King George III: Mad or misunderstood?
The Madness of King George: the only insanity is Nigel Hawthorne losing out on the Oscar to Forrest Gump
The Madness of King George and the Evolution of British Politics.
Essential Questions:
• What is the relationship between the Crown and parliament in 1780’s Great Britain?
• What is the role of the King in British society at this time?
• What actions did Parliament take to increase it’s power and weaken that of the monarchy?
• How were mental health issues perceived and treated at the time? Had healthcare advanced much since the Middle Ages?
To the French Revolution:
• How does Britain as depicted in MKG compare to France in the 1780’s?
• How does the role of the Monarchy in England compare to that of the French King?
• Why do you think revolution takes place in France and not in Great Britain?
71 comments:
I feel that the relationship between the British parliament and the king was one similar to the president of today. If the parliament wanted to pass a bill but the king was against it the bill was dead in the water. Also the king had a large say in what was happening politically. But the king was quickly losing power and in a short amount of time the king would be more of a figure head than an actual political element in the British government. The power was still predominately held by parliament but the king still had a big say in what was happening politically because he was an authoritative strong figure. But when George III’s son took the throne the power of the king was lessened because he was a weak incompetent person.
I think that a revolution never occurred in Brittan because the people were better represented by their government and there was less of a need to drastically change where the power was held. The king was still a figure of great power but he actually did very little in comparison to the absolutist monarch which held control of France also the people of lower class were actually represented in the English government not pushed to the side in the “high class” form of government the French had.
In the case of mental health issues at that time, they were perceived as being insane and in-able to rule or work. In King George III's case he was considered crazy after he started to make no sense, for example in the movie he thought there was a flood when in fact there was none and gathered the kids and said to follow him to the roof and get everyone to high grounds. Also when an orchestra was performing for him he went up and excused the piano player and he began to play and conduct the orchestra. King George's son George(the fat one) wanted to get the Kings spot so he took advantage of the Kings illness and condemned him as mentally insane. So to treat his illness he was given antimony to try and make him less insane. It was found out that antimony contains arsenic and arsenic triggers poryphia a disease that includes epileptic seizures, abdominal pain and more. The doctors were actually making the king more "insane" with every antimony treatment.
To answer the question if healthcare had advanced since the middle ages the answer would be yes. In support healthcare had started to diagnose and give treatments that were not accessible during the middle ages such as the Kings treatment of antimony(which in fact hurt him more than helped). Also the physicians had started to test the urine like in the movie about how the kings urine was bluish and if the urine tasted sweet than there was something wrong. Overall healthcare had improved since the middle ages.
The madness of King George is a movie depicting George of England decent to madness and the political turmoil that ensues. In the 1780’s Great Britain’s parliament was in a prominent position it’s power increasing radically in comparison with the kings decadence and decline of the monarchy. As said by Pit the crown or king is basically a figure head of the nation with no true power. The role of the king as the main authority is steadily decreasing as parliament gains more control over the countries government. The new role of the king is a spokes person of the country a poppet of parliament who does as he is told. At this time George’s mental state was perceived as a sickness curable only by manipulating the four humors. This ideology was mostly ineffective and in some cases caused infection rather then any kind of recovery the patient most likely became increasingly ill du to infection. At the time healthcare was near useless and most diseases such as diabetes had no treatment. Healthcare improved dramatically even in this time period it was making great strides in prognostication and identifying sicknesses. King George’s disease would easily have been treated had it been today’s healthcare standards. This development of medicine is clearly seen trough the treatment of the many lesser sicknesses that are easily treated now but took so many lives in previous ages.
The English monarchy was much weaker then that of the French monarchy which at that time had near total control of it’s empire. The English parliament had much of the English empire under it’s control and often used the king more as a figure head than anything else. In comparison to the French government this English government was not as solely ruled by the king. This sole rule is shown by the disbanding of the estates general by the French king. There was never an English revolution because the parliament had already exerted there control over the monarchy and was basically in charge of the empire. In comparison the French kings were still keeping total control and denying the estates general. This lead to the French population rebelling against the French monarchy to try to reform there government system. The English population in comparison was much happier with the government system it had in place at the present.
The vast difference between the roles of the monarchies both in France and in England is shown in sharp relief by the movie. France during the 18th century had followed the rule of one of the most influential absolutist rulers in history, King Louis XIV. The French monarchy held fast to the belief of the divine right of king and viewed the monarch as the “sun king” who had complete control over French affairs. Although the “absolutism” of the king died a bit after the death of Louis XIV and the advent of his heirs saw weaker monarchs, for the most part, they still controlled a majority of what they wanted their government to do and say. The French did have a parliament however, but compared to that of the British government, they were much weaker. The Estates general was mostly held by various members of the nobility who owed allegiance to their king. The movie depicted the extraordinary power of the Parliament. When King George was periodically ill, they basically drafted a bill that put him out of office and his son, George in his place. To be able to unseat a king that was still alive (even if a bit crazy) by the passage of legislation would never be able to occur under the French monarchy. In England a more modern democratic form of government was taking place whereas France stuck to a more traditional form of government. Although the power of Parliament seemed quite a bit much, in the long run it worked for the better since Britain was the nation that rose to power while the French society declined into one of the most radical revolutions yet to be seen.
The role of monarchy in England and France appear to be very similar and based on the same concept; being a strong central monarch with slightly restrained power by the parliament in England and the Estates General in France. However, this draft at a constitutional monarch functioned very differently in both nations. In England, the parliament operates more democratically. Both sides of an opposing bill voice their suggestions and opinions. And if someone has something to say they are allowed to have their voice be heard, they’re not suppressed by a greater ruler. They are more equals trying to figure out the best way to govern. Because of this, a lot of the major decisions are up to Parliament, and not the monarch. However, everyone in Parliament was well aware of their place below the king. As we see in MKG, as soon as the king was well enough again, all of Parliament halted and the bill to take away his power was virtually forgotten. So in England we see the countrymen with a voice and place in government, unlike France. The parliament counterpart was the Estates General, which at this time was virtually useless given that they had not met for about 200 years. So there was nothing on a day to day basis to check the king’s power, basically letting him do whatever he wanted. He was all powerful with no restraints. So in comparison, the role of monarchy in England is much more limited than the role of the monarch in France, simply because he had no limits.
The French Revolution is synonymous with brutal battles, ruthless violence, and radical upheavals of government. Great Britain however experienced no such tumults; Parliament went on as it normally did, the king was kept safe and comfortable in the royal palace, and the people never rose up collectively in anger and rage. So why, in a time so chaotic, amidst public discontent widespread in both countries, and under the ruling of two incompetent kings, did such a drastic chasm in a turn of events occur? The answer largely lies in absolutism: the one major difference that separated Great Britain and France in the eighteenth century. Napoleon was the last of the enlightened absolutist rulers in Europe and his removal from power marked an end to such a style of ruling, but prior to him, the absolutist monarchy of King Louis XVI drove the people to unrestrained rebellion. The unstable governmental structure in France, in which the Parliament was constantly trying to steal the king’s power, while king desperately clung to whatever authority he had, created the perfect environment for a complete overturn of governmental structure. Also, as the government began to crumble and as its foundations were shaking, no party stepped up to the plate to preserve it. The destruction of the government was simply a free-for-all; a chance to recreate government in the way that you thought it would best suit your own interests. Finally, late eighteenth century France was characterized by a lack of respect for the king and patriotism, probably brought on by his absolutist ways. There was hardly a desire for the king’s well-being and good fortune, or a hope for the good of the country, only a desire to further one’s own ambitions. Patriotism in France did not arise until after the Revolution and the government had successfully been destroys, and it was that patriotism that inspired national pride in Great Britons that might have prevented England from falling to the same fate as its neighbor.
Now on to Great Britain. All of the things that caused France to go into a Revolution have been stated, and those same points apply to Great Britain in an opposite way, leading England to not have a Revolution. King George was far from an absolute monarch, in fact at the time power was beginning to peacefully transfer into the hands of the Parliament. Opposition that Parliament came up against in France simply did not exist in Great Britain. The closing scene of “The Madness of King George” illustrates a very important point, England’s love for their king. A massive crowd of people cheering and waving, as well as a large banner reading “God Save the King” convey what King George meant to his people. Given there were peasants and portions of the population upset over the economy, but just as there was no one to defend the government in France, there was no one leader to untie the people against the government in Great Britain.
France and Great Britain were both ruled by incompetent kings, however only a revolution takes place in France. Why this is so? I believe that the root of the difference was absolutism. Due to the Glorious Revolution, the monarchy in Britain was reduced to a constitutional monarchy, where the king was a mere figurehead. Like King George III said at the end of the movie, he was there to show people that they were happy. The government of the parliament was extremely stable as because each bill was read carefully by the members, argued on, and then voted for. No one in parliament was excluded this right. In comparison, the unstable structure of government in France, drove people to rebellion. In France, ever since the absolutist monarchy of the sun king, King Louis XVI, there had been a growing poverty, segregated social class system, and an urban financial crisis. The Estates General which had not been called for almost 200 years was segregated on class and did not allow the majority of the population a say. This and other social injustices created a situation in which an entire government upheaval was justified and necessary in the eyes of the French. The difference in the attitude toward the government can be seen by the last bit of the Madness of King George. Because the King was better he was cheered on the crowds who were overjoyed, screaming “Long live the King!”. Whereas in France the King was held prisoner and beheaded, a final show of affection. The reason there was no revolution in Great Britain like France was the difference in the political systems.
