|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: British Royal Family and Nazism
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
OK, it seems that several historians put the risk of death for the upper classes at 1 in 5 compared to 1 in 7 for the whole army.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Not just historians, Mr Cheesy: the figures put the rate at a 20% (1 in 5) chance of death for an officer under the rank of Colonel, whereas the figure for other ranks is 1 in 7. In fact, if you take out senior NCOs the figure is nearer 1 in 8 for OR.
The reason is simple: as had been known since the time of Towton, if you knock out the officers (leaders) then the mass of enlisted/conscripts are left rudderless - a tactic that works particularly well with conscript troops.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Getting back to 'Uncle David'.
There is a report that when he visited Germany with his wife after the abdication, it was suggested to him that if the Germans conquered England, he could have the throne again if he wanted it. He appeared to show little interest in the matter, but his wife was very interested.
I don't know the ultimate source of this story, but I have read it in scholarly books.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Not just historians, Mr Cheesy: the figures put the rate at a 20% (1 in 5) chance of death for an officer under the rank of Colonel, whereas the figure for other ranks is 1 in 7. In fact, if you take out senior NCOs the figure is nearer 1 in 8 for OR.
Sorry, I wasn't looking at the figures for rank but historians who said this was the figures for class. As already discussed, rank is not entirely the same as class in the British army of 1914-18
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I agree with Eutychus, mr cheesy - you want it to be true that the UK aristocracy were 'intoxicated by fascism' rather more so than any other social class might have been at the time and so you'll sift the evidence until it supports your contention.
Likewise with the ratio of officers to other ranks killed in action.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I'm sorry, but whilst I am 'on the left' politically I can't help but find the whole thrust of your argument on this thread as woefully selective.
There have been suggestions on threads about what motivates 'the left' that anyone with a vaguely leftward political leaning is some how motivated by spite, jealousy and resentment ... rather than more noble motivations such as genuine social concern and a desire for equality.
I don't believe that lefties are motivated by ignoble sentiments but when I read your posts and see the persistence with which you dig your heels in whenever evidence is deployed that may suggest that things aren't quite as straight-forward and simple as you appear to make out -- I can't help but begin to revise my opinion.
I don't think you are doing 'the left' any favours with your chain of argument here. All you are doing is compounding the impression that you are driven by personal dislike of particular social classes and individuals rather than any objective criteria.
Sure, there's a debate to be had about the monarchy or whether a hereditary aristocracy is desirable in the 21st century ... but trying to prove that aristocrats were less likely to die in world wars or more likely to support fascism than middle or working class people isn't the right way to go about it.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Let's separate the institutions from the people within them, so far as is possible.
If we wanted to take the example of trades unions, for instance. There'd be a range of views here on that subject. If I were come along in a thread about unions saying that I'd met shop-stewards who were complete and utter arseholes (which would be true from my perspective) then that means that the whole trades union movement was discredited for that reason ... I wouldn't be cut much slack.
And rightly so.
As it happens, I've also come across shop-stewards who were excellent and anything but arseholes.
Can we get clear of the ad hominems - whether in relation to the royal family, aristocrats or Potters in Stoke - and concentrate on the real issues?
If you want to have a debate about the rights and wrongs of a hereditary monarchy or aristocracy - go ahead and have one.
Speculating about what was or wasn't going through the minds of a small group of people during some afternoon larks at Balmoral in 1933 doesn't seem to add much to that debate as far as I can see.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Actually there is plenty of evidence that during his and Wallis's trip to Germany in 1937 the Duke of Windsor was seething about his family and spent much time bad-mouthing them, particularly his mother and sister-in-law, to anyone who would listen.
His behaviour in France during 1940 was deeply suspect, and his attempt to insist on a Royal Navy ship being despatched to fetch him and Wallis from Nice showed just how out of touch and selfish he was.
Whilst in Spain and Portugal he was incredibly indiscreet, and there's documentary evidence of his contacts with the Germans, via a Spanish diplomat; General Franco's brother was appalled by his behaviour and remarked that "A Prince doesn't ask his country's enemies for favours" when he heard that Edward had been asking that the German's safeguard his property in France.
In the end Churchill had to threaten him with a court martial if he didn't move to Portugal and then return to the UK. Edward wasn't made Governor General of the Bahamas because he was a good candidate but because it was the only way to get him out of the UK and as far away as possible from anyone who might be able to help him maintain his links with his German friends.
But this was the man who, having just become King, sent Hitler a personal message on his birthday, weeks after Germany had illegally re-occupied the Rhineland, breaking the Treaty of Versailles.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sandemaniac
Shipmate
# 12829
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
To add to the reading list I'd also offer:
Blighty; British Society in the Era of the Great War by Gerard J DeGroot
The Great War and Modern Memory - Paul Fussell
Forgotten Victory - Gary Sheffield
Should also probably add "Bloody Red Tabs" by Frank Davies to that list, which covers the seventy-plus officers of General rank who, rather than propping up their drinks cabinets miles behind the front, managed to get themselves killed in WW1.
