Alexander Palace Forum
Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Windsors => Topic started by: Prince_Lieven on June 15, 2007, 01:43:00 PM
-
Hey everyone, I was just wondering if anyone new anything more about this - I've often read that George V was highly critical of his government's brutal policies in Ireland in the early 1920s, and that he disapproved of the antics of the para-military 'Black and Tans' but does anyone know anything more specific about his views? I've never read a biography of George, is anything about this mentioned in it? Thanks! :)
-
I've read some of it but will have to go back and look. For all his reputation as a traditionalist and conservative, he was very forward-looking (much like his father) when it came to the treatment of Indians, Jews, the Irish and others traditionally oppressed or discriminated against. He also took a strong view about the conditions of the poor in the country. I think it was these traits that allowed him to have a remarkably easy relationship with both the Labour and Socialist governments--something that on the face of it, you'd think would've been very difficult for him.
-
Yes, I must admit that I was (pleasantly) surprised when I read about it. I always put him down as a typical unionist, which I guess he was, but his concern for the welfare of the Irish did him great credit, especially considering that Irish welfare was a very long way down the list of Lloyd George and Churchill's priorities.
-
I think he said something like "Only of we had passed Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule bills back then."
-Duke of NJ
-
From Kenneth Rose's bio: 'The King...agonized over the bloodshed...' Lord Stamfordham wrote that 'The King feels that the probably results arising from McSweeney's death [from an ultimately fatal hunger strike, McSweeney was Lord Mayor of Cork] will be far more serious and far-reaching than if he were taken out of prison and moved into a private house where his wife could be with him, but kept under strict surveillance so that he could not escape and return to Ireland." This was during the wave of violence during 1918-19. GV was abused by Lloyd George for 'timidity' but reproached to his face by Ponsonby for supporting Lloyd George. When he was invited to open teh new Parliament in June 1921, he was warned not to go but 'those fears he dismissed; he would turn a ceremonial duty into a mission for peace.' The Unionists were angered as they didn't support the Parliament in the first place, let alone the King putting an official stamp of approval on it. It has been suggested that he was trying to challenge his ministers into action but his speech was, as usual, composed by his Cabinet. 'His only departure from custom lay in persuading the Government to cast his speech in the form of a personal appeal for reconciliation in Ireland. General Smuts...may be credited with implanting that visionary plan in the King's mind and producing an early draft of the speech.' the actual text was the work of Sir Edward Grigg, on of the PM's private secretaries.
Part of his speech: 'I am emboldened by the thought to look beyond the sorow and anxiety which have clouded of late my vision of Irish affairs. I speak from a full heart when I pray that my coming to Ireland today may prove to be the first step towards the end of strife amongst her people, whatever their race or creed. In that hope I appeal to all Irishmen to pause, to stretch out the hand of forbearance and conciliation, to forgive and forget, and to join in making for the land they love a new era of peace, contentment and goodwill...'.
His speech gained some appreciation for him from Lloyd George and the King himself was heartened by its reception. GV sent Lord Stamfordham to the PM a few days later to urge him to take immediate advantage of the improved atmosphere in Ireland as the King felt it would be fleeting, especially when 'dealing with a quick-witted, volatile and sentimental' opulace. Lloyd George concurred and assured him they were to invite de Valera and Sir James Craig, PM of Northern Ireland, to meet in London. Stamfordham also conveyed how the King deplored the 'minatory tone' of Birkenhead's speech to the House of Lords on the eve of the King's speech as well as Churchill's 'unhelpful statement in the Commons promising military reinforcements' to the Ulster side. De Valera did accept the invitation and this led to a formal truce between the British forces & the IRA. Throughout the negotiations, the King was kept fully informed and offered 'whoelhearted encouragement'.
-
A report came out at the same time of an interview with Lord Northcliffe, proprietor of The Times and the Daily Mail which caused a great deal of strife. It stated that basically GV told Lloyd George to 'come to some agreement' with the people in Ireland since he 'cannot have my people killed in this manner'. This supposedly led to the retaliatory comments in the Lords & Commons on the eve of his Ireland speech. The report was quickly denied and buried. Kenneth Rose, however, thinks the comment had the ring of truth and 'conforms to similar reproaches which we now know he addressed to his ministers.' In the negotiations with de Valera, the King 'played more than a passive role. Often hot-tempered over small interruptions to his daily routine, he could demonstrate an enviable restraint in affairs of State.' GV encouraged Lloyd George to 'remove all threats and contentious phrases' from his draft reply to de Valera and the amended letter 'proved acceptable' to the latter. GV also warned LG about becming enmeshed in haggles over terminology at the expense of getting something done. With the truce concluded, GV was able to write in his diary his hope that 'after seven centuries there may be peace in Ireland' though his hope proved illusory. '[T]hroughout the remaining years of his reign he was an anguished yet impotent witness to broken promises and crude stategems, to civil war and sectarian violence and bloodshed. 'What fools we were not to have accepted Gladstone's Home Rule Bill,' he told Ramsey MacDonald in 1930."
Given the fact that de Valera had scant respect for GV's authority or rank, Time magazine even calling him GV's 'enemy' and deV having once been sentenced to death (reduced to penal servitude and then freed in the amnesty of the following year) for commanding insurgents against the King, I think it says something about how GV was able to view him and deal with him despite this. Like his relationships with Lloyd George and Ramsey MacDonald (who he actually grew pretty close to), GV didn't let personal issues like that get in the way of what he deemed best for his Empire.
-
Yes, I must admit that I was (pleasantly) surprised when I read about it. I always put him down as a typical unionist, which I guess he was, but his concern for the welfare of the Irish did him great credit, especially considering that Irish welfare was a very long way down the list of Lloyd George and Churchill's priorities.