France and Great Britain were both ruled by incompetent kings, however only a revolution takes place in France. Why this is so? I believe that the root of the difference was absolutism. Due to the Glorious Revolution, the monarchy in Britain was reduced to a constitutional monarchy, where the king was a mere figurehead. Like King George III said at the end of the movie, he was there to show people that they were happy. The government of the parliament was extremely stable as because each bill was read carefully by the members, argued on, and then voted for. No one in parliament was excluded this right. In comparison, the unstable structure of government in France, drove people to rebellion. In France, ever since the absolutist monarchy of the sun king, King Louis XVI, there had been a growing poverty, segregated social class system, and an urban financial crisis. The Estates General which had not been called for almost 200 years was segregated on class and did not allow the majority of the population a say. This and other social injustices created a situation in which an entire government upheaval was justified and necessary in the eyes of the French. The difference in the attitude toward the government can be seen by the last bit of the Madness of King George. Because the King was better he was cheered on the crowds who were overjoyed, screaming “Long live the King!”. Whereas in France the King was held prisoner and beheaded, a final show of affection. The reason there was no revolution in Great Britain like France was the difference in the political systems.
France and Great Britain were both ruled by incompetent kings, however only a revolution takes place in France. Why this is so? I believe that the root of the difference was absolutism. Due to the Glorious Revolution, the monarchy in Britain was reduced to a constitutional monarchy, where the king was a mere figurehead. Like King George III said at the end of the movie, he was there to show people that they were happy. The government of the parliament was extremely stable as because each bill was read carefully by the members, argued on, and then voted for. No one in parliament was excluded this right. In comparison, the unstable structure of government in France, drove people to rebellion. In France, ever since the absolutist monarchy of the sun king, King Louis XVI, there had been a growing poverty, segregated social class system, and an urban financial crisis. The Estates General which had not been called for almost 200 years was segregated on class and did not allow the majority of the population a say. This and other social injustices created a situation in which an entire government upheaval was justified and necessary in the eyes of the French. The difference in the attitude toward the government can be seen by the last bit of the Madness of King George. Because the King was better he was cheered on the crowds who were overjoyed, screaming “Long live the King!”. Whereas in France the King was held prisoner and beheaded, a final show of affection. The reason there was no revolution in Great Britain like France was the difference in the political systems.
sorryyyyy
The role of the monarchy in Britain compared to the monarchy in France is very different in the run up to the French Revolution. In Britain the monarchy has lost much of its power and parliament has gained power through the political upheaval. The British monarchy had also reached its peak much sooner in history. At this time the British monarchy did relatively little in politics. The position of the monarchy was very similar to the prime minister today. The monarchy would suggest ideas to the parliament which would either be approved or not approved. Also by this time in British history the people demanded and received most of their rights independent of the monarchy which naturally makes the representative wings of government more powerful. King George III said at the end of the movie to his kinds to smile and wave. This is demonstrative of what the role of the monarchy was to Britain, a figure head.
In contrast to this the government in France was much more centered on the monarchy. First the France and the French monarchy unified and gained power much later than in Britain. This means that the monarchy was vastly younger than the British monarchy and still in its prime. There also was no representative government in France at the time. Officially the Estates General was supposed to be ruling with the King. The Estates General did not meet for twenty-years until it was called as a last ditch effort by the King to raise tax revenue. This gave all of the ruling power to the monarch because there was no other way to govern. Also, the format of the government gave the ruling classes significantly more power than the lower classes because the Estates General gave two votes to the rich while the general population had only one vote. Because of this the nobles were happy and did not have a reason to rebel against the king.
Britain and France had different types of monarchies near the end of the 18th century. Britain was a parliamentary monarchy, while France had an absolutist monarchy. This the most major difference between these two monarchies. In Britain the king had to share power with parliament. Through the movie we could see that the king in actuality did not have much of the power. The parliament had enough power to even overthrow the king when they wanted to. Parliament had the ability to tax and therefore held the power of the purse. In Britain the monarch would only suggest ideas to the parliament which would either be approved or not approved. Also by this time in British history the people demanded and received most of their rights independent of the monarchy which naturally makes the representative wings of government more powerful. Also seen at the end of the video, the king’s family is only a model or figure, not actual one with all the power. The French on the other hand found other sources of income to fund the state without the Estates-General. Not until the calling of the Estates-General and the beginning of the French Revolution did the monarch ever let the Estates-General have the power of the purse. There was nothing on a day to day basis to check the king’s power, basically letting him do whatever he wanted. He was all powerful with no restraints. The King was not checked on his power until the French Revolution. No organized power at the time could outmatch him.
The relationship between the crown and parliament in the 1780’s is somewhat similar to the roles of our president and congress. Both parliament and congress write and create bills and legislature for the state and it is the king, or president’s job to approve and pass or veto the bills put forth. Both the king and president have the job of addressing the people and making appearances, and leading people on the foreground.
The role of the king in British society at this time is to be a figure head for the people. He and his family had the role of being a model family for all of Britain. At the time he really had no or little power in actual governmental dealings within the country. He was there more for the ritual and tradition of the monarchy.
The relationship between the Crown and parliament in the 1780s in England was quite strange. They both had to try and work together to rule the country, but both wanted as much power as possible. The royal family wanted to keep the power that they had had for centuries. However parliament wanted more say in the government as well. Because of this tension between the Crown and parliament increased as each tried to outsmart or block the other for their own purposes.
At this time in British society the King played a much more important role than he does/would today. Back then the King would lead the country to war, make foreign policy, determine where funds were to be spent, and similar duties. Parliament had very little power. Now the prime minister and parliament hold virtually all the power and the royal family is just a figurehead. The crown just does things for show and has no say in politics.
One of the actions that parliament took to gain more power for themselves is passing of bills. If the heir to the throne was in question then parliament would back an heir if they would sign a bill giving parliament more power. This may give up some of their power but they would be secure in their position for the throne. They would rather be king with less power than to have the monarchy intact and not be king.
The relationship between the crown and Parliament is a distant one. At this point in history, the crown was more of a wealthy figurehead. The king technically was the official whom chose members of Parliament, but the real power was held within Parliament positions. Just as King George stated to his son “fat George” at the end of the movie, “Just smile and wave, and show that we’re a happy family.” Really, the only responsibilities of the Crown were to reassure the country that they were in good shape. The role of the king, is again the role of a figurehead. Mental health issues were received as extremely negative. If someone were to be suffering from a mental health issue at this time, they would be perceived as “crazy,” with no real means for recovery. Mental health care was treated in barbaric forms. These forms include blistering, leaching, and like the “doctor” in The Madness of King George, the king was strapped to a chair until he calmed down. Health care had almost no advancements since the middle ages, and doctors had hardly any understanding of the human brain.
I believe that revolution took place in France but not in Great Britain at this time, because although Britain did in fact have a monarchy, the powers of the royalties were limited. This contrasts to the abolitionist monarch ruling over France, whom took complete control over the government and the civilians. The people living in Great Britain trusted their king, in that he would not make rash decisions, and become too strong of an oppressor. The people of France felt as though they needed a revolution, because they had absolutely no power what so ever in the government, and they had no one left to turn to for help.
Britain in the 1780’s was much different than that of France at the time. France was ruled by an absolutist King Louis XIV for many years before his much weaker successors came into power. Because of all the debt Louis and his successors caused, France was in turmoil. People were paying extra taxes and living in poverty, while their rulers kept piling up the royal debt. The French Parliament was also very weak because of Louis XIV’s belief of an absolute monarch and that similar belief of his successors. Britain however had a strong Parliament at the time of King George III’s reign and was able to run smoothly while he was ill. His Prime Minister Pitt tried to keep control of Parliament while the king was ill, but the King’s son George was convincing parliament to make him Regent and even made a Bill to present to Parliament. The fact that Parliament could do all of this while the king was away shows its strength. The strong leadership skills of the King and Parliament during the 1780’s showed why England stayed strong and France went to turmoil. If France had had a strong government and parliament that thought for the good of the country and not about the King’s luxuries, the French Revolution may not have occurred.
Although both England and France were monarchical states at the close of the 18th century, France alone experienced a radical, internal solution that changed its government. Why this should happen in one country but not the other becomes clear in an analysis of the differences between the two monarchies. England had a monarch, but he was held in check by the potentially superior power of Parliament. The regent was unable, therefore, to make single-minded or excessively unpopular decisions. As can be seen in the Madness of King George, Parliament even possessed the power to dispose of what they deemed an unfit monarch and replace him with a suitable heir. Such power proves their significant presence in the British government. This system of balance provides a more stable and popular government. At the end of the movie, when King George’s recovered senses are proven to the Parliamentarians, they rejoice and sing their national anthem to express their relief and patriotism. This shows that most of them only voted to depose George because of his condition, not due to a power struggle. In the final scene, the royal family is greeted warmly by the people, where George reminds his son that they are to serve as a model family. This sums up their position as largely figureheads, which keeps them beloved by their people.
In France, an absolutist monarchy existed. The people, particularly the Third Estate, had no voice in the government; the French equivalent of Parliament, the Estates General, had not been called for around 200 years. The government followed the “sun king” school of thought which saw the monarch as the nation’s divine and rightful ruler, and therefore an unquestionable one. As the poor multiplied and the economy grew tight, and as the tricky issue of taxes was stirred awake, violence broke out and the people, feeling suppressed, lashed out at their government and beheaded their regent. The people who might have loved their king had his power been shared instead destroyed his government and fashioned their own. The difference between the success of England and decline of France lay in the power of its rulers and representation of its people, while not to the extent of America, to an amount the people found fair enough to live by.
During the end of the 18th century, prior to the start of the French Revolution the role of the King of Britain and that of the King of France was significantly different. As seen in the Madness of King George, at the end of the movie, George III even admits that his role is that of a figurehead and not a real ruler. England has a Parliament consisting of two houses that is used to represent the will of the people of Britain, the House of Lords and House of Commons. In France at this time however, the government was ruled by a mostly absolutist king in Louis XVI. Even though he was a dominant ruler over most of France at the time, there was great social unrest as nobles tried to use parliament to take power for themselves. Yet these people were not representing the lower class that made up eighty percent of the population. When both the king and the nobles fought for control and abandoned the common people to just follow the leader blindly, the commoners rose up in one of the most bloody and violent rebellion in European history. The main difference between the two countries was that in Britain, social classes were not as distinguishing as they were in France. The common man had more of a say in the way the country was run as the members in parliament really controlled the country, not the king.