AG
--------------------
"It becomes soon pleasantly apparent that change-ringing is by no means merely an excuse for beer" Charles Dickens gets it wrong, 1869
Posts: 3574 | From: The wardrobe of my soul | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Sorry, I wasn't looking at the figures for rank but historians who said this was the figures for class. As already discussed, rank is not entirely the same as class in the British army of 1914-18
That's certainly the case. There were blokes who worked their way up the ranks and who weren't aristocrats.
I don't see what it proves either way if the proportion of aristocrats killed and the proportion of 'ordinary' Tommies or Tars who lost their lives were higher, lower or commensurate.
The issue of whether or not an inherited aristocracy is desirable or not isn't affected by how many did or didn't die in both world wars.
If you were a grieving mother in a stately home or a grieving mother in an Accrington back-to-back, it was still grief.
I'm sorry, but I find something very distasteful in the tone and thrust of your arguments here.
If you want to argue that an inherited aristocracy is wrong, fine - go ahead and do so. There are plenty of arguments that could levied to support that contention. Entering into distasteful 'nur nuh na nur nuh' speculation about whether working class or aristocratic guys were most likely to die in wars doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.
It sounds so wrong.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Actually there is plenty of evidence that during his and Wallis's trip to Germany in 1937 the Duke of Windsor was seething about his family and spent much time bad-mouthing them, particularly his mother and sister-in-law, to anyone who would listen.
His behaviour in France during 1940 was deeply suspect, and his attempt to insist on a Royal Navy ship being despatched to fetch him and Wallis from Nice showed just how out of touch and selfish he was.
Whilst in Spain and Portugal he was incredibly indiscreet, and there's documentary evidence of his contacts with the Germans, via a Spanish diplomat; General Franco's brother was appalled by his behaviour and remarked that "A Prince doesn't ask his country's enemies for favours" when he heard that Edward had been asking that the German's safeguard his property in France.
In the end Churchill had to threaten him with a court martial if he didn't move to Portugal and then return to the UK. Edward wasn't made Governor General of the Bahamas because he was a good candidate but because it was the only way to get him out of the UK and as far away as possible from anyone who might be able to help him maintain his links with his German friends.
But this was the man who, having just become King, sent Hitler a personal message on his birthday, weeks after Germany had illegally re-occupied the Rhineland, breaking the Treaty of Versailles.
I read Philip Ziegler's biography of Edward VIII one rainy spring over a decade ago. I got to the last page very grateful for the existence of George VI!
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That's certainly the case. There were blokes who worked their way up the ranks and who weren't aristocrats.
I don't see what it proves either way if the proportion of aristocrats killed and the proportion of 'ordinary' Tommies or Tars who lost their lives were higher, lower or commensurate.
That's nice. I think it does matter.
quote:
The issue of whether or not an inherited aristocracy is desirable or not isn't affected by how many did or didn't die in both world wars.
I think it does matter if indeed we have got to the point, as is current in the US military, where rank-and-file soldiers are twice as likely to die as officers. If those officer gained their positions more to do with class status than to do with military skill, then yes, it matters.
quote:
If you were a grieving mother in a stately home or a grieving mother in an Accrington back-to-back, it was still grief.
I'm sorry, but I find something very distasteful in the tone and thrust of your arguments here.
Fine, don't participate then.
quote:
If you want to argue that an inherited aristocracy is wrong, fine - go ahead and do so. There are plenty of arguments that could levied to support that contention. Entering into distasteful 'nur nuh na nur nuh' speculation about whether working class or aristocratic guys were most likely to die in wars doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.
It sounds so wrong.
Fine, I accept you don't think it matters. I think it does.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I'm not sure if everyone is using the same definition of who might be an aristocrat. Are we talking about titled folk, or people from families which once had titles, or those with coats of arms (I am told that, in this respect, a much greater proportion of Scots fit under this definition than English), or products of particular schools or types of schools, or those who spoke with Received Pronunciation? As a foreigner, I am not up on these things, and am finding this thread a bit hard to follow in parts.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I suspect the definition is changing depending on who is posting. How about defining it as anyone in Burke's Peerage or Burke's Landed Gentry?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Albertus has already said it, go and read the Lion and the Unicorn. And this is before we even get into generals sitting 25 miles behind the lines ordering the poor lions to their deaths. Joan Littlewood's got a lot to answer for.
Joan Littlewood and Alan Clark (who, it now appears, if he didn't exactly wangle his way out of doing National Service, didn't exactly resist the offer of discharge after one day's enlistment).
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Again, it is not simple prejudice when this is about aristocrats who have inherited, unelected, and unexamined power and privilege which they seek to increase by supporting fascism.
No, the prejudice comes in when you tar all aristocrats with the same brush because of the actions of some.
If saying "this aristocrat was a Nazi sympathiser, therefore they all were" is a valid thing for you to say, then "this potter from Stoke was a Nazi sympathiser therefore they all were" is a valid thing for others to say. Of course, I don't think either is valid.
The potter from Stoke might be a jab to Oswald Mosley who represented Smethwick in Staffordshire (though not I think in the potteries). Oddly enough the MP from Newcastle-under-Lyme, adjacent to the potteries, was a Wedgwood (but not a working class potter) and one of the earlier critics of the Nazis in Parliament.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Again, it is not simple prejudice when this is about aristocrats who have inherited, unelected, and unexamined power and privilege which they seek to increase by supporting fascism.
No, the prejudice comes in when you tar all aristocrats with the same brush because of the actions of some.
If saying "this aristocrat was a Nazi sympathiser, therefore they all were" is a valid thing for you to say, then "this potter from Stoke was a Nazi sympathiser therefore they all were" is a valid thing for others to say. Of course, I don't think either is valid.
The potter from Stoke might be a jab to Oswald Mosley who represented Smethwick in Staffordshire (though not I think in the potteries). Oddly enough the MP from Newcastle-under-Lyme, adjacent to the potteries, was a Wedgwood (but not a working class potter) and one of the earlier critics of the Nazis in Parliament.
Smethwick is a suburb of Birmingham, sort of between inner-city Handsworth and the road to the Black Country - so not the Potteries.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I introduced the Potteries into the equation as I live close to them and it's often said hereabouts - with some exaggeration I think - that the Potteries were a centre for the Blackshirts. They certainly had support there - and yes, Smethwick is closer to Birmingham than it is to the Potteries.
The point I was making was that there certainly was some support for Mosley and the Blackshirts in the Potteries - and indeed in the working class areas of Birmingham where my Grandad grew up (I'm Anglo-Welsh and my mother's family were from the Midlands). My Grandad remembered street battles between Mosley supporters, anti-fascists and the police in his part of Birmingham in the 1930s. I think a policeman died in one of these clashes.
I asked, then, whether it would any more fair to claim that working class Potters were as 'intoxicated' by fascism as mr cheesy claims the aristocracy were.
I also made it clear that I believed that Mosley and other fascist leaders were far more culpable than their rank and file working class supporters.
Which is, I suppose, the equivalent of mr cheesy's point about an apparent imbalance in the ratio of officer to 'ordinary' rank and file casualties in the US army currently or the British army at the time of both world wars.
I'm going to stick with this a moment as I believe mr cheesy's argument to be fundamentally flawed.
For a kick-off, after the disasters of the Crimea, the British army began to shift from its reliance on rank being accorded purely on the basis of 'breeding' as it were. So, yes, by the time of WW1 there were far more 'career officers' who had worked their way up the ranks. Yes, of course if you were from Eton or Harrow you'd more than likely be a lieutenant or something almost immediately ... no-one's arguing that a rigid class system didn't persist.
But I'm still left wondering what relevance it has if it could be shown that fellas from an aristocratic background (however we define that) were proportionately less likely to become casualties than those from other social classes - particularly as the aristocracy are a tiny proportion of the overall population.
I mean - it might be interesting - we might well agree that it's reprehensible should it be proven to be the case -- but I don't see how it makes any difference to the level of grief or suffering experienced by those - of whatever class or background - who died in both world wars.
The question is - even if it were the case, what can you do about it? You can't go back in a time machine and abolish the aristocracy in the early 1900s.
I really don't see what it achieves other than to stoke some kind of righteous indignation at perceived injustices that we can do nothing to rectify 100 years on.
That's not to give the aristocracy a 'get out of jail free card.' There are plenty of things we could lay to the charge of the aristocracy without insensitive and carping speculation as to how many sons they lost in the war compared to how many were lost in other social classes.
Mr cheesy has asked me not to get involved with the discussion if that's what I think. Well, I'm sorry, I'm sticking with it - not because I carry any particular brief for the aristocracy or the royal family but because it sounds like a rather sick, bitter and twisted argument to me.
I have no idea why the casualty rates for US officers should be lower than that for other ranks - but I would imagine it has more to do with ratios of officers to 'men' as it were, the tactics of modern warfare (the US army no longer charges fixed positions with bayonets as far as I understand it) and for all I know all sorts of other reasons besides.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, then everything becomes a nail. It seems to me that mr cheesy is so obsessed with the social class issue that he reads it into each and every situation - a kind of metanarrative. I could understand that from a Marxist, say ... but I'm not sure mr cheesy is one of those ... it doesn't fit very comfortably with theism, for instance and mr cheesy is a theist.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I read Philip Ziegler's biography of Edward VIII one rainy spring over a decade ago. I got to the last page very grateful for the existence of George VI!
