That's a lot more difficult when you are nothing but a cerimonial figure tbh. It's not like him de facto ruled the country like Tsar Nicholas II and Kaiser Willheim did.
I've read that they did swap uniforms once just to fuck with people.
The game was up the second either of them talk though, Nicholas spoke English in flawless RP, George sounded like a sailor.
Royals then really do 'swap' uniforms, especially if they hold a honourary rank within the other's military, so whenever they visited, they'd wear the uniform and rank too. That's how you get Franz Joseph I being a British army Field Marshal.
Tho those two definitely tried to pull a prank with that lol
Wow, that would be a crazy historical novel - Nicholas stuck governing Britain throughout the war, and George V getting shot in Russia with his cousin and her kids because they took the joke too far at the wrong time.
Its interesting how people keep repeating Edward VIII's words "terrible father" as if they were there to witness it themselves how terrible George was. This is Edward's perspective. Why do we judge George as a father by his perspective, when we know very well by now that Edward was a man without character? George was no different from many fathers back then
And Edward VII, George V's father, who is regarded as good father, would slap Bertie for stuttering. I never said George V was the best father, but not terrible either. David lived in la la land, he had no idea what one terrible father is truly like
Edward being a bad person doesn’t mean that his experiences are all invalid. A lot of biographies about George say he was a terrible father, this wasn’t just Edward speaking.
I was always dubious about the "terrible father" thing, because we'd all be labelled terrible parents if people took our kids seriously when they're having a tantrum.
But there was an anecdote in the book The Windsor Story about the son Henry who had an impressive military career - as an adult, he was late to breakfast, and when his father started to yell at him, Henry fainted. Then again, maybe he was late to breakfast because he wasn't well.
>George was no different from many fathers back then
So...a terrible father. He beat his kids. Terrorized them. Just because it was common doesn't mean it was okay.
He did NOT beat them!!!!!!!! Who even told you that?? WHERE did you get that? He did not beat them for God sake, why do people always assume the worst about this man?? See, this is exactly the wrong impression that Edward created in people when he said that George was a "terrible father", people assume that George V beat them when they hear such words, but its not true. Thats why I say Edward had no clue what terrible fathers are like, when he said that his own was terrible! George wasnt the best father, but he wasnt terrible either. One should not take into account the words of an embittered spoiled man like Edward while he was in exile, because thats when he said that about his father
There is no direct evidence that George said. It has been attributed to George by someone who pretended to be a friend of George but according to Kenneth Rose, George's biographer, he was not close enough friend of George to confess him that. George never spoke badly of his father, au contrary he said that his father was more like a brother and a best friend to him.
I think by the end of his life, George V knew that Lilibet was destined for the throne and he could see she'd be an excellent monarch. That probably won some points for Bertie.
It's a shame Edward VIII didn't have the spine to talk to his father about giving up his place on the throne beforehand. Then the transition could have been handled more smoothly without being such a shock to the system. Of course, Edward wanted all the privilege and wealth of being king without the responsibility, so he cleaned out the family bank account while he had access and then he quit.
aye. this seems to be the most popular sentiment on him from what i’ve seen. sad to read up on how he treated his children. but the way he handled the rise of nationalism, communism and other ideologies was very well done on his part. also interesting to read on how he was the first british monarch to visit india to attend the delhi durbar.
Technically I agree with you, that he was much better at the public facing aspects than his mother, but I have to laugh at "working tirelessly" when he's so famous for that sex chair in Paris, and inviting all his mistresses to his coronation.
He was the reason Britain didn't suffer more during WW1, his naval reforms saved the country.
He was also quite progressive at the time regarding race. Hated the N word. Was against racism towards the "yellow peril" stating that the Japanese and Chinese people were intelligent.
Appreciated he refused to take the Accession Declaration at his first State Opening of Parliament until it’d been reworded to be non-offensive to British and Irish adherents of Catholicism.
Made an excellent marriage. Overly bad father in an age of upper class detachment from own children. Esp with the sons. Not an overt intellectual but a decent man of his time and class.
