What do you think?
Rate this book
George V: Never a Dull Moment
The prequel to The the first truly candid portrait of George V and Mary, the Queen's grandparents and creators of the modern monarchy
The lasting reputation of George V is for dullness. His biographer Harold Nicolson famously quipped that 'he did nothing at all but kill animals and stick in stamps'.
But is that really all there was to King George, a monarch confronted by a series of crises thought to be the most testing faced by any twentieth-century British sovereign? As Tommy Lascelles, one of the most perceptive royal advisers, put 'He was dull, beyond dispute -- but my God, his reign never had a dull moment.'
Throughout his reign, George V navigated a constitutional crisis, the First World War, the fall of thirteen European monarchies and the rise of Bolshevism. The suffragette Emily Davison threw herself under his horse at the Derby, he refused asylum to his cousin the Tsar Nicholas II and he facilitated the first Labour government.
How this supposedly limited man steered the Crown through so many perils is a gripping tale. With unprecedented access to the archives, Jane Ridley has been able to reassess the many myths associated with this dramatic period for the first time.
The lasting reputation of George V is for dullness. His biographer Harold Nicolson famously quipped that 'he did nothing at all but kill animals and stick in stamps'.
But is that really all there was to King George, a monarch confronted by a series of crises thought to be the most testing faced by any twentieth-century British sovereign? As Tommy Lascelles, one of the most perceptive royal advisers, put 'He was dull, beyond dispute -- but my God, his reign never had a dull moment.'
Throughout his reign, George V navigated a constitutional crisis, the First World War, the fall of thirteen European monarchies and the rise of Bolshevism. The suffragette Emily Davison threw herself under his horse at the Derby, he refused asylum to his cousin the Tsar Nicholas II and he facilitated the first Labour government.
How this supposedly limited man steered the Crown through so many perils is a gripping tale. With unprecedented access to the archives, Jane Ridley has been able to reassess the many myths associated with this dramatic period for the first time.
560 pages, Hardcover
First published November 4, 2021
286 people are currently reading
3164 people want to read
About the author
Jane Ridley
16 books85 followersJane Ridley is an English historian, biographer, author and broadcaster, and Professor of Modern History at the University of Buckingham.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 129 reviews
October 24, 2025
What He went Through
I came to Never a Dull Moment after reading Jane Ridley’s Bertie: A Life of Edward VII, both do not disappoint. The narrative of this book is balanced and dives deep enough into George V for the causal historian of this period such as myself. I understood the man, who was a Victorian living in the uncertain and rapidly changing world of the early 20th century. George V was in thick of it, when monarchy was crumbling around him. The King of the United Kingdom during the First World War, perhaps the greatest disaster the modern world has known, where four ancient dynasties toppled, with his cousins Tsar Nicholas II being murdered and Kaiser Wilhelm II being exiled, a near fatal fall from his horse, rebellion in Ireland, the collapse of the Liberal government in 1916 and the rise of socialism, George was put under an incredible amount of strain to hold it all together. He did not cause the war, but was caught up in it. The stress ultimately killed him in the end, albeit in 1936.
George has often been called ‘dull’ and Ridley does a great job correcting that assumption, stating he was a normal man who achieved extraordinary things. He was able to connect with his people and make great decisions time and again to lead them from the dark of despair to the light of hope. Examples include encouraging the National Government in 1931, working with Ramsey MacDonald and the first labour administration in 1924, disconnecting the monarchy from European dynasties and taking massive personal allowance cuts during the Great Depression. These good decisions are a credit to him, as we can see with his almost identical cousin Nicholas II, who made almost every wrong decision possible, which led to the collapse of his country.
Never a Dull Moment offers a richly researched and compelling portrait of George V, anchored in extensive archival work and fresh insight. Why should you read this book? The main reason is that Ridley has had access to previously under-used materials, which has allowed her to cast the monarch in a new light. As I have mentioned above, she challenges the stereotype of him as purely ‘dull’ and shows how his reign steered the monarchy through extraordinary upheavals. Ridley’s writing as ever is engaging and despite the subject being a relatively ‘quiet’ figure, her narrative is lively, human-centred, and surprisingly readable for a long scholarly work. Her willingness to explore both the political and the personal such ad the constitutional crises, the familial relationships, and the quiet work of monarchy gives Never a Dull Moment a satisfying breadth. For example, Ridley shows George V’s role in guiding Britain through the First World War, the fall of European dynasties and the rise of new political forces. 
One recurring criticism I have seen is that while the research is impressive, the interpretive analysis sometimes falls short: at times Ridley presents rich detail and anecdote without fully probing deeper motivations or psychological complexity. For example, Ridley relies on his diary a lot, but his diary is ‘not a revealing document of his inner landscape.’ Also it is argued that Never a Dull Moment becomes weighed down by minutiae (especially in the political sections) and that the central figure remains somewhat hidden behind the facts: his personality never fully emerges in a way that makes him dramatically compelling. Moreover, although Ridley argues George V’s ‘ordinary’ nature was precisely his strength, not everyone finds this argument convincing and some critics have suggested that the book doesn’t entirely overcome the sense that the subject himself lacked dynamism, and that the subtitle’s promise (Never a Dull Moment) still feels slightly strained.
In the end, he is the father of the modern monarchy as we know it today, but he certainly was not without fault. He was a terrible father to his four sons and the major blot or his reign is of course refusing asylum to Tsar Nicolas II and his family. All of these factors are covered at a satisfactory level in the book. There are often large left turns where Ridley talks about Queen Mary, however she does state that you cannot know George without understanding Mary, so in the end I didn’t mind, even if this explanation comes later on. Never a Dull Moment is a solid book which I recommend.
I came to Never a Dull Moment after reading Jane Ridley’s Bertie: A Life of Edward VII, both do not disappoint. The narrative of this book is balanced and dives deep enough into George V for the causal historian of this period such as myself. I understood the man, who was a Victorian living in the uncertain and rapidly changing world of the early 20th century. George V was in thick of it, when monarchy was crumbling around him. The King of the United Kingdom during the First World War, perhaps the greatest disaster the modern world has known, where four ancient dynasties toppled, with his cousins Tsar Nicholas II being murdered and Kaiser Wilhelm II being exiled, a near fatal fall from his horse, rebellion in Ireland, the collapse of the Liberal government in 1916 and the rise of socialism, George was put under an incredible amount of strain to hold it all together. He did not cause the war, but was caught up in it. The stress ultimately killed him in the end, albeit in 1936.
George has often been called ‘dull’ and Ridley does a great job correcting that assumption, stating he was a normal man who achieved extraordinary things. He was able to connect with his people and make great decisions time and again to lead them from the dark of despair to the light of hope. Examples include encouraging the National Government in 1931, working with Ramsey MacDonald and the first labour administration in 1924, disconnecting the monarchy from European dynasties and taking massive personal allowance cuts during the Great Depression. These good decisions are a credit to him, as we can see with his almost identical cousin Nicholas II, who made almost every wrong decision possible, which led to the collapse of his country.
