Haven't done one of these in awhile, so here is one of those little foreign political/tabloid scandals that could've had some serious international consequences if things had gone differently.

The British Royal Family are always UK tabloid fodder. Rich, aloof, incestual byproducts always in the news for whoring, partying while wearing swastikas, living their pointless luxurious lifestyle at the taxpayer's expense (for what reason?), all that sillyness. And you have the occassional divorce scandal.

This was no different in 1936. New King Edward VIII, young dashing playboy among the most photographed celebrities in the world before taking the throne. He presented the Wales Trophy to the NHL (still used today)

He wanted to marry his mistress Wallis Spencer. Except Parliament would have nothing with this because: (1) She was twice-divorce, (2) American, and (3) not Anglican. OH FUCK!!!! Given the ultimatum of either her or the throne, Edward VIII gave up the crown. His brother George VI, who nobody ever expected to ascend to the throne (especially him) became King and the heavy stress of the job (plus his heavy smoking) killed him. Paving the way for the current Monarch.

But what if Edward VIII had decided otherwise?

During World War 2, the Nazis had a plan of invading and occupying England under Operation Sea Lion never implemented. Among other measures, the exiled Edward VIII would be reinstated on the throne as a puppet king. Now why would they do that?

Because apparently Edward was a fascist fan, especially of the Nazis. Hitler considered Edward a "friend of Germany." This 1940 quote is practically a love letter: "In the past 10 years Germany has totally reorganized the order of its society ... Countries which were unwilling to accept such a reorganization of society and its concomitant sacrifices should direct their policies accordingly." And this was said after the war started mind you.

Plus like the Nazis, he wasn't exactly tolerant. His thoughts on the Aboriginal peoples of Australia: "They are the most revolting form of living creatures I've ever seen!! They are the lowest known form of human beings & are the nearest thing to monkeys." Or blacks: ""It must be remembered that Dupuch is more than half Negro, and due to the peculiar mentality of this Race, they seem unable to rise to prominence without losing their equilibrium.""

What an asshole.

Then there were allegations that he and his wife helped collaborate with the Nazis during the war, giving war intelligence, etc. Which was why Churchill "appointed" him Governor of the Bahamas, so he could stay the hell away and not harm the UK war effort any further.

In contrast to Edward's defeatist public fascist thoughts, his brother The King in the 30's had made some scandalous for playing tennis in public with a black partner. Later after WW2, when touring South Africa, he was apparently appalled by the newly installed Apartheid. Not exactly liberal for 2010, but hey much better than his brother.

During the war he was a major PR instrument. His pre-war tour of North America helped in small part to shore up the cause of a UK/USA alliance for the isolationist American mainstream. And his decision to keep the Royal Family at Buckingham during the Blitz when London was being bombed back to the stone age was a major national morale boasting symbol, defiant to the Nazi War Machine.

Kings don't have real governmental power, no more than the American Vice-President. So would history have been different (asides from the obvious genealogical implications) if it was Edward the Nazi fanboy "ruling" England instead of George?

You tell me.

Interesting. I'm not sure that things would have turned out all that differently. Chamberlain, who is considered a weak appeaser , had finally drawn a line in the sand, and had issued a guarantee of Poland's borders, which Hitler ignored.

Hitler's actions and initial successes really discredited Chamberlain and any isolationist at that time.

If Edward had been king, could he have organized opposition to the guarantee or the war that followed? I'm not sure. Hitler was going to have war with someone and that was that.
However...
I have read some arguments (not just by that nut Buchanan )that Hitler didn't necessarily want war with the UK, seeing them as suitably Nordic cousins. So MAYBE if Edward had been King, he could have prevailed on Chamberlain not to issue such a guarantee to Poland, but it's a REALLY REALLY long shot. Churchill said that "The [German] is always at your throat or at your feet", which is a sentiment I think Hitler would have agreed with though obviously they would have different preferences..

So ultimately, no, I don't think Edward as King would have made the difference. Hitler was just bent on war, domination, extermination and conquest. He had a BIG problem with the word "no", which sooner or later even the most submissive British government would have had to tell him.

I think I was more wondering about a King Edward's public conduct during the War. I don't think his attitudes would have helped the effort at all.

He wouldn't have been out reviewing the bomb damage or telling people to keep a stiff upper lip and give it back, that's for sure.

I think he would have continued to try to work behind the scenes to make a peace deal. After the Battle of Britain, when it was obvious that an invasion of Great Britain wasn't in the cards, he might have become more openly a proponent of "Peace with Honor". This would have left Hitler free from any worries about the Western Front, North Africa or Italy and able to send even more troops east.

And a British King with such obvious pro-Hitler views would have energized the American isolationist movement. Also if Hitler had someone like Edward around he might have prevailed on the Japanese not to launch a sneak attack and risk bringing America into the war.

I have read that story about Hitler not wanting to go to war with the UK cos he thought we were Nordic cousins before!

If so why did he bomb the shit out of our country including my great grandfathers house? Blew the poor old buggers leg off as well

They would be even more inbred than they are, and they'd be speaking German.

Hitler didn't initially have the same sort of macabre glee about the war in the West that he did about the war in the East against peoples that he saw as subhuman and a political threat. In the West he wanted defeat, compliance and alliance. In the East he wanted extermination and enslavement. It's a minor distinction. Once war gets started of course all bets are off. But before the attack on Russia an order did go out to the Wehrmacht that the new war would be fought by different rules.

Yeah, Hitler really did see Germany and Great Britain as cousins. He was influenced by British "thinkers" such as Houston Chamberlain and others.

Fun Fact: Hitler and JRR Tolkien were both at the Battle of the Somme. Imagine if Tolkien had been able to shoot him then and save everyone all that trouble

Tolkien did say he carried a grudge against Hitler ("that ruddy little ignoramus") for perverting all that was good about the Northern Spirit.

Good thread. I've always found the British Monarchy fascinating, especially this aspect of their history. As dysfunctional a bunch as you will ever see.

I remember learning in a television biography that there may have been much more to Edward's abdication than his love for Wallis Simpson (not Spencer - that was DIANA's last name). There was indication that his dealings with Hitler were a cause of great concern to the British Government (public conduct a HUGE factor), and this scandalous affair with the American divorcee was a convenient backdrop to literally force him from the throne. Far more pallatable for the public to lose their King to this 'love story of the century'.

It was stated in the biography that documentation detailing all of this is archived at Buckingham Palace, however Queen Elizabeth has never allowed it to be released.

Apple

I have a dumb question to the UKers here at BB.Net: Why exactly do you all keep those goofball royals around?

What purpose do they serve for you? Can't find someone else to wave properly for the Union Jack?



Sorry, thanks for the correction. Must have been a freudian slip-up.



I...absolutely believe this?

Royals = tourism = money!

From what I can see, MOST Brits are proud of and affectionate toward their Royals, in particular the Queen...though they can turn on her and the whole family quite quickly, as seen in 1997 when she completely fudged the death of Diana.

To our English friends, my husband recently started working with someone from England. He told my husband that it's common knowledge in England that Prince Charles is not Harry's father. Is this true?

Although it wouldn't surprise me, I don't know that I've heard this story. Harry's the younger boy right? Who do they say his father is??


TIS

A guy named Hewitt who was Diana's lover.

Oh yea, now that you say the name, I do remember him. You never know but it seems Prince Charles would have a blood test to determine if he was or not.


TIS

It's been fairly common knowledge over here, too...at least the rumor has. Probably wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened in this family (I believe Princess Anne had a similar situation w/ her daughter). Over the years I've seen several articles and also television pieces attempting to highlight a supposed strong resemblance between Hewitt and Prince Harry.

Whatever the truth is, Prince Charles obviously made the decision that Harry would be known as his & Diana's son.

