George III to his failed assassin: “Do not hurt her, she has not hurt me.” Andrew Jackson to his failed assassin: _“Your free trial of life has expired.”_
In fairness, Jackson's assailant drew and misfired two separate pistols and was surely wishing for a third at the moment Jackson started clobbering him with his cane. In any case he was treated precisely the same as this crazy woman who tried to stab the King - life in an insane asylum.
its a great scene to establish the fact that not only was he a good and considerate king, but that he wasnt always mad, and was sane enough to be able to recognize madness in others and forgive it
Damiens, a French ex-soldier who was probably mad, slightly injured Louis XV with a pen knife. Damiens was tortured to determine whether he had any associates, and was sentenced to death. His body was torn apart. Casanova was among those who witnessed the execution.
This actually event occurred years before his first crisis of madness. The real power of this scene is to demonstrate that he was merciful to the mad when he was sane. Therefore, he (and his reputation) deserves mercy.
During the Coronation we saw references to ruling with gentleness and mercy IIRC. Perhaps to expand, King George III too that very serious in this case.
George III has an excellent reputation in the UK. It's in the US that he's got a bad reputation - based on lies and propaganda. In reality, he was a humane and compassionate man, highly intelligent and an effective ruler. Despite his episodic mental health problems. One of the best monarchs we've ever had. A good King.
@@markchambers3833 "Based on lies and propoganda" you mean based on truth and facts? lol King George the third was a mad tyrant. Who unjustly ruled over the 13 colonies and tried to tax us without representation. While he sat on his fat fucking ass halfway across the world, We were being oppressed by the jackboot of the English soldier. We kicked you Imperialist fucks out of America and that's something you'll never get over.
I’m sure that was a real event. I’m also sure there’s no record of what the family said afterward. The way it was portrayed with all the witty repartee and veiled insults is what makes it seem like Monty Python. That is completely fictional.
I feel like that's 90 seconds well spent, having watched this video of old Georgie avoiding becoming the first King of England to be assassinated with a fruit knife.
He encouraged it. He was often stopping by unannounced at local farms to see how the crops and animals were doing. Even wrote for an agricultural paper under a pseudonym.
@@DrCuriensapprentice Yes he spent most of his time eating and drinking and cavorting with women. He became very overweight by the time he was king as well.
@@ropete33 He also spent so much on dinners and other parties that he lost almost all his money while Prince Regent. George IV was one messed up fellow.
Actually many of the English whig aristocracy believed in the demands of the American colonists for representation in Parliament - "No Taxation Without Representation". William Pitt Earl of Chatham gave a lengthy 4 hour oration in the House of Lords supporting this, but to no avail. With the long Parliamentary recesses (still with us today) representation would have been possible. Only lack of vision prevented a very different world that may have existed even today.
They made a second mistake in the early 1900s. The Dominions (Canada, Australia, NZ, and South Africa) proposed that Westminster become a truly Imperial Parliament with MPs from across the Empire representing their constituents' interests. Someone pointed out that the populations of all the Dominions together equalled the "mother country" so they could conceivably outvote the British MPs. Yet another pointed out that if the "White" Dominions could vote, there would be very little reason short of outright racism that would prevent the others from demanding representation in due turn. Indian representation would dwarf all the other lands of the Empire. And thus there was no Imperial Parliament.
That is why you need a federal structure, akin to what I understand the USA to have - one chamber with representation weighted by population, and another with representation equal to each unit (colony, protectorate & home nation in the case of the British Empire, or States for the USA).
As an American I was taught in school that George III was an oppressive tyrant. And that the freedom-loving Americans were finally forced to rebel and declare independence. With the aid of noble patriots like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, that Truth, Justice, and the American Way finally triumphed against evil British subjugation. However this movie portrays George III as a rather decent person. NOT the obstinate autocrat the history books in America teach.
Becuase George III really WAS a decent person. Before he went bonkers, that is. He had some dumb ideas, but then, who doesn't? Besides, it was more than just George III's fault that America got antagonized. Britain by then was similar to today in government: Parliament and the Prime minister ran much of the actual machinery of state.
