[sinsofsolarempirefan]

Although the founding fathers might well have believed it, the idea that George III was a tyrant is mostly crap. George III was a conscientious constitutional monarch, who actually took a major step in promoting Parliamentary governance by surrendering the revenue of the Crown Estates in return for an annual stipend that was decided by Parliament. An act which effectively was the last major step in making Parliament master over the Crown.

With the colonies, it was corrupt and arrogant Tories within Parliament, led by Lord North et al who provoked the colonies into rebellion. All the King did was his constitutional duty of supporting his government’s actions to both tax and then issue punitive measures against the restive and then rebellious colonies, he was never the driving force behind them. George III was simply a convenient hate-figure for the rebellious colonists to rally against, rather than the far more abstract machinery of Parliamentary bureaucracy and ministerial arrogance that was truly to blame...

[Jacquerie]

As with many Freepers, you appear content to comment without reading.

[RobbyS]

All besides the point. After James II was overthrown, the monarch reigned but did not rule. However, the power of the monarch remained, now centered in, as Hansard put it, The Estates-general of Great Britain and Ireland, which consisted formally of Church, king, Lords and Commons.” It was this concentrated power that the colonies rebelled against, and it is concentrated power that the Tea Party opposes. The Establishment really does want to be an “Establishment,” one like that which ruled in Great Britain in 1776.