MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
British History? You needn't bother (British History)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

George = Genghis

St. Genghis, also known as Henry V, allied with the British to win his great victory. This is my reasoned speculation.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

George III went mad in 1788.

Does that spark anyone's imagination?
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
George III went mad in 1788.

Does that spark anyone's imagination?

It doesn't spark my imagination. My history's too poor. I have had a look a the Wikipedia page for 1788 though.

January 18 – The leading ship in Captain Arthur Phillip's First Fleet arrives at Botany Bay, to colonise Australia.

April 7 – American pioneers establish the town of Marietta (in modern-day Ohio), the first permanent American settlement outside the original Thirteen Colonies.

June 7 – France: Day of the Tiles, which some consider the beginning of the French Revolution.

September 13 – The United States Congress of the Confederation passes an act providing a timeline for the voting for the first President under the new U.S. Constitution.

(October – King George III of the United Kingdom becomes deranged; the Regency Crisis of 1788 starts.)

December 14 – King Charles III of Spain dies, and is succeeded by his son Charles IV.

Anything there near the mark?
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
George = Genghis



I have always thought Genghis= Hengist was worth a punt. But I am off topic.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wile E. Coyote wrote:
I have always thought Genghis= Hengist was worth a punt. But I am off topic.


Looks like a good idea!
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

N R Scott wrote:
Anything there near the mark?


Yes.

I think so.

I think the proximity of the madness of King George with one of those events extremely suggestive of a relationship.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Out of interest. Is anyone else considering the possibility the he wasn't "mad" in the slightest, and that it was all politically motivated? Or is the evidence for his madness too overwhelming?

It's just it's a great tool for smearing enemies and debarring people from positions. The New York Times and other outlets used the same tactic against Trump after the election. Fortunately for him he passed his medicals with flying colours, but it would have been quite a sight to see a medical team essentially overrule an election if he hadn't. Interestingly, the detractors of Charles III are also constantly tarring him with the "mad" brush. Which is also a bit unfair in my opinion, as whatever someone's opinions on him or the monarchy, it's a bit disingenuous to throw that label at him.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

..also, was declaring someone mad a bit of a newfangled thing back then?

When did it become acceptable to lock up otherwise law-abiding people purely for medical reasons? Or had that always happened to some extent?

I read that he was put in a strait-jacket. That sounds like something that would've been invented around about that time.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

N R Scott wrote:
Out of interest. Is anyone else considering the possibility the he wasn't "mad" in the slightest, and that it was all politically motivated?


Geee..... Wherever did you get THAT idea? :-)

My position, however, is even more radical.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

N R Scott wrote:
I read that he was put in a strait-jacket. That sounds like something that would've been invented around about that time.


Excellent point! An anachronism. Suspicious.

Apparently, part of the treatment given the mad king was being hit with sticks.

Does that sound like ANYTHING anyone would have dared do to a KING?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

George III reigned as King from 1760 to 1788. 28 years.

He then "went mad." But he got better.

Then he reigned again until 1820. Another 32 years.

Anything interesting about that?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Jubilees? Leap years? Transits of Venus?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I guess there's nothing to it after all.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael, we are all trying to be helpful in our own ways but there is a limit to tantalisation.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Sometimes, I wish I could unsee what I have seen.

I am now in the lamentable position of having to posit the impossible, to most-rationally account for the improbable.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Jump to:  
Page 2 of 3

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group