What's that? The victorious side claimed that their opponents were evil tyrants? Odd, that. It's almost as though they have an agenda to uphold, or something of that sort. It should be noted that it's possible that George was suffering from his mental disease during the period of the war. He showed signs from as early as 1765, and lapsed into it fully by 1785.
By all accounts he was rather decent King, until he went mad. Also although the Americans were right in their belief in self-determination, the main causes of revolution were economic, and it was driven by the upper and middle class, most working-class people were loyalists by estimates.
@@WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 And King Charles II in Stage Beauty. Kudos also to Julian Rhind-Tutt as Frederick, Duke of York here. Pair of naughty boys these. Fred had George’s back unlike the current second son of the Royal House.
George III had no authority in Governing the nation or the Empire itself, this was due to the Bill of rights in 1689 and the Crown lost a lot of power under George I to the Prime Minister which we have today. Simply put, George III, although agreeing with the taxes, did not impose them on the colonies and he certainly could not repeal them, it was British Parliament under Prime Minster Lord North that did all that. So all in all Lord North lost the colonies.
Simran Singh - Exactly. Important to remember that at this point George was a constitutional, not absolute monarch - something that would shock many Americans. In Edinburgh Castle, there is some graffiti from 1780 with 'Lord Nord' in a noose - thought to have been carved by a French or American (Continental) prisoner.
No. Its a contest between Elizabeth I and Victoria for best Monarch. But I would say King Alfred was the best. he WAS the only English King called Great after all.
machias Houlton - Technically so was Canute though he was a Dane as opposed to a native Saxon. Some are now giving Elizabeth II the posthumous epithet of 'the Great' due to the length of her reign.
There was no police force back then to act as bodyguards. No detectives, just officers of the army who guarded the king. I presume a marine guard detachment also attended the king and then there was the silver stick and gold stick in waiting. The very closest of literal personal protection officers.
They have the right to present the king with various concerns, legal pleas etc. It's more or less ceremonial, although George III was quite dutiful and would probably at least have read the letters handed to him before passing them on to the relevant people.
He did read almost all the letters addressed to him. It was part of his morning routine - he spent 1-2 hours in the morning reading and answering letters and petitions before he got dressed and formally started the day.
Why isn't youtube letting me comment on videos that relate to the uprising of the US? I've watched several of these video clips and the ones that show the US declaring independence and the reversing of slavery all seem to disallow comments.
after all, it was all politics, and many things have gone wrong for both sides. besides, the vast majority of average people didnt benefit from either faction. Then, as it is now, politics mostly concern the already well situated.
George III was no tyrant. Colonial propaganda made him out to be one, but it was the horribly bungled policies of his cabinet and the self-interest of members of the colonial aristocracy that largely resulted in the American Revolution.
oh spare me. Colonists were taxed heavily and had zero representation in Parliament, and they sent a foreign army to disarm them, antagonize them and going so far as to forcing them to house British officers in their own homes. The colonists tried to negotiate and he and Parliament continued to be obstinate. You can only ignore tyranny for so long. There is NO propaganda about that. It is well known that the colonists were British subjects but were never "accepted" as fully "British", they were treated with disdain by the crown while at the same time they were taxed to death. That was the point of throwing your horrible tea in our harbor.
The reason why the dialogue is cartoonish is because this movie is based off a play. It doesn’t pretend to be a strict portrayal of historical events. The attempted assassination did occur, however, with the victim truly being deemed insane. She wasn’t executed but was instead sent to a mental asylum.
@@cboy0394 as an Englishman it does not surprise me she wasn't executed... it would be strange and cause something of an outcry if that happened in such a case. anyway you are right; it's theatrical... debatable entertainment value today unless it's done very seriously, but on the screen it's just a load of silly nonsense. honestly it reminds me of teletubbies. I cannot see any appeal at all in this.
If your demand of media is that it be utterly grounded and amenable to your modern sensibilities than you must be very unimaginative indeed. It is also a strike of irony that you managed to highlight one of the key themes of the film and yet declare it an unfortunate mistake on the films part. It is no mistake that the film highlights the unnecessary pomp and pettiness of the upper echelon of society, exaggertaing it to cartoon heights. It is, in fact, sort of the point. The tale of King George's madness is the lens through which the madness of high society and the political sphere is revealed.
