This guy talks calmly and without speculating and assumes the best possible interpretation. Now we talk hysterically, speculatively and assume the worst motives possible in any given situation.
I met A J P - I was (of course) young then; he was an elderly gent who lived locally (in Yarmouth Mill). And he was a gent - courteous - distant, but courteous. I wouldn't say he was a overly friendly man, but then why should he have been - I worked in the local shop and he didn't know me from Adam. He had no airs about him at all: just a pleasant, polite, professional man who kept himself to himself. I often wish, now,, that more people would .... he also wrote very well; gave lectures without notes.... a good egg. As was Tom StJohn Barry, whom I never expected to see again: they also serve who only stand and wait.
I remember those, too - unedited, unscripted, just him talking to the camera. His talk about the origins of WW1 was remarkable for highlighting how railway timetables played a crucial, and irreversible role in mobilization.
?? AJP Taylor is far too sympathetic to Edward Duke of Windsor, when the historical record of his sympathies for Adolf Hitler and the Nazis are a matter of public record, and have been for a very long time. Let's not downplay this. The evidence is out there for anyone who cares to look, without speculation. And for Taylor to say that if Edward had remained King "it wouldn't have made the slightest difference" is of course ridiculous speculation, when Taylor makes a point of saying "let's not engage in speculation about what might have been".
Nonsense - I think: you're quite entitled to think what you like, but .... What you're responding to as if it were evidence is speculation. Taylor was too meticulous an historian to fall for that, and you should be too. The public record doesn't show what you say it shows - courtiers' gossip: yes, that might. I don't doubt that Edward VIII/Duke of Windsor was an old rogue of not much talent or intelligence; or that Mrs Simpson was not - at some level at least - an artful gold-digger (though I think she paid for it, in her own terms): but he wasn't a Hitler sympathizer. He might have been a royal of rather little brain, but he wasn't a complete dupe. Still - they're all dead now, we're all going the same way, and not much matters in the end.
"Sympathy" is a very vague term. Edward was a Germanophile long before Hitler came to power. Many people admired Hitler to some extent in his early years, due to his economic success in the Depression. And for those who now say it was obvious what he would do to the Jews, they should note that tens of thousands of German Jews who could have left Germany chose to stay. They thought he was just one more in a long line of European anti-semites that didnt end in genocide.
@@RobertJonesWightpaint Quite wrong about Mrs Simpson. She was contentedly married to the prosperous and socially respected Ernest Simpson. Yes, she flirted with Edward, like myriad other married women who socialized in his circle, some of which became his mistress. It never occurred to her that he would fall obsessively in love. She knew her limitations in looks and age and expected to be dropped quickly. Then he literally trapped her into marriage. Her letters are quite clear she wanted out. But it was too late.
The Royal Family was/is of German ancestry. George V had German cousins during WW1. Edward had German cousins during WW2. Charles has German cousins today (he speaks fluent German). Was Edward a believer? Was he trying, in his own way, to end the war sooner, rather than later?
Edward was not the only one by any means that wanted to stay out of the war. They believed Hitler didnt want war with Britain, so why jump in? Lord Halifax, very nearly PM instead of Churchill, was in this camp.
Much has been written about the Duke of Windsor, and he was a rather foolish person, but from all I've read, I do not think his views were out of line for the aristocracy and the royal family in the 1930s. For example, King George went out on the balcony with PM Chamberlain, upon the Prime Minister's return from Munich. This was outside of his constitutional role. But when war came, he stood by his government. And my guess is that, despite his affinity with Germany, so would Edward.
History is full of ironies. The UK declared war on Germany for invading Poland, yet allied itself with the USSR which invaded Poland at the same time and partitioned the spoils with Hitler.
No. I am an American and I am grateful that Churchill and the British stood up to Hitler, at tremendous cost. It was a turning point for the preservation of our Western civilization.
@@josephfreedman9422 Speculation. We replaced Hitler with Stalin, which led to Mao, Kim, Pol Pot and Castro. Hitler definitely wanted to subjugate the Poland, the USSR and other parts of the East. Beyond that, we dont know whether he would have annexed Western Europe if Britain hadnt jumped in and declared war.
Why are you calling him The King. Once he abdicated, the title he took was Duke Of Windsor, and this is what he was known as right up till his death in 1972. There was no coronation and he was never crowned. Please update the title of this video.
A king would still be a king without a coronation if he were the legitimate heir. Parliament would expect a coronation to take place at some time, but it isn’t specifically required to take place for the heir to be regarded as the King.
