Edward the VIII (King) encourages the Queen to give Nazi salute

Surtur

True, in part that is why I said it, because my comment about kings and queens came off like I was saying it because of this specific story.

But for people who don't know: I"m pretty sure circa the early 1930's once Hitler took power they still did a decent job of hiding their way of doing things from the other countries. Remember, they held the Olympics there a few years later. If this was done in 1943 it would be disturbing, but it was 1933.

Ushgarak

Incidentally, for those who do not know, 'Edward VIII liked the Nazis' is up there with 'sun rises in morning' as far as revelations are concerned. Edward VIII was the King the UK fired- directly because of a marriage crisis, but broadly because he was a prat (and not in an endearing sense of the word). He was replaced by his brother George VI, as seen in the film The King's Speech. Edward's Nazi sympathies destroyed whatever credibility he had left and was effectively exiled from the country.

The Germans thought they had a real 'in' with Edward and were astonished the UK got rid of him.

Surtur

You say he was fired but I thought he chose to abdicate?

But I was just saying that around the time of 1933 I don't think the world really was aware of what was truly going on in Germany(the hatred of jews, etc.) I could be wrong, but I also remember reading about Germany preparing for the 1936 Olympics and removing a lot of their anti-jewish propaganda prior to the event so the other countries wouldn't be quite clued in yet as to what it was truly like there.

This is not in defense of Edward, but rather the Queen. Though she doesn't need defending she was a child and probably just did what she was told, but still.

Ushgarak

He was effectively forced to abdicate unless he gave up Wallis Simpson.

Surtur

She must of had a super awesome vagina.

Bardock42

Originally posted by Surtur
You say he was fired but I thought he chose to abdicate?

But I was just saying that around the time of 1933 I don't think the world really was aware of what was truly going on in Germany(the hatred of jews, etc.) I could be wrong, but I also remember reading about Germany preparing for the 1936 Olympics and removing a lot of their anti-jewish propaganda prior to the event so the other countries wouldn't be quite clued in yet as to what it was truly like there.

This is not in defense of Edward, but rather the Queen. Though she doesn't need defending she was a child and probably just did what she was told, but still.

I think some level of anti-semitism was present in all western countries at the time. Obviously the extent of what was going to happen was not known to anyone really, but a lot of the anti-semitic and racial rhetoric was known and even supported by many.

Omega Vision

I wonder if anti-semitism was analogous to homophobia now: slowly on the decline and less and less publicly accepted but still prevalent.

krisblaze

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I wonder if anti-semitism was analogous to homophobia now: slowly on the decline and less and less publicly accepted but still prevalent.

Maybe if every god dam jew under the sun didn't clamour endlessly about their trials and tribulation.

My jewish friend (I have only one xD) claims to see little of it, but every jewish person in the media goes on and on about how the odds are stacked against them and how everything is an uphill battle.

Bardock42

Originally posted by krisblaze
Maybe if every god dam jew under the sun didn't clamour endlessly about their trials and tribulation.

My jewish friend (I have only one xD) claims to see little of it, but every jewish person in the media goes on and on about how the odds are stacked against them and how everything is an uphill battle.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I wonder if anti-semitism was analogous to homophobia now: slowly on the decline and less and less publicly accepted but still prevalent.

Nope

Shinobi Popcorn

I don't support Nazis at all, but I think it's a little silly to make a fuss over this. She was a little girl, doing what the king told her to do.

Ushgarak

Actually he was just her uncle rather than the King (that was three years away), but in many ways that makes even more sense.

Knife

You see, the question I always wanted answered is, who gave Harry his Nazi Uniform?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7286-2005Jan13.html

His gran, his grand father, his great grand mother or someone else.

Surtur

He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, sadly I'm sure if he asked for something there are probably a boatload of people waiting to jump and go get it for him. Yes even for something as crazy as a nazi armband or whatever.

But back to my other thing, why the hell hasn't this country gotten rid of all notion of princes and kings and queens? Nobody would of even cared what uniforms the kid puts on if he wasn't given some kind of title for the sole reason of..he was born.

Omega Vision

Originally posted by Surtur
He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, sadly I'm sure if he asked for something there are probably a boatload of people waiting to jump and go get it for him. Yes even for something as crazy as a nazi armband or whatever.

But back to my other thing, why the hell hasn't this country gotten rid of all notion of princes and kings and queens? Nobody would of even cared what uniforms the kid puts on if he wasn't given some kind of title for the sole reason of..he was born.
The Monarchy is actually pretty good for England. It's a massive tourist draw, it costs very little relatively (IIRC, each Briton pays something like 1 pound a year for the upkeep of the Royal Family), and the queen doesn't really get in the way of a functioning democracy.

One thing that bothered me though was when Americans were going nuts over the royal wedding. I just didn't get the appeal.

