Why do Americans blame King George III for everything?

Question

I might be wrong, but from what I can see Americans like to think of their forefathers bravely fighting against the armies of a mad tyrannical king.

In reality however it wasn't like that. The structure of the government of Britain in 1776 was basically the same as it is today. Although the monarch is head of state, it's the Prime Minister who has executive power and is accountable to the democratically elected parliament. George III did state his opinion more than would be acceptable today, but all the controversial taxation was approved by parliament and Prime Minister Frederick North. Yet the declaration of independence is directed solely at the King, and Americans always say "we fort a war to get rid of a king", when in fact the war was fort against the policies of a Prime Minister.

Why blame poor old King George III of the United Kingdom?

Answer 1

You're wrong.  Very wrong.  The structure of the British government in 1776 may be similar to todays, but the power structure, and who has sway as opposed to who doesn't , couldn't have been more different.

Are you actually advocating that in 1776, the Prime Minister had the power rather than the King, simply based on the governmental structure and the taxation?  Today, perhaps your argument would be valid.  However, I believe you vastly underestimate the power of the King then.  He was not merely a ceremonial figure, as the Queen is now.  He had absolute, and all encompassing power.  And he used it.

To make a declaration of independence against the Prime Minister would have made little sense.  Against the King however, completely understandable and needed.  Not to mention that King George didn't have all of his marbles.  Not his fault.  Genetic fault.

Answer 2

By blaming the king, the Americans could bypass the Parliament's role in what they did with the colonies there. By constantly claiming the king was responsible for all of their mess and woes, it was easy for the Parliament, and therefore the regular people, to see the American Revolution as something that wasn't really worth fighting over. Since Britain had a larger empire to worry about, they eventually figured it wasn't worth holding onto the American colonies, and let them go.

However, had the Americans blamed the English as a whole, and not just the King, then it would've given the British more incentives to destroy the rebels, and quell the rebellion lest their success inspires other rebellions throughout the Empire.

As it was, the Americans were clever enough to just lay sole blame on the king, and not the true force of power behind him, the Parliament.

A present day comparison is also available. All the problems that the US is causing today can be simply blamed on the President. And although in this case he is largely responsible for much of this mess, Congress is the ones at fault for largely allowing him to pass his laws. But hardly anyone wants to blame Congress as a whole; rather, its easier to say Bush did it all, and its all his fault.

Likewise, King George III was an easy scapegoat to blame for all kinds of woe. Its his fault the Americans revolted, even if Parliament passed all these things that caused the problems the Americans didn't like.

Answer 3

When George III assumed the throne in 1760, upon the death of his grandfather, he was full of resentments.  Power had been draining away from the monarchy for seventy years, and he meant to reverse this.  His widowed mother encouraged this, exhorting him to "be a King, George.  Be a King!".

George III could have ensured himself a tranquil reign had he retained Pitt as his Prime Minister, and been content to reign as the royal figurehead you suggest he was.  His mother was being consoled by the third Earl of Bute, John Stuart, and it was to Bute he turned for guidance on how to "be a King".  Together they decided that Pitt must go and replaced him with Grenville, whom the King found tedious and called "Mr. Greenville".  Pitt had toyed with the idea of direct taxation of the colonists in 1759, when he was annoyed at what he thought was slow payment of war taxes from the colonies, but dropped the idea when he was assured that such a move would set off a firestorm of protest.

The colonists thought they had already paid quite a lot in taxes during the war, besides raising and supporting many thousands of troops for his majesty's campaigns in North America.  Grenville decided to impose taxes to help retire the remaining debt and to pay for the maintenance of troops in the colonies at levels never seen before.  With the French gone from North America, in no small part due to the fighting men of the colonies, who could these troops be meant for if not the colonists themselves?  The first protests at this scheme of taxation were from the King's own party, and as a policy it was most unwise, for it gave the nascent Patriot movement its cause.

Through subsequent ministers and different plans for taxation and other oppressive measures, the King held fast to his policy of bringing the colonists to heel.  Upon passage of the Port Act the King jeered from the throne at the weakness of the opposition.  "The die is now cast" he told North.  "The colonies must either submit or triumph."  

In his removals of Pitt, and of Grenville (due to affronts to his mother during the regency), and his selection of North, and his several refusals to allow North to resign, the King was much more actively involved in North American policy than you seem to imagine.

The essence of folly has always been to adopt policies directly contrary to your own self-interest, and then to cling to those policies with pathetic stubbornness.

Answer 4

How would the U.S be different if we hadn't fought the Revolutionary war?Would we speak a differnet language, have a radically different government etc.

Answer 5

It's part of American folklore. Americans were very proud not to be ruled by a king (it was quite a distinction in those days) and so they naturally focused on the king they had gotten rid of as the source of their grievances.

Answer 6

Good question and one which i've often wondered about.

George III even had some sympathy with the colonists and could understand their point of view, but being a stickler for proper Royal Protocol he had no desire to influence parliament - not that he really could anyway. After all, Britain had already gone through two revolutions in in the previous 100 years with two monarchs being ousted because of their political interference, one of which lost his head. King George wasn't silly enough to follow their example, for that would have been the actions of a tyrant.

Answer 7

I'll make this easy. Americans just didn't like having a king, they wanted to be free, so when they heard about America they went over and settled there.

Answer 8

Well, as my half Engish, American History teacher put it, we Americans were hot headed farmers at the time. But it is more than that. The simple reason is spelled out in any American history book: NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION; the 13 colonies were not represented in parliament, and so had no say in the taxes whatsoever even though they were free English citizens. All the other citizens of England had representation and so put simply, had a vote, we didn't and that sucks. Also, when it comes to blaming King George III, when something goes wrong in a country, the head of state is always the scapegoat, even though they do not make the final decision. i.e. in the U.S., we always blame the president, when congress makes the decision. That is what a head of state is for it seems: a national leader when things are going well, and in time of troubles, most likely the most disliked person in a nation., but that is dramatization I'm sure.