I find this mans presentation quite extraordinary. George VI was King in name only. He suffered from extensive learning difficulties and have a very low IQ. His handlers and public servants would have done most of his work and correspondence for him.
i think this was a wonderful, sympathetic portrayal of an individual who isnt perhaps that well known or celebrated by the non-british public - but perhaps should be - for his role in resisting nazism..and for his personal valour, as churchill put it...
Absolutely he was. His mother Queen Mary was absolutely beautiful, particularly when young.Our Queen now was the image of her, and was stunning. Still an attractive Lady. All looks cane from Queen Mary, a beauty. Cheers John (Australia)
Surprised never noticed this that Queen Elizabeth has an humungus act to follow; not only is her father now also a King, hes also a King who led to victory in WW2 (!)
George VI is my favourite British monarch, possibly of all time, and my appreciation of his 'valour' among many other conscientious traits surpasses that of the current queen. I say this after carefully considering the works of his better biographers, Bradford, Judd, and Wheeler-Bennett. Prof Vernon Bogdanor's concluding statements are definitely the most succinct and lucid evaluation of George VI's reign.
Dough? Well the truth is eggs were not right to start with and therefore the laundry detergent was not so linguistically correct, but bravo, he is doing an amazing job lecturing us about King George the sixth. It has been a while since I have enjoyed a historian giving another great lecture on history. Seymour Hersh
I’d be grateful if anyone could answer this. At around the nine-minute mark Bogdanor says it was proposed by one person that George V’s widow become Queen Regent, to be later replaced by George’s youngest son, the Duke of Kent. But it’s not explained why he wouldn’t be immediately crowned. Kent was proposed because he’s the only one of George’s sons to himself have a son, and this, it was said, would relieve the burden on the proposed Queen Regent. But why ever would that be? Did Bogdanor mean it would relieve the burden on the Duke of Kent?
I felt that there was much missing from this lecture and also areas that were laboured without any proper discussion. We were told that on the abdication of Edward Vlll there was some consideration that instead of picking Bertie that the crown would pass to the Duke of Kent (forth sone of George V). However there was no explanation why this was preferable to picking Henry, Duke of Gloucester who was the third son of George V. There was also discussion on Queen Mary becoming regent, in 1936 she was already nearly 70 and although she lived until after the war was this really a serious suggestion. There was really no discussion of the King's relationship with his siblings - one sister and three brothers. I wondered with the resignation of Chamberlain if Professor Bogdanor would have discussed in more detail why Lord Halifax was the King's preference over Churchill. I had expected him to mention that George V had experienced being let down by Churchill who had repeated remarks made by the then king at a private dinner. Was George Vl also influenced by Churchill's movement from Conservative to Liberal and then back to Conservative and also some of his disasterous decisions during the First World War in particular Gallipoli. Was it Churchill's tarnished reputation as Chancellor when he returned the UK to the gold standard at an over inflated price, or as Home Secretary in sending the Black and Tans into Ireland, or even his behaviour during the General Strike. There were so many unanswered questions. Professor Bogdanor very briefly mentions the visit of George Vl and Queen Elizabeth to the USA in 1939, the stay at Hyde Park the home of the Roosevelt's was highly symbolic as was the trip to Canada in cementing the support for the British Empire. Indeed Professor Bogdanor completely misses that Eleanor Roosevelt crossed the Atlantic in 1942 to visit the UK and meet the King and Queen and also spend the night with Queen Mary, then at Badminton House (she had met Queen Mary when she was a school girl). Again I feel Professor Bogdanor was far too brief in discussing the relationship of the King with the Attlee government, a government that made major changes following the war. Not only was there taking in public ownership of major strategic industries - rail, energy and water, we had the birth of the NHS with the only comment on the later was the King not understandyin Bevan's resignation over charging for false teeth. Yet we had been told much earlier when a prince the future King had taken an interest in industrial matter, being called the 'shop steward'. We were not told of the King's reaction and any support he offered to Attlee as the country teetered on bankruptcy and had to go to borrow from the USA in July 1946 and the conditions this posed on opening up the empire to US trade. Decisions were made by the Prime Minister Attlee and the Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin to fund an independent nuclear capability, this was not disclosed to the cabinet, was the King informed and supportive of this? I had read that the relationship between George Vl and Ernest Bevin was good and considering the amount of conferences and pacts taking place in post war europe I would have expected that there had been discussion about the King meeting Bevin, but there was none.
