How Defeat in the American Revolution Strengthened Britain in India

The American Revolutionary War (1775-83) resulted in defeat for the British; however, its impact was very different in other parts of the world. Here Bilal Junejo explains how defeat in the war led to Britain strengthening its presence in India.

King George III of England, 1799/1800.

Of all the upheavals that dot the annals of the turbulent eighteenth century, it is improbable that many could readily vie in either import or impact with the seminal War of American Independence, a landmark which, whilst it tolled the death knell of imperial aggrandizement at one end of the globe, simultaneously, if inadvertently, also served to herald its retrospectively ineluctable flourish at the other by dint of the virtual liquidation that it secured of all non-Indian obstacles in the path of British expansion in India. Indeed, had it not been for this colossal western loss that preceded the eventually colossal eastern gain, General Charles Cornwallis, the Governor-General of India from 1786-93, might never have been afforded the means of expiating his ignominious capitulation to General George Washington at Yorktown in 1781.1 What might have happened in the case of the colonists’ defeat at British hands must necessarily remain the sport of conjecture, but what is certain is that with their victory, the eventual one of their erstwhile masters in London also became well-nigh certain in that illustrious subcontinent of Asia entitled India, the lure of the ages. The way Great Britain’s own fortunes were affected by the American fiasco directly determined the manner in which she would go on to determine those of India. Principally, the impact of the Revolution had two facets: one domestic and one foreign. But because the latter could scarcely have made any difference in the absence of the former, it is to the domestic aspect that we must first turn our attention, before proceeding to contemplate how it operated in conjunction with the other one to render the cumulative result of incorporating India as the brightest jewel in the British crown.

The immediate domestic consequence lay in the dissolution of that effete administration whose memory has become intertwined with the loss of the American colonies, and the hallmark of   which had lain in the anachronistic fantasies of a monarch and the correspondingly complaisant follies of his premier. The government of Lord Frederick North (1770-82) had distinguished itself not only by the acute myopia which had informed its dealings with the colonists since, at least, the Boston Tea Party (1773)2, but also by the slow, yet steady, erosion of those gains which had been consolidated in the practice of parliamentary government since the Glorious Revolution of 1688. King George III, the unfortunate disciple in his early years of the royalist tutelage that pervaded the philosophy of the ironically hapless Earl of Bute3, and in stark contrast to the relatively democratic predilections of the first two Hanoverians, ascended the throne with a vigorous resolve to effect the full exercise of royal powers, but in his personal capacity, a regression that would entail a gradual erosion of the need to govern through ministers responsible to parliament. The Settlement of 1689 had provided that thenceforth the government should be a constitutional monarchy, but the immediate consequence of that compromise, as Trevelyan explained, was to limit any further expansion of the royal prerogative, rather than effect its transfer from the sovereign to their ministers, which only transpired gradually over the decades— a classic example of what the Fabian Sidney Webb called the ‘inevitability of gradualness’. Of this inexorable transformation’s culmination, the essence was succinctly delineated by one Lord Esher, in a memorandum that His Lordship prepared for King George V in 1913, during the constitutional troubles over the issue of Home Rule for Ireland:

“Has the King then no prerogatives? Yes, he has many, but when translated into action, they must be exercised on the advice of a Minister responsible to Parliament. In no case can the Sovereign take political action unless he is screened by a Minister who has to answer to Parliament. This proposition is fundamental, and differentiates a Constitutional Monarchy based upon the principles of 1688 from all other forms of government.”4

