Does George VI Deserve the Rex Factor?

1 Comment

  • Sasha - 2 years ago

    George VI was a man thrown into an immensely difficult situation by his unreasonable brother, a situation in which nobody ever expected him to be. In spite of all that, he worked tirelessly to overcome his shortcomings (such as his speech impediment which likely stemmed from terrible childhood trauma, and his lack of education, affinity for the academic domain and understanding of state matters, all of which would have made doing his job as King an impossible task) and managed to lead the country through his brother’s abdication crisis, WW2 and its aftermath.
    He became a symbol of British resilience during the Luftwaffe bombings, refusing to leave London and sending a clear message of defiance to Berlin. He visited troops on the front, held speeches, he even was present at Buckingham Palace when it was bombed. For all intents and purposes, he was a leader when a lesser King wouldn’t have done so (and, in fact, that is precisely why he was put in that position to begin with).
    King George did his duty as Sovereign admirably when one could argue he was never meant to, with reverence to the Constitution, and he taught his daughter to do the same.
    If this is not a modern Rex Factor winner (surely, we can’t expect today’s monarchs to lead troops on horseback into battle— though I would remind you that King George did serve in the Navy during WW1), then I don’t know what is.

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment