If that is the worst that King George did, then he was, by FAR, the better choice between him and Edward...... VERY Interesting information, and Thank you to HM King Charles for allowing access to this info.
I realise the King has other matters before him at the mo, but I wonder if he mayt recall pulling in to one side at the far end of Iver one afternoon, 69ish, to view the Ghurkas from Windsor, officiating as the Red Lion was being renamed as The Ghurka? Many years back but I remember it. Has since reverted to the Red Lion, apparently.....
The Soviets would have confiscated everything, so I don't see how he did anything wrong. Protecting the property rights of civilians should be the aim of every free government in the world, and any organization that threatens that should be stopped. Socialism and communism are antithetical to human nature, that is why the only people that believe in it are either losers, criminals, or naive. The criminals always overtake the other two. This has happened in the Soviet Union all the way to the CHAZ.
You're most welcome my dear chap. I always find it amusing reading the absolutely spiffing comments of my subjects under my assumed internet monikers! Eddy & 'Simpy' (as we used to call her) were a bit of a let down for we Royal Highnesses. Cheerio- Chas the 3rd 🤴
King George V actually forced the British government to rescind the offer to the Tsar & family to come to the UK fearing that such a move would imperil the status & security of the Royal family. He left his cousin to his fate.
Queen Frederika's involvement actually adds another dimension to this story. In saving the Blankenberg effects from the Soviets, King George was aiding relatives of the Greek royal family, and the Greeks had been Britain's allies.
I believe helping out family members is OK. Just look at Mussolini, who didn't lift a finger to help Eddna Ciano save her husband. Not a nice thing to do. Or rather not do, to your own daughter.
NOW THIS IS HOW YOU RESEARCH A TOPIC.!!! You don't list to some crack pot online or read an article that just wants to get your clicks and make you mad. You go to the source!!! Brilliant work Mark
It's just another cheap shot at our royal family by a seasoned anti royalist . what's wrong with helping to move a few bits of furniture and paintings for our royals during wartime to ensure they're kept safe. MF needs to search the vaults of Switzerland and see what ww2 wealth was moved there 😂. Hands off our royals .
Edward Prince of Wales sold his cousin Wilhelm Khizer hundreds of maxim machine guns. British troops told to walk over, then funnelled with barbed wire to their deaths. A deliberate planned event. The destruction of the sovereign men women and children had begun.
I live in Eastern Poland, and nearby Krasiczyn Castle, one of the finest renaissance palaces in Europe, was utterly ransacked by Soviet troops. The building is still being restored to this day, but the art can never be replaced. I have no doubt the art in Blankenburg Castle would've also ended up in the pyre. So the King pulled a few strings for a relative... look, I guess ethically we shouldn't do that, but we all do it to some extent, don't we.
It was because the Polish dared to be sovereign in defiance of their Russian overlords, who had claimed to be the protectors of the Slavic race. No one asked them for protection, least of all Poland, a country with a long-standing history of its own which was more grand than anything in the Russians past. Plus, all communists are one of three things, criminals, losers, or naive.
"The same George III that American viewers may be familiar with." Among the many things I love about Dr. Felton, his dry sense of humor is definitely at the top!
Being an American I like this comment too! Always makes me laugh that they called the movie The Madness of King George, because the III would have confused us into thinking it was the end of a trilogy LOL
@@larryplummer1843 The madness, is believed to have been caused by cyanide within the wigs worn by the King. Well, one of the many theories that is. The cyanide, may have seeped through into the King's blood stream.
@@AnEnemy100 Hessians, not Prussians. Two of my wife's direct ancestors were Hessians, captured and made POWs, who stayed in America after the Revolution.
"My thanks to HM The King for kind permission to reproduce documents from The Royal Archives at Windsor Castle." Mark, thank you so much for all of your work and effort, I have learned a lot from your documentaries. Recently I learned that my grandfather fought in the Luftwaffe across Europe, and later joined the CIA as a secret agent in operations RED BIRD and CAUTERY, we learned all of that from a book written about him and other inmates in a Warsaw prison (where he was eventually executed), he also tamed wild cats in a circus and was a drug addict. His wife (not my grandmother) was also in the same CIA OP but they did not know of each others involvement with the agency at all. He was CAUTERY-3 she was CAUTERY-10
I used to work with a guy who was part of the “recovery team”. He was an army HGV driver. He spent 4 weeks driving a lorry filled with art treasures and personal objects from the castle to various other castles. Some was even brought back to the UK and taken, he believed to Buckingham Palace and other Royal residences in Britain. It might be a secret that was never written down, but it was talked about by those involved. Neither did they object or complain! It was seen as a cushy posting. No combat, decent surroundings, no night work and a chance to pocket the odd trinket to sell on and make a few bob. Interesting story, well told. Thank you.
@@Grayman58To be fair, the war was over. It was probably an interesting detail, though, with opportunities for a bit of "ow the loot! Bloomin' loot! That's the thing that makes the boys stand up and shoot!"
If the Captain finished with 2 shotguns and a hunting rifle, I guess the other Cheshire men got something out of it too and wouldn't complain. Successful cover-ups always involve hush money.
Btw, the King served his country very well, too. Britain's post-war project was to turn Germany into an ally. They had to gain the sympathy of prominent German aristocrates for that project. King George VI did his duty, served his country, while also helped his family. Good.
As you mentioned, King George VI was a constitutional monarch. I suggest that this was a request that was accepted by those in position to make it happen, rather than an order. That the German relatives would see it as an order most likely reflects their different views of how monarchy worked in GB vs what had past been true in the Kaisers's Germany. Overall, if the alternative was putting it in the hands of the Soviets, I have no problem with it.
@@ant7936Exactly. The idea that the UK is really a constitutional monarchy is a little suspect to say the least. There are many occasions when it really doesn't seem to be the case. The UK is built on smoke and mirrors.
Wel you say that, but most historians now agree that the role of Kaiser was far more similar to the role of the British Monarch (i.e. a formality) than Berlin would ever admit.
Glad that the current Monarch gallantly yields to historical research. The mindset of those Royals born prior to WWI is a world apart from that of most of those born after the end of the 2nd World War. The "sin" of the King in 1945 is vanishingly small compared to the "accommodations" that his elder brother might have been willing to make had he still been King in June of 1940... YP
The Queen Mother was full on when teaching her daughters The Nazi Salute, this would not have been without the whims in George's heart either. Quit blaming Edward, he was no hypocrite. 'all of a sudden, we can't appear German!' so out with Saxe Coburg-Gotha and now we're Windsor!' this was 1917. Germany was still in their heart all the way to the second World War. Elizabeth and Margaret were being taught 'for the love of Nazi' in 1946. Edward abdicated in 1936, the year Elizabeth was born.
@@bonniemagpie9960 Queen Elizabeth was born in 1926! Whilst you may think Edward wasn't a hypocrite he very definitely WAS a coward and Nazi supporter. Much as Wallis was a vile gold-digger who wanted all the trappings of royalty without any of the duties and responsibilities - she almost certainly DIDN'T actually want to marry him so she wouldn't have to DO anything besides sponge off the nation - we should have a national holiday in her name to remind us that thanks to her we had a far better man as king than Edward could ever have been.
@@user-ru9gf7ky2y Yet lots of people who practice medicine don't use the title. My FIL was an NHS consultant for over half a century, but always used the title 'Mr'.
It continues to amaze me how you manage to uncover all these nuggets of history which help provide a fully authentic picture of this period. You must put in an enormous amount of time and effort to do all this. Thank you so much.
I think he sees and can get access to the same historical sources as others, but our dear Professor Felton harmonizes all that information and recognizes these nuggets that others miss!🎉😊❤
Dr. Felton, your research abilities are outstanding and unmatched! It is absolutely amazing you encountered this bit of historical information about King George! Kudos!
To be fair, while the King was behind it I'm sure that HE didn't issue the orders. Rather "Winston, I need a small favor". "No problem your majesty, it will be done".
I agree. Withholding any mention of this from the recording keeping bureaucracy could not have been accomplished without orders from the highest level.
It's quite clear in the video HE did order it. The cover up wouldn't have worked without government/palace collusion though. A lot was covered up in those days particularly with Edward VIII.
Great doco Mark. I'd have probably done the same as George VI. And I did really like "The same George III that American viewers may be familiar with!" What a line!
Sadly, Americans are schooled to view King George III as a "tyrant" - he wasn't - he had a Prime Minister and a Parliament. The colonists turned to an absolute monarch* (Louis XVI) for assistance. George III was in reality the best by far of the five Hanoverian kings who preceded Queen Victoria. *Absolute monarchy was abolished in Great Britain in 1689.
Dunno if you’ll ever see this, but your videos are the only thing that keeps me going throughout the workday. Makes the 12 hour shifts just a bit more bearable. Wish I was in a position to donate to your patreon, but I just wanted to show my appreciation for all the hard work you put into these amazing videos. Thank you Mr Felton.
