Royal Walkabout to Stop the Revolutionary War?

I just watched a piece on the History Channel called How Mad Was King George.  HRH The Prince of Wales gave some commentary on the show and one of his comments rather struck me:

"If George and family had been able to go on a royal tour of the America, he may have been able to stop the Revolutionary war."

The implication being that George III was so down to earth and likable by the ordinary people that perhaps if they got to know George, they would have a better understanding of the mother country and less likely to rebel.

Any thoughts?

I think that had there been a true presence of the monarch in the states, even just a duke or "sub-king" there 24-7 and a visit from ol' George once a year or something, that the RevWar may have been pushed back a wee while.  But NEVER happen?  No--it was innevitable.

The implication being that George III was so down to earth and likable by the ordinary people that perhaps if they got to know George, they would have a better understanding of the mother country and less likely to rebel.

Any thoughts?

I seem to remember reading that "Farmer George" was so unpopular in Britain that he was pelted with rotten vegetables when he went for walkabouts at home.  So it seems unlikely.  Big-Ears seems to be confusing his ancestor's self-image with the reality.

Talking of Chucky, the film The Madness of King George ends with a caption about the disease that sent the king mad being "incurable and hereditary". There was a pause in the cinema where I went to see it, followed by a huge laugh as the implications sunk in!