Declaration of Independence Question

[Malden_Capell]

@dougie_monty

Just what IS a “broadside,” anyway?

In printing, it’s a large sheet of paper printed on one side only - posters, proclamations, that sort of thing.

[Smapti]

@dougie_monty

Now that would be a shame… John Hancock, so the story goes, signed his name large "so that King George could read it without his spectacles. "

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

That’s an urban legend.

The truth is, John Hancock was 30 feet tall and just signed in his usual fashion.

[BrotherCadfael]

@Exapno_Mapcase

The one you saw can’t be the original if it was exposed to the air. The ink was badly fading on it by 1820. Any copy not sealed in a protective environment would be essentially blank today.

As I recall from my visit to the Archives, it practically is.

[Derleth]

@Smapti

The truth is, John Hancock was 30 feet tall and just signed in his usual fashion.

And he was still shorter than George Washington!

[BrotherCadfael]

@Derleth

And he was still shorter than George Washington!

From 1776: John Adams, talking to Benjamin Franklin:

It doesn’t matter. I won’t be in the history books anyway, only you. Franklin did this and Franklin did that and Franklin did some other damn thing. Franklin smote the ground and out sprang George Washington, fully grown and on his horse. Franklin then electrified him with his miraculous lightning rod and the three of them - Franklin, Washington, and the horse - conducted the entire revolution by themselves.

[dougie_monty]

@BrotherCadfael

From 1776: John Adams, talking to Benjamin Franklin:

It doesn’t matter. I won’t be in the history books anyway, only you. Franklin did this and Franklin did that and Franklin did some other damn thing. Franklin smote the ground and out sprang George Washington, fully grown and on his horse. Franklin then electrified him with his miraculous lightning rod and the three of them - Franklin, Washington, and the horse - conducted the entire revolution by themselves.

Sounds like Adams speaking from his experience as a lawyer giving summations before a jury. There couldn’t have been much money in being a professional heckler in the 18th Century.

[Saint_Cad]

@Derleth

And he was still shorter than George Washington!

AND John Hancock was not made of radiation nor did he stick an opponent’s wife’s hand in a jar of acid at a party.

[dougie_monty]

@Saint_Cad

AND John Hancock was not made of radiation nor did he stick an opponent’s wife’s hand in a jar of acid at a party.

No, but he sure cleaned up in the insurance business!

[Northern_Piper]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Nitpick: the office of Prime Minister did not exist in law until 1917. Prior to that, the “prime ministers” were officially just the leaders of the House of Commons (or quite frequently the House of Lords, and usually but not always First Lords of the Treasury.)

If you mean the Chequers Estate Act of 1917, it didn’t create the office of Prime Minister; it provided a residence for the “official now popularly known as Prime Minister.” The existence of the office of Prime Minister is taken as given, without any attempt to define it.

[Slow_Moving_Vehicle]

@Malden_Capell

Possibly, but what I know of George III I am not quite prepared to buy it. He came to the throne determined to be a lot more active as King than his two Royal predecessors and directed governments in a way not seen since Anne. He was certainly not an absolute monarch and had to work within a system set up by parliamentarians, but he was a political, active constitutional monarch.

The modern concepts of the monarch being ceremonial and impartial were a century away from being cemented.

I would wager he read it and had a lot of opinions about it!

Also, being British I love appreciating that we, the Brits, actually have the Declaration - after all, it’s not much of one if you keep it for yourself. The copy is in the US, the ‘original’ is here!

I’ve seen - and touched - it with my own eyes and hands too!

According to Barbara Tuchman, he always tried to heed an injunction given to him by his mother: “George, be a King!”

Also, even touching a broadside copy is way cool, so much style points for you, Malden Capell!

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@Slow_Moving_Vehicle

According to Barbara Tuchman, he always tried to heed an injunction given to him by his mother: “George, be a King!”

Also, even touching a broadside copy is way cool, so much style points for you, Malden Capell!

The Brits are nuts that way. I remember being able to touch the Rosetta Stone and wondering why on earth I was allowed to do so.

[terentii]

@Xema

There’s not much there for him to agree to - or perhaps I should say, his agreement would have changed nothing.

