NationStates Jolt Archive

Proving in his own subtle way that at least some of the British Royal House support the white man in his struggle against the forces of evil and savagery in this dark age. He continues in the proud tradition of his great great uncle Edward the 8th, the last true English king forced out for daring to stand for right against the traitors in Parliment before the travesty of WW2.

:rolleyes:

What the fuck was he thinking?

Hmmm, I'm going to commit political suicide today.

What the fuck was he thinking?

Hmmm, I'm going to commit political suicide today.
well as a royal he isn't an elected official.

and he apologized(wink wink) we all know he's sorry, and didn't mean any harm.


after the day of the sword, britian may well still have a king.

Come on, he was just wearing it as a costume. Not like he parades through town like that, or does he? :confused:

Come on, he was just wearing it as a costume. Not like he parades through town like that, or does he? :confused:

It was clearly a sign, he can now apologize and do whats necessary to make the cattle forget his moment of truth. We now know we have a comrade in the House of Windsor(or should I say the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha).

Prince Harold the Nazi and the Purple Crayon. :p

Sieg Harold!

Sieg Harold!
indeed, all glory to our aryan brother, may the rest of his degenerate kin meet untimely ends so that he may lead the british people into a new dawn.

NV, do you even know what the word "Sieg" means?

indeed, all glory to our aryan brother, may the rest of his degenerate kin meet untimely ends so that he may lead the british people into a new dawn.
Oh for crying out loud I was being sarcastic!

Nobody takes Nazis seriously anymore. It's a lost cause. Get over it. Hitler was a fool anyway- if he had planned a little better he could have ruled the world, but he was stupid.

Oh for crying out loud I was being sarcastic!

oh sure super, pretend you didn't mean it just like harry, we need our sleepers to maintain a veneer of respectability, but we know our brothers.

Hail Superpower07

Yes!!! Heil Harold!!!



...let him destroy the monarchy from within, yes....

...let him destroy the monarchy from within, yes....
Heheheheh

...let him destroy the monarchy from within, yes....
And make me King, so I can mooch for the rest of my life!

The British monarchy is nothing but lies, love and scandals that keep the British media alive and well. So, their little Prince parades around in a Hitler youth costime - ain't that cute. It just gives the British media another reason to keep going strong.

edit - the media is fine and dandy -I'm referring to the tabloids...and scandal sheets

Nobody takes Nazis seriously anymore. It's a lost cause. Get the hell over it. Oh, and Hitler was a total retard.
We control Italy right now silly, and Austria, and several former Soviet block nations. we just don't advertize it. we are the second most powerful block in the EU next too the social democrats. Hail the New Dawn, Hail Harry and Berlusconi!!!

LOL at the British Royals.

...let him destroy the monarchy from within, yes....

Given the amount of stupid Nazist pigs out there these days, it's hard to tell when you're joking or serious. Are you seriously racist or are you just trying to start a fight? And as for prince Harry, he couldn't destroy the monarchy from within if they sent him an invitation and instructions. He isn't the sharpest pencil in the box.

Is now the best time to point out that the Aryans were dark skined, black haired people from somewhere around India?

Given the amount of stupid Nazist pigs out there these days, it's hard to tell when you're joking or serious. Are you seriously racist or are you just trying to start a fight? And as for prince Harry, he couldn't destroy the monarchy from within if they sent him an invitation and instructions. He isn't the sharpest pencil in the box.

Oh dear.

I'm not a Nazi, in fact, I'm probably the exact opposite. I just don't like the monarchy. Actually, you can keep it. So long as we become a republic, and this helps our cause ;).

Is now the best time to point out that the Aryans were dark skined, black haired people from somewhere around India?
well i'll grant the pashtuns are aryans, but most indians are of mixed aryan and dravidian blood.

We control Italy right now silly, and Austria, and several former Soviet block nations. we just don't advertize it. we are the second most powerful block in the EU next too the social democrats. Hail the New Dawn, Hail Harry and Berlusconi!!!

Umm... hate to break it to you, but Nazis don't exist anymore. You see, it was Germany's National Socialist Party, and at the end of World War II, it was disbanded and thrown into the wind like ashes. So.... Nazis don't really control anything. There are kids not even young enough to vote who are wanna-be Nazis, there are NEO-Nazis whom don't even know what the term Nazi really means and call their little gathering of racists thugs such because they can't think of something original, but Nazis? No, they're only in the history books buddy.

Secondly, it was a costume party. I mean, c'mon. Throw another one and he'll come as General McAurthur or King Aurthur for that matter. He isn't showing any pride or "friend" of the Aryan race in the royal house, he's probably wearing it as a means of making fun of wanna-be Nazis watching him on the news, since Britain did hold them off all during the war and defied them time and again.

So that's my two cents right there. Honestly you really shouldn't jump for joy over simple speculation. The British were practically the sworn enemy of the Nazis, and no one, and I mean NO ONE in the royal family would support or promote the party that nearly destroyed their homeland. There, I'm done for now.

Umm... hate to break it to you, but Nazis don't exist anymore. You see, it was Germany's National Socialist Party, and at the end of World War II, it was disbanded and thrown into the wind like ashes. So.... Nazis don't really control anything. There are kids not even young enough to vote who are wanna-be Nazis, there are NEO-Nazis whom don't even know what the term Nazi really means and call their little gathering of racists thugs such because they can't think of something original, but Nazis? No, they're only in the history books buddy.

Secondly, it was a costume party. I mean, c'mon. Throw another one and he'll come as General McAurthur or King Aurthur for that matter. He isn't showing any pride or "friend" of the Aryan race in the royal house, he's probably wearing it as a means of making fun of wanna-be Nazis watching him on the news, since Britain did hold them off all during the war and defied them time and again.

So that's my two cents right there. Honestly you really shouldn't jump for joy over simple speculation. The British were practically the sworn enemy of the Nazis, and no one, and I mean NO ONE in the royal family would support or promote the party that nearly destroyed their homeland. There, I'm done for now.
neo sheo no one cares about semantics. Edward the 8th was a nazi so why shouldn't his nephew a few times removed follow in his footsteps.

NV, You have the most stupid argument I have ever seen. It's a COSTUME PARTY. You know, like playing dress-up. The whole point is to be FUNNY and RIDICULOUS.

There are right-wing parties left in Europe, yes, but there have not been any actual Nazis, not any to be taken seriously in any case, since 1945.

NV, You have the most stupid argument I have ever seen. It's a COSTUME PARTY. You know, like playing dress-up. The whole point is to be FUNNY and RIDICULOUS.

There are right-wing parties left in Europe, yes, but there have not been any actual Nazis, not any to be taken seriously in any case, since 1945.

salazar ansd franco were fascists very cozy with hitler but nuetral in the war and they remained in unbroken power until the 70s. learn a little history there sluggo.

salazar ansd franco were fascists very cozy with hitler but nuetral in the war and they remained in unbroken power until the 70s. learn a little history there sluggo.
Eeh.. fascist doesnt equal Nazi... and Franco was a quarter Jew.

NV, do you even know what the word "Sieg" means?

Can I answer this one? o.O

LOL at the British Royals.
Yeah, is it any wonder we kicked them out of the US............................................TWICE.

Sieg=Hail.

So Sieg Heil!=Hail Victory.

Sieg=Hail.

So Sieg Heil!=Hail Victory.

No dammit! *smacks you*

Sieg means "Victory,"

Heil means "Welfare"

Sieg Heil = "Victory and Welfare!"

I hate kiddies running around thinking they know stuff when they don't.

Yes, young Harry certainly has upheld the fine traditions of English monarchy.

After all, he is already referred to as Harry the Bastard.

And certainly proving that intelligence, taste and sensitivity are not required for the role of third in line.

Still, breeding does show, as one would expect. And this is as perfect a specimen of what Monty Python referred to as the "upper class twit" as one could hope to find still in captivity.

A few more moronic statements and actions and we can all rid ourselves of this embarrasing relic of a bygone era.

No dammit! *smacks you*

Sieg means "Victory,"

Heil means "Welfare"

Sieg Heil = "Victory and Welfare!"

I hate kiddies running around thinking they know stuff when they don't.
Sorry about that. Now I going to have to kill my best friend John. He speaks German and told me what I said. Thanks for correcting my mistake.

Sorry about that. Now I going to have to kill my best friend John. He speaks German and told me what I said. Thanks for correcting my mistake.

No worries. He must be in German I or something. All German I kids think they know what Sieg Heil mean. :p

Does Heil HItler mean Welfare and Hitler?

Does Heil HItler mean Welfare and Hitler?

I'd think so, yes. Exact translations from German/English are very weird. It would most likely translate (properly) to "Welfare for Hitler."

Does Heil HItler mean Welfare and Hitler?

Perhaps for the welfare of Hitler.

Certainly was to no else's benefit.

Ah, that must be the similarity between Hitler and Harry.

From the German-English dictionary...and 7 years of studying German.

Hail! -- Heil!
victory [over] -- der Sieg [über]

Welfare does NOT figure in here at all, there is no translation of Heil that might even aproximate welfare, the closest is "whole" or "entire."

What was that about people not knowing what they are talking about...

From the German-English dictionary...and 7 years of studying German.

Hail! -- Heil!
victory [over] -- der Sieg [über]

As heil apparently can mean both welfare and hail (I'd like to know what English/German dictionary you're using), it can be used interchangeably, although as Germany had gone through the great depression much as the rest of the world did, "Victory and Welfare" would seem alot more plausible than just "hail."

And "Sieg Heil," translated directly from what you gave me, would mean "Victory Hail," and the closest thing to making any sense of that would be "Hail Victory."