Never a Dull Moment offers a richly researched and compelling portrait of George V, anchored in extensive archival work and fresh insight. Why should you read this book? The main reason is that Ridley has had access to previously under-used materials, which has allowed her to cast the monarch in a new light. As I have mentioned above, she challenges the stereotype of him as purely ‘dull’ and shows how his reign steered the monarchy through extraordinary upheavals. Ridley’s writing as ever is engaging and despite the subject being a relatively ‘quiet’ figure, her narrative is lively, human-centred, and surprisingly readable for a long scholarly work. Her willingness to explore both the political and the personal such ad the constitutional crises, the familial relationships, and the quiet work of monarchy gives Never a Dull Moment a satisfying breadth. For example, Ridley shows George V’s role in guiding Britain through the First World War, the fall of European dynasties and the rise of new political forces. 
One recurring criticism I have seen is that while the research is impressive, the interpretive analysis sometimes falls short: at times Ridley presents rich detail and anecdote without fully probing deeper motivations or psychological complexity. For example, Ridley relies on his diary a lot, but his diary is ‘not a revealing document of his inner landscape.’ Also it is argued that Never a Dull Moment becomes weighed down by minutiae (especially in the political sections) and that the central figure remains somewhat hidden behind the facts: his personality never fully emerges in a way that makes him dramatically compelling. Moreover, although Ridley argues George V’s ‘ordinary’ nature was precisely his strength, not everyone finds this argument convincing and some critics have suggested that the book doesn’t entirely overcome the sense that the subject himself lacked dynamism, and that the subtitle’s promise (Never a Dull Moment) still feels slightly strained.
In the end, he is the father of the modern monarchy as we know it today, but he certainly was not without fault. He was a terrible father to his four sons and the major blot or his reign is of course refusing asylum to Tsar Nicolas II and his family. All of these factors are covered at a satisfactory level in the book. There are often large left turns where Ridley talks about Queen Mary, however she does state that you cannot know George without understanding Mary, so in the end I didn’t mind, even if this explanation comes later on. Never a Dull Moment is a solid book which I recommend.
February 8, 2022
“George V: Never a Dull Moment”, by British historian Jane Ridley is one of the best political biographies I’ve ever read. Despite the somewhat silly title, -“Never a Dull Moment” - the book is a scholarly, yet extremely readable biography of one of the most important British monarchs.
George was the son of Edward VII and the grandson of Queen Victoria. Edward was in a similar position of the current Prince of Wales, Charles. He came to the throne in 1901 upon his mother’s death after an incredibly long reign. His reign was only nine years before he died in 1910, handing the throne to his second son, George V. George ruled until that fateful and long year, 1936. That “Year of Three Kings”.
Jane Ridley examines George V life from all angles, private and public. She doesn’t stint on the vain glorious; George’s shooting kill rate of birds and animals is, frankly, obscene. He had his hobbies - stamp collecting and killing things were the most important to him and those are how he partly is known in history.
But his reign covered a very important time. The Great War- the “War to End All Wars” - was fought by his country under his command and the Depression and build up Germany in the early to mid - 1930’s were also his problems. His son, George VI, saw the country through WW2.
Ridley also looks at George’s marriage and at his relationships with his family. Jane Ridley has written a first-rate biography.
George was the son of Edward VII and the grandson of Queen Victoria. Edward was in a similar position of the current Prince of Wales, Charles. He came to the throne in 1901 upon his mother’s death after an incredibly long reign. His reign was only nine years before he died in 1910, handing the throne to his second son, George V. George ruled until that fateful and long year, 1936. That “Year of Three Kings”.
Jane Ridley examines George V life from all angles, private and public. She doesn’t stint on the vain glorious; George’s shooting kill rate of birds and animals is, frankly, obscene. He had his hobbies - stamp collecting and killing things were the most important to him and those are how he partly is known in history.
But his reign covered a very important time. The Great War- the “War to End All Wars” - was fought by his country under his command and the Depression and build up Germany in the early to mid - 1930’s were also his problems. His son, George VI, saw the country through WW2.
Ridley also looks at George’s marriage and at his relationships with his family. Jane Ridley has written a first-rate biography.
November 27, 2021
King George V is a monarch whose life/reign is often summed up with: "second son who wasn't meant to be king, boring, twins with Nicholas II, WWI, stamps". And those aren't incorrect "highlights" but there is so much more to his life. Ridley's look at George's life and reign is in-depth and detailed, and she doesn't skip anything. If you aren't 100% interested in learning about George, I don't know that I would read this- it is fascinating but also tackles a lot of details that would be difficult to wade through if you were at all uninterested. While the man himself may have preferred a simpler life, he witnessed several massive moments in 20th century history.
April 21, 2022
3.5 As biographies go, this is quite good, so my lukewarm enthusiasm is not for the book itself, just the subject. I DO find George V to be dull. And I can't get past the animal slaughtering, I mean, the thousands of birds and deer are quite bad enough, but when I read about him killing six tigers I really did have to force myself to keep reading. And yes, I realize that most all royals did (and still do) shoot things but George V was one of the most egregious of the bunch. AND he wouldn't give the Romanovs asylum AND he wasn't that nice to his kids. I just don't like him.
March 20, 2022
There is a lot of information from the time he was born through his upbringing - standard education as currently known was not part of the studies that Edward VII or Victoria for that matter encouraged - to his training as naval officer to his marriage to May (Mary) of Teck, their children, Victoria and Prince Eddy's death and Edward's coronation to the King's death and George's assumption of the throne. The Boer War. The war in the Crimea. World War I and the overthrow of the Romanovs. World War II and the Nazis (who he dispised). The change in the English government that eventually recognized the Labour party. George's relationship with his many prime ministers and more and more until his eventual death from bronchitis (although there is a persistent rumor/allegation that his physician gave him cocaine followed by morphine and gently euthanized.
And so the story ends - not with George's death, but with Edward (David's) abdication and Mary's 17 years without her husband.
Seriously though, the plot part ends at page 427 with acknowledgements, illustrations and the various archives that Ridley used. Then comes the notes/reference citations which run from page 439-513 -- and, yes, there are THAT many. Ten pages of bibliography that provide the reader with multiple opportunities to investigate further and a 35 page index.
In spite - or perhaps due to - the massive amount of information provided by Ridley, the book is constructed as a fast, easily flowing read. It provides some insight on Queen Mary's role - she was brought up during the Victorian era and influence which was fading even as the twentieth century bloomed. There is some repetition of the people's views of the Crown in the later years but I think that is mostly due to the changing perception of the Royal Family. George had already turned his back on his German ancestry - he authorized the adoption of the new family name of Windsor. He specifically disliked the Russian government that killed his cousin. The bullying of his children - mostly his eldest son, David, which may have contributed to Edward's rebellion and eventual abdication.
As a total aside, I have to wonder what in the world they did with all the carcasses after shooting hundreds if not thousands of pheasants and other birds over the shooting season. Not only the meat - I know, likely polluted by leaden shot - but the thousands of feathers. Just curious. Still don't understand the appeal of the 'sport'.
2022-056
And so the story ends - not with George's death, but with Edward (David's) abdication and Mary's 17 years without her husband.
Seriously though, the plot part ends at page 427 with acknowledgements, illustrations and the various archives that Ridley used. Then comes the notes/reference citations which run from page 439-513 -- and, yes, there are THAT many. Ten pages of bibliography that provide the reader with multiple opportunities to investigate further and a 35 page index.
In spite - or perhaps due to - the massive amount of information provided by Ridley, the book is constructed as a fast, easily flowing read. It provides some insight on Queen Mary's role - she was brought up during the Victorian era and influence which was fading even as the twentieth century bloomed. There is some repetition of the people's views of the Crown in the later years but I think that is mostly due to the changing perception of the Royal Family. George had already turned his back on his German ancestry - he authorized the adoption of the new family name of Windsor. He specifically disliked the Russian government that killed his cousin. The bullying of his children - mostly his eldest son, David, which may have contributed to Edward's rebellion and eventual abdication.
As a total aside, I have to wonder what in the world they did with all the carcasses after shooting hundreds if not thousands of pheasants and other birds over the shooting season. Not only the meat - I know, likely polluted by leaden shot - but the thousands of feathers. Just curious. Still don't understand the appeal of the 'sport'.
2022-056
February 3, 2022
Thank you, Net Galley, for an e-ARC of this book in exchange for my honest review of the book.
I've rated this book four stars, somewhat hesitatingly, as it's really 3.5 for me. I read and liked Jane Ridley's biography of Edward VII a few years back, so I knew more or less what to expect. More to follow.
I've rated this book four stars, somewhat hesitatingly, as it's really 3.5 for me. I read and liked Jane Ridley's biography of Edward VII a few years back, so I knew more or less what to expect. More to follow.
May 21, 2022
This is easily the best new royal biography I've read in some considerable time. Dense with detail, but never trapped in minutiae or irrelevance, this is first rate scholarship and first rate writing. George V is definitely far from the boring man he is made out to be...although any other number of adjectives could be applied.
March 26, 2025
Shooting and Stamps. That's how I would characterize King George V in a simple sentence. Ridley's subtitle "Never a Dull Moment" alludes to his reign, because I found George to be a dull person. Maybe that is an unfair opinion for a man who was the exact opposite of his father, Edward VII. I'm just thankful I wasn't a pheasant in early 1900s Great Britain. Boy, how the man did shoot.
This book was an enjoyable read at times, but I would not consider it a page turner. Maybe that is due, in a large part, to the nature of the subject. George and May were very simple, homely folks. The fact that George much preferred York Cottage as their main residence really tells you all you need to know. His obsession over his stamp collecting paired perfectly with May's obsession with jewelry. Even though it was an arranged marriage, it is evident that they did get along and compliment each other quite well, even if lust was absent.
In her conclusion, Ridley alludes to a "domestic monarchy." I like that characterization. In a time where monarchical governments were viewed to be on the way out, Great Britain flourished under King George V. His ability to mediate and arbitrate vast political divides absolutely saved the Crown and the Empire. His steady, albeit boring, approach to domestic life was exactly what was needed in a time of global upheaval.
The main two criticisms would be his refusal to rescue the Tsar and the absolutely horrific fathering of his children (which would ultimately lead to David's abdication). The former likely never could've happened, the latter is nearly unforgivable. The author suggests that his tough chaffing, or bullying, might be why Bertie developed a stammer in the first place. Both George and May were horrible parents, of that I'm convinced. I suppose you could chalk it up to the Victorian/Hanoverian upbringing, but to me it is inexcusable. Contrast this with his cousin, Nicholas II, who adored his children and made sure to spend any spare moment he had with them and Alix. Perhaps if Nicky had taken up an obsession in shooting, he might've not had the desire to become a war Tsar, saving autocracy in Russia.
In conclusion, I give this one four stars. I felt that there were too many details in parts. I'm sure some will find that detail fascinating, however. If you are looking to read a single volume on George V, this is definitely it. She did an excellent job of writing such a comprehensive biography of probably the two most boring monarchs to ever grace the throne.
This book was an enjoyable read at times, but I would not consider it a page turner. Maybe that is due, in a large part, to the nature of the subject. George and May were very simple, homely folks. The fact that George much preferred York Cottage as their main residence really tells you all you need to know. His obsession over his stamp collecting paired perfectly with May's obsession with jewelry. Even though it was an arranged marriage, it is evident that they did get along and compliment each other quite well, even if lust was absent.
In her conclusion, Ridley alludes to a "domestic monarchy." I like that characterization. In a time where monarchical governments were viewed to be on the way out, Great Britain flourished under King George V. His ability to mediate and arbitrate vast political divides absolutely saved the Crown and the Empire. His steady, albeit boring, approach to domestic life was exactly what was needed in a time of global upheaval.
The main two criticisms would be his refusal to rescue the Tsar and the absolutely horrific fathering of his children (which would ultimately lead to David's abdication). The former likely never could've happened, the latter is nearly unforgivable. The author suggests that his tough chaffing, or bullying, might be why Bertie developed a stammer in the first place. Both George and May were horrible parents, of that I'm convinced. I suppose you could chalk it up to the Victorian/Hanoverian upbringing, but to me it is inexcusable. Contrast this with his cousin, Nicholas II, who adored his children and made sure to spend any spare moment he had with them and Alix. Perhaps if Nicky had taken up an obsession in shooting, he might've not had the desire to become a war Tsar, saving autocracy in Russia.
In conclusion, I give this one four stars. I felt that there were too many details in parts. I'm sure some will find that detail fascinating, however. If you are looking to read a single volume on George V, this is definitely it. She did an excellent job of writing such a comprehensive biography of probably the two most boring monarchs to ever grace the throne.
February 6, 2022
George V: Never a Dull Moment by Jane Ridley is a good read. It is fast paced and full of information i never knew, told in a clear & easy to read way. Around 3/4 of the way through though, the author tends to repeat herself about people's attitudes about the King and Queen. Here are a few of my impressions/thoughts:
* Quite often throughout the first part of the book, there are many complaints that King George liked to visit and discuss politics and world issues with his mother, Queen Alexandra. I don't see why this is an issue since my kids also discuss their life/work/activities with me, someone that wouldn't judge them but would also be truthful in telling them when they might be missing the point. There are times when the author says King George stays alone with Queen Mary and then other times she goes on and on about King George not telling her what is going on. It's really contradictory at times.
* I didn't realize King George and Tsar Nicholas looked so much alike. Its a pity they couldn't get them out of Russia before the tragedy took place. I don't know how the Empress Alexandra could be so wrong without someone stopping her and don't know why Tsar Nicholas didn't step up and take charge - or take the family and relocate sooner. There were many times they were asked by family and friends to go and he did not take the warning seriously.
* Queen Mary was skilled at cataloging the Royal Collection. I hope they realize that was a valuable skill and it helps people today know the history of the monarchy. She found her niche and lived it though many people seemed to judge her for not being who they wanted her to be.
