quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Nothing knee-jerk in my post, mr cheesy. Since the other folks in the footage are all dead, the way this is presented is a pretty obvious queen-smear on the basis of a 1933 private movie clip when she was 7. Sure the footage is interesting and of some historical value. Is that the way the Sun is portraying it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Lovable family irony or cause for concern?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Nothing knee-jerk in my post, mr cheesy. Since the other folks in the footage are all dead, the way this is presented is a pretty obvious queen-smear on the basis of a 1933 private movie clip when she was 7. Sure the footage is interesting and of some historical value. Is that the way the Sun is portraying it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Something that you may not know, but the Girlguiding movement uses raising a right arm in the air and holding it, as shown there, to call for silence. What is supposed to happen is that as people notice they shut up and raise their hands too, and the room / field / wherever becomes silent and the announcement can be made.

My first thought looking at that was that it looked like the Queen Mother / Duchess of York was trying to call them to silence and attention for the filming.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
these were not just children, these were adults encouraging their children in fascist salutes for the camera.

In context, this shows how attractive the ideals of fascism were to the aristocracy in Europe

---

quote:

---

In fact the reverse was true, the British royals were very close to Nazis in the 1920s and 30s.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Nothing knee-jerk in my post, mr cheesy. Since the other folks in the footage are all dead, the way this is presented is a pretty obvious queen-smear on the basis of a 1933 private movie clip when she was 7. Sure the footage is interesting and of some historical value. Is that the way the Sun is portraying it?

---

Think what you like about your post - I consider it a knee-jerk attempt to defend the indefensible and the ignore the reality of history.

I don't think this is any kind of smear of anyone who us alive - although the 'saintly' Queen Mother is once again linked to the most disgusting behaviours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Hilarious. Comparing 1930s German fascism with the "concept" of communism.

There is no comparison. There is nothing good in the "concept" of fascism, and the 1930s were the height of disgusting Nazi behaviour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There is nothing good in the "concept" of fascism, and the 1930s were the height of disgusting Nazi behaviour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
the 1930s were the height of disgusting Nazi behaviour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Please show anything I have ever said in support of Stalin. Communism does not equal Stalinism. Fascism always involves strong beating the weak. Always.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Nope. Rubbish. Fascism is the rule by the strong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Nothing knee-jerk in my post, mr cheesy. Since the other folks in the footage are all dead, the way this is presented is a pretty obvious queen-smear on the basis of a 1933 private movie clip when she was 7. Sure the footage is interesting and of some historical value. Is that the way the Sun is portraying it?

---

Think what you like about your post - I consider it a knee-jerk attempt to defend the indefensible and the ignore the reality of history.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
The clip appears to show the Duchess and her elder daughter being encouraged by their uncle to Seig Heil the cameraman, who is probably their father, the future King George VI. Evidence of Nazi sympathies, or playing up to the camera? Let's get real, shall we?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
I agree with others about the bottom feeding tendencies of the Sun.

As far as viewing historical events in their context is concerned, this Guardian piece from a few years back is instructive, as is this photograph of the England football team in 1938

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Incidentally, to suggest that the Nazis were benign in 1933 is not correct. They'd already opened the first concentration camp and were already imprisoning political opponents, already burning books, already attacking Jewish people and businesses.

The fact is that fascism is very attractive to the aristocracy as it speaks to their inherited sense of being born to rule. At root, fascism was always very dangerous and many people knew it from the earliest decades of the twentieth century. Pretending that the British royals were not intoxicated for a time by the promises of the German fascists is just a lie. Fortunately others with more sense persuaded them to stop before it was too late.

---

quote:

---

He added that there was 'a lot of enthusiasm for the Nazis at the time, the economy was good, we were anti-Communist and who knew what was going to happen to the regime?' Philip stressed that he was never 'conscious of anybody in the family actually expressing anti-Semitic views'. But he went on to say there were 'inhibitions about the Jews' and 'jealousy of their success'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Incidentally, to suggest that the Nazis were benign in 1933 is not correct.

---

quote:

---

Pretending that the British royals were not intoxicated for a time by the promises of the German fascists is just a lie.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
After the war they fought tooth and nail against the foundation of the NHS. They were singularly successful with the Consultants Contracts which have stayed pretty much on the same basis until now (ie private work permitted alongside NHS work).

The "aristocracy" retain their racist and sexist views today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Incidentally, there is a very interesting article from the Daily Mail in 2006 where Prince Philip admitted to having found the Nazis attractive.

I don't link to the Mail so google it if you are interested.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Are we happy then with Philip's comment about sponging?

Does it make it better/different that, were the same comment to be made by me/us in a similar setting (or in the workplace), we would be investigated for racism?

---

quote:

---

The Duke of Edinburgh speaks of the popular view at the time, but he doesn't appear to comment on his own views.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
It's a very short clip, they're larking about, we don't know what they were saying.

Even assuming the Royal family was commenting positively on Hitler, anyone familiar with newspapers / magazines in 1933 could pull out examples of pro-Nazi sentiments from people who changed their minds as the decade wore on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Which is irrelevant anyway, as I have never justified these regimes, just pointed out they were sometimes better than the regimes we did support.

As it is, you are left arguing fascism is sometimes OK. It isn't.

---

quote:

---

The argument in Vietnam doesn't even work - the nasty Communists won and then built a relatively stable country.

---

quote:

---

Also I'd say that there are plenty of examples of oppressive, corrupt regimes based on forms of capitalism. Communism is not really much worse that most other systems. If it is unholy, then surely everything else is too.

---

quote:

---

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
No, it's going to be non-existent, and will remain so until Vietnam's communist government disappears into the dustbin of history.
Funny, though, that Vietnam's economy is growing at a very rapid rate. Maybe the Vietnamese do not want to consign it to the dustbin of history, perhaps they think it has been very successful.

---

quote:

---

Cuba is often suggested as being an example of socialist success.

---

quote:

---

the evils of Vietnamese Communism predicted by the US politicians in the 1970s never happened.

Vietnam is not free and is not by any means a perfect society, but is far better than many other societies which were not Communist.

---

quote:

---

Some like to pretend that Communist states are the worst thing that have ever happened - even when examples such as Vietnam and Cuba clearly are many times better than many many worse non-communist states.

