Or, LawMonkey’s entry in the “SDMB Tries to Figure Out Constitutional Monarchy” series.
Inspired by the thread about when the monarch lost his/her last bit of power, I found myself thinking again about America’s least favorite monarch: George III. My recollection from my history classes in school was that George figured highly in Britain’s policy regarding the colonies, and the Declaration of Independence certainly takes aim squarely at His Majesty, not Westminster. But, as the various threads on this topic have told us, the office of monarch lost its “real” power long before that, with some argument about exactly when.
So what, exactly, was the deal? Did King George exercise merely persuasive power on Parliament, encouraging them to put down those uppity colonists? Was Jefferson’s indictment against “the present King of Great Britain” mere rhetorical flourish? How did it all work?
As has been noted the loss of authority of the British monarchy was a gradual process. George III was no Henry VIII, but he had “real” power and influence. It was limited and not at all autocratic ( though he was certainly accused of tendencies in that direction ) - it is true that Parliament enjoyed the upper hand. But nonetheless it is also fair to say that it was a co-operative process and Parliamentary governments could not yet stand alone in the face of royal hostility ( or at least mostly did not attempt to do so ). Particularly given the king’s influence over the House of Lords which had not had its fangs pulled yet and which George could expand by increasing peerages. George operated through Parliament, but he was active in manipulating factions and currying favorites.
George III politically was quite the active participant in government. And of course he was still the figurehead of executive authority, hence being a reasonable scapegoat for colonial hostility.
The King approved of Lord North’s policy towards the colonists but that doesn’t mean he was pulling the strings, or that the Revolution would not have happened with someone else on the throne.
The Declaration quite rightly addresses itself to the King because he was the Head of State, and the head of the government, and it was the British state and government whom the colonists felt they had a grievance with. It does not follow, however, that the king was principally responsible for all the policies carried out in his name, or, in particular, for those to which the colonists objected. AFAIK, he was not principally responsible for (in the sense of having devised or ordered) those policies. Nevertheless, they were being carried out in his name.
Thanks for that thread, Freddy. I may have to head over to the other thread to ask whether you might conceivably have a more “activist” modern monarch–one not exceeding his constitutional powers, but using his influence more than (as I understand it) good Queen Liz does. (Understandable, as Queen Liz is busy fighting nut-thieving bobbies in the palace. :p)
I think the answer to the OP’s query is that George III was VERY important in the American Revolution, more important than George XLIII was in the Afghan War, but less important than, oh I don’t know, say Henry VIII when he courted Mary Steward for Edward’s wife.