King's Speech; A Royal Nazi
Poll
 | 1 vote (10%) | ||
| | 3 votes (30%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 6 votes (60%) |
10 members have voted
This question is honor of the movie, "The King's Speech".
The man in this picture is Prince Charles Edward, and he was born in the United Kingdom as a grandson of Queen Victoria 11 years before King George VI, the hero of King's Speech. His father was the first royal to die of haemophilia. As he died 4 months before Charles was born, he was raised by his German mother who Queen Victoria had handpicked to marry his sickly father.
When he was age 16, the Dukedom of Coburg and Gotha (Prince Albert's father's dukedom) in Germany became available because the German heirs had died. Two sons and a grandson of Queen Victoria refused to move to Germany to take the throne. The elderly Queen Victoria who had only 6 months to live, pressured her final grandson, Charles, as fourth in line to the dukedom to move to Germany and take over the throne. The teenage Charles went there feeling the call to duty.
When World War I broke out Prince Charles was age 32 and had spent half his life in Germany. He was married now with four children. At the beginning of the war he was the Duke of Coburg and Gotha, and his first cousin, King George V of the UK, was of the House of Saxe, Coburg and Gotha. Halfway through the war his first cousin, King George V decided to re-name his royal house, the House of Windsor, after the castle, and disavow any German titles in the family.
Prince Charles eventually elected to side with his adult home, Germany, against Britain, the land of his birth. When Germany lost the war, they deposed their emperor and dismissed the peerage, so he lost his German titles. Two weeks later his 5th child was born, and about 17 weeks later he was stripped of his British titles.
As a private citizen, like many people, he backed Adolf Hitler, and eventually became a SA (or Brownshirts). He returned to UK for the funeral of his cousin, King George V in 1936. After the abdication he played host to the Duke of Windsor (the abdicated King) and Wallis Simpson. During WWII he was in charge of the Red Cross, and lost his youngest son to the war.
After both world wars, he naturally was never permitted to return to the UK. When Queen Elizabeth II was crowned he watched his first cousin twice removed on television like Phillip's two sisters who were married to Nazis. He died in 1954 in relative poverty as the Russians had taken all of his land.
When he died he was the 2nd last grandson of Victoria to die. His grandson was only 6 years old at the time, but is now the King of Sweden. He was first cousins with the King of Britain, and the King of Norway, and the Emperor of Germany. His older sister died a British Princess at age 97, a few weeks before Diana accepted Charle's marriage proposal. She was the last of Queen Victoria's grandchildren.
Charles was never accused of war crimes, but he was guilty of siding with his homeland that he was forced to adopt by his grandmother, Queen Victoria, at age 16.
His great grandson is married to an American. They live in New York City. He would like the British to give him back the British dukedome (Duke of Albany) taken away from his great grandfather Charles nearly a century ago.
I'm sure my Great GrandDad lost a lot of land. I wonder if I can claim it.
If titles are indeed passed down by blood or by family, and that guy is the next one in line, then by all means it's his.
If the 'stripping of titles' mentioned earlier trumps that, then sorry about your luck.
But, just because a member of his long ago family was associated with one of the greatest human atrocities in the Earth's history doesn't mean he should pay for it. My gram's left Germany in '45. Whether it was to escape the Nazi's or escape the Russian's, I dont know. I have no idea what 'side' she was on as that type of conversation is above the 8 yr old mind. But if my Pops happened to be Hilters bastard child, and he was born in SC as he was, and lives in NY as he does, should he be punished because of a relation to something he had no part in? I'd think not. Although it would explain his temperment....=)
Mistakes of the past shouldn't be placed on those in the present. It's as ridiculous as me cursing The Wiz and demanding Manhattan back.
Let me know how the reclaimation goes, Wavy. I'd not mind my own little slice of Germany. ;)
The removal of the titles dates back to WWI, and nothing to do really with his future association with the Nazis. I think his grandson may well want the Duchy back, but that's about as likely as me becoming the Duke of Norfolk...