---

quote:

---

Vietnam and Cuba are not the world's worst states even though they're Communist. Not by a long chalk.

That isn't whitewashing, that is just a fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Dull. Move on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Are we happy then with Philip's comment about sponging?

Does it make it better/different that, were the same comment to be made by me/us in a similar setting (or in the workplace), we would be investigated for racism?

---

Personally, I tend to ascribe his increasing disinhibition to atrophy of the frontal lobes. (And if I were expected to work at 94 I'd be very pissed off.)

Whatever you say of Prince Phillip, he's not a Nazi.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Who are 'they' in this instance? The creation of a national health service had cross-party support.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:


After the war they fought tooth and nail against the foundation of the NHS. They were singularly successful with the Consultants Contracts which have stayed pretty much on the same basis until now (ie private work permitted alongside NHS work).

The "aristocracy" retain their racist and sexist views today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Who are 'they' in this instance? The creation of a national health service had cross-party support.

---

The Conservative Party supported by the landed "gentry."

The re write of history has tended to blur the margins of the debate on the NHS. It was based on the Beveridge Report but was opposed in Parliament by many Tories. The size of the Labour majority made th adoption inevitable but it was fought all the way just the same: the Tories ensured that private health care was retained giving them that exclusive option.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Dull. Move on.

---

Thats hilarious. Eighty two years ago some members of the royal family, who have now passed away, encouraged their children to perform a fascist salute as a joke at a private family occasion. You are outraged and you don't want to 'move on'

I point out that you were making defences of communist dictatorships just the other day and you think its dull and want to 'move on'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Who are 'they' in this instance? The creation of a national health service had cross-party support.

---

The Conservative Party supported by the landed "gentry."

The re write of history has tended to blur the margins of the debate on the NHS. It was based on the Beveridge Report but was opposed in Parliament by many Tories. The size of the Labour majority made th adoption inevitable but it was fought all the way just the same: the Tories ensured that private health care was retained giving them that exclusive option.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
The clip appears to show the Duchess and her elder daughter being encouraged by their uncle to Seig Heil the cameraman, who is probably their father, the future King George VI. Evidence of Nazi sympathies, or playing up to the camera? Let's get real, shall we?

---

And we all thought that Prince Harry's Nazi uniform was fancy dress and his nickname for a fellow officer from Pakistan was just a bit cheeky ....

---

quote:

---

Mr Murdoch has always put his business interests first. He has taken huge gambles and created whole new industries. In the process, his opponents claimed, he manipulated governments, lowered standards and sidestepped regulations, to become the world's first truly global media mogul.

He was stridently anti-monarchist in his views, rejecting the hereditary principle. Yet his sons Lachlan and James are primed to take up the reins of power in the Murdoch dynasty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:


After the war they fought tooth and nail against the foundation of the NHS. They were singularly successful with the Consultants Contracts which have stayed pretty much on the same basis until now (ie private work permitted alongside NHS work).

The "aristocracy" retain their racist and sexist views today.

---

It's good that you left just enough wriggle room there to avoid someone calling you on it - I mean, you are aware that of the three main parties at the time Labour were in fact the last to endorse the Beveridge Report... As it goes, if you were going to accuse any of the parties of opportunism in adopting it, you could probably write c/o of Mr C. Attlee...

[corrected code and quote misattribution]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
It's a very short clip, they're larking about, we don't know what they were saying.

Even assuming the Royal family was commenting positively on Hitler, anyone familiar with newspapers / magazines in 1933 could pull out examples of pro-Nazi sentiments from people who changed their minds as the decade wore on.

---

Wasn't that the year Time Magazine voted him man of the year?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I'm afraid I don't like the tone of our Baptist friends, ExclamationMark and mr cheesy on this one -- it sounds Puritanical, judgemental ...

But keep things in perspective. Consider the context.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Wasn't that the year Time Magazine voted him man of the year?

---

Actually, that was 1938. And it's not clear to me if the title was always meant to be laudatory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What do you mean if this happened to anybody else? We are talking about family videos from 1932. This is only news because it's the royal family.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What do you mean if this happened to anybody else? We are talking about family videos from 1932. This is only news because it's the royal family.

---

It's news because it hasn't come to light earlier. Why? Who knows but it's probably just a simple matter of embarrassment. There's plenty of personal things I'd rather not get into the public domain ....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Incidentally, to suggest that the Nazis were benign in 1933 is not correct. They'd already opened the first concentration camp and were already imprisoning political opponents, already burning books, already attacking Jewish people and businesses.

---

They weren't benign, but the English and American newspapers did not devote huge amounts of space to their activities. It was easy to remain ignorant.

moo
 

---

Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :
 
I'm so disappointed in you all.

It is reprehensible that the 7 yr old Elizabeth did not realise she would one day be the big Q and behave accordingly.
How stupid of the child not to be able to foresee the Second World War, her uncle's abdication and slide to the political right, her marriage, the rise of social media, the selling of private film footage, and the furor that it would cause on this very forum.



On the other hand, I found the vintage film footage a delightful thing. I felt privileged to be able to see something that had been held in a private archive for so long. What a fascinating glimpse into a world about to be ripped apart.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
A New York Times reporter won a Pulitzer Prize for whitewashing Stalin.
 

---

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Dull. Move on.

---

Thats hilarious. Eighty two years ago some members of the royal family, who have now passed away, encouraged their children to perform a fascist salute as a joke at a private family occasion. You are outraged and you don't want to 'move on'

I point out that you were making defences of communist dictatorships just the other day and you think its dull and want to 'move on'.

---

Remember, if you must get personal, the place to 'move on' to is Hell.

/hosting

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The more up to date matter was Philip's comment "Who do you sponge off?" said to a multi racial community group in London

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The more up to date matter was Philip's comment "Who do you sponge off?" said to a multi racial community group in London

---

Actually, in the OP you chose to first mention that he used the F word.

Which strikes me as one of the more pointless news stories of the year.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The more up to date matter was Philip's comment "Who do you sponge off?" said to a multi racial community group in London

---

Actually, in the OP you chose to first mention that he used the F word.

Which strikes me as one of the more pointless news stories of the year.

---

Why is it pointless?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I often find myself on the opposite side of a discussion (argument?) with Bibliophile or Kaplan Corday, for instance, but I don't think either of them are saying that Fascism is any less reprehensible than Communism is or can be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Who are 'they' in this instance? The creation of a national health service had cross-party support.

