Posted on 12/30/2009 5:35:05 AM PST by Labour-Watch
Because I'm an American and we don't put up with that nonsense here.
If it makes you feel better, I would do the same thing for "Queen" Latifa or the Fresh "Prince".
The Earl loved Ireland (and privately believed that it should be united as a Republic although he didn't express this belief publically because of the constitutional problems that might have created).
He loved Ireland the way a plantation owner cared about his slaves.
An Australian and a Scot defending the English. What the hell is wrong with you guys. Do you have Stockholm Syndrome?
You keep defending the IRA and their actions in killing innocents. You do know that the IRA shared their bomb making expertise with terrorist groups around the world including Columbia and the Middle East but it’s all the Brits faults for oppressing the poor Oirish.
They are not real titles - just something someone has just made up. Earl Mountbatten's titles - which he earned as it happens, he didn't inherit any of the titles he held in later life - are legally speaking part of his name and identity.
He loved Ireland the way a plantation owner cared about his slaves.
I don't believe so. He liked its culture and its people - and he believed they should be independent of the United Kingdom if that is what they wanted.
An Australian and a Scot defending the English. What the hell is wrong with you guys. Do you have Stockholm Syndrome?
Well, for a start, I am a British citizen as well as an Australian one. And I'm an Anglophile and I make no apologies for that. There are dark and horrible things in the history of England and Britain, but there's a lot of good as well, and I no more condemn modern Britain for the evil it did than I condemn modern America for the stain of slavery.
I believe Ireland has been badly treated by the English many, many times, over and over again. The Irish have legitimate reason for resentment, and there have been times in their history when they were justified in taking up arms against British aggression.
But the IRA are a bunch of thugs, of terrorists, and criminals, who are not fighting for Irish freedom and haven't been for decades. They want to impose their vision of Irish government - a hard left, virtually communist vision - on Ireland, whether it wants it or not.
Mountbatten was born as "His Serene Highness Prince Louis of Battenberg". Check the Wikipedia link I provided earlier. He earned nothing. He was groomed to be who he was and the titles were forgone conclusions. Wealth and privilege have their advantages.
He liked its (Ireland) culture and its people - and he believed they should be independent of the United Kingdom if that is what they wanted.
So you make the claim, however he never uttered publicly so I have to assumed that it is not accurate.
But the IRA are a bunch of thugs, of terrorists, and criminals, who are not fighting for Irish freedom and haven't been for decades. They want to impose their vision of Irish government - a hard left, virtually communist vision - on Ireland, whether it wants it or not.
I agree that the IRA are not the nicest people, however the IRA for all intents and purposes no longer exists. They gave up the gun and bomb not long after 9/11.
So the sins of the father are transferred to the son?
Quit trying to hijack this thread Clemenza!
Yes, he was. But he lost that title in 1917.
Check the Wikipedia link I provided earlier. He earned nothing. He was groomed to be who he was and the titles were forgone conclusions. Wealth and privilege have their advantages.
As I've said, all the titles he held at his death were ones he had earned. Yes, he was born into a privileged position, but along with the rest of his family, he lost much of that during the First World War - a war in which he served as a Midshipman, just another junior officer in the Royal Navy. After that war he went to Cambridge University under a system designed to teach ex-servicemen engineering and he became an electrical engineer. He worked for a living. He had to. In 1931, his engineering skills lead to him being reappointed into the Navy, and he resumed his service as a Naval officer. Again, just normal service - nothing to do with his privileged background. When the Second World War came, he'd become a senior officer - a position he had earned through coming up the officer ranks in the same way as anybody else. He was a Lord - but he was the second son of a Marquess, not a particularly significant position and not one that affected his career. And he continued acquiring seniority through the war through being a quality commander. And at the end of the war, like many senior officers, he was asked to take on diplomatic duties, which he why he became the last Viceroy of India. He also received a Vicountancy, which was pretty much the normal reward to British officers of his rank at the end of that war in which their nation had emerged victorious, and he was later made an Earl for his service in India. He earned his titles and rank.
So you make the claim, however he never uttered publicly so I have to assumed that it is not accurate.
He made it to plenty of people privately who have reported it, including Englishmen and Irishmen on all sides of politics. There's a reason his memorial service was attended by a number of prominent Irish statesmen. He was their friend.
I agree that the IRA are not the nicest people, however the IRA for all intents and purposes no longer exists. They gave up the gun and bomb not long after 9/11.
