So the Queen aged six or seven in 1933 and larking with her Mother and Uncle David apparently made a Nazi salute.
We all know that the Duke, along with most of the British establishment, was quite sympathetic to Hitler. A sympathy that remained in place almost until Poland was invaded; maybe beyond.
By that time Adolf's direction of travel was pretty clear but in 1933 and only recently elected was he really anything more than a 'funny foreigner' ripe for jokes and mimicry by all and sundry?
|
|
There are very few people who can honestly claim they have never made a Nazi salute at some time in their lives. It used to be quite common to have a whole class doing one behind a teachers back when I was at school, and Mrs O'Reliant has had me thrusting my arm in the air, putting my finger under my nose and clicking my heels on more than one occasion whilst she was listing all the jobs I was supposed to be doing.
|
I find that article strange.This familie must have known what went down in Germany.
My mother a ordinary women from a small village knew what went on before the war.Everybody with any brain could see the build up of war in the 1930's.
Queen Wilhelmina told Dutch people to go to Germany to find work with her normal sarcasm which was her trademark.
|
"Queen Wilhelmina told Dutch people to go to Germany to find work with her normal sarcasm which was her trademark."
...but maybe if that story popped up in the media today, people would not know about, or choose to ignore, the trademark sarcasm.
|
>> I find that article strange.This familie must have known what went down in Germany.
It was 1933 Dutchie. Hitler was an elected politician albeit in process of subverting Germany's constitution to accommodate his aims. While his views as expressed in Mein Kampf and elsewhere were a matter of record his actions up to then, dissolving Trade Unions and proscribing opposition, were nothing unusual and may have been welcomed as lessening the communist threat.
Whatever the Dutch Queen thought of him then he was, as the Telegraph article implies, generally regarded neutrally or positively by the UK's ruling class. There were plenty who thought a similar regime, under Moseley or others, would be good for Britain.
It's probably true to say that with universal suffrage still relatively new, the whole idea of popular democracy had quite weak roots until during/after WW2.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 18 Jul 15 at 13:25
|
>> Whatever the Dutch Queen thought of him then he was, as the Telegraph article implies, generally regarded neutrally or positively by the UK's ruling class. There were plenty who thought a similar regime, under Moseley or others, would be good for Britain.
Mosley was still at it in 1958, stood as parliamentary candidate for Notting Dale. History had passed him by but he didn't realize it. A bit pathetic, but he had some old-fashioned cloth-cap-clad fascist thugs from the East End to keep order in the meetings.
Everyone I know has made a satirical or mischievous nazi salute in their time. Adult Jews tend to find it offensive though, hardly surprisingly. Very mean and nasty of The Sun to print a photo of the Queen aged six having a giggle at the expense of the posturing prat Hitler. Royals aren't lefties but they aren't fascists either.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 18 Jul 15 at 14:46
|
|
People doing Nazi salutes? How interesting. Honestly never seen anyone do that, nor ever crossed my mind to try it myself.
|
>> Honestly never seen anyone do that, nor ever crossed my mind to try it myself.
You profile's hidden so I couldn't check, Crankcase, but could it be an age thing? Perhaps the nazis are just history to you.
As Bromptonaut points out, after 1945 to give a nazi salute even in jest was more 'morally loaded' than previously. What this means in fact is that it was in exceptionally bad taste and somewhat heartless.
When did that ever stop anyone from making a gesture though? People of all ages are capable of doing things like that on impulse out of sheer cussedness. As I say, everyone I know, or nearly, has done the effete nazi salute at some time. Even the obvious exceptions could have done it when young and naughty. The unspeakable horrors of the second world war took time to emerge and were not properly internalized by most people at the time, especially those too young to have been physically involved. As for the adults, they were all knackered from killing each other.
|
>> What this means in fact is that it was in
>> exceptionally bad taste and somewhat heartless.
>>
>>
That accurately sums up schoolboy behaviour in my day. The more tasteless and heartless the better.
|
>> People doing Nazi salutes? How interesting. Honestly never seen anyone do that, nor ever crossed
>> my mind to try it myself.
How odd. Cannot think of many of my generation (b 1959) who've not done it at one time or another whether as RR relates or otherwise. The Lad recalls goose stepping down a corridor at school with mates 'because they could'.
