Madness or Malady: What REALLY Happened to King George?

George William Frederick, (4June 1738-29January1.1765 - a brief episode.
1820), or2.1788 -a longer episode. A Regency Bill
King George III, is said by many to have goneisdiscussed.
mad,necessitating the Regency. But is this what3.1810-final,debilitating attack; the King isconsidered
reallyhappened?insane and Parliament meets to enact a Regency
Not according to recent research.Bill.
Actually, the research isn't all that new, which isThe King never returned to his senses, or to
why itis inexcusable, to my thinking, to continue topower,and he was "locked away at Windsor
characterize the King as merely having gone mad.Castle" where he also fell subject to the
In 1994 the movie, "The Madness of Kingmisinformed and sometime brutal treatment of
George" tried toset the record straight-sort of. Ifhis physicians, and to eventual neglect.
I remember correctly,there was a little blurb atSome of the mystifying behaviour he was said to
the end stating that the Kingactually suffereddisplay? For starters, he claimed to talk to angels.
from Porphyria, a disease of the blood. One isBy itself, and by modern standards, we would
inclined to think, however, that most people neverlikely not label him insane for such claims.
read the blurb, though this is, in fact, the modern(Questionable, eccentric, or odd, perhaps, but
consensus of what the King's malady actually was.probably not mad.) But there's more.
Porphyria.He spoke for hours on end without pause; and he
So-what, we ask, is porphyria? Dictionaries willonce greetedan oak tree as though it were King
merelytell you that it is a metabolic disorder thatFrederick William III of Prussia. Sadly, before he
affects theblood, secondarily. The main cause ofdied, he prattled incessant nonsense for upwards
symptoms, however, isnot a result of how theof 50 hours, then lapsed into a coma and death.
blood is affected, but theaccumulation ofKing George was a popular monarch in Britain for
porphyrins in the body, which are toxic totissue inmost ofhis reign. Here in the States we tend to
high concentrations.think badly ofhim, no doubt due to the fact that
Porphyrins, in turn, are actually precursorsour forefathers saw fitto blame him entirely for all
ofheme-an essential part of the blood. In thethe injustices and wrongswe suffered as a British
disease state,porphyrins are not manufacturedcolony. (Parliament is not mentioned in the
into heme as they shouldbe, thereby leaving themDeclaration--only the King.)
to roam the system, which is theroot of theBut he was a thoughtful, domestic family man; he
trouble.loved to cultivate crops and build gardens and was
There are differing types of porphyria, whichdubbed "farmer George" because of it. He
result indiffering symptoms, but the King isremained faithful to his wife for his lifetime, which
thought to have had theblood type ("hepaticwas singular for a Hanoverian monarch and much
porphyria") which affects the nervoussystem, andadmired by the British people. And he espoused
results in abdominal pain, neuropathy, seizuresandthrift and economy; ( the very opposite of what
mental disturbances, includinghis son, the Regent, later did.)
hallucinations,depression, anxiety and paranoia.In short, I cannot help but to like this King. He was
(Little wonder that 19thcentury doctors thoughtnotable to foster a good relationship with his
he was nuts!)eldest son, andin fact, was disliked by his own
Interestingly, research has shown that the diseasefather. But he was a Kingwith a conscience, and,
ishereditary and plagues the British royal family,except for an occasional stubbornstreak (which he
stemmingfrom Scottish monarchs James 1 andshowed in his refusal to give up thecolonies for so
Mary 1 of Scotland. Queen Anne of Great Britain,long), he was a reasonable man, savvyenough in
Queen Victoria's granddaughter Charlotte, andthe political arena to retain the power of
prince William of Gloucester (not to be confusedthethrone during his reign, and had a sincere
with the current Prince William) almost certainlydesire to dowhat was right.
suffered from the illness (as well as Vincent VanAs to the misfortune of his having had porphyria,
Gogh).the bestthing I can say is that, if not for the
They suffered from what is called, "Acutedisease, we wouldnot have had the Regency.
Intermittent Porphyria" which is certainly what theThat, indeed, would have been agreat loss--at
King had, as can be attested by his record ofleast to us Regency authors!
attacks;Sources: WordNet ® 2.