George V was not a moral coward, he had his country and his people to think of. The tragedy of Ekaterinburg was the beginning in a long and bloody history called the 20th century. Its is almost like the loss of a sort of innocence, that in a way did not really exist. I think people believed in a civilised society in Europe. Its like the industrial advances had been matched by a huge change in human behaviour. I suppose a bit like the Titanic, so many first class saved not enough boats.
George V did not fire the weapons that killed the Imperial Family. I do know he would have seen and had advice from Stamfordham on the vitriol that was pouring out of the British Press. Not only was Nicholas perceived as a tyrant, he was letting us down on the Eastern Front badly. It was as if everything was working against him, poor man. Actually if anything George V was morally brave saying no to his cousins who he loved. It must have been a terrible, agonising thing to have to do. Queen Mary who was fond of AF, I know was deeply affected by the events in Russia.
As for the civil unrest in the UK in 1926, that's what I mean there was enough of an educated middle class and a educated working class for there to be pretty peaceful changes. The 1926 General Strike changed Britian for ever, but peacefully and with our traditions and structures pretty intact. Yet we also changed. The Monarchy and the regard people had for it and George V played a huge part in that. No dictators for us or fascist hordes. We British do not like violent change we went through it in 17th century and disliked it very much. We sent those dull Puritans to American, no dancing and cancelling Christmas....bah humbug.....LOL