The Madness of King George was a movie which focused on the political changes taking place during the reign of King George III and how his physical state deteriorated. The film presented the changes in government and how quickly things were taking a turn in British politics. There are many factors as to why there wasn’t a revolution in Britain while there was one in France. Great Britain had a constitutional monarchy and the Parliament became an essential part of government after the Glorious Revolution. King George III became more of a figure head than a monarch at the end of the film due to the strong reforms and actions being made at the parliament. With the King’s health condition, the Prime Minister had to take more responsibility for the current state of the government. As a result, Fox and others who wanted reform were able to take advantage of this opportunity to express their needs in The House of Commons in front of the Prime Minister. Slowly, the people began to gain more representation, and because the Monarch did not have much control, the political changes were tolerated. The situation in France was quite different in comparison. The Monarch had a stronger influence in French political affairs. King Louis XVI implemented an absolutist monarchy. While the British government allowed a House of Commons and House of Lords to make up Parliament and form decisions for the country, the First and Second Estates in France did not cooperate with the Third Estate. This infuriated the Third Estate, which included the middle classes and lower classes. They were banned from participating and had no say in the affairs which would end up mostly if not completely affecting their social class. Thus, there was a revolution in France because the French had no representation and were forced to rebel under such oppressive conditions.
I believe that the revolution takes place in France and not in Great Britain for a number of reasons. For starters, the government in England was more powerful and secure than that of France. In France, there was a lot of corruption throughout the government that did not allow for success. As shown in "The Madness of King George," Parliament was able to cause many improvements in English society, springing from the strong figurehead of King George III. On the other hand, in France there was the Estates General, which represented three different groups of people. Although, the nobles of the Estates General wanted to be held higher and be closer with the King in their ruling. This caused great tensions throughout all of France. Another reason why the Revolution occurred in France was due to the fact that France had problems with its economy. After the struggle of the Seven Years' War in America, France had spent so much money that it ended up being useless. In the end, the government and the citizens of England alike were much better off than France. After the death of King Louis XIV, there was very little that happened which benefited France. Overall due to the various economic problems as well as the general negative feelings, the revolution took place in France. In contrast, the government in England was influential enough the prevent a revolution from happening.
While watching MKG one is able to see that the English monarchy and the French monarchy were greatly different from each other at the time. I think that the main difference is the amount of power that rested with each of the monarchs. The French were operating mainly under absolutism, where the king controlled everything. They did have the Estates General, but that was now called very often. There was a point that the Estates General was called almost 150 years since the previous meeting. Therefore, the French king did not have as much regulation as the British king. Also, the French, mainly the lower class, were becoming increasingly angry with the absolute monarchy, which is completely different from the way the people view king George in MKG. During this time, we see that Parliament has gained a significant amount of power. As seen in MKG, King George was in no way an absolute monarch. Parliament was even going to overthrow him and have his son take his place, so we are able to see the amount of power that Parliament is slowly gaining. Also, the monarchies vary because the people still loved and believed in the king at the time. In MKG when it was announced that King George was no longer ill, the proposal to overthrow him and put his son to the throne was immediately throne out. The people were excited and happy to see him back in power and well. Therefore, even though the British monarchy was not absolute like France, people still knew there place under the king and they still wanted him to rule.
A revolution occurred in France as opposed to Great Britain for many reasons stemming further back than just the apparent. The most obvious cause of the French Revolution can be awarded to the absolutist government, as opposed to Britain’s constitutional monarchy. However to determine the causes of the revolution we must examine the problems within French society in the late 18th century. Before the revolution, France was based on the idea of privilege (system of inequality) by the three orders estates. Two of which were controlled by the nobility and bourgeoisie, while the last estate was controlled by the commoners who constituted the vast majority of the population. Herein lays the roots of the French Revolution within the political grievances of the common folk. Upon being dissatisfied with their disproportional government representation, people were becoming more and more frustrated with the government’s inability to solve the periodic economic crises. These crises were due to bad harvests of 1787 and 1788, and manufacturing depressions which caused food shortages which drove up their prices and the prices of other necessities, and unemployment in the cities. On the eve of the revolution conditions of poverty reached their worst and women and children were without stockings or shoes. Moreover, government debts were rising from the extravagant expenditures of the royalty as well as from the wars with which the government tried to solve by borrowing, which in turn led to an interest that constituted roughly half of the government’s spending. Then by calling the Estates General which hadn’t been summoned since 1614, the King basically was telling the people he needed the nations consent to raise taxes. Thus, the near collapse of government finances was an immediate cause of the French Revolution, while on the contrary finances were looking up in Great Britain. They had created a new banking system, an agricultural revolution was in motion that increased food supply, and new machines were invented to help increase product output in manufacturing. Also, as we saw in MKG, parliament had much of the control, whereas the King was more of a figurehead that aroused the nationalism of the people. The harsh absolutism of the French monarchy crushed nationalism and caused a constant tug-of-war between the parliament and King (Louis XVI). This tug-of-war left government in an unstable vulnerable state that was begging for a revolution.
As shown in the movie MKG, Parliament in England seemed to have almost, if not more influence than the king himself. King George III was always with the Prime Minister, Pitt, which shows how important parliament was. When King George III fell ill with his “madness”, Parliament tried to reform the government by passing a bill to allow George’s son to be the Regent. Fox wanted the Prince of Wales to be Regent so new bills could be passed to have Parliament reformed and made stronger. This behavior was widely different than France the time, which was still under an absolutist government. Unlike England, French monarchs pretty much had unlimited power. The English king’s power was limited by Parliament. This government allowed the monarch to have complete control of all political power. The next decade, however, was when the people of France took action and the French Revolution started. I think that there was a revolution in France instead of England because of the division of power. Since all the power laid in the hands of the French monarch, the people thought that the French monarch was fully responsible for the terrible conditions they were in. On the other hand in England, the power of thinking is not as strong because Parliament had a strong influence. In France the peasants and lower-class people do not have equal representation in the general states what's in England it was fairer.
On the topic of King George III mental capacity, I believe that he was misunderstood. According to the one of the news articles, King Henry's sickness was seen as insanity. Unfortunately one of the treatments that he received was a medicine that included high level of arsenic. Not only was a strong ineffective in treating his sickness it actually made it worse because of the high arsenic which were one of the causes of the illness. In general, medicine during that time was poor as shown by the physicians’ lack of knowledge. It was clear that the people who were talking to the Kings physician during the surgery had very little understanding of what the King's real illness was and just gave advice that we today would clearly see as ineffective.
The Madness of King George was historically accurate, except for the amount of money paid to the curate for Fat George and Maria Fitzherbert’s marriage. The movie depicted the relationship between the Crown and Parliament in Great Britain during the 1780s as generally weak. King George had little power, if any, over Parliament, and his ideas were primarily championed by Pitt. The members of Parliament seemed to care more for their own positions and monetary gains than the King’s wellbeing. In Parliament, King George was a figurehead to mock, and William Pitt was the politician presenting the King’s wishes. In addition, The Madness of King George displayed the actions Parliament took to increase its power while King George was indisposed. Members of the Whigs plotted to weaken the monarchy by passing a bill to make the Prince of Wales regent. He was only interested in money and gambling, so his supporters would thus wield great political power. Fat George’s rule could even disillusion the English people to monarchs.
However, the King recovered his sanity and thwarted the bill from passing. Moreover, the ending scene of The Madness of King George showcased the role of the royal family in British society. King George, his queen, and their children climbed the steps together and waved to the citizens below. King George remarked that he hoped they would be the model family for the rest of Great Britain to emulate. In the 1780s, the King was only a figurehead, albeit a very respected and beloved figurehead.
King George’s medical treatment during his mental lapse was neither respectful nor helpful. During his time, mental health issues were perceived as deplorable illnesses that needed to be cast from the body, such as with blistering. Healthcare had not advanced much since the Middle Ages, and patients were more apt to suffer from further complications from their “treatment” than recover from their illnesses.
I think revolution took place in France and not in Great Britain because of two main reasons. First, most British citizens liked King George. Nicknamed Farmer George, he was genuinely interested in the land, the crops, the farm animals, and the people. On the other hand, Louis XVI was unfamiliar with his own government, and his wife was infamous for her shallow ignorance. Additionally, the role of the monarch in Britain was primarily that of a figurehead, while the French King was actually expected to make political decisions. The English Parliament had gained much power throughout the years, and they looked after the people’s concerns. However, the French Estates-General wanted to legislate to either favor nobility or to pursue Enlightenment ideals. Not even the Third Estate catered to the citizens’ desires. Therefore, a revolution occurred in France and not Britain because the British had divided the powers of government into acceptable parcels so that the King was neither useless nor entirely responsible, and Parliament could pass laws on behalf of the people.
Earlier in European history, the kings of France and England had similar amounts of power and a similar role in the government. However, by the 1780's, each king's respective role in society had changed dramatically. In England, the government had evolved into a far more democratic system that is more akin to today's governments of the Western World. In France, the government had not become much more democratic. In fact, it had evolved in the opposite direction. In England, the role of the king had largely seemed to decline. The only power that the King had that we saw in the movie, was his ability to appoint professors at Oxford. Nothing else. The only other thing the King had was the respect of his subjects. It did not seem as if he had much concrete power in political terms. In fact, Parliament had even plotted to overthrow the King for his son "fat George" who they no doubt would have made a puppet. Any absolutist King probably would have had the whole of Parliament killed for such an offense, but not Britain's monarch. Meanwhile, in France, a form of absolutist monarchy was still practiced up until the execution of Louis XVI, although there was a regression. France in the 1780's still followed an absolutist government established by Richlieu and continued by the "Sun King" Louis XIV. The King had in theory absolute power over all this subjects, although in practice this didn't necessarily hold true. France did have a governing body besides the king, The Estates-General, but they had essentially no power. Most crucial of all, they did not have full control of taxation, and so the King could easily ignore anything they may attempt to do. This personifies the underlying difference between Britain and France. Britain had a strong Parliament and weak King, while France had a weak Estates-General and an absolute King.