King Charles wasn't with his mother, HM The Queen when she died. However, he knew she had because he was addressed as Your Majesty by one of his staff. So, King by name, if not crowned
I don't know that it matters all that much, but (as we saw with the death of Queen Elizabeth) when a monarch dies, the heralds call God Save the King/Queen. So - he was King. Not a long-serving one, true - but if ever there's a King Edward in future (probably a WEE bit unlikely) he'd have to be called King Edward IXth. Of course, you're right that he became the Duke of Windsor; but he had been King, even without a coronation. I've never really been able to make my mind up about him, leaving all that aside. He could have ditched Wallace Simpson, very easily. If he WANTED to be king, and maybe he didn't, he could have done that; I wonder if she'd have agreed......... being King isn't exactly a bundle of laughs and merriment, whatever some suggest. The fact that he threw it all up is either, according to your prejudices or inclinations, an act of betrayal; a demonstration of love, the relinquishment of a crown he never wanted; a convenient escape - though it does have to be remembered that he did know the British state would look after him, for the rest of his life. The Queen Mother - George VI's wife - apparently hated him and Simpson for the rest of their lives; if you believe the gossip - I don't know; I suspect she'd have understood at some level, while still hating them for subjecting her poor husband to responsibilities to which he was hardly equal..... all I know is, we'd never have had Queen Elizabeth II if Edward hadn't abdicated; and on the whole - well, I think she was very good for this country, in terms of stability, always knowing where she could and could not go; pity about one or two of the kids, maybe...... but hardly unique in that. Anyway, as a socialist with strong monarchist sympathies and some respect for British traditions: I think young Eddy was better off out of it, and so were we.
This guy talks calmly and without speculating and assumes the best possible interpretation. Now we talk hysterically, speculatively and assume the worst motives possible in any given situation.
I met A J P - I was (of course) young then; he was an elderly gent who lived locally (in Yarmouth Mill). And he was a gent - courteous - distant, but courteous. I wouldn't say he was a overly friendly man, but then why should he have been - I worked in the local shop and he didn't know me from Adam. He had no airs about him at all: just a pleasant, polite, professional man who kept himself to himself. I often wish, now,, that more people would .... he also wrote very well; gave lectures without notes.... a good egg. As was Tom StJohn Barry, whom I never expected to see again: they also serve who only stand and wait.
Awesome thanks. Brilliant content. Brilliant Britain England London 1962. Excellent Historian.
Thanks for sharing this excellent video.
AJP Taylor ...his half hour monologue programmes were essential viewing...are they on youtube?
I remember those, too - unedited, unscripted, just him talking to the camera. His talk about the origins of WW1 was remarkable for highlighting how railway timetables played a crucial, and irreversible role in mobilization.
?? AJP Taylor is far too sympathetic to Edward Duke of Windsor, when the historical record of his sympathies for Adolf Hitler and the Nazis are a matter of public record, and have been for a very long time. Let's not downplay this. The evidence is out there for anyone who cares to look, without speculation. And for Taylor to say that if Edward had remained King "it wouldn't have made the slightest difference" is of course ridiculous speculation, when Taylor makes a point of saying "let's not engage in speculation about what might have been".
Nonsense - I think: you're quite entitled to think what you like, but .... What you're responding to as if it were evidence is speculation. Taylor was too meticulous an historian to fall for that, and you should be too. The public record doesn't show what you say it shows - courtiers' gossip: yes, that might. I don't doubt that Edward VIII/Duke of Windsor was an old rogue of not much talent or intelligence; or that Mrs Simpson was not - at some level at least - an artful gold-digger (though I think she paid for it, in her own terms): but he wasn't a Hitler sympathizer. He might have been a royal of rather little brain, but he wasn't a complete dupe. Still - they're all dead now, we're all going the same way, and not much matters in the end.
@@RobertJonesWightpaintIf AJP was such a meticulous historian why did almost immediately contradict himself in this brief interview.
"Sympathy" is a very vague term. Edward was a Germanophile long before Hitler came to power. Many people admired Hitler to some extent in his early years, due to his economic success in the Depression. And for those who now say it was obvious what he would do to the Jews, they should note that tens of thousands of German Jews who could have left Germany chose to stay. They thought he was just one more in a long line of European anti-semites that didnt end in genocide.
@@RobertJonesWightpaint
Quite wrong about Mrs Simpson. She was contentedly married to the prosperous and socially respected Ernest Simpson.