I remember watching and enjoying the 2014 film The Monuments Men and I wondered at the time if any other such rescue operations of art treasures might have taken place. I would never have imagined that King George VI would have been so involved in another "rescue" from the Soviet looters. Once again Dr. Felton in 2024 has uncovered another nugget of WWII history. Good job
He was Commander In Chief of all British Forces. He had the legal power to request or "order" them to do anything he desired. The Sovereign is the ONLY person in Britain who can declare war. Which is exactly what he did in WW2. Saving family heirlooms from the Soviets was within his scope power. I don't he abused his power in the least. Nor does the constitutional Monarchy's role laid out by Parliament.
Mark, I think many of us if we were in King George VI shoes would've done the very same thing. It's quite fortunate that none of the British Soldiers were killed in this operation.
Yes, lucky that no British troops were killed helping the richest family in Britain to save their foreign relatives private property, foreign relatives mind you who were EAGER supports of the murderous regime that had just killed 460,000 British tax payers.... the same tax payers who the king was now stealing money from to help out his foreign relatives.... You couldn't make it up !!!!
Had King George VI abused his powers in such a way as to cost soldiers' lives, I would find this abuse of power worth being indignant about. As it translates, for the regular army grunt, as just another "bulls••t" assignment from a galaxy of bulls••t assignments, I acknowledge the "abuse of power," but not much beyond that.
Also the British moved the boundary, what he did makes perfect sense. It should also be considered that the Hanovers were part of the British Royal family till Queen Victoria, so therefore it was part of the Royal collection he was saving from Russian hands.
@paddyleblancYeah, yeah. The war was over. As long as it was something that didn't involved getting shot at or bombed, I doubt the regular soldiers cared.
Once again Mark, you bring us a story that could not have been told by anyone other than you. As the son of a man who fought in WWII, and who would not talk to us about the painful memories, I really cannot get enough of your fascinating content.
@@francisravenscroft-dw6giyeah that would be true, except when USA said they weren't interested in helping UK help keep people of Europe remain alive from Nazi, Fascist or Japenese for the 3 years they had been fighting with many other countries in the world. If rest of world had same attitude as u Americans, Europe, Africa and Asia would have had no hope for 3 years.
I'm Irish, I'm 32, I would say im still young. Can you believe we weren't thought about WW2 at all. I know my country remained "natural", but allowed the allies to stop and refuel here, and any Irish men and women who went to fight with the British. They were ostracised when they came home, which disgusts me. They fought for our freedom but fought alongside the British, so we're considered traitors. So sad, I regret to even think what they had to go through after a war, to then come home and be misunderstood and hated. I had to research ww2 as an adult and have had an obsession with all information since then. I'm sorry you weren't able to find out what your dad went through. The pain must have to been too much. I thank him and all the Irish forgotten heroes, who fought for all our freedom. They truly were the best generation. Rest in peace.
What is telling about the secrecy of this matter is that the current King and grandson of George VI opened the archives to you and you were able to tell this story. That nobody else violated that secrecy is a tribute to them. This is why we have protocols about release of documents deemed secret. Without them innocents are caught up in it and hurt. Thank you again for bringing this to light and letting us make up our own minds about it. With what we now know about the history of East Germany, the King's actions are clearly vindicated and his use of HIS troops was probably a welcome change for men who had so recently been fighting for their lives.
Wow! Mark… what a great find on your part. Learning something “new” like this about that War almost 80 years later is amazing. Your research abilities are incredible. More proof as to why your videos are some of the best on TH-cam. Great work.
0:15 Confirmed: The King watches Mark Felton videos! "By all means, Dr Felton - reproduce whatever documents you see fit if it means more of these fascinating videos! But on one condition - Don't change that introductory music, it really rocks my casbah!"
It is my humble opinion that this was an intelligence operation (Authorized at the highest level, with Churchill approval) that was all about the capture of the German Foreign Office Documents, whose exposure would have been much more harmful to the royal family than the Duke´s furniture. I think that HM The King knew quite well what was on stake here, and he played the role with his usual dignitiy and loyalty. Thank you very much for this superb investigation, Dr. Felton! Regards!
What you're describing is an abuse of process. We were meant to be fighting AGAINST tyranny and dictatorship.. not allowing the richest in our land to dip their hands into the pockets of the rest of us when it suited them.
@@nozyy5684 Why not do some reading about the English civil wars and the menaing of the phrase "Constitutional monarch" before making completely uninformed comments in a public forum. It'll prevent you from typing total nonsense in future.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 King George VI? with the rank of the Field Marshal? do you think they give no orders, could have had no influence in this?
Being ex UK armed forces, when I joined the RAF in 1991, I pledged allegiance to the Queen and not to the government. So if the head of the Royal family had requested the use of their armed forces to carry out a similar task and my chain of command had requested my participation then I would do my duty and serve those I had pledged to serve and defend. This event happened at a time when all participants were playing it by ear and working out what the best way forwards was on a daily basis.
I always wondered about that -- if the King gets mad at the government, and they don't play ball, I guess he can send troops into the Parliment building and clean house...
I always wondered about that -- if the King gets mad at the government, and they don't play ball, I guess he can send troops into the Parliment building and clean house...
"Blood is thicker than water"... this shows the King's loyalty and compassion to family, even wayward relatives... one shouldn't misjudge him for his kindness and dedication to his kin.
The full saying is “The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of womb” essentially stating it is who one’s chooses rather than mere tangential relations to people. But I quite agree with your sentiment
Well done to our present King, Charles III for not preventing Mark from conducting his research at Windsor Archives. No family is without fault, and transparency is always the best option. 😊
Well, if I would have been in King George VI position, I would have done the same, because the alternative would have been giving valuable art tresors to the Soviets. I see the point that British state resources were used to help the King's German relatives. But I also believe that it was in Britain's interest that the art treasures not end up in Moscow. So where is the fault?
It’s a good job they used the Cheshire Regiment, if it had been the Green Howards that treasure would have found its way to every Pawn shop in Middlesbrough.
Thanks for the reply. The exact “constitution” of Britain has always fascinated me as an American. The U.S. Constitution is a neat, 3 page instruction sheet. A person online summed up Britain for me once. There are some laws, a lot more traditions, and everyone just sort of “knows how it works”.
But first and foremost ,the monarch is a constitutional one,which means he cannot make laws,or get involved in politics in any way,the king does not get a vote,that is the price to pay for being accepted as monarch
@@jeanbrown8295 While technically it's true. That's not in reality how it works. As this can be seen in the case of WW1 where it was the kings and the Army generals that had a lot of influence over the governments in Europe, in Great Britain the King was the head of the Army, technically he was the boss, the government managed "day to day affairs". In the later years in WW2 this was less prominent in terms of direct decision making, and the government grew much more hands on, as time went on. Historically kings and Queens did have real influence, and technically still do have power but it's not displayed for political reasons.
The British Constitution baffles many. It's wrong to say we don't have a 'Constitution': we do but it isn't written down in one document. Actually the US Constitution is based upon ours - if you think the President is the King and he appoints the government that is basically how ours worked. What people forget is that it is the King's Government but made up of people who sit in either House. All Acts of Parliament require the King's consent, although no sovereign has refused assent since 1708. Also the King acts on the advice of his Ministers, and the office of Prime Minister was not offically acknowledged until 1917 ! His power comes from being 'First Lord of the Treasury', that is to say the office of Lord High Treasurer (occupied by Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley for Elizabeth I) was put into commission, hence the title. And so on. It has grown organically and it works. It only goes awry when idiotic people try to meddle with it !
@@Andy-sj7ej exactly, and I think lots of people forget that the monarch still has informal influence with the government, but those conversations happen behind closed doors, and are kept confidential.
Yes, that’s true. But if I remember right there were a couple of cases where the King felt that a murderer under Sentence of Death should be reprieved. This sentiment was conveyed to the Home Secretary, but he disagreed. The murderer was hanged. Thus the influence only went and goes so far.
Mark, I watch every one of your videos when I see you post one and I have to say you are by far the most detailed and unbiased storyteller I’ve seen. You have the one single channel on TH-cam that I’ll watch every video from. I can’t wait to see what you’ll have next
I think it was the right thing to do, forget the constitution and the fact that troops were used. This is a man who literally gave his life for his country. He was naturally a Nervous Man, not suited to being a king, but he did everything his country asked of him to the detriment of his own health during a life and death struggle with one of history’s most evil men. So he gets a pass from me on this one. Mark, thankyou for your tireless work on this subject matter, this is a discovery of historical proportions, well done 👏👏
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 I’m sure he done more for his country than you’ve ever done for yours, unfortunately for you being a keyboard warrior doesn’t count👍
We are used to Mark Felton's retellings or bringing out half-forgotten war histories but in this case we are in front of a completely new discovery. It is quite understandable that King George VI wanted to keep this affair secret, as it is understandable that he was also a human being for whom his extended family meant something, even if they have been in the recent time in the opposite camp. Edit: of course is 'understandable', I type from a Spanish language phone and almost every English word is underlined as a typo, so I more aware when a correction is made than when is not.