It was a ceremonial act where people would give him proposals and he would then give them to parliament, it was an echo of an era when the Crown had power
George III to his failed assassin: “Do not hurt her, she has not hurt me.”
Andrew Jackson to his failed assassin: _“Your free trial of life has expired.”_
That's the difference between a civilised monarchy and mob rule of an uncouth elected presidency.
Andrew Jackson sounding like the Schwarzenegger of his day.
@@JavertRA Andrew Jackson was a gigachad!
You cannot assassinate Andrew Jackson with mere weapons. You can only make him madder!
In fairness, Jackson's assailant drew and misfired two separate pistols and was surely wishing for a third at the moment Jackson started clobbering him with his cane. In any case he was treated precisely the same as this crazy woman who tried to stab the King - life in an insane asylum.
its a great scene to establish the fact that not only was he a good and considerate king, but that he wasnt always mad, and was sane enough to be able to recognize madness in others and forgive it
Well... I wont say good and considerate but he was not always mad.
He Was My Favourite King/Best
Damiens, a French ex-soldier who was probably mad, slightly injured Louis XV with a pen knife. Damiens was tortured to determine whether he had any associates, and was sentenced to death. His body was torn apart. Casanova was among those who witnessed the execution.
The movie version, yes. The real king was kind of a dickhead.
Hardly the bloodthirsty tyrant the Americans revisionists of the modern day make him out to be. 🙄😒
The costumes in this movie were amazing.
This actually event occurred years before his first crisis of madness. The real power of this scene is to demonstrate that he was merciful to the mad when he was sane. Therefore, he (and his reputation) deserves mercy.
Extremely well said
During the Coronation we saw references to ruling with gentleness and mercy IIRC. Perhaps to expand, King George III too that very serious in this case.
Fuck the king and fuck monarchism
George III has an excellent reputation in the UK. It's in the US that he's got a bad reputation - based on lies and propaganda.
In reality, he was a humane and compassionate man, highly intelligent and an effective ruler. Despite his episodic mental health problems.
One of the best monarchs we've ever had. A good King.
@@markchambers3833 "Based on lies and propoganda" you mean based on truth and facts? lol King George the third was a mad tyrant. Who unjustly ruled over the 13 colonies and tried to tax us without representation. While he sat on his fat fucking ass halfway across the world, We were being oppressed by the jackboot of the English soldier. We kicked you Imperialist fucks out of America and that's something you'll never get over.
After watching so many Henry viii documentaries, this seems like a Monty Python atmosphere during King George’s reign.
I’m sure that was a real event. I’m also sure there’s no record of what the family said afterward. The way it was portrayed with all the witty repartee and veiled insults is what makes it seem like Monty Python. That is completely fictional.
"I have a PrOpeRTy dUe tO mE frOm the cRoWn of EnGlaNd"
After watching so many Plantagenets dynasty - documentaries, Tudor era seems like a Monty Python atmosphere . :)
@@aleksandarstavric2226 yet there is no many movies and series about the Stuart period, we need it! 😢
"I'm not supposed to go mad until 1800!"
I feel like that's 90 seconds well spent, having watched this video of old Georgie avoiding becoming the first King of England to be assassinated with a fruit knife.
His Majesty was lucky. An assault with fresh fruit might have been his undoing, and he never learned to defend himself from such an attack.
By a woman, no less.
@@seangallagher1947 HAHAHAHAHAHA, dude, that comment was awesome.
@@gabrielhenriqueg2382 I do what I can.
@@LordZontar
Yeah, Don't want some maniac coming at him either with mangoes dipped in syrup, or worse, a banana!
God Save the King!... and so on...
"Will it indeed madame, well, not with this, it's a fruit knife, wouldn't cut a cabbage."
*Oh*
My Bank Account
Fruit knife...
"That is not a knife. THAT'S a knife!"