He also reminded me about a particular (female) subject head and member of the Senior Mgt Team at his school. Known for her dictatorial style in both classroom & staffroom she was referred to as 'Herr Jolly' by staff and pupils alike.
|
|
Aged 52 and nope, never seen that. Certainly not at school.
|
>> Aged 52 and nope, never seen that.
here then, must have seen this
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfl6Lu3xQW0
|
Yes indeed. I found that very amusing in its day. Mrs C hated it and still does. Can't be doing with "running about" comedy.
But in real life, no.
|
For those who wish to know more, recent books are available.
'Princes at War' is good.
'17 Carnations' is damning.
Edward and Wallace were so far in cahoots with the neazis, it seems, that Edward was offered the throne had Sealion succeeded.
In fact, Edward was in cahoots with the Vichy mob, and got all his kit out of Paris.
And later investigation shows that certain govt agencies did tidy-up of the nazi files, to keep the ex-King a bit "clean"... know what I mean?
Both books are available on free download, by the way...
|
|
It must be a really slow news day.
|
>> Edward was offered the throne had Sealion succeeded.
>> In fact, Edward was in cahoots with the Vichy mob, and got all his kit out of Paris.
Edward VIII was an effete playboy who like other rich people didn't want to do without his usual treats and luxuries just because there was a war going on. Same sort of thing happened in the first war.
It's been said, quite convincingly I think, that Edward's abdication wasn't really because of his passion for the mannish Mrs Simpson, but because some frightening men in suits took him aside and said he'd better abdicate, or else. No doubt it was felt that with the war coming a nazi-loving monarch would confuse the populace and sap its warrior determination.
|
I initially read the thread title as "Queen Salote teapot storm", and thought it was going to be about the discourtesy of not sending a royal representative to the coronation of Queen Salote's grandson.
She made a memorable hit in London in 1953, riding in an open carriage in the rain, and of course occasioning Noel Coward's quip about the unknown small person in her carriage being her lunch. Probably wrongly attributed in fact.
|
This reminds me of an incident during my days as a driving instructor. For some reason long forgotten myself and a colleague used to exchange Nazi salutes as we passed during lessons. One day I saw his car approaching and duly stuck my finger under my nose and gave him the obligatory Heil Hitler. As he got closer I discovered to my horror that his car was out on test and an examiner was giving me a puzzled look through the windscreen. Cue a trip to the test centre and an embarrassed explanation to the Man From The Ministry that I hadn't been aiming an insult at him.
Luckily he saw the funny side of it, but I got a lot of ribbing for a long time afterwards and that little bit of amusement came to an end.
|
>> Edward's abdication
His sister-in-law, the Queen's mother, never forgave him, feeling that having to be King had destroyed her husband George VI's fragile health, not improved by chainsmoking which got princess Margaret too. She would never see Mrs Simpson either although she was given a royal title.
I think the Queen kindly went to see Mrs Simpson, by then Duchess of Windsor, on her deathbed.
('Must I?'
'It would have a certain appeal to the sentimental multitudes, Ma'am.')
|
This (the Edward VIII element of the silly story) is merely an illustration of why relying on an accident of birth plus a "lifetime of training for the job" and an "innate sense of duty" is no way to go about choosing a Head of State with good judgement, which I presume everyone would be in favour of in principle, assuming a need for a(n) HoS in the first place.
I hold nothing against Elizabeth from this episode, a mere child at the time. However, the future may well reveal errors in her judgement once the "respectful" interval has passed between her passing and publication of the details of her reign. Who's to know? Not us, prevented as we are from knowing much, thanks to the layers of Royal secrecy laws we have wrapped them in.
Orf with their 'eads. As usual.
|
>> This (the Edward VIII element of the silly story) is merely an illustration of why
>> relying on an accident of birth plus a "lifetime of training for the job" and
>> an "innate sense of duty" is no way to go about choosing a Head of
>> State with good judgement, which I presume everyone would be in favour of in principle,
>> assuming a need for a(n) HoS in the first place.
... and the alternative? President Blair?
I'll keep the one we've got, thank you. She's done a darned good job.
|
>> ... and the alternative? President Blair?
The record's stuck.
Been around that buoy with you and others, it's a red herring.
|
>> Been around that buoy with you and others, it's a red herring.