England and France in my opinion are very comparable because of their governments types. In Britain and France there seems to be a correlation between their parliaments and the monarch since the monarch have a centralized power and the parliament restricts some of the monarchs power. In the Madness of King George, this concept was evident when the King was getting rehabilitated and the parliament were making a decision on who should be the next new monarch and King George had absolutely no say in it. The Parliament in England works like our government does today democratically. People in the parliament are allowed to voice their opinions about for instance a bill that is going to be passed. As mentioned before the parliament was deciding the king’s fate they had to pass a bill that would make George (the fat one) reagent and both sides of parliament were allowed to voice their opinions unlike France. In France the King had free reign and was not very restricted. To conclude both types of governments have their correlations but also their differences.
Britain as depicted in the movie is actually similar to what France was like in the during the time period. A large majority of the people in France were poor farmers, and the country was suffering from debt. There were few scenes that showed the outside world in the movie, but there was one scene where a woman attempted to stab the king because she had lost some land that she felt was rightfully hers. There were other scenes depicting farmers, so England probably had a class similar to the French farmers. England probably had more people in cities though. The time period had been a period of rapid urban growth for both countries, but ninety percent of French cities still had less than ten thousand people living in them, whereas England probably had larger cities due to the Industrial Revolution. Government styles had their similarities too. In both cases, the king was losing power. In England, the prime minister and parliament held most of the power, and the king was little more than a figurehead. Towards the beginning of the movie, one of the representatives of parliament said that the king will do as he is told, and at the end of the movie the king basically admitted that he was nothing more than the head of a “model family”. French Parliaments were similarly undermining the power of the king by saying that they were protectors against arbitration. The movie did not make much mention of England’s debts, but after having fought in costly wars, such as the American Revolution, they must have been suffering just like France. Another common element was the want for reform by some members of the government. There was one scene in the movie where one of the legislatures said, “May we learn from our cousins in America.” They had ideas about revolutionary change. In the movie, the reform party attempted to get power by placing a regent king, Fat George, in place of George III. Fat George was uninterested in politics, so the reformists could pass legislation as they pleased. There were (obviously) major attempts at reform in France before the French revolution. When the Estates General refused the remove the basic framework for the government in France, the Third Estate separated from the rest and wrote their own constitution. Both governments were experimenting with revolutionary change to different degrees.
A revolution took place in France rather than in Britain because of key differences in their governments. As seen in the “Madness of King George,” the people mostly ruled the government. When George had seemed to go mad, parliament was able to throw him away with ease. The king in the movie had little power. The most he could do was push bills through parliament and block ones he did not like. However, the power of the kings in Britain was declining still. The “Madness of King George” shows the progression of the king from an executive power to a mere figurehead. Mr. Fox continually points out that the colonists did not need the king and Britain doesn’t need the king. For this reason I think there was no rebellion in Britain. The British had no need for radical change. They already had rule mostly by the people and were for the most part satisfied. The only change the British people needed to government was the power of the king. However this barely had to be changed seeing as the king’s power was already so limited
Meanwhile France had a rather “absolutist” government. The Sun King, Louis XIV established a rule in which the king had divine rule. Although the kings following Louis were less powerful than him, they still mostly followed the precedent of absolutism. For this reason the French not the English rebelled. The French who had little say in government were in need of radical change in order to get what they wanted.
The role of the British Monarchy is greatly different than the role of Monarchy in France. The government of Britain during the 18th century was a constitutional monarchy; the king in Britain was seen as a figurehead of the government while the real power lies with the Parliament. The British king is a leader in name only. The Parliament constantly oversees the King’s duties. In Nicholas Hytner’s movie, The Madness of King George, it is shown that the Parliament holds executive power when deciding on laws and acts. The Parliament can even decide that the king is incapable to rule and set up a regent. Towards the end of the movie, King George has the family assemble at the cathedral to smile and wave. King George and the British Monarchies had to keep their national image in check because it was used as another way to build confidence in the government even though the monarchies were not the true power.
The crown still had some power, but not enough to drastically change politics in the country, whereas the French Monarchies ruled with absolute power. The most famous example of the absolute monarchy in France is King Louis XIV’s statement, “The state, it is me.” King Louis’s lavish living style and disregard for the financial status of France is what eventually drove the French peoples’ hatred for absolute monarchy. French Monarchies were the main power in France even though there were the Estates-General. The Estates-General would usually side with the king on political matters because the First and the Second Estate each had a vote and could veto bills that did not keep with the aristocratic ideals. The king has the ultimate power and influence in the French government. The two countries had types of governments that were in stark contrast of each other. Absolute monarchy did not work well in France as demonstrated by the French Revolution, but constitutional monarchy appears to be a successful type of government in Britain as shown by its continued existence.
Base on all of the information released from the film watched in class, the relationship between the monarchy and the parliament is a rather simple one. The parliament’s task was to pass bills and taxes and laws based on the current social and economical issues of the time and the monarchy was to decide whether those bills were to pass. But an important quote from the movie “Regent, but subject to parliament.” – Fox. This quote gives the notion that parliament is also meant to keep the king in check, as the king does with the parliament in the passing of bills. The king though, from a perception on watching the film, seems also to be a major figurehead for the country. At the ending of the movie the king tells his family that they have to be a good family, an idol, and that the first step to doing that is to smile and wave to the people. Though in an overall comparison to France Britain was in a more stable situation. Britain was experiencing its industrial revolution. Though the country was in debt according to the movie the parliament was focused mainly on the social and economical issues instead of what to do with the King since the King no longer had much of an impact and served mostly as a figure for the country. France is different because of the legacy left by Louis XIV who established an absolutist monarchy where the King had the word in everything. The people of France became restless after a poor ruling king so naturally they got rid of him, which is a cause of the revolution in France. The cause being that one voice cannot lead a country, therefore a strong parliament is needed to represent the people. A majority of the movie focused on King George III illness and madness, which was a pivotal event in the history of his reign. The doctors saw him as crazy and a lunatic. The doctors treated the King’s symptoms with blistering. Though the one doctor mostly credited, it seems in the movie, is Dr. Willis who used the first forms of psychology on the King to make him “behave”. If the King ever acted inappropriately in any way he was to be restrained and tied to a chair, like a time out but more extreme. In a way medical practices hadn’t advanced so much since the Middle Ages in the 1780s. Except for perhaps the exception of the psychological method used on King George III.
Great Britain in the 1780’s experienced small, gradual alterations within its political system. For one, Great Britain maintained a constitutional government at the time, meaning that the monarchy maintained a great deal of power, but the power was shared with Parliament. Great Britain’s Parliament consisted of the House of Lords and House of Commons which were relied on for several political issues throughout this time. Although Parliament was not technically considered the major source of authority during this time, it gradually began to receive a greater bulk of political authority, largely due to King George III’s illness. Parliament’s increase in power was also a result of their several efforts to gain more representation in government. For example, as depicted in the movie, when King George was away dealing with his mental illness, many prominent members of Parliament advocated to replace him with his son, who was much more laid back and uninvolved in politics. This would allot Parliament with a greater amount of power, especially when it came to passing important bills. Health issues were not very well identified or dealt with. With little progress made in the medical field from the Middle Ages, doctors relied on little to no accurate information on diseases or illnesses, especially genetic diseases or those dealing with mental health. Therefore, when King George III was experiencing a mental health disease, doctors did not know what to make of it or how to treat it. Also, at this time, Britain and France seemed to have similar organization but different levels of stability. For example, Britain and France both had a central source of power along with smaller bodies of representation in government. Also, both nations were in debt and experiencing economic downfall, having harsh results on their lower classes. The monarchy in Britain at the time was constitutional, with a strong Parliamentary base, while that of France was absolute, with all the power held by the monarch. I believe that this is the major factor as to why France experienced a revolution, and a bloody one at that, while Britain id not. The people of France simply felt as if they were not being represented enough in their government and their response to both this and their heavy taxation, was to rebel. Britain did not have this problem because although the monarch reigned over the nation, the people were still involved with and incorporated into the government. Finally, King George III was definitely mad, not misunderstood.
Why do you think revolution takes place in France and not in Great Britain?
In response to the question, “Why do you think revolution takes place in France and not in Great Britain?”. I think two of the most important factors that define France from England was that France was absolutist and England, as we saw in The Madness of King George, was a Parliamentary government. In during the movie, George III's last lines described his purpose as being a figurehead and that was something he came to terms with, Parliament being the legislative body for the good of the people since the Glorious Revolution. In the case of France as was seen with Louis XIV the so called Sun King and Louis XVI the absolutist monarch wanted “le pouvoir absolu” and were constantly battling the Estates General or the nobles (because at the time feudalism was still in had yet to be abolished). Because of the Absolutist government, self interest of the kings, mass poverty and unemployment causing a widening gap among the rich and poor, high taxes in an effort to relieve debt, and so on, the French Revolution occurred. Not to mention the revolutionary fervor that may have been brought on as a result of the American revolution, something that made King George III upset and not to mention would have negative connotations in the British mind. Britain was quite the opposite from this description of the state of affairs and most importantly differed in government format and stability. The relations between the people and the king were always tense and rebellions were a constant affair that became more and more frequent as the king became more and more selfish and absolutist and by the time of Louis XVI and his effort at financial reform it was far too late to undo the damage of prolonged poverty and suffering of the french people. Also French kings still had the idea that they ruled by “le droit divin” or divine right and felt that for that reason they could life self centered lives, where English kings were figureheads and models for their people, Louis XVI found that he was wrong during the Reign of Terror.
The roles of the English and French monarch had similarities and differences. The largest similarity between the two kings was that of a figurehead position. As evidenced by his title "the sun king", Louis XIV attempted to present himself as the epitome of goodness and perfect rulership, "shining down on the people." As seen in MKG, George III tried to present himself and his family as the model family, which all England would look at and both admire for its perfection and attempt to imitate. So, in the public visage, both monarchs tried to establish themselves in high esteem, not so much by their political actions, but simply by their position as monarchs and the title attached to that. As far as the relationship between the king and the rest of the government, there was a vast gulf between the two. In England, the parliament held quite a bit of control, as they could vote in laws, decide taxes, etc., while the king, while having a say in these matters and who could influence votes, had no direct power to decide on legislation. In fact, as seen in the movie, parliament had a good deal of control over the regency, for they could decide to remove the king if he was unfit for duty, and had influence over who succeeded the throne.In France, while there was no absolute monarchy, the king had a great deal of power. He had the voice in foreign affairs and war, could decide on legislation himself, and generally had a far more active role in political life than did the English king. Certainly, the power of the French parliamentary body was far weaker than that of the English one, and was far more heavily influenced by the king.He served as more than simply an idealistic figurehead; he filled out the role of a national leader. The English king, on the other hand, did not have the same power over his countrymen and his legislative body.
The relationship between the crown and the parliment during the 1780's was one of which had been changing over the years. The monarch used to have complete control of what the government was doing at the time and what bills were going to be passed. That changed over time until in the 1780's the monarch did not have much power at all if he wanted a particular bill to pass that the parliment did not like. If the parliment didn't pass the bill, there was little the monarch could do. The British King and his family served as a figure head to British society. They were supposed to look happy, be friendly, and seem like a model family. More of an estetic role than in years past. The parliment would gain power by passing bills that gave themselves more power and taking power away from the king. Mental health issues were seen as something that should not be publicly known about. King George's workers did their best (the ones who were not trying to dethrone him) to keep him seeming sane. Healthcare had improved slightly, it was hard not to relatively to the dismal healthcare of the Middle Ages.
I believe that a revolution never took plaved in Great Britian because the government did a much better job than the French government did in representing their people. Thus making the need to reform the government drastically, much less. Also, the English monarchy was much weaker than the French monarchy, on an account of the English parliment having most of the actual governmental power.
After watching “The Madness of King George,” France and England are portrayed in a different light. MKG points out the differences in the goverments of each nation, depicting England as strong and centralized. In France, King Louis XIV was an absolutist ruler who was given complete control over decisions in government. It was his role to make all legislative decisions for France. France did have the Estates General which backed the opinions of the King. The Estates General was France’s version of the strong parliament shown in England. The parliament of England had one purpose which was to do whatever needed to be done to help better English society. In MKG, when the King of England is shown to be ill, and unable to rule, the parliament is shown as wanting to overthrow the King and his son. The fact that the parliament had the power to do so is scary, but unlike France, England would never be stuck with a faltering government. However, once the King was shown as no longer ill, the Enlish men rallied and cheered for their healthy monarch. The support of the English people to the King helps keep the govermnent stronger, and made England a more centralized counrty.
France and England, while having the same political system of a monarchy, operates in very different ways. The main reason why France had a revolution in place of Britain is simply because it was unstable country based on absolutism. To make it clear, I mean in no way was Britain a completely unified, peace loving country. It had its social and economic problems, but not to the extent of France. The French monarchy rested on the absolutism of King Louis XVI. By having complete, divine power, he oppressed the right of representation. In France, the estates general divided up the social structures and silenced the voice of the majority. This is greatly different from Britain, as we saw in the movie. When the bill, which called for Fat George to take head of the throne, entered into parliament, everyone spoke their mind. There was yelling and shouting; it was clear that the majority in parliament was being heard. England had representation of the masses, and France did not. Louis XVI made all the choices without letting people be heard. This made the citizens resent Louis; in fact most people hated him. England’s monarch was a figurehead, parliament really controlled the strings. England’s citizens loved their king, as is evident in the true concern most people had for George III in the movie. Absolutism drove Louis to control everything, like a ‘sun god’, eventually turning his own country against him.
There was a very large difference between the monarchies of Great Britain and France during the 18th century. France saw an extremely absolutist monarchy where the kings and rulers had almost the entire say in government. With rulers such as Louis XIV France had an extremely strong monarchy that controlled many aspects of its population’s lives. France also had parliament that had very little say in political matters. These aspects created a very strong monarchy with a very weak parliament that causes a majority of the governing to be done by the monarchy.
Britain on the other hand, had a much stronger parliament and a much weaker monarchy. This was very apparent in the movie where the parliament had the power to take away the kingship of Kind George and give it to his son, fat George. The monarchy had much less say in government than in France which was a major difference between the two governments. France kept with its traditional monarchy where the King had much more power, while Britain had a much larger change towards more of a modern democracy. Both governments were drastically different from each other.
The role of the Monarchy in England was drastically different to that of the French King. While both kings and parliaments did use a balance of power to some extent, the roles of each authority were almost reversed. The French King held more power over the French Parliament, and the English Parliament held more power over the English King. The power of the English Parliament was evident in The Madness of King George when Parliament basically took control of the king’s absence to exert their power. The king’s absence was not important enough that the governing bodies would stop to wait. In the French system, while not as absolute in this time period as it had been previously, still gave the King more power than Parliament. The power of the King is what led to the French lower/middle class distrust of absolutist powers. Many members of the upper class held high ranking government positions which they attained because of the assistance of the king. When the French Revolution came about, the French hated the aristocrats and nobility, and massacred them in large numbers. In this way, the French absolutism contributed to their bloody Revolution. This process was not seen in England, however. Even though the colonists did revolt against the monarchy, their basis for the revolt was not overthrowing the current system, just removing their involvement from it. The French and English monarchies were clearly two different systems of government.
Britain and France in the 1780s have both similarities and differences, from societal and political examinations. From a societal basis, Britain appears to have few economic difficulties that overwhelm all aspects of life, whereas in France, a vast majority of the population was impoverished and suffering.
The role of the monarchy in England varies a great deal to that of the French king. The English monarch has clearly defined powers, and parliament is able to function openly and even override decisions of the king. In English parliament, opposing parties were able to argue and come to decisions based on what would apparently be most beneficial to society. As depicted in MKG, the Parliament even went as far as to suggest that the monarch be removed, and felt no shame in casting him aside. They were well aware that the regent king would be easily manipulated so that they could reach their own motives. The French monarchy however was absolutist, following in the vision perfected by Louis XIV. Parlament had fewer liberties and say in the running of the country.
It is from this that follows the reason a revolution took place in France and not in Great Britain. In France, the branches of the government were uncooperative and not at all on the same page. The rights of the people were being ignored while the wealthy were getting wealthier. However, because in Great Britain, the two houses had equal representation, and the monarch played an appropriate role, things in that country ran smoother.
From comparison of Great Britain and France in the 1780s, it is apparent that people of this time were demanding greater representation, and refused to be oppressed. Great Britain was responsive to this, while France’s monarchy realized it only too late.
Monarchy in England compares in a significant way to that of the counter-example in France. The Parliament of England held huge amounts of power over all laws and taxes passed, with democratic arguments governing frequent meetings to decide the fates of the country. This system helped to check the governmental power of the king in charge, while still allowing the monarch to maintain his regal appearance. It was an overall more structured and fortified government than the French court,where people had substantial representation and power over the court decisions; In effect a revolt was less likely to occur in England versus France.
The French monarchy, on the other hand, was controlled by an absolutist ruler who held limited regard for his lower subjects. All laws and taxes were under his jurisdiction, which often led to an angry third class and fat first-class nobles. This unbalanced method of lawmaking led to the demise of the monarchy and the heightened support of revolts in France during this era.
Clearly, the examples of government in both nations defines why revolts occurred in France rather than Britain. Without the strength of the popular vote behind their verdicts, Britain may have fallen into the same trap as the French government in the 1780's.
The monarch in England was much weaker than the French monarch, at least before the French Revolution. The King, or Queen, of England was more of a figure head, with less power than his French counterpart. He did have some powers, similar to the current day president of the United States, because he could stop, or veto, any bill that he did not feel was just. The monarch was still well respected in the English community, but his influence on politics was quickly diminishing. While France was essentially an absolute monarchy, England was a parliamentary monarchy, growing more and more “parliamentary” with every passing bill. The parliament made the laws concerning taxes, crime, property, and basically everything else, meaning the king really did not have to do anything. As can be seen in the movie, “Fat George” was easily seduced into giving away the power of the throne for money, which the parliament could give him.
The monarchy in France, though, did not have a body similar parliament the met on a regular basis to determine laws and regulations. The Estates General was nonexistent, and the King could do whatever he wanted. He controlled everything that he wanted to control, and there was no way for which the people could stop him, and thus, started a revolution (that’s number 3 too). England was much more balanced and democratic, compared to the French government. While the King was despised by the French (aka they started a revolution), the English people remained relatively in favor of the King. As in the movie, the King and his family was the model for all of England to follow.