My dictionary says the English word for the German Hail is Hagel, so use of that word would have made far more sense than Heil.

Sieg Heil -- Total Victory (literally, victory whole)

Heil Hitler -- Hail Hitler

pretty simple...

They all thought I was crazy, that I was wrong. But this just proves my crackpot theory--Prince Harry is Hitler incarnate!

Why couldn't there have been any Jews at that party? Preferably old ones. Like 70.

All definitions for Heil:

Suchergebnisse für 'heil':


Hail! -- Heil!
entire -- heil
intact -- heil
safe -- heil
to break even -- heil davonkommen
to ride out -- heil überstehen
to save one's neck -- heil davonkommen
unhurt -- heil
whole -- heil

All definitions for Heil:

Suchergebnisse für 'heil':


Hail! -- Heil!
entire -- heil
intact -- heil
safe -- heil
to break even -- heil davonkommen
to ride out -- heil überstehen
to save one's neck -- heil davonkommen
unhurt -- heil
whole -- heil

Well, so far any translation we've thus given seems reasonable. Better than some people who know no Deutsch at all, eh kamerad?

neo sheo no one cares about semantics. Edward the 8th was a nazi so why shouldn't his nephew a few times removed follow in his footsteps.

Umm, you might want to provide a source on that. Anyone of the royal family who might have been a Nazi would A.) Have changed their mind after the England declaired war on Germany, and or B.) Have been part of a socialist party that was NOT assosiated with the National Socialst party. Because, to be a part of the "National" Sociously Party, you'd have to have lived in Germany at the time it was formed, and it was formed during Hitler's regiem. Try again buddy.

salazar ansd franco were fascists very cozy with hitler but nuetral in the war and they remained in unbroken power until the 70s. learn a little history there sluggo.

By the way, the fact that they're no longer around since the 70s only proves that there is no Nazis about and around in any form of control and or power preasently. And, they were facists, so there weren't any around their time either. Sorry.

Proving in his own subtle way that at least some of the British Royal House support the white man in his struggle against the forces of evil and savagery in this dark age. He continues in the proud tradition of his great great uncle Edward the 8th, the last true English king forced out for daring to stand for right against the traitors in Parliment before the travesty of WW2.

Surelly you're not serious.

Surelly you're not serious.

Let him live in his nazi fantasy world. He's happier there. :)

Surelly you're not serious.

Yeah, that sounds like a white supremacist revisionist vision of history. The damage is done, Prince Harry is now the poster boy of every skinhead in the UK and the EU.

He continues in the proud tradition of his great great uncle Edward the 8th, the last true English king forced out for daring to stand for right against the traitors in Parliment before the travesty of WW2.

You know, I just am not even going to bother with this one. You've got this angled interestingly.

Stupidly, and predictably, but interestingly nonetheless. And actually, rather funny, too - unless you actually subscribe to that racist viewpoint.

Yeah, that sounds like a white supremacist revisionist vision of history. The damage is done, Prince Harry is now the poster boy of every skinhead in the UK and the EU.

Sadly true. And Lord knows the media won't let up on this one for a LONG time.

salazar ansd franco were fascists very cozy with hitler but nuetral in the war and they remained in unbroken power until the 70s. learn a little history there sluggo.

Learn your vocabulary before insulting people, imbecile. A "Fascist" is not the same as a "Nazi." The term "Nazi" is short for "National Socialist" which was a political party in GERMANY. If someone was not a member of this political party, than, really, they were not a nazi. I did not dispute the existance of Fascists. There still are Fascists, but the National Socialist party is no more, unless you count wannabes such as yourself.

And what the fuck kind of insult is "sluggo"?

Umm, you might want to provide a source on that. Anyone of the royal family who might have been a Nazi would A.) Have changed their mind after the England declaired war on Germany, and or B.) Have been part of a socialist party that was NOT assosiated with the National Socialst party. Because, to be a part of the "National" Sociously Party, you'd have to have lived in Germany at the time it was formed, and it was formed during Hitler's regiem. Try again buddy.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MONedwardVIII.htm

there is one link i'm sure there are many others. it is widely known edward the 8th was a nazi sympathizer, gave nazis information during ww2 and would have been made king if the nazis had conquered the UK

I was amused how much Prince Harry (Prince Hewit) is becoming the new generation of royal ass, much like his uncle edward and grandad Prince Phillip before him..

Just when you think the media would stop going on about the royals one of them dresses as a Nazi and reminds the tabaloids that the royals have German blood. Blue-blooded muppet.

What an idiot! I mean really, you got to think about these things when you're possibly an aire to the throne. The press are always watching.

And what the fuck kind of insult is "sluggo"?
a patronizing one :P


Learn your vocabulary before insulting people, imbecile. A "Fascist" is not the same as a "Nazi." The term "Nazi" is short for "National Socialist" which was a political party in GERMANY. If someone was not a member of this political party, than, really, they were not a nazi. I did not dispute the existance of Fascists. There still are Fascists, but the National Socialist party is no more, unless you count wannabes such as yourself.


you're just arguing semantics, neo nazi vs. nazi fascist vs. nazi. nazism is the germanic manifestation of the european fascist movement. it had certain distinct elements but it was a part of a large political ideology that was not defeated or even driven from power by the end of ww2.

neo nazi vs. nazi is just a distinction between post ww2 followers of the movement and their more successful earlier counterparts it doesn't actually have any ideological or political signifigance.

Neo nazi is an external term anyway, it was never a term used by the movement, just an arbitary verbal device to create a false distinction between different periods in the continuous development of the ideology.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MONedwardVIII.htm

there is one link i'm sure there are many others. it is widely known edward the 8th was a nazi sympathizer, gave nazis information during ww2 and would have been made king if the nazis had conquered the UK

He WAS King. And then he FUCKED UP. And he was no longer King. Sucks to FUCK UP. And Hitler didn't win, and he fucked off to the Caribbean with his shemale lover. Sucks not to be King.

Sucks being a nazi-sympathizing loser who no-one takes seriously. It's greatly ameliorated by an endless supply of cash, but it's a rare thing among nazi-sympathisers.

Unless there's something you'd care to mention- ?

He WAS King. And then he FUCKED UP. And he was no longer King. Sucks to FUCK UP. And Hitler didn't win, and he fucked off to the Caribbean with his shemale lover. Sucks not to be King.

Sucks being a nazi-sympathizing loser who no-one takes seriously. It's greatly ameliorated by an endless supply of cash, but it's a rare thing among nazi-sympathisers.

Unless there's something you'd care to mention- ?

harry is following in his footsteps, in a long history of pronazi british royals that will one day culminate in the reign of a true aryan king(well if you don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory about george the 6th's cryptofascism, which i don't).

The Adventures of Harry Hitler, it sounds like a stupid Hollywood comedi.
Poor Diana she is crying in her grave. :(

a patronizing one :P




you're just arguing semantics, neo nazi vs. nazi fascist vs. nazi. nazism is the germanic manifestation of the european fascist movement. it had certain distinct elements but it was a part of a large political ideology that was not defeated or even driven from power by the end of ww2.

neo nazi vs. nazi is just a distinction between post ww2 followers of the movement and their more successful earlier counterparts it doesn't actually have any ideological or political signifigance.

Neo nazi is an external term anyway, it was never a term used by the movement, just an arbitary verbal device to create a false distinction between different periods in the continuous development of the ideology.


Actually, there is quite a difference. It's like the "All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares" thing. Nazis were Fascists, in a sense, but not all Fascists were nazis. The Nazis were a specific political party in Germany. They also had several goals that Far-right parties such as Fascists in other countries did not have. While other Fascists were often anti-foreigner, the Nazis were fairly unique in their sick goal of killing everyone that didn't look a certain way. Their desire to create a "master race" was more lunacy than their even Fascist contemporaries could manage.

As far as neo nazis go, almost all are just fuckheads who think they're being cool by hating everyone. Just a bunch of dumb skinheads, really. Street thugs. Nobody takes them seriously. And if you think people take you seriously, you're deluding yourself.

Also, patronizing insults don't help your argument.

Actually, judging by his behavior in Lestho and his Micheal Jackson fascination with small boys, I also suspect Harry has pederast leanings as well.

I laughed when his stupid bitch mother died.

Also, patronizing insults don't help your argument.
but they make me feel sassy

Actually, judging by his behavior in Lestho and his Micheal Jackson fascination with small boys, I also suspect Harry has pederast leanings as well.

I laughed when his stupid bitch mother died.

oh come on, all the royals have to make kissy face with the cute little colonial orphans for the media, it doesn't mean anything. he's dating some hot afrikkaner chick.

Hail The Future Democratic Socialist Republic of UK, Tear Down The Royal Stupidity.
Blond Blue-Eyed Scandinavians say Down With Führer Harry Windsor. :)

:rolleyes:

Hail The Future Democratic Socialist Republic of UK, Tear Down The Royal Stupidity.
Blond Blue-Eyed Scandinavians say Down With Führer Harry Windsor. :)

:rolleyes:
sweden, the only aryans so girly, hitler didn't incorperate them into the reich.
sure sven, you wanna stay nuetral fine, just sit this one out, we'll conquer denmark this time, that's all the swedes were really good at militarily anyway, kicking the dane's arses.

Yes I am a swedish blond girl so I am quite fine thanks. :cool:
If the nazis would have conquered Europe I would rule your country and kick your ass. :D

Are you yourself nordic or are you only messing with our sacred place Valhalla to score some points of idiocy? :)

sweden, the only aryans so girly, hitler didn't incorperate them into the reich.
sure sven, you wanna stay nuetral fine, just sit this one out, we'll conquer denmark this time, that's all the swedes were really good at militarily anyway, kicking the dane's arses.