Rather like blinkered republican stuff in a well-functioning, ancient constitutional monarchy, hmm?
|
|
Not quite as blinkered as failing to accept that, in living memory, the cherished system has thrown up a HoS who had clear sympathies with a system of government and leader of a foreign power, one which sought to bring our country in to slavery, that the next one it will throw up treats his tomatoes and gladioli better than his minimum wage staff, and that these things may not be an altogether good basis for deciding who presides over us all.
|
>> his minimum wage staff, and that these things may not be an altogether good basis
>> for deciding who presides over us all.
And you still seem to think they preside. You could put a wax doll on the buck house balcony to wave at and our lives would change not a jot.
|
>> And you still seem to think they preside. You could put a wax doll on
>> the buck house balcony to wave at and our lives would change not a jot.
So why keep shovelling public money at them? 17p goes to an immigrant benefit claimant and the country goes in to meltdown. Several million a year goes to an ever expanding family of them and we all salute.
They are a cost centre, not a "tourist attraction" before that other old chestnut surfaces again.
|
>> So why keep shovelling public money at them? 17p goes to an immigrant benefit claimant
>> and the country goes in to meltdown. Several million a year goes to an ever expanding family of them and we all salute.
Quite simply many people like the royalty, not too keen on the illegal immigrants.
>> They are a cost centre, not a "tourist attraction" before that other old chestnut surfaces
>> again.
cost centre? What an odd phrase.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Mon 20 Jul 15 at 17:26
|
>> cost centre? What an odd phrase.
Its a corporate finance term oft quoted by Project, Service and business managers
|
>> Its a corporate finance term oft quoted by Project, Service and business managers
>>
I thought it might be something like that. Quite appropriate i think for al, with his viewpoint, to use that sort of phrase.
|
>> Its a corporate finance term oft quoted by Project, Service and business managers
Rarely properly understood though, either by concept or use.
|
>> They are a cost centre, not a "tourist attraction" before that other old chestnut surfaces
>> again.
They are cost neutral at the very worse.
|
I dislike this idea that everything can be judged by cost.
I like the Royal Family, both as individuals and as an "organisation". I like the role that they occupy and I like being part of a monarchy, both as a traditionalist and enjoying it in the moment.
|
I don't see any real probability of the monarchy being abolished. The population wouldn't buy it and any idiot can see that it would be a political and constitutional bombshell with endless, spreading knock-on effects, here and abroad. It's a non-starter.
Anyone who thinks it's a viable way to go hasn't a clue what this country is really like.
|
Yes, as Zero says the individual doesn't matter, it's a symbolic function.
I said it first in a more complicated way, but the damn pink stripe got me and I hadn't cut-and-pasted, damn!
|
>> I said it first in a more complicated way, but the damn pink stripe got
>> me and I hadn't cut-and-pasted, damn!
To repeat what I posted last time you mentioned this, you should't need to cut & paste - just log in and continue ie. hit the 'post' button again. Have you tried it?
EDIT: www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=20026&m=444240&v=e
Last edited by: Focusless on Mon 20 Jul 15 at 16:51
|
>> The record's stuck.
>>
>> Been around that buoy with you and others, it's a red herring.
Trouble is, you never properly answer it.
So you don't like the Royals....... well many do.
You want 'something else'....... but don't state what.
When provided with an unpalatable, but perfectly likely scenario using a truly immoral and selfish politician from the past, as an example... you sidestep it.
If the country were ruled by you, how would you proceed?
|
It's fashionable to knock the harmless, well-meaning Prince of Wales as unsuitable to be a monarch (an idea venomously spread by his late, far-from-saintly wife) and to pushily suggest tinkering with the succession.
I suppose royals are used to this cheeky Scheiss and don't care all that much. The British don't mind letting their rulers know what they think and more than one royal procession has been pelted with dung.
|
" far-from-saintly wife"
Now there's an understatement if ever there was one. Awful woman.
|
>>
>> Brood mare....dimwit.
>>
I am not normally a defender of Diana, but in this case you chaps are being more than a little unfair - harsh even.
"Far from saintly".
Well, her husband was even further from saintly. Who first started the bed hopping after the marriage vows were uttered? Why him of course!
"Dimwit"
She can't help the amount of intelligence she was born with.
"Brood mare"
Well, that's what the Royal Family put in the ad, and that's what they got.
Although I have to say that for that last mad car ride through Paris, why only one person in the car thought it would be a good idea to put on a seat belt, I will never understand.
|
>> Although I have to say that for that last mad car ride through Paris, why
>> only one person in the car thought it would be a good idea to put
>> on a seat belt, I will never understand.
