What is often downplayed or missed altogether is the legal principle by which the American colonists relied upon as their authority for their actions. The English/British monarchy had already been reestablished as an authority limited by the previously established rights of all Englishmen. The King, his ministers, and his Parliament endeavored to usurp those already established rights by royal decrees and by public laws promulgated in an English/British Parliament where the American colonists were denied their rights as Englishmen. The conflict centered around which of the two parties was taking illegal actions, the monarchy and its parliament or the American colonists and their colonial governments acting pursuant to the rights in law granted by the prior English monarchs. When the King and his Parliament insisted upon abrogating the rights of the American colonial governments, those governments were ultimately compelled to defend themselves against such an abrogation regardless of the hazards in doing so.
From me you get a Canadian perspective, but really from a Canadian interested in the truth, not what our royalist education teaches us. From what I can understand there initially was major support for George among the Parliament and at least some support from the population after various insults from the colonists. But the excitement quickly waned with the public who wondered whether the cost was really worth it. Many Whig thinkers were already against it and more joined those ranks as they were truly alarmed by the unilateral action of their King. Eventually Parliamentarians pushed out the pro-George faction in the Cabinet. I am sure English schools teach a very different version of the American Revolution, probably skewed towards Tory beliefs, and later, generally anti-American sentiment.