WI: George III dies in 1788

George IV becomes King 32 years earlier.

Pitt is thrown out, Fox becomes Prime Minister, and Great Britain becomes much more friendly with Revolutionary France if France continues on as OTL.

Who would George IV marry in this case?
 

Redhand

Banned
Having a monarch that was sane enough to rule on his own might be a bad thing for Britain. He was certainly not popular and with revolution across the channel things might get dicey. I don't think he would be that incompetent to cause a revolution but he was wasteful to the point of ruin and under the influence of favorites. His marriage would cause huge waves across Europe if he decides to play that fiasco out during the French Revolution as it would certainly have political connotations.

It'd be funny if rather than the old safe model of taking some German Princess from a powerless state George decides to get himself a French Republican bride if such a thing existed due to having a Whig ministry that wants to amend things with France. Josephine de Beauharnais becomes Queen Josephine of England. Lol
 
It'd be funny if rather than the old safe model of taking some German Princess from a powerless state George decides to get himself a French Republican bride if such a thing existed due to having a Whig ministry that wants to amend things with France. Josephine de Beauharnais becomes Queen Josephine of England. Lol

It would certainly have gone much better than his marriage to Caroline of Brunswick.

And a radical, reformist Britain allied to revolutionary France against Austria and Prussia… someone really should write this TL. It would be awesome.
 
Didn't George IV abandon his Whig friends and become much more conservative as soon as he gained power, or do you think that was mostly as a result of Fox's death?

Either way Fox was apparently at the peak of his influence over George IV in the 1780s, so I agree that he likely becomes Prime Minister. It's said that Fox would have likely eventually become Prime Minister OTL if it wasn't for the fact that George III absolutely hated him. Anyway, that could be an interesting scenario, Fox was definitely a much more forceful personality than George IV, so who knows where him taking the top office could have taken Britain during the French Revolutionary years. Though I don't think he'd be quite as radical in office as people might assume; gaining power has a strong tendency to make people keel towards the center. And there's no guarantee George IV might not unceremoniously toss him out at some point, especially if he thought he was getting too strong or popular.
 
Having a monarch that was sane enough to rule on his own might be a bad thing for Britain. He was certainly not popular and with revolution across the channel things might get dicey. I don't think he would be that incompetent to cause a revolution but he was wasteful to the point of ruin and under the influence of favorites. His marriage would cause huge waves across Europe if he decides to play that fiasco out during the French Revolution as it would certainly have political connotations.

It'd be funny if rather than the old safe model of taking some German Princess from a powerless state George decides to get himself a French Republican bride if such a thing existed due to having a Whig ministry that wants to amend things with France. Josephine de Beauharnais becomes Queen Josephine of England. Lol

George IV only became Prince Regent in 1811.

George III was sane from 1788 to 1811, with only a brief period of madness in 1800. He kept Pitt in power even when he had no majority in Parliament, except when he tossed him out for Addington for three years because of the Catholic issue. And Britain did well enough under him during the Revolutionary Wars, the Peace of Amiens, and the first phase of the Napoleonic Wars.

It was the death of his daughter Amelia that sent him permanently mad in 1811.
 
Last edited:
George IV always had issues with his nerves effecting his health, being Prince Regent and latter King often sent him to bed too ill to handle anything, he was a hard worker (not as hard a worker as George III) but idk if his nerves would hold up being King for 42 years, he died young (67) compared to his mother (74) and father (81) and at lest one of his sisters and one brother, Princess Mary (81), Ernest Augustus I (80), George IV drank too much, eat too much, abused Laudanum and was a nervous mess, I think being King would put him in the grave far sooner then 1830.
 

Redhand

Banned
George IV only became Prince Regent in 1811.

George III was sane from 1788 to 1811, with only a brief period of madness in 1800. He kept Pitt in power even when he had no majority in Parliament, except when he tossed him out for Addington for three years because of the Catholic issue. And Britain did well enough under him during the Revolutionary Wars, the Peace of Amiens, and the first phase of the Napoleonic Wars.

It was the death of his daughter Amelia that sent him permanently mad in 1811.

George III seemed to rule with a more hands off approach in the latter parts of his reign and I figured that it was just because his ministers wouldn't let him do anything of note. I don't really know all that much about his periods of lucidity and madness as far as dates go and that's why I figured he was crazy for the entirety of his latter half of rule even though that probably was an unfair assumption. The only time I can think of him doing something mostly of his own doing was the hamfisted recalcitrant attitude he took towards the American Colonies prior to the revolution, which could have easily been avoided and his decision to prop up useless politicians like Lord North and Lord Germain.
 

Redhand

Banned
It would certainly have gone much better than his marriage to Caroline of Brunswick.

And a radical, reformist Britain allied to revolutionary France against Austria and Prussia… someone really should write this TL. It would be awesome.