>>
Arrogance. Stupidity. Probably both.
|
>> " far-from-saintly wife"
>>
>> Now there's an understatement if ever there was one. Awful woman.
>>
She wasn't 'all there'.
|
|
Ill prepared, and ill equipped for the role is all. No protection from the extreme press and public exposure didn't help. Notice how the press and publicity around Kate is restricted? the royal machine learned. Plus she has the support of a "modern" husband, not a jug eared victorian schooled buffoon.
|
>> >> The record's stuck.
>> >>
>> >> Been around that buoy with you and others, it's a red herring.
>>
>> Trouble is, you never properly answer it.
>>
I couldn't put it any better than Republic - it's all on their website.
|
Seems everyone else is also at it.
tinyurl.com/ozxushc - Daily Wail
|
Personally, I do not see why the country HAS to have a Head Of State, hereditary or elected.
It is a superfluous position, as it is powerless.
|
Well I suppose it doesn't HAVE to have one and the role could be combined with the Executive as it is in the United States but there are advantages in I having a non-political Head of State represent the entire nation rather than being seen as only representing a single faction or political party.
|
|
Yes, indeed, CGN. But a non-political HoS does not need to be hereditary. Just as an elected HoS does not need to be political. This is the bit which blows Westpig's 'President Blair' flannel out of the water (amongst other things).
|
Who apart from politicians ever seeks election ?
For a guy who makes a lot of sense about many things al you have a huge blind spot on this one
|
>> Who apart from politicians ever seeks election ?
We won't know unless we ask.
How about the following list:
Steve Redgrave
Alex Ferguson
Rev Richard Coles
Brian Cox
David Attenborough
David Hockney
Maggie Smith
Tim Berners-Lee
Ranulph Fiennes
Hilary Mantel
Alan Bennett
Stephen Fry
Stephen Hawking
Jim Al-Khalili
Samantha from Just a Minute
The possibilities are endless. The possibilities don't even begin with a hereditary system.
|
Have reviewed them but no good
Steve Redgrave Too succesful - we prefer gallant losers
Alex Ferguson. Would alienate all but Man United supporters. Most aren't British anyway.
Rev Richard Coles. Would lose the atheists
Brian Cox. Would upset the creationists
Tim Berners-Lee. We were all happier without the World Wide Web. He's to blame
Hilary Mantel Revisionist historian simply wrong about Cromwell. Nobody finishes her books
Stephen Fry. Too clever by half
Stephen Hawking. Nobody understands his books
Samantha from Just a Minute . Would upset the feminists.
I know an old lady who wold be quite prepared to continue in the job for a while. Her son's looking for a job too. :-)
|
>
>> Stephen Hawking. Nobody understands his books
He is actually a vegetable, merely a platform for guest writers via wifi.
|
>>He is actually a vegetable, merely a platform for guest writers via wifi
That doesn't sound right. Care to expand?
|
>> >>He is actually a vegetable, merely a platform for guest writers via wifi
>>
>> That doesn't sound right. Care to expand?
No, you'll just have to use your imagination.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 21 Jul 15 at 17:36
|
>> actually a vegetable, merely a platform for guest writers via wifi
Not really. He drives his trolley, operates his voice synthesizer and does theoretical physics, one is given to understand. Apparently he's worth all the costly back-up involved.
He was talking about other life in the universe. 'Little green men,' I said to Herself as the professor swerved up in his trolley. Couldn't help adding heartlessly: 'Oh look, there's one now.'
|
>> Couldn't help adding heartlessly: 'Oh look,
>> there's one now.'
>>
He'd relish that joke, I suspect, knowing someone who actually knows him quite well.
|
>> He is actually a vegetable, merely a platform for guest writers via wifi.
>>
That is remarkably intolerant. Unpleasant even.
|
|
A joke, surely? I thought it was quite funny, and I'm easily offended :)
|
>> A joke, surely? I thought it was quite funny, and I'm easily offended :)
It was indeed.
|
>> >> A joke, surely? I thought it was quite funny, and I'm easily offended :)
>>
>> It was indeed.
>>
Fair enough, although I didn't 'get it'.
I'll joke about anything, but will be selective re the recipient.
Good luck if you've more like that.
|
>>
>>
>> How about the following list:
>>
The only trouble with your list is none of them would seriously stand a chance of being elected, unless you were to reduce the whole thing to something on the level of the Eurovision song contest or Bake off.
