Ralph - Tell us About King Edward VIII

[Daddy O]

I just watched a documentary about King Edward VIII.

Here's the synopsis:

According to research, mainly from FBI files, British king Edward's abdication was not exactly the price for marriage to twice-divorced American Wallis Simpson, an outrage, especially for the royal head of the Anglican church. It was a convenient excuse for the British government to remove a royal prince who, from before his ascension to the throne end even during the Second World War, let his Nazi sympathies prevail on patriotism, making him a spy for Berlin, mainly trough Von Ribbentrop. Hitler hoped to restore Edward as a satellite pawn after militarily conquering Britain.

Seriously? Is this true? According to everything I have read.......it seems as though it is true.

And you criticize the Yanks? Perhaps you should look in your own closets before guessing what's in others?

[andysfootball]

it must be true if it was a documentary!!!!

[Daddy O]

it must be true if it was a documentary!!!!

No, but when you research it, that research certainly agrees with the documentary. That's why I'm asking our "Official Royals Representative" for his opinion.

Que No?

[max Headroom]

it must be true if it was a documentary!!!!

No, but when you research it, that research certainly agrees with the documentary. That's why I'm asking our "Official Royals Representative" for his opinion.

Que No?

Far que yes!


tugger

[ralph]

I just watched a documentary about King Edward VIII.

Here's the synopsis:

According to research, mainly from FBI files, British king Edward's abdication was not exactly the price for marriage to twice-divorced American Wallis Simpson, an outrage, especially for the royal head of the Anglican church. It was a convenient excuse for the British government to remove a royal prince who, from before his ascension to the throne end even during the Second World War, let his Nazi sympathies prevail on patriotism, making him a spy for Berlin, mainly trough Von Ribbentrop. Hitler hoped to restore Edward as a satellite pawn after militarily conquering Britain.

Seriously? Is this true? According to everything I have read.......it seems as though it is true.

And you criticize the Yanks? Perhaps you should look in your own closets before guessing what's in others?

Daddy O, Not every British King has been a paragon of virtue nor have they all exercised good judgement. Edward VIII in my opinion was a good example of this on both counts, Wallace Simpson and he were well matched in this respect as she showed every sign of being most impressed with Hitler. One of the things about this pair that sticks in my mind and my craw was the way In which Edward visited an area of Wales where he was so appalled by the poverty he saw, he famously was filmed with knitted brows, saying "Something must be done." He did do something about it: within a very short time he had abdicated and immediately started spending the huge allowance he was to be given from the Government at Paris jewellers such as Van Cleefe & Arples, Cartier etc on fabulous jewels to adorn the new Mrs Windsor. Most of us did not see them until after her death when they were auctioned.

I'm too busy at the moment to expand further on the subject as my time is being taken up following the revelations dubbed as 'The Paradise Papers' where the financial shenanigans of the super-rich, as they endeavour to avoid paying their taxes are being revealed. You will note that both of our Heads of State have been dragged into this one: ours involving investments of £10 million and in your case its that pesky Russian connection rearing its head again.

[Daddy O]

Good Post Ralph......and I think there is one thing we can both agree on.....Corruption knows no bounds or borders.

I'm sure that you have done more research on the Paradise Papers, but the truth of the matter is......on this side of the pond.....is we have the most corrupt government ever. Two of Forest Trump's people have been indicted for obstruction of justice and lying to Congress....one of them ran his Campaign for a while, and the third one has already pled guilty to the same charges. It was reported that he was wearing a "wire" for the last 6 months on behalf of the FBI.

Wilbur Ross.....the Secretary of Commerce in the USA (imagine that) has heavily invested in a Russian Transportation Company, and one of the largest clients is non other than Putin's Son-In-Law. Holy Madre de Hey-Sues. Always, always......follow the money.

We can, and will get rid of Forest, but how do you get rid of a corrupt "Royal"?

Trump is here for the money........no if's, and's or but's about it. His latest scheme is to give the ultra (and I do mean Ultra) rich a tax break at the expense of the poor and middle class. With his "scheme", Wells Fargo (the most corrupt bank in America that opened false accounts in their customers names so they could charge them admin fees) would get a 1 trillion dollar tax break. The Waltons (WalMart) would get a 55 billion dollar tax cut, and Trumps children would get a 4 Billion Dollar tax cut.

Trump's tax plan would add over 5 trillion dollars to the National Debt......in the first year.

All I can say is....................you ain't got nothing over us........we are the masters at corruption.

[ralph]

Good Post Ralph......and I think there is one thing we can both agree on.....Corruption knows no bounds or borders.

I'm sure that you have done more research on the Paradise Papers, but the truth of the matter is......on this side of the pond.....is we have the most corrupt government ever. Two of Forest Trump's people have been indicted for obstruction of justice and lying to Congress....one of them ran his Campaign for a while, and the third one has already pled guilty to the same charges. It was reported that he was wearing a "wire" for the last 6 months on behalf of the FBI.

Wilbur Ross.....the Secretary of Commerce in the USA (imagine that) has heavily invested in a Russian Transportation Company, and one of the largest clients is non other than Putin's Son-In-Law. Holy Madre de Hey-Sues. Always, always......follow the money.

We can, and will get rid of Forest, but how do you get rid of a corrupt "Royal"?

Trump is here for the money........no if's, and's or but's about it. His latest scheme is to give the ultra (and I do mean Ultra) rich a tax break at the expense of the poor and middle class. With his "scheme", Wells Fargo (the most corrupt bank in America that opened false accounts in their customers names so they could charge them admin fees) would get a 1 trillion dollar tax break. The Waltons (WalMart) would get a 55 billion dollar tax cut, and Trumps children would get a 4 Billion Dollar tax cut.

Trump's tax plan would add over 5 trillion dollars to the National Debt......in the first year.

All I can say is....................you ain't got nothing over us........we are the masters at corruption.

There is no suggestion, and there won't be, that The Queen is involved or was even aware of where the funds of The Duchy of Lancaster were invested. To ensure that The Queen does not become besmirched by the often murky dealings of the financial world, The Duchy who manages the money from which The Queen is provided with her private income Is headed by a Government Minister (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) who is appointed by The Prime Minister and so will be from the elected ruling party of the day. The Duchy has a duty to manage the funds both efficiently and is such a way that will not cause embarrassment to the Monarch. Those charged with the direct investing of the funds have been unwise in making investments which while perfectly legal may have been chosen to minimise the income tax to be paid, and that becoming public will undoubtedly have embarrassed The Queen. I would imagine that she will have immediately issued some sharp advice to The Chancellor of The Duchy to ensure that future investments steer well clear of tax avoidance schemes (which are legal, unlike tax evasion schemes which illegal.)

[gnads]

Good Post Ralph......and I think there is one thing we can both agree on.....Corruption knows no bounds or borders.

I'm sure that you have done more research on the Paradise Papers, but the truth of the matter is......on this side of the pond.....is we have the most corrupt government ever. Two of Forest Trump's people have been indicted for obstruction of justice and lying to Congress....one of them ran his Campaign for a while, and the third one has already pled guilty to the same charges. It was reported that he was wearing a "wire" for the last 6 months on behalf of the FBI.

Wilbur Ross.....the Secretary of Commerce in the USA (imagine that) has heavily invested in a Russian Transportation Company, and one of the largest clients is non other than Putin's Son-In-Law. Holy Madre de Hey-Sues. Always, always......follow the money.

We can, and will get rid of Forest, but how do you get rid of a corrupt "Royal"?

Trump is here for the money........no if's, and's or but's about it. His latest scheme is to give the ultra (and I do mean Ultra) rich a tax break at the expense of the poor and middle class. With his "scheme", Wells Fargo (the most corrupt bank in America that opened false accounts in their customers names so they could charge them admin fees) would get a 1 trillion dollar tax break. The Waltons (WalMart) would get a 55 billion dollar tax cut, and Trumps children would get a 4 Billion Dollar tax cut.

Trump's tax plan would add over 5 trillion dollars to the National Debt......in the first year.

All I can say is....................you ain't got nothing over us........we are the masters at corruption.

Trump is there for the money? And the Clintons weren't?

Who were the recipients of the windfall of the sale of US yellow cake to the Russians?

They are all bent..... and it would seem none much worse or better than the other.

[sherri]

I just watched a documentary about King Edward VIII.

Here's the synopsis:

According to research, mainly from FBI files, British king Edward's abdication was not exactly the price for marriage to twice-divorced American Wallis Simpson, an outrage, especially for the royal head of the Anglican church. It was a convenient excuse for the British government to remove a royal prince who, from before his ascension to the throne end even during the Second World War, let his Nazi sympathies prevail on patriotism, making him a spy for Berlin, mainly trough Von Ribbentrop. Hitler hoped to restore Edward as a satellite pawn after militarily conquering Britain.

Seriously? Is this true? According to everything I have read.......it seems as though it is true.

And you criticize the Yanks? Perhaps you should look in your own closets before guessing what's in others?

I'm no royalty expert but the bit about old Edward being a bit of a Nazi sympathiser is common knowledge as even I have heard about it.
With it being an inherited position, I suppose you're going to get all sorts-some good, some not so good. The royal family actually lucked out I think with the abdication (and so did England)-got a much better man & his wife & family in the position.

[ralph]

I just watched a documentary about King Edward VIII.

Here's the synopsis:

According to research, mainly from FBI files, British king Edward's abdication was not exactly the price for marriage to twice-divorced American Wallis Simpson, an outrage, especially for the royal head of the Anglican church. It was a convenient excuse for the British government to remove a royal prince who, from before his ascension to the throne end even during the Second World War, let his Nazi sympathies prevail on patriotism, making him a spy for Berlin, mainly trough Von Ribbentrop. Hitler hoped to restore Edward as a satellite pawn after militarily conquering Britain.

Seriously? Is this true? According to everything I have read.......it seems as though it is true.

And you criticize the Yanks? Perhaps you should look in your own closets before guessing what's in others?

