Good job 👏🏼

❤

thanks!

wonderful as always 0:40

Thanks for the video! As an Australian it was interesting to see when we entered into the picture. Also I really had no knowledge of anything about how/why the US revolution came about etc so that was interesting as well. It all sounds pretty strange. 😂 I guess the power of propaganda.

Youre the farmer in this instance..not him..

@@billdehappy1how?😅

He's well renowned in the US? Are you sure about that?

He is ‘infamous’ in America. In school we are taught at a young age that George III is one of the worst human beings ever.

Meanwhile, it’s parliament, not the Crown that we should be taught to see as the bad guy in the conflict for independence.

@annetterisso2783renown has a more positive connotation than a negative one. Renown is an implication of fame, not infamy.

But we all knew what you meant regardless.

It’s not just the us who have been misled. I feel the world has been misled as to the reasons for the war of independence. It seems that after benefiting from the protection by the British from the French, Spanish and the native tribes, the colonialist, when asked to help pay for that protection, acted like spoilt teenagers being asked to wash the dishes to support their upkeep! There was definitely a faction who were looking for expansion west and using the taxation, which, as far as this video shows, was fair recompense , as a rallying cry to self governance. I see a country who had got confident whilst under protection and wanted to stretch its legs to colonise others lands (native lands west) to grow richer and stronger, rather than the morally justified birth of a nation due to being taxed and repressed by an evil tyrant across the ocean. Even the fact all but the tea act was revoked shows that the motives of the colonists were not as moral as we’ve all been led to believe. I often wondered why Canada had kept loyal to Britain, especially French Canada, after the American war of independence, now I know. Love these videos for their frank factual accounts rather than the fluffy option led, hollywoodised telling of history.

Unfortunately all countries have different stories about the same history taught in school, I am from Holland, and we learn things quite different than students in both U.S.A. and U.K., luckily now we have KZfaq / the internet, and therefor the chance to self educate us further... 😅

That’s just politics. Look at how England propagandized Napoleon’s image to the point that kids thought he was a boogeyman hiding under their bed. Personifying a conflict is just more impactful than talking about a faceless parliament.

Good explanation. Each colony had their own history of self governance that made them very independent.

Exactly. I enjoy this channel but the bias is a little ridiculous in this one. I’m thinking a certain book really influenced him to exonerate George, and thus 🇬🇧, against the cunning colonial schemers.

George the Farmer King, so many things in common with Charles III, at least Charles can learn from history and take care to have the necessary me time! 👍

​@jenniferharrison8915 he only been on the throne for less than a year though, and I'm unsure he'd go past 2030. But we'll see what our new King does. Coming from someone who agrees with being a Republic, but also not in favour of how the UK government is handling thongs right now, making me prefer a monarchy with a tad more oversight.

Thank you! Much appreciated!

Hahaha no sorry the British people barely remember him.

Stop lying

George III personally did not own any slaves in India. IN fact, British control of India didn't begin until 1858 -- 38 yeas after George III's death. It is true that prior to 1858, the British East India Company elsaved Indians, but George III was a constitutional monarch, and thus did not have direct authority over the East India Company.

Dear Lord. Go away.

Saw some British students struggling with Worcestershire.

He was gonna, as Brief History states.

He should and even if it he did. Does it matter. The one who approve of all this still be the Parliament. Try convincing them.

😆 Of course! I suppose the memorization of the state capitals that was forced upon me as a child has finally got the better of me! Thank you for pointing this out. I have edited it out of the video to the best of my ability but will still add it to the errors and corrections section to be consistent. Thanks again and Cheers!

​@BriefHistoryOfficial random, but are you American by any chance? To me you sound so, and you seem to be going a bit heavy on them in this video. Just saying. Not discrediting you or anything.

I swear it was the tutors that kicked it into gear for the Brits? (Ik they weren't Brits at the time but oh well.) And I still find the Land Of The Free irony funny. Especially living in the King's land, I feel like I know a good bit about the history.

Sir Henry Clinton

How so?.

