|
Prince Charmless - Recently released diaries of Sir Alan Lascelles
23 Nov 2006 05:51:15 -0800
alt.talk.royalty
previous
Turenne...
|
Seventy years after the Abdication crisis, newly published diaries by
Edward VIII's private secretary reveal the monarch as selfish and
ignorant, with no sense of duty or dignity.
atsarisborn...
|
Isn't that exactly what his father had said about him in his diary c.
1931? He added, "I hope to God he abdicates, and Bertie and Lilibet get
it." He did and they did.
Jean Coeur de Lapin
|
Richard Lichten
jchristin.gray...
|
There has never been a bit of actual evidence that the Duchess of
Windsor - or while she was Mrs. Simpson - possess or passed to Von
Ribbentrop any state information, nor had an affair with this dog. The
only "evidence" that exists is that which was muttered by those who
feared her becoming the wife to the King. She had no interests in
politics or history. Her only interest was herself, fashion and social
affairs. Her mind was not that well developed.
Edward, by then known as the "Duke of Windsor" and his wife were in
Portugal, following their departure from France while that country
crumbled to the advancing Nazi's occupation, and waiting to take up
their positions in the Bahamas, when emissaries entertained the Duke
and Duchess at dinner one evening. During this dinner, the Nazi
emissaries broached the subject that in the event Germany should be
victorious that the Duke may be recalled to the throne. The Duke
rejected this notion and the Duchess became very silent. Their only
fault - they listened.
CJ Buyers...
|
Some of us would say that the "fault" began with attendance at such an
event in the first place. They had no business accepting an invitation
from anyone where they could find themselves compromised by the
attendance of "emissaries" of the enemy.
There was already a well-developed "protocol" of how British diplomats
or government employees would behave in a neutral country. Even at
official functions of the host government, wherever possible either the
British or Germans would arrive early and depart mid event, the other
would then arrive after the departure of the former and stay until the
end of the event. If the type of event precluded such arrangements, the
"enemy" delegations would be separated, then entertained, given
refreshments, etc, at different venues.
|
The former King and his wife were not "packed" off anywhere as he
was to be used as a pawn by the Nazis. It was to find this couple a
place where they could create the least amount of harm and at several
arms length from the royal family in England during the war and to help
prevent them from being kidnapped by the axis powers. Edward
CJ Buyers...
|
I am afraid that "packed off" is exactly what your explanation
describes.
|
demonstrated himself very capable of handling the governorship. The
Duchess served with confidence in her role too, much to her credit.
=?iso-8859-1?B?SmFuIEL2aG1l?=...
|
The situation can become critical already if 25% of the citizens are
tired enough of it to really bother, and the vast majority of the rest
don't really care one way or the other.
pierre_aronax...
|
I fact, it can be critical with nobody really tired but 90 % who don't
care.
|
Jan B=F6hme
|
This couple may have not been capable of serving as King and consort of
the United Kingdom, and the couple that replaced them were two of the
finest people to ever serve as reigning monarchs, especially in light
of the times for when they reigned. But it is not required to build
down the other couple in order to bring glory to the other couple. King
George VI and his consort were of the most perfect fabric to have
reigned over the United Kingdom during the time in history for which
they did.
Not only is the United Kingdom lucky to have had such as fine couple to
reign during that war, but the entire world is lucky to have enjoyed
the influence that they demonstrated. Even other reigning monarchs at
the time were measured against that of the English king and queen.
François R. Velde...
|
After so many posts explaining how the man chosen to perform the duties of a
monarch was entirely unsuitable for them and how lucky the world was that he was
replaced by pure accident, perhaps someone might want to explain once more the
superiority of the monarchical system.
François R. Velde...
|
More exactly, it is a convenient straw man that you put up to knock down at your
ease.
François R. Velde...
|
Well, I did not propound that idea, and it is unrelated to my point.
pierre_aronax...
pierre_aronax...
pierre_aronax...
pierre_aronax...
pierre_aronax...
|
|
François R. Velde...
|
The important point is that monarchies have no way of dealing with bad monarchs.
Whether or not electors know the man they elect, whether or not he is the right
man in the right place, they get to remove him in orderly fashion if they
realize they made a mistake. Not so for monarchies. If Edward VIII is a bad
monarch, you're stuck with him until he dies. Unless he is removed at the whim
of the electorate, but of course that is not a real monarchy anymore.
François R. Velde...
|
But that is not my hypothesis, any more than the one above.
pierre_aronax...
pierre_aronax...
pierre_aronax...
pierre_aronax...
pierre_aronax...
In the case of an elected head of state with a fixed term, voters can revisit
their choice, whether or not they do. They have no such option in a monarchy:
they never have a choice, and never get to revisit it. The absence of such an
option, of course, is the defining virtue of the monarchical system. The fact
(claimed here) that the world was lucky to escape the long reign of Edward VIII
abdicated is a reminder that this virtue has two edges. Stan Brown's responses
pierre_aronax...
|
As pointed previously, an elected head of state could have been worth
than Edward and elected nevertheless, so your point is not about the
heredity (selection of the ruler on a genealogical basis), which is a
tool of selection as an other, but about the life-term of service (when
he is in place you must do with it). That problem has nothing to do
with heredity: you can have it for example with the Papacy: when
elected, if the Pope is not the right man, you can not revise the
choice (1378 notwithstanding).
=?iso-8859-1?B?SmFuIEL2aG1l?=...
|
Indeed, one can argue that the nature of modern constitutional monarchy
actually minimises the disadvantage of life-term appointments in two
different ways. First, by excluding the monarch from partaking in
contexts where it can be really disastrous if the person is thoroughly
unsuitable. A bad constitutional monarch can be an infernal nuisance,
but rarely lead to complete disaster.
But secondly, there is an extra incentive for a constitutional monarch
to behave according to expectations. A bad Pope can go about his ways
with impunity without risking more than his own personal position - and
that only in very extreme cases. The Papacy will continue after him,
because as long as there exists a Catholic church, there has to be a
Pope. OTOH, a constitutional monarch who misbehaves, risks, not only
his own position, but the entire monarchy - and thus also the position
of his own offspring or close relatives.
This is makes the pressure towards good behaviour considerably
stronger.
Jan B=F6hme
|
Francois R. Velde...
|
So the hereditary monarchy has two (potential) problems, the selection
and the life-time appointment. I agree that the second feature is shared
by the papacy (and by various important positions in monarchies and in
republics: the peerage in the UK, the Supreme Court in the US...).
|
|
(1: well, he was removed after all, and 2: monarchs don't really matter)
undermine the monarchical case rather than shore it up.
Remember also that anyone arguing that monarchies are better in of themselves
cannot simply compare them with the worst republics; he or she must compare them
with the best too. Comparing Britain with Zimbabwe (as someone else has) proves
nothing whatsoever.
|
|
François R. Velde...
|
I would probably agree with that statement, remembering that the monarchies we
are dealing are electoral systems for all the positions that matter: the luxury
of letting biological randomness make the choice is afforded only for the one
position that doesn't.
|
|
|
Laurence...
|
I posted this on 10/26. Its a fascinating book which once again shows
how fortunate it was that Edward VIII abdicated in 1936.
CJ Buyers...
|
Very far from it. The Duke was constantly flying off to Miami or some
other watering hole in the US, rather than concentrating on his
gubernatorial duties in the Bahamas. While there, his activities tended
Turenne...
|
Wasn't there also a problem concerning the fact that he was still a
serving officer in the British Army. Were there not several occasions
when he effectively 'disobeyed orders?'
CJ Buyers...
|
Indeed, he was a Major-General on active service, and was serving on
the staff in France at the time she fell.
|
Richard Lichten
|
to centre on entertaining a stream of American and South American
hangers-on. The attitude of the Duchess to black people was quite
appalling. It is siad that while they were there not a single black or
mixed-race person ever went through the front portals of King's House.
That is the view in the Bahamas itself, not a view handed down from
London or elsewhere by people who did not want them to become King or
Queen.
1272Group...
|
Perhaps a little bit more research into the actual facts of the story
would serve a better purpose. Upon their arrival in the Bahamas, the
Duke surprised the "old boy's" club that was use to dictating to the
governor-general of the island. The Duke was not dictated to by them.
His attention to his speeches to the Bahamas Parliment deeply impressed
those on the island. His command of the issues coupled with the
limiting influence of his position, he was generally accepted as one of
the most effective governor-generals up to that time. His handling of
the racial riots demonstrated his abilities to think on his own and to
bring clam to the chaos that had ensued. He was hailed for the manner
in which he handled such a hot issue. His brother The King even
commended him.
The Duchess meanwhile took an active interest in her duties. Her
proactive activities with the Red Cross demonstrated her willingness to
play her part as the wife of a royal duke governor-general. She,
herself, cooked and served thousands of meals to service personnel at
the Red Cross canteen that she was deeply involved with. Could anyone
remotely imagine the Duchess of York doing such a thing, especially
after she succeeded to the top job? Did she even know how to cook? A
major percentage of the help at Government House were black. The way in
which the Duchess was raised and what was the unfortunate, yet
generally accepted morals of that time in history, blacks and white
generally did not socialize. The Duchess was no Eleanor Roosevelt.
However, they were a couple who entertained as other people of the
"upper" class did. It was acceptable practice during the 1940s.
The Duke and Duchess may have not been "acceptable" to reign as King
and Consort together. However, they did make an impressive couple to
serve as governor-general. Perhaps not on the scale of a "Jack and
Jackie Kennedy," but impressive for their time nonetheless. They were
not constantly flying off to the United States. They made several trips
there and received a postive and rousing welcome. On one trip to
Washington DC, the Duke negotiated with President Roosevelt for the
building of and use of an military air strip for use by the allied
forces in the Bahamas. This was the Dukes' idea. If the Duke had been a
solid "Nazi" man, he would have never have thought about doing this.
This brought employment for the local black people, however limited in
duration.They wanted to make more visits there, upon their arrival in
the Bahamas, yet once settled-in and performing their duties, they
worked hard.
blessed holidays.
|
|
|
|
|
