King George V (1865-1936)

[MAfan]

I don't know very much about George V, but I have always had the impression that he was all considered a good king. Indeed he reigned in a very difficul period, but I never heard complaints about his reign.
And regarding his bad relationship with his sons, well, I think that he treated them in the same way he felt his own father had previously treated him; also Prince Albert (and Queen Victoria) had difficult relations with Edward VII, and Edward was definitely an inattentive husband and father in Victorian period, when children education was all but soft.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't know very much about George V, but I have always had the impression that he was all considered a good king. Indeed he reigned in a very difficul period, but I never heard complaints about his reign.
And regarding his bad relationship with his sons, well, I think that he treated them in the same way he felt his own father had previously treated him; also Prince Albert (and Queen Victoria) had difficult relations with Edward VII, and Edward was definitely an inattentive husband and father in Victorian period, when children education was all but soft.

Edward VII was far closer to his son than George V was to his because Edward wasn't anywhere near as strict with his children as either his parents were with him or George was with his sons.

George V has a couple of conflicting comments on this issue.

1. He described his relationship with his father (after his father's death) thus: I have lost the best of fathers and my best friend.

2. He is also supposed to have said: My father was scared of his father, I was scared on mine and I am damned sure that my sons will be scared of me.

I do believe that the latter comment was said while his sons were young whereas the earlier comment was said when he was an adult.

He certainly had a great relationship with his father as an adult with some people saying there were more like brothers than father and son.

George V was a canny politician as seen by the fact that when all the other monarchies were falling he made the hard decisions and kept his throne and that includes the decision to not allow his beloved cousins Nicholas and Alexandra and their children refuge in Britain. He did, of course, later on ensure that another first cousin, Prince Andrew of Greece was able to escape from Greece with his wife and children, including his future grandson-in-law Prince Philip.

I think, at times George V is compared unfavourably to the glamour of his father's reign but isn't given the credit for being the inspiring King he was during WWI, just like his son was a war later. Britain wasn't bombed as heavily during the first war but London certainly was bombed and he also visited the troops regularly, had sons serving but also had the family concerns about his cousins and other relatives serving in other countries.

He has been a favourite of mine.

 

[EmpressRouge]

Considering his family, I think it was very lucky that George became the great king he did. Compare George with cousin Nicholas II. Their mothers were notorious for being clingy with their children. Nicky, with a feared father and a smothering mother, never stood a chance to be a good czar (granted Russia and Britain had very different governments and George was a lot older when he took the throne). I think being the second son actually helped George because he managed to develop independence in the navy. Alexandra seem to do the same thing to Albert Victor as Dagmar did with Nicky, and from what history tells us, AV turned out to be quite a character and would not have made a good king.

 

[COUNTESS]

George was a good man and a good king. He was decent and in many ways thoughtful. He was a wonderful grandfather and was more indulgent to Elizabeth than he ever was to her father.

 

[Zonk]

I think the problem was that George V loved and feared his father who from what I read was not a strict parent. That was one of Queen Victoria's issues with Edward and Alexandra who she feared let the Wales kids run around wild.

George loved his kids but was unable to show it in way that they got. Apparently he showed it enough to Princess Mary but not the boys. But he was a great king...not bad for someone who wasn't expected to be King. He is one of my favorites too. Like Edward VII he knew to read people. Edward accurately called out Kaiser Willy and George called out Edward VIII.

 

[MAfan]

Edward VII was far closer to his son than George V was to his because Edward wasn't anywhere near as strict with his children as either his parents were with him or George was with his sons.

George V has a couple of conflicting comments on this issue.

1. He described his relationship with his father (after his father's death) thus: I have lost the best of fathers and my best friend.

2. He is also supposed to have said: My father was scared of his father, I was scared on mine and I am damned sure that my sons will be scared of me.

I knew only the second "supposed" comment; but as I said before, I don't know much about thie King.
Thanks for your explanations.

 

[Roderick]

It has been said that the relationship between King George V and his father King Edward VII was close only because George was always in total agreement with his father on everything and never challenged him in any matter.

It seems very unlikely the son privately agreed with all his father`s behaviour particularly when that behaviour hurt his beloved mother to whom he was genuinely close.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

All the Wales children adored their mother, Queen Alexandra, and she returned their affection even though she often treated them like small children when they were adults.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Kenneth Rose comments in this article that, although the Queen and the Prince of Wales didn't want to see the King's life prolonged if he was suffering, they wouldn't have intended euthanasia.

After all, in this case, euthanasia would have been regicide--if not outright assassination. That's what I've had trouble understanding about this episode. Given the reverence that people had for the King, it's hard to imagine someone actually euthanizing him.



Star-News - Google News Archive Search

lilibet80: I know of no documented evidence that Queen Mary approved of the euthanasia of her husband King George V by his doctor Lord Dawson. I do not think she was aware of this action nor do I think she would have sanctioned it. Lord Dawson indicated that he acted alone in this decision.