I don't think there's any doubt that GV wanted to keep Ireland in his Empire, much as he did India despite the rising calls for independence there. I also don't think there's any doubt about his true concern and care for the people of those countries. To him, the 2 views weren't incompatible. He certainly didn't view the native people of his various dominions (Irish, Indian, African, etc...) as any less than he did the British. I don't think he quite understood the desire on the part of some, in time the majority, to break away and have an independent nation. I think he desired more that their lot be improved and that the disenfranchised be brought into the political system and treated with all due consideration and equality while keeping them as part of the British Empire.
-
Thanks for the contributions Duke of NJ and GDE, especially Grandduchessella for typing all that! Very interesting! :)
Given the fact that de Valera had scant respect for GV's authority or rank, Time magazine even calling him GV's 'enemy' and deV having once been sentenced to death (reduced to penal servitude and then freed in the amnesty of the following year) for commanding insurgents against the King, I think it says something about how GV was able to view him and deal with him despite this. Like his relationships with Lloyd George and Ramsey MacDonald (who he actually grew pretty close to), GV didn't let personal issues like that get in the way of what he deemed best for his Empire.
There's an extract of a letter in my old school history book that an Irish representative in England wrote home, describing a meeting with the King in the early 1930s, before de Valera came to power. He seemed to have the utmost respect for and confidence in de Valera's predeccessor, WT Cosgrave, whereas he regarded de Valera as 'scarecely Irish at all'. ;D
He certainly didn't view the native people of his various dominions (Irish, Indian, African, etc...) as any less than he did the British.
I think this is very much to his credit, since it certainly wasn't a view popular among people of his class and generation in Britain. He's right that they should've implemented Home Rule though (they did pass the third home rule bill, in 1914, but it's implementation was delayed because of World War I). When Gladstone introduced the first home rule bill in 1886, he urged the MPs to give Ireland home rule with honour, rather than be forced to do so in humiliation at a later date.
-
Thanks for the contributions Duke of NJ and GDE, especially Grandduchessella for typing all that! Very interesting!
You are too kind, I did not contribute anything. GDE deserves all the credit. :)
-Duke of NJ
-
This is for all the people (like me) who don't really know much about the Irish War of Independence:
ANGLO-IRISH WAR
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Irish nationalists vs. Great Britain
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Ireland
DECLARATION: No formal declaration
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Irish independence from Great Britain
OUTCOME: The Irish Free State was established incorporating all but six Irish counties in the Protestant north, laying the ground for continued civil unrest.
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: Britain, 100,000; Ireland, 3,000
CASUALTIES: Britain, 1,585; Irish Republican Army, 500; Easter Uprising, Britain, 529 killed and wounded; Ireland, 62 killed (Irish wounded unknown)
TREATIES: Anglo-Irish Treaty, December 6, 1921
The history of English involvement in Ireland dates back to 1171 when Henry II (1133–89) invaded the island and proclaimed himself overlord of the region. Yet organized resistance did not arise until the Protestant movement of the 1690s. By 1798 an Irish Protestant revolt led to the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland on January 1, 1801. During the mid-19th century the Irish encountered a devastating famine, resulting in more than 1 million deaths and an equally large number of emigrants, most of whom fled to America. The crisis fueled anti-British sentiment in Ireland and increased the internal hostilities between the Protestants and the Catholics. An independence movement known as Fenianism emerged from the Irish plight, which threatened English hegemony through terrorist actions and subsequently forced Parliament to consider Irish autonomy.
Charles Stewart Parnell (1846–91) led the fight in Parliament for the compromise policy known as Home Rule (which promised Irish autonomy in internal affairs only) in the late 1800s. Parliament finally passed a Home Rule bill in 1912. However, radical opposition and the outbreak of World War I postponed implementation. In response to what the Irish felt was deliberate hedging on the Home Rule policy by the British Parliament, a group known as the Irish Republican Brotherhood (which in time would become the Irish Republican Army [IRA]), led by Sir Roger Casement (1864–1916), James Connolly (1870–1916), Patrick Pearse (1870–1916), and others, organized a rebellion to begin on Easter, April 24, 1916. On returning from a weapons procurement trip to Germany, Casement was captured and imprisoned, which scuttled plans for a national revolt. However, nearly 2,000 die-hards under Connolly and Pearse went ahead with the Dublin uprising scheduled for Easter Sunday. Within a week 20,000 British troops were in Ireland, and the rebellion had been crushed.
-
In the wake of the Easter Uprising, fifteen Irish Republican leaders were summarily executed, 2,000 rebels were just as summarily imprisoned, and the British began a campaign of persecution against the relatively tiny Sinn Féin, an Irish political society seeking independence from Britain, which the English assumed—incorrectly—had been the organization that planned the rebellion. Thousands of patriots rushed to the ranks of Sinn Féin, making it the most powerful nationalist organization in Ireland. Following the executions of Pearse on May 3 and Connolly on May 12, a surviving Irish Republican Brotherhood leader, Eamon de Valera (1882–1975), came to prominence and demanded a republican government.
The British made an attempt in 1917 to generate a consensus in Ireland by setting up the Irish National Convention, but then—with typical imperial heavyhandedness—destroyed whatever gains they had made by announcing a plan, never to be fulfilled, to draft Irishmen for the war in Europe. The Irish responded at the ballot box and in the streets.
Sinn Féin won 73 of the seats in the British Parliament assigned to Ireland, then, to a man, the elected refused to go to London. Instead, they set up an independent provisional government with its own assembly, the Dáil Éireann, elected by Irish members of the British Parliament. They also established an Irish court system and organized the Irish Republican Army (IRA) to resist British administration and secure official recognition for the republic. The British promptly arrested 36 of the Irish parliamentary delegates, but the remaining 37 ratified the Irish Republic proclaimed during the Easter Uprising.
Led by Michael Collins (1890–1922), the IRA was soon engaged in widespread ambushes and attacks on local barracks. The British retaliated with ruthless reprisals. Most of the Irish police force resigned. The British replaced it with a group of English recruits, known from the color of their temporary uniforms as the "Black and Tans." Violence seemed hardly avoidable. The IRA and the Irish Volunteers launched into two and a half years of guerrilla warfare, which the Irish called "the Troubles," a counterterrorist insurgency against the Royal Irish Constabulary of the Black and Tans.
