Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

And decades of Mugabe is working out? I think I would rather of the protection
Of one of
Worlds largest economies and a strong democracy then the string of dictators who truly pillaged their countries after independence.

You do understand that a lot of that instability and dysfunction was created by colonialism?

Anonymous wrote:Just posted on others thread that maybe he was gay. Wallis was his cover. But it may be that the actor plays him as sooooo effeminate.

NP. I haven't watched the show, but from what I've read it is very much the opposite - it has been suggested that Wallis was very "skillful" sexually and that was how she gained and maintained such power over him. Something about her learning some tricks at a brothel or some such thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well you can. But Edward has more in common with George W. than Al Gore. Seriously.

Gore didn't shirk his duty to Vietnam--he actually showed up when required. Granted, his dad's influence got him a slot as a photographer, but W. didn't even finish his stateside duty, yet...



Gore is passionate about the environment and has won a Nobel Prize for his work on climate change whereas W. has been puttering with his "talents?"


This is a pig with lipstick:


He didn't earn any of those accolades. He basically lived out his live in the Bahamas then living tax free in France after the war. He lived a good life--for himself.

Al Gore won a Nobel Prize for his work on climate change, before selling his TV channel to a country made rich by selling gas and petroleum, presumably so he could but even more homes -- many more, certainly, than Edward. And Obama won a Nobel Prize ... for peace ... then bombed Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Iraq. Meaningless drivel.

Anonymous wrote:

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

And decades of Mugabe is working out? I think I would rather of the protection
Of one of
Worlds largest economies and a strong democracy then the string of dictators who truly pillaged their countries after independence.

Just posted on others thread that maybe he was gay. Wallis was his cover. But it may be that the actor plays him as sooooo effeminate.

Try this paragraph from the Wiki page on Edward VIII

Many historians have suggested that Hitler was prepared to reinstate Edward as king in the hope of establishing a fascist Britain.[99] It is widely believed that the Duke and Duchess sympathised with fascism before and during the Second World War, and were moved to the Bahamas to minimise their opportunities to act on those feelings. In 1940 he said: "In the past 10 years Germany has totally reorganised the order of its society ... Countries which were unwilling to accept such a reorganisation of society and its concomitant sacrifices should direct their policies accordingly."[100] During the occupation of France, the Duke asked the German forces to place guards at his Paris and Riviera homes; they did so.[101] In December 1940, the Duke gave Fulton Oursler of Liberty magazine an interview at Government House in Nassau. The interview was published on 22 March 1941 and in it the Duke was reported to have said that "Hitler was the right and logical leader of the German people" and that the time was coming for President Franklin D. Roosevelt to mediate a peace settlement. Oursler conveyed the content of the interview to the President in a private meeting at the White House on 23 December 1940.[102] The Duke protested that he had been misquoted and misinterpreted.[103]

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.

He's on record saying admiring thing about the Nazis in the 1930s.

That doesn't make him a fascist. Do you know what a fascist is?

Okay, he was a fascist want-to-be or sympathizer. He hoped that Germany would invade England and bring fascism with it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:c) Fascist twit

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

He's on record saying admiring thing about the Nazis in the 1930s.

That doesn't make him a fascist. Do you know what a fascist is?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well you can. But Edward has more in common with George W. than Al Gore. Seriously.

Gore didn't shirk his duty to Vietnam--he actually showed up when required. Granted, his dad's influence got him a slot as a photographer, but W. didn't even finish his stateside duty, yet...



Gore is passionate about the environment and has won a Nobel Prize for his work on climate change whereas W. has been puttering with his "talents?"


This is a pig with lipstick:


He didn't earn any of those accolades. He basically lived out his live in the Bahamas then living tax free in France after the war. He lived a good life--for himself.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. And to me it's not saying anything bad about the Queen, either. I don't think it's a character flaw to not want to do something, because what ultimately matters are the actions one takes that affect others. When it came time for her to do the job, she stepped up and did it to the best of her ability, quite admirably in my opinion. That's class and character. I'm rather a fan of Her Majesty, and when my DDs went through their princess phase, I always pointed to the Queen as a real life example of royalty, and a role model at that. Anne and Sophie both strike me as decent as well.

Fair enough. It would be fairer to compare the royals to show dogs.