# Royals Miffed Old Picture Of Child/Current Queen Giving Nazi Salute Released



## WhatInThe (Jul 18, 2015)

The Royals are miffed that and old picture of the queen and royal family members giving the Nazi salute probably in fun was released. It shows a 7 year old queen and other family members giving the salute which was right after Hitler took power and was apparently not taken too seriously.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-release-of-heil-hitler-video-by-tabloid.html

It's a 75 year old picture, who cares, most realize times were different. But this is actually an important piece of history because it does show how lightly they took Hitler and the Nazi's before World War II. Keep in mind without social media or tv back then this was learned behavior from adults.


----------



## RadishRose (Jul 18, 2015)

The photo does look a bit chilling, though.


----------



## Laurie (Jul 18, 2015)

I was born in '38.

We regularly gave the Nazi salute when playing as kids, even in the dark days of 41 - 43.

Similarly, Stalin was universally known as Uncle Joe.

Piece of damned nonsense!


----------



## Raven (Jul 18, 2015)

The newspaper must have been hard up for news so they dug up an
eighty year old picture.  
Shame on them.


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 18, 2015)

RadishRose said:


> The photo does look a bit chilling, though.



I agree.


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 18, 2015)

Everything that is historical needs to be examined in context.

It's well known that prior to WW II National Socialism was looked on favourably by the Prince of Wales and some members of the upper classes, simply because they were concerned about the spread of Communism. My enemy's enemy is my friend? Later the reverse was true. Communism and Stalin were the good guys until the Nazis and Fascists were defeated.


----------



## Laurie (Jul 19, 2015)

The same year as the Oxford Union passed the motion "_that this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country,"

_Just a few years before they died in their thousands doing just that.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 19, 2015)

*decades of conspiracy theories*

I think one of the reasons the Royals are upset is that for decades their have been rumors of collaboration or sympathy with Hitler/Nazi Germany. I recently viewed one of the history channels where it was speculated that a Royal family member arranged to meet Rudolph Hess and negotiate a peace. That is why Hess flew where he did heading towards a Royal's property/farm. Also when the current Iran deal is being compared to Chamberlin's deal with Hitler I guess they want out of the headlines fast.

Any way you put it that picture and time is ancient history at this point so again what's the fuss.


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 19, 2015)

I realize Queen Elizabeth was a child and she didn’t know what was going on in that photo.  And I’m certainly not saying she should be vilified.  And _of course _the Royals are upset about it!

However, I’m reminded of the “Oh shucks, that was in the past, get over it” excuse which is sometimes used to sweep something under the rug or shrug something off when it’s exposed long after it took place.

There have been many cases where Nazi death camp criminals are tried and convicted for their actions decades later – there was such a case recently.  Should they have just been left alone because it was so long ago?  I don’t think so.


----------



## Cookie (Jul 19, 2015)

I can understand that Brits would be very protective of their royals, however, if one were to do a bit of research online and utube there is lots of newsreel footage of royals in the company of nazis in the 30s, going to nazi gatherings and the Windsors and Pr. Phillips German ancestry and Nazi past.  I've also read things about speculations about UK leaders pre-WWII and their connection with Germany. Although it is in the past and maybe not relevant now, but world history is much more complicated and convoluted than we think.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 19, 2015)

applecruncher said:


> I realize Queen Elizabeth was a child and she didn’t know what was going on in that photo.  And I’m certainly not saying she should be vilified.  And _of course _the Royals are upset about it!
> 
> However, I’m reminded of the “Oh shucks, that was in the past, get over it” excuse which is sometimes used to sweep something under the rug or shrug something off when it’s exposed long after it took place.
> 
> There have been many cases where Nazi death camp criminals are tried and convicted for their actions decades later – there was such a case recently.  Should they have just been left alone because it was so long ago?  I don’t think so.



I'm more worried about the adults in the picture because they are the ones that not only didn't take Hitler seriously but very well could've been sympathizers. Heck Charles Lindbergh was a US sympathizer. I think the reactionary stance of the Royals is not just about perception but some very old deep dark secrets they still want secret.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 19, 2015)

Cookie said:


> I can understand that Brits would be very protective of their royals, however, if one were to do a bit of research online and utube there is lots of newsreel footage of royals in the company of nazis in the 30s, going to nazi gatherings and the Windsors and Pr. Phillips German ancestry and Nazi past.  I've also read things about speculations about UK leaders pre-WWII and their connection with Germany. Although it is in the past and maybe not relevant now, but world history is much more complicated and convoluted than we think.



