Is the monarchy worth keeping?

[Bella]

Having known some Brits who were young men and woman at the time of WWII, from what they've said I believe the BRF was a symbol of unity and perserverence not even Churchill could achieve. Yes, Churchill was the military mind behind the British involvement, a true statesman, but it was the King & Queen, I've been led to believe, who were the calming force. I think they did alot for morale. And probably for the first time in a very very long time, I think the British people could actually relate to the King & Queen as Londoners, parents and citizens whose futures were also precariously being jeopardized.

[Harry's polo shirt]

British royalty and the history of the family and the fact that the history is alive in the current royals is the main reason people visit the country.

[BeatrixFan]

Is it? I don't believe that for a moment. The majority of tourists never see a member of the RF when they come and if they do manage to shlep over to Windsor or Buck House then it's only to see the bits the Queen has lowered herself to let the plebs see.

[BeatrixFan]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

If you read Sir Alan Lascelles's memoirs which cover the war, you'll see that although Churchill, as the head of the elected government, was doing most of the work, the King was doing significant work also.

BeatrixFan, to characterise George VI's wartime contributions as nothing but looking pretty is to put ideology way ahead of established fact.

I disagree. The King and Queen may have kept patriotism bubbling over which is extremely helpful in a war situation but I can't see that George VI was more important to the war effort than the Prime Minister. In my view, it was the elected official who got Britain through and certainly not the unelected one who simply gave the Vera Lynn songs a pleasant backdrop.

[Bella]

Originally Posted by Harry's polo shirt

British royalty and the history of the family and the fact that the history is alive in the current royals is the main reason people visit the country.

I don't think this is true. History is def. a draw, but if the RF were to be entirely abolished tomorrow, I think ppl would still visit GB. The country has alot more to offer than just royalty.

[Al_bina]

I agree with Bella and BeatrixFan that tourists visit countries for a host of various reasons: history, culture, and new experiences. For instance, tourists enjoy visiting France with its Louvre, Russia with the Winter Palace, or China’s Forbidden City. The absence of royalty does not necessarily translate into decrease in tourism.

[BeatrixFan]

If anything, the absence of Royalty brings more tourists because they get to see the real palaces!

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

I disagree. The King and Queen may have kept patriotism bubbling over which is extremely helpful in a war situation but I can't see that George VI was more important to the war effort than the Prime Minister. In my view, it was the elected official who got Britain through and certainly not the unelected one who simply gave the Vera Lynn songs a pleasant backdrop.

I didn't say he was. I took issue with your dismissal of his contributions as just "looking pretty."

[BeatrixFan]

Well what exactly did he do? He waved and visited bomb sites. He rubber stamped other people's orders. I don't see that as particularly fantastic.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Well what exactly did he do? He waved and visited bomb sites. He rubber stamped other people's orders. I don't see that as particularly fantastic.

But he showed he was there and not trying to find an escape or give up his people and that's fantastic because how many countries in the world during WWII resisted to the Nazis ? Just a few. And England did it because the King was close to his people and that played a large part in the war.

[BeatrixFan]

So he stayed at home. I do that when I don't have a date, I'm not a hero for it. If Britain ever got really close to invasion I've no doubt he would have dissapeared, the whole "Oh he stayed where he was" claim is because he didn't have to leave like the others did. At the end of the day, the people of Britain fought because they were told to. People battled on the Home Front because they had to. It was a matter of survival, not a matter of a man in a uniform telling them he'd get his jollies if they kept their chins up.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

So he stayed at home. I do that when I don't have a date, I'm not a hero for it. If Britain ever got really close to invasion I've no doubt he would have dissapeared, the whole "Oh he stayed where he was" claim is because he didn't have to leave like the others did. At the end of the day, the people of Britain fought because they were told to. People battled on the Home Front because they had to. It was a matter of survival, not a matter of a man in a uniform telling them he'd get his jollies if they kept their chins up.

Yes but remember what happened in France. General Pétain told France to cooperate with the nazis, imagine George VI doing that ? The whole Europe would be under this regime today. And if the people wouldn't have been supported as warmly as they were, their state of mind would have been much more pessimistic and everyone knows how it can change a situation.

[Bella]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Yes but remember what happened in France. General Pétain told France to cooperate with the nazis, imagine George VI doing that ? The whole Europe would be under this regime today. And if the people wouldn't have been supported as warmly as they were, their state of mind would have been much more pessimistic and everyone knows how it can change a situation.

While I know what you are trying to get across, I will remind you that Petain only issued those order AFTER France was invaded. And he did it not out of any love of the Nazis but because he didn't want the populace taking up arms in a battle they could not win and thus putting themselves and their families in more danger. England was never occupied by the Germans so there was no need for HM or anyone to make such a statement. But I do agree that TM were a symbol of morale for the British people and I think their remaining in London did mean something.

[BeatrixFan]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Yes but remember what happened in France. General Pétain told France to cooperate with the nazis, imagine George VI doing that ? The whole Europe would be under this regime today. And if the people wouldn't have been supported as warmly as they were, their state of mind would have been much more pessimistic and everyone knows how it can change a situation.

Faced with death or co-operation, I'm sure there'd be quite a few people who would have collaborated. Remember, quite a large chunk of the British aristocracy actually quite liked Hitler and his policies. It was really an accident that Britain got involved in WW2 and a matter of luck that we ended up on the winning side. People support what they're told to support and just as propaganda told people to support King and Country, it could just have easily told people to support King, Country and Fuhrer.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Faced with death or co-operation, I'm sure there'd be quite a few people who would have collaborated. Remember, quite a large chunk of the British aristocracy actually quite liked Hitler and his policies. It was really an accident that Britain got involved in WW2 and a matter of luck that we ended up on the winning side. People support what they're told to support and just as propaganda told people to support King and Country, it could just have easily told people to support King, Country and Fuhrer.

But still they refused that regime and that's something British can be proud of like France can be proud of her resistants.

[BeatrixFan]

They refused to lose their power, they didn't refuse that regime at all. Anyone who thinks that the war was over ideology is severely mistaken. It was about the Third Reich rivalling the British Empire - plain and simple.

[Russophile]

Natural resources and power.

[Empress]

Russophile, perhaps you would like to elaborate on that statement rather than leaving it hanging there like it is some sort of revelation?

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

They refused to lose their power, they didn't refuse that regime at all. Anyone who thinks that the war was over ideology is severely mistaken. It was about the Third Reich rivalling the British Empire - plain and simple.

And how do you explain that England is one of the country of the world with the most ethnies if people were so afraid of everything other than the aryan race?

[BeatrixFan]

England wasn't multi-cultural in the 30s and 40s. Indeed, anti-semitism and racism were rife. For example, when internees were freed from Japanese PoW camps after the war, the British government gave them all an allowance whilst they were being re-patriated. But the order ensuring they'd get that allowance contained a line that said "Monies paid to non-white Britons may be lowered at the officer's discretion". That was a Government policy. England was extremely Aryan and proud of it - it's only now that we're multi-faith and multi-cultural and society is learning to accept it. In those days, alot of people would actually have been quite agreeable to the idea of giving preference to Aryans. But remember, this was of the time. The institutionalised racism that we shun today was just natural for that era and so the King certainly wouldn't have been out of the ordinary to support the idea of a strictly Aryan race, whether he did or he didn't we don't know.

The point I'm making (badly) is that England is ethnically diverse now but back then, it certainly wasn't and the majority were opposed to it being so. As Russophile said, the King sanctioned war because the Third Reich was a threat to natural resources and world power. Remember, Britain had a flourishing relationship with the USSR and turned a blind eye to the gross human rights abuses, anti-semitism and ethnic cleansing that went on. Why? Because Stalin played ball and didn't encroach on our dominions whereas Hitler did. That's why we went to war and that's why the King was happy to be used as a propaganda tool - because it secured his personal situation.