Quote: thecesspitInteresting. I'd not heard this slice of history before. One note though, he'd have been thirty at the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, not 32.
The removal of the titles dates back to WWI, and nothing to do really with his future association with the Nazis. I think his grandson may well want the Duchy back, but that's about as likely as me becoming the Duke of Norfolk...
My mistake, I always remember 1916 as the start of WWI for the USA. Of course, we got in rather late in the game.
Hitler's Favorite Royal was a recent BBC documentary about Prince Charles Edward part 2.
The documentary is posted by Republic UK, the leading organization in the UK in favor of the abolition of the monarchy.
Quote: Face
If titles are indeed passed down by blood or by family, and that guy is the next one in line, then by all means it's his. If the 'stripping of titles' mentioned earlier trumps that, then sorry about your luck.
Before 1660 titles were regularly stripped because of treason. Many times they were re-instituted generations later. After 1660 most of the titles remained intact as Dukes were titles originally awarded to wealthy men. I think that the Duke of Albany was the only duke to lose his title in the 20th century. So it is a special case. Obviously the issue has been around for a while, as the current claimant to the title is the great grandson of Prince Charles Edward.
As a side note, you can see why people were upset with Princess Elizabeth naming her first born son Charles. The former Prince Charles Edward was still alive, when Prince Charles was born in 1948. In addition the two previous King Charles's had had unfortunate reigns.
Princess Alice, the sister of Prince Charles Edward who died at age 97 in 1981. She was the last grandchild of Queen Victoria.
=======================
As a side note, it's interesting that Princess Elizabeth gave her first radio speech within a year of her father's speech that was the subject of the movie. It's amazing how poised and articulate his young teenage daughter was, given that he was so terrified of speaking. Princess Elizabeth's first radio speech.
I did some reading, and the Duke of Albany was created eight times... coming from The Scottish kings first, and then being a title given to the heir to the throne. Leopold, Charles' father was given it by Victoria, while his second two sons never claimed the title or carried out some of the legal niceties regarding British law of titles, so their marriages and issue are seen as 'null' regarding hereditary titles. They still have the stylings for the Duke of Coburg. I wonder if the current holder of the title insists on being called Highness at work.
As a great great grandson of Victoria he is in (distant) line to the throne. I'm not sure if Royal secession trumps the laws about hereditary titles.
Quote: pacomartinHalfway through the war his first cousin, King George V decided to re-name his royal house, the House of Windsor, after the castle, and disavow any German titles in the family.
Concerning Liberty and Liberty Cabbage.
There was a great deal of anti-German sentiment.
Sauerkraut was renamed Liberty Cabbage.
It was a brave housewife who patronized a German shopkeeper or referred to Linden Boulevard rather than Liberty Boulevard.
Incidents in movies often reflect this. We watch "Goodbye Mr. Chips" and see Mr. Chips reading out the name of the schools former German master at a remembrance ceremony but we don't see the courage that such things would have actually required.
Royalty? I'm more interested in a Royal Flush at Video Poker than any other royalty. Yet, on my "to do" list is to read Any Human Heart and see its treatment of the Duke of Windsor's supposed black market currency speculation during wartime. (Yes, a Royal Blackmarketeer). Also treated will be the much rumored involvement in the murder of Sir Harry Oakes, a wealthy Canadian who in an attempt to circumvent Canadian taxes that nominally applied to the mining industry but in reality solely applied to him transferred much of his wealth in what would now be called a money laundering scheme. It seems the very colorful Sir Harry failed to realize that when your wealth has been transferred to a laundry, even a royal laundry can have people who decide to kill you and keep your money and frame your innocent relative for the murder.
Royalty? So what?
It took a long time for the USA to be dragged into a foreign war.Quote: thecesspit1917... the US really took its time,
For World War Two, it took far less time due in large measure to Hollywood's celluloid soldiers whipping America into a war fever while FDR ordered silly sandbagging of federal courthouses and postoffices to put America in a war mood. It wasn't just the Germans who went lockstepping off to war.
