Having read one of King George V’s diary entries from May 1926, I thought it a good idea to seek out a biography of the King. I found Kenneth Rose’s biography second hand for a fiver and read it all with fascination. It’s a sympathetic rather than hagiographic 400 pages – as evidenced by these few following snippets about the King and the General Strike.
‘George V saw himself as King not only of the well-born and rich, but also of the deprived and the poor’ – he gave ‘1,000 guineas for the relief of strikers’ families’ in the 1912 miners’ strike, just two years after ascending to the throne. Fourteen years later, just before the General Strike began, when at Newmarket races, he told Lord Durham (‘a considerable coal-owner’) that ‘he was sorry for the miners.’ “A damned lot of revolutionaries” came the reply … ‘the King turned on him furiously: “Try living on their wages before you judge them.”
Rose comments that after the strike began, ‘the King showed compassion as well as caution.’ He thought it “unfortunate” that Winston Churchill’s British Gazette ‘declared that the armed forces should not be too squeamish’, instructing his private secretary ‘to write to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff; he applied no stronger word that “unfortunate” to the provocative announcement, but the War Office no doubt took his point.’
We now move to ‘The most decisive of the King’s interventions in May 1926’: his opposition to the Government’s intention to prevent banks paying out Trade Union funds to support those out on strike etc. The King’s private secretary, Sir Arthur John Bigge, 1st Baron Stamfordham, GCB, GCIE, GCVO, KCSI, KCMG, ISO, PC, wrote on May 9: “…the King told both the Home Secretary and the Attorney General that he was not at all sure that the Government would be acting wisely in adopting … the measures … So far the situation was better and more peaceful than might have been expected. The spirit of the miners was not unfriendly, as shown by such instances as Saturday afternoon’s football match at Plymouth between the police and the strikers; but any attempt to get hold of or control Trade Union Funds might … provoke reprisals if money were not forthcoming to buy food, there might be looting of shops, even of banks. The King laid stress upon the inevitable uproar such a Bill would create in the House of Commons.” Rose concludes this section: ‘By resisting the inflammatory legislation of his ministers, he helped to create an atmosphere of conciliation and an ultimate settlement largely free from bitterness.’
Things get more revealing in the next paragraph: ‘It is this sympathetic and statesmanlike approach to industrial strife which dominates the chapter on the general strike in Harold Nicolson’s life of the King. Yet the King could speak with two voices.’
Rose goes on to say that despite the King’s ‘kindly … understanding’ and ‘insight into the minds of his humbler subjects’, ‘he remained a prisoner of his naval upbringing.’ So, ‘There was an ambivalence’: ‘With one hand he would offer financial relief from his own pocket; with the other he would demand exemplary measures to curb disorder.’ Thus, on May 5th after reading about picketing in the docks in London, ‘He inquired of Baldwin: “Would it not be possible to introduce emergency legislation to prevent the so-called peaceful picketing and so enable unloading to be carried out by non-Union labour; and at the same time relieve the police of the additional work imposed upon them in dealing with picket trouble?” The Prime Minister politely pointed out that this would necessitate the repeal of the 1906 Trades Disputes Act.
But Baldwin was not out of the monarchical woods yet, for ‘That same day’, another letter arrived: “The King is somewhat concerned to find … that the people who are ready and desirous of assisting the Government in the maintenance of law and order are suffering considerably from intimidation from the strikers and other evil disposed parties … until Martial Law be proclaimed and the safety of the country passes into the hands of the Military … one Executive Officer should be responsible for all Police control.” Rose adds that the King, ‘in the same aggressive vein’, also asked whether Trade Union leaders could be arrested.
Rose concludes about the King’s apparent willingness to suspend the rule of law: ‘an abrupt contrast’ with ‘the restraint he preached to his ministers at other times during the general strike and to the paternal benevolence which will always be associated with him’ but with the ending of the strike a day later, the King became, ‘once more a constitutionalist.’
Then comes, of course, that famous diary entry:
“Our old country can be well proud of itself, as during the last nine days there has been a strike in which four million people have been affected, not a shot has been fired and no one killed. It shows what a wonderful people we are.”
Epilogue
David Torrance in his much-acclaimed 2026 book, The Edge of Revolution The General Strike that Shook Britain commented thus in his concluding chapter, The General Strike Reconsidered:
He reminds us of the hypocrisy of Lord Birkenhead who had been at the forefront of Ulster’s determination to stop Home Rule before the Great War using armed force and mutiny in the army if necessary. Torrance comments: ‘In 1914 there had been “things stronger than parliamentary majorities” but not, it seemed, in 1926.’
He goes on to say that ‘If anything, it was the Conservative government rather than the TUC which came close to behaving “unconstitutionally” (Emergency Regulations – the police given ‘sweeping and often arbitrarily exercised powers’ – Civil Commissioners – use of the armed forces – special constables – a newspaper ‘little more than propaganda’ – the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Leader of the Opposition – ‘both central components of the constitution’ … ‘gratuitously’ excluded from speaking on the BBC, ‘which had pretensions to speak impartially on behalf of the nation’ – utilising (contentious) statements that the General Strike was illegal – if that were true then why did they bring in the Trade Disputes and Trade Union Act in 1927?).
Torrance then addresses the role of the King:
‘Even the King does not emerge unblemished from a crisis he felt more deeply than most. Despite efforts by his official biographer to depict George V as consistently tempering the reckless policies of his ministers, the Royal Archives tell a different story of a monarch torn
Between sympathy for the underdog but also appalled by the disorder, “constantly on the alert to prevent the government, through timidity or slackness, from failing in its duty to suppress what the king saw as genuinely revolutionary elements”. (H. Hearder and H.R. Loyn (eds) British Government and Administration, Cardiff, University of Wales Press)
Torrance concludes:
‘Thus George was not the first sovereign, as some have argued, to have fully accept the principle of constitutional monarchy – limited and apolitical – in the modern sense of the term.’
And he goes on to say: ‘Indeed, the idea of urging the Home Secretary to arrest certain individuals or demanding emergency legislation would have been anathema to Queen Elizabeth, who was born shortly before the strike began.’
So, the next time you traverse the subway at Bristol Temple Meads, have a look at the
section about 6000 King George V – one of the most famous steam locomotives ever to grace the GWR and British Railways. Or, even better, visit the STEAM Museum at Swindon to see it in all its glory.
The Swindon-built King George V left the railway works in June 1927 …
Radical Stroud thank the GWR for its support
in the commemoration of the General Strike in our locality and region.
This would not have happened without the GWR.
We thank Stroud Town Council similarly.