Yes, she flirted with Edward, like myriad other married women who socialized in his circle, some of which became his mistress. It never occurred to her that he would fall obsessively in love. She knew her limitations in looks and age and expected to be dropped quickly. Then he literally trapped her into marriage. Her letters are quite clear she wanted out. But it was too late.
just locker room talk, boys will be boys, etc
The Royal Family was/is of German ancestry. George V had German cousins during WW1. Edward had German cousins during WW2. Charles has German cousins today (he speaks fluent German). Was Edward a believer? Was he trying, in his own way, to end the war sooner, rather than later?
Edward was not the only one by any means that wanted to stay out of the war. They believed Hitler didnt want war with Britain, so why jump in? Lord Halifax, very nearly PM instead of Churchill, was in this camp.
Much has been written about the Duke of Windsor, and he was a rather foolish person, but from all I've read, I do not think his views were out of line for the aristocracy and the royal family in the 1930s. For example, King George went out on the balcony with PM Chamberlain, upon the Prime Minister's return from Munich. This was outside of his constitutional role. But when war came, he stood by his government. And my guess is that, despite his affinity with Germany, so would Edward.
well,the globalist Churchill threw a wrench into that productive idea
King Crossing-Sweeper?
We should never ever of declared war on Germany as it was heading East completely in the opposite direction to us.
'We should never HAVE....' Such sloppy grammar.
History is full of ironies. The UK declared war on Germany for invading Poland, yet allied itself with the USSR which invaded Poland at the same time and partitioned the spoils with Hitler.
@@stephenguppy7882 this is harrasment, Is it realy neccesary.
@@araptorofnote5938 ''harrassment'', "really", "necessary".
@@stephenguppy7882 Well done. But did you spot the other four deliberate errors in my pedant trap?
Now, lets just imagine how much better the UK would be right now had that have been the case and we stayed out of a war against Germany.
No. I am an American and I am grateful that Churchill and the British stood up to Hitler, at tremendous cost. It was a turning point for the preservation of our Western civilization.
Really. There was no unemployment after the war.
@josephfreedman9422 when you have no understanding of WW2. Thanks for clarification of being American. The 2 go hand in hand
@@jonathanchalk2507 nobody has mentioned that have they. Stick to the post
@@josephfreedman9422
Speculation. We replaced Hitler with Stalin, which led to Mao, Kim, Pol Pot and Castro. Hitler definitely wanted to
subjugate the Poland, the USSR and other parts of the East. Beyond that, we dont know whether he would have
annexed Western Europe if Britain hadnt jumped in and declared war.
Why are you calling him The King. Once he abdicated, the title he took was Duke Of Windsor, and this is what he was known as right up till his death in 1972. There was no coronation and he was never crowned. Please update the title of this video.
He was the King in January 1936 when they met at George V's funeral.
A king would still be a king without a coronation if he were the legitimate heir. Parliament would expect a coronation to take place at some time, but it isn’t specifically required to take place for the heir to be regarded as the King.
King Charles wasn't with his mother, HM The Queen when she died. However, he knew she had because he was addressed as Your Majesty by one of his staff. So, King by name, if not crowned
I don't know that it matters all that much, but (as we saw with the death of Queen Elizabeth) when a monarch dies, the heralds call God Save the King/Queen. So - he was King. Not a long-serving one, true - but if ever there's a King Edward in future (probably a WEE bit unlikely) he'd have to be called King Edward IXth. Of course, you're right that he became the Duke of Windsor; but he had been King, even without a coronation.
I've never really been able to make my mind up about him, leaving all that aside. He could have ditched Wallace Simpson, very easily. If he WANTED to be king, and maybe he didn't, he could have done that; I wonder if she'd have agreed......... being King isn't exactly a bundle of laughs and merriment, whatever some suggest. The fact that he threw it all up is either, according to your prejudices or inclinations, an act of betrayal; a demonstration of love, the relinquishment of a crown he never wanted; a convenient escape - though it does have to be remembered that he did know the British state would look after him, for the rest of his life.
The Queen Mother - George VI's wife - apparently hated him and Simpson for the rest of their lives; if you believe the gossip - I don't know; I suspect she'd have understood at some level, while still hating them for subjecting her poor husband to responsibilities to which he was hardly equal..... all I know is, we'd never have had Queen Elizabeth II if Edward hadn't abdicated; and on the whole - well, I think she was very good for this country, in terms of stability, always knowing where she could and could not go; pity about one or two of the kids, maybe...... but hardly unique in that.
Anyway, as a socialist with strong monarchist sympathies and some respect for British traditions: I think young Eddy was better off out of it, and so were we.