In The Adams Chronicles, which was a remarkably accurate dramatization of history (much of it lifted directly from the writings of the Adamses themselves), George III tells John when he’s presented as US Ambassador to Great Britain, “Mr Adams, I was the last to agree to separation.” (I believe those were the exact words that were used.)

If George wasn’t the driving force behind suppression of the rebellion, who was? Lord North?

[dougie_monty]

@terentii

In The Adams Chronicles, which was a remarkably accurate dramatization of history (much of it lifted directly from the writings of the Adamses themselves), George III tells John when he’s presented as US Ambassador to Great Britain, “Mr Adams, I was the last to agree to separation.” (I believe those were the exact words that were used.)

If George wasn’t the driving force behind suppression of the rebellion, who was? Lord North?

Edmund Burke?

[Northern_Piper]

George said he was the last to agree to the separation. Not that he was the last to agree to the suppression of the rebellion. Two different things.

[Derleth]

@Northern_Piper

The existence of the office of Prime Minister is taken as given, without any attempt to define it.

I am forever amazed at how informal the UK’s Constitution actually is. One of the most important offices just kind of happened and was never formally defined. It seems similar to the Privy Council (of which Canada has its own, as I understand) which is not to be confused with what transpired between two companions of the bath, which would be more accurately called the Crapper Colloquy.

[Northern_Piper]

The office of Canadian Prime Minister is similarly undefined. There were only two references to the Prime Minister in the Constitution of Canada, in two provisions which have now been repealed. There is currently no reference to the Prime Minister in the Constitution.

[Schnitte]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Nitpick: the office of Prime Minister did not exist in law until 1917. Prior to that, the “prime ministers” were officially just the leaders of the House of Commons (or quite frequently the House of Lords, and usually but not always First Lords of the Treasury.)

British constitutional “law” consists of more than just statutes; it includes a wide range of unwritten conventions which, even though they’re not codified, are still complied with in political practice and considered part of the “law”. There surely was such an unwritten convention long before 1917 according to which there was a political office called Prime Minister, appointed by the monarch but accountable to Parliament, who would have the power to advise the monarch on a lot of things, including ministerial appointments.

[Northern_Piper]

The lead paragraphs in the wiki article on the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom are a pretty good summary:

The office is not established by any constitution or law but exists only by long-established convention, which stipulates that the monarch must appoint as prime minister the person most likely to command the confidence of the House of Commons; this individual is typically the leader of the political party or coalition of parties that holds the largest number of seats in that chamber. The position of Prime Minister was not created; it evolved slowly and erratically over three hundred years due to numerous acts of Parliament, political developments, and accidents of history. The office is therefore best understood from a historical perspective. The origins of the position are found in constitutional changes that occurred during the Revolutionary Settlement (1688–1720) and the resulting shift of political power from the Sovereign to Parliament.[3] Although the Sovereign was not stripped of the ancient prerogative powers and legally remained the head of government, politically it gradually became necessary for him or her to govern through a Prime Minister who could command a majority in Parliament.

By the 1830s the Westminster system of government (or cabinet government) had emerged; the Prime Minister had become primus inter pares or the first among equals in the Cabinet and the head of government in the United Kingdom. The political position of Prime Minister was enhanced by the development of modern political parties, the introduction of mass communication (inexpensive newspapers, radio, television and the internet), and photography. By the turn of the 20th century the modern premiership had emerged; the office had become the pre-eminent position in the constitutional hierarchy vis-a-vis the Sovereign, Parliament and Cabinet.

[Northern_Piper]

And getting back to the question from the OP, note that the office came into its modern form in the 1830s. During George III’s reign, there was a Prime Minister, but the King still took a more active role in the government than monarchs from Victoria onwards. I would be surprised if the tradition of the King’s Speech being purely the product of the ministry of the day had emerged during George’s time; I would think he had some input into it.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Schnitte

British constitutional “law” consists of more than just statutes; it includes a wide range of unwritten conventions which, even though they’re not codified, are still complied with in political practice and considered part of the “law”. There surely was such an unwritten convention long before 1917 according to which there was a political office called Prime Minister, appointed by the monarch but accountable to Parliament, who would have the power to advise the monarch on a lot of things, including ministerial appointments.

I’m not saying the office did not exist. I am saying that “Prime Minister” was not an official title before 1917, when it began to appear in statutory instruments.