Royals and NAZI salutes

Why is the Sun stirring up trouble......as children back in the forties we had to make our own fun and we would copy what was on the cinema playing cowboys and indians etc. or because of the war would play at fighting the Germans.....some would be goose stepping and heil hitlering.

And Murdoch is a republican

I just don't see that dragging all this up after all these years is of interest or benefit to anyone. It was a completely different world then with ideas and attitudes that we would find completely unacceptable. Prince Phillip served with distinction in the Royal Navy during WW2 as did the Queen in the AT S. The king and Queen refused to leave London which they could easily have done, and did what they could to boost morale, so I don't really understand what this witch hunt is about - oh, silly me, money of course!!!

It is well reported that Churchill, the QM and more were anti Semitic , it was common to see 'no Jews' cards in lodging houses etc, this country was,like many countries, anti Semitic

As others have said, I feel the photograph should not be assumed to be evidence of Nazi sympathies and, of course, young girls would have had no idea of the significance of the salute which, in any event, may well have just been mimicking and ridiculing Hitler and his supporters.

However, the Observer reported yesterday that the palace has for years sought to suppress the release of damaging material showing the very close and fairly widespread links between the royals and the Nazis. This was at a time when the removal of Jewish people from public office and the escalating harassment and violence against them was being reported and known to most people in the UK.

C4 is to air a programme about one of Phillips sisters and her admiration for Hitler, as his sisters married Germans what's news about this , he is not responsible for the actions of his siblings

Curiously George Vth was a devoted and very loving Grandfather, to the Queen and Princess Margaret, both of whom were extremely fond of him. I think this happens in quite a few families, human beings are very complex!
I see Channel 4 is making a programme about the royal family and their Nazi connections! Oh dear, it's almost outside living memory but can still cause distress for some. Why oh why couldn't these keen bastions of morality at least wait until the two main players i.e., the Queen and Prince Phillip are dead. Mind you I suppose it wouldn't have the same shock horror effect then!! FGS why can't they leave these two very elderly people alone?! I know, because it sells the paper and boosts the t.v. ratings!

George V was reported as saying something along the lines of "I was afraid of my father and my children will damn well be afraid of me" – not exactly the kind of parent to warm your heart and build your confidence. I don't think the son who later became George VI was helped by the unfortunate coincidence of being born on the anniversary of Prince Albert's death – hardly a major welcome into the world – and, very probably, being reminded about this at every birthday at least for the first few years of his life. Calling him Albert did little to placate his great grandmother's resentment of this presumption.

They were a family with many problems, there was also the youngest John who died young

I think George VI speech impediment was caused by being forced to use his right hand when he was naturally left handed. The ridicule he then endured because of this stammer made him withdrawn and shy.

Absent, i said not very bright because it was a kinder thing to say

Yes. Spoilt for choice weren't they?

merlotgran Well all that ran in the family.

That should have read, Would have been appointed regent if anything had happened to George VI.

The Duke of Gloucester also had a speech impediment and a very high pitched voice which might have been ridiculed. He had a drink problem and had also embarked on an unsuitable love affair prior to his marriage. He was appointed regent until Princess Elizabeth came of age.

Anniebach I think the consensus is that the Duke of Kent (and the Duchess, for that matter) was bi-sexual rather than gay. The abdicating and ascending kings weren't very bright either so I can't see why his lack of intellect would rule out (whoops – sorry) the Duke of Gloucester. Besides how clever does a constitutional monarch have to be – it ain't rocket surgery.

Absent A damn good job they didn't have one of the others then. By all accounts George V was a dreadful father and all the children had a tough time despite their station in life.

The duke of Kent was gay, the duke of Gloucester had problems - not very bright . So there was only Duke of York who could have been considered

Nelliemoser and nigglynellie While not relevant to this thread, it is interesting that when the abdication occurred, there was discussion among the powers that be of skipping over the Duke of York because of his shyness and stammer and putting one of his brothers on the throne. However, the Duke of Kent was considered just as much of a playboy as the abdicating king and the Duke of Gloucester had no wish for the throne.

All the papers seem to have latched on to this. It is nonsense of course. Kids messing around with family before the true significance of the nazis became clear.

Edward the heir was as yet unmarried , his eldest brother Albert (Bertie) was his heir, Elizabeth was Berties heir, making her third in line to the throne, sister Margaret was fourth. This would have changed had Edward married and had children or Bertie and his wife Elizabeth (later QM) had a son who would automatically superseded his sisters.

It's all a lot of hot air generated to sell papers, neither newsworthy nor anything else.

Absent At the time Edward was heir apparent and could possibly have produced an heir.
I am not certain but I think that if anything had happened to a still childless Edward his next brother down, i.e. Bertie/George would have been in line for the throne. Elizabeth would then have been her fathers heir presumptive unless a male heir was born.

If anyone has a better idea let me know. I am not a monarchy expert.

Remember this?

Great piece of anti-Nazi propoganda.

FGS, this is a family larking around and giving what is an exaggerated nazi salute, who knows why or in what context. It's quite outrageous that this should be a) stolen, and b) flaunted in the public domain for people to pull to bits and make accusations about, just vile and typical of that rag masquerading as a newspaper - it should be banned!!
Can anyone remember putting a finger across the upper lip denoting a Hitler moustache.?! I can remember doing this amid gales of childish laughter about 60 years ago! No doubt today, this would be earnestly analysed, and secret nazi sympathies concluded. A lot of people imitated Hitler in a less than respectful way, Charlie Chaplin for one, and I think this was one of these occasions - in other words ridiculing the ridiculous little man.