Would you please provide any information you have on this matter?

Thank you.

 

[doudi]

 

[Jeniann]

So, I am miffed because I just typed all of this up with commentary and the site randomly refreshed on me or something and I lost all of it.

From page 95 of the trashy (and I mean TRASHY, half this stuff is probably made up) book War of the Windsors, there's a letter quoted from the Duke of Windsor to Kenneth de Courcy:

"Later that evening, after dinner, Dawson came in to see my mother and myself and said to both of us 'You would not wish him to endure any undue suffering?' My mother said that we did not and I concurred; only very much later, as I reflected upon the situation, did it occur to me that Dawson intended to ease my father's departure from this earth. I was truly horrified when I discovered that Dawson had administered not one but two lethal injections. It was certainly not my intention to give him such authorisation when I agreed that my father should not be subjected to a great deal of suffering... Effectively, Dawson murdered my father."

 

[Lady Meg]

Royal Tattoo

King George is rumored to have had a tattoo. I was wondering if there was ever a picture of it?

 

[Roderick]

His tattoo consisted of a red and blue dragon on the forearm. I think it very unlikely that it was ever photographed.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I can believe this statement of the Duke of Windsors. Giving George V lethal injections wasn't only euthanasia, it was also regicide. I can't imagine Queen Mary, in particularly, allowing that to happen. She greatly respected her husband's position as King.

"Later that evening, after dinner, Dawson came in to see my mother and myself and said to both of us 'You would not wish him to endure any undue suffering?' My mother said that we did not and I concurred; only very much later, as I reflected upon the situation, did it occur to me that Dawson intended to ease my father's departure from this earth.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I can believe this statement of the Duke of Windsors. Giving George V lethal injections wasn't only euthanasia, it was also regicide. I can't imagine Queen Mary, in particularly, allowing that to happen. She greatly respected her husband's position as King.

The problem to me is that the doctor made a comment to which both the Queen and the heir agreed but the doctor didn't outright agree or disagree to the doctor read between the lines of their agreement that the King shouldn't suffer and thus took that as tacit approval to end the suffering. In a modern court room he would be acquitted in all likelihood due to the fact that the next of kin apparently gave approval to end the suffering, or at least didn't obviously disapprove. There were ways of asking if you want the life ended and this was one of them 'Do you want him to suffer?' and if the answer is "No" and nothing else then that was seen as family approval to end the suffering. I wouldn't call it murder but a misunderstanding between doctor and royal family.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

I agree. In a court of law, the doctor's statement is not especially clear. It could be read to mean that if the King began to suffer greatly, then the doctor had permission to hasten the death but also that the doctor, at that time, would approach the family and discuss what options, if any, were available to them.

As for Queen Mary's respect for her husband's position, I am not so sure that she would have had him suffer unnecessarily, with no chance to survive his illness, merely because he was the King. Mermaid may be right that she would not have authorized euthanasia but who among us could watch a loved one suffer and not want to end their pain?

 

[Mermaid1962]

Was euthanasia legal in Britain in 1936? By this I don't mean a passive "letting die while making the person comfortable" but taking action that would result in a person's death. If his action wasn't legal, I don't think that it would make a difference whether the family was for it or not.

There were ways of asking if you want the life ended and this was one of them 'Do you want him to suffer?' and if the answer is "No" and nothing else then that was seen as family approval to end the suffering. I wouldn't call it murder but a misunderstanding between doctor and royal family.

 

[Hereditary Thane]

Then as now euthanasia was not legal in the UK. Of course no Scotland Yard officer would have even dared to think there was a case to investigate. Euthanisia happens; who can truly blame people for wanting an easy death for their suffering loved on, so long as the reason is ethical.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Was euthanasia legal in Britain in 1936? By this I don't mean a passive "letting die while making the person comfortable" but taking action that would result in a person's death. If his action wasn't legal, I don't think that it would make a difference whether the family was for it or not.

The very way the doctor worded his question to Queen Mary and the the Prince of Wales makes it clear that euthenasia wasn't legal. If it was he would have asked outright - 'do you want me to end his suffering?'. However the meaning of the question is quite clear 'do you want him to suffer' was simply a eupemistic way of asking 'do you want me to end his suffereing?' which is why I believe the doctor had the Queen's permission, or at least believed that he had the Queen, as the next of kin's permission.

These cases have happened throughout history and still happen today - whether or not a country allows euthenasia - it happens and that is the way the doctor asks the question.

 

[Mermaid1962]

To my way of thinking, that's a dishonest question, because no one would say, "Yes, I want his suffering to continue." It's not quite "Yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife," but I'd say that it's half-way there.

However the meaning of the question is quite clear 'do you want him to suffer' was simply a eupemistic way of asking 'do you want me to end his suffereing?' which is why I believe the doctor had the Queen's permission, or at least believed that he had the Queen, as the next of kin's permission.

