{"word_count": 656, "character_count": 4055}
It is well documented that George III left a lot to be desired in his choices of food and preferred to keep things simple. Items such as boiled eggs, bread and butter and muffins were just some of the choices that graced his lips and whilst seem staples in a typical English breakfast for a modern person, this type of dining was considered frugal and to some, a far cry from royal.[1] Whilst I do not wish to divulge discussion in his health complications as a possible reason for his personal choices in consumption, it is important to note that it is highly likely that they played their part. What I wish to focus on instead is the public perception of George because of his eating habits and how they made their way in to the public sphere to be commented and gossiped upon and more importantly, if the motives behind them being in the public sphere was more to do with politics than a concern for the King’s food preferences.One of the most popular appearancesof George in the public media space was in the form of satirical prints or caricatures,most notable those created by James Gillray and published by Hannah Humphrey. &#160;George III with Princess Charlotte and his daughters,  drinking tea without sugar. National Portrait Gallery. One of the most popularissues of Gillray’s work is that which is pictured above, of the king sittingwith his wife and daughters, explaining how marvellous the taste of tea iswithout the need of sugar. This attitude, especially from a royal would haveresonated with people from lower classes whilst alienating the upper. Sugar wasan expensive and highly valued commodity in the eighteenth century and wasessentially available to those who had the money to spend. Whilst George andCharlotte commend the practise of dismissing sugar, the faces of the daughters seemless convinced – pouting their lips in distaste to their fathers, well, taste!However, this may nothave been anything to do with George’s taste or eating habits but instead apolitical portrait. In the late eighteenth century, a movement to abolishslavery was growing and discontinuing the use of sugar was become a popularpart of imagery for the movement.[2]It could therefore be argued that this was not a comment publicly about thekings eating habits as it initially looks but instead a political statement,used to publicly show the King’s stance.Unfortunately, despiteany other achievements attributed to George, he is most widely recognisedbecause of his illness and consequently his frugal eating habits. For the mostpart, George was renowned for living a quiet, personal life and as a result, hehad no mistresses which mean that upheaval, scandal and complication was lessof a concern in George’s court.&#160; In an article, published in The Times in 1778, titled ‘On His Majesty’s Disorder’, criticisms of the kings treatment are addressed by the writer to the kings physicians, Sir George Baker MD and is justified by using the food present in the King’s diet.[3] He offers advice as to how the diet can be improved upon, switching out mundane food items such as potatoes for rice to present a ‘better diet than the rubbish we are told is prescribed’.[4] This concern in a publication available to the ordinary people, does show that there was talk of the King’s eating habits but how they were not seen as preferential for the king but instead detrimental to his health but advised by professionals. The source provides very little context so the idea that this could also be a political attack against physicians and the treatment they prescribe cannot be dismissed, however what can not be denied is the intrigue surrounding a king who ate more like an ordinary person than a monarch was expected.  [1]Kenneth Baker, George III: A Life in Caricature (2007),p. 113.[2] Jon Stobart, Sugar and Spice: Grocers and Groceries in Provincial England, 1650-1830(Oxford, 2013)[3] Rafael Euba, “The Diet of KingGeorge III – Extra,” in British Journalof Psychiatry, 200 (2012), 329–29 &#60;http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.111.102186&#62;[4] Ibid.