Harry and the Nazi Costume

[Guest alanm]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

Good, your backgrouind makes you just the one to ask this question.

While not disputing the Germanic background of the British royal family, have we taken into consideration that the Quenn Mum was 100% Scottish. Also, does Diana's family have any German blood?

 

I also take issue about the supposed popularity of the Duke and Duchess of Windor in the United Kingdom, especially after their flirtation with Hitler. The Queen Mum was far from the only Brit who passionately disliked the pathetic couple.

[+ Charlie]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

Edward's abdication came as a surprise and shock to the British public, because all news about his relationship with Mrs. Simpson was kept out of the media until very near the end of his short reign. He was extremely popular until then, and many people, including Winston Churchill, remained sympathetic toward him. His friendliness toward Hitler and the Nazis, however, cooled many of those sympathizers (Hitler actually played with the idea of reinstating Edward on the throne as a puppet if he managed to conquer England during the war). Nevertheless, at the beginning of the war Edward did come back to England, and was sent back to France as a military liaison to the French government. When France fell to the Germans, he and the Duchess escaped to Spain and then Portugal, but he refused to return to England unless the Duchess was received with the official respect that she demanded, and Queen Elizabeth (who later became the Queen Mum) was adamantly opposed to it. The posting as Governor of the Bahamas was a compromise to get them both out of Europe and out of the way.

 

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was a Scottish outsider, and in the early years of her husband's reign as George VI she felt insecure about their position. She had good reason, because Edward did not settle quietly in France: he made a well-publicized visit to Germany and did various other things that made it appear he was trying to undermine George's position. George was a painfully shy, quiet man who stuttered, and Elizabeth often seemed to be the real backbone of the monarchy, which is why Hitler called her the most dangerous woman in Europe. She relaxed somewhat after the war, during which she became the most popular figure in the royal family, but her later image as the good-natured grandmother figure was partly public relations to mask her stubbornness and steely control of the family (her model was her mother-in-law, Queen Mary).

 

I don't know much about Diana's family, but I don't believe there was any German element there.

[JT Brooklyn]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

I don't know much about the Spencer's either, except events AFTER she married Mr. Big Ears.., But I had read the Spencer's, go back further than the Ex-Inlaws, alot more "Class" as a Family Group. NOT as Dysfunctional as her In-Laws. OF course her Mother did Dump her POP'S for a Polo Player. THE IDLE RICH WILL DO IT EVERYTIME! BUT I digress, this is a Whole Different story! SORRY Guys! LOL :+ :+ :+

[Guest zipperzone]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

>but her later image

>as the good-natured grandmother figure was partly public

>relations to mask her stubbornness and steely control of the

>family (her model was her mother-in-law, Queen Mary).

 

Funny, but I am struck by the similarities between the Quuen Mum and Barbra Bush" Both portray gentle grandmotherly types while actually being ballsy bitchy control freaks with a vocabulary that would make a nun blush.

[Guest rohale]

Prince Harry is in a difficult position. The Sun Newspaper in Britain are the ones who published the photos in the first place. There has been a statement issued on behalf of Prince Harry. The only problem for the young prince is this, the question the media is asking, Should Prince Harry make a public apology? This is something the PR machine at Buckingham Palace are going to have to think very carefully. Time is precious, the more the Royals delay, the more scrutiny the Royals will get from the press, politicians and ultimately the British Public.

 

Let's not forget that Prince Harry is 20 yrs old. To put the matter in broader terms. A lot of young people who are Harry's age want to distance themselves from the past. The lessons of history have no bearing for a lot of young people out there. They couldn't care less, cos they dont relate to events from the past.

 

To go in a different direction. I wonder how many fancy dress parties people attend where someone wore a costume that might have been considered offensive. Probably dozens, maybe thousands over the years. The only difference is that Harry got caught because he's in the public eye all the time. He and his brother have had to endure life in a fish bowl, figuratively speaking. Their whole lives have been under constant scrutiny. This something most of us couldn't relate to in a thousand years.