I also meant to mention in my fifth paragraph July 1938 state visit by George V and Queen Elizabeth to France. This was done very much to cement the relationship between the two countries who had fought together 20 years earlier and were facing an imminent repeat. The Queen's mother the Countess of Strathmore had died only the month before and it was thought the visit would be cancelled due to mourning, however given its importance the royal couple made the visit with Queen Elizabeth, wooing the crowds with her almost Gainsborough dresses of white, rather than black mourning. This visit does not get a mention yet it was hugely significant.
Ernie Bevin was mentioned in a positive light, and was indeed notably respected by many, from Churchill to the King. No mention of Herbert Morrison though , whom tried unsuccessfully to put himself forward as PM. Atlee just calmly drove to the Palace to get appointed . Professor David Reynolds gives a more detailed and sympathetic account. Even though he attempts to mask it , it's clear to me, that Prof Bogdanor has clear Tory & ' Eurosceptic' leanings, to put it mildly. I particularly like Reynolds quote from Bevan , in response to statement that Morrison ' was his own worst enemy' , Bevin reported to have said " not while I'm alive he ain't" . Reynolds on other hand has suspected Labour sympathies , if not admiration for Atlee, Ernie Bevin and Bevan , at least. Very unlikely that the King knew of the British independent nuclear bomb programme, as it came as a surprise to Churchill upon re- assuming office in 1951 on a smaller popular vote than Atlee's Labour party. The King was probably made aware of the pioneering British civil nuclear programme. Sad that we're reliant on French & Chinese technology these days , as nuclear power becomes respectable once more. If only Atlee had been able to carry on, but he and many cabinet members were exhausted after over 10 years in office (yes the coalition wartime Govt) and the strains of the Korean war , which was considered as vital to sustaining the UN
To exclude this monarch's health limitations - which did impact history and his relationships -.biographers do look the other way with certain truths - until enough time passes and we forget that these are just human beings with physical problems like the rest of us. I believe, based on many clues both subtle and obvious, that Bertie had FASD - but no one ever goes there.
These are great listening. I disagree with the distinction at 35.20 between "colony of settlement" and "composed of indigenous peoples." (Comparing Australia etc with India.) Settler Colonialism is not defined by the relative emptiness of the land colonised, only the success of the colonisation strategy.
If one day Grt Britain has a King of mixed ancestry, one who carries the name; 'Bruce Fu', could he be known as - "King Fu" 🥷 and known to the palace butler as - "Master Bruce"? 🦹 😏😵💫 He'd have to be a hero whatever name he went by, as he'd have the name of two heroes; Bruce Lee and the character, Bruce Wayne AKA Batman.
The Queen did not refuse to visit South Africa because of Apartheid. She was not invited by the republican Apartheid regime and no British government would have allowed such a visit. Sloppy script to say the least
Totally under appreciated sovereign in global history. George VI would have made his father proud.
@Kellan Khari same here , so incredible I think I'm going to pass out.
I find this mans presentation quite extraordinary. George VI was King in name only. He suffered from extensive learning difficulties and have a very low IQ. His handlers and public servants would have done most of his work and correspondence for him.
@@sticky59 what can you cite to support your statement re George VI’ IQ?
Am interested.
@@sticky59 nonsense.
@@judywood3273 they’re talking nonsense
Thank you for that wonderful address on King George V1. Such a lovely. Man. R.I.P. sure.😊
i think this was a wonderful, sympathetic portrayal of an individual who isnt perhaps that well known or celebrated by the non-british public - but perhaps should be - for his role in resisting nazism..and for his personal valour, as churchill put it...
Agree japan must be appreciated for crushing the European empires
Oh, I like him, George VI was one gorgeous king unlike any other English king.
Mystic Moreli. Yes he's strangely attractive
King George VI was quit handsome
Absolutely he was. His mother Queen Mary was absolutely beautiful, particularly when young.Our Queen now was the image of her, and was stunning. Still an attractive Lady. All looks cane from Queen Mary, a beauty. Cheers John (Australia)
@@johndean958 queen mary had a great pair of knockers too :)
I would have done anything to have his babies. Man was so fiiiiiiinnnnneeee
Surprised never noticed this that Queen Elizabeth has an humungus act to follow; not only is her father now also a King, hes also a King who led to victory in WW2 (!)