The impact in Britain

It is not for us to delve into the constitutional implications of George III’s untoward proclivities, for all that need concern us here are the political ramifications, in the light of that era’s constitutional status quo, that would likely have ensued following a British victory in America. In any given society, it is axiomatic to say that an overseas victory achieved by the incumbent regime will redound to its credit and increase its popularity amongst the electorate, whereas any loss would only serve to undermine its popular appeal and support. Because the defeat in America was so categorical, the pretensions of the George-North administration were dealt a mortal blow, and the peril of a return to the polity of James II was practically expunged. Englishmen of the seventeenth century had waged a formidable Civil War for the blessings of political liberty and accountable government, restored Charles II when it seemed expedient to do so to restore stability after the less than favorable developments following Cromwell’s demise, but then again overthrown   James II a mere five and twenty years later when it appeared that his deleterious inclinations promised a return to the autocracy of his father’s days. It is, therefore, highly unlikely that had autocratic power begun to increase in the wake of a victory in America, the people (especially the Whigs) of Britain would have so submissively acquiesced in a renewed emulation of the traditions that still inspired the dilapidated ancien régime in neighboring France. Indeed, the famous writer and politician, Edmund Burke (1729-97), had begun to sound the alarm as early as 1770, even before the Revolution, when he published his pamphlet entitled Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents, arguing that King George III was upsetting the balance between crown and parliament in the British constitution by seeking to rule without due acknowledgement of the party political system.5 And in 1780, whilst the war was still going on, Dunning’s resolution— which lamented that “the influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished”— was passed by a distrustful House of Commons.6 Thus, it is not fanciful to suppose that victory in America would have given a fresh lease of life to the George-North administration, any continuance of which could have only served to deepen the fissures in British society. If the King could block Catholic Emancipation, despite his American failure, for as long as he lived, then one can only wonder at what he might have done had he won that redoubtable contest of wills on transatlantic shores. As it happened, though, a contretemps in America averted the much greater danger of domestic unrest and civil war at home, which would scarcely have conduced to the acquisition of empire in the world. The last Jacobite uprising of 1745-6, with all its turbulence, was still a living memory, and Bonnie Prince Charlie, the Young Pretender, was destined to live until 1788, which means that it was not impossible for him, or his nominee, to become the figurehead   of a popular resistance to a jubilant George-North oligarchy. An unstable metropolis cannot exude the aura of that infallibility and serenity which is indispensable for cowing a foreign people into deferential submission, even against their will.

The rivalry with France

The second aspect that merits consideration here is the impact that the Americans’ victory had on France, Britain’s historic— and, in India, the principal— rival and the chief abettor of seditious endeavors across the Atlantic. How the war affected France was aptly summed up by the historian, Herbert Fisher, when he observed that “for Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, no policy could have been more improvident, for not only did the American war give the final push to the tottering edifice of French finance, but the spectacle of republicanism triumphant and monarchy overthrown across the Atlantic kindled in every forward-reaching mind in France the vision of a Europe remade after the new American pattern of republican liberty.”7  Again, we can only speculate about what might have happened in the case of French neutrality or the Americans’ defeat, but what is certain is that after Washington’s triumph at Yorktown, and the ironic, not to mention portentous, fact that the treaty of peace and recognition between Great Britain and the new American democracy was signed at despotic Versailles, revolution in France became only a matter of time. The cost of the war was unlikely to have been inflamed to the degree that it was on the eve of the Bastille’s fall had it not been for the legitimate pride that the likes of Lafayette could take in the succor they had rendered the armies of Washington. France might have collapsed even earlier in the case of defeat in America, but it is also possible that she might have launched a fresh war of revenge in Europe for the distraction of domestic opinion from real domestic issues to manufactured foreign perils. And if France had lost, then England would have won, and thereby consolidated the insidious gains in royal power made by King George III up to then, resulting in British foreign policy coming to reflect royal predilections more and more, as opposed to those of Parliament. One must not forget that the English monarch back then, a Hanoverian, was also the Elector of Hanover at the same time, and if France had decided to avenge an ignominious failure in America by attacking Hanover to her east (thereby precluding the need to try to reach a conclusion with the Royal Navy), George III might have decided to focus his entire attention on saving his Electorate without worrying about Britain’s overseas possessions, and given the latent insanity with which we know, thanks to the benefit of hindsight, that he was afflicted, all sorts of untoward eventualities might have arisen.