Not all of them, although the PIRA does seem to have disarmed in recent years and have decided to take a political approach and that's a good thing. But it wasn't that way in 1979, and there are still elements of the older type around today.
I think that most Americans understand the privileges that are bestowed upon English "royalty" (the quotes really bother you don't they). We are not so naive to believe that he pulled himself up by his bootstraps. The current "princes" have also served in the British military. Is there any doubt that a bunch of fawning newspaper articles will be printed describing how they rose through the ranks through hard work and dedication to become high ranking officers.
The idle rich have no clue what hard work is.
Louie's arrogance got him and a couple of kids killed. He should have kept his mouth shut.
Politically motivated inaccuracy worries me. In this case, for example, Mountbatten was not English royalty. He was never a member of the British royal family, although in later life, he was connected to it. He was, in fact, never royalty in any sense - this is why his style at birth was His Serene Highness, rather than His Royal Highness.
I don't necessarily expect your average person to understand the details of these distinctions or to care about them - but if you are going to make use of them to make snide politically-motivated comments, it might be nice if you made sure those comments were actually accurate.
We are not so naive to believe that he pulled himself up by his bootstraps.
Then you are ignorant because he did just that. Titles are not automatically accompanied by wealth (when the wealth is lost, the title is not - the Ninth Duke of Leinster is a landscape gardener living in Oxford). Whatever wealth the Mountbattens (then the Battenbergs) had was lost during the First World War as most of their property was in Germany and Russia - his father actually had to sell everything they owned (including his war medals) in 1919 and 1920 to pay the creditors. They still had a title, but they had no money or property with it. Mountbatten had to work for a living. That's a fact - quite a well known fact to anybody who knows British history.
The current "princes" have also served in the British military. Is there any doubt that a bunch of fawning newspaper articles will be printed describing how they rose through the ranks through hard work and dedication to become high ranking officers.
Yes, there is, in fact, plenty of doubt about that. Because it won't happen. There is a very real distinction made between honourary rank, and substantive rank - and the distinction is made very clear. The Prince of Wales is an honourary Admiral - his substantive rank in the Royal Navy is Lieutenant, the rank he earned during his five years of service in the 1970s. The Duke of York is an honourary Captain - his substantive rank is Commander, but he served for over twenty years and earned that rank.
Earl Mountbatten's military rank was substantive. He was an Admiral of the Fleet, because from 1952 to 1955, he was Commander-In-Chief of the Mediterranean Fleet. He earned his rank as a serving naval officer.
At the moment, Princes William and Harry are Lieutenants - substantive and serving. William, at least, will one day hold an Honourary Appointment as Field Marshal (the King always does), but this will be completely separate from his substantive rank.
Earl Mountbatten served in the Royal Navy in Two World Wars and peace, for a total of over thirty years, over a more than forty year period. He earned his rank. In civil life, he worked as an electrical engineer for about ten years. This is what his life was - not the idle rich caricature that you are trying to present. I'm assuming that's not deliberate - I'm assuming it's just because you didn't know anything about his actual life and you made assumptions. Well, those assumptions were wrong.