Amidst the carnage and destruction of World War 2, I am strangely moved that their was still a family connection. That it had not utterly died like so much else in those terrible years. Be careful of the sins you condemn people for - which would you choose? Prince Andrew + Jeffrey Epstein or King George VI helping his German cousins retain their family belongings. In conclusion: God Save The King!
usually, I very much enjoy his videos but at 7:05 MF twists the facts a bit too much: the kaiser _didn't start that terrible war_ nor was Germany 'responsible' for WW1 as the _Treaty of Versailles_ stipulated by insistence of the French. there are so many good books out there from distinguished historians explaining what happened in the summer of 1914 and how it all came about (e.g. _The Sleepwalkers_ )
I met a thirty something girl from Germany recently. Smart lady, degree, good job, was blown away to duscover how "German " the British royal family was.
While I understand Dr. Felton's unease with the King coloring (colouring?) outside the line, I think any treasures saved from the Soviets were certainly a net good, regardless of ownership.
@@ohio948 ignorance and lack of education! obviously you never been to The Hermitage!! besides the British Museum is FULL OF STOLEN TREASURES... i guess the druids were not very cultured. took away from their beer and plunder........
@@rickyp6815 Most of the German royalty couldn't stand the Nazis. His attempts to buddy up with them could very well have been politics. Plus, much of the art captured by the Soviets simply disappeared.
@@rickyp6815 You ought to bone up more on what the 'heroic' Red Army did to the people it 'liberated'. The camps were pretty much the only place they were genuinely the heroes.
Mark you are one of the very best investigative historian that I know of. This was a wonderful taste of history you have given us. I have thought and still think that George VI was a very great man. I look at through the lense of my own life, I being a capitalist conservative but have family members who are devout communist supporters. I detest their political positions, and at times I've been very angry with them. With that being said they are family, and I still have a bond with them. If I was pushed into a similar situtaion I'm sure I probably would do the same for them, blood is blood.
To add a bit of perspective, in March 1945 US Gen. Patton ordered a raid on Hammelburg Oflag XIII-B POW camp to rescue his son-in-law, Col. John K. Waters, who was a POW there. It was a disaster. Only 20 of the 300 soldiers sent on this mission returned. The King's overreach seems quaint by comparison.
The great Patton however failed even WORSE than what you have mentioned !! Patton FAILED to rescue Col. Hogan and his "heroes" from their brutal captivity at the nearby Luft Stalag !!
Wow, this is amazing amazing amazing research. I don’t think any of us can truly appreciate how blessed we are to have men like Mark researching for hours to produce this outstanding content. Great work.
Have you investigated Charles III, out-of-wedlock child when he was 17 and the woman was 18 at the time, that woman being the King's Consort Camilla. This might get very interesting when Charles die if true, mind you when you see the picture of this person you will have no doubts that it is his son
Great video. Congratulations Dr Felton. Your premise that King George VI exceeded his constitutional role in ordering this is undoubtedly true as are your apposite comments on his motivations and the potential views of the tommies involved and the wider British public had his involvement been realised at the time. However, at a guess, and with the benefit of hindsight, his actions here will, very understandably, be approved of by many, if not most, of your audience. A fantastic piece of research. You are a wonderful historian.
@@rickyp6815What passes for the upper echelons of what passes for Soviet society may have had some sense of value regarding works of art but to the armed peasantry of the red army, the furniture and picture frames were naught but firewood, and the paintings and upholstery that filled them nothing but tinder to ignite them.
TY-Herr Felton, Best work out there, as usual for you. Looking at this new matter makes me suspect HM King George VI knew exactly what he was doing when he gave the transport order , in that by doing so he removed the guilt from all others involved. As king he knew the truth would come out in time, as it always does, so I see only a string of good outcomes, rather than bad pr. HM still has a Nobel air 50 + years after death.
I'm not quite finished with the full video, but...... I'm actually GLAD that the King stepped in and kept these Treasures OUT of the hands of the Soviet Communist! I certainly understand your attitude about it being a ROYAL ORDER, etc. But, under the prevailing circumstances? He did the only think he logical could.
You are right. Russians never give anything back, ever. Romania never managed to recover its National Treasure (120 tonnes of gold and precious items) it evacuated to Russia in WW1.
And why exactly keeping German "treasures out of hands of the soviet communist" is a good thing? American looting of German treasures gives you no moral qualms but Russian does? Interesting...
No, he kept these treasures in the hands of a private citizen. Private wealth protected by private means and many a Private of a citizen army carrying it on their backs for their betters!
@@skyden24195 Hear (listen to), not here. It's a shortened version of, 'Hear him! Hear him!', meaning, listen to the speaker because what he is saying makes sense. Sorry to be the Grammar Police, but it's as easy to get it right as it is to get it wrong. Once you understand the origin of the phrase it makes perfect and obvious sense.
@@sirderam1 thanks. I actually did think I was probably giving the wrong spelling as I have never been inclined to use the phrase before so was unsure of the context(?) of its meaning. Now I know. Always good to learn new things.
I will admit when I saw the title of this video I was a interested in what George VI could have done that was so secretive. And as an American watching this, I would first assume it was hiding relatives that were Nazis or something far worse. Thankfully that was not the case. Looking at this from a modern perceptive, I personally have no problem with George VI exerting his authority to save the art work and help the Duke of Brunswick. The reasons are as follows. First, it allowed the safe transportation of priceless artifacts away from the hands of the Soviets. It is well documented that any rare artifacts and artwork that was recovered by the Red Army was then given to the NKVD and basically held hostage in Russia. Any of the artifacts that exist to this day are either in Russian museums, in private collections, or in parts unknown. Secondly (and arguably the most important of the two), George VI's personal orders for this operation is certainly out of the ordinary. However that doesn't mean it was unapproved or fully frowned upon by the higher echelons of British High Command or the Government (at least not that we know of). Almost certainly this operation would have been know by Churchill. Otherwise a more substantial paper trial would be presentable, including notes by high ranking officials. More likely there are still pages pertaining to this operation that have not been released yet to the general public. It is also worth noting that even though George VI overextended his authority as a constitutional monarch in this matter, he never did so again (that we know of). If such actions were to be repeated after this operation, then there would be cause for concern. Thankfully this was one of those "one and done" occurrences. Thank you Dr. Felton for sharing this knowledge and I always look forward to your videos.
@@caeruleusvm7621 Well we dont know, and we dont know what cover-ups for other things there might have been. Perhaps , for now, it is best not to know.
I think we have to remember it was the actions of German nobility vs the ordinary peasant/worker that gave rise to the writings and philosophy of Marx and Engels - and that nobility amassed those treasures on the efforts of such peasants , they also failed to work with Britain post WW1 (though Britain could hardly work with itself and demanded uneconomic reparations after WW1), one way or another there has been about a 1000 years of war between the European Powers - despite the Family connections between most of them - and the lot of the foot soldier becomes kill or be killed, at best this would be an interuption to normal duties , and a hope to get back home.
This unlikely uncovering of the monarchs help to a relative would never have been exposed without Mark's eagle eye realising that the fine 16 guage shotguns had interesting provenance(to be investigated furthe) and hence the monarch's involvment in the affair .A fine bit of work ,Mark
Jeremy Clarkson: James the queen is German, but i dont see your going Deutschland Deutschland über alles. James may: i do. Richard Hammond: yes he does
We are nearly all descendants of the Angles and Saxons, those areas of Europe now in Germany, England means Land of the Angles and has been known as Angland and Angleland at times through history, still Angleterre in French. The Saxons got overlooked, as did the Jutes from Jutland.
Mr Felton, this is honestly one of the most if not the most stellar historical investigations outside of researching for a book I’ve come across. Outstanding investigation, analysis and presentation of a small but highly revealing episode in British history. Thank you for your channel Mark it brings me hours of enjoyment and learning.
Outstanding detective work and great credit to King Charles. Begs the question: what other secrets the Monarchy of the UK, await to be uncovered. Keep up the good work.
He should find the letters the Nazi Duke Windsor wrote to his cousin in Kronberg Castle. Those are the ones Blount stole and supposedly sent to Windsor Castle. I am sure the Queen Mum burnt them. What she didn't know is that Blount photographed them and gave the film to the Soviets. Mark, maybe you ought to ask Putin if he will give you access to the photos, since I am sure that if you ask the Royal Archives, they will say they have no such letters.
I believe Queens Elizabeth II, being a very traditional Christian, was not comfortable with the exhumation of bodies from royal tombs. She was supposedly worried that granting permission would set a precedent for opening other royal crypts for research (including her family). Each time a royal crypt is opened, it requires royal permission and by setting a precedent she could expose herself to pressure to do it again. On that basis, it is theorised that she decided that anyone buried there should remain undisturbed, regardless of who they were. It’s unlikely it’s for any sinister reasons since there is enough of a departure from the old House of York and the modern House of Windsor that any revelations would not have affected her personally. As said, Charles III has a different outlook on life and religion and is likely to be more open to the idea.
Once again Mark impeccable research in explaining this. These sort of historical facts should be be taught at school. I am surprised why television programs have not used you as your knowledge is first class.