Agreed. It seems to me that the war brought out the best in him and in the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent. They all seemed to grow as people. Sadly, the very opposite seems to have been the case with their eldest brother.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I am a leftist and an anti-monarchist, but I am frankly embarrassed by the attempts to argue that fascism was some kind of aristocratic conspiracy. The Nazis didn't use working-class imagery for nothing - it was supposed to get working-class support, and as Gamaliel and others have said it succeeded to an extent even in Britain.
By their fruits shall ye know them - the Queen's personal character and behaviour over her lifetime should make it patently obvious that she's not a Nazi.
On the Mitford tangent - I did indeed know that Unity's middle name was Valkyrie! Unity was really a pitiful mess.
JK Rowling named her eldest daughter after Jessica Mitford.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
That's a good choice! (Have you heard her- Mitford's not Rowling's- version of 'Right Said Fred', in duet with Maya Angelou? Proceless: two elderly ladies having a lot of fun. Can't link to it but you can get it through Spotify.)
I think you're right, too, about Unity: one to feel sorry for, really. ISTM that Diana, on the other hand, was a much tougher cookie who understood precisely what she was doing.
[ 21. July 2015, 19:35: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I read Philip Ziegler's biography of Edward VIII one rainy spring over a decade ago. I got to the last page very grateful for the existence of George VI!
Agreed. It seems to me that the war brought out the best in him and in the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent. They all seemed to grow as people. Sadly, the very opposite seems to have been the case with their eldest brother.
The royal brothers were raised with the idea that they owed a duty to the country. After Edward abdicated, he seemed to think that the more important point was what the country owed to him.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I read Philip Ziegler's biography of Edward VIII one rainy spring over a decade ago. I got to the last page very grateful for the existence of George VI!
Agreed. It seems to me that the war brought out the best in him and in the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent. They all seemed to grow as people. Sadly, the very opposite seems to have been the case with their eldest brother.
The royal brothers were raised with the idea that they owed a duty to the country. After Edward abdicated, he seemed to think that the more important point was what the country owed to him.
Moo
It's noticeable that the present Queen has inherited the same attitude from her father. Although I would not necessarily define it as "owing a duty" so much as "being obedient to a sense of God's calling".
Whether you think her right or wrong, and whether you think the royalty to be wonderful or woeful, I don't think anyone should doubt the seriousness with which Queen Elizabeth takes her duties, understanding them to be a calling from God.
I am not much of a monarchist but, like democracy, it might be said to be slightly not as bad as the other alternatives on offer!
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
after the disasters of the Crimea, the British army began to shift from its reliance on rank being accorded purely on the basis of 'breeding' as it were.
I was reminded of this – Cardwell reforms, Garnet Wolseley - just recently by the Modern Major-General in the film of Mike Leigh’s production of Pirates Of Penzance.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
So far you’ve failed to demonstrate the truth of any of your hobby-horses to anyone’s satisfaction, mr cheesy.
Edward VIII had Nazi sympathies, but we knew that already, and in this respect he was not representative of the “royals”.
There were members of the aristocracy who at one point admired Hitler, but there were members of all sorts of other groups and classes who also admired him at some stage, so once again there was nothing distinctive about it, and when it came to the crunch, all except one or two individual aristocrats swung in behind the war against Nazism.
If you are interested in genuine ideological scandals of the twentieth century, you might like to just briefly prise yourself away from your monomaniacal obsession, and consider the infatuation of a considerable proportion of the Western intelligentsia with communism, with its accompanying adulation of thuggish dictators such as Castro and Ho Chi Minh and outright mass murderers such as Stalin and Mao.
This was not a universal tendency amongst intellectuals, and their were many left-wing, as well as liberal and conservative, academics and writers who resolutely withstood it, but it was just as irresponsible and immoral, and far more widespread and influential, than any limited and temporary pro-Nazi sympathy amongst aristocrats – and it still exists.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Kaplan Corday, Oscar the Grouch
I think you both make fair points, but mr cheesy's facade assertion provides him with an adequate defence at all times. Once you see the establishment as Hyacinth Bucket territory (i.e. all about keeping up appearances as part of preservation of superiority) then all is smoke and mirrors and the only answer is the overthrow the power structure.
There is of course some truth in the facade argument and the more modern developments of spin and news management by the powerful, rich and famous tend to add to its credence. But I am personally convinced that, at least so far as the Queen is concerned, her long demonstration of duty and service in the most peculiar and difficult role of constitutional monarch is proof against cynical and distrustful abuse. None of which detracts from more general criticism of the abuse of privilege by the powerful. Its application to any individual is another matter.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But I am personally convinced that, at least so far as the Queen is concerned, her long demonstration of duty and service in the most peculiar and difficult role of constitutional monarch is proof against cynical and distrustful abuse.