In the 1780s, in Great Britain the King had very little power compared to Parliament. The King was merely a figurehead. Almost all legislative duties were delegated to Parliament. Parliament did not require the King's approval before passing laws. For example, Parliament still functioned normally after King George's absence due to his illness. Despite his lack of political power, the King still played a role in British society. He exemplified the head of a model household. Most importantly, he was respected by the people. When the old woman attacked him, he told his guards not to harm her because he wasn't harmed. When King George developed an illness, Parliament attempted to increase its power by appointing a regent, Fat George. As King, Fat George wanted to have fun, so he was content with Mr. Fox handling the politics as prime minister. This would greatly increase the power of Parliament. Treament of King George's illness was very ineffective. One of his doctors insisted on studying his stool samples, while others recommended blistering. When his condition did not improve, they cruelly locked him away. These methods of treatment show that healthcare did not improve much since the Middle Ages.
In the 1780s, Britain and France both had a similar society. There were the poor farmers, the middle class merchants, and the nobility. The financial situation was similar in both countries. Both countries were paying the cost of numerous wars. Unlike Britain, France was an absolutist monarchy. King Louis XIV was much more involved in politics than King George III. A revolution took place in France because its government was less democratic than Britain's. The people of France saw no way of reforming the government by means of the system, so they took the more radical approach of creating a new government. If the people were given more representation in the French government, the French Revolution could have been prevented.
The differences between the British and French monarchies in the eighteenth century are vast. France was led by one of the most absolutist leaders in history: Louis XIV. In England, the Parliament was gaining more power. The monarch had become more of a figure head than a strong ruler. During King George's illness, Parliament tried to put a regent on the throne. The king's son, George, almost succeeded in taking his father's power. That Parliament had the power to get rid of their current king, no matter how crazy he was, shows the differences between the two nations. In France this never would have happened. The monarch still had so much power that estates general would not even be allowed to contemplate such legislation. This difference in power was probably the reason there was a revolution in France and not in England. In France, the people were tired of being ruled and oppressed by an absolute monarch. They felt there needed to be drastic change and so they revolted. In England, the Parliament had more power. The people did not feel as oppressed as the French. While the French were ruled by an absolutist ruler, the British Parliament was gaining more power than the King.
The occurence of revolution in France and the lack of in Great Britan is directly associated with the differences in the roles of the Monarchy in these countries. In Great Britain, the power held by the monarch was greatly deteriorating. As depicted in the Madness of King George III, the monarch was but a figurehead in society, a wealthy landowner, and a model family for the nation to look up to. In France however, the opposite held true. The country in the preceding years was the most successful in establishing an absolutist government and it ever present in the form of King Louis XVI. In the years before, absolutism played a fundamental role in the country's rise to greatness, but with the enlightenment and the American Revolution, it became the trigger for revolution in France. In Great Britain, the power balance was shifting from the monarch to Parliament, successfully giving the people an active, ample role in the government. As shown in the Madness of King George, Parliament had much influence over the monarch and therefore held considerable power. As a result, the people generally loved their king and praised him, which is supported by the large crowd of people welcoming George III back when he recovered from his illness. In France, the absolutist reign of the king held the people in a stranglehold which deprived them of sufficient representation in government. The Estates-General, which was intended to provide this kind of representation, was rendered useless since they did not meet often. Their anger with the current power balance, augmented by class related conflicts and poor economic conditions, is the true reason for the French Revolution.
I believe that the revolution takes place in France rather than Great Britain, simply because King George knew how to connect and care for his people better than Louis XIV.
Louis XIV was a fat, selfish, absolutist ruler with absolutely no regard for his people or their basic rights of life. He was literally letting people starve while he constructed his own lavish palace in Versailles. Also, there are the Three Estates to take into consideration, which divided people into three classes that determined how the people of France would be treated. Even so, there was obviously a huge financial crisis that the government that the government was basically ignoring because they did not know how to handle it. For these reasons it does not surprise me one bit that the people of France found solace in revolution.
Meanwhile, in England, King George was going mad. Despite this however, he STILL treated his people better than the completely sane Louis. He saw no need for an absolutist monarchy; he had a secure system between Parliament and himself. Rather than the absolutist method of France, he had careful balance within his government. Plus, towards the end of the movie, he was explaining to fat George how to be a model example for the people of Great Britain to follow. If there is any truth to that (and I believe there is), he set a great example for his people. Furthermore, with a great king to follow, the people of Britain would have had no need for a revolution.
In regards to Healthcare, it has not changed or advanced much since the Middle Ages. The condition King George was clearly a troubling one. He was made out to be crazy basically. In order to practice as a surgeon during this time period, a certification was required. This was a change from the drastic procedures and practices seen during the earlier ages. The amount of knowledge obtained at this time period was still limited. Many were unsure of what exactly was wrong with the King. They turned to antimony to treat his illness; however this drug only worsened his case. It is said that this treatment was considered to be a cause of the King’s blood disease. However medicine still lacked a full understanding. It was hard to write and research about non-tangible things. Organs and what not were easy to observe and dissect. Mental illnesses were a completely different story and indefinitely harder to understand and treat. Thus, leading to the placement in a straight jacket and well harnessed chair. Deeming the King crazy.
King George appeared to be on something, in the movie. Despite King George’s madness this movie shows very well the relationship and roles of the parliament and the King. The king and the parliament during the 1780s were in much dispute. The parliament didn’t want the king so that they could have more control and pass bills they want and the king did like parliament because it took away from his power. The roles of the king during this time in society was as a public figurehead and also still a leader of the government, but without as much power as previous kings. Parliament took many actions to acquire more control over the government, one of which was by trying to rule the king unjust to rule giving them the king’s power in the time of his absence and then making his son the king. The king was ruled unfit to rule because of his mental illness which was treated by the doctor by punishing him when he did anything not normal, almost treating him like a dog. The health care during this time has not seemed to progress from the older methods, with no further advancements.
The French and English kings were both incompetent. There is one major difference though. In France the king is the deciding power; so the full weight of every decision ends on his shoulders. He gets blamed, and rightfully so, for every problem that occurs. In England the king was more a figurehead, a pampered man put out there as "king". But power really rested with parliament. They had the biggest decisions in reform, although the king did hold some weight. The kings also compare inside different ways. The French kings were driving their country into debt and many other problems that would force a revolution. The madness of King George made him mentally sick, but he didn't make the terrible decisions of the French kings. The people of England also liked their king considerably more, if he was a happy, good king it influenced their mood. While the French king didn't really show himself to the public, which would make them feel disgruntled. That is why France had a revolution and England did not.
In France, the king had a lot of power, power to the point where he could do whatever he wanted essentially and get away with it. The King of France was a position of absolute power in France as was shown in the reigns of Louis the 13, 14, 15, and 16, where the Kings engaged in so many wars, built the palace at Versailles, and continued to use money to the point where France was bankrupted. This is because nobody was able to stop the king from doing so, there was no check and balance system to make sure that the supposed divine ruler wasn’t going to screw the country over. England at this time has a constitutional monarchy and Parliament has a significant amount of power and the King only has so much influence in the proceedings of the government. In England such wanton spending would not have occurred because parliament would never approve of it. In present day we have seen the English monarch reduced to a mere figurehead with essentially zero power in government and is only there to smile, wave, and be a people pleaser. This limitation of power is one of the major key differences between the monarchy in France and the monarchy in England.
France and Great Britain were both ruled by incompetent kings, but only a revolution takes place in France. The reason for the differences between these two nations was absolutism. Because of the Glorious Revolution that took place in Britain, the monarchy no longer had absolute power; Parliament could now overrule the King. Because of this constitutional monarchy, the royal family became a figure of the model family instead of one that holds power. At the end of "The Madness of King George", King George III mentions to Fat George that they were a "model family", and that their job was to smile at the crowd. The unstable structure of government in France, however, drove people to rebellion. In France, ever since the rule of King Louis XVI, poverty, financial crisis', and segregated class systems plagued the empire. The Estates General no longer represented the majority of the French population, and the people of France began to believe that revolution was necessary. While the people in Britain loved their royals, as seen in the movie, where people kissed the King George's hand and cried out "Long live the King", the people in France beheaded their spiteful King. Because the British monarchy did not have absolute power, a bloody revolution like the French Revolution was avoided.
This period of time in British history seems to be especially interesting in regards to the balance of government. Following the Glorious Revolution, the role of the monarch steadily decreased to that of a celebrity. Although he still wielded political influence, George III’s main role was pretending to be part of a happy family and making the nation love him (as he himself tells his son). Simultaneously, Parliament was rapidly expanding its power. Many progressives, such as Mr. Fox, wanted to do away with the king, expand the voting pool, emancipate Catholics, and otherwise make progressive reforms. However, knowing that the nation would never be willing to depose the king, they instead attempted to declare the king insane, and make his disinterested and hard-partying son the regent. That way, he would be out of the way, a complete figurehead, while Parliament ruled England. This opposition party was in conflict with the majority party, headed by William Pitt the Younger, who wanted to retain the ailing king and stop the reform in its tracks. Thus, England’s government was locked in heated debate, as George III’s insanity continued. With no medical knowledge that could help him, and a daily medicine that actually contained arsenic, physicians worked against the stabilization of government.
However, this bipartisanship may have been exactly what spared England from experiencing a revolution similar to France’s at the time. The arguments going on in Parliament show that a democratic form of government existed, in which representatives could argue and vote on how the country was run. The opposition and majority parties represented the varying interests of the nation, and each was on equal ground. A system was in effect in which opinions could be argued, votes could be made, and all were directly represented. Because these legal channels existed, and because the monarch was little more than a figure with little to no direct political power, political tension was safely released, and meaningful legislation could be passed after debate and compromise. This is in complete contrast to pre-revolution France, in which government was a constant conflict between the absolutist monarchy and the Three Estates. Revolution was sparked when the Third Estate (peasantry and bourgeoisies, among others) finally decided to withdraw and form their own government, after enduring years of being filibustered and overruled by the nobility and clergy. Thus, French government was set up in such a way that classes were in a constant conflict of interest, and all the while the king was attempting to maintain his power and influence over them all. This inevitably led to revolt by those who felt underrepresented. Thus, the French Revolution became a bloody, chaotic, and misinformed cleansing of French politics. Meanwhile (and in some ways like American politics today), the English Parliament argued on. Some of the issues may have been trivial, and at times things seemed to fall apart completely, but government was not completely dysfunctional; the people were ultimately represented, and the good of the nation was (usually) in the minds of the representatives. Revolution was not necessary.
