George III has an attitude change by 1771, implications for America and UK?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What if we handwave that George III comes to a position of actively favoring conciliation with the colonists and prefers bending over backward to no antagonize them. I don't care why he does, he just does.

Let's further say this is the case from 1771 onward.

How will the situation in America evolve?

And even more interesting to me, how will English politics evolve with a King that is not backing up the fiscal supremacy of the Westminster parliament in America?

Would George III find himself in serious hot water with some parliamentary majority, or at least need to change his whole set of political patronage alliances within the UK to support his soft-on-America approach?

Is there any danger that the Westminster parliament as an institution could get so upset at the King not backing up their supremacy that *they* end up suspecting his motives may be a re-run of Charles-ish behavior and the parliament rebels?
 
As I've read it, George III was not the main problem. That was Patliament, who couldn't stand the thought of giving the Americans more autonomy than they permitted their own tenants, which was just a
bout none.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
That was Patliament, who couldn't stand the thought of giving the Americans more autonomy than they permitted their own tenants, which was just a
bout none.

Well at some point after war started didn't the parliamentary majority become *more critical* and less enthusiastic for war than the Crown and Court?
 
As I've read it, George III was not the main problem. That was Patliament, who couldn't stand the thought of giving the Americans more autonomy than they permitted their own tenants, which was just a
bout none.

As I understood it this was a the problem, but the opposition was Pro-America. What damned George was that America thought he would "have our back" and proved to be with Parliament. I think they hoped he would either influence Parliament or wait out the election cycle and help when a more sympathetic government was in power. Also wasn't Lord North his guy?
 
George III was not the entirety of the problem but he was the main one. Parliamejt at this time did not have one, or even two political positions. There were several factions and most of them were pro-conciliation. It's just that George disliked them for a combination of personal and other political reasons so kept them out of government, or undermined them in government. If George had switched to a pro-conciliation position then conciliation would have definitely been pursued. A deal could still have been done at this point, but it all depends on how far the King was willing to go. I have to say it would be highly out of character for the stubborn George III to change position and be ok with letting his power be reduced. Especially when he'd just put the hardline North into power.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
All that it took was some tact and proportionality. The unrest and trouble of the Stamp Act through Boston Massacre period was tempered a bit by the end of 1770 and the departure of British troops from Boston. Most colonial factions were advocating moderation at this point, and Parliament was not a problem.

What ultimately restarted the issues at hand from popping up again into crisis mode was the Gaspee affair, which was handled poorly by Parliament in that collectively Rhode Island was punished rather than just the ones who burned the ship, and this got things on the course towards the Tea party and most importantly, Intolerable Acts.

Had Parliament decided to handle the Tea Party with more tact and not bundled the hated Quebec Act into it (this act was said to have guaranteed Canada but lost Pennsylvania and Virginia), things might have gone fine.

Each colony had a breaking point. For Massachusetts, the ineptitude of Bernard along with the cracking down on smuggling (violating benign neglect) was what tumbled it into an inalterable course. For the rest of New England, it was the treatment of Boston and the Gaspee Affair. For Virginia, it was the Quebec Act and a hated Royal Governor, and for Pennsylvania, it was the proxy war between the Quakers and non-Quakers in the Assembly that the Revolution served as.

King George at any point in time could have decided he wanted conciliation, and it might not have mattered. He leaned Tory anyways, but was a popular King in the colonies until his address to Parliament in 1775, by which point, the die was cast for many colonies. Parliament ultimately decided what was what, and the opposition was pro-American but fragmented.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Is the only plausible outcome of an alt-George III's pro-colonial sympathies restraint of parliamentary policy, a lessening of American revolutionary fervor and paranoia, and America, the King and Parliament living happily ever after?

Or is there a real risk of a much messier outcome-

For instance -

A)Alt George III pro-colonial agenda weighs in and redirects the parliamentary process against use of force against the Americans. Does this set a precedent for more marginalized parliament or activist monarchy in later British history, or at least Kings more tempted to overreach on various issues, causing later conflict?

B) Alt George III's pro-colonial sympathy annoys the Westminster parliamentary majority as much as it makes the Americans feel like the good King understands them. The parliament starts to worry that the King is happy running America and Britain in personal union, which makes the King more independent of parliament in his power base. Will they be paranoid enough to feel like this is monarchical overreach they must stop lest they lose institutional power, possibly being suppressed by the King's Loyal Pennsylvania regiments some day?
[I owe this last idea to an essay from Michael Lind that I cannot currently locate]

We know 18th century American thinking was very much affected by paranoia of the kind that motivated parliamentary rebellion against the Stuarts in the Civil War and Glorious Revolution. Were British 18th century parliamentarians vulnerable to similar paranoid, slippery-slope thinking? Or perhaps they had more self-assurance and optimism about their position.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
is there any way america could have been established as a distinct kingdom with its own parliament/congress united with Britain in personal union under the King of England like england an scotland before the act of union in the early 1700s?
 
A)Alt George III pro-colonial agenda weighs in and redirects the parliamentary process against use of force against the Americans. Does this set a precedent for more marginalized parliament or activist monarchy in later British history, or at least Kings more tempted to overreach on various issues, causing later conflict?

George III was incredibly activist OTL, though. So I don't think this changes much.


Were British 18th century parliamentarians vulnerable to similar paranoid, slippery-slope thinking? Or perhaps they had more self-assurance and optimism about their position.

Depends; the Whigs were certainly worried at times.
 
Top