And thanks to KENTUCKYBALLISTICS I now know what the concept of 'bore' means with regards to those guns. He has a 4 Bore rifle that basically looks like it should have a mini tank built around it.
As an American, I don’t know what British sensibilities are, but I think that George VI did the right thing as a compassionate relative. A little forgiveness goes a long way. And I must say that it is impressive that King Charles thinks highly enough of your work that he has permitted you to research the Royal Archives at Windsor castle.
I’m also American and disagree. I think it George VI made a terrible move and his action offers yet one more example supporting republican rule -where individual merit dictates circumstance more than bloodlines.. Indeed, I find it difficult to comprehend why any modern nation would continue to support a parasitic monarchy.
Being an American, it was a little hard for me to follow all the royal lines and connections but this was a fascinating story, as always. Thanks for taking the time to do the necessary research Doc!
"it's a Big Club. And you and I are not in the Big Club" Personally. I wouldn't want to be associated with any of this bunch/ Nor government big wigs either.
What a fascinating story. Quite a conundrum George VI faced at that time. I guess the old cliche is true "Blood is thicker than water" or thicker than political considerations.Thank you Dr. Felton. I absolutely love this channel.
You are a fantastic researcher, to find out all this just from the small clue of the guns being on sale. Most people wouldn't have realised the possible significance they held. Well done.
Fascinating and so well-done! A video that's just like stepping back in-time to witness a secret! This might be your best video yet and that's saying a lot! Keep up the great work and flawless research! This is quickly becoming one of my favorite channels.
Your interpretation of the limits of the monarch's reserve powers is quite wrong Mark. Queen Elizabeth II made an error when she took the prime minister's advice to prorogue parliament under Boris Johnson. The monarch can override a minister's advice where necessary - that ability to override or act independently is essential to preventing Westminster democracies from becoming elective dictatorships. (See Mountbatten exercising power after Indian Independence and the removal of Whitlam's government in Australia). Officers in the armed forces swear their allegiance to the monarch and not the government of the day for the same reasons.
Texan here, I empathize with the British monarchy & its scattered family. I can't imagine having blood relatives stuck but unable to help for fear of exposure. The laws of men can't detract from love of family. Love your videos as usual Mark
Dr Felton. Congratulations on a superb piece of research. A fascinating story and hopefully it gets added to the post war European history. Being an American, I do not fully understand how the ruling monarch would be able to direct such an operation without speaking to the PM or whomever was the head of the British Army at the time. What would I do if the King. Now that is a question deserving a step back into post WWII Europe. Today, 80 years or so removed, we still do not know everything about those last days of the Nazis and the beginnings of the Cold War cBy this time, the British and American top politicians were aware the Stalin was not going to relinquish what countries the USSR had captured. To help my extended family and their possessions get from under Soviet rule or worse (see Czar Nicholas and family’s fate) I would gladly do if none of my country’s subjects were in harms way in the process. Yes it is family helping family. It is also potentially helping future generations remain in good graces with “the west”. I wonder how much Churchill really knew of Stalin’s post war intentions. After all, it was Churchill whom allowed Doenitz’s government to continue on primarily to get as many Germans out of East Prussia as possible. We will never know if the King spoke with Churchill about this operation but regardless it is a superb bit of research that makes one wonder about that moment in history. Thank you for doing the research and presenting the facts!
As an undergraduate, I was a history major with an emphasis on Modern Britain. I also attended a summer program in the UK that was taught by professors and lecturers from London School of Economics, focusing on post-war Europe in the late 1940s to the early 70s.. This information is far beyond my level of knowledge, but I can appreciate just how significant your findings are. There are so many unanswered questions regarding the roles of many members of the House of Windsor during the war and the extent of their contacts within Nazi Germany Well done, Mark. I hope your research is given the recognition it deserves.
@@simon2493 By 1945 it was already a very uneasy relationship. The enemy of my enemy only goes so far, and what kind of monster Stalin was seemed very clear.
@@simon2493 oh please. Reports were public by that point about what they were doing. R*ping and stealing across the land. Their liberation from the Nazi's who were worse still was welcome, but it came with a HEAVY toll.. But at least they didn't enact a genocide in the millions like the loser Nazis. I'm sure the King would know what was coming, and choose to act to save valuables and people. I would if I had the power to. So I guess that's my answer to the question posed at the end of this video.
Churchill lost the 5 July 1945 General Election, Attlee was PM at the time, but irrelevant as the monarch has the sole prerogative on matters regarding the leadership, deployment, and actions of their armed forces.