Quote: Wavy70I remember an old Monty Python Joke referring to the British Royal Family as nothing but "Working Class Germans".
.
The Brits seemed to have a thing about marrying their royal cousins from Germany. What was up with that. I saw 'Kings Speech' three times, I loved it. The actress who played Wallace Simpson was very much like the real lady. The Duke and Duchess of Windsor were the partying Royals. They were invited to every important occasion for decades. People who knew them well said they were most boring couple on earth, so full of themselves, so arrogant and aloof, they were avoided like the plague. Edward wasn't the sharpest knife in the Royal drawer, they were lucky he abdicated the throne. His wife ruled him, and thats all they did for the next 35 years, go to parties.
Quote: FleaStiff
Yet, on my "to do" list is to read Any Human Heart and see its treatment of the Duke of Windsor's supposed black market currency speculation during wartime. (Yes, a Royal Blackmarketeer). Also treated will be the much rumored involvement in the murder of Sir Harry Oakes, a wealthy Canadian who in an attempt to circumvent Canadian taxes that nominally applied to the mining industry but in reality solely applied to him transferred much of his wealth in what would now be called a money laundering scheme. It seems the very colorful Sir Harry failed to realize that when your wealth has been transferred to a laundry, even a royal laundry can have people who decide to kill you and keep your money and frame your innocent relative for the murder.
They showed the film version of Any Human Heart in the USA on Masterpiece Theater on PBS. Wallis was played by Gillian Anderson from the X-Files. The author of the novel wrote the screenplay as well. Really, really depressing movie.
Have you ever seen this photo from 1913? It shows King George V with nephew, Kaiser Wilhem .
Quote: FleaStiffIt took a long time for the USA to be dragged into a foreign war.
For World War Two, it took far less time due in large measure to Hollywood's celluloid soldiers whipping America into a war fever while FDR ordered silly sandbagging of federal courthouses and postoffices to put America in a war mood. It wasn't just the Germans who went lockstepping off to war.
And of course there was that whole Pearl Harbor thing, that got people excited too.
Yeah, FDR knew he needed something profound, not a few dead Americans on some unknown gunboat somewhere. That is why the Admiral who objected to the fleet being moved out of San Diego was relieved of command, the oldest Admiral in the Navy was in command at Pearl Harbor and scrap iron from the USA for Japan's war efforts in Manchuria were turned off, thus forcing Japan to act. America had to get into the war in Europe and that was the way to do it.Quote: MoscaAnd of course there was that whole Pearl Harbor thing, that got people excited too.
Quote: FleaStiffYeah, FDR knew he needed something profound, not a few dead Americans on some unknown gunboat somewhere. That is why the Admiral who objected to the fleet being moved out of San Diego was relieved of command, the oldest Admiral in the Navy was in command at Pearl Harbor and scrap iron from the USA for Japan's war efforts in Manchuria were turned off, thus forcing Japan to act. America had to get into the war in Europe and that was the way to do it.
Aw, I was just havin' fun. If you read your post, it reads like Pearl Harbor didn't happen; it was like being fed a straight line, I had to take it and run!
Quote: FleaStiffIt took a long time for the USA to be dragged into a foreign war.
For World War Two, it took far less time due in large measure to Hollywood's celluloid soldiers whipping America into a war fever while FDR ordered silly sandbagging of federal courthouses and postoffices to put America in a war mood. It wasn't just the Germans who went lockstepping off to war.
I doubt the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour had any affect on the American people. It must have been FDR whipping them into war fever.
Damn you Hollywood for starting WWII
Quote: FleaStiffYeah, FDR knew he needed something profound, not a few dead Americans on some unknown gunboat somewhere. That is why the Admiral who objected to the fleet being moved out of San Diego was relieved of command, the oldest Admiral in the Navy was in command at Pearl Harbor and scrap iron from the USA for Japan's war efforts in Manchuria were turned off, thus forcing Japan to act. America had to get into the war in Europe and that was the way to do it.
The war in the Pacific and the war in Europe were very different. Hitler declared war on the US after Pearl Harbour which led to the Europe-first strategy, but any move towards the Pacific FDR made to provoke the Japanese (and I'm sure he didn't expect Pearl Harbour) weren't with an aim to engage the Germans... they were with a view to engage Japan's imperialistic moves in the Pacific... I think his promotion of lend-lease, destroyer escorts and the like where intended to force a move into the European theatre.
Warner Brothers did not start WW2, it only whipped the USA into a war mood.Quote: Wavy70Damn you Hollywood for starting WWII
Quote: FleaStiffWarner Brothers did not start WW2, it only whipped the USA into a war mood.
Most historians would say that was a good thing if that was what really happened. What do you think the outcome of the war would be if rearming the country did not start until 12/8/41? Perhaps Hollywood was not "whipping" America into a war mood just portraying accurately the genocide in Asia and Europe.
Quote: Wavy70Most historians would say that was a good thing if that was what really happened. What do you think the outcome of the war would be if rearming the country did not start until 12/8/41? Perhaps Hollywood was not "whipping" America into a war mood just portraying accurately the genocide in Asia and Europe.
Most of Western Europe would have been run by the Red Army. D-Day doesn't happen, or if it does, it's a low level mopping up operation as the bulk of the forces are being used to defend against the Russians.
The Japanese would have still been defeated in the Pacific eventually as well, but how far the Japanese Imperial Army got up into towards India, Australia and China would have been different as well. The US might not have been as quick to push their decisive material advantage into the Western Pacific as quickly.
I'm pre-supposing that 40,000 trucks still get shipped via the North Atlantic and Arctic Sea to support the Russians. If that doesn't happen, it's a different story again, and the Russians don't have the resources to make shift as quickly, and the closing of the Stalingrad pocket, and the counter attack at Kursk are nothing like as decisive. I suspect the Russians would have closed the snare in Stalingrad anyways, as Hitler sacrificed his Army Group on some desperate belief, and the longer the Germans held out there, the longer I think his belief he could break the Russians would have held.
In short, the war goes on longer, the British and their allies have to hold out on multiple fronts for longer, and it's probably a worse off for my grandparents all around.
Quote: EvenBobThe Brits seemed to have a thing about marrying their royal cousins from Germany.
I never quite understood the whole decision to adopt the Hanoverian family as the royal family. I understand that they didn't want a Catholic monarch, so they went down the list (over 50 people) until they ended up with Sophia of Hanover as the first non-Catholic grandchild of James I .
However, considering her age they knew that the monarch would be her son, George I. Besides knowing nothing about Britain, he was already an unpleasant man who kept his wife in jail.
Why not just go higher up in history and look for a descendant of an earlier king who was British?
Quote: pacomartinI never quite understood the whole decision to adopt the Hanoverian family as the royal family. I understand that they didn't want a Catholic monarch, so they went down the list (over 50 people) until they ended up with Sophia of Hanover as the first non-Catholic grandchild of James I .
However, considering her age they knew that the monarch would be her son, George I. Besides knowing nothing about Britain, he was already an unpleasant man who kept his wife in jail.
Why not just go higher up in history and look for a descendant of an earlier king who was British?
As I understand it that sort of thinking wasn't part of the the deal... it was merely to hunt back up the line to someone they could prove was a descendant of one of the Kings (King James I and VI) who was legitimate and not a Catholic. Sophia was pretty much it (and also had plenty of sons). It was a relatively close run thing between her and Queen Anne.
All the Europeans monarchs have been intermingled and interbred for centuries... Mary II married William of Holland, the Stuart line had married into the French line, Henry VIII married into the Spanish Line, the English throne had constantly married into which ever line it thought it could do best alliances with and so on, and so forth.
A Hanoverian Lineage? No matter. By the time of the Restoration, and the Acts of Settlement, Royal Power was really no longer a case of divine right... of course we did have two Jacobite revolutions in 1688 and 1745 that were put down (plus the Pitchfork rebellion of 1685, which was against James II and his Catholicism...) plus we had the Civil war as well....
Quote: thecesspitAs I understand it that sort of thinking wasn't part of the the deal... it was merely to hunt back up the line to someone they could prove was a descendant of one of the Kings (King James I and VI) who was legitimate and not a Catholic. Sophia was pretty much it (and also had plenty of sons). It was a relatively close run thing between her and Queen Anne.
By 16 September 1701 when James II died there were only two grandchildren of King James I of England who were still alive and one was a celibate nun. So yes Sophia was the only grandchild effectively left. But I am just saying if you are going to break the standard rules of the bloodline, then why not break them in a big way and select someone from your own country.
I suspect there was still elements of "tradition" in the country, so the heir had to be part of the royal bloodline and I'm not sure if there was anyone else they could have choosen apart from going back to the Republic (which by that time had a bitter memory of Cromwell's years, I guess).
I'm guessing, it might just be no-one had thought of such a radical idea.
Henry VII would lead you down the Mary, Queen of France bloodline, as the bloodline of Henry VIII would die out. There was people alive in Mary's bloodline in 1701, but after a century and a half out of power they were no longer very important.
The alternative would be to go back to the Plantaganets and down the bloodline from the Duke of Clarence. But most of the senior members of that bloodline were murdered by the Tudors. You would end up with the Hastings. If you saw that BBC special Britain's Real Monarch they trace the Hastings Bloodline down to the present. In other words if you used the strict rules of primogeniture that have been in place for the last 300 years, the bloodline from William the Conqueror would lead to this guy named Michael Hastings who left home in Britain as a teenager in 1960 and settled in Australian Outback. He is still a Scottish Earl, and he still carries the Hastings name, but he lives in a postage stamp town in the middle of nowhere. His family still had the titles but they lost all their money in the late 19th century.
I suppose Britain had to have a king, or else when the Jacobite heir grew up he would have come back and made you guys Catholic. Of course in 1701 the USA only had 1/4 million people and 2 tiny universities. We would have probably all ended up Catholic as well.
Quote: EvenBobCesspit, did you see Kings Speech? What did you think of it. If you Wiki the therapist, Lowe, he was a very good looking man, better than most movie stars. He was 15 years older than King George. George died in his 50's of lung cancer, not a big surprise considering he smoked 4 packs a day. Lowe died shortly thereafter. I doubt if there was as much emotion between them as we saw in the movie, Brit royalty seems to be born with a Brit stick up their arse. Diana's kids don't seem so bad, maybe its changing.
I hardly ever watch films these days, and haven't seen the King's speech. Even though many people have said it's a great film, the idea of two hours watching a guy get speech therapy with all the Royal's just doesn't appeal to me to go.
I suspect the Royal's public demeanour is quite different from their at home demeanour and the sticks get removed...
Quote: pacomartinIf the monarch was not a descendant of James I, then you back up one generation and you get Mary Queen of Scots. Well, she only had one child, so back up another generation and you get James V of Scotland. Well he only had one child, so you back up another generation up the male line, and you have James IV (who also only had one child before he died in Flodden Field). If you back up the female line you get to Henry VII.
(cut really interesting summary)
I suppose Britain had to have a king, or else when the Jacobite heir grew up he would have come back and made you guys Catholic. Of course in 1701 the USA only had 1/4 million people and 2 tiny universities. We would have probably all ended up Catholic as well.
Thanks, that was an awesome summary, I should check and see if I can find that documentary.
The Jacobite's, even if they had gained powered, were unlikely to convert the country back to Catholicism. James II was deposed mostly because of his desire to try and gain even a modicum of acceptability for the RC church, with his moves to try and separate out the Anglican church for the operation of the state. Well, I suppose that and his increasing antagonism towards the parliament.
The American colonies, doubly so. There was a much greater independence of the church in America from the Anglican hierarchy, so I can't see any move towards the Catholic church would have happened.
The lack of a King in 1745 might have made that revolution easier for Bonnie Prince Charlie on behalf of his dad (the King Across the Water), but he may well have still needed to convert away from Rome and have much more support from the continent to get popular support outside of the Scottish Highlands. And I don't see how he can manage to do both. Culloden, the final fight on British Soil, and the end of the Jacobite Cause was less a battle and more a bloody massacre by the end of the day. The cause wasn't dead, but it was pretty much over. Charlie tried one last time with a conversion back to Anglican church in secret in 1750, but that all fizzled out.
The Jacobite "King" is now the Duke of Bavaria. Not that he makes any claim to the throne.
Britain, even by 1701 was pretty much a Protestant nation and I can't see Rome gaining it back again.
So for at least 6 years the independent British royal line was dependent on this single life, or else it would have been the same bloodline that ruled Prussia and the future Kingdom then Empire of Germany. They would have ruled both Britain and Germany in a personal union of the crowns.
As it turned out, the future George II married and had a son and three daughters before his grandmother died. So there was a strong line of descendants to form the British royal family when they took over in 1714.
Quote: thecesspitthe idea of two hours watching a guy get speech therapy with all the Royal's just doesn't appeal to me to go.
.
So you think they gave all those awards to a movie that was 2 hours of speech therapy? The movie was a slice of history, it was about the death of George 5th, the abdication of Edward, and the crowning of George 6th. Mostly it was the fantastic job that Colin Firth did in his role as the Duke of York. I saw it 3 times and will get the DVD when it comes out and eventually watch it again and again. I'm a sucker for good acting, there's so little of it around.
Quote: EvenBobSo you think they gave all those awards to a movie that was 2 hours of speech therapy? The movie was a slice of history, it was about the death of George 5th, the abdication of Edward, and the crowning of George 6th. Mostly it was the fantastic job that Colin Firth did in his role as the Duke of York. I saw it 3 times and will get the DVD when it comes out and eventually watch it again and again. I'm a sucker for good acting, there's so little of it around.
Course I don't think it was 2 hours of Speech Therapy, but also it's an era and a type of history that just doesn't grab me. I have no doubt it's a great film, well acted and well produced, just by all the reports I have heard. Just doesn't appeal to me. Though I could believe a film could be 2 hours of Speech Therapy and very well done with the right engaging story line.
The other amusing thing is that the funding for the film came from the UK Film Council... an organisation that has been abolished in the cuts by the Conservative government in the UK... and it was annouced about the same week as the King's Speech won it's Oscar haul.
The really daft thing... most of the funding it provided and helped work out came from the UK Lottery (there's a gambling angle for you)... money over which the government is supposed to have no direct control. And a group that seemed to be doing a good job of promoting the UK film industry.
Ach well.
I'd like to get a DVD of EvenBob watching King's Speech for the 4th time and see how long it takes him to fall asleep this time around.
Quote: RobSingerThe Oscar's seem to slant towards these brown hue boring English films more than they should. .
Really, Jerry? Go thru the last 15 winning films and point to the ones that fit that description.
Quote: EvenBobReally, Jerry? Go thru the last 15 winning films and point to the ones that fit that description.
Really. I said Oscar's, not Best Picture. That kind of explains why you need to watch movies multiple times.
Do you ever get anything right?
Can you two not become the next Jerry/MKL please?Quote: RobSingerReally. I said Oscar's, not Best Picture. That kind of explains why you need to watch movies multiple times.
Do you ever get anything right?
Quote: teddysCan you two not become the next Jerry/MKL please?
Absolutely will not. My point's been made and I'm done.
