I will give kudos to the Brits for what they accomplished. The Thirteen colonies and Canada later on simply shouldn't have even been defended by the British since they were self sustaining and too far away to really be plausible.
One thing the British should have done is conquered continental Europe during that time, since I think they would have done relatively well. Didn't help they had a dumbass unpatriotic German King George. I doubt most Brits even liked him.
The Brits actually did mostly appreciate the Hanoverian kings, because they were protestants, they were fertile (so no succession issues), and they let the British parliament run things mostly as they wanted. They had had enough of meddling Catholic kings by 1688.
Fun fact: The last British monarch to be personally on a battlefield was George II (son of George I), who was present at the Battle of Dettingen in Germany in the 1740's.
The Dettingen battle honour is still flown on the regimental colors of the main royal British regiments (Blues and Royals, The Life Guards, and a few others)
Yeah I got the impression that the one of the George's (likely George 2 then) was actually ok in the Brit's eyes, but George 3 was definitely controversial.
George III most likely had porphyria, a liver disease that causes a massive amount of problems in the entire body, also affects the brain and nervous system... They called him "Mad King George" for a reason, he was often quite literally in a state of insanity.
I mean, he handled the American situation terribly, the colonists tried to stay loyal for as long as possible, but he wouldn't reply to their petitions (leading to the list of "Abuses and Usurpation" in the Declaration).
But by all accounts he was in an absolutely terrible state physically and mentally, so some of the blame falls on his ministers.
I will give kudos to the Brits for what they accomplished. The Thirteen colonies and Canada later on simply shouldn't have even been defended by the British since they were self sustaining and too far away to really be plausible.
One thing the British should have done is conquered continental Europe during that time, since I think they would have done relatively well. Didn't help they had a dumbass unpatriotic German King George. I doubt most Brits even liked him.
The Brits actually did mostly appreciate the Hanoverian kings, because they were protestants, they were fertile (so no succession issues), and they let the British parliament run things mostly as they wanted. They had had enough of meddling Catholic kings by 1688.
Fun fact: The last British monarch to be personally on a battlefield was George II (son of George I), who was present at the Battle of Dettingen in Germany in the 1740's.
The Dettingen battle honour is still flown on the regimental colors of the main royal British regiments (Blues and Royals, The Life Guards, and a few others)
Yeah I got the impression that the one of the George's (likely George 2 then) was actually ok in the Brit's eyes, but George 3 was definitely controversial.
George III most likely had porphyria, a liver disease that causes a massive amount of problems in the entire body, also affects the brain and nervous system... They called him "Mad King George" for a reason, he was often quite literally in a state of insanity.
I mean, he handled the American situation terribly, the colonists tried to stay loyal for as long as possible, but he wouldn't reply to their petitions (leading to the list of "Abuses and Usurpation" in the Declaration).
But by all accounts he was in an absolutely terrible state physically and mentally, so some of the blame falls on his ministers.