Surtur

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The Monarchy is actually pretty good for England. It's a massive tourist draw, it costs very little relatively (IIRC, each Briton pays something like 1 pound a year for the upkeep of the Royal Family), and the queen doesn't really get in the way of a functioning democracy.

One thing that bothered me though was when Americans were going nuts over the royal wedding. I just didn't get the appeal.

I guess it makes sense from a tourism standpoint. Though yes hearing about the wedding was awful, but nowhere near as bad as hearing about that damn new kid. It made it seem like they thought the second coming of Jesus was about to pop out of Prince Williams wife.

Ushgarak

Taxpayer pays bugger all for the royal family- the Queen's income comes from a share of the crown estate, which is land her family owns. They give much of it (85%) to the Government; the rest get used for their expenses. The Prince of Wales (i.e. heir to the throne) similarly gets his money from the Duchy of Lancaster. Of course, some people don't like rich families having land, but that's a much bigger issue than the royal family- plenty of richer landowners out there, and none that I know of that give 85% of their income to their nation's Treasury.

Weirdly, it is also taxed. That's because there was a big uproar about them not being taxed a while back, but it's nonsense because it would be simpler just to not let them keep as much. That's appearances for you.

The rest of the family is all financed by private assets and tourist income from places like Buckingham Palace

I think the only public expenditure is not theirs is that the government pays for their transport etc- but then that would be done for any head of state and family.

Surtur

Well I wasn't wondering why they are still a thing due to money they get. Just that the current state of the world has no place for kings or queens(especially ones with no apparent power), but the tourism reason makes sense. Though you'd think people would still come tour Buckingham Palace whether or not they had any actual kings and queens left.

As for not taxing them and just not letting them not keep as much..eh I don't live there..but I could somewhat understand people getting pissed, because on paper it comes off like one rule for the rich elite and another for everyone else, despite any practicalities that may of been involved in the decision.

Knife

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Taxpayer pays bugger all for the royal family- the Queen's income comes from a share of the crown estate, which is land her family owns. They give much of it (85%) to the Government; the rest get used for their expenses. The Prince of Wales (i.e. heir to the throne) similarly gets his money from the Duchy of Lancaster. Of course, some people don't like rich families having land, but that's a much bigger issue than the royal family- plenty of richer landowners out there, and none that I know of that give 85% of their income to their nation's Treasury.

Weirdly, it is also taxed. That's because there was a big uproar about them not being taxed a while back, but it's nonsense because it would be simpler just to not let them keep as much. That's appearances for you.

The rest of the family is all financed by private assets and tourist income from places like Buckingham Palace

I think the only public expenditure is not theirs is that the government pays for their transport etc- but then that would be done for any head of state and family. Royalists do say that others do disagree http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10145663/Monarchy-costs-taxpayer-900000-more.html. I've always thought that the bringing in revenue argument is a red herring as France does better for tourism and they... got rid of their royal family.

Bardock42

Knife

Originally posted by Bardock42
France also has Paris, amazing food, good weather and warm beaches... true and they even manage to have as many trade deals with despots and dictators without royals. You have convinced me France is better in every way,

Q99

Originally posted by Shinobi Popcorn
I don't support Nazis at all, but I think it's a little silly to make a fuss over this. She was a little girl, doing what the king told her to do.

Right, this strikes me as a non-story.

Reminds me of the picture of te German black kid who wore a Nazi sweater (see, back then, Blacks were so far down the list of 'lesser races' to get around to, that the Nazis were like, "Oh, he'll be useful in helping us administer Africa when he grows up...". Kid was just a kid and was like, 'Uh, ok.' Grown up, he's of course very much not a nazi).

Surtur

Originally posted by Bardock42
France also has Paris, amazing food, good weather and warm beaches...

Yeah but doesn't the UK have...stuff? Although I can't seem to think of anything now. Doctor Who museums?

Omega Vision

Originally posted by Knife
Royalists do say that others do disagree http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10145663/Monarchy-costs-taxpayer-900000-more.html. I've always thought that the bringing in revenue argument is a red herring as France does better for tourism and they... got rid of their royal family.
It's not a red herring, it's a sensible argument. To add to what Bardock said, if we had a chart that tallied up the reasons for a tourist to visit France and the reasons to visit England it would be very lopsided.

Just in brief:

England:

Monarchy
London (Big Ben and such)
Lake Country
Rolling green hills
Cliffs of Dover
Stonehenge
Roman Ruins

France:
Paris (this alone has enough shit to cancel out London AND the Monarchy combined)
Beaches of Normandy
Beaches of the Cote D'Azur
French alps
Brittany
Bordeaux
Provence
the Camargue
Better Roman Ruins
The various wine producing regions (there are a half dozen of them at least)
Nice
Cannes
Any major town on the Mediterranean
Corsica

There's probably more, but you get the point.

