WI: King George III visits the Thirteen Colonies? What happens?

[GameBawesome]

(I know this is a stupid and crazy idea, but I'm just curious)

What if King George III of Great Britain, decided to go to America, to asset the situation himself, and leave the ramblings of Parliament for awhile. This idea has two PODS; Pre-Lexington and Concord and Post-Lexington and Concord

• POD A-Pre-Lexington and Concord- What if King George III visited the Thirteen Colonies around the 1760s- late 1770s, to asset the situation in person, and to get away from Parliament
• POD B-Post-Lexington and Concord- (This is the least likely, but seems interesting) What if King George III goes to the USA to command the British Army himself, in a foolish idea of glory, and to get away from Parliament

With any of the two PODS, what could happen if King George III if he did go to the Thirteen Colonies/USA, and how long would he stay in either PODS

 

[HistoryGunsFreedom1776]

Well, assuming he's present at Saratoga / Bemis Heights and it wasn't butterflied away, a certain crackshooting backwoodsman by the name of Timothy Murphy might end his reign.

If I remember correctly, his father, King George II, was the last British monarch to command troops on the battlefield in-person but as it gradually became apparent that sharpshooters were taking shots at targets of opportunity not as prevalent as portrayed of course as the majority of the Continentals and militiamen used smoothbores the despised tyrant himself would only be making himself a tempting bullseye to knock down from the saddle.

 

[edgeworthy]

A pre Pre-Lexington and Concord visit might actually avert the conflict altogether. Despite his portrayal in some US popular history Famer George was a pleasant amiable man who was genuinely liked by the people of Britain.
About the last thing the Colonial Firebrands would want would be the general populace getting to know a friendly, modest, devout, book loving family man.

 

[Raferty]

A pre Pre-Lexington and Concord visit might actually avert the conflict altogether. Despite his portrayal in some US popular history Famer George was a pleasant amiable man who was genuinely liked by the people of Britain.
About the last thing the Colonial Firebrands would want would be the general populace getting to know a friendly, modest, devout, book loving family man.

Most partisans for Independence still toasted to his health before the Olive Branch Petition and it was clear from contemporary writings that the ministry was seen as the chief villain. There was a real "If only the Tsar knew" type energy common in most examples of popular rebellion against government policy without a driving urge against the person of the monarch himself, at least at first, and the American Revolution was no different.

This state of affairs only really changed once the Olive Branch Petition had been rejected and it became known that German mercenaries had been hired, at which point sentiment shifted. And even then, although the King was directly mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, most American political material still identified the British Ministry and Parliament as the enemy in the war afterwards. The King was seen as a hidebound reactionary on the American issue, with some merit, but as a topic of effigy, he was burned far less than people like Lord North or later on, Benedict Arnold, in pro-American demonstrations.

 

[Raferty]

A royal visit to America would have been treated with fawning enthusiasm on the part of colonial citizens regardless of political affiliation.

It is quite possible that Loyalist sentiment could rise if the visit was accompanied by clamored for political reforms and the co-opting of politically neutral elites

 

[Dan1988]

A pre Pre-Lexington and Concord visit might actually avert the conflict altogether. Despite his portrayal in some US popular history Famer George was a pleasant amiable man who was genuinely liked by the people of Britain.

Outside of the New England colonies, which were probably already lost causes. It will just make their independence process that much harder because they won't have as much sympathy from the rest of North America.

 

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

ObWI: he shows up unexpectedly in Hudson Bay Corporation lands to demand his two elk and two black beaver, or else he'll yank their royal charter.

 

[CaptainShadow]

ObWI: he shows up unexpectedly in Hudson Bay Corporation lands to demand his two elk and two black beaver, or else he'll yank their royal charter.

Lol

 

[Grand Prince Paul II.]

Royalist revolution and downfall of the whigs?

Generations of students have been taught that the American Revolution was a revolt against royal tyranny. In this revisionist account, Eric Nelson argues that a great many of our “founding fathers” saw themselves as rebels against the British Parliament, not the Crown. The Royalist Revolution interprets the patriot campaign of the 1770s as an insurrection in favor of royal power—driven by the conviction that the Lords and Commons had usurped the just prerogatives of the monarch.

Leading patriots believed that the colonies were the king’s own to govern, and they urged George III to defy Parliament and rule directly. These theorists were proposing to turn back the clock on the English constitution, rejecting the Whig settlement that had secured the supremacy of Parliament after the Glorious Revolution. Instead, they embraced the political theory of those who had waged the last great campaign against Parliament’s “usurpations”: the reviled Stuart monarchs of the seventeenth century.

