Kate and William - what are they doing? Thread 2

[Pelleas]

A continuation of the thread discussing the Cambridges' contribution to the pandemic.

Royalistes can’t have it both ways. You can’t constantly roll out the queen’s plucky war effort and then claim she was too young to do anything useful.

The Queen was 13 when WWII started. What would you have liked her to have done differently for war efforts at that age?

The point I was making was that she didn't suffer any particular hardship during the war - unlike many 'normal' people whose family members would have been in active service, who might have lost loved ones, who if they were old enough would have been called up themselves - so in my view she isn't best qualified to address the nation on VE Day.

But she did live through the war, and she is the head of state.

Prince Philip could address the nation, as he did serve in WWII.

Prince Philip could address the nation, as he did serve in WWII.

Anyone who actually served would be a better option.

Pelleas - She is our Head of State so should address the nation.

unlike many 'normal' people whose family members would have been in active service, who might have lost loved ones

The Queen's uncle, Prince George, Duke of Kent was killed on active service in 1942 - at the age of 39. Her first cousin, Prince Michael of Kent was 7 weeks old at the time.

"His mother, George’s wife Marina, continued her own service as a nurse throughout the war."

www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1202546/queen-elizabeth-ii-news-royal-family-remembrance-day-world-war-two-deat-duke-kent-spt

But nothing qualifies her to do so on this occasion. She wasn't head of state during WWII. You might as well say that Boris Johnson, as Prime Minister, would be an ideal person to address the nation on VE day.

No. If someone is to address the nation it should be a veteran who served - while there are still such people alive, we should make the most of it. Come the next VE day milestone (100 years) this won't even be an option.

The Queen's uncle was killed in active service in World War II, Buckingham Palace was hit directly by bombs, she gave radio broadcasts during the course of it even as a child, she took a service role as soon as she was old enough, and the family observed by rationing all the way through the war and afterwards, just like the whole rest of the population. She also had to live through it knowing in the event of a German invasion her parents were in the top three of the first people to be executed. And she and her sister were not evacuated somewhere safe like Canada, as other Royal families were (the Dutch, for example). I'm not sure quite how you define hardship, Pelleas, but it seems her experience of the war was pretty much in line with other children and young adults of her generation in the UK. Apart from he fact that her father was literally helping to lead the country during its course, but I rather think that gave her a closer appreciation of what was happening, rather than less.

so in my view she isn't best qualified to address the nation on VE Day.
Unbelievable

She wasn't head of state during WWII

Perhaps we should dig George Vl up then? And disinter Churchill while we’re at it.

Perhaps we should dig George Vl up then? And disinter Churchill while we’re at it.

Boris thinks he is the second Churchill.

the family observed by rationing all the way through the war and afterwards, just like the whole rest of the population

Rationing was only relevant to food you could buy. With the royal estates of Buck Palace, Sandringham, Windsor, Balmoral etc etc - to 'dig for victory' there was no shortage of food in the Royal household! That, including the vast larders already stocked up on at the Palaces - it naive to believe there was any food shortage.

Apart from he fact that her father was literally helping to lead the country during its course

No - that was the Government.

Perhaps we should dig George Vl up then? And disinter Churchill while we’re at it

In another 25 years, if they are still around, wonder who would be chosen from the royals to speak as if all knowledgeable on the subject?

Perhaps we should dig George Vl up then? And disinter Churchill while we’re at it

No need to exhume anyone when there are plenty of veterans alive and well.

No need to exhume anyone when there are plenty of veterans alive and well

None that have ever been head of state.

None that have ever been head of state

No one has yet explained why it needs to be the head of state.

Pelleas - When the Queen gives her speech it will be exactly 75 years since the Queen's father King George VI gave his speech to the nation on VE day 1945.

It will be exactly the same time as well.

No - that was the Government

Of course the government was the executive power during the conflict. But that truism ignores the depth and impact of the relationship between George VI as King and his Prime Minister. Historians have written books about how the personal and political relationship between he two men was hugely influential, and how important George VI was a a figurehead during he conflict, along with Churchill.

There is obvious considerable historical continuity with Queen Elizabeth II giving a speech at the same time as her father 75 years earlier. And as for your insistence that a veteran is more appropriate - well, the Queen served in the only capacity that was open to her as a woman, in one of the Women's Auxiliary forces. Discriminating against our female Head of State now on the basis of historic discriminatory practices really doesn't strike a great tone, to me.

An importance was given to the royal family because they were the only celebrities of note apart from a few Hollywood idols. No negative press was ever written about the royals until recent times.

Remaining in Britain was the royal family’s chief, symbolic, contribution to the war effort

Although the king, who had seen service at a junior level as a naval officer at the battle of Jutland in the First World War, met prime minister Winston Churchill for lunch every Tuesday, he had no military role in the conflict, beyond that of raising public morale. And although both men came to respect each other, they were not initially natural soulmates. Churchill had been a supporter of Edward VIII during the abdication, while George had publicly supported former prime minister Neville Chamberlain’s “peace with honour” Munich appeasement of Hitler, which proved so short-lived. When Chamberlain resigned in 1940 George would have preferred Lord Halifax to become prime minister instead of Churchill

Discriminating against our female Head of State now on the basis of historic discriminatory practices really doesn't strike a great tone, to me.

Do you honestly think, if the option had been there, that the then Princess Elizabeth would have served on the front line?

Unlike the other members of the ATS, Elizabeth returned each night to sleep in the royal residence of Windsor Castle

No - she didn't even stay on the front line in this role.
It's all 'symbolic' participation - like the modern day 'photo op'.

Do you honestly think, if the option had been there, that the then Princess Elizabeth would have served on the front line?

Princess Margaret if she had been old enough.The Queen's father, George VI served as a naval officer in WWI - Edward VIII was stationed at Ypres although he didn't fight.

"King George was 20 years old and a junior officer on the dreadnought HMS Collingwood."

"In the aftermath of the clash, on 11 June 1916, he wrote: "I am quite all right and feel very different now that I have seen a German ship filled with Germans and have seen it fired out with our guns. It was a great experience to have gone through and one not easily forgotten."

"He added: "We had torpedoes fired at us which we got out of the way of luckily".

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35922406

Who knows Pelleas? Clavinova has pointed out examples of active duty in those high in the line of succession. We don't need to speculate, anyway, as we know the Queen did what was open to her to serve. And she lived at Windsor for the duration of the war (not Sandringham as someone else suggested). By the 1943 onwards the main civilian threat was from V1 and V2 missiles in any event which were fired during the daylight, rather than night bombing raids, so by working during the day and going to Windsor at night she was in exactly the same position as other Londoners in relation to the threat of being hit by a missile.