As Ireland descended into something very much resembling civil war, the British bit by bit alienated Irish public opinion. They were soon forced—partly by Irish-American pressure, partly by Ireland's public support for the IRA, partly by such isolated heroic acts as the 1920 hunger strike of the Lord Mayor of Cork—to pass the Government of Ireland Act of 1920. With this act Britain continued its bungling by partitioning the island into two administrative regions, each with limited autonomy, which pleased none of various factions and laid the groundwork for future sectarian violence.
-
Oh my - one of my favourite GV topics - and I've quite a pile of contradictory waffle, nearly all of it contemporaneous, on Home Rule and Himself.
I know it caused him intense anxiety and irritation, and enormous worry too. I'll look up the good bits and bash them out asap. I've always been especially interested in this issue as it came to dominate such a goodly chunk part of GV's reign and had a habit of rising up to infuriate the poor King whenever his temper was being stoked elsewhere at the same time - or else when things were otherwise being comparatively not King-combustable!
Can be certain it was a nightmare for May when the dispatches came in... :-X
-
Outraged by the way the north had been divided to create a Protestant majority, the IRA stepped up its guerrilla war against the British. Britain retaliated by imposing martial law and setting loose the Black and Tans. The violence peaked on Bloody Sunday, November 21, 1920. In the morning the IRA assassinated in Dublin 11 men it suspected of being British intelligence agents. The Black and Tans struck back that afternoon, opening fire on a crowd watching a football match in a Dublin park. When the smoke cleared, 12 lay dead, 60 others wounded. Across Ireland hostility toward the British boiled over, and, as the terror continued, liberal British prime minister David Lloyd George (1863–1945) decided it was time to revisit the "Irish Question." A truce was declared in July 1921 that led to an Anglo-Irish Treaty on December 6, 1921, granting the 26 counties of southern Ireland dominion within the commonwealth. However, the partition between these and the six Protestant counties in the north remained, pleasing neither Protestant Ulster nor Catholic Dublin. Nevertheless, Dublin accepted the partition and became capital of the Irish Free State.
The 1921 proposal that established the Free State ended the Anglo-Irish guerrilla war for the time being, but it wreaked havoc on Ireland's sense of identity. Free Staters accepted dominion as a step toward true independence; radical republicans considered it an insult. Then IRA mastermind Michael Collins signed Lloyd George's treaty and helped set up the new provisional government. Collins, a larger than life figure who would inspire the likes of Mao Zedong (Tse-tung) and Yitzhak Shamir (b. 1915), had just signed his own death warrant. Immediately after the treaty was put into effect, IRA diehards, vowing never to accept a separate Northern Ireland, ambushed and killed their former leader in his native County Cork on August 22, 1922. The IRA, born from the ashes of the Easter Uprising, would fight on—so said its members—until the whole island was both free and united.
Phillips, Charles, and Alan Axelrod. "Anglo-Irish Civil War." Encyclopedia of Wars, vol. 1. New York: Facts on File, Inc., 2005. Modern World History Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?
ItemID=WE53&iPin=EWAR0071&SingleRecord=True (accessed June 15, 2007).
-Duke of NJ
-
George V's Views On Ireland In A Letter To Asquith
11 August 1913
"Although I have not spoken to you before on the subject I have been for some time very anxious about the Irish Home Rule Bill, and especially with regard to Ulster. The speeches of not only of people like Sir Edward Carson, but of the Unionist leaders, and of the ex-Cabinet Ministers; the stated intention of setting up a provisional Government in Ulster directly The Home Rule Bill is passed; the reports of Military preparations, Army drilling etc.; of assistance from England, Scotland and the Colonies; of the intended resignation of their Commissions of Army officers; all point towards rebellion, if not Civil War, and, if so, to certain bloodshed. Meanwhile there are rumours of probable agitation in the country; of monster petitions; Addresses from the House of Lords; from Privy Councillors; urging me to use my influence to avert the catastrophe which threatens Ireland. Such vigorous action taken, or likely to be taken, will place me in a very embarrassing position in the centre of the conflicting parties backed by their respective Press. Whatever I do I shall offend half of the population....No Sovereign has ever been in such a position, and this pressure is sure to increase during the next few months. In this period I have the right to expect the greatest confidence and support from my Ministers, and above all, from my Prime Minister. I cannot help feeling that the Government is drifting and taking me with it. Before the gravity of the situation increases I should like to know how you view the present state of affairs, and what you imagine will be the outcome of it . . ."
In January 1913, Ulster Protestants founded the Ulster Volunteer Force to be ready for civil war in case of Home Rule. Many British officers supported the UVF, which apparently worried King George V enough that he wanted Ulster to be excluded from the Home Rule Bill. In April 1914, for example, the UVF received a shipment of illegal arms, but the police did not do anything about it.
-
Thanks for the info everyone. I know GV called an all-party conference in 1914 in an attempt to sort things out, but I don't know much about it - I don't even know which Irish politicians attended. :-[ Does anyone have any details?
-
As always, with the proviso that this info (top paragraph) was from wikipedia:
"Faced with what seemed to be imminent civil war, King George, a strong hibernophile since his days as a Naval officer based in Cork, intervened to stop what be believed was the slide to civil war and took the unprecedented step of inviting the leaders of both communities, along with the British government, to the Palace for a conference. The conference assembled in Buckingham Palace in late July 1914. Though the issue of home rule had been on the political agenda since the 1870s, the 1914 conference was the first time that a formal peace conference had been called involving both Nationalists and Unionists. Among those who attended were Prime Minister Herbert Asquith, Irish Parliamentary Party leader John Redmond, his deputy, John Dillon and the Leaders of Irish Unionism, Edward Carson and the Earl of Midleton. The conference broke up after three days without agreement. All sides however argued that it had been a useful exercise, with Unionists and Nationalists for the first time having meaningful discussions on how to allay each other's fears about the other. The conference was overtaken by developments in Europe. King George himself intervened on a number of subsequent occasions on Ireland. In 1920 he made clear his opposition to the behaviour of the Black and Tans paramilitary force being used by the British Government during the Irish War of Independence, while unsuccessfully intervening to try to save the life of hunger striker Terence MacSwiney. In 1921 he made a passionate appeal for reconciliation in Ireland at the opening of the Parliament of Northern Ireland which led directly to a truce between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom, paving the way for the Anglo-Irish Treaty. In 1932 he defused a row between the President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State Éamon de Valera and the Governor-General of the Irish Free State James McNeill by getting de Valera to withdraw a request for McNeill's dismissal, and then getting the McNeill to take early retirement."
