King George V (1865-1936)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The only reason why I say that because he changed the house name from Saxe Coburg and Gotha to Windsor and had all his relatives change their names to something more British like battenburg to Mountbatten.
 
Last edited:
It wasn't Queen Mary. I believe the decision was made by the King's doctors, who also wanted to end his suffering.
 
This matter was discussed in some detail starting at #44 in this thread. The reference in my statement there was to an earlier post.
 
The only reason why I say that because he changed the house name from Saxe Coburg and Gotha to Windsor and had all his relatives change their names to something more British like battenburg to Mountbatten.

I am sure George V, like his son George VI, each of whom reigned during the two separate wars with Germany, were appalled and shocked by the leaders' behavior, first the Kaiser, then Hitler, but I don't know that they, or at least George V, hated the Germans. I believe one monarch who detested Germany and the Germans was Edward VII, the father of George V, but again, I don't think this meant he "hated" the Germans; he simply was not enthralled with their manners and customs.

George V acted politically by "anglicizing" his family's names and directed his relatives to do the same. While he may not have hated Germany and all things German, he could see the public was very hostile to Germany and this move may have appeased some of his subjects, which was his goal.
 
Last edited:
I am not qualified to formally diagnose a late King of England but I have heard of a high- functioning autistic condition known as Aspergers Syndrome.

Some of the symptoms like dedication to rutines and rituals, inability to express emotion in an articulate manner, ready temper and antisocial behavior have been identified in George V. Further research is needed but I know that much about it and there is plenty of evidence of his temper, changelessness, and inarticulation with feelings.

Miranda Carter suggested in her book on him and his cousins that he may have been dyslexic, but only as a possibility for explaining his lack of interest in his studies.
 
QUESTION! Does anyone know about any kind of guilt George felt over denying Nicholas and his family sanctuary in England?
 
I believe (and its mentioned in a couple of bios) that George V did feel guilt that he couldn't save Nicholas, Alexandra and the kids. I believe its mentioned in the Kenneth Rose biography of George V.
 
I suppose that he would have felt some grief over the deaths, particularly the deaths of the children; feelings of guilt are part of grief for everyone and I think especially in this case.

I believe (and its mentioned in a couple of bios) that George V did feel guilt that he couldn't save Nicholas, Alexandra and the kids. I believe its mentioned in the Kenneth Rose biography of George V.
 
I'm not convinced of that. People with Aspergers Syndrome appear to have something "not right" in social situations, and George V appeared to be able to function normal socially. In videos and pictures, he's often shown smiling and talking to people in a friendly way. In my experience, people with Aspergers are very awkward socially and can act inappropriately in varying degrees. They can also have an unusual gait. Even when children with Aspergers are taught correct behaviour, their manner doesn't seem natural. I think that George V was very much aware that he wasn't brought up to be king, because he was the younger brother. That could explain his inflexibility about things; anxiety leads to trying to control things and also leads to anger.
I am not qualified to formally diagnose a late King of England but I have heard of a high- functioning autistic condition known as Aspergers Syndrome.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does anyone know how he felt about womens suffrage?I ask this because it was legal for women to vote during his reign.
 
IloveCP said:
Does anyone know how he felt about womens suffrage?I ask this because it was legal for women to vote during his reign.

George V was a very conservative man. He simply did not see the point of it from where he stood as both monarch and as a man. HOWEVER, he would have been powerless to stop pro sufferage legislation going into effect in government, like with Irish home rule and the House of Lords Bill of 1911.

My opinion is based on the fact that Queen Mary also did not see the point of sufferage and both generally agreed on such matters and that George V was marginally more conservative than Queen Mary.
 
He liked Queen Mary to wear old-fashioned clothes as well...long skirts and turbans for years after they went out of style.

My opinion is based on the fact that Queen Mary also did not see the point of sufferage and both generally agreed on such matters and that George V was marginally more conservative than Queen Mary.
 
My dear Warren,

Thank you for posting this link! The King sounds relaxed as opposed to Queen Mary -- to my ear, she sounds a little nervous as she speeds up at one point and she does not sound as confident as her consort. But overall, a charming and antiquated broadcast.
 
Personal King George V POW letter found in attic after nearly 100 years
A personal letter from King George V to British prisoner of war soldiers has been discovered in an attic nearly a century after it was written.
The correspondence, dated in 1918, praises soldiers for their “patience and courage” as they returned to Britain following the First World War.
The letter, originally handwritten on Buckingham Palace letterhead, details King George V and Queen Mary’s gratitude to POWs that this “longed for day has arrived”.
 
Skeletons from the royal closet, a new book from the Royal Archives gives a fascinating insight into 700 years of regal life | Mail Online

A Previously Unknown Side of King George V

The Royal Archives at Windsor has produced a new book "Treasures From the Royal Archives" to celebrate the hundredth anniversary of the founding of a permanent home for the Royal Archives in the Round Tower of Windsor Castle. Various items from the archives are now being published for the first time.

The following is an extract from the MailOnline article (link above)

The book also features some eye-opening documents from the 20th century. One reveals King George V's voracious appetite for reading - he got through more than 1,000 works between 1890 and 1936.