TIS, Diana was very popular, and the whole Charles and Camilla thing was NOT. It's sad that Charles wasn't simply allowed to marry Camilla from the start and save everyone involved years of heartache.

Anyway, I'm sure that the love for Diana had a lot to do with Charles' acceptance of Harry (IF the story is true), coupled with his desire for male heirs.

Well, if they send them away, all the titles and classes go with them as well. Englishmen have always had that and don't seem to want to have a class free society. It's the British way of living.

I can never bow in front of anybody, no matter what, but then I'm not raised to do so. If you are raised that way, I suppose you wouldn't mind. It is interesting to see how many European countries besides the Britain still have their royal families around.

Cuckold Charles is a real barrel of laughs.

The monarchy are frightfully marvellous.

Those with a superior quality of blood know how to govern the lower orders.

They keep us peasants in our proper place; as does our carefully constructed class order.

Tally-ho chaps.

Eddie the Eighth was one of the stupidest people of his times. And, while he may not have been a fascist, he was definitely pro-Nazi.
The Nazis had regard for the UK in general, and the monarchy in particular. They might have signed an armistice with the UK, on their terms, that would have restored the Dunce-King to his abandoned throne. After the fall of France, and the trap at Dunkirk, the Cabinet was considering a deal with the Nazis in which they thought they'd be left alone if they gave up a few of their Mediterranian and African properties to the Germans. Chamberlain and Halifax, who had more prestige than new PM Churchill, were leaning in that direction. But a fortuitous combination of events quashed it. Most of the Allied troops trapped at Dunkirk escaped to England, thanks to a heroic armada of military and civilian evacuation vessels, and Goering's failure to send enough aircraft to finish them off on the beach. The US sent feelers to Italy to see if Mussolini might convince Hitler to accept a deal from the Brits. But Count Ciano, the foreign minister, said Mussolini would never intercede. Then Churchill made an epic speech to Parliament, convincing those MP's who didn't know how close they were to defeat, to fight on.

Wasn't the problem that she was married at the time?

Correct, rrAGO.

Charles & Camilla had been young lovers while Lady Diana was still in her pre-teens. She apparently got tired of waiting for her Prince Charming to be ready to wed, and while the Heir to the British Throne continued bacheloring around, Camilla Parker found a suitable second best and became Camilla Parker-Bowles. (Of course she was a 'commoner', may have had other boyfriends besides Charles and was perhaps not considered suitable to become the future Queen of England.)

Even the courtship & marriage to Diana was virtually forced upon Charles, as he had just turned 30, needed to begin producing some heirs of his own, and was pretty much told by his father to grow up and get on with it.

Hence the zero-ing in on the pretty teenager, whose older sister Charles had also dated...at the estate down the road.

Gosh with all this sordid history...one can only imagine what kind of pressure Prince William may be under to find himself a bride. After all, he'll be 30 in just two years...and by that time, his father might very well be King!

Apple

I could be wrong, but I believe when they first got together when they were young she was single and he wanted to marry her but he couldn't because she wasn't a virgin. So when he went on leave in the military is when she married her 1st husband.

I know that Charles was in love with Camilla, but she was considered unsuitable. The Queen wouldn't allow their marriage.

In the end...after all the scandal, heartbreak, disgrace and ultimate death of Diana, the Queen ultimately got what she wanted: Her son to marry a 'blue-blooded' virgin, and a seemingly magnificent grandson who is now second in line to the Throne.

And Charles got Camilla - and Camilla got Charles, and will one day be Queen, or 'Queen Consort', or whatever they wish to call it but she will be at Charles' side.

I suppose that if you belong to THIS family, it was almost all worth it, except for two young men who lost their mother at a very young age.

Apple

Actually I have this feeling the Queen will find a way to bugger on until Charles is long gone, and directly skip to William.

God knows Britain needs our prayers if its Harry.

The Queens mother lived till she was over 100 years old so the old girl certainly has the genes for it