In 1985 they found that a Princess Micheal had a German Nobleman who joined the SS and not just the army or party. This is an article from 1985 which I'm using to show there were already proven links between the Royals and Nazi's before the age of the internet and conspiracy.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...stine-von-reibnitz-princess-michael-ss-member

And as pointed when doing research online Nazi-Royal links are not some out there theory. Read one blog where the Royals lived or had homes in places like Bavaria/Germany pre war with apparent co mingling of the upper ends of society.


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 19, 2015)

> I can understand that Brits would be very protective of their royals,



Well, Cookie, I really _don't_ understand that. I agree that history can be very complicated and convoluted. But that would be another discussion.

People romanticize Edward VIII giving up the throne to marry Wallis Simpson – “the woman he loved”. Yeah, real romantic.

But I’ve seen footage of Edward kissing Adolf Hitler’s butt, almost literally.

Then there’s this:

http://nypost.com/2015/03/01/how-britian-covered-up-the-friendship-between-hitler-edward-viii/


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 19, 2015)

applecruncher said:


> Well, Cookie, I really _don't_ understand that. I agree that history can be very complicated and convoluted. But that would be another discussion.
> 
> People romanticize Edward VIII giving up the throne to marry Wallis Simpson – “the woman he loved”. Yeah, real romantic.
> 
> ...



Interesting. Duke was promised to be the king in Nazi occupied England after the invasion-wonderful. Rumors of a hit after he refused Churchill's orders to go govern the Bahamas? When you make Churchill nervous there must be fire below that smoke.


----------



## Ameriscot (Jul 19, 2015)

All Brits are not protective of the royals.  I'm just naturalised British but my husband was born British.  Many are not royalists, especially in Scotland. I understand those who hate parting with long traditions, but it's the 21st century.  

I noticed on visiting Henry Ford's old home in Dearborn that there were photos of himself and Edward VIII.  I was curious and found that Ford was well known as being anti-semitic and a Hitler supporter.  I don't find anything romantic about Edward and Wallis Simpson.  He was just too lazy to take responsibility.


----------



## Ameriscot (Jul 19, 2015)

Raven said:


> The newspaper must have been hard up for news so they dug up an
> eighty year old picture.
> Shame on them.



Wasn't the newspaper the Sun?!  The equivalent of the Enquirer in the US.  Trash.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 19, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> All Brits are not protective of the royals.  I'm just naturalised British but my husband was born British.  Many are not royalists, especially in Scotland. I understand those who hate parting with long traditions, but it's the 21st century.
> 
> I noticed on visiting Henry Ford's old home in Dearborn that there were photos of himself and Edward VIII.  I was curious and found that Ford was well known as being anti-semitic and a Hitler supporter.  I don't find anything romantic about Edward and Wallis Simpson.  He was just too lazy to take responsibility.



Ford wasn't living in a country that was less than 50 miles from the enemy or the machinations of pre war Germany includng the Spanish Civil War in which Hitler propped a government and tested and fine tuned his military. Proximity can explain away pre war activity but proximity means the royals should've been privy to more detail about the regime as well. The most famous US Nazi sympathizer pre war was Charles Lindbergh.

Should note many big companies were later have found to done business with war time Nazi Germany through companies in places like South America. This this about the Royals who were much closer to danger from their 'friends'.


----------



## Laurie (Jul 19, 2015)

"for decades their have been rumors of collaboration or sympathy with Hitler/Nazi Germany."

A bit more substantial than rumour in the case of of Edward VIII  and Wallis.  She was very close to Ribbentrop for a while and he certainly would have been head of state in any Vichy style partition of an invaded UK.  Some believe the reason he was shunted as far as the Bahamas was to ensure the Nazis could not install him in the Channel Islands as a figurehead.