So nice to read the posts for a much loved and respected King r.I.p.Sir.
Wonderful 👏👏👏 exposition of George VI
Professor Vernon Bogdanor is remarkable academic.
Great presentation of a just and great king
This is such an excellent series of lectures. Top-class.
George VI is my favourite British monarch, possibly of all time, and my appreciation of his 'valour' among many other conscientious traits surpasses that of the current queen. I say this after carefully considering the works of his better biographers, Bradford, Judd, and Wheeler-Bennett.
Prof Vernon Bogdanor's concluding statements are definitely the most succinct and lucid evaluation of George VI's reign.
This held my attention throughout. What a calm and kindly presentation. Many thanks.
The way you hear George V talk, it really did seem like they expected Bertie to take over.
The family wanted him to end up on the throne
Enlightening presentation.
King George 6 was Great king.
So glad they finally posted this. well done!!
Thank you. Now I better understand why my my grandparents were so saddened when King George died.
well done, Sir...
What a great lecture, I learned a lot and laughed a lot. I didn’t realize Churchill was so funny.
Dough? Well the truth is eggs were not right to start with and therefore the laundry detergent was not so linguistically correct, but bravo, he is doing an amazing job lecturing us about King George the sixth. It has been a while since I have enjoyed a historian giving another great lecture on history. Seymour Hersh
I’d be grateful if anyone could answer this. At around the nine-minute mark Bogdanor says it was proposed by one person that George V’s widow become Queen Regent, to be later replaced by George’s youngest son, the Duke of Kent. But it’s not explained why he wouldn’t be immediately crowned. Kent was proposed because he’s the only one of George’s sons to himself have a son, and this, it was said, would relieve the burden on the proposed Queen Regent. But why ever would that be? Did Bogdanor mean it would relieve the burden on the Duke of Kent?
I felt that there was much missing from this lecture and also areas that were laboured without any proper discussion.
We were told that on the abdication of Edward Vlll there was some consideration that instead of picking Bertie that the crown would pass to the Duke of Kent (forth sone of George V). However there was no explanation why this was preferable to picking Henry, Duke of Gloucester who was the third son of George V. There was also discussion on Queen Mary becoming regent, in 1936 she was already nearly 70 and although she lived until after the war was this really a serious suggestion.
There was really no discussion of the King's relationship with his siblings - one sister and three brothers.
I wondered with the resignation of Chamberlain if Professor Bogdanor would have discussed in more detail why Lord Halifax was the King's preference over Churchill. I had expected him to mention that George V had experienced being let down by Churchill who had repeated remarks made by the then king at a private dinner. Was George Vl also influenced by Churchill's movement from Conservative to Liberal and then back to Conservative and also some of his disasterous decisions during the First World War in particular Gallipoli. Was it Churchill's tarnished reputation as Chancellor when he returned the UK to the gold standard at an over inflated price, or as Home Secretary in sending the Black and Tans into Ireland, or even his behaviour during the General Strike. There were so many unanswered questions.
Professor Bogdanor very briefly mentions the visit of George Vl and Queen Elizabeth to the USA in 1939, the stay at Hyde Park the home of the Roosevelt's was highly symbolic as was the trip to Canada in cementing the support for the British Empire. Indeed Professor Bogdanor completely misses that Eleanor Roosevelt crossed the Atlantic in 1942 to visit the UK and meet the King and Queen and also spend the night with Queen Mary, then at Badminton House (she had met Queen Mary when she was a school girl).
Again I feel Professor Bogdanor was far too brief in discussing the relationship of the King with the Attlee government, a government that made major changes following the war. Not only was there taking in public ownership of major strategic industries - rail, energy and water, we had the birth of the NHS with the only comment on the later was the King not understandyin Bevan's resignation over charging for false teeth. Yet we had been told much earlier when a prince the future King had taken an interest in industrial matter, being called the 'shop steward'. We were not told of the King's reaction and any support he offered to Attlee as the country teetered on bankruptcy and had to go to borrow from the USA in July 1946 and the conditions this posed on opening up the empire to US trade.