Shane Leslie (son of Prince Arthur's friend Leonie Leslie and first cousin to Winston Churchill), the Irish diplomat and Home Rule nationalist, has several papers on the conference, including letters from James William Lowther, 1st Viscount of Ullswater, regarding the Buckingham Palace Conference of July 1914. Includes 3 pages of autograph notes about the conference by Shane Leslie, and 18 pages of autograph transcriptions by Sir Shane of correspondence regarding the conference. Also includes "Secret" report (printed by the Foreign Office July 22, 1914) about the conference: "The Irish National Party have all along been, and still are, strongly of the opinion that no satisfactory settlement of the Irish question can be obtained by the exclusion of any portion of Ireland from the operation of the Home Rule Bill." Leslie was also a primary witness to much that was said and done outside the official record during the negotiation of the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921.
-
Thanks a lot GDE, the more I read about this the more impressed I am with GV. :)
-
Thanks a lot GDE, the more I read about this the more impressed I am with GV. :)
Was not this conference dramatized a scene in the movie The Lost Prince?
TampaBay
-
It was indeed, it's the conference that Georgie (future Duke of Kent) peeks in on.
-
I know there was once a thread on George because I posted on it but I can't seem to find it--even using the search feature! If anyone finds it, point me to it and I'll merge the 2. In the meantime, here's a replacement one.
George (on tour) laughing at the photographers
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/grandduchessella/britain/758-1.jpg)
and at crew antics
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/grandduchessella/britain/889-1.jpg)
-
I like the laughing one.
He looks nice there.
-
There is a lovely one of George V taken around the time of his Silver Jubilee in 1935. He has a huge grin on his face after the urchin in the middle of the picture has just announced, 'My name is George too'.
Ann
-
Teen George
(http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/1474/croy5.jpg)
-
A lovely cabinet card of George when Duke of York.
(http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/5604/photo2ya.jpg)
-
Wonderful! i have de "Woodbury" version in sepia tones. Thanks Eddie!
Here another of young George. He looks quite dashing in this one!
(http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/281/seftw452.jpg)
-
Oh he does!! And so life like!! Thank you Katenka!
-
You welcome!!
here another fine image of him
(http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk70/Stella_sabata/1408042.jpg)
-
young handsome prince
(http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/1824/erez1.jpg) (http://img529.imageshack.us/i/erez1.jpg/)
-
The only one of the "Cousins Three" (George, Nicholas II and Kaiser Wilhelm II) to see the end of the First World War from his throne.
-
From an old Sotheby`s auction A handsome image of a young George framed in Faberge.
(http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/7325/sfsdfsdfsdfsdfsf.jpg) (http://img135.imageshack.us/i/sfsdfsdfsdfsdfsf.jpg/)
-
Were he and Nicky separated at birth? ;D
-
The picture of Teen George shows quite clealry that he had a cleft chin!
That's interesting, as he's the only one of Queen Victoria's descendants that I have found to have this characteristic. QV's father the Duke of Kent had it, but I hadn't seen it in any other descendants so assumed that she hadn't inherited the gene or genes that control this trait. Now it looks as though she did.
-
I know there was once a thread on George because I posted on it but I can't seem to find it--even using the search feature! If anyone finds it, point me to it and I'll merge the 2. In the meantime, here's a replacement one.
George (on tour) laughing at the photographers
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/grandduchessella/britain/758-1.jpg)
and at crew antics
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/grandduchessella/britain/889-1.jpg)
Seems he has a big sense of humor. =)
-
Funny that the illustration of this postcard has been labeled as "nicholas II" in some places
(http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/6696/sejfpsje.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/20/sejfpsje.jpg/)
-
The kings´s first christmas broadcast at sandringham. 1934
(http://imageshack.us/a/img18/1859/img019ee.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/18/img019ee.jpg/)
-
The King's Christmas speech to go with the photo above:
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/his-majesties-speech-to-his-peoples/query/george+v+speech
King George V's Christmas Speech. He thanks the people for celebrations to mark his 25th silver jubilee, he sends Christmas wishes from Royal Family to all his subjects.
Sound only version of of speech / broadcast made by King George V at the end of the celebrations of his Silver Jubilee.
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/king-george-v-jubilee-speech-aka-george-5th
Fascinating to hear his voice for such an extended clip--almost 7 minutes. The King didn't have much longer to live by the time he gave either speech, only about a month in the case of the latter.
-
Amazing! its great to know that the voice i imagined for him was exactly like his real one. Thanks so much GdE!!
-
No problem. If you search the Pathe site, they have quite a few speeches by his but these seemed the most substantial. I always pictured his voice a little heartier, based on some descriptions, but that could've lessned with his age and ill-health (especially relating to his lungs). He was pretty weak but the time he gave these speeches. It was said, back in 1932 when he gave his first Christmas speech, that he had the perfect voice for the task--just the way his people would want him to sound. He was reluctant to do it given his natural reticence & dislike of change but went along. It was such a success that it's inconceivable now to image the monarch doing away with the tradition. He did his speeches live, from Sandringham.
