Why do Historians Differ in Their Views of These Historical Characters

Authors Avatar

Why do Historians Differ in Their Views of These Historical Characters

Aim: To find how reliable evidence is and to find out which factors constitute for a good reliable piece of evidence.

 

In this essay I will be looking at political personalities of the early 19th century. I will compare and contrast pieces of evidence and give and accurate conclusion based around the evidence given to me.

 

The first character is George, The Prince Regent from 1811, when his father was declared insane and not fit to run the country, until 1820, when his father died and he became King, until 1830. George’s father had been relived of his position after they decided he was too crazy to run the country; in fact he wasn’t mad he had a blood disease which made him seem crazed. Already the people were losing faith in the monarchy, this newly appointed King was the son of a lunatic, also George’s public life was not the ‘typical’ Victorian lifestyle which many people demanded of their King. George was not a popular man in his time, one poem written by William Home (1819) states that George was “All covered with orders and all forlorn”, which means he looked the part, but in fact he was a fool. Also the poem makes reference to George being frivolous with the countries money saying that he “leaves the State and its treasure, And, when Britain’s in tears, sails about at his pleasure.” These lines obviously show the animosity, which was arising at the time and the foolishness which people believed the King to display. An illustration is depicted below; this went with the poem.


 


  

 

This cartoon is an extremist view of the King. The title of the book, which it is depicted in, shows this as it is called ‘A Radical View of the Prince Regent’. Radical is obviously what it is, this piece of evidence is not totally believable. This person is not giving a fair view; the radical aspect is a good selling point and the comical way in which it is shown would help sell copies of the book. The person who wrote this didn’t have hindsight either and was caught up in the whole atmosphere at the time. This person couldn’t give a historian a non-bias view because everyone at that time had his or her own opinion, which is illustrated in this book. Although this evidence has lots of faults it can give a historian a picture of what the peoples views, about the political situation, were like. This can be valuable because it shows that people at the time didn’t respect the King or the whole political system, but only generalised assumptions can be made from this type of evidence, but it is a good starting piece to look at.

 

An extract from a book called ‘History of the Thirty Years’ Peace 1816-1846’, written by Harriet Martineau (1858), gives an account of King George 111. She says that George’s private life was ‘offensive’ and that he performed his public duties ‘with reluctance’. The two extracts clearly show that George was not a particularly well liked man people, even after his death, saw him as a bad public example and a bad ambassador to the country. It also described the perception that he was lazy and wouldn’t do his job. She also says that he ‘craved ease and indulgence.’ This woman doesn’t portray positive picture of George. The evidence against him is very circumstantial, the source does not suggest that she had met him or that she had historical evidence supporting her assumptions. Historical evidence is only released fifty years after a person’s death, or only if their family wants you to see certain documents. This means that Harriet didn’t have access to information that could have been vital for her to see if his political ideas and decisions were decisive or weak. All Harriet has done is comment on his sociability and his life, which she has found to be very wrong and very un-kingly. Harriet Martineau was also French, England had beaten France in the long laborious war it had been engaged in, Martineau could have been a bit bitter towards Britain because of her countries defeat. This would make a reliable piece of evidence because Harriet had hindsight, although not all of the information would have been available to her a lot still would have been. I think that the source can give us a clear picture of George’s private life, especially when compared with the other source, they both are clearly commenting on George’s amorous nature. Harriet would also be able to give an objective view, as she is not caught up with the events of the time. I think this source is useful as it shows how our European counterparts viewed King George and indeed the English parliamentary system.           

 

The next source from ‘The First Four Georges’, written by J.H. Plumb (1956) is a biography George, the source is an extract from the book. This source contains some facts about George’s rein, it states that George’s ‘debts amounted to £500,000’, by 1811, it also says that ‘His manias were buildings and adornment and the motive for much of his work was ostentatious vanity’. Again the views are very subjective and none of the sources give a totally clear picture of how George ran the country. Plumb probably had access to lots of official government documents, although the only fact that he has put is about how much money George spent. The document also comments about George’s private life and particularly comments about his wife Caroline. It says ‘she was flamboyant, dirty and highly sexed’ it also says that ‘Even hardened diplomats were shocked by her language’. I believe that this text was wrote in the context to shock rather than give hard historical facts, it gives an account of the radical gossip of the time. Although this book seems to be written to show how eccentric and unethical George’s life was, it also gives us a very accurate account coming from a respected historian who had hindsight. None of the sources that have been reviewed here seem to be conflicting, they all come to the same conclusion George led a very extravagant lifestyle. He lived to impress, his buildings were impressive, and were called the regency style, which became very popular. His relationships were to say the least controversial. I think that it is clear from the sources that George was a patron on extravagance controversy.

Join now!

 

Another very famous political character in the early 19th century was Robert Banks Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool born in 1770. He was a Tory politician, and in May 1812, after the assassination of Spencer Percival. Liverpool remained in office until his resignation due to ill health in February 1827. He died in 1828.

 

The first source is a letter written in 1819 by William Huskisson (1770-1830), Tory MP for Liverpool to his wife. It says that the government is embarrassed about a certain situation, Huskisson then says that the government can blame ‘the genius of Old Mouldy’. Hukisson talks ...

This is a preview of the whole essay