* King George's relationship with his sons was bad, that's true, but that can be the case in any family. I don't understand the author wanting to give Prince David (future King Edward VIII) so much leeway - saying King George was infantilizing him. Prince David was over 40 years old when his dad died and he became King. This should not have been some surprise that he needed to grow up, stop sleeping with married women and either follow the path (no surprise he was next in line - seriously) OR let them know he was going to renounce the throne and then hey, get a job and make something of his life. Yes, I feel bad that his father was tough on him as a child. As an adult, however, he had choices and did not seem to make a good one until he abdicated. Had he renounced and made life choices in his 20's or 30's, he could have really made something of himself instead of wallowing in self pity.
* The author makes a point several times that the King was wrong to ban Mrs Simpson from the Royal events. I disagree. If his son could not make a good decision, and she couldn't be an adult and also make an appropriate decision, then he needed to make the decision. Their actions were not in private, they were flaunting their choices & it was all about them. There seemed to be no concern for anyone else or the country the Royal Family was representing. Again, if David did not like the monarchy, the rules, the laws, etc., then he should have went and created a career/education/job and live elsewhere and move on.
Jane Ridley has a great writing style, and I look forward to reading more by this author.
* Quite often throughout the first part of the book, there are many complaints that King George liked to visit and discuss politics and world issues with his mother, Queen Alexandra. I don't see why this is an issue since my kids also discuss their life/work/activities with me, someone that wouldn't judge them but would also be truthful in telling them when they might be missing the point. There are times when the author says King George stays alone with Queen Mary and then other times she goes on and on about King George not telling her what is going on. It's really contradictory at times.
* I didn't realize King George and Tsar Nicholas looked so much alike. Its a pity they couldn't get them out of Russia before the tragedy took place. I don't know how the Empress Alexandra could be so wrong without someone stopping her and don't know why Tsar Nicholas didn't step up and take charge - or take the family and relocate sooner. There were many times they were asked by family and friends to go and he did not take the warning seriously.
* Queen Mary was skilled at cataloging the Royal Collection. I hope they realize that was a valuable skill and it helps people today know the history of the monarchy. She found her niche and lived it though many people seemed to judge her for not being who they wanted her to be.
* King George's relationship with his sons was bad, that's true, but that can be the case in any family. I don't understand the author wanting to give Prince David (future King Edward VIII) so much leeway - saying King George was infantilizing him. Prince David was over 40 years old when his dad died and he became King. This should not have been some surprise that he needed to grow up, stop sleeping with married women and either follow the path (no surprise he was next in line - seriously) OR let them know he was going to renounce the throne and then hey, get a job and make something of his life. Yes, I feel bad that his father was tough on him as a child. As an adult, however, he had choices and did not seem to make a good one until he abdicated. Had he renounced and made life choices in his 20's or 30's, he could have really made something of himself instead of wallowing in self pity.
* The author makes a point several times that the King was wrong to ban Mrs Simpson from the Royal events. I disagree. If his son could not make a good decision, and she couldn't be an adult and also make an appropriate decision, then he needed to make the decision. Their actions were not in private, they were flaunting their choices & it was all about them. There seemed to be no concern for anyone else or the country the Royal Family was representing. Again, if David did not like the monarchy, the rules, the laws, etc., then he should have went and created a career/education/job and live elsewhere and move on.
Jane Ridley has a great writing style, and I look forward to reading more by this author.
July 6, 2023
I always love a royal biography and this one is especially well written and researched. Despite being a big book, it is clear and concise. I enjoyed hearing about George V’s strengths and weaknesses as a monarch and how much he has influenced the way the monarchy works today. It’s fascinating to think that a Victorian man who reigned during WW1 and saw the toppling of many European monarchies is so closely linked to our world today as he was the grandfather of Elizabeth II. If you are interested in modern history this book provides a great analysis of it through the eyes of George V and his family.
January 25, 2022
My favorite king. The center of the period of which I am most interested. When I heard that Jane Ridley’s next book was on George V, I was thrilled. Her book on Edward VII (The Heir Apparent) was excellent - she made history into a story.
I loved the concept of the subtitle. The droll-ness of ascribing this phrase to four old king George was amusing, but also so correct. This 25 year reign saw some of the greatest changes that the monarchy - the country - had ever seen.
I was particularly interested in her coverage of Queen Mary’s role in the reign. Ridley is straight forward in discussing Mary’s abject failure as a mother. Ridley’s point that Mary - the monarchy’s greatest champion and worshipper - actually did more to destabilize it by not intervening in the lifelong argument between George and his heir (which culminated in Wallis Simpson) was something I had never thought of. How ironic.
I also was pleased that Ridley addressed - and shot down to some extent - the notion that Mary was a kleptomaniac. There WERE some funny stories though.
I was also unaware just how unwell George was for so many of the last years of his reign, or just how bad the fall from his horse had been in 1916 (or thereabouts).
The insights into George’s u-turn on the offer of asylum to the Romanovs was hugely interesting. Ridley’s point about the cold calculation that the House of Windsor was of acute interest given recent events (certainly to Harry and Andrew). I also appreciated Ridley’s point that offer or no offer, it was virtually impossible that the Romanovs could have been reached regardless….to say nothing of how these stupid people never would have agreed to go anyway (until it was way too late).
This reminds me how much I also enjoyed the quotes from Mary’s letters in which her unvarnished views of certain people (cousin Alicky - the czarina - as a very stupid person, etc).
All around, one of the best books I have read. I love it when I read something about a subject that I know very well, and still learn a great deal!!
I loved the concept of the subtitle. The droll-ness of ascribing this phrase to four old king George was amusing, but also so correct. This 25 year reign saw some of the greatest changes that the monarchy - the country - had ever seen.
I was particularly interested in her coverage of Queen Mary’s role in the reign. Ridley is straight forward in discussing Mary’s abject failure as a mother. Ridley’s point that Mary - the monarchy’s greatest champion and worshipper - actually did more to destabilize it by not intervening in the lifelong argument between George and his heir (which culminated in Wallis Simpson) was something I had never thought of. How ironic.
I also was pleased that Ridley addressed - and shot down to some extent - the notion that Mary was a kleptomaniac. There WERE some funny stories though.
I was also unaware just how unwell George was for so many of the last years of his reign, or just how bad the fall from his horse had been in 1916 (or thereabouts).
The insights into George’s u-turn on the offer of asylum to the Romanovs was hugely interesting. Ridley’s point about the cold calculation that the House of Windsor was of acute interest given recent events (certainly to Harry and Andrew). I also appreciated Ridley’s point that offer or no offer, it was virtually impossible that the Romanovs could have been reached regardless….to say nothing of how these stupid people never would have agreed to go anyway (until it was way too late).
This reminds me how much I also enjoyed the quotes from Mary’s letters in which her unvarnished views of certain people (cousin Alicky - the czarina - as a very stupid person, etc).
All around, one of the best books I have read. I love it when I read something about a subject that I know very well, and still learn a great deal!!
March 3, 2022
Ms. Ridley is an exceptional writer who makes history come alive. George V may not be the most famous of English monarchs, but he takes his place as one who transformed the monarchy at the turn of the century. He ruled as a partner with his wife, Queen Mary, serving as an inspiration to the empire. He was constant, judicious, faithful to his wife, raised a family, and was involved in settling some of the most serious crises facing the country. No, he wasn't exciting. He abhorred all the trappings of the nobility and its society. He was a refreshing change, however, from his father, Edward VII, who led quite a different, scandal-ridden life. As years went by, it became very clear that his son, David (later, King Edward VIII), who was his heir, was not at all suited (or interested) to become king. Edward VIII abdicated the throne after 10 months as king to marry Wallace Simpson. Fortunately, for the royal family, the second son in line, Bertie (who became George VI) proved a much steadier, traditional monarch. Though terrified at the prospect of becoming king, George VI managed his stammer, grew in self-confidence, and became a much-loved king. This is a wonderful piece of less-known history and a treasure-trove for the amateur historian.
June 15, 2022
Never a Dull Moment...now there's a peculiar title for a biography about King George V, right? At least if public perception of his reign is to be trusted....well as it turns out, its not.
After doing such a great job of balancing fact and lurid information as far as King Edward VII (George's father) life and reign went, I was very curious to see how Jane Ridley would handle his second son, the one never meant to be King.
What you have here fellow bookworm is a very very good book, extremely well researched - on Kindle your book will end at 70%, everything else is thank yous, notes and bibliography - and this book paints perhaps the most complete portrait of George as Husband, King, Father and Man.
Its curious to see the differences between father and son, and how the author related to each in the process of writting these two books. Personal opinion - she found herself liking the father despite her best efforts not to and, at least by the time the book ends, she begrudgingly admires/respects the son for all he did for the country.
Further review to follow - I need to get my ideas together :)
After doing such a great job of balancing fact and lurid information as far as King Edward VII (George's father) life and reign went, I was very curious to see how Jane Ridley would handle his second son, the one never meant to be King.
What you have here fellow bookworm is a very very good book, extremely well researched - on Kindle your book will end at 70%, everything else is thank yous, notes and bibliography - and this book paints perhaps the most complete portrait of George as Husband, King, Father and Man.
Its curious to see the differences between father and son, and how the author related to each in the process of writting these two books. Personal opinion - she found herself liking the father despite her best efforts not to and, at least by the time the book ends, she begrudgingly admires/respects the son for all he did for the country.
Further review to follow - I need to get my ideas together :)
March 5, 2022
An engaging and authoritative new biography of King George V that challenges the traditional perception of the king as boring or insignificant to the tumultuous events of his times. Jane Ridley examines George V's political and public role and analyzes his difficult relationship with his sons, especially the future King Edward VIII. Ridley also provides a balanced assessment of King George V and Queen Mary's decisions concerning the Romanovs including George V's decision to withdraw an offer of asylum for Czar Nicholas II and his family following the Czar's abdication in 1917 and Queen Mary's later acquisition of valuable pieces of Russian Imperial jewellery. In addition, the book serves as a biography of the two people closest to George V in his childhood and adult life respectively - his elder brother Albert Victor whose death made George second-in-line to the throne and his consort Queen Mary. Ridley's analysis of George and Mary's marriage is one of the most compelling aspects of the book. Highly recommended to anyone interested in the history of the monarchy.
May 5, 2023
Like a lot of people, I came to this book not long after finishing Jane Ridley's previous book on King Edward VII, George V's father. The two couldn't have been more different. Bertie, as Edward VII was known to family and favorites, was a libertine king with Pantagruelian appetites and desires: food, drink, gambling, sex, you name it. He was audacious in his private life but brought glamour and sumptuousness to the court. His son on the other hand was the model of English rectitude and stiffness, and he and his wife Queen Mary were cold and too upright and for their own good, martinets who seemed to care more about shooting grouse and snatching other people's jewels than being empathetic. George's refusal to give asylum to his cousin Tsar Nicholas and the couple's hollow response to their son John's early death speak volumes. The complexities of George V's habits, views and relationships, and his style of ruling shaped the British monarchy as it is known today, yet for every accomplishment he had he seemed to fail in other areas.
George V, as Ridley points out, was an uneducated man, more like a rich landowning baron who lucked his way onto the throne. And like all such men, he was staunchly conservative, myopic in his views, perplexed by the social and political upheavals of the early twentieth century, and prone to tantrums when he didn't get his way. Yet he was also skilled in politics, and without his guiding hand the monarchy and the British Empire may have come undone during the First World War and the years immediately following.
Ridley is at her best when she reports on the personal actions and feelings expressed by George and Mary. She claims that despite popular opinion they were not a dull couple. I respectfully disagree. The fact that George is not the singular focus of this biography--Ridley continually sidesteps into Mary's life and well as those of adjuncts to the king--demonstrates that unlike his father and grandmother, George's life was small and unremarkable as far as his personal relationships go. Anyone who dislikes international travel is bound to be dull, and his preference to stay homebound rather than explore his empire communicates a great deal about his stuffiness. In many ways, George V is the embodiment of everything the modern world despises about the royals and, by extension, Western culture: imperialism, racism, misogyny, homophobia, classism, the list goes on and on. But George and Mary brought a reserved elegance to the crown, and while he may not have been as flashy and cosmopolitan as his father, there's something to be said for people who avoid the spotlight, keep their head down, and work.
One of the most fascinating things I learned in this book was that Edward VIII's decision to abdicate so he could marry Wallis Simpson was hardly a spontaneous act. Everyone in the royal family was sure David would abdicate soon after his father's death and pass the crown to his brother, King George VI. This was certainly the smartest decision any royal has ever made. Little wonder David took his grandfather’s regnant name upon becoming king (for eleven months). They were much more alike than David and George. The consequences for the nation and the rest of the world would have been catastrophic if Edward VIII had remained king. This biography proves that the crown eventually rests upon the right head. George V may not have been an ideal king, yet he accomplished many things during his reign, and future monarchs have much to learn from him.
George V, as Ridley points out, was an uneducated man, more like a rich landowning baron who lucked his way onto the throne. And like all such men, he was staunchly conservative, myopic in his views, perplexed by the social and political upheavals of the early twentieth century, and prone to tantrums when he didn't get his way. Yet he was also skilled in politics, and without his guiding hand the monarchy and the British Empire may have come undone during the First World War and the years immediately following.
Ridley is at her best when she reports on the personal actions and feelings expressed by George and Mary. She claims that despite popular opinion they were not a dull couple. I respectfully disagree. The fact that George is not the singular focus of this biography--Ridley continually sidesteps into Mary's life and well as those of adjuncts to the king--demonstrates that unlike his father and grandmother, George's life was small and unremarkable as far as his personal relationships go. Anyone who dislikes international travel is bound to be dull, and his preference to stay homebound rather than explore his empire communicates a great deal about his stuffiness. In many ways, George V is the embodiment of everything the modern world despises about the royals and, by extension, Western culture: imperialism, racism, misogyny, homophobia, classism, the list goes on and on. But George and Mary brought a reserved elegance to the crown, and while he may not have been as flashy and cosmopolitan as his father, there's something to be said for people who avoid the spotlight, keep their head down, and work.
One of the most fascinating things I learned in this book was that Edward VIII's decision to abdicate so he could marry Wallis Simpson was hardly a spontaneous act. Everyone in the royal family was sure David would abdicate soon after his father's death and pass the crown to his brother, King George VI. This was certainly the smartest decision any royal has ever made. Little wonder David took his grandfather’s regnant name upon becoming king (for eleven months). They were much more alike than David and George. The consequences for the nation and the rest of the world would have been catastrophic if Edward VIII had remained king. This biography proves that the crown eventually rests upon the right head. George V may not have been an ideal king, yet he accomplished many things during his reign, and future monarchs have much to learn from him.
April 21, 2025
"He was dull, beyond dispute -- but my God, his reign never had a dull moment."
- Tommy Lascelles
The period between 1910 and 1936 in the United Kingdom & Europe is filled with massive change. Yet, the monarch at the helm in those turbulent years was a humorless, dull, George V who was obsessed with hunting and other trivial matters.
However, Jane Ridley in her biography on the dull monarch argues it was anything but. Despite the character of George, his place in history was immensely important for the development of rhe modern monarchy & Britain's role in the world.
While I enjoyed the book, I never felt 100% satisfied with it. I found the sections about his relationship with his children to be the most fleshed out, but talks of the political drama felt lacking. I never had a good sense of either the politics nor George's complete role in them. It packs a lot of detail, maybe too much detail to really get a sense of the whole book.
I still enjoyed it, and would recommend to anyone looking for a book on this sometimes overlooked monarch.
- Tommy Lascelles
The period between 1910 and 1936 in the United Kingdom & Europe is filled with massive change. Yet, the monarch at the helm in those turbulent years was a humorless, dull, George V who was obsessed with hunting and other trivial matters.
However, Jane Ridley in her biography on the dull monarch argues it was anything but. Despite the character of George, his place in history was immensely important for the development of rhe modern monarchy & Britain's role in the world.
While I enjoyed the book, I never felt 100% satisfied with it. I found the sections about his relationship with his children to be the most fleshed out, but talks of the political drama felt lacking. I never had a good sense of either the politics nor George's complete role in them. It packs a lot of detail, maybe too much detail to really get a sense of the whole book.
I still enjoyed it, and would recommend to anyone looking for a book on this sometimes overlooked monarch.
July 7, 2022
Drawing from archival records and other published works, Ridley has provided a thorough look at George V. This comprehensive work does require some discipline to get all the way through, but it is a generally upbeat view of a royal reign that was perhaps more consequential to the monarchy and the country than one might think. This is a great choice for biography lovers. An even better choice for British royal family acolytes.
October 17, 2023
Some might think George V was a dull chap, but the times he lived in certainly were not dull, as the book's title indicates. He saw the Victorian world transformed into something if not exactly modern, at least much like the world I remember from my youth. I have a particular sympathy for George as a fellow stamp collector. Of the four books I've read about him this was far the best, and I now look forward to reading the author's biography of his father, Edward VII.
December 28, 2024
4.5 stars. A fascinating book about a figure most people probably know little about - King George V of England. George V ruled for decades including the times of World War I and the start of the Great Depression. He was able to keep the monarchy together in England - and strong - at a time in history where monarchies across Europe fell. I learned a great deal from this book not only about George - and his influential wife/Queen Mary - but also about the politics and social conditions of England during the early 20th century. The author writes well - highly recommended.
June 15, 2022
Amazing scholarship.
I really got into the sections about May of Teck. Oh, my....and her engagement to Eddy. When he died, she was so lackadaisical, and worried more about her jewels than the loss of her fiancé.
How on earth did such a dysfunctional family stay on the throne of England?
I really got into the sections about May of Teck. Oh, my....and her engagement to Eddy. When he died, she was so lackadaisical, and worried more about her jewels than the loss of her fiancé.
How on earth did such a dysfunctional family stay on the throne of England?
March 9, 2023
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️💫 absolutely brilliant. Loved this so much and learnt a great deal about a very private man doing a very public role. I loved how ordinary he truly was.
November 30, 2024
Very good. Really it’s as much a bio of Queen Mary, the consort, as of George V himself.
They’re considered the first modern royal couple, known to visit working class families and workplaces in Britain, as well as soldiers on the front during the First World War. They set the stage for service that continues to this day.
Also much discussed is the couple’s treatment of their oldest two sons both of who became king.
George’s legendary temper and bullying, and Mary’s icy demeanor didn’t bode well for either young man.
Very readable, lots of antidotes. Recommend for anyone regardless of your overall interest in history.
They’re considered the first modern royal couple, known to visit working class families and workplaces in Britain, as well as soldiers on the front during the First World War. They set the stage for service that continues to this day.
Also much discussed is the couple’s treatment of their oldest two sons both of who became king.
George’s legendary temper and bullying, and Mary’s icy demeanor didn’t bode well for either young man.
Very readable, lots of antidotes. Recommend for anyone regardless of your overall interest in history.
October 7, 2025
Best book on George V in print. Debunks myths related to Queen Mary.
January 16, 2025
[16 Jan 2025] This is an incredible biography of George V (a recent and relatively unstudied Monarch). It takes a chronological approach to his life and draws on each of the previous biographies. It takes an analytical approach with much new thinking applied to previous assumptions. I liked the style, serious, but engaging. It was an easy read and the pace and prose made for a very interesting narrative and it was a very immersive experience. I liked the fact that Ridley was not prepared to just accept that George was 'dull' a widely held view. She looked at the context and saw much creative thinking, from concluding that offering asylum to the Romanovs was to jeopardise his own throne, to change and adapt and to rapidly develop the style of monarchy to be more inclusive and interactive with the public. You would never have seen the Kaiser or the Tsar chatting to miners or factory workers. Appointing Prime Ministers against convention or making firm clear decisions, like changing the German names within the family were all intuitive and at the time, innovative thinking for a Monarchy - and one that must be said to have significantly contributed to its survival.
George had some less likeable qualities - despite being 'of the times' - his obsessive compulsion to blast thousands of birds out of the sky with his shotgun, his petty nit-picking over social issues and his inability to confront poor choices and behaviour in his children. Overall I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was easy to read, engaging, well written and very informative.
George had some less likeable qualities - despite being 'of the times' - his obsessive compulsion to blast thousands of birds out of the sky with his shotgun, his petty nit-picking over social issues and his inability to confront poor choices and behaviour in his children. Overall I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was easy to read, engaging, well written and very informative.
December 8, 2021
This is an authoritative and readable biography of King George V by a rightly well-regarded historical biographer. Using an impressive range of primary sources, Jane Ridley makes a good case for the importance of George V and his wife, Queen Mary, in the repositioning of the British monarchy as a strength and stay of the modern constitution - a tradition which our current Queen has scrupulously followed.
As a personality, George was - as has been often depicted - a rather dull character. At times, he seemed to inhabit a different time from his subjects. But the king did his duty and adapted. From a shaky start, the king grew in confidence until he became a powerful force, as seen in his role in the 1931 crisis that led to the formation of the National Government. Ridley describes this and similar episodes of the exercise of constitutional authority with balance and reason.
