The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #121  
Old 07-12-2010, 08:07 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by EleanorOfAquitaine View Post
Do they really have two children with the name George?
No George V and Mary didn't name two sons George.

George VI was born on December 14th the anniversary of Prince Albert's death (and Princess Alice's - Prince Philip's grandmother's death) so he was named Albert and called Bertie just like his grandfather, Edward VII (Edward VIII was called David within the family).

After Edward VIII deserted his duty to the nation and his family over the abdication George VI wanted to return some stability to the throne and chose to associate himself with his father's reign and so took the regnal name George. He was still called Bertie within the family.

The Duke of Kent was always called George by the family and is the father of the current Kent family. He was the son who was killed on active service during WWII and married Princess Marina of Greece - a cousin of Prince Philip's.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 07-16-2010, 02:21 PM
EIIR-Windsor's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6
We could also say that Edward VIII abdicated for love.
But I think that we must also recognize that His brother accepted the throne for love for His Nation and His People. We have to remember that for ever and ever.
I think he was one of the best monarchs the Nation has ever seen.
__________________

__________________
I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 07-16-2010, 02:22 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,106
Do you mean George VI was the best monarch?
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 07-16-2010, 02:32 PM
EIIR-Windsor's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6
Naturally, my friend.
George VI (Bertie) led Great Britain and the Empire through the worst period which humanity has ever seen. He remained with Queen Elizabeth (The Queen Mother after 1952) in London with His Own People under the Wehrmacht's bombings.
We have to remember that he died, he sacrificed His Life for His People and that (like many other things he have done) puts him among the best Kings the Nation and Empire have ever seen.
Do You agree with me?
__________________
I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 07-16-2010, 02:36 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,106
I disagree with your assessment that it's the worst period which humanity has ever seen.
I applaud him that he remained in london with his family during the bombings, and that he ascended the throne did an amazing job even though he was not suppose to.
I wouldn't say that he "sacrificed" his life for his country, yes the stress may have brought on an early death, but nothing about sacrificing himself.

I agree he was a good king, but for different reasons than you do I think. Oh and i'm not your friend, not yet anyway.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 07-16-2010, 02:42 PM
EIIR-Windsor's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6
Sorry for the friend.
I thought that Monarchists and Royal Funs are all friens.
However we can say that he sacrificed part of His Life, but I think every Royal, even not monarch, sacrified His/Her Life to His country.
__________________
I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 07-16-2010, 02:45 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,106
I wouldn't use the word sacrificed. It makes them sound like they did it unwillingly, to me anyway.
Royals, especially George would never have said no to becoming King, he may not have been prepared for it, but he had no choice in the matter.
He didn't, IMO do anything special, yes he led his country through the WW2, but any royal monarch would have done the same.

Not every royal is totally commited to being a royal, today the "job" if you can call it that, is nothing to be sacrificed for. That sense of duty of honour, will IMO die out with the Kings and Queens at the moment.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 07-16-2010, 02:50 PM
EIIR-Windsor's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6
I agree with You in much You sustain.
However I think that if we talk about today, scarificed is a big word, but if talk about Bertie's times we grant to use the word "sacrificed".
__________________
I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 07-16-2010, 02:54 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,106
But we are talking in today, and the word sacrificed doesn't mean the same as it did back then.
And even in Bertie's time, yes he gave up a fairly normal lifestyle being the Duke of York. But other than that, he didn't do anything else. His wife was there to see him through his years, and he struggled possible in the early years but he had his mother and his wife for support.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 07-16-2010, 02:57 PM
EIIR-Windsor's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6
However He's been a very good King.
__________________
I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 07-16-2010, 08:36 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by EIIR-Windsor View Post
Naturally, my friend.
George VI (Bertie) led Great Britain and the Empire through the worst period which humanity has ever seen. He remained with Queen Elizabeth (The Queen Mother after 1952) in London with His Own People under the Wehrmacht's bombings.
We have to remember that he died, he sacrificed His Life for His People and that (like many other things he have done) puts him among the best Kings the Nation and Empire have ever seen.
Do You agree with me?

