King George V (1865-1936)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
It is Prince George (Duke of Kent.) Prince Albert (later of York) was nearly ten years older than Johnnie, who was the baby of the family.
 
Last edited:
CyrilVladisla said:
Prince George as Prince George, The Duke of Kent or Prince Albert Frederick Arthur George, The Duke of York?
Click to expand...

The Duke of Kent was known as Prince George until he was created Duke of Kent while his older brother was known as Prince Albert until he was created Duke of York. Most people wouldn't have even known that one of his names was George until late 1936 when he ascended the throne as George VI.

No different to today really - how many people in the general population can given any of the names of the Princes of the realm other than the first one (and note how many even think that Harry was baptised Harry rather than Henry).
 
CyrilVladisla said:
Prince George as Prince George, The Duke of Kent or Prince Albert Frederick Arthur George, The Duke of York?
Click to expand...

Duke of Kent.

Many royals, even siblings, share names. When you say Prince Louis of Cambridge, does anyone think you may be referring to Prince George Alexander Louis? No. When you say Prince Edward, does anyone think you might mean Prince Andrew Albert Christian Edward? No. Philip, we aren't referring to Charles who has it as a middle name, but his father.
 
Since Albert (the queen's father) did take the name of George as his public and regnal name.. it is possible that there could be confusion.. between him and his younger brother...
 
CyrilVladisla said:
Prince George as Prince George, The Duke of Kent or Prince Albert Frederick Arthur George, The Duke of York?
Click to expand...

I recommend watching the Lost Prince movie, it is available on Youtube, all will clear from that...
 
King George V dissuaded Nada Milford Haven from attending the Vanderbilt custody trial of ten year old Gloria Vanderbilt, the daughter of Nada's friend, Gloria Morgan Vanderbilt.
 
I don't click DF links but I wonder if it will do anything for the puzzle.

Many if not most people are one thing in public and something else in private but why Georgie – who was raised with almost too much affection and pretty much considered a very nice fellow by scores of his cousins – ended up wanting to make his own family so miserable is a real question. (I don't think his wife was miserable or would have ever said she was, but he was not exactly an easy person to live with.)

Did he hate having the throne fall on him that much?
 
Prinsara said:
I don't click DF links but I wonder if it will do anything for the puzzle.

Many if not most people are one thing in public and something else in private but why Georgie – who was raised with almost too much affection and pretty much considered a very nice fellow by scores of his cousins – ended up wanting to make his own family so miserable is a real question. (I don't think his wife was miserable or would have ever said she was, but he was not exactly an easy person to live with.)

Did he hate having the throne fall on him that much?
Click to expand...

Possibly, especially with rise in tension in the political landscape. In his Wikipedia page, under the National Politics sub-heading, it mentioned firstly, "George inherited the throne at a politically turbulent time", This includes the House of Lords keep blocking the Liberal Prime Minister's (H.H. Asquith) bill, the General Strike in 1926. The wikipedia page also mentioned that "George V's reign saw the rise of socialism, communism, fascism, Irish republicanism, and the Indian independence movement, all of which radically changed the political landscape of the British Empire".

The First World War significantly changed the image of the British Royal Family. For example, the royal house name was changed from House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the House of Windsor. George V's relationship with his foreign cousins definitely has altered even beyond recognition.

He also saw his first cousin's empire fell, Wilhelm II of Germany and Nicolas II of Russia, as well as abolishment of monarchies across Europe, many of whom are his relative.

When Edward VII died, George V wrote in his diary:
"I have lost my best friend and the best of fathers ... I never had a [cross] word with him in my life. I am heart-broken and overwhelmed with grief but God will help me in my responsibilities and darling May will be my comfort as she has always been. May God give me strength and guidance in the heavy task which has fallen on me"

I don't think his wife lived in misery when spending times with him, based on his diary entry. I do think that he missed his father (Edward VII) so much that he wants to set himself high standard to somehow please Edward VII or even his grandmother Queen Victoria. And by doing so, he started imposing this high expectation on his family including his children.
 
duchessrachel said:
What network is that? I would love to see it. I did a search for it on my TIVO but could not find anything.
Click to expand...