Those two made Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries look like a solid couple. They really must've hated each other and he racked up a Little Black Book of mistresses that rivaled the great Henry VIII.

Britains whole free trade thing may have made them more willing to deal with France then most in Europe would have. A Napoleon without having to deal with Britain might just be able to keep his empire. Who would bankroll the coalitions? Even Russia would probably fall in due time. Maybe Wellington marches into St. Petersburg. Who knows?
 
George III seemed to rule with a more hands off approach in the latter parts of his reign and I figured that it was just because his ministers wouldn't let him do anything of note. I don't really know all that much about his periods of lucidity and madness as far as dates go and that's why I figured he was crazy for the entirety of his latter half of rule even though that probably was an unfair assumption. The only time I can think of him doing something mostly of his own doing was the hamfisted recalcitrant attitude he took towards the American Colonies prior to the revolution, which could have easily been avoided and his decision to prop up useless politicians like Lord North and Lord Germain.


His ministers are his instruments, and when he doesn't like their policies, he throws them out.

Remember, he threw out the Ministry of All Talents in 1807, and Pitt in 1801, because of the Catholic issue.

William Pitt the Younger is his Prime Minister, he appointed him during 1783 when Fox and North had a parliamentary majority, and if Pitt does anything that George III doesn't like, (the Catholic Emancipation), he throws him out.

Really, the only sustained period of madness in his rule was in 1811-1820, before that, George III really ruled, and his policies were simply to have war with the French until they are defeated, except for Amiens which he viewed as a period experiment, and no Catholic Emancipation.

He was also determined that the Whigs will be kept out of office, something which he kept.
 
George III seemed to rule with a more hands off approach in the latter parts of his reign and I figured that it was just because his ministers wouldn't let him do anything of note. I don't really know all that much about his periods of lucidity and madness as far as dates go and that's why I figured he was crazy for the entirety of his latter half of rule even though that probably was an unfair assumption. The only time I can think of him doing something mostly of his own doing was the hamfisted recalcitrant attitude he took towards the American Colonies prior to the revolution, which could have easily been avoided and his decision to prop up useless politicians like Lord North and Lord Germain.

Yeah no. In some ways you could compare George III to Charles II, in that both were content to leave day to day governing to ministers, but jealously guarded their prerogatives and sacked any threat to their power.


As to the poor handling of the colonial crisis, that can only be said with the gift of hindsight. No European nation at the time would have allowed a colonial uprising to occur, nor would they have granted true political power to the colonists. Keeping North and Germain in power, yes that can be firmly placed at George III's feet, but the rest was pretty normal for monarchs of the era.
 
Keeping North and Germain in power, yes that can be firmly placed at George III's feet, but the rest was pretty normal for monarchs of the era.

But I seem to remember that Lord North was the only guy that could command support from both the House of Commons and the King for an extended period of time.

Just look at the ministerial instability of the 1760s, and recall Lord North's tenure. Lord North has something that all the other PMs in the 1760s failed to do. He established a secure, stable administration.

Something that Grenville, Chatham, Bute, Rockingham, Grafton failed to do.

And he was congenial to all people who matter, something that is not true to any of the above

I will quote J Steven Watson in The Oxford History of England:

"Lord North believed in gov't more than in his own ideas. He was therefore acceptable to the king. He had no intention of forcing any new policy on the commons. He too believed that sleeping dogs should be left alone. he was therefore acceptable to the ordinary member of parliament. He believed in conciliating as many leaders of importance as possible. He was therefore acceptable to any politicians except those who demanded the first places for themselves. In foreign affairs he believed in non-intervention in Europe and a firm but quiet colonial policy..."

And also.

"Between 1770 and 1774 Lord North successfully reestablished a stable administration, not on the king's influence so much as on his own tact. He had ha advantage over every first lord of the treasury since Grenville in that he was in the house of Commons himself..."

Basically North was an excellent leader of peace times, he was even popular before 1775. He repealed most of the Townshend Acts except that of the one on tea, and between 1770 and 1774 was the most calm period of relations between the colonies and the mother country. The East India Act was something that he didn't forsee, as he simply thought that the Americans won't object to paying for Tea from the East India Company as long as it was far cheaper than smuggled tea. He obviously miscalculated.

As a war leader, he was inadequate. Even North himself thought he was inadequate.

"Lord North felt as vividly as anyone how inadequate he was as a war-minister: he begged to be allowed to resign. The king, seeing no other man who could hold together a cabinet to prosecute the war, answered his lamentations with appeals to his loyalty and courage. It was difficult, certainly, to find a possible successor within the cabinet, while a look at the opposition showed nothing but feuds."

Basically, North was kept for lack of a better alternative. Remember, Chatham was sick, his son was still too young, Fox was not yet ready, etc...

His success in 1770-1774 and the memory of the instability of the 1760s kept him in office until 1782.
 
Top