I'm no royalty expert but the bit about old Edward being a bit of a Nazi sympathiser is common knowledge as even I have heard about it.
With it being an inherited position, I suppose you're going to get all sorts-some good, some not so good. The royal family actually lucked out I think with the abdication (and so did England)-got a much better man & his wife & family in the position.

It is now forgotten, perhaps very conveniently, that a lot of wealthy and influential people originally greatly admired Hitler and that included Americans such as Joe Kennedy and Nancy Astor just to name two. They thought he was the answer to the threat from communists. Kennedy also it seems held very anti-Semitic views. The trouble is, when like Daddy O, you dig out something controversial in order to have a go at the royals and get a good topic going, others start googling too and it can all blow up in your face.

[Daddy O]

There is no suggestion, and there won't be, that The Queen is involved or was even aware of where the funds of The Duchy of Lancaster were invested. To ensure that The Queen does not become besmirched by the often murky dealings of the financial world, The Duchy who manages the money from which The Queen is provided with her private income Is headed by a Government Minister (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) who is appointed by The Prime Minister and so will be from the elected ruling party of the day. The Duchy has a duty to manage the funds both efficiently and is such a way that will not cause embarrassment to the Monarch. Those charged with the direct investing of the funds have been unwise in making investments which while perfectly legal may have been chosen to minimise the income tax to be paid, and that becoming public will undoubtedly have embarrassed The Queen. I would imagine that she will have immediately issued some sharp advice to The Chancellor of The Duchy to ensure that future investments steer well clear of tax avoidance schemes (which are legal, unlike tax evasion schemes which illegal.)

I wasn't talking about the Queen per se.....just a rhetorical question. How does one get rid of a "Royal"?

[Daddy O]

It is now forgotten, perhaps very conveniently, that a lot of wealthy and influential people originally greatly admired Hitler and that included Americans such as Joe Kennedy and Nancy Astor just to name two. They thought he was the answer to the threat from communists. Kennedy also it seems held very anti-Semitic views. The trouble is, when like Daddy O, you dig out something controversial in order to have a go at the royals and get a good topic going, others start googling too and it can all blow up in your face.

You are so full of s**t, your eyes are brown.

Post your proof Bubba.......if you can, that is.

[andysfootball]

Bubba means nothing to Ralph he is English gentry.

[ralph]

Bubba means nothing to Ralph he is English gentry.

Thank you Andy. As for producing 'the proof' he asks for, it is all abundantly available and easily accessible on the Internet. If I were to reprint it, Daddy O would then accuse me of 'cutting and pasting' as he has done previously with Max, so I think on this occasion, though he has cast his bread upon the water, his fish is not going to bite.

[niagraa]

didn't he grow potatoes ?

[whip]

King Edward VIII

He was weak in mind/spirit and was as much use as a chocolate tea pot.

This in my mind sum up all the royals after Richard 3rd.

He at least had the guts to lead men into battle.

What use would a new King of England be.

Useless whilst living in opulence come to mind.

[niagraa]

King Edward VIII

He was weak in mind/spirit and was as much use as a chocolate tea pot.

This in my mind sum up all the royals after Richard 3rd.

He at least had the guts to lead men into battle.

What use would a new King of England be.

Useless whilst living in opulence come to mind.

yeh mate, harry should be the next king, not charlie or willie, harry served in Afghanistan.

[sherri]

It's an inherited title, niagraa. Not like politics where you vote your favourite in.
That's just the way it is. The way things are going, Charles won't have that many decades in power anyway. He'll probably be about 70plus before he gets the job.

[niagraa]

It's an inherited title, niagraa. Not like politics where you vote your favourite in.
That's just the way it is. The way things are going, Charles won't have that many decades in power anyway. He'll probably be about 70plus before he gets the job.

yeh, you know I have thought for literally decades now, queen lizzy has purposely remained on the throne sheerly because she is a loving mother and doesn't want the burden to be placed onto her kids, she might talk posh and all that crap, but she's still a mum, and I reckon a good mum will do anything to save her kids (albeit 60 odd year old kids) she gave up her freedom to allow Charlie to have his, but he probably doesn't even appreciate it.

harry should be the next king anyway..

GO THE RANGAS !!!!!

[sherri]

I was reading that Phillip has retired to some house or other. Not Buck palace anyway. So the queen doesn't get to see him every day any more.

Phillip is about 96 so deserves private time now. I think the queen has a sense of duty, which keeps her keeping on. She is looking in good nick for her age actually so I wouldn't be surprised if she lives a few more years.
I wouldn't wish the position on anyone though to tell the truth. I know they live a life of ease-never have to cook or clean-nannies at beck & call, if they feel ill, no waiting for doctors or ops for them etc etc, but who would want to be constantly photographed with media commenting about every outfit, every facial expression, or having to attend function after function listening to speeches. There's a downside to that job, for sure. I think Harry would be better off not to be king. He'll have just about all the perks but not the same number of pressures.

Plus William & Kate are fairly popular & they'll have 3 kids to pass it all on to.