@@thunderbird1921 Imagine if he Proceeded to give the proper knife and allowed the women to try again.
No shit, it's not a vegetable knife, only cuts fruit.
Oh is insufficient
it's nice how someone tried to label him "Farmer George", and that term stuck with the King, but in a positive notion.
LutzDerLurch Well King George III did love gardening and growing his own crops.
He encouraged it. He was often stopping by unannounced at local farms to see how the crops and animals were doing. Even wrote for an agricultural paper under a pseudonym.
@@kelman727 wow
- The son rejoices. The Prince of Wales rejoices, huh!
amusedbygod like in this film the prince of Wales was a major disappointment to the King and Queen
@@DrCuriensapprentice Yes he spent most of his time eating and drinking and cavorting with women. He became very overweight by the time he was king as well.
@@ropete33 He also spent so much on dinners and other parties that he lost almost all his money while Prince Regent. George IV was one messed up fellow.
The other son who said 'God save the King' will be King William IV, won't he?
@@ezioadami9664 It could be Frederick, the Duke of York. He was older than William but died earlier so he didn’t become king.
0:34 REEEE!!!!
PPAP Pen Pineapple Apple Pen 0:37 AHH!
She’s a vampire… Vampire Bat-shit crazy.
@@KrazeBoyy what are you on about?
All that time spent as Victor Meldrew's neighbour drove her to this.
Especially when Sir Humphrey is just indulging in his favourite cosplay too......
He Was The Best. Proof That King George Has A ♥️
Actually many of the English whig aristocracy believed in the demands of the American colonists for representation in Parliament - "No Taxation Without Representation". William Pitt Earl of Chatham gave a lengthy 4 hour oration in the House of Lords supporting this, but to no avail. With the long Parliamentary recesses (still with us today) representation would have been possible. Only lack of vision prevented a very different world that may have existed even today.
They made a second mistake in the early 1900s. The Dominions (Canada, Australia, NZ, and South Africa) proposed that Westminster become a truly Imperial Parliament with MPs from across the Empire representing their constituents' interests.
Someone pointed out that the populations of all the Dominions together equalled the "mother country" so they could conceivably outvote the British MPs.
Yet another pointed out that if the "White" Dominions could vote, there would be very little reason short of outright racism that would prevent the others from demanding representation in due turn. Indian representation would dwarf all the other lands of the Empire.
And thus there was no Imperial Parliament.
That is why you need a federal structure, akin to what I understand the USA to have - one chamber with representation weighted by population, and another with representation equal to each unit (colony, protectorate & home nation in the case of the British Empire, or States for the USA).
And then India threw them out of the country. And many other nations followed suit. All those British apologists wishing for the time of yore.
Fun fact: General Cornwallis, before the Americans declared independence, argued to Parliament in favor of the colonists against the taxes
As an American I was taught in school that George III was an oppressive tyrant. And that the freedom-loving Americans were finally forced to rebel and declare independence. With the aid of noble patriots like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, that Truth, Justice, and the American Way finally triumphed against evil British subjugation. However this movie portrays George III as a rather decent person. NOT the obstinate autocrat the history books in America teach.
delavalmilker Everyone is human. You just need to know where to look to see it. Some show our best, others our very worst. Remember that, friend.
Becuase George III really WAS a decent person. Before he went bonkers, that is.
He had some dumb ideas, but then, who doesn't? Besides, it was more than just George III's fault that America got antagonized. Britain by then was similar to today in government: Parliament and the Prime minister ran much of the actual machinery of state.
What's that? The victorious side claimed that their opponents were evil tyrants? Odd, that. It's almost as though they have an agenda to uphold, or something of that sort.
It should be noted that it's possible that George was suffering from his mental disease during the period of the war. He showed signs from as early as 1765, and lapsed into it fully by 1785.
By all accounts he was rather decent King, until he went mad.
Also although the Americans were right in their belief in self-determination, the main causes of revolution were economic, and it was driven by the upper and middle class, most working-class people were loyalists by estimates.
+Albukhshi Shhhh, you're raining on the libtard's anti-American rant.
Sir Humphrey is dreaming!!!