The factor that would automatically make all candidates by definition unsuitable is that they would want the job, and would know how to say the sort of fatuous things that would appeal to Daily Mail readers.
The great virtue of an hereditary system is that the person does not want it. He is brought up from an early age to recognise it as an inescapable duty. With a few exceptions in history, it works.
The only realistic alternative would be a religious one like selecting the Dalai Lama. But that's probably not in the British democratic tradition.
|
>> The great virtue of an hereditary system is that the person does not want it.
>> He is brought up from an early age to recognise it as an inescapable duty.
>> With a few exceptions in history, it works.
I would venture to guess that Charles very much wants the job. If there were any attempt to skip him for the more rabble-friendly, helicopter joy-riding, grinning William, I would expect much protest and indeed action from the office of the PoW.
|
>> I would venture to guess that Charles very much wants the job.
My guess would be that he does and he doesn't. It's a role and prospect that would make any normal person feel ambivalent. Looks like a bed of roses, with big concealed thorns. Hard to tell from here but he looks like a sincere thoughtful well-meaning cat to me. Dutiful like his mother.
|
|
However little you wanted to do such a job, I suspect that after a lifetime it would be very difficult to admit your feelings, or to feel good afterwards about stepping aside.
|
>> Hard to tell from here but he looks like a sincere thoughtful
>> well-meaning cat to me. Dutiful like his mother.
The wonders of the royal spin machine.
What he really believes is that everyone in Britain has their "station" in life. His, of course, is the top "station". By rights.
www.scotsman.com/news/uk/prince-s-blast-at-people-who-get-above-their-station-1-562530
He hasn't got a clue.
|
>> What he really believes is that everyone in Britain has their "station" in life. His, of course, is the top "station". By rights.
You must have privileged access to his inner thoughts then Alanović. He didn't say anything like that.
It may not have been very prudent of him to say them, but a lot of the things he says are true really. Perhaps not all... but who's always right about everything, apart from thee and me of course?
You can hardly expect the cat to be a republican or lefty. He doesn't look remotely far-right though.
|
>> >>
>> What he really believes is that everyone in Britain has their "station" in life. His,
>> of course, is the top "station". By rights.
>>
>>
>>
>> He hasn't got a clue.
>>
What he said was -
"People think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability. This is the result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically and socially engineered to contradict the lessons of history."
Seems about right to me. People seem to be under the impression that we are all equal which is nonsense, some people will be born geniuses and others fools. "Fairness" is what we should be striving for, not some unobtainable pipe dream.
|
|
I'd give two thumbs to RO'R if I could.
|
>> "People think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or
>> infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having
>> natural ability. This is the result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically
>> and socially engineered to contradict the lessons of history."
I would agree with that if he didn't think he was genetically
and socially engineered to be head of state. He certainly has no natural ability. I am fairly happy to have royalty around, there is nothing better to put in its place, but I think ole charley boy should be skipped over.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 22 Jul 15 at 17:10
|
>> I would agree with that if he didn't think he was genetically
and socially engineered to be head of state. He certainly has no natural ability. I am fairly happy to have royalty around, there is nothing better to put in its place, but I think ole charley boy should be skipped over.
Garbaggio comrade (with all due respect). You don't know what he thinks. You may see it as your prerogative to monkey around with the succession, but I certainly don't see it as mine.
|
I see it as mine when he thinks it's OK to be unfaithful to his wife and also his wife to be before they were wed.
He was determined to get his own way because he 'did his duty' in his eyes.
Not in mine, skip over him and let him reap what he sows.
Pat
|
>> I see it as mine when he thinks it's OK to be unfaithful to his wife and also his wife to be before they were wed.
.*******
What happened to the post I put? Should I have spelt it Canute? Surely it's harmless to observe that there have been very few monarchs who weren't adulterers at some stage of their lives?
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Wed 22 Jul 15 at 17:48
|
"I see it as mine when he thinks it's OK to be unfaithful to his wife and also his wife to be before they were wed."
I doubt we would have had more than three or four monarchs in a thousand years if that was a condition for their succession
|
That doesn't make it right though, and they will only get away with it while their 'subjects' allow them to.
Pat
|
"That doesn't make it right though, and they will only get away with it while their 'subjects' allow them to."
That's exactly what Cardinal Wolsey said about Henry and that Boleyn girl and look what happened to him.
|
>> I see it as mine when he thinks it's OK to be unfaithful to his
>> wife and also his wife to be before they were wed.
