Royals and NAZI salutes

Ricky Gervaise is saying on facebook that all the Queen did was a Nazi salute when, at seven years old, he actually looked like Hitler!

The Sun is gutter press - that is all.

I am sure I heard about the existence of this piece of film a good few years ago.

I did not see the point in publishing this. Edward was known for being an odd ball and the black sheep of eth family.
As Anno says Princess Elizabeth was not even in line for the throne at the time.

Given the loyalty and tencacity shown by George V1 and his family during the war and their decision to stay in England during the war no one can possibly say they were not fully loyal, it must also have been a very good morale booster.
It was all before my time but I can see why George and the QM were so popular. You would have probably had to have been there at the time to understand how important that action was to the beleaguered Brits.

It's a huge fuss about nothing, and typical of that newspaper.... if it can call itself a newspaper. I hate that rag and never read it.

Nelliemoser Surely Princess Elizabeth would have been in line for the throne in 1933. The Prince of Wales was the Heir Apparent but had no children, so the next in line would have been his brother the Duke of York, and his elder daughter Princess Elizabeth would have been third in line of succession. Of course, the expectation was that the Prince of Wales would marry and that his children would shunt his brothers and his brothers' families further down the line to the point of irrelevance.

Gutter Press desperate for sales trying to drum up sales/ controversy.
Sick and pathetic excuses/explanation by ?editor on news first thing - he only succeeded in making himself look a complete a..e

I wonder just how they got the story/evidence and he didn't deny that there was more.

Exactly- nobody knew in 1933 what was going to happen ... my mother was studying at Munich universita that year, and she did go home early after she saw some Jewish shops smashed - but NOBODY had any inkling of the future.

anniebach- what do you mean about Edward and being seen in future in a different light?

The future queen was only a child at the time but rather disturbing to see the adult future queen mother in a Nazi salute!

I wondered about that as well, granjura. We all know Edward was worryingly interested in Nazi ideals but he was also a fun loving uncle to the princesses so I don't think the QM would have seen anything sinister in larking about in front of the camera.

All that was to come later.

See the Sunday Times (all the same company but pretends not to know Sun) is being deeply hypocritical and plastered offending picture on front page with a story pretending to see the feature as a breach of privacy. I don't know which is worse...Sun featuring it or Times going all faked shocked!!!

granjura - tin hat on again - after the death of the queen more will be written by historians on the vendetta against Edward led by the QM, hell hath no fury etc. And the fears in Westminster of a king who would not play a take salutes, cut ribbons , sign papers etc game . The fears of a British public who supported Edward both for sentimental and political reasons.

Edward VIII and Wallace Simpson were Nazi sympathisers before, during and after the war. To be fair it wasn't unusual before the war but it was once the war started and certainly afterwards.

A lot of people, probably including the current queen and her parents, were sympathetic before the war but came to realise what Nazism really meant and turned against it.

The current queen was seven - too young to have any sympathies with any political parties, let alone Nazis. The then Prince of Wales wasn't known for his attention to his future job, more for his zeal in eating, drinking, gambling and chasing skirt. At a reception in his honour in Brighton in the thirties, he went missing and could not be found - the event could not continue without him. He was eventually discovered in his hotel suite with the wife of one of the town councillors. My parents lived in Brighton, where he was well known and not very highly regarded. He got more than he bargained for in Wallace Simpson.

The QM was well-known for her impersonations and her sense of humour - Hitler would have been a gift to send up, and her daughter would have joined in the fun. Wouldn't our children join in laughing at a take-off of a modern self-important politician?

I too wonder where the Sun dug this bit of amateur family photgraphy up and why they felt they must present it as important history.

In the Guardian, Kathryn Hughes says "In the case of the young cavorting Queen, it is not apparent what had been going on that day. But assuming this film was taken in the summer of 1933, then her Uncle Edward was months away from consummating his affair with Wallis Simpson, the one that would bring the monarchy to the brink of extinction and propel Elizabeth to the throne.

When you know this, then Edward’s tasteless attempt to get his little niece to do a Nazi salute takes on a whole new resonance. Far from being an unconvincing revelation about the political sympathies of a seven-year-old child, those 17 seconds of juddery home movie become an exhilarating reminder that history does sometimes turn out well. Edward’s moral torpor, his inability to consult anything but his own tawdry vanities, is sharply on display in this pastoral scene gone wrong. What we are left with – but only if we read the image in its full context – is a profound sense of relieved thanks that the little girl in the kilt was eventually given the chance to put things right."

No one knows who suggested they did that for the camera , it looks like a family having fun, nothing more, perhaps Edward did encourage the family , perhaps the QM thought it fun and Edward helped the little one to do as her mother was doing, perhaps the person behind the camera - it was said it was their father - suggested they did it, no one knows , pity a family having fun has been turned into something nasty, how painful for the queen to have a private family film stolen then printed in the press and shown on tv followed by experts! giving their opinions. Perhaps that day was a very happy day with lots of happy memories , now tarnished , I think it vile , not in the public interest more in the interest of some of the public

FGS, this is a family larking around and giving what is an exaggerated nazi salute, who knows why or in what context. It's quite outrageous that this should be a) stolen, and b) flaunted in the public domain for people to pull to bits and make accusations about, just vile and typical of that rag masquerading as a newspaper - it should be banned!!
Can anyone remember putting a finger across the upper lip denoting a Hitler moustache.?! I can remember doing this amid gales of childish laughter about 60 years ago! No doubt today, this would be earnestly analysed, and secret nazi sympathies concluded. A lot of people imitated Hitler in a less than respectful way, Charlie Chaplin for one, and I think this was one of these occasions - in other words ridiculing the ridiculous little man.

Remember this?

Great piece of anti-Nazi propoganda.

Absent At the time Edward was heir apparent and could possibly have produced an heir.
I am not certain but I think that if anything had happened to a still childless Edward his next brother down, i.e. Bertie/George would have been in line for the throne. Elizabeth would then have been her fathers heir presumptive unless a male heir was born.

If anyone has a better idea let me know. I am not a monarchy expert.

It's all a lot of hot air generated to sell papers, neither newsworthy nor anything else.

Edward the heir was as yet unmarried , his eldest brother Albert (Bertie) was his heir, Elizabeth was Berties heir, making her third in line to the throne, sister Margaret was fourth. This would have changed had Edward married and had children or Bertie and his wife Elizabeth (later QM) had a son who would automatically superseded his sisters.

All the papers seem to have latched on to this. It is nonsense of course. Kids messing around with family before the true significance of the nazis became clear.

Nelliemoser and nigglynellie While not relevant to this thread, it is interesting that when the abdication occurred, there was discussion among the powers that be of skipping over the Duke of York because of his shyness and stammer and putting one of his brothers on the throne. However, the Duke of Kent was considered just as much of a playboy as the abdicating king and the Duke of Gloucester had no wish for the throne.

The duke of Kent was gay, the duke of Gloucester had problems - not very bright . So there was only Duke of York who could have been considered

Absent A damn good job they didn't have one of the others then. By all accounts George V was a dreadful father and all the children had a tough time despite their station in life.

Anniebach I think the consensus is that the Duke of Kent (and the Duchess, for that matter) was bi-sexual rather than gay. The abdicating and ascending kings weren't very bright either so I can't see why his lack of intellect would rule out (whoops – sorry) the Duke of Gloucester. Besides how clever does a constitutional monarch have to be – it ain't rocket surgery.