Duke of Windsor - Traitor

I just think its so sad that Charles did not marry Camilla when he first met her. She was not considered "grand" enough by the Royal family and she had a past. His marriage to Diana was a catastrophe. She was only 19 and found herself tied to a man who already had a longstanding mistress. Unlike those who went before her she was not prepared to "look the other way" and get on with it. Both Charles and Diana were manipulated by their heartless relatives.

I agree biglouis ,the Duke was a very complex, weak character, easily flattered and totally obsessed by Wallis. Poor woman having embarked on what she and her husband, judging by others, believed would be a short lived affair,found herself embroiled with a man who became obsessed to the point of insanity that he threw everything over for her even threatening suicide. I expect she loved him up to a point,but it must have been a burden for her. Yes, King George was lucky with his wife, as Charles is with Camilla and William is with Catherine.

Just wondering how many these days actually read newspapers ? I think they are going the way of all things. We don’t get that Daily Wail here, doesn’t sound nice but then most news isn’t nice and news spruikers are all biased one way or another.

I can remember asking my mother what "abdication" meant and she said it was "not doing your duty". It was only later that I found out what it realy meant.

I feel sorry for Mrs Simpson and the way she was demonised. I believe he threatened to kill himself if she ever left him so she was stuck with him. He was obsessed with her and comes across to me as a weak man. Im not surprised that the other royals were so implacable towards him.

In contrast his brother was thrust into a role he neither wanted not was prepared for and he made the best of it. Fortunately he had chosen the right wife. The queen mother was a very strong character in what was still very much a "mans world".

I was 9 too when the king died, we were told at school and had to pray for his soul and for our new Queen. I can't remember any more about it. I remember the coronation very well. It was a horrid cold wet day and got rather boring! In the evening we went up to the market place for bun throwing and a slice of Ox which was roasted on an enormous spit. George V1th was a much loved king and yes, generally, people did feel enormously sorry for him at being thrust into a position he never ever wanted and had not been prepared for, and greatly admired him for overcoming his speech impediment which was, apparently, excruciating to listen to. A good man taken long before his time.

My Mum said that during his broadcasts the nation used to cringe at his obvious speech problems and will him through it. They all felt sorry for him and appreciated his bravery at putting himself through it.
During the war Dads regiment was inspected by him and he was surprised to see George VI was wearing make up. This was to make his face clear to the soldiers and people right at the back.
Not a willing King but when push came to shove he rose to the occasion and was appreciated for it.

George VI - the present queen's father - may have had his limitations. However he proved himself to be an inspirational figurehead during WW2. He was greatly loved by ordinary working people.

I dont really remember him bit can remember when he died - I was 9 years old at the time and complaining because there was only sad music on the radio and I wanted to listen to pop music of radio Luxembourg. My mother snapped at me "Have some respect. The king's dead."

The Duke died 10 days after the state visit and is buried in the royal burial ground on Frogmore Estate Windsor along with the Duchess who joined him in 1986. Originally they were banned and were to be buried in Baltimore, but the Queen altered this in 1965 allowing the pair a royal burial.

In May 1972, The Queen, Prince Philip and Prince Charles visited the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. The Duke was dying and was unable to come downstairs so received T.M's sitting In a chair in his bedroom. He attempted to rise to bow to the Queen who gently told him not to exert himself. There is a photo of H.M with the Duchess taken at this visit. Having watched the programme, for me the life of the D of W was a very sad story of a very complex man, easily influenced and without much of a moral compass. However, it is easy to judge 80 years along the line when ideas and attitudes,both here and in Europe, plus the Far East were very different to the attitudes of today. Germany suffered dreadfully at the end of WW1 and for many Germans Hitler appeared like a saviour to that broken country. As for the 'royal' Nazi salutes, they were in fact ridiculing them as lots of people did, except I suspect Uncle David who probably approved, again, as lots of people throughout Europe did.

Yes, there were a lot of Nazi sympathizers in the UK, just as there was in every country in Europe, most of us don’t realise how close we were to collaborating in 1939. Churchill and the sane polititians turned it round and the rest is history.

Given the same circumstances there are a lot of clandestine extreme right wingers in every country waiting for an opportunity 9and there aren’t all skinheads by any means

silverlining48

I watched this the other day and like the OP was aware of his leanings but not the extent of his involvement.
What an embarrassment and no wonder the rest of the royal family had little to do with him, though if The Crown was correct Prince Charles visited them in Paris. ( Think it was The Crown).

Briefly, I think but the visit was a disappointment to Charles.

I watched this the other day and like the OP was aware of his leanings but not the extent of his involvement.
What an embarrassment and no wonder the rest of the royal family had little to do with him, though if The Crown was correct Prince Charles visited them in Paris. ( Think it was The Crown).

He was very popular in the South Wales valleys, in 1936 he did a tour of the most poverty stricken areas and said ‘something must be done’,

My mother, born 1906, admitted to admiring Edward V111 in her youth she considered him 'handsome' (her word) and a bit of a pin-up boy. I can't say I thought him at all good looking, a bit of a chinless wonder in a way. But there's no doubt many people chose to ignore his nazi leanings in the 1930s, because after all Hitler did drag his country back up on its feet after the harsh treatment it received after WW1. And the RF is of German descent.
Wallis saved us from becoming part of Germany by forcing him to decide to abdicate.

I am not deliberately missing the point you are making, it was the post saying the Mail should be banned which took me away
from absolute freedom of speech .

I still don’t know which groups the Mail are demonising , I don’t read it.

'Mocking' or 'criticising' or 'debating' is not the same as 'demonising'. I hope you can see the difference.

I never said the DN should be banned- as tempting as it is.

But you miss (quite deliberately I believe) the point I am making.

Why should Freedom os speech be ok to demonise some groups (often by the DM and the like), but not others. Why is antisemitism different?

Personally, I do not believe in absolute freddom of speech. But you can't have freedom of speech to demonise some groups, but not for others.

And I asked why should the Daily Mail be banned,

race, colour , religion has nothing to do with rail strikes .

Christianity is certainly mocked on this forum

Your last post, clearly.

We are talking here about groups of people, for their race, colour, ethnictiy, religion, being demonised. At the time mentionned in the OP, Jews by Nazis.

The question being, was is it totally beyond Freedom of Speech to demonise one group, and not others.

Really Fleurpepper who are you referring to ?

I think the word I am looking for here is 'disingenuous' not sure I can even spell it.

So tv news shouldn’t interview passengers who complain about
the difficulties of train strikes

For one - all those tragic people putting their lives at risk trying to reach UK on dinguies. AND.....any Trades Union daring to permit their members have a majority vote to take strike action.

I don’t read the Daily Mail, which groups do they demonise ?

Anniebach

Has the Daily Mail become anti Semitic?

This is not what I said. Please read my post again.

The DM has been demonising all sorts of groups of people- and many readers have found this acceptable, perhaps welcome.

My post said 'what if'? Why is it fine to demonise some groups, and to have another group totally out of bounds to free speech?

Either you do, or you don't (have free speech).