Hey..they have those really useful knives.

No...wait...thats the Swiss....hmm.....

Hey..they have those really useful knives.

No...wait...thats the Swiss....hmm.....
Hitler thought swedes were the true Aryans but we hate f*cking nazis. :D

Proving in his own subtle way that at least some of the British Royal House support the white man in his struggle against the forces of evil and savagery in this dark age. He continues in the proud tradition of his great great uncle Edward the 8th, the last true English king forced out for daring to stand for right against the traitors in Parliment before the travesty of WW2.

Ha.

Hitler thought swedes were the true Aryans but we hate f*cking nazis. :D


Hitler also was pretty sure that the Aryans, thus the Germans...were descendants of the Atlanteans.
He believed that if the "impure" blood were removed from the genepool, that the German people would regain their "superpowers".

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MONedwardVIII.htm

there is one link i'm sure there are many others. it is widely known edward the 8th was a nazi sympathizer, gave nazis information during ww2 and would have been made king if the nazis had conquered the UK


Sympathizer, wow. Doesn't make him a Nazi. And considering Hitler's tendancy to backstab, he wouldn't have been made king. Plus, when you're oused as king, you don't have access to any information that might be of help, therefore, he wouldn't have been much help. Sorry buddy.

a patronizing one :P




you're just arguing semantics, neo nazi vs. nazi fascist vs. nazi. nazism is the germanic manifestation of the european fascist movement. it had certain distinct elements but it was a part of a large political ideology that was not defeated or even driven from power by the end of ww2.

neo nazi vs. nazi is just a distinction between post ww2 followers of the movement and their more successful earlier counterparts it doesn't actually have any ideological or political signifigance.

Neo nazi is an external term anyway, it was never a term used by the movement, just an arbitary verbal device to create a false distinction between different periods in the continuous development of the ideology.


Kid, let me say this one more time. The Nazi party is gone. None of it left, save for wanna-be kids whom aren't even of age to be Nazis. It was soundly defeated at the end of World War II and was collapsing as the war ended. It had no power by the end of the war, since a lot of Germans themselves didn't even want to be a part of the "Party" to begin with.

Neo-Nazis are what skin heads call themselves because they believe they are the manifestation of the "Party" in modern times. Once again though, the Nazi party is gone, get over it.

harry is following in his footsteps, in a long history of pronazi british royals that will one day culminate in the reign of a true aryan king(well if you don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory about george the 6th's cryptofascism, which i don't).

Kid, there is no "long history of pro-nazi british royals", since A.) Most British Royals were dead before the "Party" was formed, and B.) Those that were pro-nazi were oust from power and no longer considered royal by anything save blood ties. You see, being pro nazi means that you lose either way, because being of royal blood is pretty useless when you're not recognized by liniage as having any power over anything. And, no Royal would EVER be admitted into the Nazi Party, due to the fact that you had to be a citizen of Germany, and that Hitler's paranoia wouldn't have allowed for it. Try again. :sniper:

No dammit! *smacks you*

Sieg means "Victory,"

Heil means "Welfare"

Sieg Heil = "Victory and Welfare!"

I hate kiddies running around thinking they know stuff when they don't.
Umm... Heil means Heal, or Hail (EDIT) or Well-being. You don't know what you're talking about.

Kid, let me say this one more time. The Nazi party is gone. None of it left, save for wanna-be kids whom aren't even of age to be Nazis. It was soundly defeated at the end of World War II and was collapsing as the war ended. It had no power by the end of the war, since a lot of Germans themselves didn't even want to be a part of the "Party" to begin with.

Neo-Nazis are what skin heads call themselves because they believe they are the manifestation of the "Party" in modern times. Once again though, the Nazi party is gone, get over it.
There's still right radical parties out there and the reason they aren't called the nazi party is A) Because their country was ravaged by the Nazis, or B) the name would be unconstitutional. Just because the party is dead doesn't mean the ideology is. It would be a sad mistake to consider current right radicals as the undereducated skinheads harassing darkskinned passersby. Radical Right wing program consists of three points:

Battle for the Streets
Battle for the Minds
Battle for the Parliaments

They used to concentrate on the streets. Now that that has led to little success, they are "successfully" fighting in the Parliaments and getting elected.

And what the fuck kind of insult is "sluggo"?
It means the person being described as sluggo is being compared to the slimeiest cola in the galaxy

Eeh.. fascist doesnt equal Nazi... and Franco was a quarter Jew.

Are you claiming that being Jewish is just a matter of descent? that it is a matter of blood flowing in the veins? That it is a question of race? If so that seems to be handing a point to your actual Nazis on a plate.

Or was a quarter of Franco accepted within the Jewish religious community?

Actually, judging by his behavior in Lestho and his Micheal Jackson fascination with small boys, I also suspect Harry has pederast leanings as well.

I laughed when his stupid bitch mother died.

Then you were probably a minority!

I cried when she died because I knew of the work she did to try to make this world a better place!

I cried when she died because I knew of the work she did to try to make this world a better place!
Normally I don't indulge in sour grapes when people die, but after the first day of "emotional" news coverage, I felt that in death, she came to deserve its actual moment.

After the first week of 24 hour coverage, I was sure that my instinct had been vindicated. Even today I cannot utter or type her name without a cringe.

Whatever good she did, it is forever cheapened.

Then you were probably a minority!

I cried when she died because I knew of the work she did to try to make this world a better place!

You cried because a total stranger died?

Whatever happened to stiff upper lip. Frankly, the only person to show any sort of decorum over the whole event was the Queen, and even she caved at the end.

And for the record I'll laugh when the queen dies too. They are all inbred parasites.

Are you claiming that being Jewish is just a matter of descent? that it is a matter of blood flowing in the veins? That it is a question of race? If so that seems to be handing a point to your actual Nazis on a plate.

Or was a quarter of Franco accepted within the Jewish religious community?
Before 19th century Jewish emancipation the Jews were indeed a genetically distinctive group in Europe, since they rarely intermarried with gentiles and mostly reproduced with the other Jews who were by custom and/or law confined to the ghetto... (they had typically Semitic phenotypes such as curly darker hair, I think was this the result of descent from Khazars). After the Jews got more rights, they enthusiastically assimilated into mainstream society often marrying Christians. I don't see what point I'm conceding to the Nazis... just because Jews were cordoned off from the rest of the European gene pool for many centuries doesn't make Jews inferior, and indeed after emancipation many Jews became ardent patriots of their home countries, they thought of themselves as Germans, Frenchmen, Spaniards, or whatever, before they thought of themselves as Jews.

So due to Franco's quarter Jewish ancestry because by the Nazis own standards, Franco cannot be a true Aryan, and indeed Franco was not a Nazi racist, since he helped many thousands of Jews during the Holocaust, and also many blacks, Arabs, and whites served Franco's Spanish army.

Before 19th century Jewish emancipation the Jews were indeed a genetically distinctive group in Europe, since they rarely intermarried with gentiles and mostly reproduced with the other Jews who were by custom and/or law confined to the ghetto...

The Orthodox Jews trace their bloodline through the maternal line, and these are the only Jews who make a distinction on this basis: if you are the child of a JEwish mother, then you are a Jew. When working with this standard it is not possible to be half-Jewish or quarter-Jewish. You either are entirely Jewish (ie. have a Jewish mother) or are entirely unJewish.

Other Jews recognise that they are not a race, but instead a religious community, and the standard used to determine whether someone is a Jew is whether they are accepted as one by that religious community.

I don't see what point I'm conceding to the Nazis...

You are identifying a religious community with a matter of blood, and are claiming that being Jewish is thus a racial matter, whereas this is now patnetly untrue.


... Franco's quarter Jewish ancestry ...

Now, Franco having a quarter Jewish ancestry, that makes sense, but calling him a 'quarter Jew' makes no sense.

any of you seen 'The Producers'? I have never heard anyone complain about the nazi costumes in that, or in 'Allo Allo'.

Watching the aftermath of Diana's death was like watching a long, sad film- it was moving, as was watching the coverage of the recent environmental catastrophe and the September 11th tragedy.

On Halloween, I wear costumes. Going by the press' logic, that would mean that I support ghosts, a cowboy, and Frankenstein.

any of you seen 'The Producers'? I have never heard anyone complain about the nazi costumes in that, or in 'Allo Allo'.
That was because they're classed as entertainment like a.. err.. a.. party..

oh dear

The Orthodox Jews trace their bloodline through the maternal line, and these are the only Jews who make a distinction on this basis: if you are the child of a JEwish mother, then you are a Jew. When working with this standard it is not possible to be half-Jewish or quarter-Jewish. You either are entirely Jewish (ie. have a Jewish mother) or are entirely unJewish.

Other Jews recognise that they are not a race, but instead a religious community, and the standard used to determine whether someone is a Jew is whether they are accepted as one by that religious community.

You are identifying a religious community with a matter of blood, and are claiming that being Jewish is thus a racial matter, whereas this is now patnetly untrue.

Now, Franco having a quarter Jewish ancestry, that makes sense, but calling him a 'quarter Jew' makes no sense.