When it came time to design the state and federal constitutions, the very same figures who had defended this expansive conception of royal authority—John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, and their allies—returned to the fray as champions of a single executive vested with sweeping prerogatives. As a result of their labors, the Constitution of 1787 would assign its new president far more power than any British monarch had wielded for almost a hundred years. On one side of the Atlantic, Nelson concludes, there would be kings without monarchy; on the other, monarchy without kings.

 

[funnyhat]

A pre Pre-Lexington and Concord visit might actually avert the conflict altogether. Despite his portrayal in some US popular history Famer George was a pleasant amiable man who was genuinely liked by the people of Britain.
About the last thing the Colonial Firebrands would want would be the general populace getting to know a friendly, modest, devout, book loving family man.

Keep in mind, the conflict wasn't originally against the king, it was against the Parliament. It only became a conflict against the king when it was clear that he sided against them, which is why the Declaration of Independence was only adopted in the summer of 1776, over a year after the war started.

If George III is moved enough by the Americans' complaints to make a trans-Atlantic journey, he may have a different attitude towards the Parliament as well and may urge a settlement. In 1775-76, British public opinion was divided on this issue, just as American opinion was. Many Britons were initially sympathetic to the Americans. The conflict developed into a war of independence, but at the outset it was a political dispute within the empire about the nature of political representation.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

Would it be a tour of the colonies or just a visit to the hotzone (Boston)?

Would he meet with the members of the Continental Congress or ignore them out of fear of legitimizing it?

 

[GameBawesome]

Would it be a tour of the colonies or just a visit to the hotzone (Boston)?

Would he meet with the members of the Continental Congress or ignore them out of fear of legitimizing it?

A tour of the throughout colonies, just to asset the situation, and too just get away from parliament for a while.

On the Note of the Continental Congress, that’s up to debate. He could meet with some of the representatives, just not all of them.

One thing I’m curious about is a Post-Concord and Lexington POD. If King George III was foolish and crazy enough to go to America and asset the army (also to get away from Parliament), could he be painting a target on his back, and Continental troops would try to capture him or the city he is in?

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

A tour of the throughout colonies, just to asset the situation, and too just get away from parliament for a while.

On the Note of the Continental Congress, that’s up to debate. He could meet with some of the representatives, just not all of them.

One thing I’m curious about is a Post-Concord and Lexington POD. If King George III was foolish and crazy enough to go to America and asset the army (also to get away from Parliament), could he be painting a target on his back, and Continental troops would try to capture him or the city he is in?

There's a definitely a chance of assassination, but it'd have to be a rogue, the Continental Congress wouldn't condone that.

Capture post Concord wouldn't be possible considering that the US forces in Boston and then New York lacked the ability to conduct any offensive actions.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

George wouldn't tour the colonies if they were actively fighting British troops

 

[HARRY]

I guess he could visit the colonies after 1763 with the end of the Seven Year War to inspect his new holdings like Quebec and dole out some knighthoods or lordships to some of the Americans involved. Sir George Washington Earl of Mount Vernon would not have been so willing to lead a revolt against the man who had given him the title.

 

[Deleted member 142663]

I am not sure a tour alone would solve the issues, although it would delay things for a while which may or may not be good for a united empire. Frankly, Britain is going to have to make some concessions to self-government in its settler colonies on the North American content if it expects to keep them from being troublesome.

Diplomacy and charm alone may buy another decade or two, but then Britain better hope that butterflies away the French Revolution because the creoles/colonist/what have your are still going to produce a cadre of ambitious and relatively capable men who won’t be completely satisfied not having all the rights of Englishmen as they imagine them to be and are at least a little suspicious of the metropole.

 

[Mort the Reaper]

A pre Pre-Lexington and Concord visit might actually avert the conflict altogether. Despite his portrayal in some US popular history Famer George was a pleasant amiable man who was genuinely liked by the people of Britain.
About the last thing the Colonial Firebrands would want would be the general populace getting to know a friendly, modest, devout, book loving family man.

Ironically, he was a lot like George Washington in a lot of ways.

 

[Azureora]

So long as the King is half way competent, he could see the Colonials as an opportunity to expand his base of support and coopt their interests as his interests. Because they kinda are. More representation in Parliament means more divisions for the Monarch to exploit, especially ones that would be immensely grateful to the King for sponsoring them.

 

[EWHM]

If King George could come up with the idea of a Dominion nearly a hundred years early, he might be able to mollify the colonists and keep them under the UK aegis.
The problem with what the colonists said they wanted---Parliament representation proportionate to their numbers as Englishmen---is that if they got it, two things would happen
1) Owing to their massively larger growth rate, the colonies would within a generation or two, wag the dog. In those days the government could do math, even comprehending exponential functions.
2) This would create pressure on other British colonies for the same deal, further aggravating 1).

On the other hand, if the colonies were separated into several dominions (e.g. the Dominion of New England, the Dominion of Canada, and the Dominion of the rest of the 13 colonies), King George could probably get something sustainable.