You gave so severe an oversimplification, I couldn't tell. And, whether or not you needed it, other readers might well be served by the review, given the nature of the product in the OP.
Here in Massachusetts we celebrated Patriot's Day - the yearly remembrances of the first battles at Lexington and Concord - on Monday. Paul Revere (or, the re-enactment thereof) rode by my front window. I was not going to let that incomplete a picture of the situation stand as if it was sufficient. If you want to know if King George was being reasonable, the stated reason for one of many taxes doesn't cut it.
And you're oversimplifying and putting only one side of the story yourself and I'm afraid I'm not going to let the incredibly incomplete picture you paint stand. Starting with pointing out that the taxes were wanted to pay for the defence of the American settlements in what was literally a world war, kicked off by those self-same colonists, and in which they didn't even provide all the defence of their own lands or ... just about anything to prevent reinforcements - but somehow claim that despite having started a world war that having provided an incomplete contribution to their own theatre of war this should render them tax exempt from contributing to either the rest of the costs of their theatre or the rest of the war? When it comes to reasons to raise taxes "paying for defence" is one all but the most hardcore of libertarians agree with. Especially when it's "paying for the costs incurred defending you in a war you started".
It's at this point worth pointing out that the British Empire was essentially a loosely federal night watchman state. And that the laws that affected people from day to day were the laws that were almost entirely made at home. Which is a part of why, despite slavery being illegal in Britain it was legal in numerous colonies including many of the American ones. (Of course one of the reasons that was the case was that a lot of powerful British people, normally from the King down, had invested deeply in the slave trade because it was so profitable).
You say that up to about 1760 the colonists were "largely unbothered by the crown". Which is true - they were essentially freeloading, gaining significantly while being unwilling to pay upkeep on the protection they gained. But they were the ones to bother the crown when they started the whole war many leaders were refusing to pay their share of costs for in 1755. And the way the Boston Tea Party was, contrary to the propaganda, an act carried out by Boston's smugglers in response to a significant tax
cut. (Largely because the tax cut would have put the smugglers out of business). And their purpose was to destroy the tea carried by the East India Company so they gained a temporary monopoly of tea.
But it wasn't just the Townshend Acts (of which I'd argue that the only genuinely cruel one was the New York Restraining Act) and the Intolerable Acts that prompted the Americans to revolt. Other causes included the Royal Proclamation of 1763 with the Colonials not wanting to be restricted in their expansion and instead wishing to conquer and colonise from sea to shining sea. And Somerset v Stewart being settled in 1772 and clarifying that slavery was not and had not been legal on English soil for centuries and inspiring the rising tide of abolitionism in England. The irony of the slaveowner-led rebellion crying "no taxation without representation" otherwise appealing on the grounds of the liberty to own people as property is intense. And then writing the three fifths compromise into the Constitution? If it wasn't for George Washington having stepped down (thereby starting a tradition of orderly transitions of power) I'd have a hard time not seeing this as an outright bad guys victory.
If you want to know whether the revolutionaries were being reasonable focusing only on one narrow aspect or for that matter focusing only on the acts of the other side doesn't cut it. For that matter if you want to know whether King George was being reasonable you need to look at the information he was receiving.
Of course any discussions about the American Revolution are limited without putting it into the context of who was funding it. The French, who literally bankrupted themselves trying to stir up enough support to run an additional theatre of war against Britain as part of a world war that took place across multiple continents.
Oh, and a reenactment of the actual Paul Revere's ride or Longfellow's poetry based loosely on it?