In the 19th century when Jews were first emancipated (and when Franco's Jewish grandparent would have been alive), Jews were not only a religious group but also a distinct genetic community separate from their gentile neighbors. This was because European anti Semitism compelled Jews to keep to themselves and only marry other Jews. So when I talk about Franco being a quarter Jewish I am using "Jewish" in a biological sense; this isn't a racist statement, I am merely stating a fact that when we deal with this time period, we can still accurately describe Jews as a biological group distinguishable from the gentiles. Of course nowadays Jews have frequently intermarried so the racial/genetic uiniqueness of Jews is lessening.

So when today's Nazis say Jews are a biologically separate group, they are largely incorrect due to the interbreeding of Jew and gentile. But even if theoretically the Jews still have a genetic identity very separated from gentiles, I'd say "so what?"... their biological differences do not make them less human, or less of Americans or Germans or whatever. Biologically, black people are even more alien to the white genepool than European Jews are, but I still accept blacks are fully capable of adopting European culture. The Nazis' fixation on race should be a non-issue; I fully acknowledge that two people within one race are more related to each other than to peoples of other races, but still everyone is fully human, and with the large number of interracial marriages this issue would be even more marginalized.

Before 19th century Jewish emancipation the Jews were indeed a genetically distinctive group in Europe, since they rarely intermarried with gentiles and mostly reproduced with the other Jews who were by custom and/or law confined to the ghetto... (they had typically Semitic phenotypes such as curly darker hair, I think was this the result of descent from Khazars). After the Jews got more rights, they enthusiastically assimilated into mainstream society often marrying Christians. I don't see what point I'm conceding to the Nazis... just because Jews were cordoned off from the rest of the European gene pool for many centuries doesn't make Jews inferior, and indeed after emancipation many Jews became ardent patriots of their home countries, they thought of themselves as Germans, Frenchmen, Spaniards, or whatever, before they thought of themselves as Jews.


So due to Franco's quarter Jewish ancestry because by the Nazis own standards, Franco cannot be a true Aryan, and indeed Franco was not a Nazi racist, since he helped many thousands of Jews during the Holocaust, and also many blacks, Arabs, and whites served Franco's Spanish army.



Oh please, the Jews are the most conquered and raped people in history. Just about everybody has ancestors who were conquered and raped, but the Jews have been continually conquered and raped for thousands of years. That's why the Orthodox have that rule about your "Jewishness" passing through your mother, because the father was usually heavily armed and spoke another language.

Jews actually come in all shapes, colors, and sizes from short to tall, black hair to blonde, with all shades of eye color. There are even Japanese Jews and Native American Jews.

You see this is why you should let us of The Royal Stewart in exile back on the throne of England, we actually understand how the world works. There are no bees of insanity buzzing around in our heads.

White pride world wide!

Oh please, the Jews are the most conquered and raped people in history. Just about everybody has ancestors who were conquered and raped, but the Jews have been continually conquered and raped for thousands of years. That's why the Orthodox have that rule about your "Jewishness" passing through your mother, because the father was usually heavily armed and spoke another language.
No, the European Christians tended to massacre the Jews and take their money, genes introduced into the Jewish community through rape is far less influential than the widely documented fact that Jews mostly reproduced with other Jews, due to Jewish and gentile suspicions of each other. This has been proven with many genetic studies of Jewish communities in Europe.

Jews actually come in all shapes, colors, and sizes from short to tall, black hair to blonde, with all shades of eye color. There are even Japanese Jews and Native American Jews.
I am well aware there are Japanese Jews, black Jews, etc., but that is completely irrelevant to our discussion because I am talking about the specific and unique European ethnic group known as the Sephardim (the Spanish Jews)... genetic tests show that Sephardics are distinct from not only Gentiles but also Jews in other parts of Europe. Today there is much less prejudice so ethnically different people frequently intermarry but centuries ago ethnic groups kept to themselves, with the result that each ethnic group was very genetically isolated from the others.

You see this is why you should let us of The Royal Stewart in exile back on the throne of England, we actually understand how the world works. There are no bees of insanity buzzing around in our heads.
Thats completely random and your own head seem a little suspicious to me. Anyways Im american so I'm not realy interested in that sort bickering, and I dont like the Catholic Chruch so I say the Stuarts deserved their comeuppance. I don't like royalty anyways so to hell with the throne.

You cried because a total stranger died?

Whatever happened to stiff upper lip. Frankly, the only person to show any sort of decorum over the whole event was the Queen, and even she caved at the end.

And for the record I'll laugh when the queen dies too. They are all inbred parasites.
Hey numpty:
Your monarchy gives your country a Queen who is:

an impartial symbolic Head of State above politics, commercial and factional interests

a focus for national unity, national awards and honours and national institutions
a Head of State whom we share with 16 other independent countries because she is their Queen too and that links us all together amazingly and most valuably.

the Head of the Commonwealth because all 54 countries recognise her as this and so she is a special unifying symbol for them too

the centrepiece of colourful non-political ceremonial and national celebrations
separate from the Head of Government (the Prime Minister), unlike in some countries where the two are combined, often with difficulty

able to give impartial non-political support to the work of a wide range of different types of organizations, faiths, charities, artists, craftsmen etc

a Head of State completely under the democratic control of Parliament but not having to change every few years in divisive elections

at the head of a Royal Family who can share the duties and represent the Queen

a constant, lasting symbolic head of the country with links back through our whole history and assured lines of continuity into the future

a worldwide well-known and respected symbol of our country carrying out State Visits and goodwill tours in other countries

An article on the cost of monarchy:

THE COST OF THE MONARCHY
Compares most favourably with costs of Heads of State elsewhere.

There are many misunderstandings about the cost of the monarchy, many of them perpetuated by republicans and journalists who deliberately give inaccurate information. For example, as to how many members of the royal family are receiving income from the Civil List. The following sets out to explain the facts and to equip members to challenge any inaccuracies which they see or hear in the media.

The Queen and her household has four sources of funding-the Civil List, Grant-in-aid, the Privy Purse and private income. The first two, which cover official expenditure, are not taxed. The Privy Purse is fully taxable subject to a deduction for official expenditure. The Queen pays tax on her personal income and capital gains. The Civil List is the sum provided by Parliament to meet the official expenses of the Queen as Head of State. About 70 per cent of Civil List expenditure goes to pay the salaries of staff working directly for the Queen. Their duties include dealing with state papers and organising the Queen's public engagements, meetings, receptions and official entertainment including royal garden parties. In other words the whole range of activities expected of the head of state, whether president or monarch.

The £132.9 million profit of the Crown Estate for the year ending March 31st, 2000 was paid to the Exchequer for the benefit of taxpayers. This sum far exceeds the total cost of the monarchy. The Queen's Civil List has been fixed at £9.7 million per annum until 2011. Full details of royal household expenditure are published. A summary of these follows. The annual cost of the monarchy is approximately £37 million.

Prince Philip is the only member of the royal family to receive an annuity from the Civil List of £359,000. The annuities of other members of the Royal Family who carry out engagements are provided by the Queen from the Privy Purse. The Revenue for this is obtained from the Duchy of Lancaster, an independent possession of the Sovereign since 1399. It is not included in the National Asset Register of government holdings published by the Treasury. The Prince of Wales derives his income on which he pays tax. The occupied royal palaces- principally Buckingham Palace, St. James's Palace, Clarence House, parts of Kensington Palace and Windsor Castle - are funded by grant-in-aid. Obviously they would be maintained by the state whether Britain were a monarchy or not. The unoccupied palaces such as the Tower of London and Hampton Court Palace are maintained from visitor admissions.

Royal transport, required to enable the royal family to carry out almost 3,000 engagements year is also funded by grant-in-aid. Of course official travel would have to be paid for if Britain were a republic.

Privately the Queen owns Balmoral and Sandringham and some smaller properties. Estimates of the Queen's wealth often mistakenly includes items which are held by the Queen as sovereign. These include the royal palaces and art collections. It is interesting to note that far from being Britain's wealthiest person the Queen is 105th on the Sunday Times 2001 Rich List!

In republics not only do presidents have to be supported financially, as do former presidents and widows, but their official duties have to be paid for and official and historic residences maintained. And there is the added expense of periodic elections. Republics show great reluctance in publishing the cost of the heads of state but the cost of the British monarchy compares extremely favourably.


Head of State Expenditure met from Public Funds
Year to 31st March 2003

Year to 31st March 2003 2002

£m £m
The Queen’s Civil List * 9.7 8.2
Parliamentary Annuities 0.4 1.0
Grants-in-aid 21.4 21.1
Expenditure met directly by Government Departments
and the Crown Estate 4.7 5.0
Total 36.2 35.3

Head of State expenditure is met from public funds in exchange for the surrender by The Queen of the revenue from the Crown Estate.
Head of State expenditure for 2002-03, at £36.2 million, is 2.5% higher than in the previous year (a decrease of 0.6% in real terms). The £0.9 million increase is mainly attributable to increased expenditure on the Property Services Grant-in-aid with a large building project (the refurbishment of Clarence House) undertaken during the year, expenditure on The Queen’s Golden Jubilee and increased Information Technology expenditure. This is offset by a reduction in Parliamentary Annuities following the death of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother and reduced spending on ceremonial occasions since there were no State Visits during 2002-03.
Head of State expenditure has reduced from £87.3 million (expressed in current pounds) in 1991-92, a reduction of 59%.
Head of State expenditure excludes the costs of Police and Army security and of Armed Services ceremonial, as figures are not available.
Figures are for calendar years 2002 and 2001

The Queen's Civil List


Year to 31st December 2002 2001

£000 £000
9,759 8,153

The Civil List is the funding provided by Parliament, on a 10 yearly cycle, to meet the central staff costs and running expenses of Her Majesty’s official Household. 70% of the Civil List is spent on salaries and other employment costs. Civil List expenditure increased by 19.7% during 2002 as a result of the Golden Jubilee (£0.4 million mainly temporary staff )x, increased Information Technology expenditure (£0.2 million), inflationary increases and the full year impact of the transfer of expenditure to the Civil List from other funding sources (£0.5 million). This transfer was with effect from 1st April 2001, to utilise the Civil List reserve brought forward at the beginning of this 10 year funding period. Because the Civil List and the other
funding sources have different financial year ends, only nine months of this expenditure is charged to the Civil List in 2001 and the full impact seen in 2002. The expenditure transferred is principally in respect of: (a)
pension contributions for Civil List staff (from the Consolidated Fund), (b) porters and non-domestic cleaners at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, furnishings and the State Apartments at St. James’s Palace (from
the Property Services Grant-in-aid), and (c) information technology equipment (from the Cabinet Office).
A detailed annual report showing how the Civil List has been spent during 2002 is available from the Deputy Treasurer to The Queen, Buckingham Palace, London SW1A 1AA.