>>
>>
Adultery might be socially frowned upon but it's no crime. People's personal morals are their own business, as I'm sure the 1.2 million people in the UK now quaking in their boots over the Ashley Madison ( They sound more like an advertising agency than a dating site) hack would agree.
Anyone here sweating a little, I wonder? :-)
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Wed 22 Jul 15 at 18:11
|
>>Adultery might be socially frowned upon but it's no crime<<
Agreed but when we're financing his lifestyle and the privilege's he enjoys, then he has to understand they come at a price.
The direct comparison is that when I wear the uniform of the firm I work for I have to moderate my behaviour ........and so should he.
Pat
|
>>The direct comparison is that when I wear the uniform of the firm I work for I have to moderate my behaviour
I basically like Prince Charles, and he talks a lot of sense, often ahead of the times. But I do have issues with his behaviour around his marriage.
I do wonder why he married Diana when he seemingly wanted to be with Camilla - that must take a fair amount of pressure.
I know various members of the royalty have misbehaved, but that doesn't make it acceptable going forward.
And it does matter. A Prime Minister is not our moral or spiritual leader. But a king is, if nothing else, head of the Church.
Its a shame, because other than that I have quite a bit of time for the man.
|
>> Its a shame, because other than that I have quite a bit of time for the man.
Monarch-in-waiting is an invidious position, can't be much fun, everyone carping at you including your parents.
I imagine that like others before him in this role he will straighten up when he accedes, if he's still capable of getting sprauncy with the ladies in waiting. It seems anyway he's married to the person he wanted to marry in the first place. It's been a long wait and the Queen doesn't look ready to snuff it for quite a while (I'm sure he doesn't want her to whatever Private Eye may say). She comes from a long-lived line and of course has the best of permanent medical monitoring.
|
>> The direct comparison is that when I wear the uniform of the firm I work
>> for I have to moderate my behaviour ........and so should he.
>>
I think along the lines 'as long as it doesn't frighten the horses' in realition to employers and employees business.
|
>> 1.2 million people in the UK now quaking in their boots over the Ashley Madison
I don't think I had heard of Ashley Madison etc. etc. and when I did I was surprised that it would exist so openly. Can't say I cared over much one way or the other, not me or mine, but surprised.
And then I read an article about it from an older lady who was caring for her terminal / unknowing husband where she talked about how she wanted to care for him till he died, and such a "clean" and "no strings" affair helped her get through life.
She talked about her religious beliefs and how this equated, and her struggles and thoughts, but how ultimately it helped her cope. About how the frank conversations, emails and partners made her feel better.
Quite a different perspective, I thought.
|
>> wife and also his wife to be before they were wed.
'Wed'... I love it. You are sweet Pat.
But seriously, how can their subjects prevent royals from committing acts of adultery without being impossibly intrusive? Aren't they allowed to have private personal lives not subject to public scrutiny? That would be very harsh.
|
Bear in mind I am both a Royalist and Traditionalist...
>>Aren't they allowed to have private personal lives not subject to public scrutiny?
Not really.
Ok in detail they should have privacy, but in larger principle not. If they are murdering, committing adultery, embezzling, etc. etc. then it should be known and criticised and/or disliked.
Of course they should have privacy with their children, in their personal lives etc. etc., but not in the larger scale.
I support their existence, but with that comes responsibility, and banging someone else's wife, especially when you are married to someone else, is not acceptable. And when it comes from a man who frequently espouses upon moral issues, it is a sticking point.
|
We can't prevent them but we can show our disapproval.
It seems that everyone seemed to pat him on the back and say 'Well done Charlie, boys will be boys'
I agree totally with Mark and I too am a royalist.
Pat
|
>> 'boys will be boys'
Nothing to do with boys being boys. Poor cat's been hounded and shoved around all his life. You can see it in his eyes in photos. Of course he was fed various women by courtiers and their friends to keep him happy.
Diana Spencer was imposed on him. They didn't like each other, but that didn't prevent la Spencer from looking tragic and soulful and talking about the third person in their marriage. One can't blame her of course for not behaving as she was supposed to. But she was quite a tough cookie and encouraged by the media set about the monarchy and Prince Charles in particular.