 

[tony123]

postcard -H.M. The King Ascending at Eisecar Colliery

Could anyone tell me any inforamtion about this postcard?

Regards

 

[Iluvbertie]

To my way of thinking, that's a dishonest question, because no one would say, "Yes, I want his suffering to continue." It's not quite "Yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife," but I'd say that it's half-way there.

I didn't see your reply earlier but the wording used is exactly how doctors still ask the question, where euthanasia isn't legal. If you don't want the doctor to end their life you make that clear with a reply like - "No I don't want him to suffer but it isn't up to us but God' making it clear that you don't want the doctor to end their life. By not adding that last bit tacit approval was given to end the suffering and thus end the life.

 

[Osipi]

I, at one time, was involved in this kind of situation. My dad was terminal and we knew it was just a matter of time. With his metabolism, we were given the option of giving him morphine which would put him into a coma or let nature take its course. We all opted for the less painful way. What is important I think at a time like this is to realize what is best for the person you're deciding for. At this kind of time, when you know the end is going to be inevitable, you don't think morally but more so you think of the loved one and act accordingly.

 

[Mermaid1962]

George V's 1911 Visit to Ireland

He was very warmly received.

How George V was received by the Irish in 1911 - Telegraph

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

Could anyone tell me any inforamtion about this postcard?

Regards

"But the King and Queen were not content with lending themselves, constantly though unostentatiously, to the scenic side of royalty: they mingled graciously and sympathetically with different classes of society, and were ever active in accepting new opportunities of service. Thus Queen Mary, after a royal visit to the Dowlais steel works at Merthyr (June 27 1912), took tea with a Welsh miner's wife, and during a tour through the industrial districts of Yorks. King George went down the Elsecar colliery (July 9 1912), and showed himself no less handy in wielding a pick than in bringing down grouse on a Scottish moor."

George V, Classic Encyclopedia

 

[Kasumi]

Splendid 'Delhi Durbar' turns 100 years in 2011

The upcoming royal wedding between Prince William of England and Kate Middelton will occur almost exactly 100 years after another milestone event in the history of the British Royal Family – the legendary “Delhi Durbar” of 1911.

The Durbar was held to commemorate the coronation of the reigning monarchs of that time - King George V and Queen Mary – as the Emperor and Empress of India.

The ceremony was held at Coronation Park in Delhi in December of that year and also celebrated the shifting of the capital of Empire from Calcutta to Delhi.
Thousands of people attended, including virtually every ruling prince, nobleman, and landowner in India.
George V wore his “coronation robe” including the Imperial Crown of India “with eight arches, containing six thousand one hundred and seventy exquisitely cut diamonds, and covered with sapphires, emeralds and rubies, with a velvet and miniver cap all weighing 34.05 ounces.”

It is believed that the Emperor and Empress received at least a half-million common people who came to greet them.
Queen Mary was presented with a necklace by the Maharani of Patiala on behalf of the Ladies of India to mark the first visit to India by a reigning British queen. The current Queen Elizabeth II inherited the necklace when she ascended to the throne in 1953.
The 1911 Delhi Durbar was the third and last event of its kind. - IBTimes
​

​

​

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

Does anyone know why George V only left a life estate or life interest in Sandringham and Balmoral to Edward VIII? I had always presumed that the eldest son, who would become King, received these properties in fee simple or outright and then the properties would be passed on in like manner to his or her eldest heir, as the case may be. But in reading a biography of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother the author states Edward only received a life interest in Balmoral and Sandringham. Maybe the author explains it later but does anyone have the answer?

 

[MAfan]

If it's true, I can guess that he did in order to be sure that Edward couldn't sell or devise the two estates, considering the the old King in the last years of his life didn't have a particularly good relationship with his eldest son and that he didn't bear Edward in high esteem; it may be a way to prevent Wallis, or anyone else in her stead, from becoming the owner of Sandringham or Balmoral at Edward's death.

And again if it's true, I can't help wondering who was the remainderman set by the King, and where did the author find the information; I wonder that, because as far as I know the last will of the members of the Royal Family are since 1911 kept secret and sealed.

 

[Grandduchess24]

Can anyone explain why George V hated everything German even though he had German heritage and family who was German and the other thing is that, why didn't he help cousin Nicky ( nicholas II ) and his family when they asked for his help while they were imprisoned and a few weeks later murdered. He could have saved the Romanov massacre.

 

[Zonk]

Where are you getting that the King hated everything German. Can you provide a source please?

I don't believe that is the case.

In regards to Romanov in Russia...I have heard different schools of thought: 1) he was going to save them but the decision was overridden by the British government; 2) he didn't want to save them because he didn't want to risk his throne by bringing in someone who was overthrown and 3) he didn't really think that they were in physical danger.