Are you having a street party for William's wedding?

[Rowan22]

I'm not sure he had to, it's not illegal.

 

I don’t think his courting of the National Socialists went down too well at all in “polite society”. A case of birds of a feather.

[puisseguin]

I'm not sure he had to, it's not illegal.

 

It seems it was unacceptable for a monarch in 1936.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2701463.stm

 

20 October 1936: Stanley Baldwin confronts King for the first time over his relationship with Mrs Simpson. He asks him to conduct the affair more discreetly and persuade her to put off her impending divorce proceedings against her husband, to no avail.

 

 

27 October 1936: The Simpsons' divorce case is heard at Ipswich Assizes and a decree nisi is granted.

 

16 November 1936: King sends for Baldwin. He tells him he wants to marry Mrs Simpson. Baldwin says that whoever the King married would have to become Queen, and the British public would not accept Mrs Simpson as such. The King says he is prepared to abdicate if the government opposes his marriage.

 

25 November 1936: King meets Baldwin again, telling him he wants a morganatic marriage to Wallis Simpson, in which he could still be King but she would not be Queen, merely his consort. This would require new legislation in both Britain and the Dominions, and although Baldwin tells the King this would not be accepted, the King authorises the prime minister to raise the proposal.

 

 

27 November 1936: Baldwin raises the issue of a morganatic marriage in the Cabinet, which rejects it outright. It is also then rejected by the governments of the Dominions.

 

2 December 1936: Baldwin tells the King none of his governments are willing to agree to a morganatic marriage, and that he now has three choices: to finish his relationship with Mrs Simpson, to marry against the advice of his ministers who would then resign, or to abdicate.

 

 

The couple married in France

3 December 1936: The story breaks in the British press, which is widely disapproving of the prospect of the couple's marriage. Wallis Simpson leaves for France, to escape the furore.

 

The King tells Baldwin he wants to broadcast an appeal to the nation, putting his problem to them. He hopes this might sway public opinion in favour of him marrying and remaining King. Baldwin says such a broadcast would be constitutionally impossible.

 

9 December 1936: King informs government of irrevocable decision to abdicate.

[lizmachin]

The USA never declared war on Germany, Germany declared war on the USA.

 

Check your facts.

 

 

As I never claimed the USA declared war on Germany I hardly need to check my facts, although you probably need to check your glasses.

 

Incidentally......

 

http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga3-411211.htm

 

...the USA did declare war on Germany so it is you that needs to check their facts.

[lizmachin]

The gallant Poles who fought for this country played a highly signifianant part in defeating Hitler, my unlce was attached to a Polish Brigade and broke his leg when he parachuted into occupied territory in 1944. The germans made him a pow because he was British they machine gunned the Poles.

 

When Monte Casino fell it was attacked on one side by a Polish Brigade and on the other by Moroccans and Tunisians fighting under the Free French flag.

 

Men fight and die in other places in which they were born for the sake of freedom. Your freedom was purchased at the price of millions of men from all over the then British Empire, and the USA not forgetting the free French P

Poles and others who rallied to us when it would have been safer to fight for the forces of tyranny.

 

Your seem an opinionated lady, that is fine, but make sure you have your facts right.

 

 

Well as the discussion was about the Battle of Britain and not the war in general I certainly did have my facts right as only 145 Poles were involved. I am certainly aware that Poles fought bravely in many theatres of war, as did many other nationals.

My own family are Zimbabweans, and I was born in South Africa. But these countries were part of the British Empire in 1939 and like Poland weren't given much option about participating in the conflict.

 

I am now a proud citizen of Canada. Canada was an independent country in 1939, but because of the links to the British Crown this country declared war on Germany soon after Britain did.

[flamingjimmy]

Really?

Yes, really.

 

I posted about the monarchy (not 'the Queen') and provided an example article evidencing the popularity of monarchy-themed attractions for tourists

Actually you linked to an article with the headline: "Britain’s leading tourist attraction? The Queen"

 

My first contribution to this thread was to point out that that headline was very misleading, and in fact just plain wasn't true.

 

You responded with "It's not misleading at all".

 

Rather unambiguous really isn't it? No need for any punctilio.

 

the article completely supports my earlier opinion (tourists come over at least partly because of their interest in the British monarchy/royalty...to the tune of £500m annually according to that article).

No it doesn't. It does not support that opinion at all. It lists the most popular tourists attractions in Britain as Windsor Castle, Buckingham palace, and a few other big impressive houses. It does not support your opinion that it's because of 'interest in the British monarchy', it only shows that people are interested in their houses. By extension, you can assume that there is a least some interest in the history behind those houses, and probably some interest in their current owners, but you cannot seperate out those things and claim one to be the primary reason, you just don't know that and have no evidence for it.

 

How I am doing so far, for 'facts'?

Thus far in this post you're at 0 for 2 attempts, seeing as you ask.

 

And how is your focusing solely on the article's title (completely missing the context provided by the article) not being 'punctilious'?

What are you on about? I haven't just focused on the headline, I've made several other points, which you keep on rudely cutting out of my posts when you respond to them. It's ok if you can't respond to them, but please don't pretend they're not there. Here they are, for the third time now, just in case you'd like to respond.

 

"It's the houses that belong to the royal family that in fact are the major tourist attractions. People don't come to see the queen, they come to experience the history by looking at Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle etc. I have enjoyed visiting Windsor Castle a couple of times greatly, and I'm a staunch republican.

 

If we got rid of the royals we could open these places up fully, turn them into full on proper tourist attractions and probably make even more money from them.

 

And besides, even if that were not the case, that doesn't alter my original point which is that its simply not true to say that the Queen is our number 1 tourist attraction."

[L00b]

Actually you linked to an article with the headline: "Britain’s leading tourist attraction? The Queen"

 

My first contribution to this thread was to point out that that headline was very misleading, and in fact just plain wasn't true.

Correct. What I call being punctilious, since you focused on the title (necessarily brief and representative of the contents) rather than the article. Would it have been any better is the title said 'monarchy' instead of 'Queen'? Did you expect the article to say 'Oooh, 500.000 visitors queued to see the Queen this year'?

No it doesn't. It does not support that opinion at all. It lists the most popular tourists attractions in Britain as Windsor Castle, Buckingham palace, and a few other big impressive houses. It does not support your opinion that it's because of 'interest in the British monarchy', it only shows that people are interested in their houses. By extension, you can assume that there is a least some interest in the history behind those houses, and probably some interest in their current owners, but you cannot seperate out those things and claim one to be the primary reason, you just don't know that and have no evidence for it.

 

That link you provided shows that people visited buildings, they didn't visit The Queen. The buildings would exist without the monarchy.

That's precisely my point: the buildings may continue to exist after Britain does away with the monarchy (in the same way the Pyramids still draw tourists to Egypt millenia later), but they would not exist without the monarchy in the first place and, since the monarchy is still here and still owns them, they are (represent, are symbolic of, stand for, etc, etc.) the monarchy.

 

Which is why the article and/or its tile is not misleading.

[Magilla]

I contribute to their lifestyle but have no desire to watch them:roll:

 

No, you don't. They are net contributers to the economy, they pay for themselves several times over.

[Bulgarian]

No, you don't. They are net contributers to the economy, they pay for themselves several times over.

 

orly?

 

Do we have any figures to prove this ?

[flamingjimmy]

Correct. What I call being punctilious, since you focused on the title (necessarily brief and representative of the contents) rather than the article. Would it have been any better is the title said 'monarchy' instead of 'Queen'? Did you expect the article to say 'Oooh, 500.000 visitors queued to see the Queen this year'?

I expected perhaps a survey where people had answered a question about what made the visit England.

 

And no, if it said 'monarchy' instead it would still be misleading, its buildings they came to see, that's what the article shows, it does not give any information on why these people want to see the buildings, for all we know it could just be that there are loads of architectural geeks amongst Britain's tourists. It could be (as it is in my case) that people like to see them because they are interested in history.

 

That's precisely my point: the buildings may continue to exist after Britain does away with the monarchy (in the same way the Pyramids still draw tourists to Egypt millenia later), but they would not exist without the monarchy in the first place and, since the monarchy is still here and still owns them, they are (represent, are symbolic of, stand for, etc, etc.) the monarchy.

If that was precisely your point why have you not said it until now? Because to be honest it comes across rather like you're moving the goalposts.

 

Which is why the article and/or its tile is not misleading.

The title of that article was factually incorrect. There is nothing within the article which supports it. By anyones definition that must be misleading, surely?

[xenia]

Next to the British the largest contingent of pilots were Polish. By the time of the Battle of Britain There were several thousand Poles under arms in the UK. I

Well as the discussion was about the Battle of Britain and not the war in general I certainly did have my facts right as only 145 Poles were involved. I am certainly aware that Poles fought bravely in many theatres of war, as did many other nationals.

My own family are Zimbabweans, and I was born in South Africa. But these countries were part of the British Empire in 1939 and like Poland weren't given much option about participating in the conflict.

 

I am now a proud citizen of Canada. Canada was an independent country in 1939, but because of the links to the British Crown this country declared war on Germany soon after Britain did.