The impact on India

How exactly did these two consequences cumulatively affect India? This is the question that constitutes the end of our discussion. In 1623, the massacre of Amboina had forced the English to withdraw from the East Indies. Now, Yorktown had also necessitated a kindred evacuation from the American colonies, so India was perforce the main attraction left for imperial gratification. But such gratification, quite naturally, presupposes uninterrupted stability in the metropolis, and this was achieved by the Revolution when it shattered the autocratic ambitions of King George III, any realization of which might have imperiled the island state’s security by precipitating a fresh civil war. And we must not forget that towards the end of the eighteenth, as well as the beginning of the nineteenth, century, some of the most crucial battles that would determine the fate of the East India Company in India were fought (e.g. with Tipu Sahib of Mysore and the Marathas). Even though France was wracked with internal unrest, the contagion of which soon pervaded the rest of Europe and did not abate until 1815, she was nevertheless able to create great problems for the British. Indeed, one of the main reasons for remembering Lord Wellesley, the Governor-General of India from 1798-1805, is his frustration of Napoleon’s plans, which encompassed burgeoning contacts with Tipu, to subvert the Indians.8 And when Admiral Nelson decimated the overweening French fleet at Aboukir Bay in August 1798, thereby annihilating any hopes of Napoleon’s advance eastwards to India, it was the East India Company that, out of profuse gratitude, rewarded him with a munificent ten thousand  pounds sterling, a stupendous sum in those days.9 To judge from the magnitude of this largesse, such were the fears aroused by the grandiose ambitions of a feverish and unstable France that one can only wonder what might have happened had the Bastille not been stormed in 1789— a cogently distinct possibility, but for that eruption which commenced at Lexington and was carried to triumph under the auspices of French arms.

Thus, the inevitable conclusion we draw is that the American Revolution, by domestically strengthening Britain at the same time as it domestically weakened France, made it assured that no serious challenge from without could henceforth arise to check the British rise within India. It was so because, to recollect the memorable verdict of Fisher, after the Peace of Versailles, “the continent merely saw that an empire had been lost. It did not perceive that a constitution had  been saved. Yet such was the case. The failure of the king’s American policy involved the breakdown of the last effectual experiment in personal rule which has been tried in Britain.”10 And it was from the ashes of this humbled royal pride that there arose the Pax Britannica. God bless Peace, and God bless Britain.

What do you think of the article? Let us know below.

1 John Kenyon, The Wordsworth Dictionary of British History (first published 1981, Wordsworth 1994) 93

2  Ibidem, 44

3  Ibidem, 55

4 G. M. Trevelyan, The English Revolution 1688-1689 (first published 1938, Thornton Butterworth Ltd 1938) 193

5 John Kenyon, The Wordsworth Dictionary of British History (first published 1981, Wordsworth 1994) 54

6 Ibidem, 118

7 H. A. L. Fisher, A History of Europe (first published 1935, The Fontana Library 1972) 861

8 Winston S. Churchill, A History of the English-speaking peoples (Cassell and Company Ltd 1957) Volume 3, pages 188-9

9 James Brown, The Life & Times Of Lord Nelson (Parragon Book Service Ltd 1996) 41

10 H. A. L. Fisher, A History of Europe (first published 1935, The Fontana Library 1972) 862

What if Queen Victoria never made it to the Throne? Part 2 - The Many Sons of George III

Queen Victoria is one of the most famous monarchs in history. Her reign of 63 years was the longest in the history of the United Kingdom until Queen Elizabeth II surpassed her, reigning 68 years and counting. Her name is synonymous with an entire time period. Surely there was never an individual that made such an impact on a country, if not the world.

But what if that had never happened? What if she never came to the throne? What if the original heir presumptive had lived to take the throne? And most importantly, how would the world have been different? This is an examination of those scenarios and how one death changed the entire world.

In part one (here) we discussed the tragic death of Charlotte, Princess of Wales, and her stillborn son. Her death had major ramifications on the royal succession. In part two we look at the sons of George III who all found themselves suddenly in need of wives in order to continue the Hanover line.

Denise Tubbs explains.

George III in the 1770s. Painting by Johann Zoffany.

Great Britain has had its share to succession crises over the centuries. The legitimacy of Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville and their subsequent children has been debated for over 500 years. During the reign of Elizabeth I, succession was a huge topic since she refused to marry. Even spanning back to 1066, the Battle of Hastings between William of Normandy and Harold Godwinson started as a result of a succession crisis. So, what is it about this crisis that separates it from the rest? Well, no other royal house had more effect on world events for the next 100 years. 