His reading material included the sensational 'Lady Chatterley's Lover', which was first published privately in Italy in 1928. A fully unexpurgated version was not published in Britain until 1960 after a dramatic obscenity trial, but the 68-year-old King obtained a copy in 1933 from John Colville, whose mother Lady Cynthia was a lady-in-waiting to George V's consort Queen Mary.
.
 
That's interesting. Wasn't King George the one who allegedly never read a whole book during his entire life?
 
That is strange Edward VII was not enthrall with the manners and customs of Germans, seeing as he and his parents were German. I wonder if Edward VII had still been alive in 1918 would he have brought the Romanovs to England?
 
I think Edward V11 may well have given the exiled Romanovs refuge here, but he was very aware of 'realpolitik', and may have taken the warnings against it on board.

If he had been alive he may well have been able to prevent the outbreak of war [such was his influence with Wilhelm 11], and his wonderful diplomatic abilities.
 
King George V doted on his eldest granddaughter, Princess Elizabeth.
As a little girl, he held her in his arms on the balcony at Buckingham Palace so she could hear the crowd cheer.

:wave::wave::wave::wave::wave::wave::wave:


 
That's interesting. Wasn't King George the one who allegedly never read a whole book during his entire life?

I'm pretty sure that was Edward VII; I just read that in an article on an Edwardian history website. He preferred parties, banquets and balls. However I've never thought of George V--or most of the royals for that matter--as intellectuals. His biographer was said to have a narrative problem about his time as Prince of Wales: All he did as PoW was shoot animals and lick stamps. Exceptions to the "anti-intellectual" strain is the Duke of Edinburgh, who's said to have thousands of books on subjects from animal husbandry to naval history to painting, and the Prince of Wales, whose wide interests include philosophy, opera and classical music. Beyond the two of them though, most of the senior royals are said to be less than intellectual. According to David Starkey, the Queen has very little understanding or interest in history before her grandfather and father.
 
...According to David Starkey, the Queen has very little understanding or interest in history before her grandfather and father.
I don't think David Starkey has a high opinion of the Queen (or women in general) and likes to say things that will stir up controversy. I think he's a great historian, but I'm not entirely sure on his stance towards things that are more contemporary in time.

The Queen was educated in constitutional history by the then vice-provost of Eton. While she might not be overly interested in history (or may simply not have been interested in the history that Starkey was telling her at the time) I have a hard time believing that the only history she knows goes back to less than 30 years before her birth. If memory serves the whole "she only knows the history of her father and grandfather" bit came from his critique on her Christmas speeches - she mentions her father and grandfather sometimes, but doesn't go further back than that. Except the purpose of the Christmas speeches isn't to give people a Christmas Day history lecture, it's to send out a message of "this is the highlights of the past year, and this is the hope for the upcoming one." Her father and grandfather came come up somewhat naturally, especially in earlier ones where she was talking to a nation who certainly lived under her father's reign if not also her grandfaher's, as a lot of the speeches seem to touch on family. Going into greater history isn't part of the point, but that doesn't mean that the Queen doesn't know anything more historic.

Back on the topic of George V's education, if memory serves he was poorly educated. I read in a biography of Queen Mary that one of the big differences between her and her husband was that she had been so well educated, and he knew very little. It seems like this is something of a trend among the post-Victoria monarchs; Victoria stressed the education of her children, causing her son Edward VII to be miserable, so he didn't stress the education of his children, causing George V to be uneducated and resulting in he and his wife stressing the education of their children, causing George VI to be miserable and resulting in him not stressing the education of his daughters - it was Queen Mary who really pushed the education of her granddaughters pre-abdication. The Queen then stressed the education of Charles, who didn't lax on the education of William but certainly approached it with a softer attitude.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
George V though was the second son as a child and wasn't expected to be the future king and so was sent to the navy when about 12 years of age as that was seen as the best way to become a naval officer in those days.

As for Charles not pushing William's education - I disagree. William was sent to one of the best schools in England and then to one of the best universities in the UK - similar to Charles' education - although William did have four years at uni while Charles had only three. They have both been taught their constitutional roles by The Queen herself.

As for Starkey - well he has his good points and poor points as an historian but The Queen certainly does know her history before George V - I remember one Christmas broadcast where she had Edward and Andrew as boys on the sofa and is talking to them about Edward VII and another where she refers to Edward building Sandringham.
 
I didn't say that Charles didn't push William's education, only that he took a softer approach to it. William got a really good education, but Charles didn't push it on him at the expense of his own happiness. Charles also got a really good education, but it was pushed on him at that expense.
 
Perhaps what you say is correct; perhaps it isn't. While the Princess Elizabeth was educated for two or three hours a day in constitutional history by Henry Marten, the Queen didn't think the education of her and the Princess Margaret needed to be any more rigorous than her's had been. Elizabeth learned to speak fluent French, write a good hand and took an hour's walk every day as part of her education. And while the Queen may have a bit more interest in history than I have previously discussed, her principal interests are horses and corgis. The Duke of Edinburgh once remarked at the granting of an honorary doctorate at the University of London to him and the Duchess of Edinburgh, that their one aspiration was to see a university from the inside, that they "all" (the royals) were so poorly educated. The Duke of Windsor is said to have been notoriously anti-intellectual, having never heard of the Bronte family (one of the most famous literary families in Britain) and mispronounced their name.
 
Back
Top Bottom