Parliamentary Annuities

Year to 31st March 2003 2002

£000 £000
359 1,000

The Parliamentary Annuity was paid to The Duke of Edinburgh (and also Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother in 2001-02). The annuity was primarily to meet official expenses incurred in carrying out his public
duties. Parliamentary Annuities paid to other Members of the Royal Family are reimbursed by The Queen.

Grants-In-Aid

Year to 31st March 2003 2002

£000 £000
Property Services 16,627 15,522
Communications and Information 526 643
Travel by Air and Rai l 4,241 4,936
Total 21,394 21,101

Grants-in-aid are provided to the Royal Household annually by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for Property Services and Communications and Information, and by the Department for Transport for Travel by Air and Rail.

Property Services

The Grant-in-aid is to meet the cost of property maintenance, and of utilities, telephones and related services, at: Buckingham Palace, St. James’s Palace, Clarence House and Marlborough House Mews, the residential and
office areas of Kensington Palace, the Royal Mews and Royal Paddocks at Hampton Court, and Windsor Castle and buildings in the Home and Great Parks at Windsor. These Palaces and buildings are used by The Queen in fulfilling the role and functions of Head of State, and also need to be maintained as important parts of the national heritage. Approximately 1,000 people work in them, with approximately 70,000 guests annually and 1.6 million paying visitors. The most significant project during 2002-03 was the refurbishment of Clarence House which is due for completion in summer 2003.
x Government Departments’ expenditure in support of the Golden Jubilee will be set out in “Her Majesty The Queen’s Golden Jubilee: Official Report” to be published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

Communications and Information
The Grant-in-aid is to meet the cost of communication and information services in connection with official royal functions and engagements in England and Scotland. Expenditure is incurred principally in respect of
press officer support for royal visits (at 99 locations during 2002-03) and the development and maintenance of the Royal Website (there were 60 million page references in 2002-03).

Royal Travel
The Grant-in-aid is to meet the cost of official royal travel by air and rail. It is an important part of The Queen’s role as Sovereign, supported by the Royal Family, to act as a focal point for national life and to bring
people together across all sectors of society. Approximately 2,300 official engagements were undertaken by Members of the Royal Family in 2002-03. These involved a significant amount of travel that needs to be undertaken in a way which meets efficiency, security and presentational requirements.
Detailed annual reports on how the Grants-in-aid have been spent are available from the Deputy Treasurer to The Queen, Buckingham Palace, London SW1A 1AA.

Expenditure Directly by Government Departments and the Crown Estate

Year to 31st March 2003 2002


£000 £000
Administration of honours 410 432
Equerries and orderlies 957 914
Maintenance of the Palace of Holyroodhouse 2,253 2,147
State Visits to and by The Queen and liaison
with the Diplomatic Corps 310 575
Ceremonial occasions 52 312
Maintenance of the Home Park at Windsor Castle 587 592
Notional pension contributions 43 45
Other 56 24
Total * 4,668 5,041



Administration of honours
This expenditure is to meet the cost of the Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood. It is responsible for administering and maintaining the records of the Orders of Chivalry, for organising the investitures at which the honours are presented by The Queen and for the distribution of the insignia.

Equerries and orderlies
Equerries and orderlies are seconded from the Armed Services to assist The Queen and other Members of the Royal Family in undertaking their official duties. Baggage transport is also charged to this heading.

Maintenance of the Palace of Holyroodhouse
The Palace of Holyroodhouse is The Queen’s official residence in Scotland. Members of the Royal Family stay there for several weeks during the year, while undertaking official duties. The Palace is also open to the public with 232,000 paying visitors in 2002-03. The Queen opened the new Queen’s Gallery on 30th November 2002 which attracted 28,000 paying visitors in 2002-03.
• Figures not audited

State Visits to and by The Queen and liaison with the Diplomatic Corps
During 2002-03 The Queen made a Royal Visit to Canada. In 2001-02 there were two outward State/Royal Visits and two inward State Visits. The Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps is responsible for liaison with the
Diplomatic Corps in London. An annual reception for the Diplomatic Corps is held at Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle.

Ceremonial occasions
The costs are to provide stands, barriers, flags, daises and canopies for State Visits and other ceremonial occasions. The decrease in expenditure reflects the fact that there were no inward State Visits in 2002-03 and two in 2001-02.

Maintenance of the Home Park at Windsor Castle
The Crown Estate is responsible for the maintenance of the Home Park at Windsor Castle and for its day-today security. The Home Park provides accommodation and sports grounds for staff. Part of it is farmed with
rent payable by the Privy Purse to the Crown Estate.

Costs Funded From Other Sources

Duchy of Lancaster
Income from the Duchy of Lancaster, which is subject to tax in the normal way, funds the Privy Purse. It is The Queen’s private income although largely used by Her Majesty to meet official expenditure, in particular
reimbursing Parliamentary Annuities and meeting expenses of other Members of the Royal Family. The Privy Purse also pays for the upkeep of Balmoral, The Queen’s estate in Scotland. Accounts for the Duchy of
Lancaster are published and laid before Parliament annually.

Duchy of Cornwall
Income from the Duchy of Cornwall, which is also subject to tax in the normal way, funds the official duties of The Prince of Wales. Accounts for the Duchy of Cornwall are published and laid before Parliament annually.

The Royal Collection
The Royal Collection consists of works of art of all kinds and is held by The Queen as Sovereign in trust for her successors and for the nation. All costs, except for some building occupancy costs, are met by the Royal
Collection Trust from visitor admissions to the occupied palaces and from related activities. Five million people saw the Royal Collection in royal palaces during 2002-03. In addition over 1,300 items were loaned
to special exhibitions or formed part of the Royal Collection’s own travelling exhibitions. During 2002-03 £872,000 was spent on conserving items from the Collection and £2.1 million on new galleries, in which
works of art from the Collection are displayed to the public. The Royal Collection receives no funding from the Government or the National Lottery.

Few Quotations in Support of Monarchy:

I devote all my attentions to improving the welfare of my subjects, since I wish to save my soul and go to Heaven.
King Charles III of Spain, 1750.
If a nation does not want a monarchy, change the nation’s mind. If a nation does not need a monarchy, change the nation’s needs.
Jan Christian Smuts, Prime Minister of South Africa 1939-1948.

I am a true servant of my King and country, not only as a dutiful subject but because I am a convinced monarchist, politically and intellectually. I mean by that, quite apart from myself and my relationship to my Bavarian and German fatherland, I believe monarchy to be the most successful form of government that the history of mankind has known.
Adolf von Harnier, on trial for treason, Germany 1938.

If the Allies at the peace table at Versailles had allowed a Hohenzollern, a Wittelsbach and a Habsburg to return to their thrones, there would have been no Hitler. A democratic basis of society might have been preserved by a crowned Weimar in contact with the victorious Allies.”
Winston Churchill, 26th April 1946.

In Italy they are already speaking about a republic, but keep in mind that there is nothing less suited to Italians...... The Italians are individualists and a republic will become the cause of confusion and disorder. Certainly of corruption. I have no doubt of it. When all this comes to pass who will profit from it?
King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy, 10th April 1944.

Remember that life is made up of loyalty: loyalty to your friends; loyalty to things beautiful and good; loyalty to the country in which you live; loyalty to your King; and above all, for this holds all other loyalties together, loyalty to God.
Queen Mary, Buckingham Palace, 23rd March 1923.

Politicians debating the future of our monarchy resemble a poachers’ convention deliberating on the future role of the gamekeeper.
Malcolm Winram, The Times, 9th March 1996.

(King George VI) represented, for us, a model of character and deportment for those in high places. Our respect for him as an inspirational force was equalled by our affection for him as a gentle human being.
General Dwight D Eisenhower, 7th February 1952.

Impartiality and continuity are important aspects of government, and it is doubtful whether any form of democratic government yet discovered provides these to any greater extent than does constitutional monarchy
Sydney D Bailey, British Parliamentary Democracy, Harrap, 1959.

This war would never have come unless, under American and modernising pressure, we had driven the Habsburgs out of Austria and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany. By making these vacuums we gave the opening for the Hitlerite monster to crawl out of its sewer on to the vacant thrones. No doubt these views are very unfashionable....
Winston Churchill, 8th April 1945.

The public are sick and tired of politics, they are sick and tired of the machinations of elected office in a media age, and I think it’s quite good having a Head of State that’s completely to one side of that.
Simon Upton, New Zealand Environment Minister, March 1994.

I notice that the constitutional monarchies are the most democratic countries of Europe. I can’t understand how there could be any debate about it.
Jack Lang, French Minister of Culture, October 1993.

If constitutional monarchy were to come to an end in Britain, parliamentary democracy would probably not survive it. It is, after all, through the monarchy that parliamentary control over the armed forces is mediated and maintained.
Conor Cruise O’Brien, The Independent, 25th June 1993.

I am personally still convinced that there are safeguards in the constitutional monarchy that an elected head of state just would not possess.
Roger Stott MP, The Independent on Sunday, 7th September 1997.

The Prince of Wales, as so often, has demonstrated his common sense in the words he spoke on Wednesday (during his visit to southern Africa). His demeanour is a perfect illustration of the benefits of a constitutional monarchy. In the heat of euphoria, in the midst of all the blather about a “new” this and a “new” that, his is a message of modernisation and wisdom. We would do well to heed it.”
Kwasi Kwarteng, The Daily Telegraph, 31st October 1997.

Anyone who fears that by becoming a republic we would condemn ourselves to a presidency held by a perpetual succession of superannuated politicians - at the moment presumably a choice between Heath, Kinnock, Thatcher and Major - is an optimist.

The alternative nightmare scenario looks not to the European model but to the American, where the essentials for election to the presidency appear to be ruthless ambition, access to vast wealth, reckless promises of patronage and preferment, effective control of a big slice of the media and a plausible TV manner.

We don’t know when we are well off.
Gordon Medcalf, The Independent, 10th September 1997.

The Queen Mother is one who knows how to be Queen, how to preserve mystery and yet be accessible, one who knows how to epitomise the higher aspirations of a people, yet retain both humanity and humour.
Sir Roy Strong, January 1998.

I write by the light of two eternal truths: religion and monarchy, those twin essentials affirmed by contemporary events, and towards which every intelligent author should seek to direct our country.
Honore de Balzac, 1842.

Monarchy is the one system of government where power is exercised for the good of all.
Aristotle, 322-384 BC.

Being a nation of hypocrites, we have for years looked to the Royal Family to embody the values we’re not prepared to embody ourselves.
Serena Mackesy, The Independent, 10th December 1996.

The Queen’s appearances abroad do more in a day to gain goodwill for Britain than all the politicians and diplomats lumped together could achieve in years.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home (Prime Minister 1963-64).

Why has destiny willed the downfall of this Sovereign? He is endowed with every kingly quality; he is courageous, generous, and magnanimous; he has a fine intellect and a well-balanced mind; and his name bears the tradition of a thousand years of history. Who better than he to symbolise the unity of the country, and act as supreme moderator in party strife?
Aldo Castellani, Physician to Umberto II of Italy, June 1946.

The Tarquins, meanwhile, had taken refuge at the court of Lars Porsena, the King of Clusium. By every means in their power they tried to win his support, now begging him not to allow fellow Etruscans, men of the same blood as himself, to continue living in penniless exile, now warning him of the dangerous consequences of letting republicanism go unavenged. The expulsion of kings they urged, once it had begun, might well become common practice; liberty was an attractive idea, and unless reigning monarchs defended their thrones as vigorously as states now seemed to be trying to destroy them, all order and subordination would collapse; nothing would be left in any country but flat equality; greatness and eminence would be gone for ever. Monarchy, the noblest thing in heaven or on earth, was nearing its end.
Livy, The History of Rome from its Foundation, Book II.

Those who imagine that a politician would make a better figurehead than a hereditary monarch might perhaps make the acquaintance of more politicians.
Baroness Thatcher, November 1995.

Canadians should realise when they are well off under the Monarchy. For the vast majority of Canadians, being a Monarchy is probably the only form of government acceptable to them. I have always been for parliamentary democracy and I think the institution of Monarchy with the Queen heading it all has served Canada well.
Pierre Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, 1973.

If to be a Republican is to hold, as a matter of theory at least, that is the best government for a free and intelligent people in which merit is to be preferred to birth, then I hold it an honour to be associated with nearly all the greatest thinkers of the country and to be a Republican. But if a Republican is one who would thrust aside the opinion and affront the sentiment of a huge majority of the nation, merely to carry to a logical conclusion an abstract theory, then I am far from being a Republican as any man can be.
Rt Hon Joseph Chamberlain (1836-1914) in 1875.

The State functions more easily if it can be personified. An elected President who has stepped out of politics, like the French President, is no substitute for a King who has stepped in by right of inheritance. Still less is an active politician, like the President of the United States, a substitute. We can damn the Government and cheer the King.
W Ivor Jennings, The British Constitution, 1943.

Modern monarchs neither have nor need executive power. Integrity and continuity are their stock in trade. These qualities are becoming more precious when European political parties, many of them in power for a decade or more, are increasingly judged arrogant or corrupt or both. Politicians could with profit learn not to treat modesty as merely a royal prerogative.
Editorial, The Times, 2nd August 1993.

To be a King is dedication, patience and moderation, self-denial, statesmanship, national unity and, above all, having faith in one’s people.
HM King Simeon II of the Bulgarians, October 1968.

The monarchy is a political referee, not a political player, and there is a lot of sense in choosing the referee by a different principle from the players. It lessens the danger that the referee might try to start playing.
Earl Russell, The Spectator, 11th January 1997.

Monarchy is first proved to be the true and rightful form of government. Men’s objects are best attained during universal peace: this is possible only under a monarch. And as he is the image of the divine unity, so man is through him made one, and brought most near to God. There must, in every system of forces, be a ‘primum mobile’; to be perfect, every organisation must have a centre, into which all is gathered, by which all is controlled. Justice is best secured by a supreme arbiter of disputes, himself untempted by ambition, since his dominion is already bounded only by ocean. Man is best and happiest when he is most free; to be free is to exist for one’s own sake. To this noblest end does the monarch and he alone guide us; other forms of government are perverted, and exist for the benefit of some class; he seeks the good of all alike, being to that very end appointed.
James Bryce’s summary of Dante’s De Monarchia.

I think it is a misconception to imagine that the monarchy exists in the interests of the monarch. It doesn’t. It exists in the interests of the people.
HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1969.

The fact that the Monarchy can unify in this way - can comfort and exhilarate and embrace - remains, as Cameron (James Cameron, republican journalist) put it, its great ‘gesture to all the forces of logic’, the power before which the neat rationality of republicanism wilts.
Robert Harris, Mail on Sunday, 7th September 1997.

For any country it is better to have a monarch than an elected president of the republic ..... monarchies provide the continuity of states, while prime ministers come and go. Elections are all very well for the designation of the prime minister or of the party which should take power, but not for the Head of State, who should be above party.

(Unlike a president) in all probability the monarch who succeeds to the throne has been trained for this exalted post by having spent many years by the side of his predecessor.

A monarch, however, cannot declare that he is ready to throw in his hand. The personal conveniences of sovereigns are of little importance. What is important is that Great Britain needs them.
George Brown (Foreign Secretary in the Wilson government), Daily Mail, November 1969.

Monarchy can easily be debunked, but watch the faces, mark well the debunkers. These are the men whose taproot in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.
C S Lewis.

The Royal tour (of South Africa) gives reassurance that when it comes to flying the flag nobody does it quite as well as the Queen.
The Guardian, 22nd March 1995.

A priest who is not a monarchist is not worthy to stand at the altar table. The priest who is a republican is always a man of poor faith. God himself anoints the monarch to be head of the kingdom, while the president is elected by the pride of the people. The king stays in power by implementing God’s commandments, while the president does so by pleasing those who rule. The king brings his faithful subjects to God, while the president takes them away from God.
Neomartyr Vladimir, Metropolitan of Kiev, tortured and killed by Bolsheviks on 7th February 1918.

The Queen was helpful, lively, fascinating to talk to, and very, very funny. The idea that she is out of touch is nonsense. Robert Wraith, painter of Her Majesty’s portrait, May 1998.

The monarchical principle is laughed at by vulgar and foolish people in all the suburbs of Europe. It is hated in all the gutters of the world. The reason is simple. It enshrines with a fitting dignity and elaboration the principle of authority as something independent of this or that politician. It places it above attack. It symbolises and consecrates an attitude of mind essential to the happiness of peoples.
D’Alvarez, Storm Over Europe, by Douglas Jerrold (1930), Chapter XII.

The British love their Queen, their Queen Mother, Prince Charles, and the comforting security of their hereditary constitutional monarchy, an institution of which the characters are beyond the manipulation of man, an institution guaranteeing continuity, overriding the dissensions of politics. The best governments are constitutional monarchies, and we may yet see some restored in eastern Europe.
Lord Menuhin, The Daily Telegraph, 2nd July 1998.

In republicks there is not a respect for authority, but a fear of power.
Dr Samuel Johnson (Boswell’s Life, p 464).

The best reason why Monarchy is a strong government is that it is an intelligible government. The mass of mankind understand it, and they hardly anywhere in the world understand any other.
Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution, 1867.

I think the family has got to streamline itself but the core members have a brand personality that a business would die for. You might say they’re the brand identity of Britain: ask any American what they’d give to have a Royal Family.
Jack Stevens, advertising agent, The Independent, 30th June 1998.

Above the ebb and flow of party strife, the rise and fall of ministries, and individuals, the changes of public opinion or public fortune, the British Monarchy presides, ancient, calm and supreme within its function, over all the treasures that have been saved from the past and all the glories we write in the annals of our country.
Sir Winston Churchill.

To be a king and wear a crown is more glorious to them that see it than it is a pleasure to them that bear it.
Queen Elizabeth I.

Parliaments and Ministers pass, but she abides in lifelong duty, and she is to them as the oak in the forest is to the annual harvest in the field.
William Gladstone, writing about Queen Victoria.

