Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Hope on July 18, 2015, 08:26:19 AM
-
Today's Sun has a picture of a 7-year-old giving a Nazi salute in family film footage dating from 1933.
http://tinyurl.com/ozxbmk2
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33578174
In view of the fact that the future Edward VIII's interest in and even support of the Nazis has long been widely known, is this footage of - to quote the Sun's managing editor on this morning's BBC Breakfast - 'historical social importance'.
This next question primarily to those avowed republicans here - does this damage the Queen's reputation in any way?
-
Today's Sun has a picture of a 7-year-old giving a Nazi salute in family film footage dating from 1933.
http://tinyurl.com/ozxbmk2
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33578174
In view of the fact that the future Edward VIII's interest in and even support of the Nazis has long been widely known, is this footage of - to quote the Sun's managing editor on this morning's BBC Breakfast - 'historical social importance'.
This next question primarily to those avowed republicans here - does this damage the Queen's reputation in any way?
The Sun is owned by an Australian republican.
The Queen is a former wartime serviceperson who had her house bombed presumably while she was still in it.
-
I'd imagine most, and even republicans like me, will treat this story from 80+ years ago as being the trivia that it surely is.
-
I'd imagine most, and even republicans like me, will treat this story from 80+ years ago as being the trivia that it surely is.
So now we have the press trying to dismantle two pillars of British identity, The BBC and The monarchy.
-
Today's Sun has a picture of a 7-year-old giving a Nazi salute in family film footage dating from 1933.
http://tinyurl.com/ozxbmk2
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33578174
In view of the fact that the future Edward VIII's interest in and even support of the Nazis has long been widely known, is this footage of - to quote the Sun's managing editor on this morning's BBC Breakfast - 'historical social importance'.
This next question primarily to those avowed republicans here - does this damage the Queen's reputation in any way?
-
Is the footage historically important?
In a minor way, yes.
It confirms what we already knew - the heir to the British throne, Edward, was ananashamed supporter of fascism before the war.
It also bolsters the long-held view that the Duchess of York had similar sympathies, as had much of the British aristocracy.
As to the second?
I hardly think a six and a half year old girl's gesture has any relevence to the person she would become.
-
This next question primarily to those avowed republicans here - does this damage the Queen's reputation in any way?
To this avowed republican the Queen's reputation is irremediably damaged simply because she's the Queen. Does this damage it more? Not in my eyes; that half the royal family and a major chunk of the aristocracy in the 1930s had at the very least fascist and at the very worst explicitly Nazi sympathies isn't news to anyone, I would have thought. I'm quite capable of having contempt for that sort of thing and those sort of people without a fairly innocuous photograph of a notoriously weak, spineless and vacillating man manipulating small children into giving a salute of whose origin and intent they had absolutely no idea.
It is, as Gordon said, a trivial non-story. There's a proper debate to be had about whether we really want our head of state to occupy that position on the ridiculous basis of the hereditary principle (to say nothing of being the head of a small army of emotionally crippled dysfunctional leeches on the nation's purse), but stories such as this don't advance it much. On the other hands, if it brings The Firm into even greater disrepute, great.
-
The Queen was a young kid copying her mother, so is not to blame at all for that gesture. What possessed her mother to give the Nazi salute goodness only knows. :o But apparently she was not the sweet, little old lady, which was her public persona!
-
Today's Sun has a picture of a 7-year-old giving a Nazi salute in family film footage dating from 1933.
http://tinyurl.com/ozxbmk2
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33578174
In view of the fact that the future Edward VIII's interest in and even support of the Nazis has long been widely known, is this footage of - to quote the Sun's managing editor on this morning's BBC Breakfast - 'historical social importance'.
This next question primarily to those avowed republicans here - does this damage the Queen's reputation in any way?
-
Is the footage historically important?
In a minor way, yes.
It confirms what we already knew - the heir to the British throne, Edward, was ananashamed supporter of fascism before the war.
It also bolsters the long-held view that the Duchess of York had similar sympathies, as had much of the British aristocracy.
As to the second?
I hardly think a six and a half year old girl's gesture has any relevence to the person she would become.
Karma applaud - and Shaker too.
The only comment I'd make (and it's of no real importance, really) is that his name was David not Edward.
-
The Queen was a young kid copying her mother, so is not to blame at all for that gesture. What possessed her mother to give the Nazi salute goodness only knows. :o But apparently she was not the sweet, little old lady, which was her public persona!
-
Oh, no!
Lizzie Bowes Lyon was far from being sweet, floo!
Chair of MenCap - who never once visited two of her close family who were dumped in institutions, she came from a family of Anglo-Scots who had notorious right-wing sympathies, supporting Hitler and Mussolini.
Sge was on record cheering when Mussolini invaded the then Abysinnia.
Like much of the British aristocracy, she was mildly antisemitic and sympathetic to nazi ideologies.
That seemed to change round about 1937 when a guy with robes plonked a bit of bling on her bonce.
