Royal family or a president?

No it wasn't Elegran it was also about socialists, the disabled and the mentally ill. The Nazis introduced measures to deal with all of these people between 1933 and 1937. Similar measures were in place in other countries- like compulsory sterilisation in California. Did other countries know what was happening? Probably but they were watching with interest to see what would happen.

He was a flamboyant legitimate leader of a foreign country where these laws were being passed constitutionally, however unpleasant they are from our more enlightened viewpoint where we see where they were leading. He had some characteristics which made him gift to impersonators. Remind you of any current world leader?

The queen mother's gift for wicked mimicry was well-known. Was she perhaps mocking her brother-in-law for HIS admiration of the strutting Hitler? Or just mocking the way Hitler performed for the cameras?

The threat then wasn't to Britain. Germany had been rendered impotent (supposedly) after WW1. Hitler was a ridiculous bombast to most people. That was why he wasn't stopped earlier. It wasn't ALL about the Jews.

In 1933 Hitler was in power and anti-semetuc legislation was being enacted - if he wasn’t seen as a threat it was because of the deeply entrenched anti semetism in British society especially amongst the aristocracy and uppe classes

It was filmed in 1933, when Hitler wasn't seen as such as an ogre as he later proved himself to be. He was more a figure of fun to many, and an antidote to Communism by others.

That distinctive salute was often mocked to make fun of Herr Schickelgruber and his pretentiousness. So was the goose-stepping of his forces. That is the kind of thing you do when someone points a movie camera at you - a take-off of some easily recognisable public figure, and no-one was more recognisable at that time.

You can't take a bit of home movie of a family fooling around (found and triumphantly published years later by the Daily Mail) as proof that the whole lot of them were Nazi sympathisers.

Edward VIII and his wife went and met Hitler in 1937, not all that long after the abdication, when they were estranged from the rest of the Royal Family. His aims at domination were becoming more obvious then. Perhaps they were hoping to link up with a rising power who could return the ex-King to his former glory? Or perhaps the Nazi ethos suited Mrs Simpson's views?

I agree - not so impeccable it seems:

(Guardian 2015) A couple of extracts -

"........ In 1933, Edward (later Duke of Windsor) said of the Nazi regime: “It is the only thing to do. We will have to come to it, as we are in great danger from Communists, too.”

"The royal family was also particularly susceptible to such fears because some of their German relatives had from the outset been great admirers of Hitler. To this day, the royal archives have ensured that correspondence between the monarchy and these German relatives remains closed to historians. Other archives – in Germany – reveal the substance of contacts between Queen Mary, her sons – George VI, the Duke of Windsor and the Duke of Kent – and their German cousins."

Dr Karina Urbach is a senior research fellow at the Institute of Historical Research, University of London. She is the author of Go-Betweens for Hitler (Oxford University Press)

And one, but perhaps the most telling, of the Duke of Edinburgh's unguarded comments:

To then Paraguay dictator General Stroessner: “It’s a pleasure to be in a country that isn’t ruled by its people.”

The Queen mother was filmed teaching her children Nazi salutes and Philips brothers were all in the Nazi party ,Impeccably means different things to different people !

I thimk there is a defence against idiocy and so on. The Prince Regent took over from George III.

MaryEliza wrote:

It’s precisely because it’s inherited that it’s wrong - there’s no defence against idiocy is there? After all Charles is next in line. And Edward 8th - you do know he was a Nazi sympathiser and Edward 7th etc etc - - you can’t defend a system just using the Queen as a raison d’être

That is a lot for the Windsors to live down, certainly. But they did it during the war when the King and Queen , and Princess Elizabeth, behaved impeccably.

"Ilovecheese, remember you'd get his awful wife for first lady and Brooklyn taking enormous numbers of pictures of them. We'd be inundated with images of his tattoos, her strange leg-out stance, Harper in her latest expensive, trendy gear (being 'adorable' no doubt) Romeo modelling for every fashion house under the sun and the youngest boy churning out rap music for our delectation."

Bring it on!

That picture of TM curtsying to Willies wife makes me almost want to throw up ! Who the hell says that “she” is our better and we should almost fall at her feet ?