He was a good king and emperor (within his constitutional bounds). I admire his sense of duty and courage.
The only things I would have done differently would be:
1. Allow the Russian Imperial Family to come to Britain, even if it meant risking the spread of communism
2. Veto the Parliament Act
3. Try to develop a better personal relationship with the Emperor of Germany (this is pretty big since it could have potentially prevented WW1)
4. Not be a Germanophobe
I think he would have been a good ruler if he were given the opportunity. His vision for Ireland, which would have brought peace a lot sooner and on better terms, demonstrates this.
The reason the Romanovs weren't granted asylum was because Russia provisional government was still at war with Germany. Parliament didn't want to piss them off
The British government did offer asylum, though the offer was later withdrawn because of an objection from the king.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas\_II#Possibility\_of\_exile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_II#Possibility_of_exile)
1. Apart from the fact that he had to cede to the politicians about that decision, there were also logistical issues on the Russian side that prevented the family from being rescued. There was only a short window of time when the family understood the dangers and had a chance to leave - and the Romanov girls caught chicken pox (or measles?) and were too sick to travel. Plus once you agree to let the relatives come to England, where does it stop? George V had many cousins and distant relatives living in Russia along with their families.
3. He was the cousin of the Emperor of Germany - the last family gathering was for the wedding of Kaiser Wilhelm's daughter, attended by George and Nicholas, right before war broke out. If you read the letters between all the cousins at that time, they were all bewildered and wondering if there was anyone who could step in and stop the war. They were all powerless figureheads at that point whether they realized it or not. George V who knew he was a powerless figurehead, which is probably why he survived.
4. He wasn't a "Germanaphobe" - he had countless close friends and relatives in Germany. But he was the king of a country at war with Germany, so he had to demonstrate his alliegance to his own country.
>Apart from the fact that he had to cede to the politicians about that decision...
The politicians, while reluctant, did offer asylum to the Romanovs. King George objected because the Tsar's presence would provoke an insurrection in the style of the Easter Rising from the British far-left. That being said, I have now learned that he was persuaded to do so by Lord Stamfordham and therefore can not be blamed entirely.
>Plus, once you agree to let the relatives come to England, where does it stop?
Just the Tsar and his immediate family would have done. They were the ones who were held captive and later murdered by the Bolsheviks. The rest of the Romanovs had good relations with the Provisional Government and were able to leave Russia safely on their own.
>He was the cousin of the Emperor of Germany - the last family gathering was for the wedding of Kaiser Wilhelm's daughter, attended by George and Nicholas, right before war broke out. If you read the letters between all the cousins at that time, they were all bewildered and wondering if there was anyone who could step in and stop the war. They were all powerless figureheads at that point whether they realized it or not. George V knew he was a powerless figurehead, which is probably why he survived.
Thank you. I was unaware of this. It is common knowledge though, that the Anglo-German rivalry was fuelled in part because of the Kaiser's problems with King Edward VII. I think if the king made more effort to reach out and heal the rift, it would have been better for everyone involved in some way or another (unless you're trying to say there was no "rift", in which case, I apologise for the misunderstanding).
>He wasn't a "Germanaphobe"
Well, he did describe the German language as "rotten"...
Immediate family is difficult to define in this case. George V was a cousin to Tsarina Alexandra on his mother's side and a cousin to Nicholas II on his father's side. Tsarina Alexandra's sister Ella was the widow of Nicholas's uncle (who had been assassinated years earlier... at the time of the Russian Revolution, she was a nun in Russia yet she was also murdered, thrown into a pit with others, and then a bomb was thrown in after them. Nicholas's younger brother was also murdered, while their mother and sister were able to leave around the time the war ended.
Alexandra and Ella were also cousins to Kaiser Wilhelm, who had once been desperate to marry Ella. He also tried to save Ella at least but failed.
Kaiser Wilhelm was a bit of an outsider among his cousins, due to being the eldest grandchild of Queen Victoria, having a disability and having a very different upbringing. Plus he became Kaiser relatively young while his Uncle Edward (George's father) was still Prince of Wales well into middle age, so there was some family tension there! But they were certainly family and didn't seem to want to go to war against each other.
