King George V (1865-1936)

[Curryong]

Considering the lack of effective medicines and the fact that Prince George (later Duke of Kent) was close to his brother John and may have witnessed a seizure or two, George and Mary might have felt that the calm atmosphere away in Norfolk would help John. The advice from doctors may have proposed a regular daytime routine, a loved nurse to look after him, toys and animals, no excitement etc. That wouldn't have been possible at Court as John got older and of course he wouldn't have been able to go away to school as his brothers did.

 

[cepe]

I will be the first to admit that my opinion here is not based on years of study or reputable sources as the only real insight into this is based on a movie that has made the rounds over the years on my TV stations.

I'm referring to George V and Mary and their parenting skills of Prince John. Its my understanding that because John had epileptic seizures, he was somewhat of an embarrassment to the family and eventually was sent off to live at Wood Farm with his own staff. I know its a different age and a different time but I cannot imagine parents actively separating themselves from their child in this matter. Perhaps that's how things were done then? It was far more acceptable to put a "defective" child into an institution then than it would be now but still, I do think it reflects their attitude towards their children.

Just a thought.

That is looking at the issue through our current approach/knowledge and available remedies. This approach at the time was not unusual but he was fortunate in that he was in a familiar environment which he apparently loved, with people who cared for him. I saw a picture the other day of all five children at Sandringham - John seemed about 9 yrs old and looked v happy.

As regarding "defective" children, the UK were placing children with Downe's in homes right up to the 1980's (this is just an example, I know John did not have Downe's)

I think George and Mary did their best.

 

[Pranter]

I recently read a biography about Mary of Tek ..this issue was discussed in the book several times. The overall outcome I took away from the book was it was felt he was unable to function well in all the goings on in the larger household and recommended he and a nurse/staff be moved somewhere he would have quite and a consistent routine.


LaRae

 

[Osipi]

Thanks everyone for the wonderful input on my observation of Prince John and his parents. The more I read of your comments, the more I realize just how off kilter my opinion was. It does point towards George V and Mary doing what they felt was best for John.

 

[Zonk]

I think what George and Mary did was what many well to do parents would have done during the same time period. And that was provide him with a safe environment with a dedicated staff to take care of him. Definitely trying to keep some sort of routine for John. Something that we wouldn't even think about today. George and Mary were also from a social class who saw their children at designated times during the day and didn't even realize that one of the nannies was abusing poor Edward as a baby. I do recall Mary expressing deep sadness regarding the death of John.

In regards to their parenting, it is quite interesting the kind of parents they turned out to be. George was very close with Edward [who kept him in the loop when Eddy died and George became Prince of Wales], and stated that he lost his best friend when he died. We all know that Alexandra was over protective and tried to remain deeply involved in his life. I have read about Mary as well, and I recall she had a good relationship with both of her parents. Although she tended to be a bit embarrassed about her Mother. It's telling that with the exception of Edward who didn't have kids, all of their kids [Albert, George, Mary and Henry], were the opposite of their parents with their parenting skills.

 

[Queen Claude]

When I think of George and Mary's "bad parenting," incidents involving David and Bertie come to mind rather than how they handled John's situation. I think that they got a bad rap in that I would see documentaries and/or biographies that would state that George and Mary sent John away out of shame but then it would be acknowledged that he was in the public eye even after he started having seizures.

 

[Ish]

In regards to their parenting, it is quite interesting the kind of parents they turned out to be. George was very close with Edward [who kept him in the loop when Eddy died and George became Prince of Wales], and stated that he lost his best friend when he died. We all know that Alexandra was over protective and tried to remain deeply involved in his life. I have read about Mary as well, and I recall she had a good relationship with both of her parents. Although she tended to be a bit embarrassed about her Mother. It's telling that with the exception of Edward who didn't have kids, all of their kids [Albert, George, Mary and Henry], were the opposite of their parents with their parenting skills.

George V and Mary are both described as having been demonstrably affectionate with their children, but at the same time George V was also a harsh disciplinarian (not unusual for the time), and I believe he and Mary both had very high standards for how members of the family should behave.