1913 – Entered Royal Navy [Midshipman His Serene Highness Prince Louis of Battenberg]
1916 – Rated Midshipman [Midshipman His Serene Highness Prince Louis of Battenberg]
Served on:
H.M.S. Lion, 1916 [Midshipman His Serene Highness Prince Louis of Battenberg]
H.M.S. Queen Elizabeth, 1917 [Midshipman Louis Mountbatten]
H.M. Submarine K6, 1918 [Midshipman Lord Louis Mountbatten]
1918 – Promoted Sub-Lieutenant [Sub-Lieutenant Lord Louis Mountbatten]
Served on H.M.S. P31. [Sub-Lieutenant Lord Louis Mountbatten]
1920 – Promoted Lieutenant [Lieutenant Lord Louis Mountbatten]
Served on:
H.M.S. Renown, 1920 [Lieutenant Lord Louis Mountbatten]
H.M.S. Repulse, 1921 [Lieutenant Lord Louis Mountbatten]
H.M.S. Renown, 1920 [Lieutenant Lord Louis Mountbatten]
Electrical Engineer [(Reserve) Lieutenant Lord Louis Mountbatten]
H.M.S. Revenge, 1923 [(Reserve) Lieutenant Lord Louis Mountbatten]
Signal School, Portsmouth, 1924 [(Reserve) Lieutenant Lord Louis Mountbatten]
R.N. College, Greenwich, 1925; [(Reserve) Lieutenant Lord Louis Mountbatten]
Reserve Fleet Wireless and Signal Officer, 1926; [(Reserve) Lieutenant Lord Louis Mountbatten]
Assistant Fleet Wireless Officer, Mediterranean Fleet, 1927–1928.[(Reserve) Lieutenant Lord Louis Mountbatten]
1928 – Promoted Lieutenant-Commander [Lieutenant-Commander Lord Louis Mountbatten]
Second Destroyer Flotilla Signal and Wireless, 1928–1929; [Lieutenant-Commander Lord Louis Mountbatten]
Senior Instructor in Wireless at H.M. Signal School, Portsmouth, 1929–1931; [Lieutenant-Commander Lord Louis Mountbatten]
Fleet Wireless Officer, Mediterranean Fleet, 1931–1933. [Lieutenant-Commander Lord Louis Mountbatten]
1932 – Promoted Commander [Commander Lord Louis Mountbatten]
Qualified as interpreter in French and German, 1933; [Commander Lord Louis Mountbatten]
In command of H.M.S. Daring, 1934; [Commander Lord Louis Mountbatten]
In command of H.M.S. Wishart, 1935; [Commander Lord Louis Mountbatten]
Appointed to Naval Air Division at Admiralty, 1936.[Commander Lord Louis Mountbatten]
1937 – Promoted Captain [Captain Lord Louis Mountbatten]
In command of H.M.S. Kelly and Fifth Destroyer Flotilla, [Captain Lord Louis Mountbatten]
1939 (mentioned in dispatches twice); [Captain Lord Louis Mountbatten]
In command of H.M.S. Illustrious, 1941. [Captain Lord Louis Mountbatten]
1941 – Promoted Commodore (First Class) [Commodore Lord Louis Mountbatten]
Commodore, Combined Operations, 1941–1942; [Commodore Lord Louis Mountbatten]
Chief of Combined Operations and Member of Chief of Staff's Committee with rank of acting Vice-Admiral, 1942–1943; [A/Vice-Admiral Lord Louis Mountbatten]
Supreme Allied Commander, South-East Asia with rank of acting Admiral, 1943–1946. [A/Admiral Lord Louis Mountbatten]
1946 – Promoted Rear-Admiral [Rear-Admiral The Right Honourable The Viscount Mountbatten of Burma]
Flag Officer commanding First Cruiser Squadron, Mediterranean Fleet, 1948–1949. [Rear-Admiral The Right Honourable The Viscount Mountbatten of Burma]
1949 – Promoted Vice-Admiral [Vice-Admiral The Right Honourable The Earl Mountbatten of Burma]
Fourth Sea Lord, 1950–1952; [Vice-Admiral The Right Honourable The Earl Mountbatten of Burma]
Commander-in-Chief, Mediterrnean, 1952–1954. [Vice-Admiral The Right Honourable The Earl Mountbatten of Burma]
1953 – Promoted Admiral [Admiral The Right Honourable The Earl Mountbatten of Burma]
Commander-in-Chief, Allied Forces, Mediterrnean, 1953–1954; First Sea Lord, 1955–1959. [Admiral The Right Honourable The Earl Mountbatten of Burma]
1956 – Promoted Admiral of the Fleet [Admiral of the Fleet The Right Honourable The Earl Mountbatten of Burma]
Chief of the Defence Staff and Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, 1959–1965. [Admiral of the Fleet The Right Honourable The Earl Mountbatten of Burma]
1965 – Retired [Admiral of the Fleet The Right Honourable The Earl Mountbatten of Burma (Retired)]
A couple of quotes from Wikipedia.
In his biography of Mountbatten, Philip Ziegler notes on his ambitious character: "His vanity, though child-like, was monstrous, his ambition unbridled. The truth, in his hands, was swiftly converted from what it was, to what it should have been. He sought to rewrite history with cavalier indifference to the facts to magnify his own achievements. There was a time when I became so enraged by what I began to feel was his determination to hoodwink me that I found it necessary to place on my desk a notice saying: REMEMBER, IN SPITE OF EVERYTHING, HE WAS A GREAT MAN."
