The Georges of England

In colonial Lanka almost every house in the low country exhibited a photo of the debonair King George the Sixth who died an early death probably due to chain smoking during the tense periods of the Second World War waged in the 1930s and 40s. In fact in later years the writer saw a film where his lifemate, gets distraught over this suicidal propensity. Anyway, Britain won the war and the king died a few years later. My mother, while she battled with seven children, managed to keep abreast of world news and I remember her asking me in 1952 aggressively, the hands on her hips, "Now that is a king who died suddenly. Was there no medicine to save him? Was there no money in the family to buy the medicine? "No. It is all Kamma". I nod for at this time I had not seen the above-mentioned film. And I let it go at that minus further wrangling.

Coming back to George the sixth's photos, these were not purchased but were distributed by the State to strengthen the bonds between the mother country and the colonies which some patriots labelled as a part of the network of imperial conspiracy. However, in ill-kept households, termites, oblivious to the fact that here was a great one who ruled three-fifth of the universe, ate up a good part of his face in the unframed photos making the face noseless and mouthless, perhaps an omen for the future.

George the Sixth was succeeded in 1953 by his eldest daughter who still reigns making those of our age feel young. The line of the Georges seems to become extinct after this but as long as it lasted a few of the Georges made news. The initiator of the line was George 1 (1714-27) who come over from the Continent. Born In Hanover, Germany he was full of the Euro complex and refused to speak English. That meant that he never spoke with his wife and finally he had her arrested not because she spoke English but due to many privy and complicated matters.

Conquista process

Not much of consequence happened during George II's reign (1727-60) except that Britain began to eclipse other European races in the World Conquista process. At the beginning they were only sea pirates but soon fortunes changed. The reign of George III (1760-1820) saw a further expansion of their power mostly in Asia. The mighty India became their proudest possession not due to any expertise of the "Mad king" but due to the machinations of the British East India company that captured an Indian city here and there, built fortresses and conjoined the whole matrix into an empire.

King George III went mad over the loss of America.

The conquest of the little island that dangled below was child's play and in 1815 the whole of Lanka fell under the sway of George III, the first George to be born in England. Strangely, both the 1st and 2nd Georges were born in Germany making the monarchy of England, more or less an imported monarchy that filled the hiatus of successors. More strangely in the 1930s and 40s England still reigned by a George was at deadly grips with this land from where the reigning dynasty came.

Kings are also human and so a few of them do go mad though much publicity is not given to the debacle. King George III's madness is mostly attributed to the loss of America. When he started to talk to trees, no one could stop the gossip spreading.

Talking to trees

But the obvious question is once a king loses America why he should start to talk to trees. Even the heir apparent Prince Charles has the propensity of talking to trees when he is not talking to Camilla, his second wife. And some others say they talk to trees not because they are mad but because they are fond of trees and consider them semi-animate. The chit-chat helps the flora to flourish. They are both environmentalists. Yet that George III was mad is a fact. In fact a film had been made on his madness for it is rarely that kings go mad though there is enough and more to drive rulers of States to lunacy.

The writer remembers a piece which bars following from ascending thrones - disfigured, deformed, not pleasing to look at, sickly, foolish and of course mad. But of course there is nothing to prevent a ruler from developing these traits later and then there is no alternative but to abdicate. Recently what others saw a madness in this king, Prince Charles, an admirer of his seas as plus points. He states in a TV interview that King George III was one of the most dutiful and misunderstood of rulers and that he was a student of arts and sciences involved in agriculture, astronomy and architecture, almost a replica of himself.

So he has omitted to say that once this king had tried to smash his son's head against a wall after which he was put in an iron chair to restrain him. He had been suffering from porphyria, an iron deficiency that runs in the royal family. If my mother heard that she would have quipped, "So, even the kings could not find enough iron to chew?"

It is interesting to pry into the issue whether any of our kings ever went mad. There was sufficient political dynamite to make them mad. Especially those such as Rajasinghe II fighting two White races simultaneously but even he never went mad unless one construes some of his acts like imprisoning innocent foreigners minus provocation as fringing on near-lunacy.