Although much is made of Phillip's German ancestry, he was, in fact a prince of the Greek and Danish courts.  Yes he was a Battenberg, but so was Prince Louis,  the Queen's uncle, a distinguished WWII vet, murdered by the IRA.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 19, 2015)

I think proximity, vacations, travel etc have as much to do with the links to Nazi Germany although being friends with those in high places might get the sanitized version of events & policy. Some of the articles read said that some of the Royals saw WWII as an inconvenience to their travel. Here's just one blog/post on Royal-German connections going back over a century.

http://www.jacobite.ca/essays/ww2.htm


----------



## Ameriscot (Jul 19, 2015)

WhatInThe said:


> Ford wasn't living in a country that was less than 50 miles from the enemy or the machinations of pre war Germany includng the Spanish Civil War in which Hitler propped a government and tested and fine tuned his military. Proximity can explain away pre war activity but proximity means the royals should've been privy to more detail about the regime as well. The most famous US Nazi sympathizer pre war was Charles Lindbergh.
> 
> Should note many big companies were later have found to done business with war time Nazi Germany through companies in places like South America. This this about the Royals who were much closer to danger from their 'friends'.



If you are under the impression I'm defending the royals you are wrong.  It wasn't just a 7 year old who was making the salute, it was also her mother.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 19, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> If you are under the impression I'm defending the royals you are wrong.  It wasn't just a 7 year old who was making the salute, it was also her mother.



Exactly. Children frequently imitate what they see from adults. The Queen shouldn't be squeezed for this. But her parents & family are another but old story.


----------



## Ameriscot (Jul 19, 2015)

WhatInThe said:


> Exactly. Children frequently imitate what they see from adults. The Queen shouldn't be squeezed for this. But her parents & family are another but old story.



No, the queen shouldn't be.  It was 82 years ago! Although I really hated having to pledge allegiance to the queen and her heirs when I became a citizen (I wasn't allowed the pledge which is simply to the UK), I've come to admire the queen for doing her duty faithfully.  She had to appear a cold, emotionless person as that was how she was raised to portray herself.  Now I see her as a nice grandma and I will be sad when she dies.


----------



## Bee (Jul 19, 2015)

All this fuss over a seven second film which was taken in 1933 is a lot of silly nonsense.

I can remember boys in the U.K. doing the Nazi salute and goose stepping and nothing was thought of it.


----------



## Cookie (Jul 19, 2015)

I think this is a bit different than little boys playing.  Its the royal family, being filmed, are they playing or mocking or practicing - for the camera.  Not judging, but it invites questions. And with so much information now available online for everyone to read, it becomes interesting to history buffs.


----------



## Bee (Jul 19, 2015)

Put it this way Cookie, there is more fuss being made on here than on a large U.K. forum I belong to and the majority of the older folk in the U.K. already know the history without having to look on line for it.

I did learn on that U.K. forum though, about the Bellamy salute where a similar salute was once used to pledge allegiance to the American flag or to America.


----------



## Cookie (Jul 19, 2015)

So many here in Canada don't really care one way or another, I'm not a royalist by any stretch, although I do like Kate & Will. This isn't a fuss, and no one's trying to educate the UK old folks either, just making conversation. Enjoy your day.


----------



## Bee (Jul 19, 2015)

Thanks but my day is over and now off to bed,night.

I admit to being a Royalist but that is not the reason I find it is a lot of fuss being made about a seven second film made in 1933.....the past is the past as far as I am concerned and whoever passed that film onto The Sun newspaper were being quite irresponsible in my opinion.


----------



## Raven (Jul 19, 2015)

Raven said:


> The newspaper must have been hard up for news so they dug up an
> eighty year old picture.
> Shame on them.




Just in case I was misunderstood,  I meant,  Shame on the Sun newspaper.


----------



## oakapple (Jul 20, 2015)

It's a lot of fuss over nothing.In 1933 nobody knew what would happen six years later.Hitler was the leader in Germany and the salute seemed a funny thing to do.Yes, Bertie and Wallis were Nazi sympathisers and a blot on the landscape and we as a country were well rid of them both.if this footage or similar had been done after 1939 then it would be viewed in a different light.Nobody here cares about this photo except to feel sorry for the Queen that a rag like The Sun would publish it.


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 20, 2015)

I'm with oakapple. 
Nothing momentously new in that piece of footage at all.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jul 20, 2015)

God save the Queen from this nonsense!  This furriner thinks that no one could read anything into this that might damage her reputation...


----------



## Bee (Jul 20, 2015)

oakapple said:


> It's a lot of fuss over nothing.In 1933 nobody knew what would happen six years later.Hitler was the leader in Germany and the salute seemed a funny thing to do.Yes, Bertie and Wallis were Nazi sympathisers and a blot on the landscape and we as a country were well rid of them both.if this footage or similar had been done after 1939 then it would be viewed in a different light.Nobody here cares about this photo except to feel sorry for the Queen that a rag like The Sun would publish it.