Ridley is critical of the king's role with his sons and it is sad to see how he failed to support or seek to relate to them. Happily, his second son overcame these difficulties to become a fine king in his own right.
Overall, this is a fair and thorough exploration of this important and impressive monarch and it is strongly recommended.
As a personality, George was - as has been often depicted - a rather dull character. At times, he seemed to inhabit a different time from his subjects. But the king did his duty and adapted. From a shaky start, the king grew in confidence until he became a powerful force, as seen in his role in the 1931 crisis that led to the formation of the National Government. Ridley describes this and similar episodes of the exercise of constitutional authority with balance and reason.
Ridley is critical of the king's role with his sons and it is sad to see how he failed to support or seek to relate to them. Happily, his second son overcame these difficulties to become a fine king in his own right.
Overall, this is a fair and thorough exploration of this important and impressive monarch and it is strongly recommended.
January 17, 2023
King George V of the United Kingdom and his wife Queen Mary (May of Teck) had the reputations of being boring and stodgy, preferring to stay home rather than have a glittering court life, very unlike his father, Edward VII, the notorious "playboy king." (See "The Heir Apparent:..." also by Ridley, and on my Read shelf.)
I admit to knowing little about George V other than that he was king during WWI; denied asylum to the eventually-murdered Romanovs; and changed the name of his family from Saxe-Coburg to Windsor to sound less German during the War. What I had never considered was that George V successfully bridged the Victorian Era to the "Modern" one in the British monarchy: he was 35 years old when his grandmother, Victoria, died and the recently-deceased Queen Elizabeth II was ten years old when her grandfather George V died! George's great strength was his adaptability; he was willing to change his opinions and the monarchy itself in order to save the monarchy. George was never supposed to be king, but his elder brother died, so he inherited the throne and his brother's fiancé, May of Teck. He worked with Parliament and with Prime Ministers to the full extent of his constitutional powers, even embracing working with the first Labour government ever in history, although he was a lifelong Tory.
Although he became a successful King, he was a terribly-distant father. Not that the Windsors (all the way back to Victoria) have ever been loving parents, but he and Mary seemed especially distant and judgmental to their kids. This was particularly evidenced in their treatment of their first born, known as David in the family and to history as the short-lived, never-crowned Edward VIII. George and Mary despaired of David's antics, but yet never went to any effort to give him useful pursuits or educate him in kingship. This seems a massive failure in a man who was also a reluctant monarch yet became a very good one.
Ridley is extremely scholarly in her biographies that I have read; there are almost as many pages of notes and citations as there are pages in the actual book. This is fabulous if one wants to pursue further information, but makes regular reading very arduous, as her writing style is very dry and the constant referencing of other works interrupts what flow the reader has managed to achieve. Therefore, only 3 stars.
I admit to knowing little about George V other than that he was king during WWI; denied asylum to the eventually-murdered Romanovs; and changed the name of his family from Saxe-Coburg to Windsor to sound less German during the War. What I had never considered was that George V successfully bridged the Victorian Era to the "Modern" one in the British monarchy: he was 35 years old when his grandmother, Victoria, died and the recently-deceased Queen Elizabeth II was ten years old when her grandfather George V died! George's great strength was his adaptability; he was willing to change his opinions and the monarchy itself in order to save the monarchy. George was never supposed to be king, but his elder brother died, so he inherited the throne and his brother's fiancé, May of Teck. He worked with Parliament and with Prime Ministers to the full extent of his constitutional powers, even embracing working with the first Labour government ever in history, although he was a lifelong Tory.
Although he became a successful King, he was a terribly-distant father. Not that the Windsors (all the way back to Victoria) have ever been loving parents, but he and Mary seemed especially distant and judgmental to their kids. This was particularly evidenced in their treatment of their first born, known as David in the family and to history as the short-lived, never-crowned Edward VIII. George and Mary despaired of David's antics, but yet never went to any effort to give him useful pursuits or educate him in kingship. This seems a massive failure in a man who was also a reluctant monarch yet became a very good one.
Ridley is extremely scholarly in her biographies that I have read; there are almost as many pages of notes and citations as there are pages in the actual book. This is fabulous if one wants to pursue further information, but makes regular reading very arduous, as her writing style is very dry and the constant referencing of other works interrupts what flow the reader has managed to achieve. Therefore, only 3 stars.
March 25, 2022
There were a few dull moments.
I did enjoy the book, but it delved a bit too much into things I found obscure and uninteresting for me to love it.
George was a killing machine. He would shoot hundreds, and sometimes thousands of pheasants in a day. It boggles the mind. First, it seems such a gargantuan waste. A form of royal conspicuous consumption might explain that. Second, how many pheasants were out there. That seems like an amount that could bring the overall population down, especially since he wasn't the only guy hunting like that.
He had himself circumcised at 40. No real explanation on that. Maybe so he could avoid hygiene problems in India? But, dude, just wash your dick. There is no need to chop it up.
Quite a bit is made of what an uneducated, incurious guy he was. It does seem strange that somebody didn't make more of an effort. His older brother seems to have been even less educated.
Overall, he doesn't seem like a guy you would want to meet. He wasn't interesting, was mean to his kids (though nice to everyone else), was kind of a chatterbox, and a stickler for proper dress and protocol.
I did enjoy the book, but it delved a bit too much into things I found obscure and uninteresting for me to love it.
George was a killing machine. He would shoot hundreds, and sometimes thousands of pheasants in a day. It boggles the mind. First, it seems such a gargantuan waste. A form of royal conspicuous consumption might explain that. Second, how many pheasants were out there. That seems like an amount that could bring the overall population down, especially since he wasn't the only guy hunting like that.
He had himself circumcised at 40. No real explanation on that. Maybe so he could avoid hygiene problems in India? But, dude, just wash your dick. There is no need to chop it up.
Quite a bit is made of what an uneducated, incurious guy he was. It does seem strange that somebody didn't make more of an effort. His older brother seems to have been even less educated.
Overall, he doesn't seem like a guy you would want to meet. He wasn't interesting, was mean to his kids (though nice to everyone else), was kind of a chatterbox, and a stickler for proper dress and protocol.
May 14, 2022
After finishing "The Last King of America: The Misunderstood Reign of George III," by Andrew Roberts, Goodreads recommended "George V" by Jane Ridley as a book I might be interested in reading. I'm not sorry I read this, but I don't recommend it as the best book on George V. I'm not sure Jane Ridley would either, as she references several other biographies of this monarch numerous times throughout the book. This was really a book about George V's wife and Queen consort, Queen Mary. Possibly if I were more interested in or impressed by her, I'd have enjoyed this book more. But I found her unimpressive and somewhat trivial, and certainly not a very good parent to her many children. A better subtitle would have at least mentioned George V's queen, instead of "never a dull moment." I admit I learned much about George V from this book, but with that as my goal, I believe there are much better biographies than this one.