Russia under Nicholas II, with all the survivals of feudalism, had opposition political parties, independent trade unions and newspapers, a rather radical parliament and a modern legal system. Its agriculture was on the level of the USA, with industry rapidly approaching the West European level.

In the USSR there was total tyranny, no political liberties and practically no human rights. Its economy was not viable; agriculture was destroyed. The terror against the population reached a scope unprecedented in history.

No wonder many Russians look back at Tsarist Russia as a paradise lost.
Oleg Gordievsky, letter to The Independent, 21st July 1998.

Americans also seem to believe that the monarchy is a kind of mediaeval hangover, encumbered by premodern notions of decorum; the reality is that the British monarchy, for good or ill, is a modern political institution - perhaps the first modern political institution.
Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker, September 29th 1997.

There is nothing about which I am more anxious than my country, and for its sake I am willing to die ten deaths, if that be possible.
Queen Elizabeth I, in 1564.

Parliamentary monarchy fulfils a role which an elected president never can. It formally limits the politicians’ thirst for power because with it the supreme office of the state is occupied once and for all.
Max Weber, German economist.

Anyone who has walked through the deserted Palaces of Versailles or Vienna realise how much a part of the life of a nation is lost when a monarchy is abolished. If Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle were transformed into museums, if one politician competed against another for the position of President of the Republic, Britain would be a sadder and less interesting place. Our politicians are not men such as could challenge more than a thousand years of history!
William Rees-Mogg, former Editor of The Times.

[A] king is a king, not because he is rich and powerful, not because he is a successful politician, not because he belongs to a particular creed or to a national group. He is King because he is born. And in choosing to leave the selection of their head of state to this most common denominator in the world - the accident of birth - Canadians implicitly proclaim their faith in human equality; their hope for the triumph of nature over political manoeuvre, over social and financial interest; for the victory of the human person.
Jacques Monet, Canadian historian.

It is helpful when the personality of the head of state is not disputed or contested periodically. The monarch is the incarnation of popular hope and the repository of national legitimacy.
Henri, Comte de Paris (1908-1999).

Have a care over my people. You have my people - do you that which I ought to do. They are my people. Every man oppresseth and spoileth them without mercy. They cannot revenge their quarrel, nor help themselves. See unto them - see unto them, for they are my charge. I charge you, even as God hath charged me. I care not for myself; my life is not dear to me. My care is for my people. I pray God, whoever succeedeth me, be as careful of them as I am.”
Queen Elizabeth I, addressing her judges, 1559.

No practising politician could possibly hope to be more deeply and widely informed about domestic, Commonwealth and international affairs than The Queen. She has sources of information available to nobody else.
James Callaghan, British Prime Minister 1976-79.

Not to be a republican at 20 shows lack of heart. To be one at 30 shows lack of head.
Francois Guizot, French statesman 1787-1874.

The hereditary head of state is like the senior member of a larger household, representing the national family and its ancestral inheritance while standing above its internal disputes and intervening only if a major emergency threatens its survival.
Wade Smith, letter to The Daily Telegraph, 16th November 1999.

The value of a constitutional monarchy is to provide a figurehead to embody a sense of nationhood beyond the divisions of temporal political argument. Republicans, who choose to give the impression that the British enjoy as much power as French peasants in the reign of Louis XVI, believe that in a democracy just about everything that moves has to be elected. This callow approach would result in a polarised and unpleasant society, of which the prime example is the United States.
Melanie Phillips, The Sunday Times, 7th November 1999.

Most Australians - contrary to what is constantly claimed - are not yet republicans. The Queen, touring the country with dignity at this slightly touchy time, says that she sees herself as the servant of the Australian Constitution and of the people. It is fair to suggest that many of Australia’s republican leaders do not quite see themselves as so answerable.
Geoffrey Blainey, The Age, March 2000.

I had been told the Queen is not interested in anything political and speaks only on social issues. On the contrary, the Queen is very well informed on a number of international issues and on security matters.
Vladimir Putin, Russian president-elect, 18th April 2000.

Q is for the Queen who, in half a century, hasn’t put a foot wrong once. Her accumulated wisdom is extraordinary. Her charm is infinite. She is duty personified.
The Duke of Devonshire, The Sunday Telegraph, 23rd April 2000.

All of us who come here [to the UK] do so because the notion of Britishness is far more than merely ethnic - or at least we think it is. You may not go on about it as much as Americans do, but you also have a set of ideas attached to your national identity, and we admire them. We most admire, in fact, those bits of your national identity which you seem most keen on discarding: not just boring old political liberty and economic freedom, which we could get in America or lots of other places, but history, tradition, centuries of stability, tolerance of eccentricity, cars which drive on the wrong side of the road, flat green lawns and, above all, a Queen, together with her Heirs and Successors. After spending the first part of my life being a mere citizen, I am delighted to find myself a subject as well.
Anne Applebaum (on becoming a British subject), The Spectator, 6th May 2000.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don’t think I really came to appreciate what royalty meant to you Brits until I came to Wimbledon, with all its pomp and circumstance. It is tradition, it is such an important factor here and you start thinking it’s not bad when you see the effect it has on people. I suppose the monarchy is a bit like grass at Wimbledon. How long will it last? My guess is that they will both go on for many, many years to come.
John McEnroe, The Sunday Telegraph, 2nd July 2000.

I have previously observed that British republicans seem to have a blind spot about the family: they do not grasp that the Royal Family touches some chord in most of us linked with family feeling. Even as an Irishwoman, I feel a warm sense of maternal protectiveness when I pass Buckingham Palace and see the Royal Standard flying. The Queen is at home, and a benign matriarchal wisdom prevails over the land.
Mary Kenny, The Daily Telegraph, 1st July 2000.

(Kaiser Franz Josef) was especially noted for his exceptional attitude to Jewish soldiers serving in the Austrian army, concerning himself over the availability of kosher food of the highest standard, assuring them of access to the necessary religious articles and ensuring unhindered Sabbath observance. .... Many of the world’s Jews referred to him as “The King of Jerusalem.”
Menachem Gerlitz, The Heavenly City p.210, published 1979.

They tell us that all Kings are bad; that God never made a King; and that all Kings are very expensive. But, that all Kings are bad cannot be true: because God himself is one of them; he calls himself King of Kings; which not only shows us he is a King, but he has other Kings under him: he is never called King of Republics. The Scripture calls Kings, the Lord’s Anointed; but who ever heard of an anointed Republic?
Association Papers, London, 1793.

Britain’s constitutional monarchy is one of its greatest strengths as well as one of its greatest attractions. The monarch is detached from party politics in a way no president could be. For years, the existence of a monarchy was the guarantee that no would-be dictator could stage a coup by deploying troops, as the monarch controls the armed services. No latter-day Cromwell could win power by force. We have had no civil war since Cromwell’s and much of that is due to having had a constitutional monarchy as a focus of loyalty.
Ann Widdecombe MP, BBC History Magazine, September 2000.

(Europe’s monarchs are) all there to listen to the voice of the people and, without influencing politics, to protect the nation. Their example gives some credibility to those who think that restoration of King Michael of Romania might help heal recent wounds. Does the monarchy have a future? It’s a very definite reality in today’s Europe, and without it Europe would be a very different place.
Jean-Yves Masson, Eurostar Magazine, Autumn 2000.

White pride world wide!

Why is it that all the fascist scum scuttles back into daylight nowadays?

Proving in his own subtle way that at least some of the British Royal House support the white man in his struggle against the forces of evil and savagery in this dark age. He continues in the proud tradition of his great great uncle Edward the 8th, the last true English king forced out for daring to stand for right against the traitors in Parliment before the travesty of WW2.

Yes. He was so proud of his political beliefs that he has publicly apologised to the UK and the world for his insensitivity and poor choice of costume.

:rolleyes:

And two weeks before his grandmother is to appear at a memorial for those murdered by the Nazis in World War II. Can we say: Youth, and lack of thinking about How It Will Look?

Great thread great posters I love it

Hitler also was pretty sure that the Aryans, thus the Germans...were descendants of the Atlanteans.
He believed that if the "impure" blood were removed from the genepool, that the German people would regain their "superpowers".

atlanta's a nice city, but i'm pretty sure its not the ancestral home of the white man. most of the really wacky nazi theories came from hess, hitler is often accused of believing them when he just tolerated hess' eccentricities.

atlanta's a nice city, but i'm pretty sure its not the ancestral home of the white man.

Actually, they were talking about Atlantis, the mythical city-state that sank beneath the ocean, not Atlanta, GA.

Actually, they were talking about Atlantis, the mythical city-state that sank beneath the ocean, not Atlanta, GA.
i've seen conclusive proof that plato was actually talking about atlanta, it is beyond the gates of hercules(or was that pillars... meh) after all. sure it hasn't sunk into the ocean recently but in the land of wayback who knows.

i've seen conclusive proof that plato was actually talking about atlanta, it is beyond the gates of hercules(or was that pillars... meh) after all. sure it hasn't sunk into the ocean recently but in the land of wayback who knows.

Source, please?

Source, please? uhmmm, well... the sources are secret. i didn't just make that up... no siree , rock solid evidence hiden away in my secret sources...

uhmmm, well... the sources are secret. i didn't just make that up... no siree , rock solid evidence hiden away in my secret sources...

:)

Do my a favor, please, NV -- delete ze spammer's link in your post? I'm on the way to class, and would rather not give the site the publicity they crave.

You cried because a total stranger died?

NO! I cried becaue I know what Princess Diana was involved in making the world a better place for all of humanity. Her death shook the world.

