A STRONG MONARCH

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 172, 11 October 1927, Page 9

A STRONG MONARCH

LIFE OF KING EDWARD ASSERTED FULL AUTHORITY DISAGREEMENT WITH MINISTERS By Cable.—Press Association. — Copyright. 8 Received 12.45 p.m. LONDON, Monday. THE strong personality of Edward dominates Sir Sidney Lees’s second volume of the authorised “Life of Edward the Seventh.” From the beginning he asserted Royal authority and full direction of the foreign policy and military administration.

He did not forget that he was the head of the army, and those neglecting to keep him informed were sharply admonished. He jealously watched the awarding of honours, made frequent suggestions, and pressed his objections with an embarrassing stubbornness that often caused a withdrawal of names. “Edward desired a certain name in the Coronation honours. The Marquis of Salisbury replied, calmly, ‘That, sir, is impossible.’ “King Edward: I wish him given a peerage. He must hare it.” “The Prime Minister was inflexible, and did not comply, so he resolved to quit, and quitted.” The reasons why the relations between another Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith) and King Edward were not cordial are given thus: “Asquith always appeared to the King to be reticent, secretive and reserved, always assuring the King that he did not want to trouble him with difficult matters. The King thought he was deliberately withholding these questions from him.” Liberal Ministers frequently incurred blame, Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Winston Churchill most ofetn. The King wrote to Churchill: “.Your Majesty is glad to see that you aTe becoming a reliable Minister and, above all, a serious politiclon, which is only attainable by putting' country before party.” His diary reveals that the King was offended in 1806 when Lloyd George used his name in the phrase, “The issue of the next election will be

whether the country is to be governed by the King and the peers, or by the King and the people." Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman defended Lloyd George, who professed profound regret if he .had offended. The Duke of Connaught in 1806 insisted on relinquishing what he considered his superfluous inspectorship of the Mediterannean troops. His Majesty wrote: “Connaught must now consider his military career at an end, and resign at once. I am much annoyed at my brother’s persistent obstinacy.” When Mr. Arthur Balfour (now Earl) announced the French entente and intimated that he would bring down a Bill giving effect to cessions of territory, his Majesty objected that the cession of territory rested with the Crown, insisting that if Balfour was wrong he must admit it. “The Diarist writes: ‘Later the King reluctantly accepted the Prime Minister’s explanation. Thus one of the last of the remaining great Royal prerogatives—power to cede territory—was taken over by Parliament.”

Several pages are filled with the story of a Royal indiscretion. After the King’s visit to Russia in 1008, he disapproved of many Liberal and Labour men who felt strongly about Russian misrule. A debate was forced in the House of Commons, whereupon the King was angered, and unwisely withdrew invitations to the Royal garden party from three minority members. Later he recognised his mistake and removed the ban.—A. and N.Z.