About Prince George, I can see why they arranged his death if indeed he was engaged in trying to broker peace with Germany on his own; that is clearly treason. During that time period, his bisexuality would have been very taboo, and his drug habit another strike against him. Treason was strike three, I suppose.
I wonder if George had been in touch with the Duke of Windsor about seeking peace with Germany. Windsor was much more cautious it seems, preferring to put his message across through third parties, giving himself deniability. If Edward did urge Prince George to broker peace, the plane crash would have put him on notice that nothing escaped the attention of the British intelligence service; that fact could not have been lost on him.
It was not long after the Duke of Kent died that the tide of war changed. The U-boats became the hunted prey and were much more likely to be sunk that to sink ships. British industry and American industry had been able to tool up and were then cranking out planes, ships, weapons, etc. Our intelligence services had made spectacular gains, in particular, the British geniuses at Blechley Park with their code-breaking work. The Germans were playing a defensive game from that point onward. I would guess Windsor lost his urge to talk about seeking peace after the allies began winning.
I can only imagine what it must be like to grow up as a member of royalty. I think I would feel a sense of entitlement, of license, and of privilege, as well as duty. I am musing about this because I am trying to think of how those men thought they should act contrary to their government in a time of war. Windsor seems to have been motivated by ambition to some extent.
It is hard to have respect for Windsor and Kent, no matter how generously one assigns motives to them. They come off as cowards, at the best, and downright traitors at the worst.
But the British government bears some blame I think. Edward should not have been made the liaison between Britain and France, and given access to all that sensitive information. It was already established that he could not be trusted to handle classified material. He was given his position because of his status, not because of merit. And that error allowed him to betray the soldiers and aid the enemy.
But I am being critical decades later, with the benefit of hindsight. It is easy to criticize afterward, with all the facts.

The British royals have always been a law unto themselves - and they can express their racist opinions without censure. Just look up Prince Philips gaffes - they are outrageous - but nobody fires him. Sometimes I feel like an alien - watching the thousands of people who turn out at every royal occasion to wave their little flags in support of this overprivileged ever expanding family who own vast swathes of British soil - not only on land but under the sea - what gives them these rights? If you find any ancient coins or treasure - no matter where - it belongs to the crown. Why would you support people who came to power via conquering, killing, mutilating and torturing all natives who opposed them? I find the concept of royalty repulsive. To change the subject - I watched a documentary on Netflix last night called "The Island Murder" - I had no idea that their conversion to statehood was forced - that the America military overthrew the queen and annexed the island. The case concerned the alleged rape of a navy wife by five islanders which was later proved to be complete fiction - I wont go any further in case you would decide to watch it - but what transpired was so disgusting and outrageous it is hardly believable.

Well, I will have to watch that now. Sounds interesting. Yes, our government has violated its own laws and strayed outside its legal limitations many times and in many ways, increasingly over time. It is a far cry from what the government created in 1786.

You sound like one of the early founding fathers of America. They were learned men who had studied history and various forms of government and spent much time discussing and debating how men should live and be governed. There are not many men (or women) of their caliber today, in my opinion. As you know, they rejected the British model, rejected the idea of being subjects of a King or Lord or any such arrangement. They adopted the position that each man is sovereign, free to make his own wealth, his own way, etc., provided he didn't infringe upon the natural, or God-given, rights, whichever one prefers, of others. (If you discover sunken treasure, it is yours, some of it anyway. They still tax you heavily on it. )They rejected democracy, which Ben Franklin and others viewed as two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Having a vote is not much consolation for the sheep. Majority rule is simply mob rule.

They wound up favoring a federation of individual states with a small central government of limited (enumerated) powers, with the states and the people retaining most authority and powers. The idea that governments are created to protect the natural rights of the sovereign people they serve, is for me the most important founding principle they decreed. They greatly feared a strong central government or a single person with too much power. So they limited the power of the federal government and established checks and balances in it. If the courts or the legislature make decisions or laws which violate our founding principles or the Constitution, the President can simply fail to abide by those decisions or execute those laws. That is how it is supposed to work.

Our federal government has simply assumed all manner of powers not delegated to it by the States. The States allow them to get away with this because the federal government bribes them with gobs of money as our deficit rises higher and higher. The basic structure for an all-powerful dictatorship is being constructed thanks to false flag terrorist attacks and the "Patriot Act" type legislation which continues to be passed. Our rights and liberties are being infringed upon and revoked. The amount of data which is being collected on everyone in the country, and in many parts of the world, is staggering. The advances in artificial intelligence (AI) software mean that it is increasingly possible to rapidly process all that data into useful information. The implications of this are too great for any of us to fully comprehend, I fear.

Our original form of government was great, but could only work if the people remained educated about it, and diligent in maintaining it. But the powerful forces of the banking industry sought to take it over. In 1913 they succeeded in fooling President Wilson that he should sign a law which created the Federal Reserve Bank, which is not federal at all. It is a private cartel of American and international banks. The Fed creates our money supply. It has never been fully audited. The value of our money is less than one 1/100th what it was in 1913. That is just one of many ways in which our government has been perverted over time.

Wow, once I get started I just keep talking, don't I? haha. I have fond feelings toward Great Britain. I still see it as our mother country. My oldest sister has become fascinated with genealogy and tells me that 15 or 20 generations back we have a couple of Kings in our ancestry. I am sure millions of others can say the same. Also, the Sheriff of Nottingham! I would have preferred Robin Hood. haha. But you can't choose these things.

It's always the same - people can start out with the best of intentions but somewhere along the way human greed and the lust for power corrupts everything. I hate the Britain I am forced to live in today - I don't feel like it is my country any more and I feel no allegiance to it. Crime figures are at record levels - it is not safe to walk the streets any more - paedophile gangs are rampant - our prison sentences are a joke. Everybody is constantly surveilled - freedom of speech is a distant memory and our government is full of lies and sleaze. There is nothing Great about it. My ancestry is a mixture of Devonian Scottish and Welsh - and we have connections to one of the Tolpuddle Martyrs !! Remember what we were saying about history repeating itself - I see that anti-Semitism in Germany is on the rise again - so much for atonement and a change in the national psyche.

From what is reported over here, it seems like much of Europe is seeing a rise in anti-Semitism. There is a similar movement on college campuses here in the States, at least with regard to the country of Israel. I read an open letter by a Scottish professor who is an expert in middle eastern affairs to the student body at his university. He pointed out that civil rights for everyone are protected in Israel, and all religions are respected there. He did a great job in pointing out the various ways in which the criticisms he heard were not in line with the facts. But these radical, outraged, protesters are not concerned with getting the facts right. They believe in group conformity. I don't know who is directing them all.

It's not that I necessarily agree with everything Israel's government has done or may have done. But that old 'blame it all on the Jews' mentality is dangerous, as we who remember history know so well.

I have become aware of a very dangerous change in the education system, which I may have mentioned previously. The students are conditioned the time they enter school to value group conformity. They are taught what to think. They are not taught to think for themselves. Critical thinking skills are not taught to them, and neither are the facts and skills we were taught. They are not taught history, not in a way we would recognize. What history the do learn is a revisionist form which aligns with the ideology of the book's author. The students turned out can be easily manipulated. They respond in a predictable fashion to given stimuli.
Companies must put new hires through remedial training courses to give them the skills which previous graduates learned in college.

It is terrible

Not only terrible but terrifying. I am unsure of your educational systems - to put it bluntly do you have schools for the poor and schools for the rich - we have ordinary schools that ordinary children go to - and we have schools that rich people pay for their children to attend - is it the same with you? I think that the children of rich people will not be taught in the same manner as the children of the less well heeled which only cements my idea that education is being deliberately being dumbed down because sheep are easier to manage than wolves. Our only hope is that intelligent children who may not have rich parents will be bright enough to seek out the truth for themselves. I had a very poor education in an ordinary school - doubly so because the Welsh are a very insular race who think that nothing outside Wales is worth learning - they are even trying to teach immigrants Welsh before they can speak English - I do not think of myself as Welsh - just an accident of birth. However - I was very aware of my pathetic level of education and when I left school I scoured the library for every subject I had not been educated about - it was not all history and geography etc - I read the books of famous pathologists - criminologists - hundreds of biographies - I could not guess at the books I have read - literally thousands. So - hopefully there will be many more out there like me who will either sense or see what is happening and do something about it.

We have public and private schools. But it isn't just rich kids who go to private schools, or even primarily. I would guess it is mostly religious people or other ordinary people who are very concerned with what is going on in public schools. Concerned parents adjust their budgets, work extra jobs if need be, because they don't want the state conditioning their kids. Others choose to homeschool their children, but they have to have money to do that I think, at least enough money so that mom doesn't have to work. They have to submit a plan to the school board to ensure that the basics are being taught. Imagine that. The people in charge of our disastrous public schools have to sign off on the teaching plan for homeschooled children.
As a young person I wasn't a great student. I made decent grades but had bad study habits. I didn't take it seriously until my dad laid down the law. I had to study, and then I made the honor roll. I did better in college once I figured out what I wanted to study. I also like to read up on subjects I never studied. I don't master them, but hopefully become conversant in the basics.