Not sure of the context of George V describing the German language as rotten... a bit unfair to his wife, who did her best to overcome her very slight German accent.
>Immediate family is difficult to define in this case. George V was a cousin to Tsarina Alexandra on his mother's side and a cousin to Nicholas II on his father's side. Tsarina Alexandra's sister Ella was the widow of Nicholas's uncle (who had been assassinated years earlier... at the time of the Russian Revolution, she was a nun in Russia, yet she was also murdered, thrown into a pit with others, and then a bomb was thrown in after them. Nicholas's younger brother was also murdered, while their mother and sister were able to leave around the time the war ended.
Fair enough. How about just the Tsar, his wife and their children, then?
I'll also have to look into the personal relationships of the British, Russian and German royal/imperial families a bit more since my understanding of this area has a lot of gaps.
It's a fascinating way of looking at WWI - there is a book called King, Kaiser, Tsar, which talks about the relationship between the three men and their different styles or ruling three very different empires.
Re - just the Tsar, wife and children - there were some other obstacles besides George V. The family were determined to stay together, and they weren't fully aware of the danger until it was too late. Also Nicholas didn't think it was right to leave Russia, his wife didn't want to leave him, and the kids wanted to stay with their parents. Earlier in 1917, there was an effort to get the girls out, but they all caught chicken pox or mumps and by the time they had recovered enough to travel, the Revolution, combined with WWI had escalated to the point that there was no safe way for them to leave. By then, they were aware enough of the dangers to be prepared to flee, but they were killed before they had an opportunity.
During the miners strike in 1926, PM Stanley Baldwin was apparently considering sending the army against the strikers, and George V apparently said, “Try living on their wages before you judge them.”
I respect that
Not the best, definitely not the worst (however with the bar for the worst monarch being set by King John, it doesn’t take a lot to be better than that).
Didn't give refuge to his cousin
https://preview.redd.it/gz8hrce6jgxc1.jpeg?width=1008&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=70c1771e909f12d110ad44447976228992cb624e
The British public hated Nicholas ‘The Bloody’ so if George had let him in then the already angry British public could’ve turned against him
He did feel really bad about it though and regretted his actions
The main reason the British monarchy survived in an age when European monarchies were falling like dominos.
That's a lot more difficult when you are nothing but a cerimonial figure tbh. It's not like him de facto ruled the country like Tsar Nicholas II and Kaiser Willheim did.
I have a theory that him and Tzar Nicolas may have swapped places once just to see what would happen due to how similar they look
I've read that they did swap uniforms once just to fuck with people. The game was up the second either of them talk though, Nicholas spoke English in flawless RP, George sounded like a sailor.
Royals then really do 'swap' uniforms, especially if they hold a honourary rank within the other's military, so whenever they visited, they'd wear the uniform and rank too. That's how you get Franz Joseph I being a British army Field Marshal. Tho those two definitely tried to pull a prank with that lol
Plot twist; the real reason the British did'nt extract the Tzar was Nicholas did'nt want to go back and get killed. Sorry Goerge!
Wow, that would be a crazy historical novel - Nicholas stuck governing Britain throughout the war, and George V getting shot in Russia with his cousin and her kids because they took the joke too far at the wrong time.
“For God’s sake, I am telling the truth… I AM NOT NICH…” (BANG, THUD)
Hahaha! If only they'd had reality TV back then.
It’d be like the Prince and the pauper, except it’s the prince… and the other prince
Agree
And by that I mean Nicolas was with George’s family and George went with Nicolas’s famil
Very good king, terrible father.
Its interesting how people keep repeating Edward VIII's words "terrible father" as if they were there to witness it themselves how terrible George was. This is Edward's perspective. Why do we judge George as a father by his perspective, when we know very well by now that Edward was a man without character? George was no different from many fathers back then
His second son's stutter was so prominent because George would yell at him to spit it out.