Let's also not forget that in removing the Monarchy, France also created a new mythos of sorts with the Revolution, the Reign of Terror, and Napoleon and all that. Visiting the Bastille is very popular, as is the tomb of Napoleon.

Omega Vision

By the way, if anyone here is planning on visiting France, my advice is just to avoid Paris. Overrated, overpriced, smelly, full of especially rude Frenchmen.

Go anywhere in France but Paris and you'll be happy, well-fed, and relaxed. Try Languedoc--it's Provence's less well-known, more relaxed neighbor. Normandy is awesome too.

Surtur

I'd probably see Normandy in France. They have a nice WW2 tour that takes you all over France(including Normandy) and some places in Germany as well, it's like a 2 week trip and cost around 15 grand though.

red g jacks

in other news... check out all these nazi kids from america

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Bellamy_salute_1.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute

vansonbee

I don't blame the Queen for anything, she was a little lad back in the day, not knowing anything about the wide world.

The positive out of all this, I didn't know Hitler was well respected before the war.

Q99

Originally posted by vansonbee
I don't blame the Queen for anything, she was a little lad back in the day, not knowing anything about the wide world.

The positive out of all this, I didn't know Hitler was well respected before the war.

There were mixed opinions. Some liked him, some knew what was up even then (if maybe not to the extent!).

When Captain America #1 came out- before the US entered the war but after fighting had already started- having Captain America punching Hitler on the cover was controversial, and Timley (Marvel's predecessor) got hate-mail threatening the company, saying we should be on Hitler's side, there were menacing groups of people hanging outside their offices to the point that police protection had to be provided. On the flip side, New York's mayor sent a letter supporting Joe Simon and Jack Kirby for making him.

Bentley

Originally posted by Omega Vision
By the way, if anyone here is planning on visiting France, my advice is just to avoid Paris. Overrated, overpriced, smelly, full of especially rude Frenchmen.

Go anywhere in France but Paris and you'll be happy, well-fed, and relaxed. Try Languedoc--it's Provence's less well-known, more relaxed neighbor. Normandy is awesome too.

Spoken like a true french thumb up

Ushgarak

Of course it is a deflection- the idea that the Queen should pay for the government in entirety is a ludicrous one dating from the time when the monarch actually governed the country. If you abolished the monarchy, unless you actively want to steal the Crown Estates, what happens next is that the government gets NONE of the money and the taxpayers foot the bill. Hence deflection for you to suggest that the alternative is for the Queen- or any individual- to be personally liable for paying for the costs of running a country. It's an absurd argument to bring up at all.

The issue of whether the royal family makes the country money or not IS relevant in this thread when I was originally replying to OV's comment about them being good value for money. If you want the royal family got rid of out of pure Republican sentiment, then fine- but that's not actually what we were talking about, so you are the one being irrelevant in that sense. If you want to make a thread about Britain becoming a Republic, then please do so.

Knife

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Of course it is a deflection- the idea that the Queen should pay for the government in entirety is a ludicrous one dating from the time when the monarch actually governed the country. If you abolished the monarchy, unless you actively want to steal the Crown Estates, what happens next is that the government gets NONE of the money and the taxpayers foot the bill. Hence deflection for you to suggest that the alternative is for the Queen- or any individual- to be personally liable for paying for the costs of running a country. It's an absurd argument to bring up at all.

The issue of whether the royal family makes the country money or not IS relevant in this thread when I was originally replying to OV's comment about them being good value for money. If you want the royal family got rid of out of pure Republican sentiment, then fine- but that's not actually what we were talking about, so you are the one being irrelevant in that sense. If you want to make a thread about Britain becoming a Republic, then please do so.

The Monarch was responsible until the setting up the Crown Estate for the payment of the Government. The Queen is still not a true constitutional monarch (as such a thing is a misnomer) The removal of the monarchs need to pay was part of the deal. It's what happens when you have a monarch. If we want to go back to the year before the crown estates then the monarch did pay for it.

I realise the irrelevance in this thread, although the thread has deviated in numerous ways. I also don't disagree in terms of the original topic I have deviated.

I will come up with the thread you suggest, although it won't be up for a few days as I will have to research things like the black spider letters etc and decide what I need to put in the opener as the issue is complex.

Surtur

Originally posted by vansonbee
I don't blame the Queen for anything, she was a little lad back in the day, not knowing anything about the wide world.

The positive out of all this, I didn't know Hitler was well respected before the war.

In some ways it was respect, but it was more just people didn't know the full extent of what was going on. See they felt the way they did about Jews, etc. but they also felt they were the superior race and wanted *others* to see that as well. But they also knew if other countries saw their intense hatred they wouldn't be viewed in a good light..so it was a strange give and take for a while.

I think drugs skewed Hitler as well, since he was on a boatload of them and it messed his mind up. I am not blaming drugs for his beliefs, but rather for some of the unsound strategic decisions he made late into the war. He was apparently big on meth.