Thanks Oakapple for a bit of common sense.


----------



## Ameriscot (Jul 20, 2015)

oakapple said:


> It's a lot of fuss over nothing.In 1933 nobody knew what would happen six years later.Hitler was the leader in Germany and the salute seemed a funny thing to do.Yes, Bertie and Wallis were Nazi sympathisers and a blot on the landscape and we as a country were well rid of them both.if this footage or similar had been done after 1939 then it would be viewed in a different light.Nobody here cares about this photo except to feel sorry for the Queen that a rag like The Sun would publish it.



This is true.  When all of us think 'Nazi' we have images of concentration camps.  This was long before that happened.


----------



## Laurie (Jul 20, 2015)

Cookie said:


> I think this is a bit different than little boys playing.  Its the royal family, being filmed, are they playing or mocking or practicing - for the camera.  Not judging, but it invites questions. And with so much information now available online for everyone to read, it becomes interesting to history buffs.




Yes but at the time that salute meant nothing.  The atrocities might have started but they were not known.

They also weren't Royals in the true sense.  This was a young family at play.  He was simply a painfully shy younger brother of the flamboyant Prince of Wales.  There was no prospect of him, or his daughter, acceding to the throne.


----------



## Ameriscot (Jul 20, 2015)

Laurie said:


> Yes but at the time that salute meant nothing.  The atrocities might have started but they were not known.
> 
> They also weren't Royals in the true sense.  This was a young family at play.  He was simply a painfully shy younger brother of the flamboyant Prince of Wales.  There was no prospect of him, or his daughter, acceding to the throne.



True that they had no idea he would abdicate and that Elizabeth would eventually end up queen.  But you'd think that when the atrocities the Nazis did were discovered that they would destroy this film.


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 20, 2015)

WhatInThe said:


> Ford wasn't living in a country that was less than 50 miles from the enemy or the machinations of pre war Germany includng the Spanish Civil War in which Hitler propped a government and tested and fine tuned his military. Proximity can explain away pre war activity but proximity means the royals should've been privy to more detail about the regime as well. *The most famous US Nazi sympathizer pre war was Charles Lindbergh.
> 
> *Should note many big companies were later have found to done business with war time Nazi Germany through companies in places like South America. This this about the Royals who were much closer to danger from their 'friends'.



Yes, many Americans don't realize it but Charles Lindbergh was quite an outspoken white supremacist and anti-Semite.


----------



## Bee (Jul 20, 2015)

Laurie said:


> Yes but at the time that salute meant nothing.  The atrocities might have started but they were not known.
> 
> They also weren't Royals in the true sense.  This was a young family at play.  He was simply a painfully shy younger brother of the flamboyant Prince of Wales.  There was no prospect of him, or his daughter, acceding to the throne.



Good post Laurie.


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 20, 2015)

Good post Laurie.


----------



## Cookie (Jul 20, 2015)

Oh, the poor royals they are so hard done by - always getting targeted by trashy papers!  Just goes to show that they are not above it all and are just as human as the rest of us, regardless of how hard they try to present a perfect image.  Although these kinds of exposes might displease them, they are not lies, just information.


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 20, 2015)

> Although these kinds of exposes might displease them, they are not lies, just information.



This.

And as I said before, the "Oh, shucks, that was in the past" shrug-off does not change anything.

Nazi concentration camps were also "in the past". The Holocaust survivors say the world should not forget. I happen to agree.


----------



## Laurie (Jul 20, 2015)

"really hated having to pledge allegiance to the queen and her heirs when I became a citizen "

That surprises me.  If I applied to become a naturalised US citizen I would fully expect to have to pledge allegiance to the President, and I would think that most Americans, of whatever political persuasion, would expect, indeed would demand, it too.

"But you'd think that when the atrocities the Nazis did were discovered that they would destroy this film."

What nonsense.  Do you expect old and respected  American families to expunge all records of slave ownership from their records.  Would you expect descendants of the guards at Andersonville to deny their history, or the inventors of the concentration camp, the British rulers in South Africa, to pretend they never existed?

It is our history.  We might be uncomfortable with it, but it's there.


----------



## Ameriscot (Jul 20, 2015)

Laurie said:


> "really hated having to pledge allegiance to the queen and her heirs when I became a citizen "
> 
> That surprises me.  If I applied to become a naturalised US citizen I would fully expect to have to pledge allegiance to the President, and I would think that most Americans, of whatever political persuasion, would expect, indeed would demand, it too.