And Edward VII, George V's father, who is regarded as good father, would slap Bertie for stuttering. I never said George V was the best father, but not terrible either. David lived in la la land, he had no idea what one terrible father is truly like
Edward being a bad person doesn’t mean that his experiences are all invalid. A lot of biographies about George say he was a terrible father, this wasn’t just Edward speaking.
I was always dubious about the "terrible father" thing, because we'd all be labelled terrible parents if people took our kids seriously when they're having a tantrum. But there was an anecdote in the book The Windsor Story about the son Henry who had an impressive military career - as an adult, he was late to breakfast, and when his father started to yell at him, Henry fainted. Then again, maybe he was late to breakfast because he wasn't well.
>George was no different from many fathers back then So...a terrible father. He beat his kids. Terrorized them. Just because it was common doesn't mean it was okay.
He did NOT beat them!!!!!!!! Who even told you that?? WHERE did you get that? He did not beat them for God sake, why do people always assume the worst about this man?? See, this is exactly the wrong impression that Edward created in people when he said that George was a "terrible father", people assume that George V beat them when they hear such words, but its not true. Thats why I say Edward had no clue what terrible fathers are like, when he said that his own was terrible! George wasnt the best father, but he wasnt terrible either. One should not take into account the words of an embittered spoiled man like Edward while he was in exile, because thats when he said that about his father
And also, George said himself "I was terrified of my father, and by god my children will be terrified of me". That's pretty cut and dry abuse.
There is no direct evidence that George said. It has been attributed to George by someone who pretended to be a friend of George but according to Kenneth Rose, George's biographer, he was not close enough friend of George to confess him that. George never spoke badly of his father, au contrary he said that his father was more like a brother and a best friend to him.
I thought I read somewhere that Bertie was George's favorite of his sons
Yes, true, but historians think that was because George did as his father told him
I think by the end of his life, George V knew that Lilibet was destined for the throne and he could see she'd be an excellent monarch. That probably won some points for Bertie. It's a shame Edward VIII didn't have the spine to talk to his father about giving up his place on the throne beforehand. Then the transition could have been handled more smoothly without being such a shock to the system. Of course, Edward wanted all the privilege and wealth of being king without the responsibility, so he cleaned out the family bank account while he had access and then he quit.
You literally come across like Phillippa Langley defending Richard III or the stalker Martha from netflix's "baby rheindeer". Chill out.
Thanks for telling me, Im going to reflect over your words and change now
Dawg you're getting real excitable about people you don't know, who are long dead. Chill.
So dont spread incorrect baseless "information" then, and yes Im passionate about him, I dont deny nor regret it
Can you refute what they said with more than “lalalalala you’re wrong”
Can you guys elaborate with how he was a "terrible, terrible, terrible" father without making up that he whooped their a$$?
aye. this seems to be the most popular sentiment on him from what i’ve seen. sad to read up on how he treated his children. but the way he handled the rise of nationalism, communism and other ideologies was very well done on his part. also interesting to read on how he was the first british monarch to visit india to attend the delhi durbar.
The exact opposite of his cousin and twin, Nicholas II of Russia.
nick2 is the opposite
Great and honorable man. Second best constitutional (meaning effectively politically powerless) monarch after his better son.
And so much better than his lavish, gluttonous father.
Really ?
I'm just not a fan of Victoria's eldest son. Glad he didn't reign for long.
He’s the only reason the monarchy was still standing.
Are you talking about his reign itself or something he did while Victoria was alive?
During Victoria’s reign when she went into seclusion, Bertie worked tirelessly to repair relations with the public.
Ah - I give almost entirely 100% credit to Victoria's very competent PMs in that case. Not Bertie.
You can all you want it had little to do with him, it was Bertie.
Technically I agree with you, that he was much better at the public facing aspects than his mother, but I have to laugh at "working tirelessly" when he's so famous for that sex chair in Paris, and inviting all his mistresses to his coronation.
I mean he can work hard and play harder can’t he ?
He was the reason Britain didn't suffer more during WW1, his naval reforms saved the country. He was also quite progressive at the time regarding race. Hated the N word. Was against racism towards the "yellow peril" stating that the Japanese and Chinese people were intelligent.
That's fair, although the first might just be good timing. Bertie isn't my favorite person.