I agree with a lot of what you have to say but one thing - it was the Luftwaffe not the Wehrmacht that bombed London (the Luftwaffe was the airforce and the Wehrmacht was the army).


I do think that World War II was the worst time in humanities history - over 100 million people died throughout the world as a direct result of the war and most of them were civilians.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 07-16-2010, 09:23 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,153
George VI served as king unwillingly, in the sense that he never wanted to be king and was appalled and horrified when his brother abdicated. I don't think that his sacrifice was necessarily greater than any other Briton during the war; but I do believe that he and the Queen became loved not just because they were there, but because they were so visible in their there-ness. George VI put on his uniform at the beginning of the war and didn't take it off IIRC until its end. He knew what being in war was like, due to his experience at Jutland; and so I think that he would have brought that experience into his dealing with soldiers, airmen, and sailors. George VI had a friendly, ordinary way of dealing with people. Personally, I think that it would have made a difference to me if my home and perhaps family had been destroyed by a bomb and my King and Queen showed up the next day to offer encouragement and sympathy. Don't forget also that he lost a brother through an aircrash; so he did have personal grief as well as the burden of knowing that the whole nation, and the Empire, were looking to him for courage.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
I wouldn't use the word sacrificed. It makes them sound like they did it unwillingly, to me anyway.
Royals, especially George would never have said no to becoming King, he may not have been prepared for it, but he had no choice in the matter.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 07-17-2010, 06:19 AM
EIIR-Windsor's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6
@Iluvbertie
Sorry, Luftwaffe, I have confused them.

@Mermaid1962
I agree with a lot of what You've said.
__________________
I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 08-21-2010, 08:23 PM
Cadiva's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: near Leeds, United Kingdom
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
I disagree with your assessment that it's the worst period which humanity has ever seen.
What would you say has been worse than the 1939-45 War, other than the 1914-18 War that is?

My worst monarchs would be Edward II and Richard II. Both failed on a number of levels even outside of the normal behaviour of Kings at that time. Edward II because he was weak and couldn't stand up to the pressures of not only his favourites but also the nobles that were his enemies.
Richard II because he believed too much in the Royal Perogative and wouldn't take advice, even when it was being given by those who were more experienced at ruling than he was. However, both of these Monarchs were products of their upbringing and of their time and in neither case was their behaviour out of the norm for ultimate rulers.

I also think it's wrong to describe Edward IV as a poor Monarch as he is, primarily, responsible for the changes to the Catholic Church which ultimately resulted in the codification of the Church of England. He was an ardent Reformist and was heavily influenced by the Duke of Northumberland, John Dudley.
I think it's also wrong to describe Henry VIII as a bad monarch. He was completely of his time both in terms of his ruthless execution of his Royal Power and also in his steadfast determination to secure a legitimate male offspring to inherit his Throne. It was, after all, only one generation before him that the crown had been seized through two claimants taking to the field to do battle (although his father by all accounts stayed off to one side while his troops got on with it).
__________________
*I am not a smurf*
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 08-21-2010, 08:35 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadiva View Post
What would you say has been worse than the 1939-45 War, other than the 1914-18 War that is?

My worst monarchs would be Edward II and Richard II. Both failed on a number of levels even outside of the normal behaviour of Kings at that time. Edward II because he was weak and couldn't stand up to the pressures of not only his favourites but also the nobles that were his enemies.
Richard II because he believed too much in the Royal Perogative and wouldn't take advice, even when it was being given by those who were more experienced at ruling than he was. However, both of these Monarchs were products of their upbringing and of their time and in neither case was their behaviour out of the norm for ultimate rulers.