He personally pushed through the disastrous Dieppe Raid of 19 August 1942 (which certain elements of the Allied military, notably Field Marshal Montgomery, felt was ill-conceived from the start). The raid on Dieppe was widely considered to be a disaster, with casualties (including those wounded and/or taken prisoner) numbering in the thousands, the great majority of them Canadians.
Mountbatten claimed that the lessons learned from the Dieppe Raid were necessary for planning the Normandy invasion on D-Day nearly two years later. However, military historians such as former Royal Marine Julian Thompson have written that these lessons should not have needed a debacle such as Dieppe to be recognised.
What a guy.
Again, Americans don't buy into the BS, no matter how much you push it, that English "royalty" pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. They grew up pampered and fawned over and believe that the world should bow to them.
Not everyone agrees.
Hey, natural...your take on Lord Mountbatten is correct. He did earn his rank, his position, his titles. And he was very much a friend of the Irish. I lived in County Down in 1979, and knew many Irish on both sides of the border, even knew some (non-military) on either side of the conflict.
His murder was cold blooded, calculated, premeditated terrorism. On that same day 18 British soldiers were blown up at Narrow Water Castle, outside Warrenpoint. I was there soon after that happened. Both acts were cowardly terrorism. Both were the result of remote detonation of explosive charges previously secretly concealed. The IRA acted in an evil, cowardly way in both instances on that last Monday in August of 1979. Neither Lord Mountbatten (known to the Royal family as Uncle Dickie) nor the 18 soldiers deserved to die that day.
As for you, wazoo, I suggest you go grind your axe on some other thread.
As for me, I am a natural born citizen of these United States. Not now nor ever a British subject. I have a certified long form BC and a genuine US Passport to prove it. My people fought in the first revolution...
As for the Bozo’s neither cut it nor are qualified for the office held by the one then, same office held by the one now. Neither peanut farming nor community organizing are qualifying, redeeming attributes for the Oval Office job.
Uncle Dickie (I'm sure that was a term of endearment) should have kept his mouth shut. His arrogance got him and two innocent kids killed.
My people fought in the first revolution.
On which side?
Actually I'm a military historian and a retired officer of the Royal Australian Navy which means I know a great deal about military history and take a special interests in Naval history. And I'm interested in facts, not politically ignorant spin by those who don't care about facts in the face of their ideology.
Coming from a titled background doesn't make a person any smarter or better skilled. There are just as many dullards among the aristocracy as among everybody else. But nor does coming from a titled background make a person less intelligent or less skilled than average. Titles don't really matter - and that means that just as there's no reason to assume a titled person is more competent than anybody else, there's no reason to assume that they are less so, and certainly no reason to assume that they managed to get where the did simply because of their family. Earl Mountbatten earned his rank through having a reasonable level of intelligence and then spending year after year working and improving.
The Dieppe Raid was ill conceived, I agree. One disastrous and wrong decision in a career that was mostly made up of good ones. Plenty of great military leaders have such incidents in their history and Dieppe was Mountbatten's. MacArthur screwed up over the Phillipines. Patton screwed up at Baum. Montgomery on the Ruhr. Plenty of examples.
“I’ll grind my axe wherever I damn well please”
Grind away, my boy. Grind away.
For the record, wazoo, I want those you’ve been grinding at to know you for who you are...See Dictionary.com
wa-zoo –noun
1. the anus.
2. the buttocks.
It doesn't make my points any less valid.
I know that we only had one revolution. You seem to think that there were more than one.
If you were in tune with reality, you might realize that there is likely to be a second revolution. Even a grand anus might know that if he wasn’t such a smart anus.
The rainbow is the sign of God’s promise that He will never again destroy the earth by flood. There is no revolutionary rainbow gauranteeing that for the Left who would enslave us.
And you probably think there was only one Flood...
The rainbow is the sign of God’s promise that He will never again destroy the earth by flood. There is no revolutionary rainbow gauranteeing that for the Left who would enslave us. And you probably think there was only one Flood...
So there were no rainbows before Noah?
The earth was never destroyed by a flood. Only lunatics interpret the old testament literally.
So much for the British "upper crust".
You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.
Daily Mail Article
So much for the British "upper crust".
You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.
A rather startling example of inductive reasoning, if I may say so. Mountbatten was a sinner? ergo all British aristocrats are worthless and deserve what they get. ergo nothing to complain about if Mountbatten gets killed by terrorists. Try applying the same reasoning to another group - let's say the class of U.S. Presidents, arguing inductively from the present incumbent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.