bernardmcilwaine Posted 17 August , 2005 Share Posted 17 August , 2005 the duke of brunswick who went insane after seeing the german troops under his command destroyed in the swamps of russia in ww1,was married to the crown princess victoria louise,the kaisers daughter,he was the son of the duke of cumberland,and nephew of queen alexander,surely hes committing an act of treason by fighting for the germans,any thoughts on this one,bernard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 17 August , 2005 Share Posted 17 August , 2005 Bernard If you try to untangle the various descendents of Queen Victoria, who were scattered across the courts of Europe, not only will you get in aterrible mess, but you'll probably have to execute every Royal across the continent for treason. Hmm. On second thoughts............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted 17 August , 2005 Share Posted 17 August , 2005 the duke of brunswick who went insane after seeing the german troops under his command destroyed in the swamps of russia in ww1,was married to the crown princess victoria louise,the kaisers daughter,he was the son of the duke of cumberland,and nephew of queen alexander,surely hes committing an act of treason by fighting for the germans,any thoughts on this one,bernard <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It would all depend on where the Duke of Brunswick actually owed his legal allegiance. If the Duke was a German/naturalised citizen then his legal allegiance would be to the German state/Kaiser and he could therefore not and would not be charged with treason in Great Britain. For example, William Joyce (Lord Haw Haw) was captured after WW2, tried, convicted of treason and executed. It was accepted that Joyce could not have been convicted of treason because he was an American citizen and a naturalised German. However the prosecution argued a technicality that showed that Joyce had lied about his nationality to obtain a British passport and therefore technically he owed allegiance to the King. In short, accident of birth does not determine ones legal allegiance. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernardmcilwaine Posted 17 August , 2005 Author Share Posted 17 August , 2005 very complicated our royal family max,i would have thought that his loyalty to his parents and his father in law the kaiser would have been best served by a neutral stance,i suspect his dilema over loyalty was a bigger contributor to his mental state of mind rather than him losing his men,????bernard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soren Posted 17 August , 2005 Share Posted 17 August , 2005 I understand Vic spoke English with a German twang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted 17 August , 2005 Share Posted 17 August , 2005 very complicated our royal family max,i would have thought that his loyalty to his parents and his father in law the kaiser would have been best served by a neutral stance,i suspect his dilema over loyalty was a bigger contributor to his mental state of mind rather than him losing his men,????bernard <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hello Bernard I accept what you are saying but the question was a legal rather than an emotional one. Loyalty has no place in law but legal allegiance does, regardless of how the man felt about it. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now