The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #221  
Old 11-15-2007, 06:11 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Plymouth, United States
Posts: 1,307
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.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 11-20-2007, 12:53 AM
Harry's polo shirt's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: my paradise, United States
Posts: 2,091
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.
__________________

__________________
"The pain of spending a week with my brother is well worth it."
– Prince William, on joining Prince Harry for a charity motorcycle ride across South Africa

Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 11-20-2007, 08:29 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 11-20-2007, 08:30 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 11-20-2007, 01:18 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Plymouth, United States
Posts: 1,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry's polo shirt View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 11-20-2007, 02:02 PM
Al_bina's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 5,711
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.
__________________
"I never did mind about the little things" Amanda, "Point of No Return"
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 11-20-2007, 03:25 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
If anything, the absence of Royalty brings more tourists because they get to see the real palaces!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 11-20-2007, 04:26 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
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."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 11-20-2007, 04:40 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 11-20-2007, 04:54 PM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
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.
__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 11-20-2007, 04:58 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 11-20-2007, 05:10 PM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
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.
__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 11-20-2007, 05:16 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Plymouth, United States
Posts: 1,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTruth View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 11-20-2007, 05:25 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTruth View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 11-20-2007, 05:33 PM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
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.
__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 11-20-2007, 05:35 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 11-20-2007, 05:37 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
Natural resources and power.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 11-20-2007, 05:39 PM
Empress's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 3,123
Russophile, perhaps you would like to elaborate on that statement rather than leaving it hanging there like it is some sort of revelation?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 11-20-2007, 05:42 PM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
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?
__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 11-20-2007, 05:49 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
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.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
finances, monarchy versus republic


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words Alexandria Royal Chit Chat 24 05-10-2006 05:01 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman pom pregnancy president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:40 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]