George III had a lot of kids. A total of 15 children - nine sons and six girls. Of his daughters, two never had children, two were never married, one died in childhood, and the last had no surviving children. The continuation of the house of Hanover lied solely with his sons. His son the future George IV and Ernest Augustus both had only one child. Ernest Augustus had a son days apart from Victoria, missing the title of heir by a mere three days (Victoria was born on May 24, 1819 and George was born on May 27, 1819). The future William IV had a total of 10 children. Unfortunately, none of those 10 were legitimate. Prince Augustus Frederick had three children from his marriage; however, because he got married in secret and without the permission of his father, all were deemed illegitimate. Prince Frederick married, but had no children. Prince Adolphus has children but not until after the births of Victoria and Prince George. Lastly, Prince Edward had one child with Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg Saalfeld (she was the sister of Prince Leopold, Charlotte’s husband) before dying at the age of 52. This child was Victoria.

The line of succession

Since George IV was the oldest son and heir apparent to his father’s throne, that made his heir Charlotte. But when she died in 1817, the new heir apparent would have been the second oldest son of George III, Prince Fredrick. He would die in 1827, so the heir became the third oldest son of George III, William. At the time of Charlotte’s death William, Edward and Adolphus were not married. Ernest Augustus had married two years prior. All three unmarried princes were pressured by the public to do away with their bachelor life, marry and have a child before the line had no one left. The three of them would get married in rapid succession of each other - all getting married in 1818.  

So, let us recap since this was a lot of information. By 1817, George lost his only child and heir in childbirth, Charlotte. At the time of her death, William, Edward, and Adolphus were not married nor had any legitimate children. Ernest Augustus was married but had no children yet. Frederick was married but with no children. Augustus had children but they were ruled illegitimate. If William became king after George IV, and none of the remaining sons got married, William’s heir would be Ernest Augustus (Edward would be dead by 1820, so he and Frederick will be out of contention). Ernest Augustus had a son in 1819, so the throne would have passed to him next. If his son had no heir and the remaining sons were still alive the succession would have passed to Augustus and Adolphus. The line would die after Adolphus. 

This meant that the first son to have a child would be the father of the future of the country. The game is set, and as mentioned above, Victoria is born three days before her first Cousin George of Hanover in 1819. If Charlotte had not died in childbirth, there would have been no need for those three sons to make their rush to the altar. Victoria, as a result, would not have been born and her direct descendants who had a major effect on world history as we know it today would be drastically altered. Furthermore, even with Charlotte’s, if Victoria was born after George of Hanover she also would not have been in direct line to the throne. There are then two what if possibilities: of Victoria never being born or born after her cousin.

Next up we will look at the children of Victoria and the effect they would have on world events. 

Now, read part 3, the final part, here: What if Queen Victoria never made it to the Throne? Part 3 – The Impact of Queen Victoria on Europe

What do you think of this royal succession? Let us know below.

Sources

Wikipedia

PBS drama Victoria

What if Queen Victoria never made it to the Throne? Part 1 - The Tragic Death of Princess Charlotte of Wales

Queen Victoria is one of the most famous monarchs in history. Her reign of 63 years was the longest in the history of the United Kingdom until Queen Elizabeth II surpassed her, reigning 68 years and counting. Her name is synonymous with an entire time period. Surely there was never an individual that made such an impact on a country, if not the world. 

But what if that had never happened? What if she never came to the throne? What if the original heir presumptive had lived to take the throne? And most importantly, how would the world have been different? This is an examination of those scenarios and how one death changed the entire world.

Denise Tubbs starts this series by telling us of the tragic death of Princess Charlotte of Wales.

Princess Charlotte of Wales and her husband Prince Leopold. By George Dawe.

