#British royal history

[sothisisablog]

BBC Merlin has the opportunity to do something really funny today

[for-valour]

I adore finding original true colour footage of our lovely King George VI ❤️

There is so little available that I am always surprised to see his tanned skin (from spending so much time outdoors!) and the brightness of his ribbon medals.

Check out the way he just eyeballs the camera for a split second. You better look sharp and behave! Bertie’s always watching you…

King George VI and Queen Elizabeth visit the Telecommunications Research Establishment (TRE) at Malvern College, Worcestershire, in 1944. Source: The Imperial War Museum

gifs made by: @for-valour

[so-yesterday]

Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Glamis Castle, 1916

Source: Reeman Dansie Auctioneers

[darlinggeorgiedear]

Buckingham Palace on the night of King George V's Silver Jubilee

[loiladadiani]

Queen Mother Alexandra (1844 - 1925) and her son King George V (1865 - 1936)

The "titles" of the two beautiful and elegant people in this picture may be incorrect as I don't know the date of the photograph, and it is so difficult to tell Alexandra's age at any given time. I am going by Georgie's beard; that is no foolproof method of calculating age.

The picture was a gift. Thanks! I love these two people and many of their relatives.

[justdonotaskmewhy]

Young lady Diana Spencer and her boyfriend Adam Russell (circa 1979)

She looked better with him than she did with our boy Charlie, I must say

[stonehenge89]

January 1888

Beatrice, Princess Henry of Battenberg, and her daughter, (Future Consort of Spain) Princess Victoria Eugénie, 1888. Source Royal Trust Collection.

[rewrite-starsss]

Princess Diana's Brother on His Wrenching Eulogy: 'I Was Out of Oxygen' — and on Protecting Her Sons

[inthemoodformoodboards]

[iguessweallcrazyithinktho]

King Charles has cancer HAPPY BLACK HISTORY MONTH FR WON'T HE DO IT

[qqueenofhades]

Try to have some respect the queen just DIED. It's not like she was evil or anything

And why should I do that for the head of a family that oversaw the British Empire's legendarily brutal concentration camps in colonialist Kenya during the 1952-1960 Mau Mau rebellion, has personally and repeatedly shielded credibly accused rapist Prince Andrew and tried to get the scandal to go away, personally paid Andrew's financial settlement while the family treated Meghan Markle terribly and gave her none of the same protection, exerted a huge amount of control over UK public finances without any transparency or disclosure (while also receiving huge amounts of that money), got to personally edit laws according to her likes and dislikes, enjoyed sweeping legal immunities that are described as a "threat to UK democracy," is the most visible figurehead of British colonialism even as her descendants put on a horribly tone-deaf Caribbean tour (twice in one year!) that was basically about unreconstructed imperial imagery of the kind that is poisoning Britain, while the entire country buys into the fantasy that she is an impartial, uninvolved, kindly and benevolent grandmotherly figure....?

Nah.

[for-valour]

King George VI presenting a basket of shamrocks to the Irish Guards on St Patrick's Day in 1950 ☘️

[so-yesterday]

King George V and Queen Mary, Swindon, April 1924

Royal Collection Trust / © His Majesty King Charles III 2023

[darlinggeorgiedear]

Why is George V so underrated? Why isnt he given enough credit? Tired of those Romanov fanatics who make George responsible for what happened to the tsar. It wasnt George's fault that the tsar was a weak incompetent lousy leader! George was a better king, a better leader, a better family man since he saved his family as well as the monarchy, and a better looking man too. But they put the tsar on a pedestal due to his tragic end (for which Im very sorry) and deny George's contributions and try to reduce him. Not fair.

I do agree that Nicholas gets better press these days. I have seen a few documentaries, where both men are featured, that make Nicholas seem like a naive bystander to history while George is ultra conservative tyrant. (There was a British documentary that came out recently calling George "Tyrant King".) I do think Nicholas is tragic (wrong man, wrong time), but his downfall happened because he was arrogant and hard headed. (Instead of him being so traditional and fatalistic that the Empire slipped out of his hands.)

Worth noting that majority of the Romanov family was supportive of reforms and begged him to change. The old excuse that he was following his dad's example is hypothetical since many very conservative family members, who supported Alexander III and was like-minded, supported the reforms. But if you think about past (and current) leaders that Russia tolerates, it does make it clear that Nicholas was very unlucky, since he was not the worst (neither the best), yet suffered immensely. I think his sad ending makes people want to defend him, and ignore his politics, which gives a wrong picture.

Nicholas had horrible press at the end of his rule and throughout most of the 20th century, aided by the Soviet Union of course. In comparison George had amazing press throughout his lifetime that lasted until recently. Basically, I think people are hard on George and easy on Nicholas these days because it creates more sensational journalism. It is much more interesting to defend someone who was unpopular and degrade someone who was revered.

To me, that is the best explanation since it is really ridiculous how people make George V's issues with the modern 20th century into some type of villain story. Compared to George's relatives (Nicholas, Kaiser, Greek cousins), he was open-minded, which is the real reason he was able to maintain his throne. (which is almost never mentioned and is usually said that he sinisterly maintain his throne by neglecting everyone. While simultaneously, everyone forgets that Nicholas' originally solution to calm down St. Petersburg was military intervention, yet George is still remembered as the immoral one who would do anything to maintain his throne.)

I also recently watched a documentary about Lloyd George and why he isn't remembered/praised like Churchill in the UK. One of the best explanations is the public's different attitude towards WWI and WWII. (The doc also makes an interesting point that the negative attitude about WWI, which ruined Lloyd George's legacy, was encouraged by Lloyd George in his novels.) I think this is relevant towards George because he was the WWI King in comparison to his son George Vi, the very popular WWII King.

Also, since Elizabeth II loved and idolized her dad, I think his legacy was amplified during her reign. I also think things will be different now, since she is gone.

I am no means a historian, these are just my thoughts! I also don't want to upset anyone who are grieved by what happened to Nicholas II and his poor family. It's really very sad but people need some real perspective while dealing with the last Tsar, and hopefully in result to a new level-minded outlook, can give George V some grace!!

I also want to add that I understand politics (or standards on how things should be done) are different in Russia. One of Nicholas II most used defenses, while defending the state of Russia with his English cousins, was that things are different in Russia, and the people there like to be guided with an iron fist. My complaints really stand with UK journalists who choose to only focus on negative aspects of George V.

[chuutoro]

the queen is dead: an internet round-up (plus: argentinian journalist celebrates her death)