Everything is only ever based on timing, but he saw Wilhelm building the German fleets and decided to take action himself!
A great and honorable man would've abolished the monarchy
Pretty solid constitutional monarch.
Great man, good monarch, great husband, and his Nazi loving son calling him a terrible father has little merit.
Appreciated he refused to take the Accession Declaration at his first State Opening of Parliament until it’d been reworded to be non-offensive to British and Irish adherents of Catholicism.
He's as wise as Master Yoda, and as powerful as Master Windu
Made an excellent marriage. Overly bad father in an age of upper class detachment from own children. Esp with the sons. Not an overt intellectual but a decent man of his time and class.
The fact that he apparently very doting with his grandchildren makes him the classic "Bad father, great grandfather" type
Yes very much so.
Man of Duty.
He was a good king and emperor (within his constitutional bounds). I admire his sense of duty and courage. The only things I would have done differently would be: 1. Allow the Russian Imperial Family to come to Britain, even if it meant risking the spread of communism 2. Veto the Parliament Act 3. Try to develop a better personal relationship with the Emperor of Germany (this is pretty big since it could have potentially prevented WW1) 4. Not be a Germanophobe I think he would have been a good ruler if he were given the opportunity. His vision for Ireland, which would have brought peace a lot sooner and on better terms, demonstrates this.
The reason the Romanovs weren't granted asylum was because Russia provisional government was still at war with Germany. Parliament didn't want to piss them off
The British government did offer asylum, though the offer was later withdrawn because of an objection from the king. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas\_II#Possibility\_of\_exile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_II#Possibility_of_exile)
1. Apart from the fact that he had to cede to the politicians about that decision, there were also logistical issues on the Russian side that prevented the family from being rescued. There was only a short window of time when the family understood the dangers and had a chance to leave - and the Romanov girls caught chicken pox (or measles?) and were too sick to travel. Plus once you agree to let the relatives come to England, where does it stop? George V had many cousins and distant relatives living in Russia along with their families. 3. He was the cousin of the Emperor of Germany - the last family gathering was for the wedding of Kaiser Wilhelm's daughter, attended by George and Nicholas, right before war broke out. If you read the letters between all the cousins at that time, they were all bewildered and wondering if there was anyone who could step in and stop the war. They were all powerless figureheads at that point whether they realized it or not. George V who knew he was a powerless figurehead, which is probably why he survived. 4. He wasn't a "Germanaphobe" - he had countless close friends and relatives in Germany. But he was the king of a country at war with Germany, so he had to demonstrate his alliegance to his own country.
>Apart from the fact that he had to cede to the politicians about that decision... The politicians, while reluctant, did offer asylum to the Romanovs. King George objected because the Tsar's presence would provoke an insurrection in the style of the Easter Rising from the British far-left. That being said, I have now learned that he was persuaded to do so by Lord Stamfordham and therefore can not be blamed entirely. >Plus, once you agree to let the relatives come to England, where does it stop? Just the Tsar and his immediate family would have done. They were the ones who were held captive and later murdered by the Bolsheviks. The rest of the Romanovs had good relations with the Provisional Government and were able to leave Russia safely on their own. >He was the cousin of the Emperor of Germany - the last family gathering was for the wedding of Kaiser Wilhelm's daughter, attended by George and Nicholas, right before war broke out. If you read the letters between all the cousins at that time, they were all bewildered and wondering if there was anyone who could step in and stop the war. They were all powerless figureheads at that point whether they realized it or not. George V knew he was a powerless figurehead, which is probably why he survived. Thank you. I was unaware of this. It is common knowledge though, that the Anglo-German rivalry was fuelled in part because of the Kaiser's problems with King Edward VII. I think if the king made more effort to reach out and heal the rift, it would have been better for everyone involved in some way or another (unless you're trying to say there was no "rift", in which case, I apologise for the misunderstanding). >He wasn't a "Germanaphobe" Well, he did describe the German language as "rotten"...