---

The Conservative Party supported by the landed "gentry."

The re write of history has tended to blur the margins of the debate on the NHS. It was based on the Beveridge Report but was opposed in Parliament by many Tories. The size of the Labour majority made th adoption inevitable but it was fought all the way just the same: the Tories ensured that private health care was retained giving them that exclusive option.

---

Cross posted - it may well have been by back benchers, but it was actually in the Tory manifesto. And let's not forget the opposition to the NHS of the Labour foreign secretary - after all, control of the means of production trumps the health of the individual...

[please edit your code correctly or the whole class will be kept in after school]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The last Kaiser, and the Tsar were first cousins of King George. All grandchildren of Victoria.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Some expressions of Communism have been relatively mild, no expressions of fascism when they get power have been anything other than destructive. That is a qualitative difference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The only difference is the extent to which they had time to expand their philosophies and the damage they caused.

---

Does that hold though? Spain and Portugal had much longer than Germany and you're not seriously saying they did more damage than Hitler?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, are people taking a 'moral lead' from you or I, mr cheesy?



When I look at the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh I see some attractive qualities for sure - I also see far less attractive qualities. The same if I look at my next door neighbour or the bloke across the road.

Suggesting that the Queen is a good role-model in respect of her emphasis on public service doesn't mean that we have to sign-up for everything else she might represent.

I can see what you're getting at but it seems a pretty binary position to me - and one that doesn't take account of the day-to-day and holistic reality that each of us is a mix of the good, the bad and the ugly.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

Taking a moral lead from these people is beyond a joke.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Does that hold though? Spain and Portugal had much longer than Germany and you're not seriously saying they did more damage than Hitler?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62: I think that's the error Ezekiel was on about. The Queen is not personally responsible for the crap behaviour of some of her ancestors, but she is responsible for her own behaviour.

---

quote:

---

Why shouldn't at least some of that behaviour pass the test of "a good example"? It seems unfair to me to think otherwise. If you do that, ISTM to be mirroring blanket criticisms of any group, asserting they must apply to all its members.

---

quote:

---

Why isn't it possible simply to assess the Queen on her merits? Neither sycophancy nor guilt by association work for me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Because it is easier to deny, smokescreen, avoid and get angry at those who use evidence to burst the balloon of lies than to contemplate that the image is just a facade.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Does that hold though? Spain and Portugal had much longer than Germany and you're not seriously saying they did more damage than Hitler?

---

OK time was the wrong word. I think all fascist movements head in the same direction. But clearly it is not a straight linear process because some take longer to get to the really bad stuff than others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
At root, communism is about the masses of workers taking power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Again, I think it is about the inherent properties of fascism, as a political ideology, versus communinism.

At root, fascism is about the strong taking more power. At root, communism is about the masses of workers taking power.

Clearly communinism can be corrupted and dangerous, but fascism doesn't need to be corrupted to be a danger - it just is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:

On the other hand, Tito's Yugoslavia was (while not by any chalk a paradise) qualitatively different to the Soviet Union. As was Salazar's Portugal to Hitler's Germany.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
It could be worse. Prince Bernhard, espouse of Dutch queen Juliana, was a member of the Nazi party and joined the mounted SS. Prince Claus was a member of the Hitler Youth.

---

quote:

---

Augustine the Aleut: And a few years later Bernhard was a bomber pilot dropping high explosives on Nazis. As far as the Hitler Youth was concerned, pretty well any German adolescent was enrolled

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
It could be worse. Prince Bernhard, espouse of Dutch queen Juliana, was a member of the Nazi party and joined the mounted SS. Prince Claus was a member of the Hitler Youth.

---

And a few years later Bernhard was a bomber pilot dropping high explosives on Nazis. As far as the Hitler Youth was concerned, pretty well any German adolescent was enrolled-- Mulroney's cabinet held a former member of the Hitler Youth and I remember the Canadian Jewish Congress' statement that this was irrelevant as it was not really voluntary-- Mr Oberle's personal conduct had been unexceptionable (IIRC the phrasing correctly).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
May we draw a distinction between (Italian) Fascism and Nazism? The former seems to me to have had a more rounded vision of social relations- the corporate state and so on. I have the impression that Nazism, on the other hand, was rather more gimcrack and made up on the hoof. Accurate or not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
One of the rags this morning is bringing forward a soon-to-be-broadcasted piece about Prince Philip's sisters marrying Nazis. As if his own wartime behaviour was in any way invalidated by theirs. As if his mother's behaviour could be ignored because of theirs. It's getting like that segregationist stuff about one drop of coloured blood makes the whitest of people actually black. Nazi cooties.

---

quote:

---

Albertus: it amounting to not much more than a club for posh people who liked riding horses and wearing snazzy uniforms.

---

That describes Prince Bernhard very well
 

---

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
<snip>It's a big disappointing that the Palace's response is along the lines of "someone has publicised a private home movie" rather than it's the family having a game.<snip>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
May we draw a distinction between (Italian) Fascism and Nazism? The former seems to me to have had a more rounded vision of social relations- the corporate state and so on. I have the impression that Nazism, on the other hand, was rather more gimcrack and made up on the hoof. Accurate or not?

---

There are major distinctions between the two. Remember that both sprang from socialist movements, to which Mussolini added the futurism of Marinetti and his followers, Hitler the revanchism and ultra-nationalism of the Freikorps. Roehm embodied this uneasy marriage, but he stressed the socialist side. In Hitler's case, the Night of the Long Knives was the working out of the tensions within the Nazi Party; for Mussolini, it was his assumption of power in Christmas 1925. That saw some people gaoled, rather more sent into internal exile, and a couple of years down the track the assassination of a very small number. Overall, the level of violence in Spain after Franco's success was not there is Italy, let alone that shown by the concentration camps in Germany. Portugal was even less murderous.

The vision you talk of was certainly there is Italian fascism, but little was put into practice. The south remained dismally poor, as did the majority of the rural population in the north. Those employed in industry did better, but that's relative. Corporatism was only partially introduced, and largely remained window dressing.

I'm not aware of any evidence that Nazism was made up on the hoof. Indeed, I gather that those who have seriously studied Mein Kampf say that it's all in there by 1924. Again, my authority is Paxton.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think we need to separate out a few issues here.