It's on Channel 5 and available online on its official website for UK viewers. I did tried create an account and attempt to watch another documentary, but it's not available in Australia.

https://www.channel5.com/show/george-v-the-tyrant-king/

I might just have to wait until someone posted on DailyMotion, whether appropriate or not :cool::D
 
Prinsara said:
I don't click DF links but I wonder if it will do anything for the puzzle.

Many if not most people are one thing in public and something else in private but why Georgie – who was raised with almost too much affection and pretty much considered a very nice fellow by scores of his cousins – ended up wanting to make his own family so miserable is a real question. (I don't think his wife was miserable or would have ever said she was, but he was not exactly an easy person to live with.)

Did he hate having the throne fall on him that much?
Click to expand...
I think that he accepted being heir to the throne. His brother's death put him in the heir apparent position but that happened when his grandmother was queen and his father was ahead of him in the succession, so he had ample time to adjust and I don't recall any stories about him resenting being heir apparent. Again it was his brother's death that put him in that position so there may have been ambivalence in that respect but he had several years to adjust and accept.

I think that he thought that the way that he was raising his children was the correct way. He had a military background and saw that as the fitting model to raise his children, especially his two oldest sons.


duchessrachel said:
What network is that? I would love to see it. I did a search for it on my TIVO but could not find anything.
Click to expand...
It is on Channel 5 a British channel.
 
Last edited:
I mean "hating it" in the sense that he lost all control of his life, and so became a control freak (especially over his wife and children) trying to compensate for it. That's the only theory I think I've heard that makes much sense.

I couldn't find a trailer for the "Tyrant" documentary, but this was fascinating. I wonder how it got colored?

Edit: Also, the claim they're trying to sensationalize about him being euthanized is not exactly news, lol. More like very old fact.
 
Last edited:
AC21091968 said:
Possibly, especially with rise in tension in the political landscape. In his Wikipedia page, under the National Politics sub-heading, it mentioned firstly, "George inherited the throne at a politically turbulent time", This includes the House of Lords keep blocking the Liberal Prime Minister's (H.H. Asquith) bill, the General Strike in 1926. The wikipedia page also mentioned that "George V's reign saw the rise of socialism, communism, fascism, Irish republicanism, and the Indian independence movement, all of which radically changed the political landscape of the British Empire".

The First World War significantly changed the image of the British Royal Family. For example, the royal house name was changed from House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the House of Windsor. George V's relationship with his foreign cousins definitely has altered even beyond recognition.

He also saw his first cousin's empire fell, Wilhelm II of Germany and Nicolas II of Russia, as well as abolishment of monarchies across Europe, many of whom are his relative.

When Edward VII died, George V wrote in his diary:
"I have lost my best friend and the best of fathers ... I never had a [cross] word with him in my life. I am heart-broken and overwhelmed with grief but God will help me in my responsibilities and darling May will be my comfort as she has always been. May God give me strength and guidance in the heavy task which has fallen on me"

I don't think his wife lived in misery when spending times with him, based on his diary entry. I do think that he missed his father (Edward VII) so much that he wants to set himself high standard to somehow please Edward VII or even his grandmother Queen Victoria. And by doing so, he started imposing this high expectation on his family including his children.
Click to expand...

I won’t comment on everything that you wrote, but, on the Tsar’s issue, I don’t think it is fair to put all the blame on George V.

While I agree that George V may not have been personallly in favor of granting asylum to the Tsar’s family, I am pretty sure the ultimate decision lay with the British government. After all, we are talking about 1917, not 1517, and George V was a constitutional monarch.

Furthermore, there is a practical question. Even if the Brits had agreed to receive the Tsar, how feasible would it have been to extract the family from Russia ? I would say that, after a certain point of no return, they were practically out of reach.
 
:previous:

Yes the decision did lie wholly with the government. There was nothing the king could do either way other than make his opinion known. The Tsar was not a popular figure in Britain. Lloyd George was a radical Liberal not naturally sympathetic to an autocrat. I don't suppose anyone suspected what the fate of the Tsar's family was going to be.
 
Mbruno said:
I won’t comment on everything that you wrote, but, on the Tsar’s issue, I don’t think it is fair to put all the blame on George V.

