Anonymous wrote:Arrogant, well-born twit who did his best service by ultimately not taking high office. Think Al Gore, but thinner and with less Chakra.

Really you cannot compare a European member of a royal family with American politicians. Its just such a reach and a clumsy one, at that.

Arrogant, well-born twit who did his best service by ultimately not taking high office. Think Al Gore, but thinner and with less Chakra.

Anonymous wrote:Both: selfish and brave. From other reading I've done on the subject, I think people agree that Wallis was more of an excuse than the whole reason. He didn't want to be king. And you have to admit, it's an extreme anachronism in the modern age. He only gets one life to. Should he spend it in a situation he hates?

Interesting that the show creators seem to be hinting that QEII didn't really want to do it at first either. Wonder how accurate that is. Now people say she is all about duty.

That's definitely my impression -- that she'd really rather be off in the country with her dogs rather than putting up with all the BS, but that she's really patriotic and stiff upper lip, etc. Probably why she was so unsympathetic to Diana -- I'm sure her attitude was like "No shit this sucks. That's the job. Suck it up." (But in nicer terms.) Her father also did not want to be King, and my understanding is that her mom was also royally pissed at the abdication, as she had no interest in her husband being king and thought the stress drove him into an early grave.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they'be built their monarchies on the backs of the third world colonies. all this romanticism is so disturbing. like PP said, give me a break.

and you don't think a lot of those "third world" colonies wouldn't have been better off had they stayed colonies of European counties. Zimbabwe for example? Hell even India might be better off. Read "behind the beautiful forevers" if you want to know how awful it is.

I am from a former colony. I would rather be poor and keep my dignity and humanity than be treated like a slave and an animal in my own country.

Which colony would this be? It seems that India is not treating its people any better than garbage in the streets, especially the women and babies. Is that dignified? Is that humanity? No, I think its quite the opposite.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:c) Fascist twit

How is he fascist? I don't think you know what that word means.

NP

I don't think you know any history. Edward admired the Nazi party. He believed that Britain would be best served by becoming fascist in order to prevent communism from taking root.

Edwards was literally a fascist.

Maybe a bit overstated. He was certainly a sympathizer, though, and a supporter of appeasement.

Er no, not overstated. He was a FRIEND to Hitler. Its entirely true, despite being brushed over, diplomatically by the historians.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:c) Fascist twit

And selfish and self-indulgent

In retrospect, thank goodness he took himself out of the picture.

Yes, yes, and yes. And PP is correct, he didn't live a meaningful life.

And royalty is also a product of inbreeding. It really shows.

This +1 million. Can you imagine what the geo-political landscape would be if Churchill had a recalcitrant sovereign to tend to during this time? Life would be very different for much of the world. Personally, a longer British hold on India past 1947 would have been disastrous for my family, I think.

I also second reading the Anne Sebba book; it's great.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:c) Fascist twit

How is he fascist? I don't think you know what that word means.

He was a huge Nazi sympathizer - this is a well known fact.

Just bingewatched The Crown and based on that portrayal he was really a selfish egotistic asshole

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they'be built their monarchies on the backs of the third world colonies. all this romanticism is so disturbing. like PP said, give me a break.

and you don't think a lot of those "third world" colonies wouldn't have been better off had they stayed colonies of European counties. Zimbabwe for example? Hell even India might be better off. Read "behind the beautiful forevers" if you want to know how awful it is.

Yeah one account about one Mumbai slum definitely can sum up the reality of a country of a billion people. You're a fucking moron. Have you been to India? Or do you just read randomly off the nyt bestseller list and consider yourself supremely knowledgeable?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they'be built their monarchies on the backs of the third world colonies. all this romanticism is so disturbing. like PP said, give me a break.

and you don't think a lot of those "third world" colonies wouldn't have been better off had they stayed colonies of European counties. Zimbabwe for example? Hell even India might be better off. Read "behind the beautiful forevers" if you want to know how awful it is.

PP you responded to. all i can say is, "wow".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they'be built their monarchies on the backs of the third world colonies. all this romanticism is so disturbing. like PP said, give me a break.

and you don't think a lot of those "third world" colonies wouldn't have been better off had they stayed colonies of European counties. Zimbabwe for example? Hell even India might be better off. Read "behind the beautiful forevers" if you want to know how awful it is.

I am from a former colony. I would rather be poor and keep my dignity and humanity than be treated like a slave and an animal in my own country.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:c) Fascist twit

How is he fascist? I don't think you know what that word means.

NP

I don't think you know any history. Edward admired the Nazi party. He believed that Britain would be best served by becoming fascist in order to prevent communism from taking root.

Edwards was literally a fascist.

Maybe a bit overstated. He was certainly a sympathizer, though, and a "supporter of appeasement."

No, Neville Chamberlain was a supporter of appeasement. Edward and Wallis wanted to re-instated/instated as the monarchs of the UK under the guise of appeasement:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/uncle-who-encouraged-young-queens-nazi-salute-plotted-with-adolf-hitler-to-regain-throne-10398750.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/britains-would-be-nazi-queen-1312830.html

They wanted the Nazis to invade Britain so that this could happen. It is well documented by different countries.

PP is correct. He (and Simpson) were literally fascists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they'be built their monarchies on the backs of the third world colonies. all this romanticism is so disturbing. like PP said, give me a break.

and you don't think a lot of those "third world" colonies wouldn't have been better off had they stayed colonies of European counties. Zimbabwe for example? Hell even India might be better off. Read "behind the beautiful forevers" if you want to know how awful it is.

I am from a former colony. I would rather be poor and keep my dignity and humanity than be treated like a slave and an animal in my own country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:c) Fascist twit

How is he fascist? I don't think you know what that word means.

NP

I don't think you know any history. Edward admired the Nazi party. He believed that Britain would be best served by becoming fascist in order to prevent communism from taking root.

Edwards was literally a fascist.

Maybe a bit overstated. He was certainly a sympathizer, though, and a supporter of appeasement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:c) Fascist twit

How is he fascist? I don't think you know what that word means.

NP

I don't think you know any history. Edward admired the Nazi party. He believed that Britain would be best served by becoming fascist in order to prevent communism from taking root.

Edwards was literally a fascist.