Nobody - as far as I can see - is trying to 'smokescreen' anything. All they're trying to do is put things in context.

The issue of whether we agree with having monarchy as an institution is a different one - and I don't see how the current Queen's behaviour or that of her ancestors - which we can't go back in a time-machine and change - has anything to do with that.

There's a discussion to be had as to whether monarchies are good, bad or indifferent. The behaviour of individual monarchs is a separate issue. It'd be like having a discussion about the role of a Prime Minister in a Parliamentary democracy and introducing some PM or other's bad personal habits into the equation as if that bears any relation to the office or institution itself.

The US has had some pretty crap Presidents. Does that mean that they should scrap the Presidential system and adopt another form of government? If so, which?

There's also a kind of unbalanced idealisation going on. Wouldn't everything be wonderful come the revolution? Wouldn't it be marvellous is 'the workers' gained control?

As that in and of itself would ensure moral rectitude and probity within 'the dictatorship of the proletariat'.



There's also something unpleasantly judgemental and almost gleefully spiteful going on here I think. I'd hate to think what would happen to anyone in mr cheesy's church or circle of influence and friendship if they stepped out of line according to his oh so high standards ...

I'd hate to put a foot wrong if I was in mr cheesy's church. I'd never live it down.

Are the Duke of Edinburgh's gaffes and often un-PC comments reprehensible? Yes, they are. And he should be 'called' on it - same as anyone else.

For my money, Prince Harry's unfunny stunt in a Nazi uniform is far more reprehensible than anything in the footage The Sun has unearthed. At least the Princess Elizabeth and her family were larking about prior to the event ... with the benefit of hindsight Hal shouldn't have even thought of doing what he did - even if he were doing it as a wind-up or even to be 'post-modern' in some kind of ironic way ...

As for who all these 'modern aristocrats' who allegedly support Fascism. Who are they? Some of the Mitfords did - but then, Jessica Mitford was a Communist. Some of the old aristocratic families did have some sympathy with fascism - but then, so did the working-class guys who turned up to support Moseley and his rallies.

Are we going to write-off the entire working-class because certain working-class people were drawn to Moseley in the '30s - or to the BNP and NF in the 1970s and '80s?



This is a whole load of snorting and snuffling about nothing. Everyone knows Edward VIII as almost was had some pretty duff views - although he was always popular in my native South Wales for his 'something must be done' comment during a visit there where he went off route and saw the level of poverty and deprivation for himself.
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Duke of Edinburgh's mother was wealthy and privileged. She put herself at risk by hiding Jewish people in her Greek mansion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

There's also something unpleasantly judgemental and almost gleefully spiteful going on here I think. I'd hate to think what would happen to anyone in mr cheesy's church or circle of influence and friendship if they stepped out of line according to his oh so high standards ...

I'd hate to put a foot wrong if I was in mr cheesy's church. I'd never live it down.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:


To go back to Mr Cheesy's comments at the top of this page, both fascism and communism are at root corrupt and dangerous; the difference is little more than the communist régimes started by targeting the previous ruling class, then by moving in on everyone else, while the fascists worked in reverse. The dichotomy is no greater than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


Are we going to write-off the entire working-class because certain working-class people were drawn to Moseley

---

Great rugby club (I've got a season ticket), but not really a working class area even in the 1930s

The ones who were drawn to Mosley, OTOH - football fans, the lot of them.
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
As far as the Hitler Youth was concerned, pretty well any German adolescent was enrolled-- .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I agree, Commmunism has too frequently turned into the mirror image of fascism, but there is a fundamental difference there - which means that it is actually possible to have a communism that responds to democracy.

---

quote:

---

Moo: Can you cite any examples of a communism that responds to democracy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
Can you cite any examples of a communism that responds to democracy?

Moo

---

quote:

---

mr cheesy: Several Indian states have Communists who are elected in and out of power.

---

quote:

---

dyfrig:Don Camillo's nemesis, the mayor, is as much a part of Italian life as the parish priest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
I suppose I must be naive. I had assumed that Prince Philip's 'Who are you sponging off?' remark was an attempted send-up (no doubt unwise) of the gutter press's centuries-old insistence that all immigrant communities are spongers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
I suppose I must be naive. I had assumed that Prince Philip's 'Who are you sponging off?' remark was an attempted send-up (no doubt unwise) of the gutter press's centuries-old insistence that all immigrant communities are spongers.

---

It does seem that the community group itself took it as a joke.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Re: the British Royal Family, Nazism, Prince Philip, etc.

1. The late Queen Mother's hatred of all things German is well-documented - it went back to the death of her favourite brother Fergus in WWI.

---

quote:

---

2. The raised arms may in fact be what was called the Bellamy salute: since the 1890s this had been performed in most schools in the United States while the children recited the pledge of allegiance.

---

quote:

---

3. As raised up-thread, Prince Philip had a miserable childhood: his mother spent 6 months in a psychiatric clinic with depression when he was only 7 (just after she'd become a member of the Greek Orthodox Church), and then just before his ninth birthday she was snatched off the street while he was with her and incarcerated in a psychiatric hospital against her will.

---

quote:

---

This is all a mare's nest manufactured by Rupert Murdoch's gutter press, who have managed not to inform their readers about Mr Murdoch's choosing to study in the UK meaning he escaped the national service he should have done had he remained in Australia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
I suppose I must be naive. I had assumed that Prince Philip's 'Who are you sponging off?' remark was an attempted send-up (no doubt unwise) of the gutter press's centuries-old insistence that all immigrant communities are spongers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
But again, the Nazi sympathies of Edward VIII are already public knowledge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by american piskie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
But again, the Nazi sympathies of Edward VIII are already public knowledge.

---

I am reminded of a late colleague whose military service included being attached as some sort of honorary ADC to the Duke during his journey to exile in the Bahamas: sole duty, to shoot the Duke if there were any possibility of his falling into German hands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
May we draw a distinction between (Italian) Fascism and Nazism? The former seems to me to have had a more rounded vision of social relations- the corporate state and so on. I have the impression that Nazism, on the other hand, was rather more gimcrack and made up on the hoof. Accurate or not?

---

Dangerous road, because you go into "he wasn't all bad - he made the trains run on time" territory, but pretty much.