It's fair to assume that Edward VIII didn't meet those standards at any point in his life, and I wouldn't be surprised if George, Duke of Kent's own behaviour was deemed not exactly appropriate (between his many affairs with women and men and his alleged drug addiction)... As for Bertie (George VI), Henry, and John... none of them were healthy, robust boys. John had epilepsy and an diagnosed intellectual disability. Bertie had a stammer, was left handed, had chronic stomach problems, and was knock kneed. Henry also had speech issues (notably rhotacism) and knocked knees, and was prone to fits of crying or giggling

I doubt George V and Mary really had the tools to be better parents than they were, given their children's issues and the time they lived in. Well, other than the nanny that abused Edward. That they should have caught sooner.

 

[Curryong]

The nurse, according to the stories, had some very peculiar character traits, which should have been picked up by any observant parent, IMO. I've read about this woman's idolatry of David and wanting him to be always with her.

However, she was neglectful in her treatment of Bertie. Apparently she would be very impatient with him during bottle feeding times and later just shovel his meals into his mouth in her anxiety to be back with David (Edward.) This, it's been said, was the root cause of his digestive problems as a young man.

However, minor mystery, I don't believe any member of the nursery staff has ever been traced who left suddenly at the relevant time, so I'm wondering whether the sadistic nurse story is in fact a myth.

 

[Pranter]

The sadistic nurse story was told as real in the Mary of Tek bio I read.


LaRae

 

[Curryong]

Yes, I've read several biographies too with the same story. Checking again after my last post I found this, a pretty alarming picture of the women employed in the nurseries at York Cottage after the Duchess's first children were born. There were two possibles, both ending up in mental institutions according to this, or maybe the three women named here have morphed from one individual.

RootsWeb: GENBRIT-L Re: Nannies of Royal children.

 

[LadyAlice]

There is no doubt that George loved his children. There's some particularly lovely photos of him with his eldest child cuddling and being affectionate.

The problem can when the children were older and he didn't know how to handle them

 

[Denville]

I was glancing at an old bio of Q Alexandra, and found a bit abuot George Vs being in love with Julie Stonor, the daughter of one of A's ladies in waiting. Alix was very fond of her and hanlded them gently during the romance, as she knew it could come to notihng. but I think the book said something to the effect that his love for Julie kept him out of sexual shenangians during his young years. however I gather it didn't, not entirely!

 

[Curryong]

Probably true what they say about sailors! George wrote to her a lot when he was at sea. Her widowed mother Eliza had been Alex's Woman of the Bedchamber but she died quite young leaving four children, Julie and her brother Frank who became a Peer, (can't remember who now) and two other brothers.

Alexandra took the Stonor offspring under her wing and they were at Sandringham a lot. By the time Julie was in her late teens George and she were in love (to a certain extent) but the Stonors were Roman Catholic and so there was that to contend with. Shades of Eddy and Helene d' Orleans!

Looked Julie up. She married a French Marquis, Pierre d' Hautpoul in 1891. Presumably he was a Roman Catholic. She died in 1950. Julie had one child who died at birth.

 

[Denville]

Yes I gather she remianed good friends with Q Alex during the latters lonely and sad widowhood.. But it was more than her being an RC, I'm sure that at that time even a second son would not be permitted to marry a girl of her rank.
But as I recall George V did share women with his brother Eddy...

 

[duchessrachel]

I just finished two biographies on Queen Mary and they cleared up for me the questions I had about Prince John. Also, can someone recommend a good biography or two on King George V? I have been reading books on the British Monarchy. As I said in a previous post I just finished 2 on Queen Mary and now want to know more about King George V.

 

[Curryong]

'King George V' by Kenneth Rose is a good all round balanced book about this King, IMO. It's quite reasonably priced on Amazon.

 

[duchessrachel]

'King George V' by Kenneth Rose is a good all round balanced book about this King, IMO. It's quite reasonably priced on Amazon.

Thanks. I just ordered it from Thriftbooks.

 

[duchessrachel]

I recently finished reading two books on Queen Mary (one of them authorized) and one on King Edward VIII (Duke of Windsor), also authorized, and these books discussed the parenting style of King George V and Queen Mary as not being very good. One of the books attributed King George VI stuttering problem with how he was parented and also his sister Mary's problems (which I had never heard of) to the same parenting, not to mention the Duke of Windsor's issues. However, I am currently reading the biography by Kenneth Rose on King George V and he says the opposite. He says that they were better parents than most people in their social class. He includes a quote from a lifelong friend of Queen Mary who says they were affectionate and loving but that the tragedy was that they did not understand the mind of a child. So which is it? I am confused.