From royal.gov.uk:
"The Christmas message was started by The Queen's grandfather, King George V. King George had reigned since 1910, but it was not until 1932 that he delivered his first Christmas message. The original idea for a Christmas speech by the Sovereign was mooted in 1932 by Sir John Reith, the visionary founding father of the BBC, to inaugurate the Empire Service (now the BBC World Service). Originally hesitant about using the relatively untried medium of radio in this way, The King was reassured by a visit to the BBC in the summer of 1932, and agreed to take part. And so, on Christmas Day, 1932, King George V spoke on the 'wireless' to the Empire from a small office at Sandringham. The transmission was an exercise of contemporary logistic brilliance. Two rooms at Sandringham were converted into temporary broadcasting rooms. The microphones at Sandringham were connected through Post Office land lines to the Control Room at Broadcasting House. From there connection was made to BBC transmitters in the Home Service, and to the Empire Broadcasting Station at Daventry with its six short-wave transmitters.
The General Post Office was used to reach Australia, Canada, India, Kenya and South Africa. The time chosen was 3.00pm - the best time for reaching most of the countries in the Empire by short waves from the transmitters in Britain. In the event, the first Broadcast started at five past three (twenty-five minutes to four according to the King's 'Sandringham Time') and lasted two and a half minutes. The Broadcast was preceded by an hour-long programme of greetings from all parts of the Empire. The text of the first Christmas speech was written by poet and writer Rudyard Kipling and began with the words: "I speak now from my home and from my heart to you all."
The King acknowledged the unifying force of technology in his historic speech: "I speak now from my home and from my heart to you all; to men and women so cut off by the snows, the desert, or the sea, that only voices out of the air can reach them." As the sound of a global family sharing common interests, the Broadcast made a huge impact on its audience of 20 million. Equally impressed, George V made a Broadcast every Christmas Day subsequently until his death in 1936. George V's last Christmas Broadcast in 1935 came less than a month before his death and the King's voice sounded weaker. He spoke of his people's joys and sorrows, as well as his own, and there was a special word for his children."
Transcript of his first Christmas broadast, written by his good friend Rudyard Kipling:
Through one of the marvels of modern Science, I am enabled, this Christmas Day, to speak to all my peoples throughout the Empire. I take it as a good omen that Wireless should have reached its present perfection at a time when the Empire has been linked in closer union. For it offers us immense possibilities to make that union closer still. It may be that our future may lay upon us more than one stern test. Our past will have taught us how to meet it unshaken. For the present, the work to which we are all equally bound is to arrive at a reasoned tranquillity within our borders; to regain prosperity without self-seeking; and to carry with us those whom the burden of past years has disheartened or overborne. My life's aim has been to serve as I might, towards those ends. Your loyalty, your confidence in me has been my abundant reward. I speak now from my home and from my heart to you all. To men and women so cut off by the snows, the desert or the sea, that only voices out of the air can reach them; to those cut off from fuller life by blindness, sickness, or infirmity; and to those who are celebrating this day with their children and grand-children. To all - to each - I wish a Happy Christmas. God Bless You!.
Here's an audio link: http://www.mixcloud.com/radioposterity/king-george-v-christmas-speech-1932/
-
IMO HM THE QUEEN favors HM Queen Mary, but if you look at the pic of HM the King above giving his first speech, anyone else think that HM the Queen has her grandfathers Eyes?
-
One of the reasons I have a soft spot for George V is his absolute horror at the wanton slaughter of WW1, expressed in many letters and in the remembrances of others. I came across this book the other day. It was a record of the pilgrimage he and Queen Mary undertook after the end of the war to the many British and Colonial graves in France and Belgium.
In the inscription he writes:
BUCKINGHAM PALACE
May 1922.
I am interested to hear of the proposed publication of the record of my pilgrimage to the War Graves.
It grieves me to think how many relatives are prevented from visiting the graves of their dear ones through lack of means. During my recent visit to the Cemeteries in France and Belgium, I was glad to learn that various organisations are endeavouring to meet this difficulty by raising funds which I trust will be substantially assisted by the sale of the book.
And the proceeds did go to many charities devoted to this cause and the cause of the upkeep of the graves.
Some photos and text:
"IT was our King’s wish that he should go as a private pilgrim, with no trappings of state nor pomp of ceremony, and with only a small suite, to visit the tombs in Belgium and France of his comrades who gave up their lives in the Great War. In the uniform which they wore on service, he passed from one to another of the cemeteries which, in their noble simplicity, express perfectly the proud grief of the British race in their dead; and, at the end, within sight of the white cliffs of England, spoke his thoughts in a message of eloquence which moved all his Empire to sympathy.
The Governments of France and of Belgium, our allies in the war for the freedom of the world, respected the King’s wish. Nowhere did official ceremony intrude on an office of private devotion. But nothing could prevent the people of the country-side gathering around the places which the King visited, bringing with them flowers, and joining their tribute to his. They acclaimed him not so much as King, but rather as the head of those khaki columns which crossed the Channel to help to guard their homes; in their minds the memory of the glad relief of August, 1914, when they learnt that the British were with them in the war and felt that the ultimate end was secure. Many of them were of the peasants who, before the scattered graves of our dead had been gathered into enduring cemeteries, had graced them with flowers, making vases of[Pg 5] shell-cases gathered from the battle-fields. The King was deeply moved by their presence, at seeing them leave for an hour the task of building up their ruined homes and shattered farms, and coming with pious gratitude to share his homage to the men who had been faithful to their trust unto death. To those around him he spoke more than once in thankful appreciation of this good feeling of the people of France and Belgium. Especially was he pleased to see the children of the country-side crowd around him, and when little choirs of them sang “God Save the King” in quaintly accented words his feeling was manifest.
There came thus to the pilgrimage from the first an atmosphere of affectionate intimacy between these people who were not his subjects and the British King. They gathered around him as around a friend, the old women leaning forward to catch his words, the children trying to come close enough to touch him, seeing in his uniform again the “Tommy” who had proved such a gentle soul when he came for a brief rest from the horrors of the battle-field to the villages behind the line and helped “mother” with the housework and nursed the baby. At one village a gendarme, feeling in his official soul that this was really no way to treat a King, tried to arrange some more formal atmosphere. But in vain. The villagers saw the old friendly good-humoured British Army back in France, and could not be official."
