Harry and the Nazi Costume

[JT Brooklyn]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

The "Royal" Family has always been a very Entertaining crowd. I had read somewhere that One of the more recent KINGS, it was finally Admitted, was put on a "DONOT RESUSITATE" watch before he passed on? I do feel for the English People, paying this "Groups" Rent for all these years..:+ :+ :+

[happyguy2]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

In that same history channel show, I think they said Harry's great grandfather, King George (husbamd of the Queen Mother, who by the way, Hitler called the most dangerous woman in Europe - odd that Harry forgot that when he chose his costume!) was given an injection to hasten his death so it could be covered by the morning Times - I am not certain of this, but it is what I recall. What a gang!

 

hg

[jakobsen]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

It was not George VI, the queen's father who died while Princess Elizabeth was traveling. It was George V, the queen's grandfather and husband of Queen Mary. It is rumored that George V's death was hastened by his physician to end his suffering and also hope that he would die before midnight so his death can be announced in the morning papers rather than the less pretigious afternoon or evening papers.

[happyguy2]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

thanks! While I am interested in all this, I really am no expert like you. NOnetheless, it is fascinating.

thanks again

hg

[jakobsen]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

The Windsor name was never changed to Mountbatten-Windsor. Although the royal house continue to be called the House of Windsor, the queen wanted the hyphenated surname Mountbatten-Windsor to be associated with her own family and descendants (thus her Windsor cousins did not change their surname to Mountbatten-Windsor)

 

Princess Anne was the first member of the queen's family to use the Mountbatten-Windsor surname in the official marriage record. And then she went on to become Mrs. Mark Phillips. More recently I have seen Mountbatten-Windsor used in several instances (biographies, tv programs, etc.), including Princes William and Harry who are correctly Mountbatten-Spencer. I suspect the two princes will continue to be called Mountbatten-Windsors, at least during the queen's lifetime, until one of Prince William's or Harry's future daughters marry. At that time, their names would be recorded as Mountbatten-Spencer.

[steveyboy]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

Sorry, but it was King George VI, the current Queen's father and husband of the recently passed Queen Mother who died while Princess Elizabeth was travelling and that's how she became Queen. If her granfather, George V had died at this time, she would not have become Queen because her father, King George VI was still alive.

[happyguy2]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

Sincere thanks to you - you are an amazing source of information. I am a mere bystander, but really appreciate your info!

hg

[alanalt]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

You're partially correct. Elizabeth is still a Windsor and reigning queens do not generally take their husband's surname, though any children do. Thus the name of the royal house is still the House of Windsor, and Elizabeth 'should' be the last of the Windsors. I say 'should' because in 1917, George V set the precedent of the monarch being able to change the house name by royal decree.

 

So when Charles becomes king, it will essentially be up to him what the house name will be. He can change the name of the house to Mountbatten (which would be in keeping with Edward VII, who adopted his father's name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and his mother, Queen Victoria, was last of the House of Hannover). Charles could also follow his sister's example and change the house name to Mountbatten-Windsor (but Anne's decision is not at all binding or anything more than a hint of what Charles 'might' do). Or Charles could decree that the name remain Windsor, or make up a new house name as his great-grandfather did.

 

Since it's very bad form for a future monarch to announce such decisions while the current monarch is alive and reigning, no one really knows what Charles will do and won't know until (and if) he succeeds to the throne.

[JT Brooklyn]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

I have the feeling,the Guys on this site know more about the "English" Royal Family, than half of the "English" Royal Family..LOL Could Harry be up for "replacing" his "Uncle Edward" youngest son of her Royal Highness,who has also done some Extremely Obnoxious things?:+ :+ :+

[happyguy2]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

I thought Queen Elizabeth was "her majesty" or is she, as you say, her royal highness?

hg

[JT Brooklyn]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

I am sure someone on here knows, if being A "Royal Subject" has anything to do with "Majesty" or "Highness"? Most of the "Gay Drama Queens" I know will settle for either!!! LOL :+ :+ :+

[noviceny]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

How the hell do you guys know all this shit !!!???

 

My dad is a real History buff especially when it comes to WWI and WWII and the Dark/Middle Ages. I know that he did a lot of reading in this area, but I also wonder if it has something to do with our school system.

 

In NY (where I went to grammar and high school) I dont believe we have History classes...we have this Social Studies shit...nor do we have geography classes. Did you guys just have better schooling ?

 

Another one of my theories is that during the latency period of your Freudian sexual development, your sex drive was repressed due to our societal norms, and you did not sexual "blossom" til later. As a result, the psychic energy from the latency and what should have been the genital stage, became super powerful, and that is why gay guys seem to be smarter than the straight population. The straights were too busy piping chicks to focus on their intellect. Could this be ?

 

Or maybe you guys just read a lot and have good memories :-)

[alanalt]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

Can't speak for anyone else but I'm Canadian, so she's my Queen too! ;-)

 

As for the correct form of address, the Queen should be addressed as 'Your/Her Majesty'. 'Your/His/Her Royal Highness' is a title reserved for other immediate members of the royal family. When Diana and Charles divorced there was quite a quarrel about whether Diana would continue to be styled "Her Royal Highness". When Edward VIII abdicated to marry Wallace Simpson, he became His Royal Highness, the Duke of Windsor while his wife was 'only' the Duchess of Windsor. Edward refused to return to England afterwards because of this 'snub'.

[Luv2play]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

Actually Jakobsen got it right but I had to reread his post to make sense of it. You are also right but have made it clearer. Jakobsen was responding to the post before his and you have to read the two to see what Jakobsen meant.

 

I recently read a book on the Windsors (Duke and Duchess) which theorized that Wallis Simpson was an hermaphrodite with some male sex organs (this is NOT made up!). It was written by a man who actually was very sympathetic to her (the title was something like Royal Feud). Anyway, the feud was between Wallis and the Queen Mother and lasted virtually all their lives since they first met.

 

Apart from her androgenous features, Wallis claimed at some point later in her life that she had never physically consummated her first two marriages (Spencer and Simpson). It was also said that she was very capable in the boudoir and that she had learned her techniques during her time in the Orient in the 1920's.

 

How all this relates to hapless Harry, I don't know but frankly I find it more interesting than reading about Harry's exploits.

[Paul Revere]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

All of this royal crap makes me crazy.

 

Although it is a bit interesting, who (in America) really cares about the stupid British Royal Family. As an American of Irish descent, I find the whole royalty thing ridiculous. The concept of some family or group of families (terribly inbred, by the way) declaring themselves royalty and thinking tha they have special privelige because of it is a concept that is 400 or 500 years out of date. Who do these freaking queens and dukes and such think they are? And worse, who could care.

 

I am always offended when traveling to Canada or Australia and I have to see Elizabeth's ugly puss on the money. Canada and Australia are great countries on their own right, and they should find thier own native heros or politicians to put on thier money. Damn I hate her ugly puss, and I don't fully understand why it appears on other countires' money. (OK, I know why, but I still don't get it, or I don't understand why Canadians and Australiand don't move on.)

[alanalt]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

>All of this royal crap makes me crazy.

>

Don't feel too bad though, Americans haven't understood Canadians for 200+ years and we're fine with that. You invaded us twice, thinking we'd be happy to throw off the royal/colonial tyranny and, guess what? Didn't happen. Maybe, one day, Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders will choose a different way of selecting our Heads of State. Maybe Briatin will beat us to it; but as I look around the world, I still think our way is superior to most.

 

A couple of other points, if you've been to Canada, you may have noticed that the Queen only appears on the $20 bill. Other denominations already have "native heros and politicians to put on their money". Canadian Prime Ministers Laurier, Macdonald, Borden, and MacKenzie King are already on our money. Nor, do I confess do I really see all that much difference between the Royals and an American family like the Kennedys...

 

To each his own.

[Luv2play]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

It is interesting how we seem to still pay deference to royalty while maintaining a democratic form of government. Even in the United States, which has been a republic for over 200 years, there is great fondness for the British royals. I suppose some of it has to do with the fact that the United States was founded by a bunch of British aristocrats who just didn't like paying taxes (so what else has changed!).

 

For many years, when Americans achieved great wealth, they would often send their sons or daughters to Britain to marry a "title", like the Astors, the Vanderbilts and the Kennedys. This doesn't seem to be the case anymore or at least much less common. Of course, the British titles have been debased somewhat with the Paul McCartneys and Mick Jaggers all sporting them.