Whatever happened to stiff upper lip. Frankly, the only person to show any sort of decorum over the whole event was the Queen, and even she caved at the end.

Because it was painful. After all, she was the mother of her grandchildren.

And for the record I'll laugh when the queen dies too. They are all inbred parasites.

That is your opinion. I may not like the monarch, after all, it is only Britain, but I will mourn with the British People a they mourned the death of General/President George Washington!

Ok, at first I believed it was sarcasm but it seems we actually have a Nazi wannabe. Possibly the first real one I've seen here. I have to make a picture to tell my story to future grandchildren.

Seriously, there really are no real nazis anymore. The Nazis, or National Socialists of Germany have been wiped out in 1945 and by the Neurenburg trails. The people who supported Hitler are either on the wrong side of the grass or fossilized.

What remains of the fascist and Nazi manifesto are random street goons who have nothing better to do than harras others with a different skin color. They call themselves neo-Nazis just for the shock value. They have no real idea what was appealing about the National Socialists because the real socialist governments of Europe removed all traces of the Great Depression. They don't know what life was like in the party, the SS or the Wermacht. They never even felt the hysterical fury of the Kristalnacht. They did not welcome the real Adolf Hitler into Vienna.

For that parts, they don't know about the liquidation of the SA and its gay commander. They don't know why Mussolinie also thought Hitler was a nutcase and would rather not share the Italian-Austrian border with him. They don't know about the squabling Balkan (fascist) states that either allied or defied Hitler. They don't know the dilemma of the Slavs and Russians and how they resisted Germany because of its known anti-Slav racist theory. They don't know that Scandinavians and Dutch hated how Hitler referred to them as 'brothers' and 'prime aryans'. They don't know why they should hate black. They forget who else needs to die according to their twisted ideology. They forget they cannot be Nazis if they're not German. They forget that the Germans themselves are now the greatest anti-nazis on the planet!

What's even more disgusting is that countries that opposed Germany like Belgium, America, Russia, Britain, etc. now have more of these braindead wannabe nazis than Germany itself. I guess it's not obvious yet: Nazi-ism is a deathwish, and a powerless one thankfully.

Other Jews recognise that they are not a race, but instead a religious community, and the standard used to determine whether someone is a Jew is whether they are accepted as one by that religious community.
Also there are Jews who believe one is a Jew if one of the parents, mom or dad, is Jewish.

You english are crazy! It was a costume party, whay cant he go as a Nazi officer? And don't give me that WWII crap. It was just for fun and that is why he did it.

Also there are Jews who believe one is a Jew if one of the parents, mom or dad, is Jewish.

The relevant point being that they are thus Jewish, not half-Jewish, or a quarter-Jewish if it were one of their grandparents.

any 1 who supports the nazis or there facist beliefs are fools, the nazi belief and ideology died when hitler pulled the trigger 60 years ago, these days the neo-nazis and facists that exist hide in dark corners hoping 1 day they can make a grand return and purify there nation how wrong they r there will never b another nazi nation your hopes and dreams are miss guided

Harry is third in line for the throne but I hope to God he dies before he gets the chance to take it. He has such poor judgement that I wouldn't trust him to do a good job, even though it is more symbolic now. Heil Prince Harry!

prince harry is an ass, he has digraced his family blood line for the last time he should not get 2 any postion of power in england or the british military

Umm... hate to break it to you, but Nazis don't exist anymore. You see, it was Germany's National Socialist Party, and at the end of World War II, it was disbanded and thrown into the wind like ashes. So.... Nazis don't really control anything. There are kids not even young enough to vote who are wanna-be Nazis, there are NEO-Nazis whom don't even know what the term Nazi really means and call their little gathering of racists thugs such because they can't think of something original, but Nazis? No, they're only in the history books buddy.

Secondly, it was a costume party. I mean, c'mon. Throw another one and he'll come as General McAurthur or King Aurthur for that matter. He isn't showing any pride or "friend" of the Aryan race in the royal house, he's probably wearing it as a means of making fun of wanna-be Nazis watching him on the news, since Britain did hold them off all during the war and defied them time and again.

So that's my two cents right there. Honestly you really shouldn't jump for joy over simple speculation. The British were practically the sworn enemy of the Nazis, and no one, and I mean NO ONE in the royal family would support or promote the party that nearly destroyed their homeland. There, I'm done for now.
Hail, the Guy who said just what I was going to say!

What a stupid young man.

Now we´d only need Jenna Bush pose as Leni Riefenstahl and we´d have a really wonderful couple. o_O

salazar ansd franco were fascists very cozy with hitler but nuetral in the war and they remained in unbroken power until the 70s. learn a little history there sluggo.
I can scarcely believe in your claim to education, given how completely mis-punctuated your sentences are. Shall we try that again?

Salazar ansd Franco were fascists - very cozy with Hitler, but neutral in the war - and they remained in unbroken power until the 70s. Learn a little history there, Sluggo.

Had you written the above, instead of what you did, I would have believed that you yourself have actually read your Nazi history. As it is, I doubt you've even read Mein Kampf.

First, the guy who made this thread is...well, dense. To think you (Nazis) have OMG!! dominated the British crown because Prince Harry wore a swastika on a shirt for a costume party is absolutely ludicrous.

Second, for anyone that is outraged, I feel sorry for you. It's not like the guy matters anyway. He's heir to the British throne. God forbid a guy that wore a swastika serves tea and says, "The Crown welcomes you," to foreign guests.

Honestly, I despise what Adolf Hitler was, and I am very opposed to the general Nazi ideals of purity and oppression of those who are "impure". It's all ridiculous, and if anyone wants to challenge me on this, take some food for thought. My grandmother's whole family, save her sister and her aunt who lived in Chicago at the time, died because of the Nazis. Not directly, because they were hit by friendly fire, but had they not been on that work camp in Nuremburg, Germany, I'd probably have a larger family.

And considering my hatred for what Hitler pronounced as good, I honestly couldn't give a rat's ass about Prince Harry and his costume party swastika. Get over it. It's not an issue. It's boring, annoying, and silly. He has no real political power. He is meaningless in the British Parliament and world politics. Now, let's look at Prince William and admire his beauty. :p

Yes, I realize that wearing a Nazi uniform to a costume party doesn't say anything about Harry's actual political beliefs. But for someone who is quite aware he's always in the spotlight, his action was phenomenally stupid.

harry aint a nazi or facist just a jumped up little prick who wore the wrong thing

I can scarcely believe in your claim to education, given how completely mis-punctuated your sentences are. Shall we try that again?

Salazar ansd Franco were fascists - very cozy with Hitler, but neutral in the war - and they remained in unbroken power until the 70s. Learn a little history there, Sluggo.

Had you written the above, instead of what you did, I would have believed that you yourself have actually read your Nazi history. As it is, I doubt you've even read Mein Kampf.
so you're saying the dashes would have increased you belief in my education. hmmm, interesting. well, not really but at least moderately illuminating. heck i'm an internet nazi, not a spelling nazi. as for reading mein kampf, well maybe not. ;)

Harry isn't a nazi you'd have to ask him if he was. It was just a costume party and he decided to wear an Afrika Corp outfit, nothing more. I think people made a big deal over it because it was considered taboo for him to do such a thing. I have seen many people dressed up at people from history including from world war 2 german outfits on halloween.

Hopefully this will be the fall of the british monachy. Personally I think its a stain on England, I know many English who dont like them. The English have to pay them tax money, and what do they do for the English? They just sit around and eat grapes all day. Some say, the English monarchy is a figurehead. But, who goes to England to see the Queen? Especially because they dont live their!

They lost Dianna, Harry is just rediculous. A nazi costume? I was expecting that from Bush! They have no King (didnt he just walk out a while ago?) Its just a mess.

Come on, he was just wearing it as a costume. Not like he parades through town like that, or does he? :confused:

Doesnt matter, its unnacceptable. Can you think of what would happen if Bush did that?

While Harry was obviously wearing it as a costume to a party. For those who wish to delude themselves into some kind of hidden message (besides bad taste) Harry will never be King.. he's 3rd in line. I seriously doubt he will ever take the throne!

Last time i checked Nazi's weren't quite fond of British, we would all be dead if they had their way

Hail, the Guy who said just what I was going to say!

Great minds think alike no? :D

Doesnt matter, its unnacceptable. Can you think of what would happen if Bush did that?
Come off it, it's a costume party. I wouldn't care if Bush dressed as Hitler himself for a costume party, as it has nothing to do with his politics.

I actually like Harry. He's well on his way to succeed his uncle Edward as the prankster in the family, you know, the one that doesn't give a shit.

And on the other hand, I don't know if people's indignation is well placed. I mean, the entire theme for the party was "colonial and native". Like there is a difference between murdering jews and murdering Indians and Africans. Sure, the Nazis were methodical and actually had the extermination of jewry as a goal, while the British only intended to use other people as slaves to sustain their economy, and if a few happened to die that would be incidental. But still, c'mon!

And has anyone said something about that? Noooo... If they're brown or black and don't spoil the living room rug, who cares?

Proving in his own subtle way that at least some of the British Royal House support the white man in his struggle against the forces of evil and savagery in this dark age. He continues in the proud tradition of his great great uncle Edward the 8th, the last true English king forced out for daring to stand for right against the traitors in Parliment before the travesty of WW2.

Edward VIII abdicated because he wanted to marry Wallis but he didn't want to tear apart the British government doing so.

He may have had some sympathies with the Nazis, but that doesn't mean he agreed with them and it certainly doesn't mean he was one.