The Madness of George III by Alan Bennett

First published: 1992

First produced: 1991, at the Royal National Theatre, London

Type of plot: History

Time of work: 1788-1789

Locale: London and Windsor, England

Principal Characters:

• George III, king of England
• Charlotte, queen of England
• Prince of Wales, the heir to the throne
• William Pitt, the prime minister
• Edward Thurlow, the lord chancellor
• Charles Fox, the Whig opposition leader in Parliament
• Richard Sheridan, a Whig member of Parliament
• Edmund Burke, a Whig member of Parliament
• Margaret Nicholson, petitioner to the king
• Lady Pembroke, the queen’s Mistress of the Robes
• Sir George Baker, the king’s principal physician
• Dr. Willis, a specialist in mental illness
• Sir Boothby Skrymshir, a member of Parliament
• Ramsden, Sir Boothby’s nephew

The Play

The Madness of George III opens in the autumn of 1788, approximately seven years after Great Britain’s loss of the American colonies, a loss that continues to weigh heavily on the fragile mind of King George III. Surrounding the king are those who would supplant him and his Tory government, including his eldest son, the Prince of Wales, and the Whig leaders Fox, Sheridan, and Burke, who conspire to overturn the Tory government led by Prime Minister William Pitt.

It is not long before the king falls ill with what the playwright depicts, following a future diagnosis, as porphyria, a metabolic disorder, rather than the play’s contemporary diagnosis of “madness.” The king is unable to control his language, yielding to incessant and nonsensical talking as well as insulting and obscene statements. He falsely concludes that his wife is having incestuous sexual relations with the prince, and he himself becomes obsessed with Lady Pembroke, the queen’s Mistress of the Robes.

The continuing illness prevents the king from providing the leadership that England requires, bringing the government to a virtual standstill. During the approximately six months of his illness, several political maneuverings are deployed simultaneously. Pitt attempts to keep the seriousness of the king’s illness from members of Parliament, thus maintaining the Tory government in place while awaiting the hoped-for recovery. Charles Fox, a former prime minister, and his Whig allies work hard to forge a majority to bring a regency bill before Parliament, thus essentially replacing the king with the Prince of Wales, who in turn would dismiss Pitt and establish a Whig government led by Fox.

During the months of illness, doctors attempt to cure the king. One set of physicians (including Sir George Baker, the king’s primary physician) employs traditional methods such as blistering the king’s head and legs with extremely hot cups. Dr. Willis, who runs a mental asylum in Lincolnshire, is brought in by Pitt and increasingly becomes the king’s primary doctor. Willis uses a number of unusual techniques, including binding and gagging the king when he acts or speaks inappropriately, and staring the king in the eye to force his patient to remember who he is and reassert control over his speech and behavior.

Just as Fox is close to forging his majority, the king recovers sufficiently to reassert his rule. His government, led by Pitt, survives, and the king and queen resume their domestic bliss as “Mr. King” and “Mrs. King,” phrases that George III uses at both the beginning and end of the play. The final line, uttered by the king, states clearly the status of the leading character and the nation at the conclusion: “The King is himself again.” The status quo has been restored.

Dramatic Devices

In his goal to make restoration of the status quo the ultimate triumph of the play, Alan Bennett uses a variety of dramatic devices to highlight the king’s changing health and his return to normality.

The opening scene includes two important uses of foreshadowing. When Margaret Nicholson strikes the king with a dessert knife, the king responds, “The poor creature’s mad. Do not hurt her, she’s not hurt me.” Later in the play, the king, now a patient, makes similar pleas when he is subjected to such medical treatments as blistering and being strapped into a restraining chair. Also in the first scene, with his arms outstretched to assist with removal of his coat, the king describes the torture that a French citizen would undergo for an assault on the French king. Both the king’s physical appearance and his words foretell the torture that he will later endure during his illness.

Throughout the play, word usage is a sign of the king’s health status. Initially, he ends statements with such phrases as “Hey, hey” and “What, what,” phrases that, however odd, are quite normal for him. As his illness strikes with full force, he speaks long rambling clusters of nonsense, including considerable punning along with insults and obscene allegations. His resumption of “What, what’s” in the second part of the play signals his return to his original condition.