I'm quite content to see him married to the woman he always wanted to marry. She looks a jolly soul and his children don't seem to mind her.
|
>> that didn't prevent la Spencer from looking tragic and soulful
I should have added that she was tragic in a way, poor girl. What a way to go... car driven recklessly by one of Dodi Fayed's henchmen, a French intelligence officer who just happened to be as ripped as a stoat, with Dodi and Diana urging him to hurry up to escape from the pursuing reptiles.
Celebrity and limitless wealth... they look great, but who needs them really? They're as mixed as most blessings.
|
>> Celebrity and limitless wealth... they look great, but who needs them really? They're as mixed as most blessings.
>> that didn't prevent la Spencer from looking tragic and soulful
I should have added that she was tragic in a way, poor girl. What a way to go... car driven recklessly by one of Dodi Fayed's henchmen, a French intelligence officer who just happened to be as ripped as a stoat, with Dodi and Diana urging him to hurry up to escape from the pursuing reptiles.
Celebrity and limitless wealth... they look great, but who needs them really? They're as mixed as most blessings. Glamour is hard work, and expensive, for an ordinary petty-bourgeois intellectual.
|
Many moons ago I worked for a couple of months as a researcher for the republican MP Willie Hamilton, who was planning to write a book on the monarchy. I was a rabid republican myself in those days and produced a lot of quotations from Marx and Engels (the collection 'Marx and Engels on Britain' was a convenient source). Hamilton rejected these contemptuously, calling them 'bilge'. The book, 'My Queen and I', was too polite in tone to cause a sensation though.
I liked Willie Hamilton and his Geordie-ish accent and delivery. He was courteous in a no-nonsense way and treated me decently while teasing me about my tenuous new left connections. Visiting his offices both in the HoC and in its new bit, Portcullis House across the road, showed me how very unglamorous the profession of politician is.
|
|
CGN is right and Alanović doesn't really understand this country. He's a zealot who imagines he can't be wrong about something so important. But he can be wrong, and is in this case.
|
What I don't understand, AC, is why this country currently wishes to persist with the system under discussion - I understand and I accept that I'm probably in a minority (although it's hard to tell when we haven't been asked), but I believe the system will eventually have to be changed, and I think the sooner the better. I listen to you all and I hear your argument, but I fail to agree.
Maybe there's no right and wrong in this, just difference of opinion - it's a subjective discussion for the most part. Perhaps you don't understand that, despite your great age and sagacity (funny, looks like SAGA City now I've written it ;-)).
There's no need for the withering put downs anyway, AC, they really don't hit the target.
If you agree with CGN's statement as you say, what's the answer to my counter-point? Is it just 'yah-boo you're wrong'? Maybe you'll win me over. I'm an open minded sort.
|
Everything changes Alanović, sooner or later. Nothing lasts for ever. I haven't forgotten that this country has executed a monarch and had a sort of republic for a while. Things tend to go this way and that over long periods of time.
And of course you're right about all of this being largely a matter of opinion.
I know you're open minded about most things. And I haven't used any withering put-downs or said yah boo...
But I will say it very loudly if you EVER suggest Stephen Fry as an elected head of state again. There are limits.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 21 Jul 15 at 15:17
|
Well I took your "doesn't really understand this country" as a withering put down.
But anyway. I always tell myself not to get involved in these "royal" threads. Just. Can't. Help. It.
|
>> Just. Can't. Help. It.
Neither. Can. I.
You admitted you don't understand why this country seems attached to the monarchy. That amounts to not understanding the country, no? Doubtless you understand lots of other things.
:o}
|
Sometimes there isn't an ideal way of doing things.
Sometimes things just work.
The best solution to almost anything is the best compromise between differing requirements.
I don't want an elected head of state because
- anybody who wants to compete for the job should be disqualified; and
- all the people who voted for somebody else will by definition regard the incumbent as second rate; and
- have you seen the people who win popularity contests on TV?
Hereditary = no argument. Honorary = it can stay outside of the democratic process. Cost - probably cheaper than the alternatives, net.
I must say I always felt embarrassed by the ridiculous fawning over Diana and the epidemic of emotional incontinence when she died. No need to revere the monarchy. It's just there, and it serves its purposes.
|
>> Sometimes things just work.
>>
:-)
There's a story of a British Civil servant saying to a minister:
"It might work very well in practice, minister, but it doesn't work in theory."
|
>> ridiculous fawning over Diana and the epidemic of emotional incontinence when she died. No need to revere the monarchy.