Although the movie The Madness of King George focused more on the British royalty, the directors did include a few scenes that gave the viewers a look as to what Britain looked like at the time period. For example, the scene before the king was considered “mad” where he was greeting his subjects showed the turmoil going on in the British countryside. The one lady who tried to assassinate the king with a butter knife claimed she was doing it because she had lost her land that was rightfully hers. From this scene I can tell that the general population was dissatisfied with the way the king (really Parliament at this point) was handling the nation. Since the lady lost her farm it probably meant that she had a lack of money which proves that the people of the nation were in debt just like the French in the 1780’s. For this reason, Britain during The Madness of King George was similar to France in the 1780’s.
Another example as to why Britain during the movie was similar to France in the 1780’s was the fact that the central governments of both the nations were changing. In the Movie, the king begins by taking orders from specific members of parliament proving that although he still has power, he is losing it gradually until the point when he goes mad. At the end of the movie when the king and the royal family is walking up the steps and waving, I remember King George saying that their main purpose is to be a model family. He did not mention anything about ruling or making important decisions in day to day government. The Madness of King George is similar to France in this way because the French government was in huge debt and because of this, they needed to change. This in turn was one of the causes of the French revolution and a reason why The Madness of King George compared to France in the 1780’s.
The role of the British king at this time was basically to smile and wave at the people when crowds gathered; to keep them satisfied. In the movie, the actor who plays King George III explains to his wife that the royal family must be a model family for Britain, and he tells his kids to “smile and wave”; the extent of his knowledge. Kings were not always necessarily qualified for the “job”, they just inherited it…which is probably one of the reasons why it wasn’t much of a job. I won’t use the word figurehead because everyone else already did. By the way, Forrest Gump was a WAY better movie, just my opinion.
Anyway, another topic relating to this movie is the question of whether or not medicine had improved much from medieval times. My answer to this debate is no, just because I believe that the key word here is “much”. In one scene in the movie, they (the doctors) wanted to burn his (King George’s) back to release the toxins that were making him crazy. Also, when people noticed his symptoms, they immediately branded him a nutcase and sent him away from the public eye, so not as to embarrass the government; proving that the government can run just as smoothly, if not smoother, without the king present. And I’m not sure if I mentioned this yet, but this movie is NO competition against Forrest Gump! =)
The relationship between the crown and parliament was very interesting during the era of King George. There was a feeling of distrust between them, with some members of parliament seeking to do away with the monarchy completely in order to make reforms. Many of the parliamentary members didn't seem to have such a respect for the King, and parliament actually had more power then most other nations if you think about it, even enough to declare the King unfit to rule and pass on the crown to his son. Politically, the relationship seemed pretty based on checking each other, with the power of king against the power of parliament, and neither of them being able to efficiently do much without the consent of the other. However, it's also safe to say that it could have been due to the parliamentary system that the British people didn't launch a violent revolt like the people of France would later do. In France, the only real representation of the lower classes was in the Estates General, which hadn't been called for years by the time the French Revolution rolled around. There was nobody for the poor to really influence the king or policies, and the commoners saw their voices and wishes ignored in favor of the clergy or nobility, or even the simple whims of the King. That caused dissent, and ultimately revolution. In England, however, the people thought they had a strong influence on policies. Whether or not this was actually true (the role of Parliament was more limited by the King then it is today), the people felt adequately represented and as such felt no need to revolt against a person trying to oppress them.
A revolution most likely took place in France and not in Great Britain due to the fact that France was more of an absolutist government that extremely limited the people's rights. In The Madness of King George, at the end, George says that they are a model family, and that is exactly what the monarchs of Britain were, a figurehead. They represented the country and did have a lot of power, but they by no means had absolute control. Parliament controlled most of Britain's affairs, which meant that the people of the country had a more fair way of being governed and their needs were addressed more. The people of Britain were also content with their government and they looked up to the king, as seen in MKG when the crowds were cheering him as he came back to the throne. France's government, on the other hand, was controlled mostly by the one king, Louis, who took care of his own needs and who appealed more to the first estate. The third estate which made yp most of France's population was left with heavy tax burdens and minimul rights. They had no parliament which represented the people and which could vote on changing the government, like when they voted for Fat George to become regent. The people of France were duly wronged and there was great unrest among the population. It's not surprising that a revolution took place and it's not surprising that none took place in Britain. With it's highly organized and more equal government, Britain's people were not looking for drastic change, unlike what needed to be done in France.
In MKG, King George had little influence over his country except his wealth and example. He considered his family a model for others and he lived a lavish lifestyle, but the moment he fell ill his son attempted to oust him out of power and almost succeeded with the help of others who would benefit from Fat George being in power. The British parliament made the laws for the most part and for one to be passed it had to go through parliament; the king’s word was not law in England. France on the other hand had an absolute monarchy and their parliament had little effect on the laws and goings of daily life in France. The peasants of France were starving and the people in the court were living in the lap of luxury. There was no House of Commons to regulate the people’s lives, and France was deeply in debt. The absolute monarchy left by Louis XIV was extremely different from the merely figure head status that the monarch of England maintained.
How does the role of the Monarchy in England compare to that of the French King?
The Monarchy in England was definitely a lot more limited than that of the French King. In England, the Parliament had gained most of the control and was making many decisions. Basically it comes down to the balance of power. In England’s case the scale was heavily tilted towards the Parliament side, whereas in France it was just the opposite – the king had all the power because the Estates-General was in its essence pointless. In England the King suggested things to Parliament who then acted on them. As pointed out in a previous blog the final quote describes the role perfectly. Smile and wave. The monarchy of England is a symbol, a mere glimpse at the best of England. Not necessarily the most influential in politics. In terms of France, it was the monarchy in a sense and only the monarchy. As we learned in my French class they said I am government, government is me. The absolutism in France was definitely a lot different from the government in England (much more democratic). This is shown perfectly with the Estates-General, which only met after some 200ish years because of absolute necessity. The Estates-General was the “equivalent” of Parliament but involved much more inequality. The French King was everything to France, figurehead, politician, everything. With the Parliament in England wealthy had influence but in France the nobles were so awe-struck by kings like Louis XIV that they found no reason to intervene. In essence the Monarchy in England was superficial while the French King was not only superficial but filled to the brim with power.
In the late 1700s, both France and the British Crown were involved in very tense situations. The British were coming off a defeat from the hands of the American colonists, and they appeared to be weakened. However, France was in a more grueling circumstance, as the 3rd Estate was challenging the powers of the absolute monarchy and the roles of the government. The British were not without their faults, however, as the king was suffering from acute porphyria, which was incorrectly identified as madness.
Arsenic applied to King George's scalp (originally intended to help heal his condition) was only making his condition worse, and so his acute porphyria went misdiagnosed and untreated. Having the head of your country be unstable and unable to make a valid decision does not help when the country is already losing faith in its monarchy. As Parliament began to gain more power due to the political upheaval, the monarchy as a whole began to lose more influence, which complicated the situation more than was needed. The system that was in place at this time was also very beneficial to Parliament, as the monarchy must suggest ideas to Parliament, which would be either ignored or implemented. As King George stated to his royal family, "Just smile and wave." Though they rarely made any real decisions, they contributed to the stability of the government, and this may be one of the reasons that Britain failed to succumb to a revolution.
On the other hand, the authoritarian hand of Louis XIV led to many of the problems that France faced in the 1780s. He brought much of France into debt, and so many of the people of this time (especially the 3rd Estate) were living in poverty and desperation. Yet the weaker successors of Louis XIV kept on adding to the debt, and the situation worsened. Absolutism also played a crucial part, as Louis XIV and his successors believed in a system of absolute monarchy, which did not bode well for the country. To sum up the dire situation, if the monarchy of France had focused less on absolutism and the royalties of the king, and more on the plights and debts of the country, then the French Revolution would not have occurred. Compared to the more representative government of the Crown, the people of France felt suffocated, and so they needed to have their opinion heard. The more defined social classes in France led to a upheaval between the power shifts, and so conflict ensued. Listening to the words of the population would have led to a less tumultuous time in France. They should have used Britain as an example.
The British king was losing power and influence over the kingdom as the French king gained complete power. Although the king enjoyed luxuries and power over his subjects, he did not have complete authority on state matters. In the British government, Parliament had the actual control over legislation. This level of autonomy by a (somewhat) democratically elected legislative body insured that there was at least differences in opinion in the government that would appeal better to more of the population. So, if half of the British population wanted slavery and the rest didn't, just the fact that both the opinions were represented in Parliament would keep the people at rest.
On the other hand, the French monarchy was not as balanced. Since France had an absolutist system where only one opinion (that of the king) mattered, all alternative views, opinions and ideas were unheard and unrepresented. This system worked as long as the nobles were bribed and given some share of wealth. However, this was not the case. The monarchy reached a point where it did not find the need to respect the nobles. This, in addition to the already unrepresented peasants created a situation perfect for a revolution.