I too am a republican with a great deal of personal admiration for the Queen.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
The thing is: how would we know if the Queen actually behaved differently behind the scenes? Some have offered that the Queen is obviously dedicated to public service and is motivated by a conviction of her God-given role as monarch.
But we only have her public word for that, right? We can't look at the archives and records (which are hidden), there is an overblown backlash of offence and whitewash every time anything critical comes to light, and we only have a very minor glimpse of what is going on behind the curtain.
So you are all taking things on trust. I don't believe it. I don't believe that the Queen is positioned by God, because as the Magnificat says, "He casts the mighty from their thrones and raises the lowly. He fills the starving with good things, sends the rich away empty."
If you want to say that no, actually he puts in place a hereditary monarchy, gives them unearned wealth and privilege, fills them with good things, lifts them up, and so on - fine, but that isn't the gospel.
That's for one thing.
For another, there are many credible stories about abuses within the Windsor family. Some of which are in the public domain, including the very strange story of cousins who were ostracised and placed in a mental institution for much of their lives. There are many others which are not in the public domain for obvious reasons.
It is also true that there were some in society who were captivated by Communism, I have never argued otherwise. For the record, I am not a Marxist, so you who want to claim some things about me because I happen to think that the ideology is not all bad need to rearrange your prejudices. The idea that because I said it was reasonable for the Vietnamese to fight back against the powers I am therefore supporting Stalin is obviously bonkers.
I have already said why I think there is a qualitative difference between Communism and Fascism.
Ultimately, where we are is that either we choose to believe that the Royal family is "good", despite evidence that is inarguable about unearned privilege, wealth and power - or we choose to believe that these things are corrosive and that there is more to it than meets the eye.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
mr cheesy
Of course you may believe that the public persona and the private individual are very different. And there is bound to be some truth in that. We all project; there are very few of us who don't, to some extent, do a bit of "Hyacinth Bucketing".
But it's pretty hard to keep that going for 60 years without clues about the private individual seeping through. Has the Queen ever lost her temper in public (like her husband has)? I don't recall it. That level of self-control tends to be, or become, an intrinsic part of one's character. Faithfulness in the carrying out of a role, despite many changes, builds strength of character, which is at the heart of much virtuous behaviour.
The evidence that the Queen has integrity as a private person, not just in the carrying out of her official duties, is of course largely indirect. So maybe Kaplan Corday and I (and lots of others posting here) are credulous victims of Royal spin? It could be so, I suppose, but I think it very unlikely. People who do their job well for many many years tend to be trustworthy, to have integrity. In the end, that is what convinces me.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
mr cheesy
Of course you may believe that the public persona and the private individual are very different. And there is bound to be some truth in that. We all project; there are very few of us who don't, to some extent, do a bit of "Hyacinth Bucketing".
But it's pretty hard to keep that going for 60 years without clues about the private individual seeping through. Has the Queen ever lost her temper in public (like her husband has)? I don't recall it. That level of self-control tends to be, or become, an intrinsic part of one's character. Faithfulness in the carrying out of a role, despite many changes, builds strength of character, which is at the heart of much virtuous behaviour.
I think those are all surface things, and that we probably wouldn't know even if she did.
I believe there are much deeper questions here than whether the Queen has angry words with those around her, which ultimately is not very important.
quote:
The evidence that the Queen has integrity as a private person, not just in the carrying out of her official duties, is of course largely indirect. So maybe Kaplan Corday and I (and lots of others posting here) are credulous victims of Royal spin? It could be so, I suppose, but I think it very unlikely. People who do their job well for many many years tend to be trustworthy, to have integrity. In the end, that is what convinces me.
I think you are talking about a lack of evidence due to the secretive nature of the monarchy. I have no particular affection for someone who does an immoral job for a long time, however well they do it. Integrity is more than just being able to do the "right" thing in public and control the messages being given about everything else in your life - because you happen to be an individual with extreme and outstanding connections, power, prestige and influence.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Oh I see. You think the job is immoral, since it represents an immoral institution. Therefore no one who does it, even if they do it well, can be a moral person. Well, it's a defensible POV. I don't agree with you. Pragmatically, given its lack of real legislative and judicial power (unlike times gone by), the role of constitutional monarch is largely ceremonial and has some positive value. The Queen is very wealthy, of course, but that's not got much to do with the constitutional role. But you have a point.
I'm much less convinced about a kind of hermetic secrecy surrounding the Queen's private life. The anti-Royalist Murdoch and his media empire would give their eye teeth, never mind kazillions of pounds, for a really critical and embarrassing story from an inside whistleblower. Even if there were difficulties of UK publication, there would be the media market outside the UK - and then there is the net of course. It's pretty hard to keep embarrassing secrets these days.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
it was reasonable for the Vietnamese to fight back against the powers
What was not reasonable was for Vietnamese communists to impose a neo-Stalinist dictatorship on the Vietnamese people.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm much less convinced about a kind of hermetic secrecy surrounding the Queen's private life. The anti-Royalist Murdoch and his media empire would give their eye teeth, never mind kazillions of pounds, for a really critical and embarrassing story from an inside whistleblower. Even if there were difficulties of UK publication, there would be the media market outside the UK - and then there is the net of course. It's pretty hard to keep embarrassing secrets these days.