Her name was Charlotte. Princess Charlotte to be formal.  She was the only daughter of King George IV and his wife Caroline of Brunswick. To say that her parents were in a loveless marriage didn’t quite cover the whole story. Prior to George’s ascension to the throne, he had been a party boy. He despised his father and used any chance he could get to live and spend his money. But as George III got older, he pressured his son to marry and have an heir. With him being the Prince of Wales, it was his duty. He was forced to marry Princess Caroline, Duchess of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel; a woman he found utterly undesirable in every way. Now there is a rumor that George had already been married and that his new marriage to Caroline was invalid. You see George had a love and her name was Maria Fitzherbert. The two of them had been in a torrid affair long before Caroline entered the picture. But there was a problem with Maria. She was a Catholic. And for those unfamiliar with English history, that’s not a good thing. The Church of England is a Protestant church; and its head is the reigning monarch. There were rules that forbade Protestants and Catholics from marrying. After a time of being together, it is suspected that the two were married in a Catholic ceremony held in secret. If it were true it would have thrown the succession and the state of the country into question. There has never been any confirmation of this, but his treatment of Caroline was downright horrible. Caroline’s story is a sad one, and she wouldn’t live long enough to see the events that later transpired.

The feeling was mutual on Caroline’s part. She hated George. After the wedding night, the two never found each other in the same bed. But at least one thing came of the wedding night. Charlotte was born just after the new year in 1796. Now that he had an heir, George felt his duty was fulfilled. Little did he know or realize that his father George III would eventually descend into madness. His madness was called “the madness of King George.” At the time, no one understood what caused the old king to lose all his faculties. His illness would later be a fear to all those descended from him. Every monarch after him feared that they too would get the madness. Later on, the theory was that his madness was based on the disease of Porphyria. Whether or not there is any truth is still debated to this day. 

George became more and more involved in the day-to-day responsibilities for his father until the old King died in 1820. But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. So much happened in the five years before the old king passed away that changed the history of the world. 

Charlotte grows up

As Charlotte became older, naturally she was told she would be wed to someone of equal stature. She had many suitors to choose from. She was introduced to William, Hereditary Prince of Orange, who did not make the best impression on her. There was a rumor that her father got a hold too that Charlotte wanted to marry Prince William Frederick, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh. This would be problematic since they were closely related. Prince William Frederick and Charlotte were both grandchildren of George III. This would make them first cousins, a bit too close in the bloodline. Her father was against this and berated her for even thinking of the notion. 

She eventually settled on a young Prince, Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. He was a German who had fought with Russia against Napoleon. They married in 1816, and she became pregnant with their first child soon after. On November 3, 1817 she went into labor. Up until that moment, Charlotte had what seemed to be a normal pregnancy. But it became apparent soon after that not all was right. She was having trouble pushing the child out, and time was passing quickly. On November 5 she finally gave birth to a stillborn son. Charlotte was exhausted after the ordeal and her doctors confirmed that the Princess was doing well.

Tragedy

However, the situation was far from ok. On November 6, Charlotte woke up to sickness. She vomited and held her abdomen in pain. The doctors were recalled to her bedside, while others rushed to wake Prince Leopold. The Prince, who had stayed with his wife throughout the previous days, was given opium and had gone to bed to rest. The doctor noticed she was clammy, cold, and bleeding. He could not stop the bleeding despite his efforts. By now Charlotte was having difficulty breathing, and they were having trouble waking the Prince. Sir Christian Stockmar, who was the primary doctor of Prince Leopold, had run into the room to see the Princess. She said the words “they have made me tipsy.” Sir Richard turned to go back to the Prince when the Princess shouted at him “Stocky, Stocky!” He returned to the room to find that the Princess was dead. 

Charlotte’s death sent shockwaves across the country. Only during the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, some 180 years later had there been this amount of grief in the nation. You could say that she was the Diana of her day. Adored by all, and a loss of not just to the Royal Family but the country too. Shops were closed for days, commemorative trinkets were produced in her memory, and windows and doors were draped in black. Her father was distraught with grief. So distraught, he could not even go to her funeral. They say her death changed him forever; he was never the same after. She is buried with her son in St. George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle. 

But there was one more thing that her death caused. A vacuum had been opened. And soon it would be large enough to have all of George III’s sons scrambling to find wives. Now that Charlotte was gone, there was no heir. She had been the only legitimate child of the Hanover dynasty. When George became King in 1820, a race began to see which of George III’s sons would have a legitimate child.

Next up, we’ll discuss the other sons of George III and just how weak Charlotte’s death made the monarchy.

Now, read part 2 here: What if Queen Victoria never made it to the Throne? Part 2 - The Many Sons of George III

What do you think the legacy is of Princess Charlotte of Wales? Let us know below.

A Founding Father in London. John Adams’ troubles

John Adams was one of the Founding Fathers of the USA. After US independence was achieved, he served in a number of positions, including as the US Minister to Britain, a crucial role at the time. Here, Steve Strathmann looks at how Adams fared while in London.

After the American Revolution and throughout the nineteenth century, Anglo-American relations saw many highs and lows. While the United Kingdom and the United States only went to war once during this period (War of 1812), tensions were always close to the surface. This situation made the position of United States Minister to the Court of St. James’ one of the most important in the US State Department. Among the many men who held this post (including five future presidents), three members of the Adams family served in London at points during or after times of war. John, his son John Quincy and his grandson Charles Francis all faced challenges during their terms, but each contributed to the slow but steady strengthening of bonds between the British and their former American colonies. This first of three articles will deal with the first American minister to London, John Adams.

A portrait of John Adams, circa 1792. By John Trumbull.

Meeting George III

At the time of his appointment to London in 1785, John Adams had been in Europe for about three years. During that period, he had served as ambassador to the Netherlands (a post he would continue to hold while in England) and served on the committee that negotiated the Treaty of Paris, which ended the war with Britain.

He presented his credentials to King George III on June 1, 1785. In his speech to the king, Adams stated that he hoped that he could help restore the “good old nature and good old humor between people who... have the same language, a similar religion, and kindred blood.”

John Adams later reported that George III seemed very affected by the meeting. In his response, the king stated that he was the last person to agree to the breakup between Great Britain and the American colonies. On the other hand, since it was now fact he “would be the first to meet the friendship of the United States as an independent power.”

Public Reception of Minister Adams

The choice of Adams as the chief American representative in Britain was widely scorned by the London press. This was no surprise, given Adams’ roles in promoting American independence and negotiating the treaty which achieved that end. According to historian Joseph J. Ellis, the press reaction to Adams was “much like the Vatican would have greeted the appointment of Martin Luther”. Adams took the way that some people acted towards him during his term as showing guilt and shame, as opposed to anger. He wrote in his diary after one awkward party in March 1786: “They feel that they have behaved ill, and that I am sensible of it.”

John’s wife, Abigail, had joined him in Europe. She helped fortify him against the attacks, but also had to deal with slights of her own. For example, the wife of an MP once asked her, “But surely you prefer this country to America?” John Adams’ official relations with British authorities were more cordial than with the press and some of the public, but that didn’t necessarily show up in any kind of diplomatic results.

Diplomatic Standoff

John Adams’ primary goals while in London were to settle violations of the Treaty of Paris and arrange a trade agreement between the two nations. Among the violations, British troops continued to occupy posts along the Great Lakes. When this was brought up to Foreign Minister Lord Carmarthen, he countered that prewar debts owed by American farmers to British creditors had yet to be paid, also a treaty violation. This is one example of the stalemate on treaty issues that Adams was unable to break during his tenure.

Adams also made no progress on a trade agreement with the British. The trade balance was firmly in London’s favor at this time. They felt no need to make concessions on items such as opening their West Indies ports to American ships. Unfortunately for Adams, he had just as many problems dealing with his own government as with Lord Carmarthen and the British.

This was because of the rules set forth under the Articles of Confederation. Congress had no power over foreign trade, so it could not help in arranging any trade agreement with Great Britain. The military was so weak under this system that it could do nothing about British forces on the Great Lakes even if it wanted to. Congress also proved slow in providing instructions to its ambassadors. In fact, when Adams requested to be relieved of his European posts in order to return home on January 24, 1787, Congress didn’t approve his request until October 5. Due to the slow pace of communications across the Atlantic Ocean, Adams didn’t receive this news until mid-December, almost a year after sending his request.

Progress Elsewhere

Though John Adams may have struggled in his negotiations with the British, this period was not unproductive for him. He, along with Thomas Jefferson, did finalize deals with several other nations. Prussia signed the only trade agreement that the Americans were able to complete during Adams’ term on August 8, 1786. A treaty with Morocco was signed in early 1787, in which the United States agreed to pay for the protection of American shipping. They also secured additional loans for the United States from the Dutch.

John Adams also made his thoughts known back home over the future of the United States government. The weakness of the Confederation Congress had led many to call for changes to, or an entire replacement of, the Articles of Confederation. Adams’ contribution to this debate was A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, which he had published in London and shipped to America. In this book, Adams argued for a bicameral legislature (as opposed to the single Confederation Congress) and an executive branch empowered to carry out the laws and defend the nation. The book was well received in the States, and James Madison wrote that it would be “a powerful engine in forming the public opinion.”

Return to America

John Adams made so little headway during his three years in London that his post would remain vacant for the next four years. In his final meeting with George III, the king assured him that when the Americans met their treaty obligations, his government would as well. After Adams left London on March 30, 1788, the Westminster Evening Post reported that he “settled all his concerns with great honor; and whatever his political tenets may have been, he was much respected and esteemed in this country.”

No one knew at the time, but this would not be the last time an Adams would represent his nation in the Court of St. James. In 1815, following another Anglo-American war, John Quincy Adams would assume his father’s former position in the diplomatic corps.

Read more about John Adams and why Independence Day may not actually be on July 4. Click here now!

References

Butterfield, L.H. et al., eds. Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. 3. Cambridge, MA: Belkamp Press of Harvard University Press, 1962.

Ellis, Joseph J. First Family: Abigail Adams & John. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010.

Holton, Woody. Abigail Adams. New York: Free Press, 2009.

Madison, James. Volume 1 of Letters and Other Writings of James Madison. Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott & Company, 1865. Accessed June 21, 2014. http://books.google.com/.

McCullough, David. John Adams. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001.

United States Department of State. “The United Kingdom-Countries-Office of the Historian.” http://history.state.gov/countries/united-kingdom. Accessed June 15, 2014.

The Worst King of England? The Story of George IV

King George IV of England was king for only ten years until his death in 1830, but he made a lasting impression. So much so that some have dubbed him England’s worst king. Georgie Broad explains why…

Upon the death of King George IV of England in 1830, The Times newspaper said of him “there never was an individual less regretted by his fellow creatures than the deceased king”. Hardly very complimentary, but it was a truth that was felt by the majority of English citizens during his reign and echoed by many historians today. Throughout his tempestuous and turbulent reign, George IV earned a great many enemies and was the butt of many libelous jibes and quips. But just how devastating was his rule, and should he really go down in history as one of the most dismal monarchs in British history?

Mistresses and Marriage

George’s life was not terribly rich in good relationships. He had a strained and poor relationship with his father, King George III, and these rocky relations carried on throughout his life. Even his “extra-curricular” interactions with his mistresses were dysfunctional, and they earned him a lot of unwanted attention. George IV’s father strove to cultivate an era of, as Dr. Steve Parissien puts it, “sexual respectability”, and to reinforce more traditional family values throughout the late 1700s and early 1800s. George IV was able to almost totally subvert his father’s moralistic hard work all by himself… With a little help from his litany of mistresses…

George IV acquired his first mistress at the humble age of seventeen, and was secretly (and illegally) married to one Mrs. Fitzherbert, a staunch Roman Catholic, before he married his wife Caroline of Brunswick. Through these various trysts with other women, George IV ended up fathering a considerable number of children. George did not always keep his mistresses under the radar, and allegedly connected with actresses and members of the aristocracy. This string of affairs led to something of an uncertain and tacky image of the king being created, one that did not sit well with a great many English people at the time. It also stood in stark contrast to the ideals that his father lay out before him.

