King George V (1865-1936) - Page 3

Jeniann · #41 04-16-2010, 09:37 PM

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 · #42 10-02-2010, 10:47 PM

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

Roderick · #43 10-03-2010, 06:01 PM

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

Mermaid1962 · #44 10-03-2010, 08:37 PM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeniann

"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 · #45 10-03-2010, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · #46 10-03-2010, 11:33 PM

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 · #47 10-04-2010, 01:15 AM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

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 · #48 10-04-2010, 06:36 AM

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 · #49 10-04-2010, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · #50 10-05-2010, 12:13 AM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

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 · #51 11-09-2010, 11:01 AM

Could anyone tell me any inforamtion about this postcard?

Regards

Iluvbertie · #52 11-10-2010, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · #53 11-10-2010, 07:53 PM

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 · #54 11-10-2010, 09:32 PM

He was very warmly received.

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

Vasillisos Markos · #55 11-10-2010, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony123

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 · #56 02-17-2011, 02:13 PM

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 · #57 02-21-2011, 10:50 PM

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** · #58 02-23-2011, 11:07 AM

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 · #59 03-22-2011, 04:18 PM

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** · #60 03-22-2011, 04:25 PM

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.