While I agree that George V may not have been personallly in favor of granting asylum to the Tsar’s family, I am pretty sure the ultimate decision lay with the British government. After all, we are talking about 1917, not 1517, and George V was a constitutional monarch.

Furthermore, there is a practical question. Even if the Brits had agreed to receive the Tsar, how feasible would it have been to extract the family from Russia ? I would say that, after a certain point of no return, they were practically out of reach.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, I don't think George V should be blamed for unable to rescue the Tsar family. I do think the King remained "extremely alerted" about the future of the British Monarchy after the murder of his cousin's family.

He was doing a lot to present an ideal image of the royal family, even if that means putting pressures on his family. Despite massive changes in the political landscape, he managed on most occasions to stay out of it, to prevent public uproar.
 
Durham said:
:previous:

Yes the decision did lie wholly with the government. There was nothing the king could do either way other than make his opinion known. The Tsar was not a popular figure in Britain. Lloyd George was a radical Liberal not naturally sympathetic to an autocrat. I don't suppose anyone suspected what the fate of the Tsar's family was going to be.
Click to expand...

If the decision was by the government, then I do think that George V was upset/angry with advisors for not letting him know the details of events (for the worst to come). But then again, Lloyd George was a staunch liberal and against autocracy, so it is possible that George V himself was dreading that the British government would not rescue the Tsar's family.
 
AC21091968 said:
If the decision was by the government, then I do think that George V was upset/angry with advisors for not letting him know the details of events (for the worst to come). But then again, Lloyd George was a staunch liberal and against autocracy, so it is possible that George V himself was dreading that the British government would not rescue the Tsar's family.
Click to expand...
George was not keen ot have Nicky and the family in the UK.. because he feared it mgiht impact on his throne..
 
Denville said:
George was not keen ot have Nicky and the family in the UK.. because he feared it mgiht impact on his throne..
Click to expand...

I guess he faced a massive conundrum on saving his maternal cousin's family and the impact on the future of his throne/British monarchy, which I think we could agree on.
 
AC21091968 said:
I guess he faced a massive conundrum on saving his maternal cousin's family and the impact on the future of his throne/British monarchy, which I think we could agree on.
Click to expand...

If he coudl have saved Nicky's life, he would have done so, but it wasn't easy.. when the Imperial family were under the guard of the Reds in Siberia.. and the question was also what would happen to the Romanovs if they were got out. George knew the British public didn't want them in England, and so he wasn't willing to host them...
 
AC21091968 said:
I guess he faced a massive conundrum on saving his maternal cousin's family and the impact on the future of his throne/British monarchy, which I think we could agree on.
Click to expand...


Both maternal and paternal cousins' family actually. The Tsar was his maternal cousin and the Tsarina was his paternal cousin.
 
Denville said:
If he coudl have saved Nicky's life, he would have done so, but it wasn't easy.. when the Imperial family were under the guard of the Reds in Siberia.. and the question was also what would happen to the Romanovs if they were got out. George knew the British public didn't want them in England, and so he wasn't willing to host them...
Click to expand...

The question of exile in the UK was proposed well before they were imprisoned in Siberia. The suggestion was made around the time he was forced to abdicate in 1917. There was the suggestion that they could be exiled to a neutral country not the UK. Something could have been worked out without threatening George's throne, but instead asylum offer was withdrawn.

Other members including the dowager empress settled in the UK, though she eventually headed home to Denmark.
 
Countessmeout said:
The question of exile in the UK was proposed well before they were imprisoned in Siberia. The suggestion was made around the time he was forced to abdicate in 1917. There was the suggestion that they could be exiled to a neutral country not the UK. Something could have been worked out without threatening George's throne, but instead asylum offer was withdrawn.

Other members including the dowager empress settled in the UK, though she eventually headed home to Denmark.
Click to expand...




When did the Dowager Empress leave Russia in terms of timeline? Was the Tsar perhaps reticent about leaving the country in the early days of the revolution?
 
Mbruno said:
When did the Dowager Empress leave Russia in terms of timeline? Was the Tsar perhaps reticent about leaving the country in the early days of the revolution?
Click to expand...

