Was it feasible for George III to side with the Colonists against Parliament?

[Commissar]

As the tin says.

One of the demands of the Colonists was the right to autonomy with the King as sovereign, but the Colonies allowed to pass their own taxes and ordinances.

George III rejected this and stated Parliament was the sole authority over taxes and law.

Was it politically feasible for George III to do otherwise and side with the Colonists and give them autonomy?

 

[Thande]

Probably not OTL's George III, but perhaps if he had a better idea of how things stood in America: after all, he was cross with Parliament himself and could have used the threat of giving more autonomy to the American colonial assemblies as a stick to beat the Whigs with. The original POD I planned for my TL Look to the West was to have a George III who ends up visiting America in his youth due to his father falling out of favour at court and therefore later on has more in depth knowledge of the issues affecting the colonists.

 

[Socrates]

As the tin says.

One of the demands of the Colonists was the right to autonomy with the King as sovereign, but the Colonies allowed to pass their own taxes and ordinances.

George III rejected this and stated Parliament was the sole authority over taxes and law.

Was it politically feasible for George III to do otherwise and side with the Colonists and give them autonomy?

If he was so inclined, it wouldn't be too difficult. Parliament at this time was dominated by the King's lobby after the dominant Whig faction of the first half of the century had their power broken. If Pitt had been appointed PM without someone like Townshend as Chancellor a much more tolerant approach could have occurred.

The problem is that George III was a stubborn, impatient man at the time, that didn't like ceding power to parliament, let alone far away local assemblies.

 

[Last of the Stuarts]

Was it politically feasible for George III to do otherwise and side with the Colonists and give them autonomy?

I have always had the impression that George was the one that veto'd this, rather than parliament.

After all the Irish had their parliament, so it was just an extension of local democracy.

 

[Derek Jackson]

As I understand it in the 18th Century the King chose the government and to a significatn extent the government bribed the Parliament ( or borough owners)

 

[Socrates]

I have always had the impression that George was the one that veto'd this, rather than parliament.

After all the Irish had their parliament, so it was just an extension of local democracy.

But the Irish Parliament was declared subordinate to the British Crown and parliament in 1719. It was the same language in the 1766 Declaratory Act, trying to do the same thing to the colonies, that infuriated them so much.

As I understand it in the 18th Century the King chose the government and to a significatn extent the government bribed the Parliament ( or borough owners)

This is true for George III's time. In the first half of the century, the Whig leadership controlled parliament through patronage, but George III broke them and set up the same system in his favour through the "friends of the King". Even when he had to bow to popular demand and install the pro-American Pitt as Prime Minister, he undermined him by making sure Townshend was Chancellor.