-
Today's Sun has a picture of a 7-year-old giving a Nazi salute in family film footage dating from 1933.
http://tinyurl.com/ozxbmk2
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33578174
In view of the fact that the future Edward VIII's interest in and even support of the Nazis has long been widely known, is this footage of - to quote the Sun's managing editor on this morning's BBC Breakfast - 'historical social importance'.
This next question primarily to those avowed republicans here - does this damage the Queen's reputation in any way?
Hold a person accountable for the actions they performed when they were 7 ?
-
Stig Abell, Editor of the Sun, contributer to the Spectator, The Telegraph, co presenter on LBC with Kay Burley........what's his angle?
-
Today's Sun has a picture of a 7-year-old giving a Nazi salute in family film footage dating from 1933.
http://tinyurl.com/ozxbmk2
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33578174
In view of the fact that the future Edward VIII's interest in and even support of the Nazis has long been widely known, is this footage of - to quote the Sun's managing editor on this morning's BBC Breakfast - 'historical social importance'.
This next question primarily to those avowed republicans here - does this damage the Queen's reputation in any way?
-
Is the footage historically important?
In a minor way, yes.
It confirms what we already knew - the heir to the British throne, Edward, was ananashamed supporter of fascism before the war.
It also bolsters the long-held view that the Duchess of York had similar sympathies, as had much of the British aristocracy.
As to the second?
I hardly think a six and a half year old girl's gesture has any relevence to the person she would become.
Karma applaud - and Shaker too.
There are no Karma applauds.......there were in the grand old days when they were great for sticking one on the theists but then it all started going wrong for Bluehillside and they disappeared shortly after........get over it.....send Shaker flowers or something.
-
Oooh nice, I like flowers :)
-
So do I.
Does being a 'theist' disqualify me?
-
I think that the important point is that photo was taken before it became apparent just how bad the Nazis were. An awful lot of people in this country had some sympathy for the German people at that time and many were overtly pro-Nazi - so a seven year old child can hardly be blamed for that salute - 82 years later.
The editor of the Sun should be ashamed of himself.
-
Non story, it was a mock salute and many kids have done the same. In fact I use to use it on my best friend in jr high school when he would get too bossy. He of course is German. I would give him the Nazi salute and shout, Ya vol herr Engelfart. And then he would chase me down and give me a punch or whack. Great fun.
-
Don't misunderstand me, JC.
Wheras the footage can't be used to condemn the actions of a six year old girl, it DOES confirm that the very closest members of her aristocrsatic family sympsathised with the Nazi ideology., at least befiore they were forced to change their mind when war broke out (or, at the least, conceal their views).
-
It was a mock salute and the only one in that picture that was pro Nazi was Eddy. Yes, the Queen mum was so pro Nazi, Hitler called her the most dangerous woman in Europe. (smilies)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQEZPwLOzTo
-
Don't misunderstand me, JC.
Wheras the footage can't be used to condemn the actions of a six year old girl, it DOES confirm that the very closest members of her aristocrsatic family sympsathised with the Nazi ideology., at least befiore they were forced to change their mind when war broke out (or, at the least, conceal their views).
I thought everybody already knew that Edward VIII was a Nazi sympathiser.
-
I think that the important point is that photo was taken before it became apparent just how bad the Nazis were. An awful lot of people in this country had some sympathy for the German people at that time and many were overtly pro-Nazi - so a seven year old child can hardly be blamed for that salute - 82 years later.
The editor of the Sun should be ashamed of himself.
Whilst I agree with your point, I don't think the passage of time is pertinent if it is a question of Nazi sympathising - we have seen only this last week an ex-SS member sentenced for his activities at Auschwitz, some 70 plus years ago - and with the Queen Mother that is a moot point indeed. One wonders what influence, if any, she had on the young princess?
-
Don't misunderstand me, JC.
Wheras the footage can't be used to condemn the actions of a six year old girl, it DOES confirm that the very closest members of her aristocrsatic family sympsathised with the Nazi ideology., at least befiore they were forced to change their mind when war broke out (or, at the least, conceal their views).
I thought everybody already knew that Edward VIII was a Nazi sympathiser.
=-
Most of us did, Jeremy.
This footage is just another piece of confirmatory evidence.
It also shows the bias in favour of nazi ideology which permiated the upper classes before the outbreak of war.
-
Don't misunderstand me, JC.
Wheras the footage can't be used to condemn the actions of a six year old girl, it DOES confirm that the very closest members of her aristocrsatic family sympsathised with the Nazi ideology., at least befiore they were forced to change their mind when war broke out (or, at the least, conceal their views).
I thought everybody already knew that Edward VIII was a Nazi sympathiser.
=-
Most of us did, Jeremy.
This footage is just another piece of confirmatory evidence.
It also shows the bias in favour of nazi ideology which permiated the upper classes before the outbreak of war.
So what? It was a different time then. Hitler had just rescued Germany from economic ruin. It's not surprising he had some admirers.