Well said Day6

I find this celeb/royalty interface quite disturbing - as a republican I should welcome it as it’s making the whole thing look really really tacky - which it is but I think heads of state and their families should have some dignity at least

Ilovecheese, remember you'd get his awful wife for first lady and Brooklyn taking enormous numbers of pictures of them. We'd be inundated with images of his tattoos, her strange leg-out stance, Harper in her latest expensive, trendy gear (being 'adorable' no doubt) Romeo modelling for every fashion house under the sun and the youngest boy churning out rap music for our delectation.

I really cannot work out why the past-it Beckhams haven't quietly faded away into a quiet and private life of luxury, but the pair seem to keep their profiles high by publicising their every move.

Not much different from the Royal family I suppose, but the Queen, Anne, and Charles do old-skool royalty quite well, preferring a bit of stately distance and privacy. It would seem the future of the Windsors will depend on the availability of James Corden to provide the MC role at functions.

Now celebrity and Royalty have jumped into bed together, I believe (and sincerely hope) the Windsors days are numbered and they will be forced to pare down the royal family and the privileges bestowed on the many, many wealthy people in the family who will not inherit the throne.

I'd vote for President Beckham! (I would have put the smiley face symbol next to this if only I knew how)

What are the arguments against a slimmed down monarchy and an end to bowing and curtsying?

I mean really really? TM who whatever you think of her politically did not become PM because of who she married or whose vagina she came out of, practically kneeling before a woman in her mid 30s whose main roles in life are to have children and dress well.. TM - this is not a good look in a 21st century do called democracy. Yuk.

Well Day6 wow just wow

they are value for money

It's an interesting thought, but are they really? I don't think so. Only the top tier have value. The various relatives and hangers-on have become more like celebrities, enjoying extraordinary wealth and privilege and popping up at exclusive places the gawping public can only dream about.

I got sick to the back teeth of the Meghan and Harry nuptials and run up to the day. I don't wish him ill but I am beginning to see the 'boys' (seen as poor motherless youngsters by me at the time of Diana's death, and viewed with a fondness) for what they are now - stinking rich young men who are waited on hand and foot and have a life of privilege and luxury. 'Work' comprises of short public engagements every now and then, or tours abroad which seem to keep the masses happy.

To be honest if I never saw Meghan and Harry again, online or elsewhere, I'd be happy. I am not sure why they are feted. I may be alone in being sick to the back teeth of Beckham 'news' when that family are of no consequence. Reading about their latest expensive holiday or home purchase is a slap in the face to the well being of all those who toil day in and day out for very little and cannot afford a holiday to Blackpool, never mind a month in the Maldives most exclusive hideaway. I am feeling that way now about the royal family. It's a relatively new feeling. I preferred them when they had mystique, perhaps?

Keep the Queen. No President for me - Beckham would be appointed no doubt. Keep her immediate heirs. Charles and William can continue the line, but really, everyone else should be cast adrift and completely self-supporting now, imo.

I felt incredible anger that security for H&M's luxurious hideaway should be in anyway the responsibility of the taxpayer. Most families with money sort out security for themselves. Perhaps Charles could pay for it as a wedding present to them?

Yet another one who doesn’t understand the difference between head of state and head of government - tell me why is it that it is only royalists that seem incapable of grasping this basic constitutional principle? Perhaps there’s a causative link between being a royalist and not understanding. I wonder what that could be? Also being able to spell leading political figures names might inspire a bit of confidence.

So why do we have to pay for the security of their country pad - this is an extension of the budget. One solution could be for some other cost to be dropped by another branch of the ever expanding family - you know the one in one out principle. We simply say, here’s your security budget, it’s not going to be increased - cut coat cloth - you know like in the real world where we have to make choices. Trim and compact - you must be joking #I expect it’s all JC’s fault

Royals any day of the week .. otherwise
President Corbin could be in !!!! Aghhhh shudder :0(

How is what we have at the present time "trim and compact"?

Not everything comes down to price. There is a difference between knowing the price of something and the value of it. Slightly paraphrasing Oscar Wilde. It is all very well to discuss the cost of the Royal Family and I am well aware there is indeed a price but I remain certain for now that they are value for money. Long live the status quo (kept trimmed and compact). Tradition and stability have a real value.

Sorry, gilly. My reply was to Anniebach and yes, I agree about the private jet.

I'm a monarchist but that doesn't mean I stick my head in the sand where criticism is concerned.

Ooops, thanks merlot

Yes Merlot I know that so how much was that £240k in today’s terms ? Seriously though, why couldn’t he have flown first class BA ?