This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/jul/20/footage-of-the-queens-nazi-salute-still-fascinates-the-media

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Footage of the Queen's Nazi salute still fascinates the media Queen Nazi salute leads to fawning and frothing from national press
(35 minutes later)
The story about the 17-second footage of the seven-year-old Queen-to-be, her mother, sister and uncle giving Nazi salutes is still headline news.The story about the 17-second footage of the seven-year-old Queen-to-be, her mother, sister and uncle giving Nazi salutes is still headline news.
News articles, commentaries or editorials are published today across the national press the day after it got major coverage in the Sunday newspapers. And it is still being aired on TV and radio bulletins.News articles, commentaries or editorials are published today across the national press the day after it got major coverage in the Sunday newspapers. And it is still being aired on TV and radio bulletins.
Some 82 years on from the shooting of that film, journalists are exploring the attitudes of the royal family towards Adolf Hitler’s regime in Germany, with several calling for the opening of the royal archives in order to shed more light on the matter.Some 82 years on from the shooting of that film, journalists are exploring the attitudes of the royal family towards Adolf Hitler’s regime in Germany, with several calling for the opening of the royal archives in order to shed more light on the matter.
Related: Queen's Nazi salute footage is matter of historical significance, says the Sun
Even the Independent, sticking at the outset to its tradition of ignoring royal affairs, has joined in with a news story about “the palace considering legal action”. It also runs a leading article in which it argues that “the grainy shots have a certain historic value as a reminder of how fashionable and uncontroversial both Hitler and Mussolini were in the early 1930s.” It says:Even the Independent, sticking at the outset to its tradition of ignoring royal affairs, has joined in with a news story about “the palace considering legal action”. It also runs a leading article in which it argues that “the grainy shots have a certain historic value as a reminder of how fashionable and uncontroversial both Hitler and Mussolini were in the early 1930s.” It says:
“She and her mother may just have been having a laugh – mocking the German dictator who many people then likened to Charlie Chaplin. After such a long passage of time, it is hard to tell.”“She and her mother may just have been having a laugh – mocking the German dictator who many people then likened to Charlie Chaplin. After such a long passage of time, it is hard to tell.”
This interpretation is widely held. Boris Johnson, in the Daily Telegraph, writes:This interpretation is widely held. Boris Johnson, in the Daily Telegraph, writes:
“The two little girls on film are plainly fooling around, and so is their mother, and so – probably – is their uncle Edward, even if he did go on to maintain a sinister sympathy for the Nazi regime. This was a time when people made fun of Nazis and their pompous and preposterous behaviour.”“The two little girls on film are plainly fooling around, and so is their mother, and so – probably – is their uncle Edward, even if he did go on to maintain a sinister sympathy for the Nazi regime. This was a time when people made fun of Nazis and their pompous and preposterous behaviour.”
Max Hastings, in the Daily Mail, has a similar view:Max Hastings, in the Daily Mail, has a similar view:
“Many music-hall comedians parodied the Hitler salute. It is overwhelmingly likely that the royals uplifting their arms at Balmoral were playing what seemed a harmless game, rather than making anything resembling a political gesture.”“Many music-hall comedians parodied the Hitler salute. It is overwhelmingly likely that the royals uplifting their arms at Balmoral were playing what seemed a harmless game, rather than making anything resembling a political gesture.”
But the belief that more interesting material might be concealed in the royal archives has prompted papers of the right and left to call for them to be opened.But the belief that more interesting material might be concealed in the royal archives has prompted papers of the right and left to call for them to be opened.
The Observer did so on Sunday (in company with the Sunday Times and the Sun on Sunday). And Monday’s Times, in an editorial that thinks the palace is in danger of over-reacting to the publication of the footage, which it should take “on the chin”, concludes:.The Observer did so on Sunday (in company with the Sunday Times and the Sun on Sunday). And Monday’s Times, in an editorial that thinks the palace is in danger of over-reacting to the publication of the footage, which it should take “on the chin”, concludes:.
“It should yield to the opening of the royal archives and encourage essay questions on the Balmoral clip in GCSE history papers.”“It should yield to the opening of the royal archives and encourage essay questions on the Balmoral clip in GCSE history papers.”
Trevor Kavanagh, in the Sun, agrees: “The royal family is not sacred and this is not just a home movie. It is part of the fabric of our democratic nation. The real question is what else of importance is stored away in the royal archives?Trevor Kavanagh, in the Sun, agrees: “The royal family is not sacred and this is not just a home movie. It is part of the fabric of our democratic nation. The real question is what else of importance is stored away in the royal archives?
“And why should we not have access to them for historical purposes, just as we do with cabinet records under the 100-year rule?”“And why should we not have access to them for historical purposes, just as we do with cabinet records under the 100-year rule?”
David Aaronovitch, in the Times, believes the “film – like lots of letters and documents – should have been released from the royal archives long ago … if one of the things they show is that past monarchs communicated with dictators or had questionable ideas, then that tells us a lot about the times in which they lived.”David Aaronovitch, in the Times, believes the “film – like lots of letters and documents – should have been released from the royal archives long ago … if one of the things they show is that past monarchs communicated with dictators or had questionable ideas, then that tells us a lot about the times in which they lived.”
Related: The Sun was right to publish scoop of the Queen giving a Nazi salute
Meanwhile, various news stories refer to the royal archivists being responsible, albeit inadvertently, for the footage being leaked.Meanwhile, various news stories refer to the royal archivists being responsible, albeit inadvertently, for the footage being leaked.