 

Let's not forget young people make mistakes all the time, Harry is no different. I think people should leave Prince Harry alone. Especially the tabloid press in Britain. There are enough problems in this world that deserve more attention.

 

Rohale

[JamesK840]

But what exactly is the Queen's job?

 

>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.

 

As a Yank somewhat interested in the British system, there are many things I don't understand. It took me years of watching British and Canadian sitcoms before I finally figured out why there were so many references to what I had assumed were 'Military Police'... (Member of Parliament). Other then what the hell a no-confidence vote is, the actual powers of the Queen are one of the main things I wonder about along those lines.

 

Snippets I've picked up make it seem a little like our executive branch (of course), with her presiding over Parliament, having some duties as 'Commander in Chief', and in addition some implied ability to appoint/fire the Prime Minister. Yet it's also implied these are all just formalities, that she has no real power.

 

So what exactly are her powers? Skipping convention ("what's normally done"), what could she (or eventually jug-ears) do if she set her mind to it, and what recourse would elected officials/military officers have?

 

Does she receive regular, in-depth top-secret briefings (such as our Vice President recieves--when he doesn't make them up himself--and our ex-presidents are entitled to), are there any important agencies that she runs in more then title?

 

If the PM died would she hold executive power in the interim?

 

Do titles still confer wealth and property, are they often given to un-connected and not famous civil servants or soldiers? Does she even have final authority over titles (does that mean control over the House of Lords?)?

 

Can I come up with any more questions?

[Guest zipperzone]

It was a costume party for God's sake!

 

If he had dressed as the Devil, would the church be upset?

 

If he had gone in drag would that have made him a homosexual?

 

If I were Harry I'd tell them all to stick it where the sun don't shine. If he goes around apologizing for weeks on end, I'll be very disappointed in him.

 

The restrictions placed on him by virtue of his birth must be very hard to live with. Especially as the probability of him ever being King are very slight. He is now 3rd in line, but if his brother Wills gets married and has a son (or three) it will make it a certaintity that Harry will never get the top job.

 

So what is he to do with his life? Walk around cutting ribbons?

 

I say good for him. Let him lead his life the way he wants to and let the chips fall where they may.

[Guest ReturnOfS]

Zipper, twenty isn't that young, but it might seem so to some people here. I would have known better than to dress as a nazi back when I was 12. Its hard for me to see how someone would have a desire to do that.

 

But I'm no angel. I would still love to see Harry in a Tom "Ropes" McGurk video regardless. }( Muahahahahaha }(

[alanalt]

RE: But what exactly is the Queen's job?

 

In theory, the Crown's powers are enormous, in practice they're almost negligible. It's tough to answer your questions because the British Constitution is not codified like the U.S. and depends very much on precedents and convention...

 

Forming a Government.

In the British system, supreme power rests in the hands of Parliament, which includes both Houses (Lords and Commons) and the Crown. A Government is formed under Parliament to be the executive branch. The Crown will then ask someone to form a government. By convention, this person is the leader of the party with the most seats in the House of Commons (if this party has more seats than all other parties combined, it’s called a majority government, if not, then it’s a minority government). That person receives his/her authority from the monarch and becomes Prime Minister (the process is referred to as ‘kissing hands’). The PM then appoints a Cabinet, whose members are responsible for executing the functions of a government. While Cabinet Ministers receive their appointments in the name of the Crown (and are called Ministers of the Crown), they are in fact responsible for their conduct to Parliament (particularly to the PM). True executive power rests with the PM and Cabinet.

 

The Crown retains enormous powers in theory. The monarch must sign all laws, approve a huge number of appointments, issue proclamations, award titles, etc. By convention, all of this only happens on the advice (i.e. direction) of the PM. In theory, the monarch could refuse to sign a law, approve a Cabinet Order, etc, but he/she would have to be on unimpeachable grounds to do so. Again, however, it is important to note that supreme power rests in Parliament and while the Queen is an important part of it, the rest of Parliament would have to approve/consent to any actions she would take outside of convention.