I am just beginning to watch The Island Murder now. Just two minutes into it I noticed something. There was a shot of the woman who was supposedly kidnapped and gang-raped standing between two men. She is wearing a black hat, and she is smiling as one of the men, her husband, is talking. It is her smile which is very much out of place.
When someone isn't telling the truth they often give it away through facial gestures they are not able to control, and may not be aware of. Over 25 years ago there was a case of a young lady who claimed that her children had been kidnapped by some black men. For a few weeks, it was national news. She was interviewed briefly on television. She made appeals for her children to be returned safely. When the reporters spoke to her, expressing sympathy, I noticed a nervous flicker of a smile when she was speaking about something which should have been a horrific memory. It seemed out of place to me. I told myself it was just an odd reaction to the reporters and the news camera, or some expression of gratitude for their sympathy. But it didn't feel right to me. Later we learned that she had killed her children, drowning them in the car she said had been stolen with them in the back seat. That flicker of a smile was some way of her processing the guilt of what she had done, and looking for sympathy from others. I don't fully understand it, but I have noticed similar things on others who lie, expressions which seem out of place given what is going on.
I know from what I read about this story that the lady lied about the whole incident. But it isn't a flicker of a smile I see on her face. It is a long-lasting smile, almost a sly smile. It's as though she knows she has gotten away with it, that her husband and everyone believes her. She was not a psychopath, as was suggested at one point in the show. Psychopaths don't feel guilty. She made several suicide attempts and finally succeeded in 1963. She was raised by a racist, rich bitch. What a messed up young woman. Racism was apparently widespread during that period of time. My parents were not racist, but many people were. Racism slowly went away. By the 1990s racism was largely a thing of the past here. I don't mean there was perfect harmony, but race relations have steadily improved. The charges of racism one hears these days have very little to do with real racism. There are people who benefit from racial tensions politically, and those people will always seek to rile things up. When Obama told Congress how much money he intended to spend there were many people who countered that such a level of spending was simply unsustainable. And journalists suggested that anyone criticizing Obama's budget as unsustainable did so because they were racist! That is the nonsense I am talking about. I wonder what actually happened that night, how her face became bruised. She was clearly lying to her husband. Something happened she didn't want to tell him about. I am sure we won't ever know what, but I can't help but wonder.

I am very interested in true crime - I believe the case you mentioned is probably Susan Smith - she claimed that she had been abducted by a black man. She got thirty years and is due out in 2024. How a mother could watch two babies going to their terrifying and horrible deaths I cannot fathom - I believe it was because her boyfriend didn't like children. How you can release a double murderer of children even after thirty years is beyond my comprehension - I think she should have been executed. With regard to Thalia in the island murder - just looking at her you get the feeling of something is not right with her - that pasted on smile that doesn't reflect in her eyes - but if you haven't watched it all yet I wont comment further. I think it may already have been stated that she was observed being followed by a white man (haole?) when she left the party. It could be possible that he approached her for sex and that she turned him down and he belted her across the face and raped her - if that was the case why not just say so - unless the man concerned would tell a different story in his own defence - or maybe he outranked her husband and the incident would bring down a massive scandal on the navy. Who knows - maybe she told the truth to begin with and was told to hush it up and make up a story about five islanders. As you can tell - I am a mad theorist !!! Good for you for buckling down and doing well in college even making the honor role !! I am the same in my reading habits - I will never be an expert in anything but I like to think I know more than the average person about certain subjects which is just as well because I am a complete duffer when it comes to maths and the sciences !! My favourite subject is English Literature and language - I am in love with words !! By the way - I am aware that the word "bitch" is regarded in almost the same way as a four letter word in America - but in Britain it is not regarded as anything other than a very mild form of insult so it is not upsetting to me in the least.