You are comparing the queen with the president?  Hardly the same.  I am not a royalist and the queen does not run the country.  There are 3 citizenship pledges - one has the queen, one has the queen and god, one had a pledge only to the UK itself.  I would have chosen that one.


----------



## Cookie (Jul 20, 2015)

True, AC,  finding and prosecuting of Nazi war criminals is still taking place - even though these men are in their 90s - it was so long ago, yet justice and closure is necessary.  Historical data must be accurate and out in the open and available to the general public, even though some people in high places might not like it.

We still have tie to the monarchy, which I find outdated and the exhorbitant 'royal visits' here are paid for by Canadian taxpayers.


----------



## Ameriscot (Jul 20, 2015)

Laurie said:


> "But you'd think that when the atrocities the Nazis did were discovered that they would destroy this film."
> 
> What nonsense.  Do you expect old and respected  American families to expunge all records of slave ownership from their records.  Would you expect descendants of the guards at Andersonville to deny their history, or the inventors of the concentration camp, the British rulers in South Africa, to pretend they never existed?
> 
> It is our history.  We might be uncomfortable with it, but it's there.



I never said they *should*, but if I were in their position, I would have.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 20, 2015)

One can't control their past history but they can chose to make decisions on current information. If the Royals saw a future filled with atrocities and another World War I'm sure playing Nazi wouldn't have been tolerated unless they were mocking them. I'd be worried about their/the current attitudes towards those 90 year old Nazi's that still are being apprehended and tried.

My guess is with some of the pre war sympathy they saw a Germany coming out of a depression with a robust economy and strong but not dangerous military. And the Royals or British in general might have more pre war sympathy simply because of proximity along with friends & relatives in or from Germany.

The photo and subject did bring or stir up a lot of other history & theories from that era. 

Sometimes you have to look at old history as background noise. Learn it and take away what you want but IF everyone runs 'what if' scenarios or 'what about this or that' one would poop even more if they thought about the advancements and precursors to modern day plumbing during the Roman Empire which ruled with an iron fist and slaves. Any time one walks under an arch I believe it was Roman engineers who found better ways for the arch to not collapse. Learn from history and don't let it repeat for the bad especially.


----------



## Ameriscot (Jul 20, 2015)

Laurie said:


> "really hated having to pledge allegiance to the queen and her heirs when I became a citizen "
> 
> That surprises me.  If I applied to become a naturalised US citizen I would fully expect to have to pledge allegiance to the President, and I would think that most Americans, of whatever political persuasion, would expect, indeed would demand, it too.
> 
> ...



And BTW, when you become a naturalised US citizen you do not pledge allegiance to the president.  
http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship...ization-oath-allegiance-united-states-america


----------



## Laurie (Jul 21, 2015)

"You are comparing the queen with the president?"

No, I'm comparing two Heads of State.  The President has a dual role as Head of Government as well but that is a bit unusual.  In many (most?)  democratic  countries the two are separate, and in most counties one's allegiance is not to the politician who happens to be in charge ate the moment.

In the States they have the checks and balances, and the rooted culture, to deal with this, but most countries don't, and I include our  own.

I would gladly have sworn allegiance to Margaret, but never to Cameron, Blair, Wilson and their ilk!


----------



## Ameriscot (Jul 21, 2015)

Laurie said:


> "You are comparing the queen with the president?"
> 
> No, I'm comparing two Heads of State.  The President has a dual role as Head of Government as well but that is a bit unusual.  In many (most?)  democratic  countries the two are separate, and in most counties one's allegiance is not to the politician who happens to be in charge ate the moment.
> 
> ...



My point is in the US you don't swear allegiance to a person or office, but in the UK you have to swear allegiance to the queen and her heirs.  My allegiances are to the countries I am a citizen of - the US and the UK.  Although I had to say the words I do not feel an allegiance to a family who has has power and wealth by accident of birth.


----------



## Laurie (Jul 21, 2015)

"Although I had to say the words I do not feel an allegiance"

Ah! A basic difference I feel.  I could never swear an oath I didn't mean!

"I never said they *should, but if I were in their position, I would have."*

Destroy some pictures of a well loved mother and sister play-acting in a happier and more innocent time?

Perhaps she has more heart.