-
Time magazine named Hitler, Man Of The Year 1938. The USA continued to do business with Hitler when we were at war. The Palestinian leadership, during those years, was very, very, very, pro Hitler,pro Nazi. They actively supported the Nazis. And so on and so forth. YAWN
-
-
Oh, no!
Lizzie Bowes Lyon was far from being sweet, floo!
Chair of MenCap - who never once visited two of her close family who were dumped in institutions, she came from a family of Anglo-Scots who had notorious right-wing sympathies, supporting Hitler and Mussolini.
Sge was on record cheering when Mussolini invaded the then Abysinnia.
Like much of the British aristocracy, she was mildly antisemitic and sympathetic to nazi ideologies.
That seemed to change round about 1937 when a guy with robes plonked a bit of bling on her bonce.
And in 1940 when the Luftwaffe plonked a bit of a bomb on her house. (5 actually).
-
Of course Anchorman is going to provide us with the evidence for all his assertions.
The Queen Mum was so taken by Hitler and the Nazis that after reading Mein Kampf, which she called soap box but interesting, she warned Lord Halifax not to read it all because it may make him go mad. The Palestinians were active supporters of the Nazis. Yes, active supporters.
"The two people who have caused me the most trouble in my life are Wallis Simpson and Hitler" QE(Queen Mum)
-
Don't misunderstand me, JC.
Wheras the footage can't be used to condemn the actions of a six year old girl, it DOES confirm that the very closest members of her aristocrsatic family sympsathised with the Nazi ideology., at least befiore they were forced to change their mind when war broke out (or, at the least, conceal their views).
I thought everybody already knew that Edward VIII was a Nazi sympathiser.
=-
Most of us did, Jeremy.
This footage is just another piece of confirmatory evidence.
It also shows the bias in favour of nazi ideology which permiated the upper classes before the outbreak of war.
So what? It was a different time then. Hitler had just rescued Germany from economic ruin. It's not surprising he had some admirers.
It is often forgotten that in their early years in government the NAZI party did a lot of good things for Germany and had a lot of admirers throughout the world. It was only later that there true colours became obvious.
-
The Queen was a young kid copying her mother, so is not to blame at all for that gesture. What possessed her mother to give the Nazi salute goodness only knows. :o But apparently she was not the sweet, little old lady, which was her public persona!
Floo, this was 1933; Hitler had been in power for no more than 6 or 7 months, and all the atrocities we associate with him were years in the future. I doubt any adult of any social status understood what the raised arm symbolised - not even in Germany.
-
Don't misunderstand me, JC.
Wheras the footage can't be used to condemn the actions of a six year old girl, it DOES confirm that the very closest members of her aristocrsatic family sympsathised with the Nazi ideology., at least befiore they were forced to change their mind when war broke out (or, at the least, conceal their views).
And just what was the Nazi ideology in 1933, Jim? I believe it changed pretty quickly after about 1936, but it was predominantly an economic policy back in 1933 which is why they were elected by the German people. I suspect most people had sympathy for the Germans and their plight; someone likened the current Greek situation to the situation in which the Germans found themselves back in the early 1930s.
-
Of course Anchorman is going to provide us with the evidence for all his assertions.
The Queen Mum was so taken by Hitler and the Nazis that after reading Mein Kampf, which she called soap box but interesting, she warned Lord Halifax not to read it all because it may make him go mad. The Palestinians were active supporters of the Nazis. Yes, active supporters.
"The two people who have caused me the most trouble in my life are Wallis Simpson and Hitler" QE(Queen Mum)
-
Why do I need to provide you with evidence?
You can access a search engine?
Go check on Nazism and the British Upper classes.
Whilst you're at it, check Liz Bowes Lyon, chair of charities for those with learning difficulties - you know, the old dear with the nice smile?
The same patron of charities for those with learning difficulties who never bothered to visit two of her close relatives who were plonked into institutions because her ever-caring family might have been embarassed.
-
Don't misunderstand me, JC.
Wheras the footage can't be used to condemn the actions of a six year old girl, it DOES confirm that the very closest members of her aristocrsatic family sympsathised with the Nazi ideology., at least befiore they were forced to change their mind when war broke out (or, at the least, conceal their views).
And just what was the Nazi ideology in 1933, Jim? I believe it changed pretty quickly after about 1936, but it was predominantly an economic policy back in 1933 which is why they were elected by the German people. I suspect most people had sympathy for the Germans and their plight; someone likened the current Greek situation to the situation in which the Germans found themselves back in the early 1930s.
-
Fascist ideology didn't spring full grown onto an unsuspecting world after Krystalnacht, Hope.
The doctrines of the ideology were well known outside Germany before 1933.
Warnings were being posted to the British foriegn Office as early as 1930 - and the then Prince of Wales had access to F.O papers, at both his, and his father's, insistance.
-
Of course Anchorman is going to provide us with the evidence for all his assertions.
The Queen Mum was so taken by Hitler and the Nazis that after reading Mein Kampf, which she called soap box but interesting, she warned Lord Halifax not to read it all because it may make him go mad. The Palestinians were active supporters of the Nazis. Yes, active supporters.
"The two people who have caused me the most trouble in my life are Wallis Simpson and Hitler" QE(Queen Mum)
-
Why do I need to provide you with evidence?
You can access a search engine?
Go check on Nazism and the British Upper classes.
Whilst you're at it, check Liz Bowes Lyon, chair of charities for those with learning difficulties - you know, the old dear with the nice smile?
The same patron of charities for those with learning difficulties who never bothered to visit two of her close relatives who were plonked into institutions because her ever-caring family might have been embarassed.
Hi Anchorman,
I'd say that you are totally wrong there. The NAZI party was the "National Socialist German Workers' Party". It's UK counterpart, Mosley's "British Union of Fascists" was aimed at working people and Mosley himself had been a Labour MP.
In the early 1930's a great many people from all classes thought this was the way forward - and why not? Hitler was doing marvellous things for Germany!
It's the ones who didn't later change their minds who are the dodgy ones.
-
I'd say that you are totally wrong there. The NAZI party was the "National Socialist German Workers' Party".
Bold it all you like; what were the socialist credentials and socialist policies of the Nazis? Why was communism second only to (especially European) Jewry on the Nazi shit list?
Probably the finest hour of socialism in Britain was the immediate post-war government of Clement Attlee, regarded by many historians (and by people like me, not historians) as the greatest prime minister this country has ever had. What points of contact and similarity do Hitler's party and governance and Attlee's Labour party and premiership share?
-
I'd say that you are totally wrong there. The NAZI party was the "National Socialist German Workers' Party".
Bold it all you like; what were the socialist credentials and socialist policies of the Nazis? Why was communism second only to (especially European) Jewry on the Nazi shit list?
Probably the finest hour of socialism in Britain was the immediate post-war government of Clement Attlee, regarded by many historians (and by people like me, not historians) as the greatest prime minister this country has ever had. What points of contact and similarity do Hitler's party and governance and Attlee's Labour party and premiership share?
That's as maybe, and with hindsight we might consider that their agenda was not Socialist - but at the time they described themselves as Socialists and they focused their policies on helping the workers (or at least the Aryan ones)
-
What points of contact and similarity do Hitler's party and governance and Attlee's Labour party and premiership share?
Actually thinking about it, they were both responsible for great improvements in health care.
-
That's as maybe, and with hindsight we might consider that their agenda was not Socialist
You don't even have to bother with hindsight - think of any of the actually socialist government/party/movement of that same historical period and see what points of contact and similarity any of them had with the Nazi party.
but at the time they described themselves as Socialists
Therefore they were? ::)
and they focused their policies on helping the workers (or at least the Aryan ones)
So racism was built into it from the start.
-
What points of contact and similarity do Hitler's party and governance and Attlee's Labour party and premiership share?
Actually thinking about it, they were both responsible for great improvements in health care.
... unless of course you were what was then known as mentally handicapped, degenerate, a moral imbecile (and so forth) and thus ripe for extermination under the Aktion T4 program.
That's Hitler, by the way, not Clem Attlee, in case there was any doubt as to the socialist credentials here.
-
You don't even have to bother with hindsight - think of any of the actually socialist government/party/movement of that same historical period and see what points of contact and similarity any of them had with the Nazi party.
Do you mean that Socialist movement than created Stalin - the only man in recent history who might have been responsible for more deaths than Hitler?
-
You don't even have to bother with hindsight - think of any of the actually socialist government/party/movement of that same historical period and see what points of contact and similarity any of them had with the Nazi party.
Do you mean that Socialist movement than created Stalin - the only man in recent history who might have been responsible for more deaths than Hitler?
No.
-
Shaker - I'm not claiming that Hitler was a nice man or that the NAZI party were just a bunch of do-gooders. Simply that in the 1930's things were not so straightforward.
-
Shaker - I'm not claiming that Hitler was a nice man or that the NAZI party were just a bunch of do-gooders.
Neither am I.
I'm stating, as a matter of simple fact, that the inclusion of the word socialist in the full title of the Nazi party was erroneous and bore absolutely no resemblance of any kind whatever to anything that even its opponents might regard or define as socialism.
-
Shaker - I'm not claiming that Hitler was a nice man or that the NAZI party were just a bunch of do-gooders.
Neither am I.
I'm stating, as a matter of simple fact, that the inclusion of the word socialist in the full title of the Nazi party was erroneous and bore absolutely no resemblance of any kind whatever to anything that even its opponents might regard or define as socialism.
Like it or not, that's how they described themselves - just as Stalin's mob did.
-
Like it or not, that's how they described themselves - just as Stalin's mob did.
... which really does seem to equate in your mind to "Somebody describes themselves as X, therefore they actually are X."
-
I'd say that you are totally wrong there. The NAZI party was the "National Socialist German Workers' Party".
Bold it all you like; what were the socialist credentials and socialist policies of the Nazis? Why was communism second only to (especially European) Jewry on the Nazi shit list?
Probably the finest hour of socialism in Britain was the immediate post-war government of Clement Attlee, regarded by many historians (and by people like me, not historians) as the greatest prime minister this country has ever had. What points of contact and similarity do Hitler's party and governance and Attlee's Labour party and premiership share?
/\
What he said. It's all good.
-
I am trying so hard to give a shit about this, but I'm failing dismally.
No, I lied. I'm not even trying.
-
I am trying so hard to give a shit about this, but I'm failing dismally.
No, I lied. I'm not even trying.
Shall we call that "doing an Ippy"? - contributing to a thread only to say that you are not interested in the thread.
-
No, I'm interested in the fact that The Sun have published it, and the fact people are apparently outraged.
-
It is often forgotten that in their early years in government the NAZI party did a lot of good things for Germany and had a lot of admirers throughout the world. It was only later that there true colours became obvious.
How much later did it take? Dachau was opened in March 1933, two months after Hitler came to power as Chancellor. Now then: Dachau, I fully concede, was a concentration camp in the most literal sense of the term - a single place designed to concentrate together large numbers of people. It wasn't a death camp, a specifically and explicitly designed death factory in the way that Auschwitz was post-1942, a site intended simply to get Jews in by train at one end and send them out up the chimney at the other.
Nevertheless. The inhumanity and brutality of Dachau are on record and well known to those who take an interest in these sordid and ugly matters. It's often (and only partially accurately) said that the Fascist government of Mussolini's Italy drained the Pontine Marshes and got the trains to run on time, but no fascist government on earth can conceive of, design and build a place of the size and nature of Dachau in two months. What I'm saying is, the idea that your political opponents and social undesirables can be summarily arrested, held without due process and incarcerated without trial, subject to starvation and torture, didn't whip up out of nowhere in the two months between Hitler's accession to power and the opening of Dachau. The signs were all there and had been, for a good long while.
-
Anchorman,
Real big to hold a grudge against her for the actions of her uncle. And there maybe no record of a visit but that's no proof that visits did not occur. If family did not want it announced so what. And all this feeds your bitter heart, sad really. It wasn't your family affair so why not mind your own business? Oh no, you couldn't cause this feeds that age old bitterness you keep alive.
-
And there maybe no record of a visit but that's no proof that visits did not occur.
Uh oh ...
-
Anchorman,
Real big to hold a grudge against her for the actions of her uncle. And there maybe no record of a visit but that's no proof that visits did not occur. If family did not want it announced so what. And all this feeds your bitter heart, sad really. It wasn't your family affair so why not mind your own business? Oh no, you couldn't cause this feeds that age old bitterness you keep alive.
Actually, JC - there's abundant proof that lLizzie Bowes-lyon didn't bother visiting her disabled relatives....members of the Bowes-Lyon family confirmed it.
I think they'd know, wouldn't you?
-
Why should she be required to visit? And which relatives, names please, said she never bothered. Too funny cause these would also be the relatives that never bothered to visit as well. Mind your own family affairs Anchorman and quit being such an old holier than they busy body.
Too funny, you won't say one bad thing about Martin Luther King and his adultery but you will crucify a dead lady cause she didn't visit a couple of cousins. WOW! You don't hate ISIS/IS but you will rant against a dead Queen cause she didn't visit a couple cousins. No, this is all about your deep bitterness for past wrongs done to Scotlandshire and your determination to keep that hate alive.
http://metro.co.uk/2015/07/18/the-internet-is-ridiculing-the-decision-to-publish-the-queen-giving-a-nazi-salute-5301593/
-
The photograph is just a pathetic attempt by Murdoch Muckrakers to obtain a little notoriety and hence income. It should be discounted. The display by Elizabeth is just that of a small child trying to please her uncle David.
The discussion about the sympathies and actions of Elizabeth Duchess of York (nee Bowes-Lyon) is probably accurate - but at the time unremarkable for members of her social class. Her husband, Bertie, had been bullied by his father for showing signs of weakness - he was left-handed, for god's sake. Possibly as a consequence of the bullying, Bertie had a severe speech impediment.
Bertie's youngest sibling, John, was epileptic and autistic and was hidden away until his death at the age of 13.
David was shallow and selfish, but he was the idol of the masses and, in the public eye, could do nothing wrong. On seeing poverty in South Wales he said "Something must be done". This brought him acclaim for his compassion but he did bugger all about it himself.
He took the regnal name Edward VIII but showed his true colours by preferring the company of an American divorcee who (it was rumoured) had learned some cunning tricks in a brothel in Shanghai. If other rumours were true, she would need to use them because David had a very small penis.
Came WW2 and Bertie proved himself far better suited to kingship than his brother. The strain of kingship also proved fatal - he relied on tobacco and alcohol for support and died just 56 years old.
I am not a supporter of the monarchy but I do concede that George VI and Elizabeth II have behaved creditable in that role and that the photos of a six year old doing a NAZI salute do not bring credit to the "newspaper" that published them.
-
The photograph is just a pathetic attempt by Murdoch Muckrakers to obtain a little notoriety and hence income. It should be discounted. The display by Elizabeth is just that of a small child trying to please her uncle David.
The discussion about the sympathies and actions of Elizabeth Duchess of York (nee Bowes-Lyon) is probably accurate - but at the time unremarkable for members of her social class. Her husband, Bertie, had been bullied by his father for showing signs of weakness - he was left-handed, for god's sake. Possibly as a consequence of the bullying, Bertie had a severe speech impediment.
Bertie's youngest sibling, John, was epileptic and autistic and was hidden away until his death at the age of 13.
David was shallow and selfish, but he was the idol of the masses and, in the public eye, could do nothing wrong. On seeing poverty in South Wales he said "Something must be done". This brought him acclaim for his compassion but and then he did nothing about it himself.
He took the regnal name Edward VIII but showed his true colours by preferring the company of an American divorcee who (it was rumoured) had learned some cunning tricks in a brothel in Shanghai. If other rumours were true, she would need to use them because David had a very small penis.
Came WW2 and Bertie proved himself far better suited to kingship than his brother. The strain of kingship also proved fatal - he relied on tobacco and alcohol for support and died just 56 years old.
I am no supporter of the monarchy but I do concede that George VI and Elizabeth II have behaved creditable in that role and that the photos of a six year old doing a NAZI salute do not bring credit to the "newspaper" that published them.
Agreed. (Except for the "I am no supporter of the monarchy" - but we can't always have everything, can we?)
-
Why should she be required to visit? And which relatives, names please, said she never bothered. Too funny cause these would also be the relatives that never bothered to visit as well. Mind your own family affairs Anchorman and quit being such an old holier than they busy body.
Too funny, you won't say one bad thing about Martin Luther King and his adultery but you will crucify a dead lady cause she didn't visit a couple of cousins. WOW! You don't hate ISIS/IS but you will rant against a dead Queen cause she didn't visit a couple cousins. No, this is all about your deep bitterness for past wrongs done to Scotlandshire and your determination to keep that hate alive.
http://metro.co.uk/2015/07/18/the-internet-is-ridiculing-the-decision-to-publish-the-queen-giving-a-nazi-salute-5301593/
There was an excellent Channel 4 documentary - made three years ago - exploring the family of Lizzie Bowes-Lyon, JC.
On it, one of the old girl's nieces was interviewed, as were the directors of one of the institutions to which a relative - female - was confined.
Apparently she had written to her illustrious relative on umpteen occasions - without a reply.
Apparently, the Windsor set don't do hospital visiting...even in serious situations.
Hmmmmmm...."hen were you sick, LORD, and did not visit you?"
-
No, this is all about your deep bitterness for past wrongs done to Scotlandshire and your determination to keep that hate alive.
Scotlandshire.............How is the Canadian Parish Council managing it's subscriptions this year Johnny?
-
The photograph is just a pathetic attempt by Murdoch Muckrakers to obtain a little notoriety and hence income. ....
Excellent post, HH - though with the same reservation as Matt.
-
"The Sunday Express claims the Queen was just waving. The paper says an expert lip reader has examined the footage and has been able to recount the exact words used, which completely vindicate the royals."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3166822/Was-Queen-just-WAVING-Lip-reading-expert-claims-Edward-VIII-encouraging-princess-gesture-shot-WASN-T-teaching-Nazi-salute.html
Princess Di told one of the reporters in a dream, so that'll be news, Express style, then.
-
The photograph is just a pathetic attempt by Murdoch Muckrakers to obtain a little notoriety and hence income. ....
Excellent post, HH - though with the same reservation as Matt.
I'm not likely to join any mob and pull the royals out of Buck House and march them to a hurriedly erected scaffold, but I do believe that a mature democracy should have the right to determine who its head of state should be and not just accept the fruit of the loins of successors to some long-dead warlord.
I think that Elizabeth II has done an excellent job - but I do feel sorry for her and her family as well. She has been denied a normal life. Her life of privilege has been at the expense of living it in a goldfish bowl. I think that the vilification poured upon the heads of her husband and eldest son by neanderthal throwbacks (even on this site) shows a lack of understanding of the real nature of their lives and roles.
The establishment of a republican system would enable the people to appoint someone as their figurehead who had achieved greatness by his or her own effort. I would not have an executive head of state and I would not like to be seen as a suitable retirement present for a politician.
-
The establishment of a republican system would enable the people to appoint someone as their figurehead who had achieved greatness by his or her own effort. I would not have an executive head of state and I would not like to be seen as a suitable retirement present for a politician.
Unfortunately, with the political landscape as it is at present, such a format for a president seems a long way from likelihood. The only other advantage I see from a monarch, politically, is that such a person generally outlives several Prime Ministers and is able to give useful balanced advice to any such person which a President, even if elected for - say - 10 years, struggles to be able to offer.
-
Princess Di told one of the reporters in a dream, so that'll be news, Express style, then.
Is that what Princess Di told you, Jim?
-
Princess Di told one of the reporters in a dream, so that'll be news, Express style, then.
Is that what Princess Di told you, Jim?
-
Don't even go there.
Diana was a master manipulator, devious, conniving and a two-timer.
typical royal, in other words....
-
Princess Di told one of the reporters in a dream, so that'll be news, Express style, then.
Is that what Princess Di told you, Jim?
-
Don't even go there.
Diana was a master manipulator, devious, conniving and a two-timer.
typical royal, in other words....
I agree the ghastly Diana was a nasty piece of work, but don't agree that applies to all the Royals.
-
The photograph is just a pathetic attempt by Murdoch Muckrakers to obtain a little notoriety and hence income. ....
Excellent post, HH - though with the same reservation as Matt.
I'm not likely to join any mob and pull the royals out of Buck House and march them to a hurriedly erected scaffold, but I do believe that a mature democracy should have the right to determine who its head of state should be and not just accept the fruit of the loins of successors to some long-dead warlord.
I think that Elizabeth II has done an excellent job - but I do feel sorry for her and her family as well. She has been denied a normal life. Her life of privilege has been at the expense of living it in a goldfish bowl. I think that the vilification poured upon the heads of her husband and eldest son by neanderthal throwbacks (even on this site) shows a lack of understanding of the real nature of their lives and roles.
The establishment of a republican system would enable the people to appoint someone as their figurehead who had achieved greatness by his or her own effort. I would not have an executive head of state and I would not like to be seen as a suitable retirement present for a politician.
Fortunately we still hgave the monarchy as the last person who wantedthe Job Of President of the UK (or any of its parts) was Tony (W M D) Blair! Thank the Goddess he didn't get his wish or I hate to imagine the mess we would be in now considering the F***-up he made as a peace envoy to the Middle East.
-
Princess Di told one of the reporters in a dream, so that'll be news, Express style, then.
Is that what Princess Di told you, Jim?
-
Don't even go there.
Diana was a master manipulator, devious, conniving and a two-timer.
typical royal, in other words....
Two timer!
And I suppose her husband wasn't carrying on an affair that started before he was even engaged to Diana.
If he hadn't been Diana would not have been in Paris with Fayed's son and would, in all probablility, still be alive and we would not be faced with the possibility of Queen Camilla ParkandRide.
-
but I do believe that a mature democracy should have the right to determine who its head of state should be and not just accept the fruit of the loins of successors to some long-dead warlord.
Parliament decides who is head of state; their wishes are more important than heredity. It's always been that way. The Stuarts failed to realise that, to their cost. If Parliament weren't calling the shots, there'd have been no Hanoverians, and no George VI, for example.
-
Princess Di told one of the reporters in a dream, so that'll be news, Express style, then.
Is that what Princess Di told you, Jim?
-
Don't even go there.
Diana was a master manipulator, devious, conniving and a two-timer.
typical royal, in other words....
Two timer!
And I suppose her husband wasn't carrying on an affair that started before he was even engaged to Diana.
If he hadn't been Diana would not have been in Paris with Fayed's son and would, in all probablility, still be alive and we would not be faced with the possibility of Queen Camilla ParkandRide.
Charles should never have married that attention seeking little girl, Camilla is a million times better than her.
-
Princess Di told one of the reporters in a dream, so that'll be news, Express style, then.
Is that what Princess Di told you, Jim?
-
Don't even go there.
Diana was a master manipulator, devious, conniving and a two-timer.
typical royal, in other words....
Two timer!
And I suppose her husband wasn't carrying on an affair that started before he was even engaged to Diana.
If he hadn't been Diana would not have been in Paris with Fayed's son and would, in all probablility, still be alive and we would not be faced with the possibility of Queen Camilla ParkandRide.
Charles should never have married that attention seeking little girl, Camilla is a million times better than her.
Yep: a tender, fox-hunting adulteress. Ready-made Royal, in other words.
-
I agree the ghastly Diana was a nasty piece of work, but don't agree that applies to all the Royals.
Whereas I would disagree with the suggestion that Diana was a nasty piece of work. OK, by the time of her divorce she had been taught how to manipulate the press (so, nothing much different from most people in the public eye) by her husband of all people!! She took full advantage of what she had been taught.
-
I agree the ghastly Diana was a nasty piece of work, but don't agree that applies to all the Royals.
Whereas I would disagree with the suggestion that Diana was a nasty piece of work. OK, by the time of her divorce she had been taught how to manipulate the press (so, nothing much different from most people in the public eye) by her husband of all people!! She took full advantage of what she had been taught.
She also did a lot of positive things to help others..I think she was more sinned against than sinner.
-
Queen Camilla ParkandRide.
And we all know who's been doing the parking and the riding for donkey's years ...
-
You don't even have to bother with hindsight - think of any of the actually socialist government/party/movement of that same historical period and see what points of contact and similarity any of them had with the Nazi party.
