British people on Veeky Forums, do you guys talk about George III much in elementary/high school...

KING PENGUIN

I often think about him when driving the motor around London Town, what a monarch!

>Implying it's possible to actually drive in London.

BORN TO RULE ALL OVER YOU

Underrated post

everyone that didn't know this was a Black Adder the Third reference has to do ten push-ups

I do it on the regular m8. Wot?

I already did 100 earlier, don't ever tell me what to do bitch arms

Anyone that didn't know this was a blackadder the third reference has to do 10 push ups.

Okay, thanks. In America, it used to be popular to regard him as a "tyrant", but more recent historians are strongly questioning that view. I was just curious if there was a British "consensus" on the man.

Britain was very much the america of the 18th century, in that it derived its identity from being a free country. The founding fathers were British patriots until very late in the game - they rebelled because they thought Britain wasn't living up to its own ideals

In my primary school it was Tudors, Saxons, Normans and Henry VIII. In secondary school it was the Russian revolution, Bolsheviks, Stalin, Trotsky and Lenin.

Question for Brits: now that you guys have abolished male primogeniture, will it always be the house of Windsor?

I'm not British, but I recently learned a bit about him from a podcast and he reminded me a lot of the present day queen, except for those bouts of madness he was a very simple, austere man and almost as powerless as Queen Elizabeth to have been a tyrant, the stamp acts and tea taxes were 100% parliament.

Anglo here
George III was an important figure in British history, so we don't learn about him at all
We learned about Rosa Parks instead

>Question for Brits: now that you guys have abolished male primogeniture, will it always be the house of Windsor?

You mean Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

In my school we covered the industrial revolution, british political reform from 1730-1919, WW1, the rise of the Nazis and the road to ww2, race relations in the US from 1865-1965.

Before that it was celtic britian, the romans, jacobites, scottish wars of independance and border reivers (last one as from south of scotland).

Never really looked at monarchs that much but the emphasis was always to be critical and never take the established narrative at face value.

When we did cover that era he seemed like a buffon. The American reveolution was very much due to incompetance in the opening phases.

In my sixth form College (pre-University) We had a topic stretching from 1790 to 1914 about agitation and reform in Britain, so George II came up regularly until his death. Nothing else, though.
I would say most people have no idea he existed, since our government is doing our best to murder any historical knowledge about our nation.

>George III was an important figure in British history

Not really.

No he literally never comes up.
Empire doesn't come up
The Curriculum focuses on the Norman Conquest, the Reformation and WWII (maybe some Victorian shit, social conditions, Industrialization etc.) which desu are all far more consequential events in British history.
He was a man of the people, satirists often depicted him bothering farmers, he liked farming and talking to ordinary people.
He had like 15 children and was steadfastly loyal to his wife, his heir was a cunt who he didn't get on with though.
He was into science but had no pretensions - he personally funded Herschel who was so grateful that he attempted to name Uranus after the King (Euroboos, despite not discovering it, screeched too much). Enlightened without being a fedora absolutist.
The Hanoverians were the good guys desu:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_Wild_Boy

England's longest reigning King, last of America, First of Australia - the man who Napoleon surrendered to.
Interesting guy.
He wasn't E-II tier powerless but he was the first King that decidedly was less powerful than Parliament, deferring almost always to prime-ministers and opting to take a salary.

This, George III has been badly remembered thanks to the patriots labeling him a tyrant. It's a meme when it comes to apologising for Kings but he really did have bad ministers advising him.

>King during Britains rise to power
>Unimportant

>King during Britains rise to power
>Unimportant

Yes.

They didn't really do much by that time, power was firmly in the hands of parliament.

But that factors against the Yank's narrative about fighting for freedom and democracy, so they like to focus on the king and pretend he wasn't an irrelevant figurehead.

That goes against the "no taxation without representation" narrative? I don't think so.

This is still the best thing to come out of the show
4th>2nd>1st>3rd

Oh come on, you know more Yanks don't know the story well enough to understand that.

The ONLY people I ever hear talking about George III are Yanks, the only people who care about George III are Yanks. The genuinely do overstate, massively, the importance of the monarchy back then, just like you're doing now.

I mean the man was an actual lunatic, confined to his chambers for most of his reign. You think he was planning the war, drafting policy and the like?

Parliament was in charge, the monarch was a figure head. That's the way it had been since the Civil War, when Parliament executed the last monarch who tried to actually rule.

People don't understand just how badly whitewashed history is in our schools
I mean that nothing bad we did, ever, is taught
Only stuff literally everyone was doing ie oppression of the lower classes and stuff is taught
On slavery it's taught as a purely american phenomenon
India doesn't get brought up at all
The boer war might as well not have fucking existed

>King during Britain's rise to power
You mean William and Mary?

Modern British children are incapable of thinking straightly for more than a minute, so historical education is eviscerated.

Romans
Normans
WW2
Northern Ireland

That's literally it.

t. Pierre

>Took GCSE History
>Bear in mind this was like 2006/07
>Was forced to learn about American Indians, The Arab Israeli War and Medicine Through Time

I felt so fucking cheated. Even when we done WW2 in like year 8 it was 90% to do with the Blitz and Hitlersrise to power. History in secondary education was a fucking joke

I'm actually an English teacher: a teacher who is English.

British education may as well not exist. Modern kids are a fucking joke.

Good thing you aren't a teacher of English.

Like, a little bit. Nothing beyond Horrible Histories-tier.

Mostly it's Romano-Britons, Alfred and Vikings, 1066, Crusades, SOME Hundred Years War, Wars of the Roses, Tudors (i.e. Henry VIII and Lizzy), MAYBE Civil War, a fuckload on Victorians, a FUCKLOAD on the first and second world wars, then your standard Commies/Nazis/Burgers in the 20th century.

Ours was The Rise Of Communism, as well as The Rise of Nazism, as well as The Rise Of Burgerism. We also did American civil rights.

Quite boring desu. I always disliked modern history.

What do you learn about Victoria?

Only the memey stuff. You know, married Albert, mourned for a really long time, didn't have power but was a cultural icon, that one African king wore her hat.

Mostly we focus on the industrial revolution, instead of the actual queen.

Eh, we did US civil war, but then we were a private school.

>Mostly we focus on the industrial revolution, instead of the actual queen.

And even then it's the social issues around it.

Its always the fucking social issues with every topic in History education in Britain.

It's a reaction to the previous, equally one-sided order.

That only applies to pre-GCSE though. Later they go into other things.

At least the old way gave some actual historical context. It's all well and good to know the cities were poverty stricken shit holes and the factory jobs were hellholes but the curriculum hardly touches on anything else about the Industrial Revolution, like basic stuff about the conditions that encouraged it to start in Britain.

Fucking New Labour.

Oh come off it, new labour's history itself.

My wee sister was learning about 9/11 and iraq in history the other year.

No, the old way was more shit. Social issues and their causes > pure imperial style.

>the man was an actual lunatic, confined to his chambers for most of his reign
>Coronated 1760
>Mental illness only started becoming prominent around 1810
>Most of his reign

George III definitely exercised power on occasion, but he was mostly uninterested in politics and definitely had very little to do with the American colonies.

Wow, real convincing argument.

Nah, actually learning what the era was like is always going to be better than memorising a rota of dates and factoids to regurgitate in an exam.

mine was the civil rights movement in america, nazi germany and medicine in history

At least you bongs got taught some of your world war history. I got taught the same shit you lot were(ww1, rise of gommies, overthrowing of wismar, invasion of poland, blitz, western front, cold war) and ended with saying "and oh yeah the soviets invaded us" like some fucking ad hoc.
>t. Finn

Moreover the founding fathers saw themselves as staunchly loyal to the King himself.

The 1774 Petition to the King makes it quite clear the colonists wanted Parliament specifically to fuck off.