BS: Queen Mother

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 04:18 AM

I did miss out Syria. That's what happens when you're having a rant. ;-).

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 04:24 AM

Jim, I claimed none of those things were subversive.
As usual, you can not answer what I actually say, so you pretend I said something else and answer that!

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 04:35 AM

"Regarding some of the comments by Mr Carroll"
Why can't you people (particularly the anonymous ones) just respond to the points made rather than sniping from behind.
It's not as if you haven't been given an argument, yet you insist on all this ""Mr Carroll", shit - and now an attack on my long-dead parent, who had the bottle to stand up to fascism and, along with the rest of us, paid the price for it.
All a little squalid, don't you think, and only it only helps to convince that such people have no argument and need to hide behind personal invective
If you can show where I've ever "decried anybody for attaining a decent level of education", I'll happily "show my arse in Lewis's window", as we used to say in Liverpool.
I never have, I have commented on how that education has been squandered by the recipient - my comments have obviously hit their target.
Give yourself a break - if you can't be honest, be quiet.
In my old age, I'm quite proud of the part my family played in fighting fascism
They took to the streets in the thirties to protest against Mosely's Blackshirts, only to find that these thugs were defended, extremely violently, by the good-old British Bobby, often on horseback
My devout Catholic grandmother was jailed for throwing a stone at Mosely - the stone hit its mark and she always said "it was guided by the hand of God".
Quite proud that my father was recorded as being a "premature anti-fascist" (this was how they were recorded in the MI5 files - they wore it like a badge of honour)
Now - if Keith or any of you has anything more in defence of a British police state, let's have it - it's pissing with rain, so I'm not going to get much done outside today.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: GUEST,Hilo
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 04:36 AM

Keith does not do well at history and Jim is even worse. What history they know would not fill a thimble. What is amazing is why these two spend so much time embarrassing themselves !

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 04:49 AM

I agree with Jim, anyone who posts anonymously and then posts cowardly gutter sniping,and does not have the balls to identify themselves illustrates the weakness of their points and merely shows what unpleasant people they are.
That applies to everyone whatever their political leanings, and in political and non political discussions.
I too am proud of my parents activities in the 1930s, one of them gave up a privileged background to try and help the disadvantaged and the other was thrown in prison and made to do hard labour because of a political speech.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 05:12 AM

"Keith does not do well at history and Jim is even worse"
Then feel free to correct me instead of sniping from the sidelines
"Stand not upon your going, but go"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 05:18 AM

I am not sniping. I am simPly stating a fact. I am not , as you put it, on the sidelines. I have read the posts on this thread and yours to be disable .

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 05:24 AM

You are not stating a fact, HiLo. You gave us your unsupported opinion. Whatever you think of Jim's posts they have substantial content and your shallow and brief dismissal says quite a lot more about you than about him.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: GUEST,Hilo
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 05:38 AM

Yes they have substantial content , I will grant him that. However. Verbosity is not always an indication of knowledge. Jim breaks two of the cardinal rules of reasoned historical discussion.... He does history arse backwards. He applies ethos and morals to the past would be incomprehensible to the people living there. He also confuses popular myth and history. In the study of history, aknowleding only those facts which support your views is called bias.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 06:19 AM

"I am not sniping."
Yes you are - you have put up no argument yourself, you just snipe at mine
I really do get a little bored with all these poison pen letters.
I don't base my argument on "ethos and morals" - I try to point out the unjust nature of past behaviour to those who defend it as fair and right.
Perhaps you'd like to specify rather than - well - sniping - yopu haven't so far?
Don't just lie there Lilo, put up an argument.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 06:32 AM

You are still sniping. Let's see you pick up a point or two from his posts and respond properly with some counter-arguments. If you can!

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 08:45 AM

my opinion and this is only opinion is that Edward was definitly trying to influence the children, we can only speculate on the queen mother, i reckon she was keeping her options open and going along with it. she clearly made a decision once the war started not to sit on the fence any more, but at that earlier time bearing in mind her preference for halifax rather than churchill, i reckon she was being[ and i am trying to be charitable] a cute hoor, and hedging her bets. thank god for churchill.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 09:44 AM

I think it's impossible for any of us to know what was going on in the photo/film, or in the minds of the royals at that time.

We have serious issues in the UK, and in the rest of the world, right now in 2015. What point is there in busting one's balls about what one family might or might not have been thinking and doing eighty years ago (apart from the green-eyed Haters, of course, for whom it's a convenient excuse to spew their bile).

Why not concentrate on the things that are really important, instead of this crock of pointless, irrelevant shit?

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 10:29 AM

"I think it's impossible for any of us to know what was going on in the photo/film, or in the minds of the royals at that time. "
We know full well what ws going on in the mind of one particular Royal's mind in the film and we've got the photographs to prove it.
Little wonder that this topic is proving somewhat embarrassing for some of 'er Madge's loyal subjects
Is the fact that some of the Monarchy were friendly with the Nazis irrelevant? - maybe to some
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 10:44 AM

Guess what - you can't change what happened yesterday, so you certainly can't change what happened eighty years ago.

You lot get your panties in a bunch about it if you like. I've actually got a life, and very pleasant it is too.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 11:08 AM

" so you certainly can't change what happened eighty years ago."
But being aware of it might (just) make sure it never happens again - it's what history is all about
Don't think anybody's panties are in a bunch exept those of her Majes loyal subjects, do you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 11:32 AM

Only you made a big issue of it Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 11:35 AM

"Only you made a big issue of it Jim."
Not really Keith, (the press is full of it) but it is interesting to see all those figures disappearing over the hill when the going gets tough
Byee
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 03:02 PM

It never got tough Jim.
You made your silly claims, (Britain was in a position to stop Germany rearming, Britain stood by and allowed Poland to be invaded, etc.) and they were refuted, and then you claimed I had said things I had not, and it was just too silly to continue.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 06:57 PM

Jim Carroll says: Is the fact that some of the Monarchy were friendly with the Nazis irrelevant? - maybe to some

It seems to be quite possible that the Royals were friendly with the Nazis. That being the case, what do we do with such information? I suppose, especially on the Internet, that the natural tendency is to pass judgment on the Royals and say that they are horrible people worthy of disdain - oh, and by the way, they should pay reparations for the reprehensible misdeeds they committed in the 1930s.

I dunno. Seems to me, that the better response would be to ask why the Royals were sympathetic to the Nazis. That would remove the satisfaction of being able to take the Moral High Ground by condemning "those people," but it might make us learn something. It's clear the the American Hero Charles Lindbergh was also a Nazi sympathizer - but why?

I'm not particularly concerned about separating the sheep from the goats here. I want to know why the sheep did what they did, and why the goats did otherwise. I have a feeling that both did what they did, for what they thought were good reasons.

So, what were those reasons?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 07:28 PM

"The only alternative to a king or queen in a parliamentary democract would be someone who actually wanted the job". Not so - they could pick some poor sod at random and say, "we expect you to do it, whether you want to or not".

Of course, in one way of looking at it, that's what we've actually got, except that the poor sod gets picked at birth.

I can't actually see how bureaucratically getting rid of the royals would make any significant difference whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 07:30 PM

Joe,

There were loads of people throughout Europe and the USA who were either Nazi sympathisers or who believed Hitler was "good for Germany":

"Adolf Hitler is a born leader of men, a magnetic dynamic personality with a single-minded purpose, a resolute will and a dauntless heart. He is the George Washington of Germany." - Lloyd George, former UK Liberal PM during the first world war, writing in 1936 AFTER the German annexation of the Sudetenland!

"One may dislike Hitler's system, yet admire his patriotic achievement." - Winston Churchill, talking as late as 1938.

And in 1945, AFTER the war, and with the full atrocities of Belsen, Auschwitz and Dachau etc publicly known, Eamon De Valera, Premier of the Republic of Ireland, made a point of visiting the German Legation in Dublin to sign a Book Of Condolence for the death of Hitler. The Irish government also took away the rights to employment, pensions and healthcare of over 5,000 Irish citizens who'd joined the British army to fight the Nazis. De Valera offered sanctuary to a number of Nazi fugitives wanted by the Allies for war crimes, at least one of whom was implicated in the deaths of over a million people.

There are loads of other examples. So whatever your take on the royal family, I'd suggest this photo/movie is pretty tame considering some of the things said and done by other public figures/ governments several years later, when the full extent of Nazi atrocities had become, or was becoming, very clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 07:41 PM

Well it isn't a natural tendency with everyone, as this thread demonstrates. I'm not going to judge a seven-year-old even if it was a genuine Nazi salute, which it wasn't. The incident does say at least something about the family mindset at the time; though Hitler had still to do his dirtiest deeds, he was already a known megalomaniac who had patently not learned the lessons of the past, and there was undeniable support for him within the royal family and little inclination, it seems, to keep it private. However, there's a lot more to this unprincipled and not especially intelligent breed than that, as I outlined in my posts of 19 July, 7.02 pm and 20 July, 1.31pm. They are well worthy of disdain, but on far wider issues then their alleged support, once upon a time, for Hitler.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 07:49 PM

"The fact that Germany was rearming was an open secret - the allies (victors of WW1) did nothing to stop that happening and when volunteers attempted to stop the rise of Fascism they were criminalised by the security agencies as "premature anti fascists" - (1936.18939) - premature my arse!!
As this is about royalty - did you know that a couple of weeks ago the law making it illegal to criticise Henry VIIIs marriage to Ann Boleyn was removed from the statute books - that's how anachronistic royalty is.
You become aware of it Joe; it's as much part of British history as is the fact that The South and North once went to war over slavery - long time ago, but hopefully, never forgotten.
"Seems to me, that the better response would be to ask why the Royals were sympathetic to the Nazis."
Quite agree, but the first hurdle is to get people to accept that they did and that is was important.
There's an interesting novel, well worth reading, entitled 'Dominion' (C.J. Sansome), which speculates on what Britain would have been like had we surrendered at Dunkirk - (not a history book certainly, but it can be bought in "real bookshops").
One of the most memorable incidents was a description of the Jews being rounded up in Warren Street, in London's West End and carted off to an unknown destination.
Fiction, certainly, but this was what those supporting Nazism in pre-war Britain were signing up to - there, but for the grace of God.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 08:17 PM

Charles Lindbergh was only one of many Americans who were Nazi sympathizers, a lot more organized in his views than offering a fashionable salute. Throw him into the revisionist dustbin of history, if part of him was flawed, the entire man must be discarded. Eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 08:23 PM

I can't see how the delay in regard to Ann Boleyn has anything whatsoever to do with royalty being anachronistic, It's how England works, and I'm sure that'd be just the same without the royals.
.........

The question of why there was sympathy for Hitler a part of it surely was the kind of tunnel vision we get when trying to make sense of a frightening and complicated world. We identify an enemy that scares us, or horrifies us, and look around for who is against that enemy, and then we set aside the nasty stuff about that person. So we look at the Bolshevists and see Hitler as a defence, and pass over the stuff that sounds bad - maybe it's exaggerated. Or we focus on Hitler, and tolerate Uncle Joe. Or in the modern world we pick on Assad, and for as long as we can we overlook or deny the fact that his most effective opponents were Islamist fanatics.

As for appeasement, it's too easy to forget that it was only a very few years since tye nightmare of the Great War. It's no wonder that anything seemed better than going throught that again. "Appeasement" wasn't a dirty word while there seemed any desperate hope it might mean avoiding a new, and far more deadly, war.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 08:41 PM

Er, even though we knew full well what Hitler's expansionist tendencies were, that he had invaded Czechoslovakia and that he was persecuting the Jews... I'm sure that, even then, appeasement might have looked like a dirty word to many people.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 15 - 08:42 PM

Not to mention his military support for Franco.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 03:20 AM

"Dear old pals, jolly old pals"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 04:51 AM

The Nazis were the natural enemies of the Bolshevics, both of whom were seen as a threat to peace.
The Royals would also be very aware that the King's cousin the Tsar had been butchered by the Bolshevics along with his wife and all their children.

That horror had happened, and the horrors that so influence our thinking now had not.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 05:11 AM

thanks jim ,very interesting information

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 05:22 AM

"The Nazis were the natural enemies of the Bolshevics"
You ssaid they were allies - make up your mind
"both of whom were seen as a threat to peace."
No they weren't - the Bolsheviks were the ones who took the Russian people out of World War One - theirs was the country that was invaded by 14 countries during the Civil war
They were seen as a threat to capitalism - that was why they were considered the enemy
The left parties in Russia split over whether the new Soviet Government should work to spread its policies world wide - the Boilshiviks opted for "Socialism in one country", confining their activities to The Soviet Union (still much criticised)
The Tsar and his family were not executed because they were royals, but because they had been made a part of the campaign to return Russia to its old system
On the other hand, the British establishment decided they could work with the Nazis if they could control their excesses, so they did nothing to stop their rise
Edward VIII was counting on a Nazi victory to place him back on the throne.
You really do know nothing of this, do you?
Go read a book instead of spouting 'the official version'.
You seem to be adopting the 'Norman Tebbitt view of history'
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 06:54 AM

They were seen as a threat to capitalism - that was why they were considered the enemy

Yes. A threat to peace.
In 1939, Russia invaded both Finland and Poland, and it was in alliance with Hitler for the first two years of the war.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 08:16 AM

There was a letter in our local rag this morning (the Bude and Stratton Post) which severely criticised The Sun for publishing the material. Unsurprisingly, I suppose, the letter writer is a bit of a royalist. As the polar opposite of that myself, perhaps it's hard for me to be objective, but it got me thinking: suppose a journalist got hold of the stuff then didn't release it. Stuff about a family that we pay good money to keep in the manner they're accustomed to, lest we forget, and who are masters of media manipulation themselves when it comes their own promotion. I think it would have been remiss of that journalist. I hate Murdoch and I hate The Sun, and wouldn't have the thing in my house even if they paid me (especially as I'm a Liverpool fan), but, on this one occasion, kudos to them for getting it dead right.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 08:42 AM

Stuff about a family that we pay good money to keep in the manner...
Apart from the seven year old, we pay no money to keep any of those shown in the clip because they are all dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 08:54 AM

True and then we can add her four children, 8 grand children, 4 great grandchildren ..................... so one becomes 16 plus the original one.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 09:06 AM

Clutching at straws, Keith, and I think you know it. If you insist on picking me up on technicalities, I might just have to remind you of your Geoffrey Wheatcroft brain-fart. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 09:26 AM

"Stuff about a family that we pay good money to keep in the manner..."

Not this old chestnut again!!!!

We - if you are referring to the minority who are net tax contributors (i.e. those who pay tax but do not take more out in tax credits and benefits than they pay in tax) to the UK's coffers pay absolutely nothing towards the maintenance and upkeep of the Royal Family

Our Head of State costs about one third less per year than the President of France and a tiny fraction of the cost of the President of the United States of America.

Costs met from a tiny portion of the profits made by three of the best run and managed businesses in the country:

The Crown Estate - pays for the real official costs of the Head of State

The Duchy of Lancaster - pays for a limited number of other "royals" excluding the Prince of Wales and his family

The Duchy of Cornwall - pays for the Prince of Wales and his family.

The net profits remaining contribute hundreds of millions to the Exchequer every year - not including personal income tax now paid by every member of the royal family.

All the above clearly and plainly audited and reported each year for all to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 09:44 AM

As to the period in question i.e. about 80 years ago, any reason that our team of usual suspects have not mentioned the millions slaughtered, displaced and imprisoned by that darling of the masses - Joseph Stalin? Whereas Hitler in the mid 1930s had barely got started.

When the Russo-German Non-Aggression Pact was signed, both parties to that agreement knew full well that within the next decade they would be at each others throats (Not only Germans read Herr Hitler's book, the Soviets had had a peak too) for the Germans it had to be before 1944 and for the Soviets it had to be after.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 09:47 AM

Could I suggest that if you want to discuss Uncle Joe you start a separate thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 10:36 AM

Excuse me, but don't you think that profit-making enterprises owned (equals usurped, of course) by the royals should pay tax on their profits like everyone else? Including those tax receipts in the calculation is mischievous. Tesco makes hundreds of millions per annum and pays tax on it, but we don't have a separate state fund which we use to keep the chairman and board of Tesco in massive palaces that we pay the upkeep for, and pay them all very handsome stipends to boot, do we now? Perhaps we should be grateful to these 'ere royals for having ancestors that robbed the nation blind then are so kind as to make profits on their ill-inherited gains? So grateful that we pay thirty-odd million a year into their expense accounts? Have you seen how some of them spend their time? (Why, probably not, as they do it behind closed doors, fenced-off country estates and security guards -- that we also pay for!)

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 10:36 AM

Not clutching at straws and not a technicality Steve.
You complain about paying for Royalty on the grounds of an eighty year old clip that besmirches no single living royal.
It is you clutching at straws Steve.

Rag, have you looked up the dates of Britain's involvement in the Allied Intervention now?
Is that why you hid your face away and gave us all a brief respite from your inanities?

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 10:46 AM

Keith, nothing has changed in principle apropos of our paying for the royals. As for besmirching, I've demonstrated how we don't need to in two earlier posts that I've already referred back to, as they are excellent at besmirching themselves. Were it not for a sycophantic media machine propping them up, they would be seen by all for what they truly are - a bloody badly-behaved laughing stock. Just watch Charles next time he's on telly if you don't believe me. A farce on legs, and one with a disreputable past to boot.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 10:51 AM

That is rich coming from you professor. When you learn to spell my pseudonym I MAY respond, but in the meantime ....................

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 12:23 PM

Rag, you are confusing me with someone who cares if you respond.
(Does anyone?)

Steve, your views are quite commonplace, but your attempt to use this video clip to support them is ridiculous.

(Unless you agree with the Rag that the Queen's children and grandchildren are all somehow contaminated by their mother's innocent antics when aged seven.)

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 01:11 PM

Sorry Stevie old son but I fail to see the similarity or any point in your comparison Tescos and the Head of State of the United Kingdom - apples and oranges old chap.

What arrangements and deals were struck between Parliament and Tescos hundreds of years ago - I thought that Tesco had only been in existence since 1919.

But as I said the Royal Family do not cost the British Taxpayer a penny but if they did it has been calculated that it would amount to 53 pence per person in today's money , a few years ago it stood at 69 pence so their "costs" are coming down

All very transparent, well reported and super-critically audited.

In the 1930s Raggy nobody was making jokes and taking the piss out of "Uncle" Joe, primarily because it was rather well known that he was a murderous, dangerous bastard who had killed millions. In the 1930s Hitler was rather a comical figure who designed his own uniforms, sported a ridiculous moustache and strutted about surrounded by a group of sycophants - thousands of people went out of their way to make fun of him - in 1940 one Charles Chaplin became his best known mimic, but by then everyone had realised what a dangerous little clown Hitler was but as a democide he was a boy scout compared to Stalin and Mao.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 01:59 PM

"Yes. A threat to peace."
Capitalism had just caused World War One - that's what gave the Russian Revolution its incentive
German industrial capitalism would go on to bring about World war two
In the intervening period 14 capitalist countries invaded the Soviet Union, which at the time had virtually no army as it had been dismantled in 1917, no industry to manufacture weapons and a semi-feudal peasantry
what peacew would that be a "threat" to exactly.
Stalin's excesses had s.f.a. to do with the ideals of Bolshevism.
The Soviet Union was never an ally of Hitler - though the British establishment was right up too the point when it was given no alternative.   
The U.S. did nothing to halt the rise of Fascism until Pearl harbour
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 02:01 PM

"Arrangements and deals" were struck between parliament and the royals that legitimised the usurping of land from the common people, not to speak of deals that gave the royals unjustified rake-offs from the blood, sweat and tears earnings of same common people. Just because "deals" were struck hundreds of years ago it doesn't mean that they were any fairer than "deals" struck recently. That's a logical fallacy, arguing from antiquity. In fact, Tesco is not allowed to strike "deals" that bypass the law that applies to everyone else, despite the best efforts of their army of accountants. Apples and apples.

But as I said the Royal Family do not cost the British Taxpayer a penny but if they did it has been calculated that it would amount to 53 pence per person in today's money , a few years ago it stood at 69 pence so their "costs" are coming down

I think you need to make your mind up whether they cost us a penny or not. :-) Actually I saw a swastika badge for sale for 53p once. Making a chap like like me pay 53p for the royals would be tantamount to forcing me to buy that badge. Ah well. I suppose the good Lord did warn us that to them that have, it shall be given, to them that have not, it shall be taken away. Makes Osborne a hell of a good Christian too, innit.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 02:17 PM

"because it was rather well known that he was a murderous, dangerous bastard who had killed millions."
Stalin's tyranny was far from well-known and did not become so until 1956 when his crimes were exposed by Khrushchev at the 20th Congress (after Stalin's death
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 02:29 PM

Jim,
The Soviet Union was never an ally of Hitler

Yes it was.
Guardian,
"And alliance indeed it was. "
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/06/devils-alliance-hitlers-pact-stalin-1938-1941-roger-moorhouse-review