 

As for “what recourse would elected officials/military officers have?” In 1649, ‘Parliament’ (i.e. leading members of) executed Charles I and in 1688, deposed his son, James II. Since then, British monarchs have wisely not chosen to press the matter. It is said that when (a young) Queen Victoria was looking to retain her PM, Lord Melbourne, though he had lost an election, she was told she couldn’t unless she wanted to start a civil war.

 

As noted above, in 1936, Edward VIII hoped to use Winston Churchill (who was eager to return to power himself) to form a government that would accept his desire to make Mrs. Simpson Queen. However, Both Churchill and Edward realized that they would have no support from other MPs and the idea was dropped. But the abdication crisis shows clearly that when it comes to monarch vs. PM, the PM will win every time (as long as he/she has the support of the Common). In the case of a serious showdown, the PM would likely ask (i.e. instruct) the Crown to dissolve Parliament and call an election and if the PM was returned to power, the monarch would be expected to give way.

 

As for your other questions:

>Does she receive regular, in-depth top-secret briefings (such

>as our Vice President recieves--when he doesn't make them up

>himself--and our ex-presidents are entitled to),

 

The PM or acting PM generally meets with the monarch personally once a week. What is said at these meetings are kept very closely guarded by both parties and the nature of these meetings varies according to who the PM is and their overall relationship. Any other ‘briefings’ the monarch receives are at the discretion of the PM. During WWII, Winston Churchill (who was a strong monarchist) shared huge amounts of (but not all) classified information with George V and took great pains to ensure that any questions that George had, were fully and properly answered. Other PMs have been less forthcoming…

 

 

>are there any important agencies that she runs in more then title?

Not really, except for their own households, which in the monarch’s case, includes the court. Of course, the Queen’s household and Court runs to many hundreds of people, but exercises no role in the affairs of state (as opposed to the tabloids).

 

>Do titles still confer wealth and property, are they often

>given to un-connected and not famous civil servants or

>soldiers? Does she even have final authority over titles

>(does that mean control over the House of Lords?)?

 

No, titles today do not generally confer wealth or property. Even in the past, when titles sometimes did include gifts wealth/land, the approval of Parliament would be required. By tradition, the costs of maintaining the royals (though now only the immediate) is recorded in the Civil List, which must be annually approved by both Houses.

 

Again, all titles/honours derive from the Crown, so Honours (i.e. titles/medals to be bestowed) are awarded by the monarch and are published in at least two lists annually. Again, however, this power can only be exercised on the advice of the PM, so the vast majority of honours given really come from the PM. The Queen does make a number of her own appointment/recognitions, though again the PM is always consulted (and presumably could veto any awards he/she felt very strongly about) before the list is released by the Palace.

 

>If the PM died would she hold executive power in the interim?

No. Power would pass to the Deputy PM (or most senior Minister) who would kiss hands and be PM until the governing party chose its next leader. Even when Parliament is dissolved to call a general election, a caretaker government (usually the last PM and Cabinet to hold office before the election is called) remains in place. It would be unconstitutional for the monarch to hold power directly.

 

>Can I come up with any more questions?

 

I’m guessing you probably could… ;-)

[Luv2play]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

Wallis indeed had good taste both in clothes and furnishings (one could also say men as she cultivated a number of gay men as friends after her marriage to Edward). In fact, it was probably her superb taste that irritated the dowdy Queen Mum the most, as the two sisters-in-law were constantly compared in this department, with the Queen Mum coming out the loser. During her lifetime the Duchess was a perennial on the Best Dressed List. And her jewels, of course, were legendary. The current Queen follows in the tradition of her Scottish mum.

 

In fact, the Windsors worried about money all their married life. Although they lived an ostentatious lifestyle, they knew how to cut corners (like not paying taxes or picking up the check at restaurants) to stretch the pounds that the Royal Family doled out to them. In fact, at one point they had entertained the notion of setting up house in the USA (probably in New York) but could not do it because they would have had to pay taxes (which the French were willing to waive).

 

When she died, the Duchess left virtually all of her money (Sotheby's auctionned her jewels in Geneva) to charity, notably the Pasteur Institute in Paris.

[+ glutes]

And now a swastika ban??

 

European Union May Ban Nazi Symbols

Debate Comes After Photo of Prince Harry's Swastika Armband

By CONSTANT BRAND, AP

 

BRUSSELS, Belgium (Jan. 17) - The European Union may consider banning Nazi symbols in its 25 member nations after Britain's Prince Harry wore a swastika armband to a costume party, the bloc's top justice official said Monday.

 

 

 

Reuters

A copy of the Jan. 13 front page of The Sun newspaper in Britain shows Prince Harry wearing a swastika and an army shirt with Nazi regalia at a friend's party.

 

Franco Frattini, the EU's justice and home affairs commissioner, said he was open to discussing the issue at a Jan. 27 meeting of EU justice ministers.

 

"It may be worth looking into the possibility of a total ban, a Europe-wide ban," his spokesman, Friso Roscam Abbing, told reporters Monday. "Commissioner Frattini shares the general feeling of opprobrium on the use of the swastika and other Nazi symbols."

 

The call came after several German conservatives, socialists and liberal democrats in the European Parliament urged a European ban following a scandal last week over photos published worldwide of Harry, third in line to the British throne, wearing the Nazi outfit.

 

German Socialist Helmut Kuhne called Harry a "royal idiot" for not knowing the consequences and World War II history linked to the Nazi swastika.

 

Germany already bans such symbols.

 

But British Liberal Democrat Chris Davies questioned the need to ban the swastika.

 

 

Talk About It

 

 

· Chat

 

"I understand how the burden of history weighs upon my German colleagues' view," he said. "However, banning symbols cannot ban evil and risks playing into the hands of those who would seek to subvert the very liberties we most champion."

 

Roscam Abbing said Frattini would urge EU ministers to use the swastika incident to push for agreement on EU-wide rules to combat racism, fascism and anti-Semitism.

 

A proposal was introduced two years ago but discussions have failed to make headway. Roscam Abbing said officials would take care not to violate freedom of expression in devising such a ban.

 

Frattini's decision to look into an EU-wide ban could further embarrass Queen Elizabeth II, who is to lead British commemorations of the Holocaust in London later this month.

 

 

01/17/05 11:15 EST

[JamesK840]

RE: But what exactly is the Queen's job?

 

>>Can I come up with any more questions?

>

>I’m guessing you probably could… ;-)

 

Thanks for the great summary, very informative! And thanks for your vote of confidence, you're right...

 

The house of lords, is it's membership mostly genetic now since it doesn't sound from your summary like a whole lot of new lords are made? I take it from your summary it doesn't hold much power anymore?

 

Is the PM the Commander in Chief of the military, is the crown also a figurehead Commander in Chief? Are the toasts to the Queen still a common/important part of "upper class" British society and gatherings of military officers?

 

Is there a court that has the power to overule the Commons(/PM) similar to the US supreme court?

[jakobsen]

RE: But what exactly is the Queen's job?

 

>If the PM died would she hold executive power in the interim?

 

Unlike in the U.S., where the voters choose the president, in the parliamentary system the citizens do not elect the prime minister. The head of a political party becomes the prime minister when they gain the majority of seats in the parliament. So when the Prime Minister (PM) dies, the ruling party will simply pick another of its member to be its head (in effect the new PM).

 

As for the House of Lords, the queen does not control the House of Lords. The House used to be made up chiefly by hereditary (land)lords. Nowadays, they are appointed by the PM. Blair has appointed more life peers than any prime minister and the majority of them are Labour (Blair’s party) life peers. He is opposed to an “elected” House of Lords because the “democratic legitimacy” of the house can challenge the powers of the House of Commons. Blair has instead refashioned the House of Lords into a rubber stamp for his government. No wonder the monarchy continues to receive enormous support from the people; it is one of few remaining institutions that can be trusted.

