I read somewhere that the British King George V used to beat his sons regularly. Is this true?
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
The King was a strict martinet, which seems strange, since his own father Edward VII was notedly easy-going, even though George was afraid of him as a child.
The boys were also victims of a nanny who was a child abuser, which wasn't discovered until she had done physical and mental damage, particularly on Prince Albert. Prince Albert was a naturally gifted athlete, but developed a stammer when his father forced him to become right-handed, though he was naturally a "lefty"
Their mother, Queen Mary, was in awe of her husband because of his status as King, and did not interfere to protect the children.
Prince Edward (who later abdicated as Edward VIII) was the glamour boy of the day, praised for his good looks and charm. Unfortunately, it was only on the surface, he was revealed to be a selfish and shallow character. Though the Abdication was a traumatic event for the entire kingdom and Commonwealth, it later became apparent that Prince Albert as King George VI was exactly what the country needed to bolster morale throughout WWII.
As Duke of Windsor, Edward VIII followed a life of extravagance and heedless pleasure, with no regard for the ordeal he had inflicted on his brother and the country. Now that his dealings with the Nazis have come to light, perhaps we should be grateful to Wallis Simpson after all, that she saved us from his reign.
- old ladyLv 71 decade ago
He did not beat his sons physically, but he certainly browbeat them mentally, was a cold and distant father. One of the reasons by King George stuttered so badly, and possibly one of the reasons why the 'playboy Prince Edward' never developed the backbone that would have let him stand up to the prime minister and have both his kingdom and Wallis, the love of his life. Edward was finessed out of the throne.
- DunrobinLv 61 decade ago
He said he wanted his sons to fear him, just as he feared his father, but I've never heard of beating. I think being the king and being distant and having a naval bearing was enough - beating was not necessary.
- Carol DLv 51 decade ago
I would say not true. They had "whipping boys" since heirs to the throne couldn't be punished. I'm sure the whipping boys got beaten quite alot.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- LadyCatherineLv 71 decade ago
like myself growing up, back then it might have been considered discipline and not abuse.
- 1 decade ago
No that is not true. ( Trust me I'm Dianna's cousin)