Mmm. There are known to be secret Royal archives which have never been accessed by historians, never mind published by the Murdoch press, so I think this is also just a statement of faith.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The thing is: how would we know if the Queen actually behaved differently behind the scenes? Some have offered that the Queen is obviously dedicated to public service and is motivated by a conviction of her God-given role as monarch.
But we only have her public word for that, right? We can't look at the archives and records (which are hidden), there is an overblown backlash of offence and whitewash every time anything critical comes to light, and we only have a very minor glimpse of what is going on behind the curtain.
*snip*
For another, there are many credible stories about abuses within the Windsor family. Some of which are in the public domain, including the very strange story of cousins who were ostracised and placed in a mental institution for much of their lives. There are many others which are not in the public domain for obvious reasons.
*snip*
Ultimately, where we are is that either we choose to believe that the Royal family is "good", despite evidence that is inarguable about unearned privilege, wealth and power - or we choose to believe that these things are corrosive and that there is more to it than meets the eye.
Aside from the fact (as I see it) that pretty well most privilege, wealth, and power is unearned, or earned through one form of vileness or another (note the Russian injunction "never ask about the first million"), whether or not one is referring to Mr Bush, a Royal Highness, the Director of Personnel and Operations, or the Dear Leader (for the follower of the Gospels, power is the problem, not the acquisition licence), I would point out two things to Mr Cheesy.
First, the hidden relatives were Bowes-Lyonses, not Windsors. When I was in Ireland, I knew of several hidden relatives from much less exalted names, but in the absence of any real social services support until very recently (and some would say, not even now), sheltering the disabled was considered decency. Thankfully, our standards have changed, but I would not single out the Bowes-Lyonses or the Holohans and Moriartys for doing what was then felt was best.
But with respect to Mr Cheesy's first point, we have plenty of evidence on how the Queen behaves behind the scenes. I would refer shipmates to (the republican socialist) Richard Crossman's diaries of his dealings with her when he was Lord President of the Council-- a title which drove him spare with fury. As well, we are able to read between the lines of accounts of interviews by former premiers as well as in memoirs by retired flunkeys. Having had many years ago RL access to state documents and cabinet minutes, I found it astonishing at how little they said about anything -- they were really records of decisions for further reference-- so hidden secrets or even a description of what took place, will not be found there. Diaries and personal letters, or personal accounts, will be key. They've been coming out, in dribs and drabs, from Jock Colville on, and they bear out what folk have been saying about Her Majesty, that she is dutiful, well-informed, and discreet, but doesn't miss a beat and has a quiet sense of humour (cf. Crossman's diaries).
Studies of Edward VIII, the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret have given us plenty that the Royal Family wanted to keep out of sight, but much of that stuff has been available for decades but-- as one friend pointed out rather unkindly -- only to those who read books.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There are known to be secret Royal archives ...
He that hath a secret to keep must keep it secret that he hath a secret!
[ 22. July 2015, 11:13: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
We do seem, at last, to be moving towards a discussion about structures and systems rather than individuals within those structures and systems ...
The Magnificat is certainly an interesting and applicable text in that respect - although one could argue that it has never been 'applied' in any practical sense - rather in the same way that the OT idea of Jubilee was never actually implemented or practiced from what I can gather ...
Do we take the Magnificat as a proof-text for not having a royal family?
There's a discussion to be had there ...
I'm afraid, though, that for me this tends to drift into the kind of Anabaptist withdrawal from all systems and structures debate that dogged the boards for a while here on Ship ... where almost any civic or 'establishment' role was somehow seen by some posters as intrinsically immoral and worthy of all avoidance.
I'm not suggesting that mr cheesy is calling for the withdrawal of Christian involvement in the public domain.
For better or worse, we've inherited the monarchy as it currently and constitutionally stands - and although I was rather anti-monarchist in my more fiery yoof - and I still have qualms about it - I'm less that way inclined now - partly for the reasons Barnabas62 has outlined.
I wouldn't be surprised that once Her Majesty shrugs off this mortal coil and goes - in the words of Charles I - from a corruptible crown to receive an 'incorruptible one' (let's not debate that! ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) - that there'll be all sorts of stuff levied against her - from Murdoch sources and elsewhere.
I think she has held down and difficult and demanding job - and it is a job - and performed it admirably. But in doing so, I'm sure she's been as hard as nails at times and that will have been bruised ribs and casualties ...
Nevertheless, barring some completely startling and unexpected revelation, I don't think there can be that much muck to rake.