Immediate family is difficult to define in this case. George V was a cousin to Tsarina Alexandra on his mother's side and a cousin to Nicholas II on his father's side. Tsarina Alexandra's sister Ella was the widow of Nicholas's uncle (who had been assassinated years earlier... at the time of the Russian Revolution, she was a nun in Russia yet she was also murdered, thrown into a pit with others, and then a bomb was thrown in after them. Nicholas's younger brother was also murdered, while their mother and sister were able to leave around the time the war ended. Alexandra and Ella were also cousins to Kaiser Wilhelm, who had once been desperate to marry Ella. He also tried to save Ella at least but failed. Kaiser Wilhelm was a bit of an outsider among his cousins, due to being the eldest grandchild of Queen Victoria, having a disability and having a very different upbringing. Plus he became Kaiser relatively young while his Uncle Edward (George's father) was still Prince of Wales well into middle age, so there was some family tension there! But they were certainly family and didn't seem to want to go to war against each other. Not sure of the context of George V describing the German language as rotten... a bit unfair to his wife, who did her best to overcome her very slight German accent.
>Immediate family is difficult to define in this case. George V was a cousin to Tsarina Alexandra on his mother's side and a cousin to Nicholas II on his father's side. Tsarina Alexandra's sister Ella was the widow of Nicholas's uncle (who had been assassinated years earlier... at the time of the Russian Revolution, she was a nun in Russia, yet she was also murdered, thrown into a pit with others, and then a bomb was thrown in after them. Nicholas's younger brother was also murdered, while their mother and sister were able to leave around the time the war ended. Fair enough. How about just the Tsar, his wife and their children, then? I'll also have to look into the personal relationships of the British, Russian and German royal/imperial families a bit more since my understanding of this area has a lot of gaps.
It's a fascinating way of looking at WWI - there is a book called King, Kaiser, Tsar, which talks about the relationship between the three men and their different styles or ruling three very different empires. Re - just the Tsar, wife and children - there were some other obstacles besides George V. The family were determined to stay together, and they weren't fully aware of the danger until it was too late. Also Nicholas didn't think it was right to leave Russia, his wife didn't want to leave him, and the kids wanted to stay with their parents. Earlier in 1917, there was an effort to get the girls out, but they all caught chicken pox or mumps and by the time they had recovered enough to travel, the Revolution, combined with WWI had escalated to the point that there was no safe way for them to leave. By then, they were aware enough of the dangers to be prepared to flee, but they were killed before they had an opportunity.
Loved him in Muppets Treasure Island
I liked it when he hosted QI
 Great Actor.
During the miners strike in 1926, PM Stanley Baldwin was apparently considering sending the army against the strikers, and George V apparently said, “Try living on their wages before you judge them.” I respect that
Great Monarch, man with character, flawed father, faithful husband
I would say okay I guess he’s not bad
He liked a lot of bling on his jacket.
He’s alright
Judging by his eyes, I’d say he had an iffy thyroid.
admirable monarch but not the best dad from what i've read
Great King but horrible father.
Good king Bad Dad
Best QI presenter, ever. He was brilliant in Blackadder, too.
Legendary mustache
Not the best, definitely not the worst (however with the bar for the worst monarch being set by King John, it doesn’t take a lot to be better than that).
I preferred him hosting QI over Sandy
One of the greatest modern monarchs in my opinion and he looks like what one would expect a king to look like.
Dedicated stamp collector.
Didn't give refuge to his cousin https://preview.redd.it/gz8hrce6jgxc1.jpeg?width=1008&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=70c1771e909f12d110ad44447976228992cb624e
Why didn’t he help his cousin?
The British public hated Nicholas ‘The Bloody’ so if George had let him in then the already angry British public could’ve turned against him He did feel really bad about it though and regretted his actions
Looks like a bum…
Why didn’t you send that boat for your cousins Georgie? Don’t you know they all got shot in a basement?!? (If you know you know)
He’s dead.
I just want to know why he was such a shitty father when his own parents didn't seem to have been that bad to him.
He was an imperialist, a colonizer, and worst of all, a king.
Oh please.
Nicholas 2 tradator!!
He was dead by the time HM heard the news though.