Hello. Thanks for the comment. The sources I used to formulate the video are in the video description. One of these sources, "The Last King Of America, The Misunderstood Reign Of George III" by Andrew Roberts, goes into great detail about Paine's criticisms, including his writing in "Common Sense". Here are a few quotes from Robert's book. Roberts writes "The thirty-nine-year-old Paine was a former staymaker,* schoolmaster, grocer and twice-dismissed excise officer, who, as his generally sympathetic biographer admits, had ‘relentlessly failed in everything personal and professional he had ever attempted’.14 As one historian has written, Paine was ‘full of rage at the ways the Old World had kept him down’.15 Sarah, the daughter of Paine’s benefactor Benjamin Franklin, wrote of him soon after he arrived in Philadelphia, ‘There never was a man less loved in a place than Paine in this, having at different times disputed with everyone.’16 Paine’s contemporaries found him ‘obnoxious, self-absorbed, impetuous, conceited and disputatious’, which might help to explain why he failed in politics in both the Old World and later in the New.17 Certainly the adjectives Paine directed against King George were evidence of an unquiet mind, for by December he was describing the King as ‘a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man’ who resembled ‘a common murderer, a highwayman or a housebreaker’.18 Calling the King sottish was particularly inaccurate in relation to someone who rarely drank alcohol and never to excess - unlike Paine himself." Roberts also writes "Common Sense was written for the ordinary populace rather than for well-educated readers, and was devoid of the customary Latin tags, classical allusions and learned footnotes of many other pamphlets of the day. Most references or allusions were to the Bible, a copy of which virtually all Americans possessed and which many knew well. Paine claimed that ‘censure to individuals make[s] no part’ of his argument, though that was demonstrably untrue when it came to Mr Guelph.... A timeless tactic of warfare is to be the first to define your enemy. Paine had struck first and hard. Common Sense unleashed a series of newspaper articles, speeches, pamphlets and letters across the colonies that now referred to the King as the ‘cruellest sovereign tyrant of this age’, a ‘butcher’ and ‘that wicked tryanical [sic] brute (nay worse than brute) of Great Britain’.29 Patriots vied with each other in condemning him in the most extreme language possible." Lastly Roberts writes "Paine had sought to imply that the King was a secret Roman Catholic, writing in Common Sense ‘that the phrase parent or mother country hath been jesuitically adopted by the King and his parasites, with a low papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous weakness of our minds’.31 This attempt to play on American anti-Catholic bigotry was, as we have seen, widespread after the Quebec Act. ‘This curious observation was introduced purely to insinuate the King is a papist,’ Inglis wrote, ‘which has as much truth in it as to insinuate that he is a Mahometan or Gentoo [that is, Muslim or Hindu], for there is not a firmer Protestant in Great Britain than his present Majesty.’ It was true, but by then the huge success of Common Sense - for all its anti-Semitism, absurd exaggeration, anti-Catholic bigotry and bogus claims of objectivity - meant that its aim of blackening George’s name had been triumphantly achieved.". Another source I utilized was a book titled George III, Majesty & Madness by Jeremy Black. In it Black writes "duty, legality and order were crucial to George’s politico-moral assumptions, and he referred to the American Patriots in 1775 as ‘rebellious children’, which was the standard response to disaffection in monarchies in which the personal role of the ruler remained central, and a total contrast to Tom Paine’s view of him in Common Sense (1776) as a bad parent". If you, or anyone else has made it this far, I highly recommend both sources but especially Roberts biography for anyone reading this comment who is interested in the arguments against the idea that George was a tyrant. Cheers, and thank you for the comment.

@@BriefHistoryOfficial thank you for the response. Yeah, I pretty much got that sense of Thomas Paine. He strikes me as the sort who would have been a communist in another age. He certainly has the same devotion to the truth that they did.

Well the founding fathers needed a evil villain and King George iii was perfect fit as the Founding fathers couldn't blame Lord North and parliament .

King George III was a constitutional monarch. He had the same powers and influents as Queen Elizabeth II. Not a tyrant.

@@lordjazoijua94 hereditary monarchies, including constitutional ones, are tyrannical and ridiculous by default. republics >>> monarchies.

@bliss1819 You're wrong. For years, people like you got away with your ignorate crap because King George iii personal archive wasn't available. Well, guess what it available to everyone and is being digitalize. So do yourself a favour and check it out.

​​@@lordjazoijua94 Plus especially everyone who learn history knew that. It was the Parliament who was the issues for the colonists not the King. The King had no power to passed the law without Parliament approval. Especially the Parliament will never allowed the colonist to paid less taxes than them to be represented in Parliment when they lived in the main island.

Hello. Thanks for the comment. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was formed in 1922 after the secessionist movements in Ireland were successful. However, the kingdom of Great Britain was formed politically in 1707 after the acts of union in that year merged the parliaments of Scotland and England. Ireland continued to have a separate parliament until George IIII oversaw the implementation of the Acts of Union in 1800. This politically united the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland into one United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, of which, George III was king.

@@BriefHistoryOfficial You're reaching! The term United Kingdom was never in common use prior to 1922.

@@knockshinnoch1950 I thought James I coined it (literally making coins) lol