I have watched it all through now. Her husband spoke of wanting a divorce and she was frightened of that, of being sent home or left on her own. I wondered if she made up the alleged rape (doctors said she wasn't violated) as a manipulation, some way to draw her husband to her side and to get sympathy. She didn't want the police called because she didn't want the medical exam which was sure to follow, and the discovery that there was no evidence of a rape. I wonder if there was some altercation with that man following her in which she was struck in the face. She was known to be unfaithful to her husband. Did she come on to that man? Did she change her mind because he wasn't a nice guy or something? That could lead to her being struck in the face. It would also mean that she would not want the white man to give his account of the incident as it would not reflect well on her. Since she was raised by a racist mother, and her husband was racist, and racism was so prevalent in Hawaii at that time, she was inclined to blame it on some dark skinned fellows. She cared nothing for them, and she could be confident that others would believe her.
She enjoyed the attention, once she saw that her story was believed. That was what that smile was about I think. If she had actually been the victim of a violent rape as she claimed, some evidence of that trauma would show in her facial expression. But she wasn't recalling a traumatic attack where she feared for her safety. Look at her in that short scene about 2 minutes into the documentary; she is smiling, looking at people and then looking downward. She looks like the cat that just ate the bird. She was clearly a disturbed young woman. It is a real shame that the psychologist who had previously examined her could not impress upon the husband strongly enough the need to get professional help for her. I don't recall now what he said, but I recall that he indicated she had some serious mental issues. I wonder if later in life she began to feel guilt over her lie, and the subsequent murder of that young man. I think she did.

And her mother also had serious issues, worse than her daughter's issues I think. She had no guilt over what she had done; she only regretted pulling the car window shades which led to the discovery of the body of the murdered young man. She must have learned that her daughter had lied. I think she may have known that when she arranged to kidnap that man and murder him. She wanted to protect the family name. I think she was willing to kill an innocent man to try to avoid having the truth about her daughter revealed. The mother had no guilt over this. I think the daughter later did feel guilty and perhaps this drove her to suicide.

Yes I was referring to Susan Smith above. She wanted to be with some man and he didn't want children, I think was the issue. No one could understand how any woman could do something like that. It breaks your heart to think of those kids as she sent her car into that lake with them in the back seat looking back at her. How could she do that? Those kids. It still breaks my heart to think of them. The car didn't sink right away, it took some time for the water to come inside.
I don't know how she has been able to live with herself all these years. What was wrong with her? Was she born with some mental defect? Was she terribly abused as a child? Now matter what the reason, it is impossible to imagine doing that to those innocent children.

South Carolina has the death penalty. But juries and courts have always been reluctant to put women to death, for whatever reasons. The only exception I can think of was that of a serial killer in Florida, a prostitute who decided to start killing men who hired her for sex. Aileen Wuornos was her name, and even in her case there was reluctance to put her to death.

Did Susan Smith have serious mental issues? Perhaps. I think anyone who could do something like she did is not right in the head in some way. But she wasn't legally insane; she knew right from wrong. I don't know why the death penalty wasn't sought in her case. I can only guess it is because she is a woman.

As far as I am concerned if women want equality then it should apply in all areas - executions included. I think Thalia's mother was a narcissist at best and a psychopath at worst - one of those horrible upper class over privileged people who think they are not bound by the laws of the ordinary man. I am familiar with the Aileen Wuornos case - I watched the documentary on it as well - although she had a troubled childhood in my view that was no excuse to turn to prostitution and murder - she could equally well have gotten herself a decent job and turned her life around - instead she took the easier option of becoming a prostitute - oops - should that be sex worker - how I hate euphemisms - and killing for cash. There was a case in Britain in the fifties when a woman called Ruth Ellis was hanged. She had been in a relationship with a man called David Blakely - it was very volatile and they would hit each other. He eventually tired of her and took to avoiding her so she stalked him and waited for him outside a pub, when he came out she shot him six times - one bullet being fired from 3 inches away from his back. There was a real uproar when she was hanged - I think - as you say - because she was a woman. My sympathy always lies with the victim - I have no time for the psychobabble excuses made for the murderers.

I just looked up Ruth Ellis and read a short bit about her. Apparently she refused to seek mercy. It was unclear to me whether she felt remorse per se. She said something to the effect that she did what she did and should die for it. But from what I read it didn't sound like she expressed remorse for it, only that she was guilty and therefore deserved to die. Apparently an MP urged her to seek mercy for the sake of her children, but she refused. If she failed to express remorse then it becomes more clear why the State would push forward with the death penalty. An unrepentant killer cannot be seen as having been treated with mercy by the State.

