George III Was Not Mad

Press, Volume CV, Issue 30971, 29 January 1966, Page 4

George III Was Not Mad

[An Editorial in "The Times"!

No Royal illness has caused more political and constitutional concern than that of George 111. Was he, or was he not “mad” in the rather narrow sense of the term as used in those days? Such was the question that was bandied about among politicians and statesmen. If he was “mad” then the outlook was hopeless. On the other hand if his mental condition was secondary to some physical disease, he might very well recover. And recover he did—on five occasions. This was what worried the concourse of eminent doctors who were called in at various times to cope with the problem. By their lights they served the Royal patient well, but by modern standards their lights were anything but clear. It is not their faulty

methods and knowledge that should be criticised therefore. What is surprising is that, in spite of the continuing interest in the illness, subsequent ; generations should have been Iso willing to accept the proi position that George II I was “mad.” Retrospective diagnosis over a long period of time is always difficult and sometimes dangerous, but the careful analysis of all the available evidence adduced in today's issue of the “British Medical Journal” provides strong support for the claim that George 111 was not “mad” but suffering from a disease well recognised today under the somewhat cumbersome title of acute intermitten porphyria. The claim that “the symptomatology and course of the royal malady reads like the description of a textbook case” is certainly impressive. Not least does the evidence

provided explain the most worrying feature of the royal case from the point of view of his doctors—the marked physical disturbances such as colic, constipation, and neuritis. Equally does it explain why the royal patient’s mental condition improved so rapidly and completely in between bouts.

Experts being what they are, this new explanation of George Ill’s illness will no doubt have its critics, but on the evidence presented the explanation is the most satisfactory one yet forthcoming. Not the least important implication of this new diagnosis, as the authors of the “British Medical Journal” report point out, is that, if valid, it “clears the House of Hanover of an hereditary taint of madness imputed to it by the long sustained but erroneous interpretation of George Ill’s illness.”