I also think it's wrong to describe Edward IV as a poor Monarch as he is, primarily, responsible for the changes to the Catholic Church which ultimately resulted in the codification of the Church of England. He was an ardent Reformist and was heavily influenced by the Duke of Northumberland, John Dudley.
I think it's also wrong to describe Henry VIII as a bad monarch. He was completely of his time both in terms of his ruthless execution of his Royal Power and also in his steadfast determination to secure a legitimate male offspring to inherit his Throne. It was, after all, only one generation before him that the crown had been seized through two claimants taking to the field to do battle (although his father by all accounts stayed off to one side while his troops got on with it).
World War I might have seen more soldiers die than WWII but the second war saw way more people die and more devastation by a long way than WWI. Most of the devastation in WWI was restricted to northern France and Belgium whereas WWII saw Europe wide devastation along with Asia wide devastation and literally millions dead (about 10 times as many as died in WWI). In fact more people died in between 1918-1919 from the flu than actually died during the war (that was the Spanish Influenze pandemic).

I also think you mean Edward VI not Edward IV (typo I am sure). Edward VI was also only 16 when he died so he had barely taken over the total reigns of power before he died so it is hard to criticise him for being under the influence of others.


I do agree with your assessment of Henry VIII. We have the advantage of hindsight to realise that woman can be great monarchs but the only real example he had in England was the Empress Maud in the 1100s that had lead to the anarchy under Stephen. He didn't know that his own daughter would go down as one of England's finest ever monarchs.

Henry is one of my favourite monarch and one I rate as one of the best - certainly before the constitutional monarchs we have now. I don't like trying to compare monarchs like George VI with others like Henry VIII because of their totally different roles and powers.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 08-22-2010, 10:40 AM
Cadiva's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: near Leeds, United Kingdom
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I also think you mean Edward VI not Edward IV (typo I am sure). Edward VI was also only 16 when he died so he had barely taken over the total reigns of power before he died so it is hard to criticise him for being under the influence of others.
I meant Edward VI yes, I was replying to someone else who had said Britain (England and Wales at that time) could have done without him. I was pointing out that he was, in fact, the Monarch who was most responsible for codifying what ended up as the Church of England.
__________________
*I am not a smurf*
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 08-22-2010, 05:24 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadiva View Post
I meant Edward VI yes, I was replying to someone else who had said Britain (England and Wales at that time) could have done without him. I was pointing out that he was, in fact, the Monarch who was most responsible for codifying what ended up as the Church of England.

He might have signed the relevant legislation but he was lead to passing it and of course his decisions were all repealed by Mary and then Elizabeth established a more moderate Church of England - it is really Elizabeth who brought about the present Church of England (Edward's reign saw the 39 articles agreed on but the rest of the Church is Elizabethan.)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 08-22-2010, 10:03 PM
Cadiva's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: near Leeds, United Kingdom
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
He might have signed the relevant legislation but he was lead to passing it and of course his decisions were all repealed by Mary and then Elizabeth established a more moderate Church of England - it is really Elizabeth who brought about the present Church of England (Edward's reign saw the 39 articles agreed on but the rest of the Church is Elizabethan.)
The history of the Church of England recognises that it was Edward VI who brought about the major break away from the "Catholic" service through the work of Thomas Cramer, which was then ratified by his sister Elizabeth I.

The Forty Two Articles which were laid out by Cranmer can be found here - https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/dgehring...361/week5.html It is these which ended up as the Thirty Nine Articles which Elizabeth passed as laws. Whilst not always my choice of source, Wikipedia does have a very good article here which gives the details - Thirty-Nine Articles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The official Church of England website has this to say -
Quote:
In the reign of Henry’s son Edward VI the Church of England underwent further reformation, driven by the conviction that the theology being developed by the theologians of the Protestant Reformation was more faithful to the teaching of the Bible and the Early Church than the teaching of those who continued to support the Pope. In the reign of Mary Tudor. the Church of England once again submitted to Papal authority. However, this policy was reversed when Elizabeth I came to the throne in 1558.The religious settlement that eventually emerged in the reign of Elizabeth gave the Church of England the distinctive identity that it has retained to this day.