For example, the Mail reports that “the clip may have been accidentally disclosed with footage used for an exhibition on royal childhoods at Buckingham Palace last year”.For example, the Mail reports that “the clip may have been accidentally disclosed with footage used for an exhibition on royal childhoods at Buckingham Palace last year”.
It also alleges that the footage was sold to “a tabloid newspaper [aka the Sun] for a four-figure sum” after being “copied by a researcher with ‘access to the royal archives’ several years ago.”It also alleges that the footage was sold to “a tabloid newspaper [aka the Sun] for a four-figure sum” after being “copied by a researcher with ‘access to the royal archives’ several years ago.”
But the Mail’s splash takes the story into a new – in truth, anything but new – dimension by “revealing” that Prince Philip’s sister met and admired Hitler, describing him as “charming and seemingly modest”.But the Mail’s splash takes the story into a new – in truth, anything but new – dimension by “revealing” that Prince Philip’s sister met and admired Hitler, describing him as “charming and seemingly modest”.
The article, based on the contents of a forthcoming Channel 4 documentary, begins: “Buckingham Palace was last night braced for new embarrassment …”The article, based on the contents of a forthcoming Channel 4 documentary, begins: “Buckingham Palace was last night braced for new embarrassment …”
I’m uncertain about the royal family being red-faced about such well-known historical facts but I suppose the story has some validity given that a new generation of Brits will probably know nothing of Philip’s background.I’m uncertain about the royal family being red-faced about such well-known historical facts but I suppose the story has some validity given that a new generation of Brits will probably know nothing of Philip’s background.
The story has been something of a godsend for out-of-work “royal experts” – a motley crew of biographers and historians. They have so little to do nowadays, not least because of the close media control exercised by and on behalf of Prince William and his wife. So the Sunday papers gave them full rein (or should that be reign?).The story has been something of a godsend for out-of-work “royal experts” – a motley crew of biographers and historians. They have so little to do nowadays, not least because of the close media control exercised by and on behalf of Prince William and his wife. So the Sunday papers gave them full rein (or should that be reign?).
But their musings on the affair, however predictable and vacuous, were infinitely more readable than some of the sentimental nonsense trotted out by two red-tops.But their musings on the affair, however predictable and vacuous, were infinitely more readable than some of the sentimental nonsense trotted out by two red-tops.
It is difficult to decide which was worse – the Sunday People or the Sunday Mirror. The former carried a poster front page: “Betrayed: Livid Queen demands to know who leaked Nazi salute film”. And an inside spread had the headline: “Who could have done this to me?” superimposed over a picture of the Queen.It is difficult to decide which was worse – the Sunday People or the Sunday Mirror. The former carried a poster front page: “Betrayed: Livid Queen demands to know who leaked Nazi salute film”. And an inside spread had the headline: “Who could have done this to me?” superimposed over a picture of the Queen.
Its fawning editorial, “Ma’am, we know you are no Nazi”, grovelled: “We understand the Queen’s feeling of betrayal... But when the fuss dies down we also hope Her Majesty will see that no real harm was done.” Its fawning editorial, “Ma’am, we know you are no Nazi”, grovelled: “We understand the Queen’s feeling of betrayal … But when the fuss dies down, we also hope Her Majesty will see that no real harm was done.”
Remembering that it is a newspaper of disclosure, it did concede that the pictures “these mildly embarrassing pictures” should be shown, adding: “Your subjects, Ma’am, have every right to see them.” Remembering that it is a newspaper of disclosure, it did concede that the pictures – “these mildly embarrassing pictures” – should be shown, adding: “Your subjects, Ma’am, have every right to see them.”
This icky stuff was echoed in the Sunday Mirror’s “exclusive” (can they be serious) which began: “The nation rallied behind the Queen yesterday as she was rocked by leaked film of her making a Nazi salute.” It continued:This icky stuff was echoed in the Sunday Mirror’s “exclusive” (can they be serious) which began: “The nation rallied behind the Queen yesterday as she was rocked by leaked film of her making a Nazi salute.” It continued:
“Loyal subjects and fans from around the world leapt to the Queen’s defence, telling her: ‘We’re right behind you, Ma’am.’” Then, as proof, it quoted two “loyal subjects” - a British mechanic hanging about outside Buckingham Palace and a German tourist. “Loyal subjects and fans from around the world leapt to the Queen’s defence, telling her: ‘We’re right behind you, Ma’am.’”
Then, as proof, it quoted two “loyal subjects” – a British mechanic hanging about outside Buckingham Palace and a German tourist.
As for “expert” insight, here’s the profound conclusion of the Mirror’s royal reporter, Victoria Murphy: “What actions will follow the palace’s anger remains to be seen.”As for “expert” insight, here’s the profound conclusion of the Mirror’s royal reporter, Victoria Murphy: “What actions will follow the palace’s anger remains to be seen.”
Finally, let me reiterate that the Sun’s revelation has opened up a long overdue debate about the secrecy of the royal archives and also about where the libnes should be drawn between privacy and the public’s right to know in relation to the monarchy. Finally, let me reiterate that the Sun’s revelation has opened up a long overdue debate about the secrecy of the royal archives and also about where the lines should be drawn between privacy and the public’s right to know in relation to the monarchy.
And there is another issue to think about too. It may be entirely understandable that rival newspapers are fascinated by how the Sun obtained the footage, but isn’t it interesting how newspaper editors that, in the interests of press freedom, proclaim the need to protect confidential sources go out of their way to expose such sources?And there is another issue to think about too. It may be entirely understandable that rival newspapers are fascinated by how the Sun obtained the footage, but isn’t it interesting how newspaper editors that, in the interests of press freedom, proclaim the need to protect confidential sources go out of their way to expose such sources?