ff1d1l
pfm Member
Arthur didn't do too well either.
Monarchy question
- Thread starter midband
- Start date
ff1d1l
pfm Member
Brythonic and Welsh.
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
Surely 'English' equates to the 'Angles'; ie German invaders. It's 'British' which is Brythonic and Welsh.
ff1d1l
pfm Member
Accurate. So we should let some Johnny-come-lately immigrants supply the monarchy? It is a British monarchy?
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
The Home Office should introduce a point-based monarchy system. Maybe ask prospective rulers which cricket team they support, that kind of thing.
Of course for many centuries the 'British' Royal Family has been a cross-European institution, but last century many of its overseas branches were forced to close.
Of course for many centuries the 'British' Royal Family has been a cross-European institution, but last century many of its overseas branches were forced to close.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Which makes most European wars to be about familial disputes rather than national issues?
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Nobody is attaching any blame to the queen for the Nazi salute, she was clearly too young to know what she was doing. Edward was not.
If, as you say, the Hitler salute only got going after 1933, the fact that Edward was practicing and promoting it in 1933, surely only shows his enthusiasm for Hitler from a very early beginning?
Last edited:
Rockmeister
pfm Member
why comment on something unworthy?
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
Certainly up to and including WWI. Less so with WWII.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Agreed.
AndrewM
pfm Member
Only in the sense that the Royal families were interrelated, WW1 was mostly fuelled by the new German Reich's rampant nationalism and French resentment about the loss of Alsace and Lorraine to Germany in the Franco-Prussian War, and British fears for the balance of power in Europe and the primacy of our navy).
Of course, it wasn't helped by the Kaiser's inferiority complex and dislike of his British cousins (whom he quite rightly suspected of considering him a bit of a bounder), but once the war started, even he lost any real power to stop it. By 1917, Ludendorff and the military had pretty much hijacked the German government, in a way that never happened in Britain or France.
tones
Tones deaf
I've no answer to that one. It just seems incredibly unlikely that David (he didn't become Edward until 1936, and then only briefly) should be practising the Hitlergruss, when it hadn't really taken off in Germany (it really took off, indeed became mandatory, when Hitler made himself Führer in 1934, combining the roles of head of state and government leader).
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Nic Robinson
Moderator
To be pedantic, his given names were Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David. So he really was Edward all along but known familiarly as David.
Rockmeister
pfm Member
my how they covered all bases...a christian, one of each patron saint, his dad's name and....edward. Nothing populist there then.
Barrymagrec
pfm Member
Presumably since he was born before 1917 that lot was topped off with Sax-Coburg-Gotha?
Rockmeister
pfm Member
I wonder if the critics of the heritage have ever done the DNA 'who am I' swab test?
Maybe not. I reckon she's waiting for Charles to become popular.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
She’s immortal?
Rockmeister
pfm Member
hahahahha...good one.
It's just me I expect, but seems to me that positions of responsibilty/authority/leadership....whatever
and 'popularity' don't really have much in common. Well, not is they are to be memorable for the right reasons anyway.
Corbyn was sporting a natty anorak at the memorial service today, maybe in an effort to be popular/likeable or etc, but did it make the country think ...'oh, this is my next leader!!!' '?
And the problem IS
maybe he did achieve just that.
I just thought 'couldn't you even be arsed to dress properly''?