In Linda Colley’s book Britons, she takes a shot at combining numerous components of Britain in the eighteenth century to form an understanding of what exactly made up the British identity. Colley’s book is organized well and her arguments are always thoroughly backed up with evidence. Colley makes it very clear that she believes Dominance and Majesty are two elements that encompassed the British identity in the eighteenth century. The overwhelming evidence and support that Colley provides for this assertion makes it near impossible to disagree with her. Colley was most definitely correct when she said the British Identity was forged along the lines of Dominance and Majesty. The “Dominance” Colley is referring to can be broken up into
…show more content…
King George III sought out to make the royal monarchy celebrated, while George I and George II were just merely trying to survive (Colley, 210). As a result of this, Colley tells us on page 219, “Defeat in America and, above all, revolution in France fostered in Britain a more splendid monarchy and influenced the nature and direction of the splendor” (Colley, 219). This splendid monarchy was not celebrated just because the king said it should be, though. There were efforts to make celebrations more inclusive. This allowed the celebrations to be seen as advertising broad local agreement in the form of national, royal celebrations (Colley, 230). So finally, for the first time, royal celebrations in Great Britain involved all political affiliations, all religious groups, and all parts of the empire. This made the celebrations truly national and not sectional (Colley, 236). The majesty of Great Britain had reached an all time high in terms of splendor. The monarchy was celebrated nationally now for this first time as patriotism was seen in full force. Colley’s final attribution of this to King George III comes on page 241 when she wraps up by saying, “Ritual splendor, an appearance of domesticity, and ubiquity: this was the formula that George II taught and bequeathed to his royal successors. That it made them captives after a fashion, at the same time as it captivated large numbers of Britons, was the price of its success” (Colley,
King George III sought out to make the royal monarchy celebrated, while George I and George II were just merely trying to survive (Colley, 210). As a result of this, Colley tells us on page 219, “Defeat in America and, above all, revolution in France fostered in Britain a more splendid monarchy and influenced the nature and direction of the splendor” (Colley, 219). This splendid monarchy was not celebrated just because the king said it should be, though. There were efforts to make celebrations more inclusive. This allowed the celebrations to be seen as advertising broad local agreement in the form of national, royal celebrations (Colley, 230). So finally, for the first time, royal celebrations in Great Britain involved all political affiliations, all religious groups, and all parts of the empire. This made the celebrations truly national and not sectional (Colley, 236). The majesty of Great Britain had reached an all time high in terms of splendor. The monarchy was celebrated nationally now for this first time as patriotism was seen in full force. Colley’s final attribution of this to King George III comes on page 241 when she wraps up by saying, “Ritual splendor, an appearance of domesticity, and ubiquity: this was the formula that George II taught and bequeathed to his royal successors. That it made them captives after a fashion, at the same time as it captivated large numbers of Britons, was the price of its success” (Colley,