Bennett uses considerable irony in statements and visual images, including transitions from scene to scene, to invite comparisons between father and son. For example, Sheridan informs the Prince of Wales that Parliament will attempt to impose restraints on his rule as regent, while at nearly the same time the king is struggling against the physical restraints of the restraining chair. That scene with Sheridan and the prince opens with the prince’s servant shoving a foot into the prince’s back as he attempts to lace up a corset on the overweight son. The previous scene had concluded with a similar image of one of the king’s pages pulling tight the straps on a waistcoat that is a type of strait jacket. Many more examples of irony appear throughout the play.

Music also appears as both an ironic and signifying element. George Frideric Handel’s music can be heard in the opening scene. Later, during the king’s illness, Handel’s coronation anthem, “Zadok the Priest,” plays while the king is being enthroned in his restraining chair. The same anthem, however, signals the king’s recovery near the end as a portion proclaiming “God save the king, may the king live forever” resounds.

The device of a play-within-a-play parallels the theme of a king’s rule as performance; to some extent, then, all that the king does is a royal play. However, there are more specific applications of this device. Playing the part of the suffering King Lear, torn into madness in part by misjudging his daughters, is therapeutic for George III. An earlier scene at the palace at Kew is designed to call to mind King Lear and his Fool by the placement of George and his page. The king’s recollections of his dead son Octavius recall King Lear’s lament for his wronged daughter, Cordelia. The Sophoclean presence also is felt strongly as the Prince of Wales seeks to replace his father, with echoes of Oedipus even more explicit when the ill king rants about his son sleeping with the queen.

Bennett also introduces touchstones to reflect the way that the political as well as medical winds are blowing. Before the extent of the king’s illness is widely known, Sir Boothby Skrymshir appears before Pitt to request a position for his nephew, Ramsden. When the regency appears inevitable, he turns his attention to the Prince of Wales. A third solicitation occurs near the end of the play, as uncle and nephew appeal this time to the recovered George III.

In a play so psychologically heavy, comic interludes are welcome. The double-dealing Thurlow worries about his own health, badgering the doctors to check his pulse and stool. The king exacts revenge on his personal physician by dumping his chamber pot over Sir George Baker’s head. Having recovered his senses, the king inquires of Lady Pembroke whether he behaved inappropriately toward her, half hoping that he had done so. “Did we ever forget ourselves utterly, because if we did forget ourselves I would so like to remember. What, what?”

Critical Context

The Madness of George III was widely hailed for its wit, energy, use of history (altered when necessary for dramatic purposes), occasional echoes of modern-day English politics, and ability to engage audiences in accepting a play that ultimately goes nowhere except back to the status quo.

Alan Bennett’s stature in England already was high before the first production of the play in 1991, thanks to his long career, which began in the early 1960’s, as actor, director, screenwriter for films and television, author, and playwright. He turned from a satirist to a versatile writer of considerable substance, attaining the position of England’s finest living playwright in the judgment of some critics. His awards began with the London Evening Standard Drama Award in 1961 for Beyond the Fringe (pr. 1960), a comic revue in which he partnered with Peter Cook, Jonathan Miller, and Dudley Moore, and the awards have continued to accumulate.

The Madness of George III opened in New York City in 1993, introducing Alan Bennett as a dramatist to American audiences. Bennett gained even more fame in the United States when the film version, titled The Madness of King George, premiered in 1994 (its title changed so American viewers would not think it was a sequel). Bennett authored the screenplay, and the film, considered by some critics even more successful than the stage version, garnered four Academy Award nominations.

Sources for Further Study

Bennett, Alan. Introduction to The Madness of George III. Rev. ed. London: Faber and Faber, 1995.

Bennett, Alan. Writing Home. New York: Random House, 1995.

Lyons, Donald. “Theater: On the Superiority of European Methods.” New Criterion (September 11, 1992): 59-63.

Schiff, Stephen. “Cultural Pursuits: The Poet of Embarrassment.” The New Yorker (September 6, 1993): 92-101.

Turner, D. E. Alan Bennett: In a Manner of Speaking. London: Faber and Faber, 1997.

Wolfe, Peter. Understanding Alan Bennett. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1999.