Elizabeth passed into law the Articles her brother had had drawn up by Thomas Cranmer with the exception of one, which was removed so it wouldn't upset her Catholic subjects. After she was excommunicated however, it was put back in again. The Church has, since that day, continued to develop and grow and change things as it meets the requirements of its teachings. I don't believe anyone from either Edward VI or Elizabeth's court would recognise the current Church of England as the same as the one they worshiped.

However, all of this really is irrelevant, the point I was making was to disagree with someone earlier in this thread who said England could have bypassed Edward VI :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
I think both Edward VI and Mary I could have usefully been bypassed too, for that matter.
__________________
*I am not a smurf*
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 09-27-2010, 08:42 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,188
I have reintroduced myself to the Tudors (the Showtime miniseries). I stopped watching after the first season because of the historical inaccuracies (merging Mary and Margaret Tudor into one sister was it for me) but somehoe I ended up buying the first two seasons and despite the fudging of the facts, I have come to the conclusion that IMO Henry VIII was definitely one of the worst monarchs. I've read a couple of bios on Mary I, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I and simply put he just wasn't a nice man.

Whatever good feelings and intentions he might have brought on his accession, I think by his death, the English were glad to see the end of him or should have been IMO.

I don't particularly care for how he treated ANY of his wives, even the one I don't particularly care for (Anne Boleyn). The way he treated Katharine of Aragon is just horrible, he framed Anne (she was guilty of many things but infidelity wasn't one of them) and sanctioned the killing of five innocent men along with her, Katharine Howard was just a silly girl who got caught up in a web that she wasn't emotionally mature to handle, I won't even talk about Thomas More, and his emotional neglect of his daughters Mary and Elizabeth definitely contributed to their own issues. I won't even get into the dissolution of the monastries, yes some of them were corrupt, but a lot of good and innocent people died on his watch.

So for me, its Henry VIII. Which is odd because he is definitely one of the more popular known British monarchs.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 09-27-2010, 10:26 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
I have reintroduced myself to the Tudors (the Showtime miniseries). I stopped watching after the first season because of the historical inaccuracies (merging Mary and Margaret Tudor into one sister was it for me) but somehoe I ended up buying the first two seasons and despite the fudging of the facts, I have come to the conclusion that IMO Henry VIII was definitely one of the worst monarchs. I've read a couple of bios on Mary I, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I and simply put he just wasn't a nice man.

Whatever good feelings and intentions he might have brought on his accession, I think by his death, the English were glad to see the end of him or should have been IMO.

I don't particularly care for how he treated ANY of his wives, even the one I don't particularly care for (Anne Boleyn). The way he treated Katharine of Aragon is just horrible, he framed Anne (she was guilty of many things but infidelity wasn't one of them) and sanctioned the killing of five innocent men along with her, Katharine Howard was just a silly girl who got caught up in a web that she wasn't emotionally mature to handle, I won't even talk about Thomas More, and his emotional neglect of his daughters Mary and Elizabeth definitely contributed to their own issues. I won't even get into the dissolution of the monastries, yes some of them were corrupt, but a lot of good and innocent people died on his watch.

So for me, its Henry VIII. Which is odd because he is definitely one of the more popular known British monarchs.
Uh, oh, I think you are going to provoke a rejoinder from ILB

But you make some good points. Henry definitely was NOT a nice man but I don't know if he was the worst monarch. Perhaps one without a conscience or at least he could sleep at night if he believed it was for the good of the country. I do agree he was selfish and vain.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british monarchs


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Coronation of British Monarchs Josefine British Royals 214 06-27-2014 08:37 PM
Unexpected Monarchs auntie Royalty Past, Present, and Future 72 12-05-2013 07:40 PM
Monarchs of Norway norwegianne Norwegian Royal History 0 11-10-2007 03:31 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth bourbon-parma charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman picture of the month pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:05 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]