Though the role of monarchy in the society is often underrated, monarchy, in fact, defines a range of features of the society in question, including its economic and financial status; it defines the national identity of its members and the stability of the society, not to mention the fact that it represents the key source of power within the state. Despite the fact that in the course of the reign of George III, the monarchy was gradually losing its influence and power, its role as the moral compass of the society was enhanced greatly.
Looking back at the change, which the concept of monarchy underwent in the XVIII century, one must admit that the premises for the above-mentioned alterations were quite obvious. George III was obviously trying to reinforce his influence among his subjects by gaining their trust. A closer look at his policy will reveal that he attempted at blending with the nation; therefore, trying to gain people’s trust (Monod 211).
It is quite remarkable that George III must have foreseen the fall of the monarchy and the following necessity to reinforce its influence by putting a stronger emphasis on ethical and moral values. After all, he started enhancing the concept of monarchy as the stronghold of British morality since the very start of his reign (Monod 211). In addition, George came to the realization of the fact that the British monarchy had fallen into “bondage” relatively soon (Monod 210).
Rethinking the effects, which the strategy of George III had on not only his own reputation but also the reputation of monarchy as a whole, one must admit that the effects of his endeavors of being closer to the nation and its troubles left much to be desired. Labeled as “Farmer George” (Monod 264), he was taken quite seriously by most of his subjects; as a result, the disappointment, which followed the discovery of his dishonesty, was truly huge, Monod explains (Monod 264). Therefore, one may assume that it was not the attempt of George II to bring monarchs and people closer that caused a major downfall of the former, but the falsity and the hypocrisy that his actions were shot through.
True, the idea of a king willingly refusing the benefits that his position offers to him and preferring the simple life of a peasant or a gardener, as it was in King George’s case, is very flawed. While a monarch must demonstrate his care for the residents of the kingdom, he must still retain his status without reducing himself to the position and behavior of a peasant. However, in the long run, the strategy chosen by George III could have worked if he had been sincere about it, and if this strategy had not had a double meaning. Regardless of the lack of trust, which George III experienced, the British monarchy persisted; more to the point, it was reinforced, though its role obviously changed from the control over the state economy, politics and finances to the provision of moral standards for the British society (Monod 210).
The transformation, which monarchy went through as George III took power in his hands, is truly stunning. On the one hand, he restricted the power of monarchy considerably. On the other hand, the effect that the monarchy had on the moral fabric of British society was immense. As a result, the monarchs that followed George III were expected to save the state from the republicans and secure the monarchy traditions. British people needed to feel secure, and they demanded that monarchy should give them the security that they were striving for.
Works Cited
Monod, Paul Kléber. Imperial Island: A History of Britain and Its Empire, 1660-1837. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. 2009. Print.