--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], off_world_beings <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > By the time > > > of Englishman George Washington's win over the British Republic's > > > rule, the King (King George 4th) was a powerless figurehead. > > Well, um, the prince who became king George IV was only 18 in 1781 and > not yet ruling. So yes, he wa quite powerless. However, his ruling > father, George III, while nowhere close to an absolute monarch, still, > it seems, was no simply a figurehead. > > "For George III, Pitt's appointment was a great victory. The King felt > that the scenario proved that he still had the power to appoint Prime > Ministers without having to rely on any parliamentary group. > Throughout Pitt's ministry, George eagerly supported many of his > political aims. To aid Pitt, George created new peers at an > unprecedented rate. The new peers flooded the House of Lords and > allowed Pitt to maintain a firm majority." > > "His [George III] chief contributions to the English throne were to > regain the royal powers that were lost to the crown by his > grandfather, George the Second, and his great-grandfather because of > their differences. Because of this regaining of power, he broke the > power of the Whig Party.">>
George whoever... You just proved my point. George the third was known for bowing to his ministers. George III was a puppet: "In 1773, a Boston mob threw 342 crates of tea, costing approximately £10,000, into Boston Harbour as a political protest, an event that became known as the Boston tea party. In Britain, opinion hardened against the colonists, with Chatham now agreeing with North that the destruction of the tea was "certainly criminal". [15] Lord North introduced the Punitive Acts, known as the Coercive Acts or the Intolerable Acts by the colonists: the Port of Boston was shut down and legislative elections in the Colony of Massachusetts Bay were suspended. Up to this point, in the words of Professor Peter Thomas, George's "hopes were centred on a political solution, and he always bowed to his cabinet's opinions even when sceptical of their success. The detailed evidence of the years from 1763 to 1775 tends to exonerate George III from any real responsibility for the American Revolution."[16] Wikipedia Pitt was a pragmatist and rationalist: "Pitt originally aligned himself with prominent Whigs such as Charles James Fox. With the Whigs, Pitt denounced the continuation of the American War of Independence. Instead he proposed that the Prime Minister, Lord North, make peace with the rebellious American colonies. Pitt also supported parliamentary reform measures, including a proposal that would have checked electoral corruption. He renewed his friendship with William Wilberforce, with whom he frequently met in the gallery of the House of Commons, and they formed a lasting friendship." Wikipedia You seem defensive? Do you really believe your American history that has been the propoganda in this country for 200 years? Look at the details from a bigger viewpoint. That is, Catholicism verses anti- sectarianism, the latter started by Queen Elizabeth I in the 1600's. Slavery was illegal in Britain centuries before US independence (though slave trading was apparently not). George III had little power and bowed to his ministers, and when Americans say they defeated the King, it is ridiculous and childish, based on 2 centuries of propoganda in this country. OffWorld
