contacts for making movies, too.

    • #57
  28. KirkianWanderer Inactive
    KirkianWanderer
    @KirkianWanderer

    Arahant (View Comment):

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):
    “Mom! I know William Shatner is 89, but he’s single and I could have the money to make that Burke-Fox buddy film I’ve always wanted. And maybe even enough left over to make Bernard of London: Take that Lawrence of Arabia!.”

    And wasn’t he in a show that was set in Massachusetts?

    Yep, Boston Legal.

    See, made for each other, and he has contacts for making movies, too.

    My parents would be thrilled. It was always their dream for me to marry a toupee sporting, formerly girdle wearing geriatric movie star with delusions of grandeur and enough ex-wives to almost make Henry VIII do a double take. 

    • #58
  29. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):
    It was always their dream for me to marry a toupee sporting, formerly girdle wearing geriatric movie star with delusions of grandeur and enough ex-wives to almost make Henry VIII do a double take.

    Well, his marriages lasted over a decade each, other than the one where she drowned. At least he wouldn’t be likely to live long enough to get rid of you. 😁

    • #59
  30. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    KirkianWanderer (View Comment):
    “Mom! I know William Shatner is 89, but he’s single and I could have the money to make that Burke-Fox buddy film I’ve always wanted. And maybe even enough left over to make Bernard of London: Take that Lawrence of Arabia!.”

    And wasn’t he in a show that was set in Massachusetts?

    Yep, Boston Legal.

    See, made for each other, and he has contacts for making movies, too.

    My parents would be thrilled. It was always their dream for me to marry a toupee sporting, formerly girdle wearing geriatric movie star with delusions of grandeur and enough ex-wives to almost make Henry VIII do a double take.

    What makes you think he stopped wearing the girdle?

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.