I think that the revolution took place in France because of the different political systems both countries had. Great Britain had a parliamentary monarchy while France had an absolutist monarchy. In a parliamentary monarchy, the state is headed by a monarch who does not have control to implement or form policies. It basically has a chancellor. On the other hand an absolutist monarchy is where the monarch has unlimited power and can govern as he or she wants. Now you can clearly see the difference. People were standing up and asking for their rights. In Britain, however, the King listened but in France the King did not, so the people rebelled against him. The movie showed us how the king had no power at all. The power rested with the Parliament who could increase or decrease taxes, who could implement policies they wanted, and even overthrow the king. The king basically served as an advisor to the parliament. He did not have the authority to approve or disapprove bills. He could just suggest ideas to them and they might have been taken into account. People stood up for what they believed in. They demanded their rights. As Mr. Kirby said that the King George III was just a “figurehead.” Even King George said it at the end of the movie that they had to become a model family to the country. This shows that he had no power at all but could only show the public how a family stayed together and united. France, on the other hand, was disorganized. The king had all the power and no one checked on him. He could do what he wanted. They found sources of income to give to the state without the Estates-General. There was no check and balance. People got mad and stood up. They wanted a revolution in which they held the king accountable and wanted to know where the money was spent and how. They wanted a complete overhaul of the government. That is why the French Revolution took place in France, not Britain. Great Britain already had a form of government where people’s voices were hear but France did not.
I think that the revolution took place in France because of the different political systems both countries had. Great Britain had a parliamentary monarchy while France had an absolutist monarchy. In a parliamentary monarchy, the state is headed by a monarch who does not have control to implement or form policies. It basically has a chancellor. On the other hand an absolutist monarchy is where the monarch has unlimited power and can govern as he or she wants. Now you can clearly see the difference. People were standing up and asking for their rights. In Britain, however, the King listened but in France the King did not, so the people rebelled against him. The movie showed us how the king had no power at all. The power rested with the Parliament who could increase or decrease taxes, who could implement policies they wanted, and even overthrow the king. The king basically served as an advisor to the parliament. He did not have the authority to approve or disapprove bills. He could just suggest ideas to them and they might have been taken into account. People stood up for what they believed in. They demanded their rights. As Mr. Kirby said that the King George III was just a “figurehead.” Even King George said it at the end of the movie that they had to become a model family to the country. This shows that he had no power at all but could only show the public how a family stayed together and united. France, on the other hand, was disorganized. The king had all the power and no one checked on him. He could do what he wanted. They found sources of income to give to the state without the Estates-General. There was no check and balance. People got mad and stood up. They wanted a revolution in which they held the king accountable and wanted to know where the money was spent and how. They wanted a complete overhaul of the government. That is why the French Revolution took place in France, not Britain. Great Britain already had a form of government where people’s voices were hear but France did not.
I think that the revolution took place in France because of the different political systems both countries had. Great Britain had a parliamentary monarchy while France had an absolutist monarchy. In a parliamentary monarchy, the state is headed by a monarch who does not have control to implement or form policies. It basically has a chancellor. On the other hand an absolutist monarchy is where the monarch has unlimited power and can govern as he or she wants. Now you can clearly see the difference. People were standing up and asking for their rights. In Britain, however, the King listened but in France the King did not, so the people rebelled against him. The movie showed us how the king had no power at all. The power rested with the Parliament who could increase or decrease taxes, who could implement policies they wanted, and even overthrow the king. The king basically served as an advisor to the parliament. He did not have the authority to approve or disapprove bills. He could just suggest ideas to them and they might have been taken into account. People stood up for what they believed in. They demanded their rights. As Mr. Kirby said that the King George III was just a “figurehead.” Even King George said it at the end of the movie that they had to become a model family to the country. This shows that he had no power at all but could only show the public how a family stayed together and united. France, on the other hand, was disorganized. The king had all the power and no one checked on him. He could do what he wanted. They found sources of income to give to the state without the Estates-General. There was no check and balance. People got mad and stood up. They wanted a revolution in which they held the king accountable and wanted to know where the money was spent and how. They wanted a complete overhaul of the government. That is why the French Revolution took place in France, not Britain. Great Britain already had a form of government where people’s voices were hear but France did not.
The Madness of King George portrayed the king quite as he was at the time- a mentally ill figurehead. Parliament, after witnessing his degradation, resolved to send him away to a mental ‘hospital’ to recover. In the mean time they continued, as they had since the times of the Glorious Revolution, to run the government. One of the parties, led by Fox, attempted to seat George III’s son, or ‘Fat George’ as regent while the king was away. Fat George was largely uninterested with politics, and sought only for the monetary comforts and prestige that came with the crown. As such, parliament saw him as a willing figurehead behind whom they could seize more power for themselves.
All this goes to show how weak the king’s position at the time was. It also shows, to an extent, how effective and powerful the rule of parliament was. Parliament represented the people of Britain. As such, the people were likely to respect and cherish the government, since it adequately represented their interests. Though the country had debts from fighting in the Revolutionary War in America, the people of Britain had no real reason to rise against the government.
In France, however, this was far from the case. Following unnatural weather patterns and unusually bad harvests, much of France was left starving, malnourished, and destitute. Food to all people represents a key element of survival and happiness. A people without food will die, and be absolutely miserable while doing so. When the government under the absolute monarchy of Louis XIV failed to do anything to alleviate the suffering, public discontent only grew. France’s huge debts from the wars fought by previous rulers also destabilized France’s economy, and hurt the government’s ability to provide aid to the people.
After his recovery, King George III was reasonably popular with the people. As he alluded at the end of the movie, the royal family was the ‘model family.’ While parliament took care of the people’s needs, the royal family stood as the graceful parents of the people.
The French Royal Court, on the other hand, seemed very separate to the people of France. They perceived it as a separate world, indifferent to their sufferings and hardship. As is common in many desperate economic situations, the ‘have-nots’ of society come to greatly resent the ‘haves.’ The court of nobles perfectly symbolized the wealthy and extravagant ‘haves’ which likely angered the people who viewed them as useless. This anger was reflected in the killings of the nobles during the actual Revolution.
Effectively, France experienced a revolution because its economic situation was worse than that of Britain, and its government was less able to keep up positive public relations. The British government ran successfully without much influence from the king, and continued to support the people. The French government tried and failed to reform, and as a result, was overthrown by a discontent and violent public.
The main reason why a revolution took place in France but not in England is because England at the time already had a more democratic political system compare to that of France’s absolutist monarchy. In England, the king barely had any power over anything compare to say Louis XIV of France. England was basically governed by parliamentary rule. The parliament had power to almost everything such as the policies and the taxes. The King was powerless compare to that of France’s. As we saw in the movie “Madness of King George”, the parliament even went as far as to overthrowing the king and making the puppet Prince regent, knowing that the Prince had no interest in politics, and that the power to govern the country will be again in their hands. The King of England can easily be override by the parliament. He serves only as a King in name to the country. The Parliament was to debate over the issues at hand, which is way more democratic than the French government. The French King had absolute power over the government and the people. The economic status of France was also a factor as to why a revolution took place. In France, the majority of the population was very poor while the wealthy got increasingly wealthier, whereas England had fewer economic problems. The rights of the improvised and angry people were being overlooked and ignored by the government in France. However in England, the parliamentary rule served to be the representation of the people. France was in need of a reform by this time, and the people stood up for their rights.
The stark disparity between the French and British governments found its roots in their unshared system of governance. France was ruled by an absolutist monarchy, whereas Britain was ruled, partially a monarchy, but mostly by a parliament which had gained its power through political upheaval. From this difference, the reason that only France experienced a revolution while England did not, can be derived. Parliamentary government was much more stable, in many means of the word, than an absolutist system. Districts from across the country were represented, and each bill or piece of legislature was not only argued about, but voted on as well. This allowed for a fair, just way to decide on important issues. France, on the other hand, did have an Estates General, but it hadn’t been called in hundreds of years, and in addition, was segregated due to class. Due to this alone, it is no wonder that such a violent and radical revolution took place. At the end of “The Madness of King George”, the people emphatically welcome back the king, whereas Louis XVI received a beheading. These points display the difference between the French and British governments, and why a revolution only occurred in the former.
The revolution in France was a brutal one, filled with violence and ruthlessness, and a radical overthrow of the government. Britain however, experienced no such violence. The king was comfertable in his palace, and parliament continued in session. So why did France experience such a brutal revolution, while England did not. Both countries existed in a time of widespread public discontent, and under 2 incompetent rulers, yet only France erupted in violence. The answer has a large part to do with absolutism. Napoleon was the last enlightened ruler in Europe, and his overthrow began the reign of Louis XVI, which drove the people to unrestrained violence and rebellion. The French system of government was unstable, with the Estates General constantly trying to steal power from the monarch. The situation in Britain was quite different. Parliament was not trying to steal power from the king, rather the relationship was quite harmonious. And Britons exclamation of "god save the king" shows their support for their king. In the end, the situations in Britain and France were completely different, and that is why France underwent a revolution, and britain did not.
Both France and Britain were ruled by incompetent kings, yet only a revolution occurred in France. Why is this so? What is different between France and Britain at the time that leads to a revolution to occur only in France? The answer is absolutism. Although in both countries at the time it was so chaotic and public discontent was widespread, only in France did brutal battles, cruel violence, and radical upheavals of government occur. While in Britain Parliament went on normally, the people never rose up to over rule, and the king sat happily on his thrown. Absolutism is the main difference in the 18th century that separated Great Britain and France. In France, Parliament was constantly trying to steal the king’s power and the king desperately tried to cling to the very little power he had left. Thus, the government was unstable in France at the time. Everyone and anyone wanted to take over the government and create a new one in their own best interests. No one truly cared for the King of France, everyone just wanted to improve their own life and one up themselves. And there was a major lack of respect for the King for sure. There was no Patriotism in France but there was some in England. That might be what prevented a bloody revolution in Britain to occur. King George was not really a complete monarch, power was being to transfer to Parliament. But even more important, the people of Britain loved their king and had respect for him. The ending scene of the movie shows this when a massive crowd of people came out for the King to support him and held up signs that say “God save the King”. Over all it was a difference in political systems and the people of Britain supported their King while France did not.
Post a Comment