---

quote:

---

It is undeniable that appeasement attracted the active support of many British notables, and that some took this a stage further by playing a prominent role in promoting better ‘Anglo-German relations’. The possession of considerable wealth, status, and a strong sense of ‘duty’ meant that politically active aristocrats could, on their own initiative, fly to Germany and receive a warm welcome from leading Nazis. Motivated in part by what they regarded as the National Government’s diplomatic inactivity, these self-appointed emissaries, mainly but not exclusively Conservatives, sought to demonstrate that it was possible, indeed
essential, to parley openly with the Nazi leadership, to address German grievances, and thereby avoid another European conflict. The Nazis encouraged such visits, hoping they might hasten direct contact between leading figures of each country that would pave the way for Germany to exercise a free hand in Eastern Europe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Moo: Can you cite any examples of a communism that responds to democracy?

---

My country has had a Communist Party for decades, working within the democratic system. The same is true for a number of other countries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I have just been looking at the newspaper archive. Photos of Nazi salutes are in the Illustrated London News as far back as 1930...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
People- some people- knew from day one. I think I'm right in saying that both ++ Temple and ++Lang were prefectly clear that this was somethign monstrous and wicked.
But that wouldn't be inconsistent with people simply taking the piss out of the Nazis (which is what the pictures I've seen look to me like they might be showing). There's a long British tradition of thinking that foreigners are mostly ludicrous, and when we're talking about foreigners led by a pop-eyed little man with a Charlie Chaplin moustache, who greet each other with a salute strongly reminiscent of the gesture used by schoolboys asking permission to go to the lavatory, they're even more so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
I suppose I must be naive. I had assumed that Prince Philip's 'Who are you sponging off?' remark was an attempted send-up (no doubt unwise) of the gutter press's centuries-old insistence that all immigrant communities are spongers.

---

It does seem that the community group itself took it as a joke.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Do we actually know that Edward VIII was a Nazi sympathiser, rather than a somewhat dim chap who thought that Herr Hitler was getting things moving and keeping the Reds at bay?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
And even if he was one, do we know that he was one in 1933?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

2. The raised arms may in fact be what was called the Bellamy salute: since the 1890s this had been performed in most schools in the United States while the children recited the pledge of allegiance.

---

It might have been, but of course nobody has made any counter-claim of this kind. I don't think any of the royals in the video had been educated in the USA, so this seems pretty unlikely.

---

quote:

---

Moo: AIUI, communism involves state ownership of all industry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:


The tragedy, of course, is that whatever his political views, the potter is much more likely to die fighting in WW2 than the toff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I'll go and dig for the figures but I'm pretty sure that that's not true at all in percentage terms. It certainly wasn't for WW1. Other way around. If you want to die in a world war, be a public schoolboy and serve as a junior officer. That'll do it. Lead from the front and all that.

Of all people that actually went for the sole male Mitford sibling funnily enough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I'll go and dig for the figures but I'm pretty sure that that's not true at all in percentage terms. It certainly wasn't for WW1. Other way around. If you want to die in a world war, be a public schoolboy and serve as a junior officer. That'll do it. Lead from the front and all that.

Of all people that actually went for the sole male Mitford sibling funnily enough.

---

Please do. A fairly large number of aristocratic men died in WW1, many fewer died in WW2 AFAIU. I'd be interested to see any numbers which show otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Quite so, betjemaniac. And look at what Orwell says about the war record of the British upper classes in The Lion and the Unicorn (or it may be England Your England)- something to the effect that whatever their faults, the casualty lists showed (and this was written during and about the second war, after Dunkirk) that they were plentifully resdy to go out and get killed in war.
I don't think, btw, one would call Lord Rothermere an aristocrat: a big businessman who had been given a peerage.
On the Mitfords- yes, there was poor Unity (I say poor because she seems to have been rather barmy) and Diana, and Pamela married a really rather unpleasant fascist professor called Derek Jackson (who nonetheless fought in Bomber Command). However, Jessica's communism has already been mentioned- and don't forget that Nancy was somewhere on the mild left. Never heard anything about Deborah's politics, if she had any. So, 3 fascists (or one Nazi of dubious mental stability, one fascist, and one probable fascist); two lefties; one not known. Maybe 3 out of 6 not fascists: plus their brother, about whose politics I know nothing. not quite the solid fascist phalanx (no pun intended) of myth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Ok, that may be fair enough. Perhaps then they cancel each other out. Still leaves 3/4 fascist/ non-facsist ratio. Even the other way round would give the lie to this 'fascist Mitfords' myth, at least in that generation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Some of the differences between WWI and WW2 will be because so many of the men did die in WWI. It was known as the lost generation and WWI disproportionately affected the upper classes. Whole year groups from Eton died, but only 10% of thet troops fighting.

---

quote:

---

And men who fought in WWI were only just too old to fight in WW2. My grandfather was 19 at the start of WWI, 45 at the start of WW2.

So the effects of WWI continued into WW2.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Some of the differences between WWI and WW2 will be because so many of the men did die in WWI. It was known as the lost generation and WWI disproportionately affected the upper classes. Whole year groups from Eton died, but only 10% of thet troops fighting.

---

Affected, yes. Disproportionally affected, no.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
to be clear, you're saying that the British upper classes weren't disproportionately affected by WW1??? I mean, it's at least a question for WW2 which is why I'm looking to see what figures are out there, but for WW1 I'd have thought it was practically inarguable?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
to be clear, you're saying that the British upper classes weren't disproportionately affected by WW1??? I mean, it's at least a question for WW2 which is why I'm looking to see what figures are out there, but for WW1 I'd have thought it was practically inarguable?

---

The evidence that the upper classes were disproportionally affected is a whole class wiped out at Eton? Some working families lost more than 5 sons from one generation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
"Some 12% of the British army's ordinary soldiers were killed during the war, compared with 17% of its officers" according to the BBC.

But then this is not evidence of a disproportionate loss of the aristocrats, because not all officers were aristocrats.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Ok, but neither was the class background of officers even remotely nationally representative (since we're talking statistics) - they were disproportionately skewed to the upper middle classes and above.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
to be clear, you're saying that the British upper classes weren't disproportionately affected by WW1??? I mean, it's at least a question for WW2 which is why I'm looking to see what figures are out there, but for WW1 I'd have thought it was practically inarguable?

---

The evidence that the upper classes were disproportionally affected is a whole class wiped out at Eton? Some working families lost more than 5 sons from one generation.

---

No, the evidence is the death rates:

"ordinary" soldiers - 12%
officers - 17%
Old Etonians - 20%

You were far more likely to die as a junior officer than you were as any rank below subaltern. If you sent 5 sons in as subalterns you had a higher chance of losing all 5 than you did if you sent 5 sons in as private soldiers.

And people did.

To be honest, class-based competitive grief is a bit distasteful, but if we're going to talk about proportions and percentages then we may as well be accurate.

For further reading, can I suggest Six Weeks by John Lewis Stempel? Or Mud Blood and Poppycock by Gordon Corrigan?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
What is this supposed to prove? On the first day of the Somme, 700 'ordinary soldiers' from Accrington fought, 235 were killed, 350 were injured. In one day.

Eton lost people. But this, in and of itself, is not evidence of anything - unless you are trying to claim that Eton contained the entirety of the aristocracy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
What is this supposed to prove?

---

quote:

---

the potter is much more likely to die fighting in WW2 than the toff.

---

quote:

---

You are much less likely to die from the higher commissioned ranks in WW2 (and more recent conflicts) than as a man called-up into the ranks

---

quote:

---

disproportionately skewed to the upper middle classes and above

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
If it is true that the class background of officers was, as betjemaniac asserts,

quote:

---

disproportionately skewed to the upper middle classes and above

---

and that in addition, a greater percentage of them died than ordinary soldiers, I think dismissing those disputing your assertions as "rhetoric" is a bit thin.

---

quote:

---

You have not, so far, advanced a single piece of evidence to back up your claim that the potter was more likely to die in WW2 than the toff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
No, the prejudice comes in when you tar all aristocrats with the same brush because of the actions of some.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This I do concede. However I still believe there is evidence it is true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
And therein lies the problem.

I have no doubt, on the basis of what you've posted here, that you want it to be true, because it confirms your views on the upper classes.

---

quote:

---

But those are precisely the sort of circumstances in which a decent researcher or journalist, say, will triple-check before asserting something, so as to make sure their prejudices are not obscuring their objectivity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
As I said, the percentages of rank vs officer deaths were quite close anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
It actually isn't - 17% to 12% is a quite large enough gap when doing a cut of the numbers from overall casualty figures out of total sample of around 1,000,000 (give or take) vs the total numbers served.

If nothing else 17% is almost 50% higher. If you went in knowing those odds would you think "oh it's not that different really"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Incidentally, if we are going to use Eton college as a measure, 20% of joined up officers died in WW1, 15% of joined up officers died in WW2.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
It actually isn't - 17% to 12% is a quite large enough gap when doing a cut of the numbers from overall casualty figures out of total sample of around 1,000,000 (give or take) vs the total numbers served.

If nothing else 17% is almost 50% higher. If you went in knowing those odds would you think "oh it's not that different really"?

---

OK, but how many of the difference were from the middle rather than the upper classes? How many were 'battlefield' commissions?

According to wikipedia, quoting a book I do not have access to, there was promotion from the ranks and Kitchener's volunteers for officer ranks came mostly from the middle classes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The army expanded multiple times, if one joined from the upper classes, were you more or less likely to die? I don't see that this proves it either way.

---

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
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.



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.



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.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 

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

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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!

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
it was reasonable for the Vietnamese to fight back against the powers

---

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.

---

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.

---

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 ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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! ) - 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.
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

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...

---

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!

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Where do we draw the line?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, that's a good principle, but by that criteria all of us are guilty ...

---

Yes, we are.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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 ( ) 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).
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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 ...


 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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 ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yep. Much worse than those old bounders in Saudi Arabia, who are just loveable rascals really.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yep. Much worse than those old bounders in Saudi Arabia, who are just loveable rascals really.

---

That there are worse is not in question. But of the European monarchies offered, they're the worst.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
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.

---

I agree with you but there's sufficient post 1930's evidence for most reasonable people to be concerned. But as it involves the Windsors then it gets excused.

Some things are binary you know: it's either ok or it isn't. To apply anything unevenly doesn't especially follow the gospel mandate or narrative even if there's judgement (appropriate or not) involved.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I would agree that some things are binary - if something is wrong then it is wrong, however we cut it.

I'm not sure how much post-1930s evidence there is to connect the Windsors with Nazism. Not a great deal it seems to me.

Princess Margaret's potty-mouth has nothing to do with her political sympathies ... and heck both mr cheesy and myself have been known to use what the BBC euphemistically calls 'very strong language' in Hell. I've done so in Purgatory too, at times.

If I act like a prat on these boards or elsewhere, does that somehow invalidate whatever institutions , political party or faith-group I happen to be involved with?

Equally, if you were to act like prawn, does that mean that all Baptist ministers are somehow implicated in your behaviour?



To my mind, it's equally as daft to come over all morally indignant about the royal family simply because they ARE the royal family, as it is to white-wash and exonerate them for the same reason.

Yes - they can act badly at times - and the Duke of Edinburgh's racist remarks are unacceptable - as was Harry's sick stunt with the Nazi uniform ...

That doesn't make Harry a Nazi though nor the royal family Nazi sympathisers. Yes, he should have got great big boot up the arse for his behaviour ...

But can you not see why I'm rather squeamish about the tone and tenor of some of the posts here?

In expressing that it doesn't mean that there's 'guilt by association' and I'm somehow a friend to Nazism does it?

I'm not suggesting anyone here believes I am - but the kind of binary thinking on display here leads in that kind of direction. 'You're defending the royal family, therefore you must be some kind of fascist ...'


 

---

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
So we've got some footage from 1933 or 1934 involving the Duke of Windsor (whose sympathies have been known for decades), the Queen Mother, and the infant princesses Elizabeth and Margaret with, presumably George VI behind the camera.

Excepting the Duke of Windsor (see above), about which of the other four persons can we say about the allegations of Nazi sympathies "there's sufficient post 1930's evidence for most reasonable people to be concerned"? And in what sense does this footage add anything to the knowledge about the persons involved that it might be genuinely be in the "public interest" interest to publish it, rather than merely being pruriently interesting to the public, and a means of putting more money into the Murdoch coffers.

Getting away from the Windsors for a moment, and looking at the context of the times, in the early 1930s Christians could have views about Hitler's Germany which we'd find surprising, even in Germany, where the evidence was starkest, and even visitors from England found little to worry them.

How different things looked to everyone, only a very few years later!
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I wouldn't say that there is much evidence of Nazi sympathies since WW2 in the British royals or aristocracy. I've certainly never claimed this - just that for a period the aristocracy was intoxicated by the idea of fascism.

Anyway, the Windsors do not have to be Nazis to be exhibiting disgusting behaviours. Very largely these have nothing to do with fascism, and everything to do with inherited and unearned privilege.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I wouldn't say that there is much evidence of Nazi sympathies since WW2 in the British royals or aristocracy. I've certainly never claimed this - just that for a period the aristocracy was intoxicated by the idea of fascism.

Anyway, the Windsors do not have to be Nazis to be exhibiting disgusting behaviours. Very largely these have nothing to do with fascism, and everything to do with inherited and unearned privilege.

---

Again, SOME British aristocrats were 'intoxicated' by fascism. Not ALL.

You have not proven that the British aristocracy as a whole were intoxicated by fascism. The fact is, they weren't. Some were. Others weren't.

Heck, we've tried to demonstrate time and time again that whilst one of the Mitford girls was a fascist, another was a communist ...

These things weren't monolithic and there were differences of view-points and opinions within individual aristocratic families.

You can no more make a broad-brush generalisation about the degree that the UK aristocracy were 'intoxicated' by fascism as you can about dock-workers, coal-miners, potters, bank-clerks, middle-managers, railway-workers, bus-drivers or anyone else ...

That's what's bugging me -- this kind of blanket generalisation based on a few examples - Sir Oswald Mosley, one of the Mitford sisters, Lord Rothermere and the Queen's 'Uncle David' ...

I'm not letting any of them off the hook, simply saying that they may have been no more of a proportional representation of the British aristocracy than those working-class Blackshirts who marched with Mosley were representative of the aggregate views of the industrial working-class at that time ...

As for the 'disgusting behaviours' of the Windsors - why should that be seen as any more part and parcel an intrinsic part of their inherited wealth and privilege as - say, than misbehaviour by someone who is unemployed or on a low-income is indicative of something intrinsically 'wrong' with them ... filthy, feckless, idle lay-about ... type of thing ...

No - of course social structures and levels of poverty and deprivation - and the reverse, levels of inherited wealth and privilege - are going to have a bearing on all of this. I wouldn't argue otherwise -- but it's the kind of Puritanical and selective one-sidedness that sticks in my craw.

It's the impression of smug self-righteousness and Pharisaisism that such a view can convey that bugs me.

'I thank God that I am not like those disgustingly behaved Windsor family over there ...'

Motes and beams.

Yes, if Prince Harry parades about in a Nazi uniform as some kind of sick joke then he should be 'called' on it ...

If the Duke of Edinburgh bad-mouths people then he should be called on it too ...

But I don't think some kind of resentful, 'the bastards are more privileged than the rest of us,' thing is particularly helpful.

That's not to argue for a, 'the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate / God made them high and lowly and ordered their estate' type of approach.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I never claimed they all were. I believe a significant number were.

There is no point me trying to respond to the rest of your waffle.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 


Why not? The rest of us are responding to your ill-though through assertions.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Prejudice is prejudice - whether it's directed at the royal family, the aristocracy, people on benefits, people of particular faith positions, colour or creed.

ExclamationMark is right. Some things are binary. And I recognise prejudice and selectivity when I see it. And I see it in your posts. In spades.
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

1. Yes, I would agree that some things are binary - if something is wrong then it is wrong, however we cut it.

2. Equally, if you were to act like prawn, does that mean that all Baptist ministers are somehow implicated in your behaviour?

3. To my mind, it's equally as daft to come over all morally indignant about the royal family simply because they ARE the royal family, as it is to white-wash and exonerate them for the same reason.

4. But can you not see why I'm rather squeamish about the tone and tenor of some of the posts her?e

---

1. Then why do we permit a kind of schizophrenic approach depending on "who" you are?

2. When I do, I get called on it and rightly so. I don't expect to tar others in the same way and if you read my previous post you will see that I recognise the good character and work of some e.g The Queen. Equally, there's one or two whose behaviour is poor and in some cases downright wrong yet who are never called to account and are cut a great deal of slack.

3. So you see the point I'm making? I don't have a generic moral indignance, just specific concerns that raise a sign that in the UK we are still overly class conscious and status driven. It's injustice.

4. Yes and so should we all be concerned. WSe don't recognise the intrinsic value of everyone because we don't treat them all the same
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 


hosting/

GAMALIEL

If you must get personal, take it to Hell

/hosting



[ 24. July 2015, 11:19: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Just out of interest, EM, in your original reference upthread to 'the Windsors', I'd understood you to be referring (there) specifically to the Nazi allegations and therefore to the Duke and Duchess of, rather than the wider family. Am I right? I know that you have wider issues about deference and so on.
 

---

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
People keep quoting about harry and the nazi uniform – I’ve seen it described in various ways so here is the news story:-

"Prince Harry has apologised for wearing a swastika armband to a friend's fancy dress party."

Link to the whole story with a picture

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4170083.stm

So it seems that it was a fancy dress party and while not good judgement call on Harry’s behalf – but it raises the point that people are selling/hiring these things out because there must be a market for them – so where is the condemnation for the non-royal family members, who think it ok or fun to sell or wear a swastika?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think the Prince Harry and Nazi uniform incident is rather different than an 'ordinary' member of Joe Public hiring one to wear at a fancy-dress party, Zacchaeus -- which I would also consider to be a pretty sick and inappropriate thing to do.

Why?

Well, because of his high-profile and public position. It sends the wrong message. He ought to have known better even as a callow yoof ... he would have been fully aware that it was going to cause offence and provoke a shit-storm.

The same applies, I'd suggest to the Duke of Edinburgh's public pronouncements - and I'm with ExclamationMark on that - completely. It's easy to have a chuckle at them -- 'ha ha, silly old buffer ...' -- but some of his remarks have been well beyond the pale.

So, no, I'm not entirely on a different page to either ExclamationMark or mr cheesy -- it's all a question of degree, I think.

I certainly agree that British society is still far too class-conscious and driven by criteria of that kind. We are all culpable of that to a greater or lesser extent as we all contribute in some way to creating the tone and tenor or our societies ...

I s'pose it comes back to the 'punching up' or 'punching down' thing that has emerged from other threads. I'd like to think I'm arguing for a level playing field in how and where we punch.

I certainly believe that there is a Gospel imperative for a 'bias to the poor' ... but I've yet to be convinced that being selective in who we criticise or excuse - be it the Windsors or 'Wayne and Waynetta' is the way to go about it ...

Things are pretty messy all ways round.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Besides, I'm not sure what 'action' could or should be taken against the royal family on the basis on 10 seconds of home-movie footage from 1933/34 any more than could be taken of anyone else who had been filmed larking about with apparent Nazi salutes at that time.

So I don't see how the 'special treatment' thing applies in this instance.

I've yet to see anyone on this thread demonstrate significant causes for concern about alleged Nazi sympathies with any of the royals after that time - other than 'Uncle David' and we all know about him anyway ...

So, I'm still not sure what case there is to answer here.

The Duke of Edinburgh coming out with crass and racist remarks is another issue.

Whether it's 'right' or 'wrong' to have a heriditary monarchy and peerage is another issue again.
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Mr Cheesy keeps asserting that his non-defined aristocracy in the 1930's UK was either pro-Nazi or pro-fascist (confusing the two into one). Very few people were in fact interned during the war as being a security risk. The reason? Very few people at all, in any section of the UK community were in favour of either Nazism or fascism. What Mr Cheesy has not done is to understand that what he observes is not that people were in favour of either ideology but rather that they were opposed to the rise and spread of communism and that the actions of Mussolini and later later Hitler were perceived as quarantining the success of communism to the USSR.

I was away from the Ship (indeed internet life generally) for some time and did not respond to Mr Cheesy's answer to my last post. I do not do so now - it is one of the best and most illogical non-sequiturs I have seen for many a day.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
What Mr Cheesy has not done is to understand that what he observes is not that people were in favour of either ideology but rather that they were opposed to the rise and spread of communism and that the actions of Mussolini and later later Hitler were perceived as quarantining the success of communism to the USSR.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Mr Cheesy keeps asserting that his non-defined aristocracy in the 1930's UK was either pro-Nazi or pro-fascist (confusing the two into one). Very few people were in fact interned during the war as being a security risk. The reason? Very few people at all, in any section of the UK community were in favour of either Nazism or fascism.

---

quote:

---

Very few people at all, in any section of the UK community were in favour of either Nazism or fascism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip_Movement

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
OK mr cheesy, just to show you what a nice person I am, I'm going to hand you a quote on a plate.

This is a description of Hitler from Churchill's book Great Contemporaries, written in 1937, and I've just come across it in a new book I'm reviewing, Hollow Heroes: An Unvarnished Look At The Wartime Careers Of Churchil, Montgomery And Mountbatten:-

"The story of that struggle cannot be read without admiration for the courage, the perseverance, and the vital force which enabled him to challenge, defy, conciliate or overcome, all the authorities or resistance that barred his path. Those who have met Herr Hitler face-to-face in on public business
or on social terms have found a highly competent, cool, well-informed functionary with an agreeable manner, a disarming smile, and few have been unaffected by a subtle personal magnetism".

It doesn't prove your thesis, but I'm sure it will make your day.

You might like to file it alongside similar eulogies from the era to Stalin, some of whose encomiasts, like Churchill in the case of Hitler, came to their senses , and many of whom did not.

---

quote:

---

It's worth pointing out then, SL, that the Queen was very definitely opposed to apartheid and was at odds with Thatcher over sanctions on SA - but could of course not interfere with government.

---

Although not a monarchist, and definitely opposed to the notion of a Christian monarch in a 'Christian country', I have considerable respect for the Queen personally. Whatever was going on in the film that started this business off, it would be wrong to hold a child of her then age responsible for it.

I was simply making the point that a lot of the opposition to German/Italian/Spanish and other fascistic ideas was based on, in effect, a pro-British version of the same ideas. And that many of those ruling parts of our old Empire were thoroughly racist and authoritarian themselves even if they fiercely fought Hitler.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Nice one, ExclamationMark ...

On a more serious note, with a South Pacific cult growing up around Prince Philip, it does illustrate the tendency that human beings in all sorts of societies seem to have - and that's to hero-worship or venerate particular individuals.

I can't think of a system or society where this doesn't happen - be it Saints or heroes of the faith - and every Christian tradition has those to some degree or other - even if it doesn't formally beatify or officially designate them as such -- be it sports, be it arts and culture, be it political systems of various kinds - including the hero-workers of various Communist systems ...

What do we do about that?

Do we appropriate these tendencies and try to Christianise them? Which, I suppose, is what happens within Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

Or do we tut and pout and get all Puritanical about the whole thing?

Or seek some kind of middle-ground between those extremes?


 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Steven Langton, I think back in the day, with the whole imperialist history of Western Europe we were going to end up with institutionalised racism and authoritarianism ...

The issue is that, given that background and trajectory, the degree to which these things were taken. One could certainly argue that Nazism represents a particularly virulent form of romanticised nationalism and anti-semitism that was already endemic in European culture and took it to a hideous extreme.

The same can be said about dialectical materialism being taken to an inhuman and hideous extreme in Stalinism and other forms of totalitarian communism.

So, yes, there is gradation along the spectrum from an unpleasant late 19th century jingoistic imperialism - common to the British, Russian, Austro-Hungarian, Belgian, French and other empires at that time -- towards full-on fascism.

Just as there is a gradation on the opposite spectrum from milder forms of socialism towards more totalitarian forms of communism.

Of course, there were also contrary voices too - and that's as it should be - but both deifying or demonising particular groups or classes of people doesn't get us very far -- and I think that's been happening on this thread to a certain extent.
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Those chosen for inclusion in the collection Great Contemporaries, are not restricted to those whom Churchill admired. Trotsky, IIRC, is there, and Bernard Shaw who is given very faint and qualified praise indeed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Kaplan Corday

Deliberate winding up - even when done with style - is not allowed in Purgatory. No more please.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

---

Style is my second name (my wife thinks it is Sty).
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Which would make your first name 'Pig' right?

Or is that not Purgatorial?


 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Which would make your first name 'Pig' right?

Or is that not Purgatorial?

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0