Do you mean that Socialist movement than created Stalin - the only man in recent history who might have been responsible for more deaths than Hitler?
Mao Ze Dong?
-
Like it or not, that's how they described themselves - just as Stalin's mob did.
East Germany's official name was the "German Democratic Republic". It was neither democratic not a republic.
-
Like it or not, that's how they described themselves - just as Stalin's mob did.
Eat Germany's official name was the "German Democratic Republic". It was neither democratic not a republic.
see also: The Holy Roman Empire
-
The photograph is just a pathetic attempt by Murdoch Muckrakers to obtain a little notoriety and hence income. ....
Excellent post, HH - though with the same reservation as Matt.
I'm not likely to join any mob and pull the royals out of Buck House and march them to a hurriedly erected scaffold, but I do believe that a mature democracy should have the right to determine who its head of state should be and not just accept the fruit of the loins of successors to some long-dead warlord.
I think that Elizabeth II has done an excellent job - but I do feel sorry for her and her family as well. She has been denied a normal life. Her life of privilege has been at the expense of living it in a goldfish bowl. I think that the vilification poured upon the heads of her husband and eldest son by neanderthal throwbacks (even on this site) shows a lack of understanding of the real nature of their lives and roles.
The establishment of a republican system would enable the people to appoint someone as their figurehead who had achieved greatness by his or her own effort. I would not have an executive head of state and I would not like to be seen as a suitable retirement present for a politician.
Fortunately we still hgave the monarchy as the last person who wantedthe Job Of President of the UK (or any of its parts) was Tony (W M D) Blair! Thank the Goddess he didn't get his wish or I hate to imagine the mess we would be in now considering the F***-up he made as a peace envoy to the Middle East.
Why don't you read what I have written instead of replying to what you think I have written? I said no politicians.
-
The photograph is just a pathetic attempt by Murdoch Muckrakers to obtain a little notoriety and hence income. ....
Excellent post, HH - though with the same reservation as Matt.
I'm not likely to join any mob and pull the royals out of Buck House and march them to a hurriedly erected scaffold, but I do believe that a mature democracy should have the right to determine who its head of state should be and not just accept the fruit of the loins of successors to some long-dead warlord.
I think that Elizabeth II has done an excellent job - but I do feel sorry for her and her family as well. She has been denied a normal life. Her life of privilege has been at the expense of living it in a goldfish bowl. I think that the vilification poured upon the heads of her husband and eldest son by neanderthal throwbacks (even on this site) shows a lack of understanding of the real nature of their lives and roles.
The establishment of a republican system would enable the people to appoint someone as their figurehead who had achieved greatness by his or her own effort. I would not have an executive head of state and I would not like to be seen as a suitable retirement present for a politician.
Fortunately we still hgave the monarchy as the last person who wantedthe Job Of President of the UK (or any of its parts) was Tony (W M D) Blair! Thank the Goddess he didn't get his wish or I hate to imagine the mess we would be in now considering the F***-up he made as a peace envoy to the Middle East.
Why don't you read what I have written instead of replying to what you think I have written? I said no politicians.
I saw what you wrote and it does not change the fact that the last person who wanted the job of elected President/Head of State was a politican and you can bet your boots that the politicians will make damn sure that whoever does get elected wiull be a politician!
And apologies for the horrendous amount of typo's in my post, I was on my way out and didn't do my usual spell-check.
-
Two timer!
And I suppose her husband wasn't carrying on an affair that started before he was even engaged to Diana.
If he hadn't been Diana would not have been in Paris with Fayed's son and would, in all probablility, still be alive and we would not be faced with the possibility of Queen Camilla ParkandRide.
Charles and Camilla were very friendly long before Diana came onto the scene.
It has been suggested that Charles was sent abroad with the RN in a deliberate attempt to end his relationship with Camilla Shand. His marriage to Diana bears several of the hallmarks of having been arranged. some people place the blame with Lord Mountbatten, others with the Queen Mother (already Mentioned in Dispatches above).
The relationship between Charles and Camilla appears to be loving and close. So far she does not appear to have put a foot wrong
Diana had been selected to breed - she was a virgin and was fertile. A deliberate attempt by third parties to ensure the continuation of an antique and outmoded institution.
Charles' elder son has teamed himself up with the offspring of a (Air)bus driver and a trolley dolly. How things have changed.
-
Charles and Camilla were very friendly long before Diana came onto the scene.
I am in awe of your talent for euphemism.
-
Charles' elder son has teamed himself up with the offspring of a (Air)bus driver and a trolley dolly. How things have changed.
Sounds just like the pedigree of most anti-monachists and especially Labour and other Left-wing politicos.
-
It shows the elitism of the 'upper class', though....both Charlie and Camilla are great great grandchildren , respectively, of Edward VII, Alice Keppel. Keppel was the last of that great personage's umpteen mistresses.
-
Charles and Camilla were very friendly long before Diana came onto the scene.
I am in awe of your talent for euphemism.
they were befriending each others' brains out
-
Not difficult in either case.