After much persuasion, and due to the fact he desperately wanted to settle his debts, George married his cousin Caroline of Brunswick in 1795; however the marriage was a train wreck from its beginning to its rather prompt end after the birth of their only child, Princess Charlotte. George may have had problems, but he wasn’t the only one. Caroline rarely washed, was unfit, and so physically repulsive that George turned to copious amounts of alcohol to cope with the idea of marrying her. He was so drunk on their wedding night that he collapsed and remained in that temporary resting place until the next morning. These bad feelings about Caroline were not just confined to the king. Parliament and government disliked her too – to the extent that they offered her £50,000 to stay out of the country, which she hastily ignored before settling in London. Even so, when she was accused of having affairs, she was popular enough with various civilians that they greeted her and her carriage upon its arrival at the House of Lords.

So it seems then that among the dignitaries the marriage was not very popular, although the English people sat a little more on the fence. Alas for George, his problems didn’t confine themselves solely to the women in his life.

A cartoon of George IV and Caroline of Brunswick, reflecting popular opinion of the couple.

Regency and Rule

George IV did not walk right into his kingship. When his father was overcome by a recurrent illness, George IV stepped into the position of Prince Regent, something that allowed him rule of the country… in theory. During his regency and rule, George remained fairly disengaged with politics, instead preferring to leave such proceedings to governors and ministers. In doing so, the new ruler was taking a much less active role in government and the ruling of the country than his father before him. This once again proved quite a jarring difference between the new ruler and his father throughout the minds of the English people, and contributed to a social malaise in the country. In terms of representation throughout the United Kingdom, George IV visited Ireland and Scotland on state visits for the first time in many years. This of course promoted a sense of unity among the United Kingdom; however, in England, George IV was still leaving a lot to be desired.

Instead of looking toward the ruling of the country, George turned his attention to matters of style and culture, echoes of which can still be found in architecture today. Despite the fact that the majority of citizens disliked George IV’s reckless spending, his extravagant coronation was popular throughout the country, and helped him on his reign-long development of the more dramatic, theatrical and pageant-like side of monarchy that we can still see in the international aristocracy today. But his careless and excessive spending did not always strike such a chord in the nation…

The regal and wonderful coronation of George IV.

Drinking, Debt and Dining

The aforementioned debt that drove George to marry Caroline was beyond extensive. Before he became king, his debts reached heights of £630,000 in 1795, which equates to around £55,111,000 today, according to Michael De La Noy in his Pocket Biography of the King. Although various grants were available to help George IV out of his debts, the situation did little to ameliorate his public image. He instead created an image of a lavish and wasteful big spender to add to his womanizing ways, which often left the English public cold, especially due to the less than plentiful economic position of the country at the time.

One of the main things that George liked to spend his money on was drink and good food, a trend that persisted for the entirety of his reign. Toward the end of his rule, his health deteriorated so badly that he didn’t like to make many, if any, public appearances due to the public reactions to his weight though. Not only did these health problems lead to a rapid and irreversible deterioration in George IV’s public image, but it also had severe repercussions on his health. With the litany of health problems that dogged the latter years of the monarch’s life, from gout to suspected mental instability, the king didn’t so much as go out with a royal and regal bang, but instead something of an underwhelming fizzle.

A famous caricature by James Gillray showing George IV in his later, less flattering years

Legacy

Nowadays, we often praise and venerate Georgian style, from clothes to architecture and customs; however the monarch who created many of these trends has gone down in history as one of the worst that Britain has known. Positive reviews can be found of George IV, for example those of the Duke of Wellington, crediting him as “the most accomplished man of his age”, although you need to look through a lot of negative reactions first, including another from the Duke of Wellington detailing how George IV was in fact “the worst man he ever fell in with his whole life”. Contradictory, critical and downright cruel most of the time, accounts from during and many years after the reign of George IV have perpetuated an image of a useless, lazy, and unfit king; being petulant, easily swayed and irresponsible to boot. In that light, we must re-examine George IV and ask ourselves: is it fair to go as far as dubbing him the worst King of England?

Did you enjoy the article? If so, tell the world! Like it, tweet about it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below…

Image sources

http://www.historic-uk.com/assets/Images/carolinesecretaryvalet.jpg?1390900293

http://www.georgianindex.net/coronation/CoronationService.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3518/3640/1600/Gillray_Voluptuary_051126.0.jpg