 

[Curryong]

I think many of the problems George V's sons suffered was the result of George, a rather shy and emotionally repressed man, employing a quarter deck manner with them. They were frightened of being summoned to his study as children when he felt they needed a ticking off.

I think George was fond of his children in his own way, but didn't know how to express it. He certainly didn't give much praise to them as they grew up. However, he did express pride in Albert, his second son, as an adult. Mary was reputedly his favourite child, and he didn't bellow at her. I believe all of them probably hid things from him when they were adults, but that isn't unusual, even nowadays!

May, his wife, was a gentler character, but also emotionally repressed, shy and detached. She did teach her children some French and how to embroider (one of Edward's hobbies as an adult was tapestry work.) Her son Edward is on record as saying that she was a different person when George wasn't around. She had the most tremendous respect for her husband as King and Emperor and so rarely interceded with him on the children's behalf.

The couple certainly didn't see too much of their offspring when they were very small, (and George objected to excessive noise, crying etc at York Cottage) however, there are lots of photos of the family enjoying outdoor activities at Sandringham and Balmoral when the children were a bit older.

Considering the times, when most upper class parents saw their offspring for an hour a day if that, (plenty of anecdotal evidence of parents and children in those households leading quite separate lives) I do think that the family did spend a reasonable amount of time together when the parents weren't involved in Royal duties.

 

[padams2359]

I think the reference to being better is the result of more hands on approach than other in the upper class, not that it was done correctly.

 

[Denville]

You should read several books and decide... What problems did Prss Mary have? I haven't heard of any

 

[Curryong]

I know she was extremely shy, inclined to be nervous among strangers, and there was an impression that Prss Mary was quite reclusive because she wasn't seen much in London.
However, her eldest son said she wasn't like that at all among family and friends and did a great deal of charity work and opening buildings etc in Yorkshire. He also said that, contrary to rumours, his parents marriage was happy and they had lots of things in common. However, like THEIR parents, and their class, they weren't demonstrative with their children, nor did they ever really talk about feelings, emotions.

 

[Denville]

I don't think they were BAD parents but boht were conscious of appearances and of how important it was for the monarchy to be seen to be "behaving well". Edward VII was not too worried about this, and he and Alix were very fond of their grandchildren and inclined to be indulgent with them. However G and Mary were concerned to ensrure that the children were well behaved and proper and learned to be seen "looking good" in public.. and Q Mary wanted them to have a good education unlike many other royals.
and I think both of them were shy repressed people who found it hard to be overly affectionate with small children and it was know that "if the baby cried he'd be handed back to Nanny"... and one of the nannies used to pinch (was it David) or Albert, to make him cry when he saw his parents. But I don't think that that idea that "if Baby cries you hand him back to his nanny and he goes back to the nursery" was that unusual among upper class parents.. who also of course sent their children off to boarding school and left them to the care of governesses and Nannies a lot.

 

[Denville]

I know she was extremely shy, inclined to be nervous among strangers, and there was an impression that Prss Mary was quite reclusive because she wasn't seen much in London.
However, her eldest son said she wasn't like that at all among family and friends and did a great deal of charity work and opening buildings etc in Yorkshire. He also said that, contrary to rumours, his parents marriage was happy and they had lots of things in common. However, like THEIR parents, and their class, they weren't demonstrative with their children, nor did they ever really talk about feelings, emotions.

I didn't see this.. sorry. But yes I gather that Prss Mary, Lady Harewood was shy, like many of her family. but I've never heard that she had problems as such or that she was "bullied" by her father the way that he DID yell at his sons. As the only girl I got the impression she was the favourite and he was esp fond of her and of course he didn't expect things of her that he did of his sons.
I did read in some places htat her marriage to Lrd harewood was not happy, but not "terriby unhappy".. just that they weren't very close. however I don't know muich about her.
I got the impression that she and Harewood were "country horsey doggy" people, and got on OK...

 

[Curryong]

Yes, I think both were horsey and doggy country people, who lived the very comfortable lifestyle on the family estates, in between their county roles and dispensing charity to the needy, that the aristocracy of their time usually did.

You only get hints about Princess Mary, don't you; that she was valued by her parents, (won't say spoiled but certainly not bellowed at by her father,) that Viscount Lascelles had proposed to her only to win a bet at his club, etc etc. (I dont believe that, by the way, lol.)