February 8, 2025
I rather wish Ridley had done a thorough biography of Queen Mary, who emerges as far more interesting than her husband. That actually isn't saying a lot. Here George and Mary are given credit for 'saving' the monarchy by making it somewhat more relatable. They probably did, and their lead was followed by George VI and Elizabeth, who also projected a strong 'family' image. And of course the longevity of George and Mary's granddaughter cemented the Royal Family as the avatar for family in the nation. And then came Margaret and Peter Townsend, Charles and Diana and Camilla, Andrew and Fergie (to say nothing of Jeffrey Epstein) and all of the other familial scandals, to say nothing of the gutter press. The original movers to the Royal FAMILY model were Victoria and Albert making up for her Hanoverian forebears lack of team spirit. Along with the invention of the photograph and mass reproduction, Victoria's nine children were presented as the center of their parents' attention and love. Partly true for Albert so long as they behaved, but Victoria wrote her eldest daughter five weeks after the teenager married the Prussian Crown Prince that the Queen resented her brood and would have been much happier with just her husband. Her children either feared and disliked her (Bertie) or were completely dominated (Leopold and Beatrice).
George V was molded by his mother, not his father. Aside from a possible liaison before he was forced to marry his dead brother's fiance, George was utterly faithful to his wife. But he was not particularly bright (although in the writing samples Ridley offers the King certainly wrote better than many), spent a great deal of time moaning about how hard his job was, and was incapable of expressing his emotions to his own children. Ridley spends the requisite time with the George V/Prince of Wales debacle, but she also provides insights into Henry, Bertie and George, Duke of Kent's relationships with their father. George was the worst kind of martinet, including his fixation upon esoteric matters of dress. He was better with the female Windsors, including Princess Mary and Alice Gloucester, Henry's wife. And while the marriage to Mary was calculated, it did grow into a genuine love match between two disparate personalities.
Perhaps the most important political accomplishment was making the transition to the first Labour government relatively painless. The Tories of the time --- and the King was absolutely Tory in sympathy --- regarded the Labourites as one step up the evolutionary ladder from Bolshevism. George should be commended for being welcoming, but I do think Ridley overstates his accomplishments in the political sphere. By her own admission, the King had little to do with the actual Great War, although he dutifully went out to the front upon occasion. The Queen knitted socks and sweaters for the troops.
About the Bolsheviks . . . Ridley has a few graceful contortions while trying to get poor George off the hook for the deaths of the Russian Imperial Family, I think she is correct in the assessment that, post-Abdication, there was no chance of getting them out. But the question remains, did the King believe that when he had his private secretary inform the relevant cabinet members that George opposed his government's preliminary offer of sanctuary? That is unclear in the book.
Mary collected things, birthed children, ignored them in the way Victorian and Edwardian upper class parents did, cataloged the royal bibelots and furniture, and most importantly, was one of the few people who could genuinely calm her husband when George was in the grip of rage. Which, sorry, seems to have been a fairly frequent occurrence. Ridley does consider Mary to have been moved by the death of her youngest son Prince John. However, Mary and George had moved the epileptic boy to a small house relatively nearby. There he was cared for by a nurse, Lalla, who occupied the space that might normally be expected to be filled by a mother. Ridley does give a glimpse of Mary's grief (her reserve was famous) when she describes a written exchange between Mary and the future Duke of Windsor after John suddenly died at 14. None of his siblings were close to the child, and David didn't hold back on how happy he was that John had been removed as a potential embarrassment. Even he realized how far he had gone, and the Prince apologized to Mary after she made it clear he had hurt her feelings as John's mother.
Neither George or his wife liked Wallis Simpson, of course, and after her husband died and throughout the rest of her life Queen Mary refused to meet the Duchess of Windsor. Ridley is also not what you might call a Mrs. Simpson fan.
All of this begs the question, was this biography really necessary? As the UK transitions to what their royals used to sniffily refer to as a "bicycle monarchy", is there a need for a personal account of the life of a King with little impact upon the political and cultural history of a nation? The 'Never a Dull Moment' subtitle is a misnomer. There are a lot of them in the book, although probably more in his actual life. Ridley's actual writing style and organization are fine. It's the subject.
George V was molded by his mother, not his father. Aside from a possible liaison before he was forced to marry his dead brother's fiance, George was utterly faithful to his wife. But he was not particularly bright (although in the writing samples Ridley offers the King certainly wrote better than many), spent a great deal of time moaning about how hard his job was, and was incapable of expressing his emotions to his own children. Ridley spends the requisite time with the George V/Prince of Wales debacle, but she also provides insights into Henry, Bertie and George, Duke of Kent's relationships with their father. George was the worst kind of martinet, including his fixation upon esoteric matters of dress. He was better with the female Windsors, including Princess Mary and Alice Gloucester, Henry's wife. And while the marriage to Mary was calculated, it did grow into a genuine love match between two disparate personalities.
Perhaps the most important political accomplishment was making the transition to the first Labour government relatively painless. The Tories of the time --- and the King was absolutely Tory in sympathy --- regarded the Labourites as one step up the evolutionary ladder from Bolshevism. George should be commended for being welcoming, but I do think Ridley overstates his accomplishments in the political sphere. By her own admission, the King had little to do with the actual Great War, although he dutifully went out to the front upon occasion. The Queen knitted socks and sweaters for the troops.
About the Bolsheviks . . . Ridley has a few graceful contortions while trying to get poor George off the hook for the deaths of the Russian Imperial Family, I think she is correct in the assessment that, post-Abdication, there was no chance of getting them out. But the question remains, did the King believe that when he had his private secretary inform the relevant cabinet members that George opposed his government's preliminary offer of sanctuary? That is unclear in the book.
Mary collected things, birthed children, ignored them in the way Victorian and Edwardian upper class parents did, cataloged the royal bibelots and furniture, and most importantly, was one of the few people who could genuinely calm her husband when George was in the grip of rage. Which, sorry, seems to have been a fairly frequent occurrence. Ridley does consider Mary to have been moved by the death of her youngest son Prince John. However, Mary and George had moved the epileptic boy to a small house relatively nearby. There he was cared for by a nurse, Lalla, who occupied the space that might normally be expected to be filled by a mother. Ridley does give a glimpse of Mary's grief (her reserve was famous) when she describes a written exchange between Mary and the future Duke of Windsor after John suddenly died at 14. None of his siblings were close to the child, and David didn't hold back on how happy he was that John had been removed as a potential embarrassment. Even he realized how far he had gone, and the Prince apologized to Mary after she made it clear he had hurt her feelings as John's mother.
Neither George or his wife liked Wallis Simpson, of course, and after her husband died and throughout the rest of her life Queen Mary refused to meet the Duchess of Windsor. Ridley is also not what you might call a Mrs. Simpson fan.
All of this begs the question, was this biography really necessary? As the UK transitions to what their royals used to sniffily refer to as a "bicycle monarchy", is there a need for a personal account of the life of a King with little impact upon the political and cultural history of a nation? The 'Never a Dull Moment' subtitle is a misnomer. There are a lot of them in the book, although probably more in his actual life. Ridley's actual writing style and organization are fine. It's the subject.
June 18, 2022
Very good
I found the book gave a complete overview of king George's life. Very interesting. We see how much he did for his country.
I found the book gave a complete overview of king George's life. Very interesting. We see how much he did for his country.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 129 reviews