George III

George III appears in Thomas Paine’s argument as the chief personification of royal power over the American colonies. Paine connects the King’s support for Parliament’s claims to the colonies’ oppression and argues that the people therefore have the right to examine and reject the pretensions of both. The King is not treated as a private subject of personal praise or blame so much as the living center of a political arrangement that Paine considers illegitimate and dangerous.

The King and the Case Against Monarchy

Paine places George III within a broader attack on kingship and hereditary rule. He argues that human equality has no natural or religious basis for being overturned by a class of kings and subjects. In his account, kingship entered human society through custom rather than divine necessity; he invokes the biblical history of the Israelites, who lived under judges and elders before requesting a king, as evidence that monarchy was neither their original nor their proper form of government.

The history Paine offers is designed to challenge the authority that the Crown claims to embody. He describes the origins of hereditary succession as potentially rooted in force, expediency, and later stories that converted a temporary arrangement into a supposed right. England’s own royal lineage, he argues, has no honorable foundation in the Norman Conquest: descent from William the Conqueror cannot make inherited rule sacred. His wider indictment is that hereditary succession admits rulers who may be foolish, wicked, or unfit, and exposes a country to the risks of minority rule and regencies.

Paine also rejects the claim that hereditary monarchy reliably prevents civil conflict. He cites England’s record of civil wars and rebellions, then recounts the contest between the houses of York and Lancaster: Henry and Edward fought repeated battles, each was at different times a prisoner of the other, and the crown changed hands before the families were united under Henry VII. For Paine, this history makes monarchy and succession causes of political violence, not safeguards against it. George III’s authority is thus framed as part of a system whose inherited form carries no guarantee of competence, peace, or public benefit.

Royal Power and Colonial Dependence

The pamphlet’s immediate charge is that George III has undertaken, in his own right, to support Parliament in what it claims as its authority over the colonies. Paine says this combination has grievously oppressed the people and makes inquiry into both the King’s and Parliament’s claims essential. The dispute is not merely over particular measures: it concerns who has the right to make laws for the continent.

Paine argues that a settlement with Britain would leave the King with a veto over colonial legislation. In his view, a monarch who has shown hostility to liberty and a desire for arbitrary power cannot safely be trusted to decide which laws the colonies may enact. The danger, he says, would be especially acute in America: the King might allow legislation that suited his purposes while preventing measures needed for the continent’s growth or defense. Even if the Crown’s veto existed in England, Paine insists, the King’s residence there made its effects different from its use across the Atlantic.

Distance also makes British government impractical. Paine describes the burden of travelling three or four thousand miles with petitions, waiting four or five months for a response, and then spending another five or six months interpreting it. A power so far away and, in his view, so poorly informed about America could not administer its affairs conveniently or justly. His comparison between a small island and a continent turns geography into a political argument: America should not remain governed as a dependent appendage of an island across the ocean.

Paine further argues that dependence entangles America in European conflicts. Because Britain’s wars disrupt American trade and place the colonies at odds with nations that might otherwise be friendly, he says, the continent cannot remain neutral while it is subject to British policy. America’s commercial interests, in his account, favor trade with Europe without a partial political connection to any European power. Independence would allow the colonies to avoid being used as a weight in British politics and to pursue relations on their own terms.

From Reconciliation to Independence

Paine marks the outbreak of hostilities as a decisive change in the political situation. Before April 19, proposals on both sides still aimed at union with Great Britain, differing over whether it should be pursued by force or friendship. Once fighting began, he argues, those earlier plans were superseded. He recalls that before the events of that day he had strongly wished for reconciliation, but says the news changed his position: the conflict had made continued submission and renewed petitioning untenable.

His case against reconciliation rests partly on the prospect of renewed conflict. The repeal of the Stamp Act had not prevented the quarrel from returning, so Paine rejects assurances that Britain would not attempt to reassert control. He also insists that the scale of the struggle must match its cost: removing a ministry or securing repeal of particular acts would not justify the blood and expense already incurred if the underlying dependence remained. A temporary political repair, he warns, would leave the next generation to face the same conflict.

Paine portrays royal rule after a settlement as likely to weaken the continent rather than restore trust. He contends that the Crown would keep America politically low, restrict its development when that served British interests, and might use concessions tactically to regain control. In this reasoning, a change of name or the repeal of acts would not turn political enemies into reliable friends; reconciliation could preserve the conditions of future subjection while disguising them as peace.

The case for separation also depends on the colonies’ position abroad. So long as America calls itself Britain’s subject, Paine argues, other powers cannot mediate the conflict as they might between independent nations, and France or Spain would have little reason to assist a revolt intended only to restore Britain’s authority. Colonial resistance under the name of subjects also appears paradoxical to foreign courts. A public declaration of independence, accompanied by an account of grievances and assurances of peaceful trade, could make the continent legible as a nation and open the way to foreign relations.

The King’s Speech and the Pamphlet’s Judgment

The appearance of George III’s King’s Speech on the same day as the first edition of the pamphlet is presented by Paine as a striking confirmation of his argument. Rather than frightening readers into submission, he says, the speech prepared them to accept independence. He condemns it as an attack on truth, the common good, and human existence, and treats its language as evidence of the dangers inherent in kingship.

Paine’s judgment is not confined to the immediate policy of the speech. He uses it to argue that kings, separated from the people by the institution of monarchy, can become hostile to the human interests they are supposed to govern. The pamphlet contrasts royal authority with the natural equality of people and with a political order in which laws are made for the public rather than subject to a distant monarch’s permission. George III therefore functions both as the particular ruler whose power threatens America and as the clearest example in the pamphlet of why hereditary monarchy should not govern it.