In the US, in most States, murders are given different classifications. The death penalty is usually reserved for those cases showing a combination of premeditation, cruelty, brutality, or what is referred to as "special circumstances". If a killer takes the time to torture his victim(s), or chooses an especially gruesome method of killing them, that could be considered special circumstances. The killing of more than one person is a factor, as is the motivation of the killer.
If you kill someone by accident, of course, it is not viewed the same as a premeditated murder. You might only be charged with manslaughter, a term which sounds pretty bad, but is less serious than premeditated murder. Ruth Ellis planned to kill Blakely, and after she shot him and he lay on the ground, she stood over him and fired 5 more bullets into him. That means she had plenty of time to consider her actions after she began them. Having shot him the first time, she might have reconsidered her actions. Instead she kept shooting at him. She also shot him in the back, something considered despicable in America, at least it was in the old west. I suppose if one is going to murder someone else, shooting him in the back as opposed to the front makes little actual difference. Anyway, she planned the murder, and coldly carried it out, making sure he was dead. She may have felt remorse afterward, but if so it apparently wasn't clear that she did.

Some lady created an exhibition, "Glad I Did It" about Ruth Ellis' last days. It sounds almost like a feminist portrayal, like she is somehow someone we should look up to in some way. What hogwash. We can respect her for not trying to lie about her actions and not trying to claim insanity. But that is it.

I am female but I am very tired of the "empowered" female slant on everything - be it adverts, television shows, or films. It seems to me that todays women do not want equality - they want domination. In a way I don't blame them because we have been subjugated from time immemorial, but you can't pick and choose what areas you want to be equal in. Women can be equally as vicious as men and those who are should be treated in exactly the same way and not revert to wounded womanhood when brought to account. I think Ruth Ellis was so in love with him that the thought of life without him was meaningless - she felt no remorse because in her mind it was her only course of action and she was prepared to pay the price for it because she didn't want to live without him anyway. I feel sorry for her children - I think her son committed suicide - and I feel sorry for David Blakely who was only 25 years old at the time of his murder. But people always forget the victims.

I understand and appreciate your views on these issues.
I doubt women will ever be on a level playing field with men in some ways. I don't think it is possible or even advisable that they should be. I think the differences between men and women are real and are a good thing. While women can serve in many capacities in the military, I don't like seeing them serve in front line combat roles. Not that some might not be very good at it, but I think it would be wrong as a general rule. Some of our enemies would be especially cruel to captured women POWs. I am thinking of certain middle eastern cultures which don't value women. I believe that some captured female pilots have been raped. They don't tend to rape our male POWs.

Men also cannot ever be the equal of women in some areas. It is biological.

The rabid feminists in America who scream for equality don't really want equality in all areas. We never hear feminists complaining about a gender gap in sewer line construction, it's only in the corporate board rooms and other high end jobs. It is very political.

Back to Ruth Ellis: I have been reading a bit more about her case.

Look at the justice system in Britain in the 20th century. 90% of women got reprieves. In fact, half of all convicted murderers in the 20th century were reprieved. Viewed in the light of those facts it sounds like Ruth wasn't treated just like everyone else. It sounds like the justice system was a lottery and she was unlucky.

I think that she hurt herself badly in court when she clearly stated that she intended to kill the man. That means murder, guilty mind. And the law in 1955 only allowed the death sentence for murder. On the one hand Ruth said I am guilty and I should die. On the other hand, she seemed to have been looking for a reprieve. I suppose it is natural to change your mind about wanting to die when you have time to think about it.

Also, she behaved in a very immoral fashion for those days, and that likely had some bearing on her failing to get mercy.

Yes - she was judged on her morals as much as her crime - the law has always had a higher expectation of good behaviour from women than it has from men. There was another case where this was true also - the Edith Thompson and Frederick Bywaters case in 1922. The three of them - Edith, her husband Percy and Freddy Bywaters had become friendly and then Edith and Freddy fell in love and had a very torrid affair. Edith and her husband were walking home one day when Freddy rushed out at them and stabbed Percy to death. Of course the police interviewed Edith who said she had no idea who Freddy was but her neighbours told a different story. When they found Freddy they also found 80 odd love letters from Edith - the contents of which were highly sexual and contained claims that she had put ground glass in Percy's food - they also discussed poisoning. She was promptly arrested and they both stood trial for the murder. Her defence claimed that she was a fanciful woman and that the letters discussing the possible demise of Percy were just fantasies - they couldn't really claim the same for the sexual elements though which were pretty graphic in nature. That is what clinched it for the jury - they only took two hours to find her guilty. Personally - I think she was empty headed and full of romantic fantasies with a very strong sexual drive - I don't think she planned to murder Percy at all - but Freddy - who was only 22 years old took her quite literally and the deed was done. She had to be drugged and dragged to the gallows. I agree with you completely about the roles of women in the military and the sewer line construction - but come on - such jobs would wreak havoc on their make-up !!