 

As for our money in Canada, it still has the Queen's mug on it and will continue like that as long as she remains our head of state. Probably a majority of Canadians are indifferent to her remaining so but I don't see any change as being likely until old Betty gives up the ghost.

[JT Brooklyn]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

IMHO.. The day of "Royalty" is on the way out. Of course at one time it was replaced with Michael Jackson, The KING of Whatever! LOL LOL Slowly but surely, in years to come, we will only visit Museums to see what "Royal History" was all about..I do find the Long gone "Egyptians" a Hell of a lot more interesting than the "Peasant Sponsored" British Royal Family of today. If all that went on with the rest of the Queens Relatives, was reported on, we would really be disgusted and bored... :+ :+ :+

[+ Charlie]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

Novice, I don't know this admittedly trivial stuff because of my general education in this country, but because my academic degrees are in British history and literature, and because I have lived in England.

[Guest zipperzone]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

>Edward refused to return to England afterwards because of this

>'snub'.

 

This is not quite the way it was. Edward would have dearly loved to return to England, but was forbidden to do so under the terms of the financial settlement made with his family when he abdicated.

 

This was largly dictated by Queen Elizabeth (who later became The Queen Mother) - wife of George 6th who became king upon his brother's abdication. And the reason behind this is that Edward was vastly more popular with the English public and Queen E didn't want anyone "to rain (reign) of Georgie's parade"

 

And she basically was able to keep Edward and his wife Wallis out of England for the rest of their lives. I believe the only exception was when Wallis was briefly allowed to return for Edward's funeral and internment.

 

The only formal recognition Edward was ever able to recieve was when he was made Governor of the Bahamas for a short period during the war.

[Guest zipperzone]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

>The concept of some family or group of families (terribly

>inbred, by the way) declaring themselves royalty and thinking

>tha they have special privelige because of it is a concept

>that is 400 or 500 years out of date. Who do these freaking

>queens and dukes and such think they are? And worse, who

>could care.

 

I basically agree with you. Their time has come and passed and they are not much more than tourist attractions.

 

Still - their lives are interesting to a point if only as an ultimate study in the workings of the ultimate dysfunctional family

>

>I am always offended when traveling to Canada or Australia and

>I have to see Elizabeth's ugly puss on the money.

 

Just be thankful that your currency doesn't have Geo Bush's face on it - yet.

[jakobsen]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

This is a minority view. In 2002, during the queen's Golden Jubilee, 74% of British surveyed by Market and Opinion Research preferred the monarchy to a republic and 82% of them approved of the way the queen was doing her job. In November 1999, the majority of Australians (55%) voted against the republican movement because they distrusted their politicians (who would choose the president to replace the queen) more than the unelected queen.

[Luv2play]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

This is more or less correct except for a few details. Wallis did accompany her husband back to England once while he was alive. This was on the occasion of an unveiling of a memorial plaque for Queen Mary, Edward's mother. It was this occasion when Wallis refused to curtsy to the Queen Mother but did so to Queen Elizabeth.

 

And Edward went back once or twice himself, notably when his mother died and he accompanied his siblings in the funeral cortege.

 

When he abdicated, Edward had the support of Winston Churchill, before the latter became Prime Minister. Once the war was on and Churchill had become PM, it was debated what to do with the Windsors who were living in France. Edward was anxious to do something but because of his embarassing visit to Germany in 1937 to visit Hitler, he was only given a low-level military function in Paris.

 

This terminated with the invasion of the Germans and the Windsors were sent fleeing. They ended up in the Bahamas, where Wallis actually did some worthwhile work as a volunteer in aid of war efforts. Her husband was less than happy in his role as he was quite racist and didn't like being surrounded by blacks (negroes then). He also mismanaged the one challenge he was confronted with, the murder of Sir Harry Oakes, the Canadian gold miner who was the Bahamas's richest citizen (having fled Canada's ruinous taxes).

 

Given that he could have been King of England and Emperor of a vast Empire extending around the globe, Edward really did end up with a pathetic life.

[Guest ReturnOfS]

I just saw a John "Ropes" McGurk S&M video. Kind of hot. Now that seems like the proper punishment for little Harry and his nazi costume wearing antics. muahahahaha

[JT Brooklyn]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

Yes to Everything you say..BUT WHAT TASTE WALLIS HAD!! The broad knew how to spend the Crown's Money, "When it was Money" :+ :+ :+