Decisions were made by the Prime Minister Attlee and the Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin to fund an independent nuclear capability, this was not disclosed to the cabinet, was the King informed and supportive of this? I had read that the relationship between George Vl and Ernest Bevin was good and considering the amount of conferences and pacts taking place in post war europe I would have expected that there had been discussion about the King meeting Bevin, but there was none.
I also meant to mention in my fifth paragraph July 1938 state visit by George V and Queen Elizabeth to France. This was done very much to cement the relationship between the two countries who had fought together 20 years earlier and were facing an imminent repeat. The Queen's mother the Countess of Strathmore had died only the month before and it was thought the visit would be cancelled due to mourning, however given its importance the royal couple made the visit with Queen Elizabeth, wooing the crowds with her almost Gainsborough dresses of white, rather than black mourning. This visit does not get a mention yet it was hugely significant.
Adam Bede excellent points!!
This lecture series was about the making of the modern Monarchy, not a complete exposition on the history of each Monarch's reign.
Ernie Bevin was mentioned in a positive light, and was indeed notably respected by many, from Churchill to the King.
No mention of Herbert Morrison though , whom tried unsuccessfully to put himself forward as PM. Atlee just calmly drove to the Palace to get appointed . Professor David Reynolds gives a more detailed and sympathetic account.
Even though he attempts to mask it , it's clear to me, that Prof Bogdanor has clear Tory &
' Eurosceptic' leanings, to put it mildly.
I particularly like Reynolds quote from Bevan , in response to statement that Morrison ' was his own worst enemy' , Bevin reported to have said " not while I'm alive he ain't" .
Reynolds on other hand has suspected Labour sympathies , if not admiration for Atlee, Ernie Bevin and Bevan , at least.
Very unlikely that the King knew of the British independent nuclear bomb programme, as it came as a surprise to Churchill upon re- assuming office in 1951 on a smaller popular vote than Atlee's Labour party. The King was probably made aware of the pioneering British civil nuclear programme. Sad that we're reliant on French & Chinese technology these days , as nuclear power becomes respectable once more.
If only Atlee had been able to carry on, but he and many cabinet members were exhausted after over 10 years in office (yes the coalition wartime Govt) and the strains of the Korean war , which was considered as vital to sustaining the UN
@@willhovell9019 Thanks for the reply. I agree with what you say.
"for valour"
To exclude this monarch's health limitations - which did impact history and his relationships -.biographers do look the other way with certain truths - until enough time passes and we forget that these are just human beings with physical problems like the rest of us. I believe, based on many clues both subtle and obvious, that Bertie had FASD - but no one ever goes there.
I think Prof Bogdanor pronounces "apartheid" wrongly. The final syllable should sound almost like "tate" rather than "tide".
Thanks didn’t know that
No, he pronounced it correctly. A lot of people think it’s pronounced apart-hate, but it never was.
Apartheid is a Dutch word meaning, literally, separate+ness. The English version is pronounced exactly as the original Dutch , i.e. apart+hayd
As an American Marxist I'm slightly ashamed to say I have a soft spot for George the sixth.
That's big of you, comrade.
These are great listening. I disagree with the distinction at 35.20 between "colony of settlement" and "composed of indigenous peoples." (Comparing Australia etc with India.) Settler Colonialism is not defined by the relative emptiness of the land colonised, only the success of the colonisation strategy.
If one day Grt Britain has a King of mixed ancestry, one who carries the name; 'Bruce Fu', could he be known as - "King Fu" 🥷 and known to the palace butler as - "Master Bruce"? 🦹
😏😵💫
He'd have to be a hero whatever name he went by, as he'd have the name of two heroes; Bruce Lee and the character, Bruce Wayne AKA Batman.
The Queen did not refuse to visit South Africa because of Apartheid. She was not invited by the republican Apartheid regime and no British government would have allowed such a visit. Sloppy script to say the least
If he ever thought he was a king in Ireland he was just a delusional fool, sadly
I want to sell old british coin george vi king emperor
Ok?
Ridiculous quotes of suspect provenance
What a sick individual
Who?
Who???
troll
@@Alliebaba7782 but true
@@darkstar223 what ? True you're a troll?
Yawn