According to Wikipedia (Revolution and Exile subheading), she left Russia in 1919 after multiple persuasion attempts:

"Revolution came to Russia in 1917, first with the February Revolution, then with Nicholas II's abdication on 15 March. After travelling from Kiev to meet with her deposed son, Nicholas II in Mogilev, Maria returned to the city, where she quickly realised how Kiev had changed and that her presence was no longer wanted. She was persuaded by her family there to travel to the Crimea by train with a group of other refugee Romanovs.

After a time living in one of the imperial residences in the Crimea, she received reports that her sons, her daughter-in-law and her grandchildren had been murdered. However, she publicly rejected the report as a rumour. On the day after the murder of the Tsar's family, Maria received a messenger from Nicky, "a touching man" who told of how difficult life was for her son's family in Yekaterinburg. "And nobody can help or liberate them - only God! My Lord save my poor, unlucky Nicky, help him in his hard ordeals!"[33] In her diary she comforted herself: "I am sure they all got out of Russia and now the Bolsheviks are trying to hide the truth."[34] She firmly held on to this conviction until her death. The truth was too painful for her to admit publicly. Her letters to her son and his family have since almost all been lost; but in one that survives, she wrote to Nicholas: "You know that my thoughts and prayers never leave you. I think of you day and night and sometimes feel so sick at heart that I believe I cannot bear it any longer. But God is merciful. He will give us strength for this terrible ordeal." Maria's daughter Olga Alexandrovna commented further on the matter, "Yet I am sure that deep in her heart my mother had steeled herself to accept the truth some years before her death."[35]

Despite the overthrow of the monarchy in 1917, the former Empress Dowager Maria at first refused to leave Russia. Only in 1919, at the urging of her sister, Queen Dowager Alexandra, did she begrudgingly depart, fleeing Crimea over the Black Sea to London. King George V sent the warship HMS Marlborough to retrieve his aunt. The party of 17 Romanovs included her daughter the Grand Duchess Xenia and five of Xenia's sons plus six dogs and a canary.[36][37]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Feodorovna_(Dagmar_of_Denmark)#Revolution_and_exile
 
The thing about Maria Feodorovna is, she apparently insisted she still would not leave unless the British warship took every other Crimean refugee who'd gathered hoping to get out. Lucky there was room. Good for her.
 
Initially the UK government agreed to give asylum to the czar and his family but the offer was withdrawn at the request of George V who was following the advice of his private secretary. I think that it was a difficult choice and it was made before the Bolsheviks replaced the provisional government. It is not a given that had the British not withdrawn the asylum offer that the Romanovs would have been able to get out of the country before the Bolsheviks came to power.
 
AC21091968 said:
When Edward VII died, George V wrote in his diary:
"I have lost my best friend and the best of fathers ... I never had a [cross] word with him in my life. I am heart-broken and overwhelmed with grief but God will help me in my responsibilities and darling May will be my comfort as she has always been. May God give me strength and guidance in the heavy task which has fallen on me"

I don't think his wife lived in misery when spending times with him, based on his diary entry. I do think that he missed his father (Edward VII) so much that he wants to set himself high standard to somehow please Edward VII or even his grandmother Queen Victoria. And by doing so, he started imposing this high expectation on his family including his children.
Click to expand...
George V is also quoted as saying "My father was afraid of his mother. I was afraid of my father. And I'll be d#$$%d sure my children are afraid of me." And this from Queen Mary: "I never forget that their father is also their King." Just a whole 'nother time...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
  • Sticky
United Kingdom: Birthday and Anniversary Wishes 2024
2 3
Replies
63
Views
4K
Biri
B
lula
  • Locked
50th anniversary of the death of King Paul I of Greece: March 2014.
3 4 5
Replies
137
Views
32K
Nikolopoulus
N
Marengo
King Leopold I of The Belgians (1790-1865)
2 3
Replies
88
Views
27K
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
Marengo
Queen Louise-Marie of The Belgians (1812-1850)
2
Replies
30
Views
14K
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
Marengo
King/Grand Duke Willem II (1792-1849), Queen Anna Paulowna (1795-1865) and family
2
Replies
47
Views
24K
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom