New pictures of Queen in 1933 (2 Viewers)

Jack Griffin · Jul 17, 2015

Learning how to salute. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33578174

Palace is "disappointed", LOL. More like damn we got proper caught out!

dutchman · Jul 18, 2015

Its long been known that Edward VIII was a supporter of Hitler before the war, it was nothing unusual at the time. London streets were even draped with swastika flags for the funeral procession of the German ambassador to Britain.

Many members of the British aristocracy held fascist beliefs their whole lives but suppressed these while the war was on.
There's no reason to think the future Queen was doing anything more than mimicking popular culture.

Houchens Head · Jul 18, 2015

I've never trusted the Royals. They've all got shifty eyes! And they're all Krauts and Greeks!

Otis · Jul 18, 2015

Houchens Head said:
I've never trusted the Royals. They've all got shifty eyes! And they're all Krauts and Greeks!

I thought they were bloodsucking alien lizards?

lifeskyblue · Jul 18, 2015

Now watch the 'establishment' on every TV channel making excuse after excuse

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

armybike · Jul 18, 2015

The photo and headline are totally out of context with the times as the Sun even acknowledge in their 'justification' to print -

Just an excuse to sell papers and get hits to their website. Next!

Houchens Head · Jul 18, 2015

Otis said:
I thought they were bloodsucking alien lizards?

That as well, Otis!

Jack Griffin · Jul 18, 2015

lifeskyblue said:
Now watch the 'establishment' on every TV channel making excuse after excuse

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Loads of them (establishment figures) have been wheeled out this morning to excuse these pictures and or attack the Sun.

While I don't think much of the Sun, I do think this story is a good illustration of why an hereditary monarchy is an outmoded model.

lifeskyblue · Jul 18, 2015

Jack Griffin said:
Loads of them (establishment figures) have been wheeled out this morning to excuse these pictures and or attack the Sun.

While I don't think much of the Sun, I do think this story is a good illustration of why an hereditary monarchy is an outmoded model.

No I never buy the sun but this shows value of free press etc. not really much of a story but you are right shows this outdated institution to be what it is.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

blueflint · Jul 18, 2015

come on they are german anyway

Ashdown · Jul 18, 2015

FFS, Elizabeth was a 7 year old little girl, you can point some fingers at the adults but not the kids you morons !

Otis · Jul 18, 2015

Don't think anyone IS pointing a finger at the kids are they?

Macca · Jul 18, 2015

Get the fuck over it

chiefdave · Jul 18, 2015

The Sun prints a lot of crap but this has got to be right up there. Who cares what a 7 year old kid did in 1933?

henry the wasp · Jul 18, 2015

Jack Griffin said:
Learning how to salute. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33578174

Palace is "disappointed", LOL. More like damn we got proper caught out!

Absolutely stunned by that front page. I mean, 70p for that rag. Shocking.

Huckerby · Jul 18, 2015

People love an excuse to slap off the monarchy. Don't they bring in more in tourism revenue the they cost? Sounds like a winner to me

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Huckerby · Jul 18, 2015

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/

Probably a more reliable source out there but yeh, estimated £500 million a year in tourism revenue and cost about £200 million. Not bad for a little tradition and sovereignty

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

LastGarrison · Jul 18, 2015

More sensationalist bollocks with no context to the story at all and as the chief says who really cares what a kid did nearly 80 years ago?

Otis · Jul 18, 2015

Huckerby said:
http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/

Probably a more reliable source out there but yeh, estimated £500 million a year in tourism revenue and cost about £200 million. Not bad for a little tradition and sovereignty

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

What, the tradition of killing each other and inbreeding to lay claim to the throne?

Grendel · Jul 18, 2015

Jack Griffin said:
Loads of them (establishment figures) have been wheeled out this morning to excuse these pictures and or attack the Sun.

While I don't think much of the Sun, I do think this story is a good illustration of why an hereditary monarchy is an outmoded model.

Indeed - Lets have President Blair as a full grown adult having tea and sandwiches with terrorists responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent UK citizens.

Otis · Jul 18, 2015

Grendel said:
Indeed - Lets have President Blair as a full grown adult having tea and sandwiches with terrorists responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent UK citizens.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that it's not compulsory to have Blair if we don't have a queen.

Grendel · Jul 18, 2015

Otis said:
I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that it's not compulsory to have Blair if we don't have a queen.

It's pretty compulsory you have a politician of one of the major parties who is no longer prime minister. It's also pretty compulsory most of these will side with autocrats and terrorists when it suits.

Grow up. Presidents are more corruptible than royalty.

Otis · Jul 18, 2015

Grendel said:
It's pretty compulsory you have a politician of one of the major parties who is no longer prime minister. It's also pretty compulsory most of these will side with autocrats and terrorists when it suits.

Grow up. Presidents are more corruptible than royalty.

Grow up? Dear me, Grendel. Never ever had you down as the petulant, childish type.

It was a light hearted comment and like I said, not having the Queen doesn't mean we have to have Blair.

Heat making you grumpy?

Sent from my LG-D405 using Tapatalk

Jack Griffin · Jul 18, 2015

Huckerby said:
People love an excuse to slap off the monarchy. Don't they bring in more in tourism revenue the they cost? Sounds like a winner to me

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I'm completely happy for them to play Mickey & Donald in Royal Disneyland as long as it benefits the exchequer, their net profitability isn't justification for the the monarch to be head of state.

Jack Griffin · Jul 18, 2015

LastGarrison said:
More sensationalist bollocks with no context to the story at all and as the chief says who really cares what a kid did nearly 80 years ago?

Ermmm.. the story is about her uncle.. the bloke they shipped out to the Bahamas during the war to keep him out of mischief.

Terry Gibson's perm · Jul 18, 2015

Huckerby said:
People love an excuse to slap off the monarchy. Don't they bring in more in tourism revenue the they cost? Sounds like a winner to me

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

i think the keeper of the privy purse needs a new calculator as he is miles out on the cost and I think the two hundred million figure is way below, surely there must be somewhere that they keep the exact costs, I would imagine their security costs run into tens of millions alone but that will be accounted elsewhere.

Huckerby · Jul 18, 2015

Terry Gibson's perm said:
i think the keeper of the privy purse needs a new calculator as he is miles out on the cost and I think the two hundred million figure is way below, surely there must be somewhere that they keep the exact costs, I would imagine their security costs run into tens of millions alone but that will be accounted elsewhere.

That is with the extra costs.

It's £33 million per year according to the family themselves in direct costs, but then the £200 million is when you take into the extra crap like security etc

wingy · Jul 18, 2015

Buck House Is due a makeover circa £200 M
been quoted.

Ashdown · Jul 18, 2015

wingy said:
Buck House Is due a makeover circa £200 M
been quoted.

Parliament is also due one circa £500 million.

armybike · Jul 18, 2015

Ashdown said:
Parliament is also due one circa £500 million.

The Parliament restorations are estimated at around £3.5b to £5.6b!

Ashdown · Jul 18, 2015

armybike said:
The Parliament restorations are estimated at around £3.5b to £5.6b!

Fair enough, I knew it was sizably more ! Still makes me wonder how they come to ridiculous figures like that though.

armybike · Jul 18, 2015

Ashdown said:
Fair enough, I knew it was sizably more ! Still makes me wonder how they come to ridiculous figures like that though.

Or how much it cost to come to the figures lol

If you have trouble sleeping this might help - http://www.restorationandrenewal.parliament.uk/IOA-report.html

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 18, 2015

Always a daft argument that the monarchy brings in tourism, like nobody visits Versailles or other places.

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 18, 2015

Anyway, I'm no Royalist(!) but can't help agreeing with the Palace's statement.

That said, from a historical POV it's interesting how things that are commonplace and are accepted can take on an entirely different meaning in a different context. Shame it's the Sun releasing it to sell papers tbh, as it *is* interesting.

At a somewhat large tangent, here's something else that was accepted as a colour, but takes on a whole other meaning nowadays;

There's always the danger that we take on an enlightenment view and decide we're all so much better nowadays, but if we use such things to show taking things for granted can be a bit dangerous, it's no bad thing.

Otis · Jul 18, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
Always a daft argument that the monarchy brings in tourism, like nobody visits Versailles or other places.

Yep! My exact argument too. As if people would stop visiting Buckingham Palace or other royal residence.

in fact, if these places were all vacant and the public were given more access, I dare say they would be even more popular as tourist destinations.

New pictures of Queen in 1933 (2 Viewers)

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Fairly well known member from Malvern

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Fairly well known member from Malvern

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Huckerby

Guest

Huckerby

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Huckerby

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency