George III: A Threat to British Democracy?

An idle question, based upon reading about the American Revolution.

I get the impression that by 1775, George pretty much had turned Parliament into a rubber stamp; using an enormous budget given to him by Parliament, he could basically bribe people at will, and the opposition was basically a rump (which, in its more fanatic moments, saw its position so bad that Fox was making contingency plans to flee the country).

So in short, whatever George III or his proxies wanted, happened. This convenient system seemed to blow apart during the Revolution and once George III started going temporarily insane, but it seems to me that if the Revolution had ened in 1776 or so (say, a disaster at Long Island) then George's control of Parliament would only be solidified.

Thoughts?
 
Hrm. Wouldn't such a system pretty much break down along with George III? If not when his health started to fail, then at least when he died?
 
Agree with the Admiral.

If you really want an absolutist Britain, the time to diverge would be before the Civil War. Charles I wanted to be a king after the absolutist model but faced challenges from an assertive Parliamentary class. Can they be dealt with somehow?
 
Not sure about an absolutist britain, but it seems plausible enough that, under the right circumstances, Britain could wind up with the democratic processes being retarded by decades if this system becomes more fixed.
 
Hrm. Wouldn't such a system pretty much break down along with George III? If not when his health started to fail, then at least when he died?

I don't see why. If you'rve already bribed Parliament, why wouldn't his successors continue to do so?

Mind, the Revolution suggests that the system could fall apart in a crisis.
 

MrP

Banned
I don't see why. If you'rve already bribed Parliament, why wouldn't his successors continue to do so?

Mind, the Revolution suggests that the system could fall apart in a crisis.

I suppose people tend to think of George IV as rather too hedonistic to be concerned with dominating Parliament. I really can't say much to be of use with this thread - intriguing idea though it is! - but that's what strikes me: that OTL's successor to George III never struck me as too interested with affairs, er, of state.
 
An idle question, based upon reading about the American Revolution.

I get the impression that by 1775, George pretty much had turned Parliament into a rubber stamp; using an enormous budget given to him by Parliament, he could basically bribe people at will, and the opposition was basically a rump (which, in its more fanatic moments, saw its position so bad that Fox was making contingency plans to flee the country).

So in short, whatever George III or his proxies wanted, happened. This convenient system seemed to blow apart during the Revolution and once George III started going temporarily insane, but it seems to me that if the Revolution had ened in 1776 or so (say, a disaster at Long Island) then George's control of Parliament would only be solidified.

Thoughts?

You know, SMS had a similar idea deriving from a more successful alt-seven years war for the UK: of course, he takes it to extreeme wankage.

http://www.webscription.net/chapters/1597801140/1597801140___3.htm

Bruce
 
Thoughts?

I don't know where you get the idea that bribery was not commonplace in British politics in this era. In fact it, and various other forms of corruption were commonplace until well into the 19th century. The government had a huge fund of money which it dispensed towards it's favoured people in all sorts of ways. Nothing spectacular in that. About a third of MPs in this period were under the direct bribery of the government. And that's what they came there for, by and large. As Soame Jenkins said in 1784:

Men.. get into Parliament in pursuit of power, honours and preferments, and till they obtain them, determine to obstruct all business and distress the government. But happily for their country, they are no sooner gratified, than they are equally zealous to promote the one, and support the other.

Most people went into Parliament to obtain commissions in the army, obtain preference for their trades or companies, to look after their brothers or fathers commerical or military positions. Hardly anyone was without a good deal of self-interest.

And there was no organised opposition in the way that we think of things now. There were just individuals who were, for whatever reasons, outside of the scope of the governments, uh, 'financial inducements.' British governments have always been tremendously powerful in relation to the opposition, and the government of that era was no different in this. The difference was between the people the King bribed directly, the 'King's Friends' (far from being a huge number as you seem to believe), and those that the sitting government did. There would be at least twenty MPs in every house whose seats had been purchased them by the government.

I don't really see the dichotomy between post-revolution George and revolution era-George either. They both took enormous interest in the affairs of state, as was expected of monarchs of that era. The only different is that George, after the revolution, got what he'd always wanted, in the shape of Pitt - administratively competent, with a stable ministry, and almost totally in league with his ideals. So for domestic reasons, there was just less reason for George to be that bothered with political adjudication in the way he had been in previous years. But he still hung over the whole process, as monarchs would continue to do until Victoria.

Almost everyone had been 'bought' by someone, and the King certainly played a role here just like the rest. But you are overstating George's influence over the process.
 
Last edited:
I think that's a pretty good explanation of 18th Century (and early 19th C) politics in Britain. I tend to find that non Brits tend to believe that the monarch in Britain was more politically active than they actually were - George III was interested but largely it related to ensuring that the country had a competant administration and one that wouldn't rock the boat. As he aged his involvement continued but was less active and largely concerned in trying to support the government against those opposed to them his son as a reaction automatically favoured those opposed to the government (and by extenstion his father).
He was determined to hang onto his American Colonies (just as almost every other European monarch would have been) but he wasn't as reactionary as is often stated and nor were the mistakes in British policy leading up to the rebellion his fault.
George IV was certainly interested and was active suprisingly abandoning his more liberal friends once he became Regent and then sovereign.
I don't know what the original poster meant by the "enormous budget" given the King.
Up to the 17th Century the cost of running the country was the responsibility of the crown to be paid for out of their hereditary incomes (derived in large from the crown estates) and their traditional revenue sources (feudal dues) and taxation (voted by parliament) - as Parliament gained in power that changed. By the time of George III his income was derived essentially from the crown lands which he transferred to the government early in the reign in return for an annual fixed income (its believed that a significant proportion of which he paid out to charitable causes) - The Civil List - which was designed to cover the expenses of the crown - taxation and the spending of revenue remained with the key offices of state and were seperate. During George's reign the State is believed to have cleared Royal debts running into the millions due to the growth of the Royal Family and the expensive lifestsyles of George's sons - financially George III was never particularly secure.
If you want an absolutist Britain you need to do it much earlier - have Charles I win the English Civil War and curb the power of Parliament or have James II cause a fresh civil war in 1688 and again defeat Parliament. Or if you want to be really clever try and avoid the manner of the English Reformation - Henry VIII relied very heavily on Parliament to legislate the new Tudor Imperial Crown (head of church and state) and over the intervening decades his complicated succession arrangements again relied on Parliament. As strong willed individuals Henry and Elizabeth were succesfull at manipulating Parliament (by which i mean the commons) and putting them in their place, the Stuarts less so.
Best way for that to happen is Catherine of Aragon dies unexpectedly (poison suspected) in 1529 - Henry freely marries Anne Boleyn (legitimately in the eyes of Catholics) however Anne does have reformist leanings so you might get a more gradual awakening than in OTL (i think an English reformation like the Scots was inevitable) but less reliance on Parliament.
However the overriding problem with establishing an absolutist state is that in England monarchs never had a standing army, never had complete freedom to tax their subjects and were hampered by Magna Carta which clearly limited the rights of the crown. So probably you'd have to have King John not fall into the hands of his overmighty barons at Runnymede!
 
I tend to find that non Brits tend to believe that the monarch in Britain was more politically active than they actually were - George III was interested but largely it related to ensuring that the country had a competant administration and one that wouldn't rock the boat.

Either that, or the system was actually more democratic than it was, which in my experience is an equally common misconception.

If anyone has seen the Blackadder the Third episode Dish and Dishonesty then they'll have a good idea of how politics in the late 18th and early 19th century operated. It's satire, but it's very accurate satire - the comic exageration is actually relatively mild.
 
Top