AT BRANDHOEK MILITARY CEMETERY.
(http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36075/36075-h/images/img05.jpg)
TYNE COT CEMETERY/THE KING AND THE GARDENERS
(http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36075/36075-h/images/img06.jpg)
(http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36075/36075-h/images/img07.jpg)
(http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36075/36075-h/images/img08.jpg)
-
"Now and then at a cemetery the King met relatives, in some cases from far-off Pacific Dominions, visiting their dead, and he stopped to speak with them because they were on the same mission as he was, of gratitude and reverence. One mother, moved by the kindness of the King’s greeting, opened her heart to him and told, with the simple eloquence of real feeling,[Pg 6] how she had just come from her son’s grave and was proud that he had died for his King and country; that every care had been taken to find and identify it, and “more could not have been done if it had been the Prince of Wales himself.”
At several points the workers of the Imperial War Graves Commission—practically all of whom had gone through the campaign, and now are reverently and carefully tending the last resting-places of their fallen comrades—assembled to greet the King. He spoke with them also, giving them thanks for their work and noting their war medals and asking them about their life in the camps, or with the mobile caravans which, in the districts where housing cannot yet be found, move from cemetery to cemetery, keeping fresh the tribute of grass and flowers and trees—caravans which bring back vividly one’s memory of the old British supply columns, for they are almost invariably led by a small self-important and well-fed dog.
When at Vlamertinghe—where are the graves of the first Dominion soldiers who fell in the war—the High Commissioner for Canada, the Hon. P. C. Larkin, was met visiting the Canadian graves there; the King gave him a very warm greeting. He showed that there is never absent from his mind the thought that in the greatest Ordeal of Battle which the British race has had to pass through, the children nations of his Empire came to the side of the Mother Country, with the instinctive spontaneity of the blood in a limb responding to a message from the heart; and that the crimson tie of kinship never broke nor slackened through all the perilous anxious years. Across the sea, held for them as a safe path by the Navy, the men of the Empire—and the women, too—kept passing at the King’s word to whatsoever point at which the peril was greatest, the work most exacting. The graves of[Pg 7] the Flanders battle-fields told triumphantly of this august Imperial assembly—the dead of the Mother Country having around them those of India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Newfoundland, the West Indies, the Pacific Islands.[1] At every point the voices of the dead bespoke, in the King’s words, “the single-hearted assembly of nations and races which form our Empire.”
VLAMERTINGHE MILITARY CEMETERY
(http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36075/36075-h/images/img15.jpg)
(http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36075/36075-h/images/img16.jpg)
CROUY BRITISH CEMETERY/THE KING TALKING TO TWO BEREAVED AUSTRALIAN RELATIVES
(http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36075/36075-h/images/img34.jpg)
-
"There were other battles of Ypres, and all the land around was saturated with the blood of heroes. So this “low and hollow ground,” stiffened with our dead, is holy soil to the British race. The King chose fitly to render there his homage to the dead of the Belgian Army who on the Yser held the left flank of the line through all the years of bitter fighting for Ypres.
On his way to the Menin Gate of Ypres city, the King directed the cars to turn aside to the Town Cemetery, that he might stand silent for a few moments by the graves of Prince Maurice of Battenberg, Lord Charles Mercer-Nairne, Major the Hon. W. Cadogan, and other officers, some of those of his own personal friends whom the war claimed, and whose graves lie among those of their men, marked by the same simple memorials.
GRAVE OF H.H. PRINCE MAURICE OF BATTENBERG
(http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36075/36075-h/images/img11.jpg)
MENIN GATE, YPRES/EXAMINING THE PLANS FOR THE MEMORIAL TO THOSE WHO HAVE NO KNOWN GRAVE
(http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36075/36075-h/images/img13.jpg)
-
ETAPLES
THE KING READING THE LETTER FROM A BEREAVED MOTHER ASKING THE QUEEN TO PLACE A BUNCH OF FORGET-ME-NOTS ON HER SON’S GRAVE
(http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36075/36075-h/images/img37.jpg)
tHE KING PLACING THE FORGET-ME-NOTS ON THE GRAVE
(http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36075/36075-h/images/img38.jpg)
MEERUT INDIAN CEMETERY/INSPECTING INDIAN GRAVES
(http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36075/36075-h/images/img43.jpg)
TERLINCTHUN/THE SILENCE AND THE SALUTE AT THE CROSS
(http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36075/36075-h/images/img48.jpg)
-
(http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36075/36075-h/images/img60.jpg)
“In the course of my pilgrimage I have many times asked myself whether there can be more potent advocates of peace upon earth through the years to come than this massed multitude of silent witnesses to the desolation of war”
Much more information on the entire trip and dozens more photos:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36075/36075-h/36075-h.htm
-
I always felt a little sorry for George V in his later years. He saw the world he knew wiped out by the First World War, replaced by a new, alien Europe he didn't know. He must have felt like a lost astronaut who's returned to Earth in the wrong century.
-
I always admired that, despite his personal conservatism, he reacted much better than many of the other old guard in adjusting to the new order. He dealt well, exceptionally well, on personal and political terms with his new governments and steered the monarchy along in a more modern way. He personally may have deplored airplanes, bobbed hair, 'new fangled' styles of dress, etc...but as a constitutional monarch he was exceptional.
-
he reacted much better than many of the other old guard in adjusting to the new order.
He was pretty much all that was left of the old guard. Most of his fellow European Monarchs were either dead or dethroned.
-
I was speaking more generally of the royal/noble/aristocratic members. A lot of people of George's generation weren't able to move forward with the changing times and fell by the wayside after WW1. Even prior to that, with the Emperors Franz Josef, Nicholas and Wilhelm, there was a lack of being able to modernize and change with the times which helped hasten the collapse of their empires. If those empires (save Germany which was pretty modern in many ways) had been able to adjust, perhaps they could've survived the calamity of WW1 in some form. Victoria, Edward VII and George V had all shown the were able to adjust to the changing times in their country--there's probably no surprise that the monarchies that survived the war were constitutional ones. The days of autocracy were fading quickly.
Even among those deposed royals, though, there was a clinging to the old ways and an inability to accept their change in status. Hitler held an appeal for many of them based on their own self-serving reasons (not all of them but many) and while they looked down on him for his 'common' manners and not his vicious rhetoric, George V saw him as a danger early on and forbade Edward VIII from attending the wedding of their relation Sybilla of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (daughter of the staunch Nazi Charles Edward) to Gustav Adolf of Sweden. (The Coburg branch had re-established ties with the British royals post-WW1 with CE frequently visiting England and marching in George's funeral). The wedding became a Nazi-fest full of Nazi banners and brownshirts, much to the upset of some of the Swedish relations. Instead, the only British relations were the Athlones who were the bride's aunt & uncle-in-law and the Duke of Connaught, who was the groom's grandfather.
So people dislike him because of the asylum issue (which I don't blame him for personally for a variety of reasons I've stated before) and his parenting skills but I find much more to admire in his duty towards his people, his relative pacifism and horror of war, his foresight towards Hitler and his many (documented) acts of personal kindness. For some reason, mostly due to the asylum issue I believe as his parenting wasn't any worse (and often better) than most of his station and time, he comes in for tons of criticism and outright dislike & hatred while other royals really bad behavior (anti-Semitism, laziness, entitlement, etc) is constantly glossed over. I would take George V over just about any other ruler of the day, including Nicholas II.
-
Yeah, he was more in tune with the times. Still, one gets the feeling he preferred the pre-WWI world.
-
George V was very much a traditionalist, but he was prepared to move with the times where necessary. Unlike Nicholas, he was able to recognise when change was necessary. Fortunately for him, a lot of his own characteristics chimed with the mood of his time - devotion to duty, modest personal habits, and so on.
Ann
-
George V was very much a traditionalist, but he was prepared to move with the times where necessary. Unlike Nicholas, he was able to recognise when change was necessary. Fortunately for him, a lot of his own characteristics chimed with the mood of his time - devotion to duty, modest personal habits, and so on.
Ann
No doubt. But needless to say Nicholas had the far greater burden. In business terms I might consider George the manager of a mid-sized company that struggles but survives, whereas Nicholas was the owner of a very large company that collapses. Nicholas may very well have been able to handle ruling England as a constitutional monarch, but it's doubtful George V could have handled Russia as a semi-autocrat.
The system is more important than the person at the head of it. Exactly why the United States can survive through poor Presidents and an ineffectual congress.
I do agree that George V was uniquely suited to the times however, and provided a necessary bridge from the post-Victorian era he inherited to the verge of the modern era (WW2). He of course was spared having to deal with the political and international drama of the late-30s and 40s, just as he was luckier than his cousin Nicky to be born into a country far less impoverished, polarized and radical than Russia.
-
Yeah, he was more in tune with the times. Still, one gets the feeling he preferred the pre-WWI world.
Oh, I have no doubt. He just wasn't chained to the past like many others. But in his own way of living--activities, dress, etc...he was definitely of the Victorian/Edwardian mindset. He wasn't a fan of David flying in airplanes nor of bobbed hair. :)
-
George V was very much a traditionalist, but he was prepared to move with the times where necessary. Unlike Nicholas, he was able to recognise when change was necessary. Fortunately for him, a lot of his own characteristics chimed with the mood of his time - devotion to duty, modest personal habits, and so on.
Ann
No doubt. But needless to say Nicholas had the far greater burden. In business terms I might consider George the manager of a mid-sized company that struggles but survives, whereas Nicholas was the owner of a very large company that collapses. Nicholas may very well have been able to handle ruling England as a constitutional monarch, but it's doubtful George V could have handled Russia as a semi-autocrat.
The system is more important than the person at the head of it. Exactly why the United States can survive through poor Presidents and an ineffectual congress.
I do agree that George V was uniquely suited to the times however, and provided a necessary bridge from the post-Victorian era he inherited to the verge of the modern era (WW2). He of course was spared having to deal with the political and international drama of the late-30s and 40s, just as he was luckier than his cousin Nicky to be born into a country far less impoverished, polarized and radical than Russia.
I think Nicholas would've done well had he been a constitutional monarch--and brought up along those lines. He didn't have the force of character of his father nor grandfather (and lacking the latter's sense of the need to reform--though it didn't get him a good ending). It's difficult to say how George would've done as an autocrat if he'd been brought up as Nicholas was--I won't try to speculate there. I think George was the right person at the right time in the right system of monarchy. He was that bridge and he and Queen Mary helped to institute many of the facets of the modern British monarchy we see today.
-
He of course was spared having to deal with the political and international drama of the late-30s and 40s
He lived just long enough to see the rise of Hitler. I think he knew another war was looming on the horizon.
-
I think Nicholas would've done well had he been a constitutional monarch--and brought up along those lines. He didn't have the force of character of his father nor grandfather (and lacking the latter's sense of the need to reform--though it didn't get him a good ending). It's difficult to say how George would've done as an autocrat if he'd been brought up as Nicholas was--I won't try to speculate there. I think George was the right person at the right time in the right system of monarchy. He was that bridge and he and Queen Mary helped to institute many of the facets of the modern British monarchy we see today.
The other question that I think merits asking, although off topic a tad, is what would have been the fate of Nicholas's reign had he come to power older and presumably more experience in 1910 as George did?
Tsar Alexander III having died in 1894, from natural causes and at just 49-years of age, certainly wasn't part of the successful game plan laid out. Lets say he had died in a similar fashion but passed away sixteen years later same as Edward VII. Would Nicholas have been better prepared to rule? If we are to assume that history would have unfolded just as it did elsewhere 1910 would still have also afforded him some ramp up time to prepare for the events of WWI and the subsequent revolution (which may or may not have then taken place).