She wasn't the monarchy. In fact the 'ridiculous fawning' was caused by the tabloid narrative of how badly she'd been treated by the PoW, a cynical grandee with a mistress or two, and the Queen.
It's a sad story really. She was a bit dim and that Fayed boy was a total idiot. The hopelessly sentimental population used her funeral to poke the monarchy in the chest and tell it to pipe down. As one would expect, the monarchy had the sense to go along with all that. No one sane would want a seditious clamour to erupt.
|
>>was caused by the tabloid narrative of how badly she'd been treated by the PoW
Not to mention the tabloids being desperate to avoid any potential backlash over the headlines they'd run across the month or two before she died.
|
>> She wasn't the monarchy.
Sally Bercow is of the same ilk.
|
>> Well I took your "doesn't really understand this country" as a withering put down.
>>
Just an aside, but I've just read the most withering put down of all time in today's obituary of Owen Chadwick. Reviewing an academic rival's recent publication, he praised it for being an excellent study of a matter that wasn't actually it's intended subject, and said it was probably his best book.
Damning with faint praise at its best.
|
>> Yes, indeed, CGN. But a non-political HoS does not need to be hereditary. Just as
>> an elected HoS does not need to be political.
A non political election? A contridication in terms if I ever saw one.
|
He who would be king, is not fit to be so by virtue of that want.
I think CS Lewis said it in one of Narnia books, but I can't pin it down. I even thought it was in 'A Horse and His Boy' which I went to the trouble of re-reading. However, whether the post is that of King, President or any other figurehead role there is a certain truth in the notion.
|
The Lad reminded me today of Lloyd George's view of Hitler as the George Washington of Germany and more besides:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lloyd_George#Appeasement_of_Germany
He was by no means alone amongst those well placed in the Establishment.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 22 Jul 15 at 19:32
|
There's a bit in Private Eye pointing out that the then proprietor of the Daily Mail, Rothermere, was a great admirer of Hitler as late as the beginning of 1939, and in fact when Germany invaded Czech in 1938 telegrammed Hitler with "I salute your excellency's star, which rises higher and higher". In 1936 the Mirror published an admiring interview with Hitler
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hitler-wanting-friends-royal-tragedy-4439288
all of this some time after the young princess's salute. I don't think she has much to apologise for.
|
|
Really excellent Private Eye front cover today on this. Tee hee!
|
|
Thank you Manatee. Really made me giggle. Even Alanović must surely crack a smile...
|
|
Yes, jolly good. She looks like she's just about to pull another one.
|
Surely not with her left arm Alanović? I thought it was the other lot of (cough) totalitarians that saluted with the left arm?
Them and the boy scouts of course.
I don't mind the Queen at all, I dig her. We've all had the odd wicked uncle after all. She's always been a pretty girl too. I could see that even in the act of theatrical lèse-majesté.
|
|
Scout salute is still the right hand, but... the handshake is left handed.
|
>>Scout salute is still the right hand, but... the handshake is left handed.
Are you sure Sp? Well blow me down.
When I worked in the city I was approached by some respectable but strangely creepy guys with dodgy handshakes. Couldn't make out what they were on about, and became more and more reluctant to find out.
I realised later they were the first step on the road to Freemasonry. Awful evil stuff, the Jesuits always said. But they said all sorts of things not all of which were true really. However these dodgy handshake cats seemed just as bad as the Jays if not worse.
My French aristo school friend is a mason come to think of it, and said he'd put me up for his highly exclusive lodge, ramrodded by his fellow-duke, Kent, if I wanted. As with the two charming burglars who invited me to be their getaway driver, I declined politely.
Funny stuff society eh?
|
>> Funny stuff society eh?
I mean, being freaked out by burglarrs and dukes equally, as a timid middle-class person.
Dukes in my almost non-existent experience are tough, genial cats.
But I remember the burglars with huge affection. They were really sweet guys, and so damn cool when I turned them down. They understood perfectly and were far too polite to sneer. Anyway they dug my driving. South London was all right in those days.
|
>>Scout salute is still the right hand, but... the handshake is left handed.
Are you sure Sp?
See here:
www.worcesterseascouts.com/index.php/sea-scouts/scout-signs
I will confess to being involved in Scouting, but the above is not the site I look after as we don't cover those issues on our site.
|
|
Is that so they can swing both ways?
|
Queen Salute Teapot Storm - Harleyman