 

In 1999, the Australian republican movement wanted to replace the monarchy with a president. But instead of trusting the voters to choose the president, they wanted the members of parliament to choose the president. So the majority of Australians decided to keep the queen.

 

The House of Lords is the final court of appeal for civil cases in the United Kingdom and for criminal cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Only 12 Lords of Appeal (Law Lords) take part in the judicial proceedings.

[JT Brooklyn]

Ridiculous "Prince" Harry is not some character out of "Animal House" the movie! He is 20 yrs old, after all the tragedy already in his young life, The most Public Divorce, known in recent History, Death of his Mother, etc. He should definitely be more Sensative to "ISSUES" than less Sensative. IF the Queen's Mother were still alive, this would be an even "Bigger Issue", than it is now. The attitude is she passed on so did WW2..NOT FOR THOSE STILL AROUND! It now involves the EU...Nice going Court Jester!! He is just plain Stupid! :+ :+ :+

[alanalt]

RE: But what exactly is the Queen's job?

 

>The house of lords, is it's membership mostly genetic now

>since it doesn't sound from your summary like a whole lot of

>new lords are made? I take it from your summary it doesn't

>hold much power anymore?

>

 

>Is there a court that has the power to overule the

>Commons(/PM) similar to the US supreme court?

 

Jakobsen's comments on the House of Lords are largely accurate, though it is important to note that even before Blair's 'reforms' peerages this century did not carry with them grants of land or money. Life peerages have been around a few decades or so.

 

The House of Lords lost it's status of equality to the Commons about a century ago during clashes between the Liberal and Conservative Parties. After a Liberal election victory and a threat (reluctantly agreed to by the King) to create enough peers to override the Conservatives in the Lords, the House of Lords' ability to veto legislation and other powers were severely restricted. The one part of the Lords that has continued to work well, namely the Law Lords and the Lord Chancellor, are also being 'reformed' by Tony Blair.

 

>Is the PM the Commander in Chief of the military, is the crown

>also a figurehead Commander in Chief? Are the toasts to the

>Queen still a common/important part of "upper class" British

>society and gatherings of military officers?

>

The monarch is the titular commander-in-chief of the Britain's military forces. In practice, supreme authority over the military is exercised by the Government of the day, headed by the Prime Minister. The monarch's role is now largely ceremonial; but, yes, the Queen is ceremoniously toasted at regimental dinners and visits/inspections and other ceremonies involving the Queen and other royals are treasured by most members of the military I have met.

[Chuck50]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

Of the House of Battenburg. Can you get any more German than that. HUGS

[Chuck50]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

Some would say we are just a bunch of Queen's HUGS Love ya Babe Chuck

[alanalt]

RE: The trouble with Harry...

 

>Of the House of Battenburg. Can you get any more German than

>that. HUGS

 

Actually you're mistaken. The Battenburgs are a different family (though cousins and close friends to the Royals dating back to the 19th century). Prince Battenburg served for almost 40 years with the Royal Navy but lost his job with the British Admiralty during WWI because of his German name (I'm not making this up!) sd they anglicized their name to Mountbatten.

 

The family name of the Royal Family was Hannover from the early 18th century until Queen Victoria died in 1901. According to tradition, a reigning Queen does not take her husband's surname, but their children do. So when Victoria's son, Edward VII, came to the throne he would have taken the surname of his late father (Prince Albert). There's actually some controversy as to what Albert's family name actually was, many German rulers only used their Christian name combined with the name of the Principality they ruled. In Albert's case that was Saxe-Coburg-Gotha so that was the 'family' name the royals used until 1917 when George V (seeing what happened to Prince Battenburg) issued a proclamation making the family name Windsor.

[Guest EWC]

This was too good not to share. Sorry it's so long but read it entirely.