I think the biggest change would have been with Alexandra. As wife of the Heir for sixteen years rather than Empress herself she would have had more time to warm to her surroundings and could have proven both more likable and adaptable. Perhaps her relationship with the Dagmar Empress would have also been much better. Alexandra would have had time under the wing of Marie Feodorovna and would have been forced to recognize her authority and wisdom instead of essentially casting her aside. Further, it's hard to imagine her relationship with Rasputin ever having the chance to develop under the watchful and critical eye of her ruling father & mother-in-law.
Back to reality now...George V really benefited from the timing of his ascendancy to the throne. His two predecessors, one who reigned popularly for nearly 64-years, really laid a solid foundation for George to stand and rule. Of course arguments could certainly be made that Nicholas's two predecessors did the same, and it was he, possessing neither the necessary reform minded intellect of his grandfather, or that strength of character (you accurately referred to GDElla) who made a mess of things.
But 1910 was probably a decent time to come to power in Europe. By the time WWI broke out he had both the experience and credibility to help steer England through the rough terrain. He also was about 45 when he became King. A good age to begin ruling in my opinion. Old enough to where he possessed the requisite experience, and yet young enough to grow and change. He was neither naive and wet behind the ears (see Nicholas II circa 1894), nor old and impossible to change (see Franz Joseph circa 1900s).
-
Sounds like George V had all the right qualities. He was a good king.
-
His father, having been shut out of governmental affairs for 60 years, plus realizing that, given his age and habits, he probably wouldn't have a very long reign, made sure to involve George closely in affairs of kingship. The two men were close in affection (if not interests & habits) and had a solid, grounded relationship. George was devoted to, and a bit in awe of, his father while Edward VII respected and trusted both George and May. Like his cousin Nicholas though, George V would've been very glad to have had many more years before having to take up his crown.
-
He of course was spared having to deal with the political and international drama of the late-30s and 40s
He lived just long enough to see the rise of Hitler. I think he knew another war was looming on the horizon.
By then, I think most everyone with their finger on the pulse of foreign affairs could see it. One speculative question I enjoy asking myself is, would WWII have been conducted any differently had George V still been on the throne? And the answer I come up with is, no, for the simple reason that it was the Prime Minister and his Cabinet that drove the war machine, not the King.
I think George V and Mary would have been every bit the morale-boosters that George VI and Elizabeth were.
-
I agree entirely that George V benefited from a solid apprenticeship and coming to the throne as a mature man. Interestingly, Nicholas, Wilhelm and Franz Josef had all ascended their thrones prematurely, though by 1914 they were all well-established.
George V and Queen Mary worked hard for the war effort throughout the war, and would doubtless have done so had they still been reigning in 1939-45.
Ann
-
I collect illustrated magazines from that period and there are hundreds of images of GV and QM inspecting troops, hospitals, factories, etc...every single day during the war. It was literally non-stop--they really made sure to put the public face out there--including banning alcohol from the royal household and planting a vegetable garden which they actually used. These were steps that regular people were taking to support the war effort and their monarchs were right along with them. Even after his horrible injury in France, GV maintained his schedule upon recovery, though he was usually spotted with a can afterwards. I don't think he was seen out of uniform throughout the entire war.
-
(http://sia1.subirimagenes.net/img/2014/05/15/140515101059481444.jpg) (http://www.subirimagenes.net/i/140515101059481444.jpg)
-
Revealed: how King George V demanded Britain enter the First World War
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/10991582/Revealed-how-King-George-V-demanded-Britain-enter-the-First-World-War.html
-
I read that yesterday. George V was convinced that France & Belgium wouldn't be able to sustain an attack by Germany (which they didn't) and, if they fell, it would just be a matter of time before England was overrun. The headline was a bit sensationalist & misleading--it was based on a one-off conversation between George and Lord Grey where George V expressed his opinion to Grey--and no other mention of similar talks between the monarch and Grey or other politicians have ever appeared in diaries, letters, official papers, etc...This was found on a piece of paper tucked away in a stack of letters, practically forgotten and overlooked. The letter itself was written by Grey's nephew based on a meeting he had with George V in 1933 in which he gave his recollection of 20 years prior--not a first-hand contemporaneous account by either Grey or George V. But it is interesting that he was so concerned about the ramifications of England failing to act quickly and find a way to enter the war once it became clear action was imminent--as based on the letters he was receiving from Poincare and Albert I of Belgium.
-
Queen Mary and King George V in the Garter Procession at Windsor
(http://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/PA-18240428.jpg)
King George with the Duke of Connaught laughing heartily at something very amusing
(http://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/PA-18107536.jpg)
Following the wedding of Princess Victoria Louise of Prussia to Prince Ernest Augustus of Cumberland, two monarchs, King George V, and Kaiser Wilhelm II, leave the Potsdam Palace to attend the review staged by the Kaiser.
(http://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/PA-5498642.jpg)
King George V with Queen Mary.
(http://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/PA-10154525.jpg)
More photos of George are in the link below!
http://flashbak.com/before-the-war-europes-royal-family-in-1913-8807/
-
Interesting pictures. The second was obviously taken on an army exercise of some kind, and no earlier than 1913, since it was then that the British Army adopted ties for officers. The King and Duke of Connaught are wearing blues, so this is peactime.
The last picture must have been taken on the visit to India in 1911, as the King is holding a pith helmet.
Ann
-
Mary and George as 16th century courtiers in the 1897 costume ball at Devonshire.
(http://www.royalbooks.se/static/webimages/original/c3.jpg)
royalbooks.se
-
George with his mother, daughter and her son
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/614668ef80059655c91a43742b81811e/tumblr_mo23xanOOs1sucmgao1_1280.jpg)
oldeuroroyalty.tumblr.com