----------



## Ameriscot (Jul 21, 2015)

My husband talked me out of getting citizenship for years because of the oath. But I wanted to be a citizen and I wanted to be able to vote in the country where I will live out my life. I also like to travel using the same passport as my husband (except US).


----------



## Ameriscot (Jul 21, 2015)

Laurie I am sure the royals have tons of footage that shows them having fun without a salute to Hitler.


----------



## Cookie (Jul 21, 2015)

Our Canadian citizenship oath of allegiance also still includes swearing allegiance to the Queen (of Canada), although I do not consider her as such.  But, it is required for those who want citizenship.


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 21, 2015)

I think if I really wanted citizenship in my country of choice, I would probably swear allegiance to a rabbit. Just saying...I am too pragmatic to get worked up about whether I actually meant it. Some compromises are worth it, others not.


----------



## Cookie (Jul 21, 2015)

You got that right.  Ha ha   We'd even swear allegiance to Miss Piggy if necessary. LOL


----------



## Ameriscot (Jul 21, 2015)

I would swear allegiance to the cookie monster.


----------



## Cookie (Jul 21, 2015)

Ha ha ha ha


----------



## Laurie (Jul 21, 2015)

" having fun without a salute to Hitler."

Those little girls had probably never heard of Hitler, and if they had, only as the figure of fun he was widely seen as in the UK at that time.

I think you're allowing your dislike of the Queen cloud your objectivity.

God knows I've made my opinion of the Queen quite clear on a number of occasion, and I'm one of the few in the country looking forward to Camilla, but any reasoned view must be that this is a mare's nest.


----------



## 3horsefarm (Jul 21, 2015)

I don't really get why it is even newsworthy.


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 21, 2015)

Perhaps it is of more interest to denizens of the UK and the Commonwealth.


----------



## Cookie (Jul 21, 2015)

Ah, c'mon Laurie, any newspaper worth their weight in ink would print that story.  It IS newsworthy.  It's just a piece of ephemera and I found it very entertaining and I'm sure many others found it amusing too. It's really no big deal, anyway, is it?


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 21, 2015)

Cookie said:


> Ah, c'mon Laurie, any newspaper worth their weight in ink would print that story.  It IS newsworthy.  It's just a piece of ephemera and I found it very entertaining and I'm sure many others found it amusing too. It's really no big deal, anyway, is it?



...any newspaper...

Absolutely, if nothing else it shows how lightly Hitler and the Nazi's were taken early in the 1930s, pre-war. It is history and explains some of the events/thinking early on.


----------



## Laurie (Jul 22, 2015)

"really no big deal, anyway, is it?"

My point exactly, it's a mare's nest, a piece of nonsense about nothing, of interst only to sensation mongers!​


----------



## Ameriscot (Jul 22, 2015)

Laurie said:


> " having fun without a salute to Hitler."
> 
> Those little girls had probably never heard of Hitler, and if they had, only as the figure of fun he was widely seen as in the UK at that time.
> 
> ...



I never said I didn't like the queen personally, but I think it's time in the 21st century to stop giving privileges to those who got them as an accident of birth.

Laurie, could you _please _use the Reply with Quote feature.  I find it difficult to navigate your posts when you just use multiple quotation marks.  It would be appreciated and easier to reply to you.


----------



## Laurie (Jul 22, 2015)

I'll try, but I don't disagree with ALL the points you make, just some of them and I'mm reluctant to quote them all!


----------



## Ameriscot (Jul 22, 2015)

Laurie said:


> I'll try, but I don't disagree with ALL the points you make, just some of them and I'mm reluctant to quote them all!



Just delete them after you quote then.  Or only address the ones you want to.  Or bold the ones you are addressing like many do.


----------



## Laurie (Jul 22, 2015)

Oh God!  Life's too short!


----------



## Ameriscot (Jul 22, 2015)

Laurie said:


> Oh God!  Life's too short!



Yes, it is but having a conversation with you on here is very difficult with all the quotation marks.


----------



## Cookie (Jul 22, 2015)

Laurie, when I say no big deal, I mean that it's not worth getting worked up about.  However, as WhatInThe pointed out, it is very indicative of how we assume Royalty (the royal family) or anyone for that matter had so little clue about what Hitler had in store.  I'm curious as to who was behind the camera. Besides, as it was so innocent, why should anyone be miffed? I don't dislike the royals personally either, but I do think that the monarchy is archaic and unnecessary and should be phased out.


----------