I still keep coming back to the sense of Puritanical and somewhat judgemental impression I'm getting here. A kind of cast the first stone thing.
I'm afraid I keep being reminded of Richard Baxter's thing about the besetting sin of the Anabaptists being a kind of judgemental and holier-than-thou-ness.
He identified other besetting and systemic faults with the other Christian traditions around at his time - 'Papists, Greeks' and the various Protestant groups.
Of course, the level of blame or criticism we direct at each or any institution - be it a monarchy, a republican government, a business, a local council, a church ... whatever else - is bound to derive from our particular ideological stance. That's axiomatic.
If we incline more to the left then we may well consider forms of Communism less reprehensible than any form of Fascism. My own view is that both Communism - in its Marxist-Leninist sense - and Fascism meet around the back somewhere and that both are like forms of religious fundamentalism. The full-on Marxists I knew at university were just as intransigent, fixed and inflexible as any religious fundamentalist I've met - whether Christian, Muslim or whatever else.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
. There are known to be secret Royal archives which have never been accessed by historians, never mind published by the Murdoch press...
I suspect that most families have a few secrets they don't want to world to know about. It seems to me that the Royal Family has less privacy than most families.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by betjemaniac quote:
I read Philip Ziegler's biography of Edward VIII one rainy spring over a decade ago. I got to the last page very grateful for the existence of George VI!
I've an eccentric cousin who lobbies whoever they can think of for the erection of a statue of Wallis Simpson because, he says, she did more to keep the UK safe than almost anyone else.
4th plinth in Trafalgar Square?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Heh heh ...
Meanwhile, as per the rich man and the eye of the needle thing and the thread about whether it's possible to be rich and a Christian, I'm wondering what level of 'means-test' the Almighty applies in order to determine who does or doesn't squeeze through?
If the rich and the powerful and mighty are to be cast down from their thrones, then where does that leave mr cheesy or the rest of us who, by virtue of living in a developed, Western society with access to clean water, education, power (and PCs) are surely in a highly privileged position when it comes to many people in the Majority World.
Surely any finger pointing at the royal family, the aristocracy or anyone else who is wealthy and privileged must surely be accompanied by three pointing back at us who are also wealthy and privileged in relative terms?
Where do we draw the line?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My own view is that both Communism - in its Marxist-Leninist sense - and Fascism meet around the back somewhere and that both are like forms of religious fundamentalism. The full-on Marxists I knew at university were just as intransigent, fixed and inflexible as any religious fundamentalist I've met - whether Christian, Muslim or whatever else.
Fundamentalism of any kind tends to produce the same results - so that Muslim Fundamentalists and Christians Fundamentalists might hate one another and yet (to the outsider) look very similar. And the same applies to all sorts of political fundamentalism. No matter what their superficial differences and how much they protest that they hate one another, the fundamentalist part of their beliefs links them at a very deep level.
It seems to me that fundamentalism (ALL fundamentalism) is one of the biggest problems in our world. Partly it is because fundamentalists only ever see in black and white, whilst the world is technicolour!
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Where do we draw the line?
Where my comfort is more important than your need.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, that's a good principle, but by that criteria all of us are guilty ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, that's a good principle, but by that criteria all of us are guilty ...
Yes, we are.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Which presumably means in practice:
a) we shouldn't be quick to judge others - be they royalty, aristocracy, working-class dockers, potters or anyone else.
b) we should put our own house in order so far as we can by trying our utmost on a personal level to act responsibly, ethically and with the needs of our neighbour paramount.
c) we should work for systemic change where we consider structures and systems to embody injustice and inequality - which would involve working towards some kind of non-monarchist and the abolition of the House of Lords and hereditary peerage if we are of the view that these things militate against a just and fair society.
Would that be right?
If so, where does that leave those Christians I've come across - even in the US ( ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ) who believe that monarchy is somehow divinely ordained and the best system that there could possibly be ... I kid you not, I've certainly come across some (to my mind, 'out there') Episcopalians (or 'Continuing' forms of Episcopalian) who believe as much and who are far more monarchist in their views than almost anyone I've met this side of the Pond ...
That might be a tangent perhaps, but there are Christians around who hold those sort of views ... and not only among the more Tsarist types among the Orthodox (and many Orthodox are certainly republican in their views too, it has to be said).
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Good questions, Gamaliel. Not, of course, that there's any necessary contradiction between having a monarch and pursuing, reasonably successfully, fairness and equality in society- as the Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, Belgians and Japanese will tell you.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well yes, but I presume that staunch republicans like mr cheesy and presumably ExclamationMark would probably consider those countries 'wrong' and misguided in their continuing commitment to a monarchy and that they would be even further down to the road to equity and justice if they were to do away with their nasty, tainted little monarchies forthwith ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Which presumably means in practice:
a) we shouldn't be quick to judge others - be they royalty, aristocracy, working-class dockers, potters or anyone else.
Depends upon how you mean this.
You are doing something wrong, therefore you are a bad person. Or you are doing something wrong, stop it.
The first should be approached slowly the second should be remedied quickly.
quote:
b) we should put our own house in order so far as we can by trying our utmost on a personal level to act responsibly, ethically and with the needs of our neighbour paramount.
This should be so obvious to not need mentioning.
quote:
c) we should work for systemic change where we consider structures and systems to embody injustice and inequality - which would involve working towards some kind of non-monarchist and the abolition of the House of Lords and hereditary peerage if we are of the view that these things militate against a just and fair society.
Slow your roll, son.
Yes, we should always work towards a fair and just society. The reality is that it will always require maintenance. However, assuming that any form is a perfect form is unrealistic.
I'm neither a royalist or republican, but am a traditionalist to a small degree.
Keep the monarchy and the peerage, get rid of the Lords.
quote:
If so, where does that leave those Christians I've come across - even in the US ( ) who believe that monarchy is somehow divinely ordained
Who cares?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well yes, but I presume that staunch republicans like mr cheesy and presumably ExclamationMark would probably consider those countries 'wrong' and misguided in their continuing commitment to a monarchy and that they would be even further down to the road to equity and justice if they were to do away with their nasty, tainted little monarchies forthwith ...
I'd not presume too much that you know exactly what I believe Gam ....
As regards the monarchies and nations you mention, in each of them the royal families are very small and involved in public life only on very specific occasions and in particular roles. Most of them have other "jobs" and their large families and retinues of servants aren't supported by the state.
I recall seeing the Queen of Denmark riding through a park on her bike, alone with no security. It's a very different attitude more one of respect not reverence and worship like in the UK.
I guess that with all the nation around losing their royalty, that those who remain are happy to keep something, however ceremonial it may have all become. I'd argue that the free democracies of these nations reflects those prevailing attitudes and it hasn't got anywhere to go because it's the best of all worlds.
I'd not include Japan in that. Their Royal family is lucky to survive: God knows they were culpable in WW 2 but the Americans seemed to have turned as blind an eye on them as they did on the German Rocket Scientists they used for the Apollo program. Expediency and profit still rule I suppose.
Contrast this to the UK where there's a bloated palace staff kept on the state payroll. The royal family here seem to want people's support but have singularly failed to realise that publicity comes at a cost: behaviour that they and others won't tolerate in some of us isn't necessarily overlooked when they do it. You can't be in culture and, at the same time, above its responsibilities if you keep saying "look at me".
Granted some take this seriously. The Queen does or seems to. Philip is ok but a one off report to the Commission for Racial Equality might serve to tame the obnoxious comments that come out from time to time; they're certainly actionable if said by the rest of us - so why cut him slack? I know it's only a joke but we're not all laughing sunshine ...
The jury is out on her mother - the £4 million overdraft at Coutts being written off, does rather indicate the level of her extravagance being above the norm. The comment about being bombed can be taken in lots of ways - and the news reels don't report where the Queen Mother and George were booed alongside Churchill in the East End after they said "we can take it" (bomb damage). Her alcohol consumption was pretty OTT and doesn't set a good example - mind you she wasn't as bad as Margaret and that had to be seen to be believed, alongside her filthy mouth and language [I did so at first hand, sadly].
All in all if our monarchy retained a small family set up, used a bit more of their ground and resources for the poorest amongst us and learned how to budget - there'd be more supporters. Oh, they also have to throw Harry's uniforms away once and for all ...
[ 23. July 2015, 16:22: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, b) was obvious but it needed 'bracketing' I think alongside the others.
As for whether it matters if we find Christians with different political or ideological views than ourselves - or any one else for that matter - well, yes ... it doesn't matter on one level. Who cares?
But if nobody cared about differing views and disagreements like that then half of the threads here would disappear overnight.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
What ExclamationMark said.
Of all the monarchies that exist, the British monarchy is one of the worst.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Yep. Much worse than those old bounders in Saudi Arabia, who are just loveable rascals really.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I did say 'probably' ExclamationMark and so I did qualify my comments ...
As for the list of indictments you've listed there - yes, the British Royal Family are guilty as charged with those - and I could add some extra 'dirt' to your list if I wanted to ...
The point I'm making is that all those bad things have to be held in tension with the good and the indifferent - it's not a binary black and white thing any more than it would be with you or I or anyone in your congregation.
Yes, there is a position of privilege there and that sucks when the Duke of Edinburgh gets away with gobbing off about things that the rest of us would get 'called' or pulled up over ...
That doesn't alter the points I've raised about context and so on with the 1930s thing -- I'm not giving the royal family a get out of jail free card - I'm simply putting some context behind what remains a pretty embarrassing piece of footage - however we cut it.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