Also that she was unhappy in her marriage, and was disgusted by the way David, who was apparently her favourite brother, was treated on his wedding day by his family and siblings.

The trouble is that her elder son's autobiography was overly discreet and there are no decent modern biographies of Mary's life alone (though she appears in books on George V's children) although in truth there's probably no interest in publishing any.

 

[Queen Claude]

I recently finished reading two books on Queen Mary (one of them authorized) and one on King Edward VIII (Duke of Windsor), also authorized, and these books discussed the parenting style of King George V and Queen Mary as not being very good. One of the books attributed King George VI stuttering problem with how he was parented and also his sister Mary's problems (which I had never heard of) to the same parenting, not to mention the Duke of Windsor's issues. However, I am currently reading the biography by Kenneth Rose on King George V and he says the opposite. He says that they were better parents than most people in their social class. He includes a quote from a lifelong friend of Queen Mary who says they were affectionate and loving but that the tragedy was that they did not understand the mind of a child. So which is it? I am confused.

I've stated before that I think that they were bad parents to their older children, particularly their sons but their bad parenting was more due to their parenting skills, or lack thereof, and not that they were unloving or uncaring. However I will say that I have no issue with how they handled Prince John and his maladies.

I think the confusion may lie in the paradox that George and Mary could not be characterized as uncaring but that they still made egregious mistakes and miscalculations as parents. I think the highlighted quote perfectly sums up the paradox of their parenting.

P S.
It is hard to excuse away the crazy nanny situation and how that went undetected for so long especially considering that the family was cooped up in "poky" York Cottage.

 

[Denville]

The trouble is that her elder son's autobiography was overly discreet and there are no decent modern biographies of Mary's life alone (though she appears in books on George V's children) although in truth there's probably no interest in publishing any.

She's not well known, so I suppose noone's going to write about her. I did read that the marriage wasnt' all thtat happy, but I'm not sure. It sounds as if they had plenty in common and probably they were OK.. she was shy and quiet and preferred a country life, not doing many royal engagements.. and to be honest I suspect that given the times (lack of men after the War, her status as a PRincess) she probably reckoned she was Lucky to have found a husband.. and if they had some interests in common and did not quarrel much, she problaby "made up her mind to be happy". I haven't heard of her feeling that David was badly treated.. if she had, couldn't she have attended the wedding?

 

[Curryong]

Again I've only read vague stories of this and it was years ago, that Mary felt that they had ganged up on David somewhat. However, she had her mother and brother Bertie to consider as well. The family were determined to stick together, show solidarity, and so she stayed away.

She and her husband did visit David after the Abdication, while he was in Austria, lonely and waiting for Wallis's divorce decree to be finalised. It's been said, without much proof certainly, that Mary refused to attend Elizabeth and Philip's wedding because her brother hadn't been invited. She gave bad health as the excuse.

 

[Denville]

I cant remember if George D of Kent attended the wedding? If not he DID keep in touch with David more than the others.. as I recall.
I'm just surprised that Mary felt that david had been badly treated, because I really don't think he was, and I'm sure that pretty much all of the family felt that he was the one who was at fault. But I suppose she might have felt that he couldn't help faling in Love with Wallis and that even if he HAD to give up the throne, they could visit him in private and treat him as a still loved member of the family.
but clearly for the most part they DIDNT want to treat him as family, any more, beyond an absolute minimum. While I'm not one who dislikes Q Mary, there's soemthing chilly abuot her saying when Wallis had a hysterectomy, "I send a kind message to your wife".. just ONCE I imagine, in years that she showed any kindness towards Wallis

 

[Spheno]

I cant remember if George D of Kent attended the wedding? If not he DID keep in touch with David more than the others.. as I recall.
I'm just surprised that Mary felt that david had been badly treated, because I really don't think he was, and I'm sure that pretty much all of the family felt that he was the one who was at fault. But I suppose she might have felt that he couldn't help faling in Love with Wallis and that even if he HAD to give up the throne, they could visit him in private and treat him as a still loved member of the family.
but clearly for the most part they DIDNT want to treat him as family, any more, beyond an absolute minimum. While I'm not one who dislikes Q Mary, there's soemthing chilly abuot her saying when Wallis had a hysterectomy, "I send a kind message to your wife".. just ONCE I imagine, in years that she showed any kindness towards Wallis

George Duke of Kent was dead in 1947