 

 

http://www.lnreview.co.uk/news/004744.php

 

Harry the Nazi: a defence of the idiot prince

January 13, 2005

 

 

So, Prince Harry, the nightmheir to the throne, has put his intellectually subnormal foot in it again. Prince William’s half-witted half-brother attended a fancy dress party held by Richard Meade, the triple Olympic gold medallist (1968 & 1972), and his fancy dress consisted of Rommel shirt with a bright red Nazi armband on the sleeve. Oh, and he had a fag on. A veritable tsunami of bad taste.

Harry has been drawing a lot of flack for this gaff. Rabbi Jonathan Guttentag, leader of spiritual leader of the Whitefield Hebrew Congregation in Manchester, described the photo of a swastika-adorned Prince as "a most unfortunate gift to neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers." Michael Howard, leader of the Conservative Party (a fringe British political group), who is himself Jewish, said "I think a lot of people will be disappointed to see that photograph and it will cause a lot of offense."

So far, not a single voice has been raised in support of the plonker's actions. However, we at the London News Review are staunch fans of Harry and are ready and willing to mount a clumsy defence:

 

Our defence of Prince Harry

 

1. Prince Harry is sensationally stupid. Seriously, the lad is practically retarded, so it’s appropriate to cut him some slack. It’s a small miracle every time he finds his mouth with his cigarette, so the fact that he would put on a Nazi armband and not think – at any point – that this might possibly be a really really wrong thing to do, is perfectly understandable. Questions must be asked of the people around him: his friends, his carers, his bodyguards. Did no one think to mention to the dribbling moron that maybe the pretty red armband with the funny black squiggle in the middle was maybe best left in the limo? Would you blame a coma victim for wetting the bed? No. So don’t be too harsh on Harry.

 

2. The theme of the fancy dress party, thrown by famous horseman and friend of Prince Charles, Richarde Meade, was – believe it or not – ‘Colonials and Natives’. Oh lordy. Colonials and Natives? What the fuck are these people on? What century are they living in? Colonials and Natives? It beggars belief. Why not ‘Imperialists and Nig Nogs’? Or would that have been bad taste? So anyway, a fair share of the blame for Harry’s outfit must surely go to the imbecilic Richarde Meade and his appalling choice of party theme.*

 

3. Where did Harry get the armband? Presumably he went for advice to his grandfather, who delightedly threw open his closet doors to reveal rack upon rack of Gestapo jackets stormtrooper boots. Or maybe Prince Philip simply slipped off his dressing gown to reveal his own swastika armband, which he rolled off and pressed lovingly into Harry’s upturned palm. “Now off you go, you young scamp, and have fun.”

 

4. No one seems to have wondered: perhaps Prince Harry didn’t realize it was a fancy dress party? It’s possible he just came on from a meeting, and didn’t have time to change. In which case it is heartening to see that he has developed an interest in politics. An early brush with fascism didn’t do Ricky Tomlinson any harm, so let’s go easy on Harry: he may well grow out of it, and soften in his politics towards Stalinism instead.

 

5. Most crucially: this was a fancy dress costume. In this context, the Nazi uniform has become a novelty, a bit of fun. This is surely a good thing. It is wrong to be scared of it: if we let the taboo linger, if we draw an amazed breath when we see Harry sporting the emblem of the Nazi party, then the swastika still has its power. So much better for us to think of it as a daft (yet undeniably stylish) outfit in a fancy dress shop, hanging alongside a wizard’s garb, a policeman’s uniform and a fairy costume. To treat the swastika in this way is not in any way to deny the seriousness and horror of the holocaust, but to remove the last vestiges of power from the Nazis. Little does Harry realize it, but his wearing of the swastika is an important political statement: it is the militant trivialization and belittling of Nazism. Mel Brooks should think about finding a bit part for him in the Producers. I bet he throws a wonderful salute.

¤

 

*Prince William went in a skin-tight leopard costume with tail and claws: a cleverly diplomatic outfit, although one has to ask what the heir to the throne was doing attending a party which had the theme 'Colonials and Natives'. Might it not have been more politically astute to have feigned a headache, stayed at home and watched a DVD of Zulu Dawn instead?