Could they have stopped the war?That is complete and utter rubbish. He did no such thing. Princess Alice of Battenberg was committed to a sanatorium in 1930 when Philip was nine years old. She remained there until 1932 and was released when Philip was eleven and he was living in England. She lived in Central Europe from 1932 to 1938 and in Greece from 1938 until 1967 when the Greek royal family was exiled. From 1967 until 1969 she lived at Buckingham Palace with her son. She died there in 1969 and was buried at Windsor until 1988 when her remains were transferred to Jerusalem.
The reasons for the outbreak of World War I have very little to do with feuding blood-related monarchies and cousins "who hated each other guts". Indeed Nicholas II and Kaiser Wilhelm were long standing friends, as were George V and Nicholas II.
In fact in the lead up to World War I Nicholas II wrote to Wilhelm II sayig the following
"I foresee that very soon I shall be overwhelmed by the pressure forced upon me and be forced to take extreme measures which will lead to war. To try and avoid such a calamity as a European war I beg you in the name of our old friendship to do what you can to stop your allies from going too far.
(Nicholas II to Wilhelm II 29th July 1914)
Later that day he sent another to Wilhelm
Trust in your wisdom and friendship. Your loving Nicky
The telegrams between Wilhelm and Nicholas actually led to the cancellation of Russian general mobilization on 29 July but was resumed two days later under pressure from elemetns of the Russian military.
26,000 Australians did not die at Gallipoli.
8,709 Australians were killed. 34,072 British soldiers were also killed at Gallipoli
Australia had plenty of reasons to become involved in World War I.
Australia was a part of the British Empire and regarded its’ interests as being as one with Britain. There’s no question that Britain was Australia’s most important trading partner and any German attempt to isolate Britain economically, via a larger navy that might rival Britain's was going to have a very large impact on Australia. As Edward Grey stated in the House of Commons on March 29, 1909…” But if the German navy were superior to ours, they maintaining the army which they do, for us it would not be a question of defeat. Our independence, our very existence would be at stake. . . for us the navy is what the army is to them . . .”
Australia’s security in the Far East was also tied up with Britain’s naval dominance, the Australian government was keen not to see British naval power diminished. Australia was also very keen to limit Germany’s naval influence and to ensure that Britain remained the world’s dominant naval power and indeed one of the world’s leading powers.
So in WW1, Australia was supporting Britain's attempts to:
1) maintain the existing European and world balance of power by supporting France and Russia thereby preventing British isolation if France and Russia were defeated in a continental war. Britain (and Australia) couldn't allow France and Russia to be defeated.
2) resist Germany's attempts to expand her influence which was widely considered would threaten some of Britain's colonies and therefore the power and prestige of the British empire of which Australia was still firmly a part of.
3) stop possible Turkish threats to strategic British possessions such as the Suez Canal, also important to Australia's economy, considering much of our exports travelled to Europe.
The other important reason that Australia considered the war to be important is that Britain was not considered by the vast majority of Australians to be a foreign power in 1914. For example 20% of all those who enlisted in the First AIF were British born. Most people in Australia regarded themselves as British subjects, which at the time was the only civic status that existed. And clearly the Australian government did consider it to be in the country's national interest for Britain to maintain the European balance of power, restrict German expansion and therefore protect the dominance of the British Empire.
In the wider context of World War I, Gallipoli wasn't exactly ill-conceived (although it was poorly planned).
The main reasons why Gallipoli was attacked were:
The potential for making a difference on the stalemated Western Front was enormous. By forcing the Dardanelles, Britain had an opportunity to:
1) Strike a blow at Germany by defeating one of their two main allies.
2) Establishing a sea route to Russia's warm-water ports to help Britain's ally Russia with arms and supplies for the war on Eastern Front and the Southern Front (both of which were tying up Russian troops that Britain felt would be better served fighting the Germans, rather than the Austro-Hungarians and the Turks.)
3) To relieve/remove the Ottoman threat upon the British controlled Suez Canal, the loss of which would have been a significant strategic disaster, both for Britain and Australia.
In the short term Gallipoli was a failure especially in relation to 1) and 3), but in the end the wider context it did make a contribution. As Herbert Asquith stated in 1917, that the importance of Gallipoli, even if its' immediate objectives were not fulfilled has been understated. “It saved the position of Russia in the Caucasus, delayed for months the defection of Bulgaria, kept at least 300,000 Turks immobilised and was one of the contributory causes of the favourable development of events in Egypt, Mesopotamia and Persia.”
Four out of five Australian terrestrial channels covering it live - the funeral of a fairly minor royal who married a British woman who inherited the right to become Australia's head of state.When does the twerking and urban dance start? Boring as bat sh*t so far
The commentators are saying how tough it was to have a covid funeral.Four out of five Australian terrestrial channels covering it live - the funeral of a fairly minor royal who married a British woman who inherited the right to become Australia's head of state.
The pomp and ceremony mixed with social distancing and mask wearing makes it look even more like a freak show than it would have.
It was Philip’s express wish that there were no eulogies, I suppose he just didn’t want that sort of stuff broadcast around the world.I must admit, that was very different to what I was expecting. You think of funerals as being very personal affairs with stories of the departed from friends and family and yet this was literally a farewell and nothing more.
I thought it was odd too that the coverage followed the piper as Phillip's body was being lowered into the vault. That, to me, was THE moment you'd want to see. The actual farewell.
Maybe I'm missing something about it all.
A friend of mine used to manage a gay bar in Windsor, Elton John and another local bachelor boy used to send their PAs there to acquire twinks for "parties".Quite amazing Windsor Castle and an insight in to the grounds and exterior we don’t ordinarily see. Certainly a life of privilege albeit it born in to if you don’t chase it.
Queen Mother ?.Sadly it would not surprise me if the Queen joins him sooner than later. Often partners in long term marriages who have lost their spouse join their spouse quickly. Considering the circumstances and the Dukes wishes a fairly short funeral. The royal family are fairly stoic.
Yes when you’re born into extreme wealth and privilege and everything you have is handed to you on a silver platter it must be hard to step outside the bubble, even for the briefest of moments.The commentators are saying how tough it was to have a covid funeral.
Try being in australia love. Not allowed 500 army blokes