He's made a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing!
The actor playing the Prince of Wales is very funny.
J. Liberty - Rupert Everett. He also played Charles I in 'To Kill A King' and George VI in 'A Royal Night Out'
@@WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 Thank you.
@@WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 And King Charles II in Stage Beauty. Kudos also to Julian Rhind-Tutt as Frederick, Duke of York here. Pair of naughty boys these. Fred had George’s back unlike the current second son of the Royal House.
George III had no authority in Governing the nation or the Empire itself, this was due to the Bill of rights in 1689 and the Crown lost a lot of power under George I to the Prime Minister which we have today. Simply put, George III, although agreeing with the taxes, did not impose them on the colonies and he certainly could not repeal them, it was British Parliament under Prime Minster Lord North that did all that. So all in all Lord North lost the colonies.
He was able to block Catholic Emancipation during the Pitt the Younger premiership and the India Bill during the Fox-North Coalition.
We are not “the colonies” anymore. We are the United States.
Matt King
You seemed to have missed the fact he’s talking in the historic tense.
Not the present.
No need to be quite so tetchy.
@@mango2005 Didn't Wilberforce and his allies also practically have to force George III to end the slave trade?
Simran Singh - Exactly. Important to remember that at this point George was a constitutional, not absolute monarch - something that would shock many Americans. In Edinburgh Castle, there is some graffiti from 1780 with 'Lord Nord' in a noose - thought to have been carved by a French or American (Continental) prisoner.
Does she 'ave a loicence for that knife?
oi mate, got a loicense for that properteh?
Oi mates, you got loicences for those comments?
@MrStig691 i think you're going to jail
(youre right though canada is pretty authoritarian)
I just discovered Yes Minister and have been binging it - so you can see how damn bizarre this all is.
Yes now try Waiting for God then you’ll find out that they sent this woman to look after pensioners at a home after declaring her insane.
You see why knives are forbidden in England...
I just want a posey that follows in front of me spouting Chop! Chop! The King!
God save King GEORGE III. !!!!
He should save you from the United States, Your Highness.
I am a King George III fan but this Word Play is good 😂
Ha rdy fuck off!!!
yes
"Majesty is unharmed"
Some faces: Drat!
Oh the irony...the "mad king" now recognizes madness in others.
Empathy is a common consequence of manic depression.
#portension #foreshdowing #foreboding
King George is like a ninja.
Agreed
0:18 "Jane, you're touching me."
Well I got it, even if nobody else did XD hahaha
No. Its a contest between Elizabeth I and Victoria for best Monarch. But I would say King Alfred was the best. he WAS the only English King called Great after all.
What about Canute?
Cnut not Canute as far as I am aware.
I'm more of a fan of Æthelstan myself.
@@kake1604 Yes! He was a criminally underrated King in our history, one of the greatest kings we ever had.
machias Houlton - Technically so was Canute though he was a Dane as opposed to a native Saxon. Some are now giving Elizabeth II the posthumous epithet of 'the Great' due to the length of her reign.
I never heard of George until recently.
How extraordinary.
People say that sequels only get worse as they go on, but George III was probably the best of the trilogy.
Even mad king Geordie shows more humanity than a certain cuntstable in Cooma. RIP dear Mrs Nowland.
There was no police force back then to act as bodyguards. No detectives, just officers of the army who guarded the king. I presume a marine guard detachment also attended the king and then there was the silver stick and gold stick in waiting. The very closest of literal personal protection officers.
Helen MIrren. Do you know that if you scramble the letters up, take some out and put some in, you get "Gorgeous" ...?
Um...wait a second, at 0:59 is that Lestrade?!
Good call! It is!
What what!
The best king ever
They have the right to present the king with various concerns, legal pleas etc. It's more or less ceremonial, although George III was quite dutiful and would probably at least have read the letters handed to him before passing them on to the relevant people.
He did read almost all the letters addressed to him. It was part of his morning routine - he spent 1-2 hours in the morning reading and answering letters and petitions before he got dressed and formally started the day.
Charlotte Corday was a much hotter female assassin.
Janine Duvitski, great actress
As en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Nicholson
Was that a blunt knife oh so it is XD heard when George the III hit by a blunt knife XD
god save the king...and so on
Is that Helen Merrin at 1:07? She seems to time travel throughout the royal family 😅
0:32 "Grreee eeee"
Indeed. Good to know, thanks.
@YAHWEHisperfect A Tricorn is "complex, unpractical clothing" ? You never wore one, did you?
Why isn't youtube letting me comment on videos that relate to the uprising of the US? I've watched several of these video clips and the ones that show the US declaring independence and the reversing of slavery all seem to disallow comments.
If someone wants to know petitions were possible even in Absolutist states like France and Austria.
Isn't that Victor Meldrew's neighbour (the one who was Angus Deayton's wife)?
gman84 yes
Yes it was her 20th birthday that day
Humphrey Appleby 😂
"Mr. Pitt...!"
More London knife crime
Been going on since the 1780s apparently.
he said it wouldn't cut a cabbage
That’s a metaphor
jesus that scared the hell outta me
0:34 REEEEEEE
What is this from?
Anyone know off-top, is that Helen Mirren? 🧐
yes
0:37 Reeeeee
They are giving the King petitions.
after all, it was all politics, and many things have gone wrong for both sides. besides, the vast majority of average people didnt benefit from either faction. Then, as it is now, politics mostly concern the already well situated.
Me at a jake paul meet & Greet 0:17
0:33 "ee"
Godddddd!! The Brits can do theater 🎯🎰 it is clear
يا جماعة أنا مش عارف كيف وصلت هون
انا كنت في ال2021
A good king that will tragically forever be known for his mental illness and unfairly demonised by Americans
Margaret Nicholson attacked him with a spoon not a fruit knife
It was a knife...
Wot wot!
George III was no tyrant. Colonial propaganda made him out to be one, but it was the horribly bungled policies of his cabinet and the self-interest of members of the colonial aristocracy that largely resulted in the American Revolution.
oh spare me. Colonists were taxed heavily and had zero representation in Parliament, and they sent a foreign army to disarm them, antagonize them and going so far as to forcing them to house British officers in their own homes. The colonists tried to negotiate and he and Parliament continued to be obstinate. You can only ignore tyranny for so long. There is NO propaganda about that. It is well known that the colonists were British subjects but were never "accepted" as fully "British", they were treated with disdain by the crown while at the same time they were taxed to death. That was the point of throwing your horrible tea in our harbor.
OHH😨
every clip I've seen from this is just full of unrealistic, cartoonish dialogue that has me wondering who is crazy; the King or the people around him?
The reason why the dialogue is cartoonish is because this movie is based off a play. It doesn’t pretend to be a strict portrayal of historical events. The attempted assassination did occur, however, with the victim truly being deemed insane. She wasn’t executed but was instead sent to a mental asylum.
@@cboy0394 as an Englishman it does not surprise me she wasn't executed... it would be strange and cause something of an outcry if that happened in such a case.
anyway you are right; it's theatrical... debatable entertainment value today unless it's done very seriously, but on the screen it's just a load of silly nonsense.
honestly it reminds me of teletubbies.
I cannot see any appeal at all in this.
If your demand of media is that it be utterly grounded and amenable to your modern sensibilities than you must be very unimaginative indeed. It is also a strike of irony that you managed to highlight one of the key themes of the film and yet declare it an unfortunate mistake on the films part. It is no mistake that the film highlights the unnecessary pomp and pettiness of the upper echelon of society, exaggertaing it to cartoon heights. It is, in fact, sort of the point. The tale of King George's madness is the lens through which the madness of high society and the political sphere is revealed.
1000 and ordo
Please enlighten an American---what are these "petitioners" trying to do?
zooeyhall
Petition.
It was a ceremonial act where people would give him proposals and he would then give them to parliament, it was an echo of an era when the Crown had power
They’re called ‘books.’
Try them.
@@kelman727 not being patronising, try it.
Its like watching joe biden interact
Joe Bidet what what!
Hahaha
Democrats not happy.
english lol
...?