FYI: Under a CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy powers are split between reserved, prerogative, statutory, and judicial powers. In the territories of the British Empires the monarch has sole reserved prerogative powers on all matters dealing with the leadership, disposition and deployment of their armed forces (they are their sworn bodies to do with as they please). The monarch also notionally has the sole prerogative power to enter treaties with foreign entities, say a cousin, or go to war, with a cousin, but have often delegated that to their Prime Minister, as the monarchs is empowered to have a sworn subject do something in their name, rather than sign treaties themselves. Parliament's statutory and the Courts judicial powers are limited to the jurisdiction of Kingdom they sit in, and to the powers they have asked the monarch to delegate to them, through statute. What the monarch has his army do in a foreign part, is constitutionally nothing to do with the UK, Canadian, Australian, ... parliament, or the respective territorial courts.
In James Pope-Hennessy's superlative biography of Queen Mary commisioned by HM Queen Elizabeth in 1959 'Queen Mary', and in the 2018 book by Hugo Vickers 'The Quest For Queen Mary' which details Pope-Hennesy's interviews etc in the writing of his original biography using access to PH's notes that had been embargoed for decades, it is mentioned a number of times how Queen Mary would correspond with the deposed Kaiser. I remember being quite surprised that this would occur. Also, up to the point he was interned by UK in WW2 (he'd fled here), the Kaiser's grandson Prince Frederick would regularly meet with QM. She was very fond of him apparently. Henry 'Chips' Channon speaks about this a lot in his recently released unexpurgated diaries which had also been embargoed for 60 years. He died in 1958. Seriously recommend the Channon diaries to anyone interested in the goings on of High Society/Royalty from the 20s through to mid 50's obvs including WW2...quite the eye-opener!
My mother always said, "Blood is thicker than water." Another excellent video and congratulations on the discovery. Something that should certainly be brought to light. And I am confident that this type of behavior is exactly what Queen Victoria had in mind and would have greatly approved of GR VI's behavior.
Mr. Felton, again you have surpassed yourself in your investigation into some very interesting history. First, I am in my early 70's now and was a Nuclear Missile Launch Officer in the Strategic Air Command back in the 1970s. My mother was German, my grandfather on my mother's side was a first lieutenant in the Kaiser's Army on the Western Front. Later, I had two uncles that were in the Wehrmacht on the Russian Front in WWII. My mother and her sister and parents lived near Berlin during the whole course of WWII. My father was a tech Sargent in the US Army Occupation Forces in Berlin. So, naturally, I have sympathies for the German people. It is horrible and incredibly sad that German and British cousins could kill each other in two world wars. Today, we cannot believe that that type of thing could happen. By the way, nothing except the Nazi concentration camps, could be as bad as Stalin's Soviet Union.
While I admire the research I can't share the outrage. Someone was going to take these treasures, we saw the Americans just snatch stuff that they had no right to do & I doubt that either they'd be back, or the Soviets would take or destroy them. As for how the soldiers felt removing the possessions? I doubt any of them were much bothered, since they weren't getting shot at.
This is one of the few times I'm going to disagree with Dr. Felton. Wilhelm II didn't start WW1. The Treaty of Versailles required Germany to take full responsibility for the entire war. Germany was the last of the Axis powers to surrender. The last full year & a half of the war was the Allies against Germany alone. Looking at the causes of the WW1, ALL the nations of Europe kept trying to get the other to start a war to try out the new weapons all the nations were building. The assassination of the heir to the Austria-Hungary throne, a non-entity to all the royals of Europe at the time, in a backwater country in the Balkans that meant nothing to ANY of the governments of Europe at the time was nothing more than an excuse for the Britain, France, Belgium, Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary & the Ottoman Empire to try out their new weapons. There was no one person responsible for WW1. ALL of Europe was responsible for WW1.
Wilhelm II didn't intend to start the war, but his terrible tact and diplomancy resulted in the war anyway. He was responsible because he could have kept his generals in line and he could have kept Austria in line and mediated a peace. He ended up giving Austria the greenlight to invade Serbia after Russia had committed to its defence, when a diplomatic solution was available. He also isolated the British by challenging them to a naval arms race in the previous years and approved the use of the outdated Schlieffen Plan, despite knowing this would Britain, it's Empire and it's allies into the war. And yes, the French really wanted a war and jumped at the opportunity, but they didn't start it. Russia didn't really have a choice once they started mobilising, but they mad eit clear from the start they'd protect Serbia. Austria was pretty much run by Conrad Von Hotzendorf after Franz Ferdinands execution and he was set on war regardless. Franz Joseph was old and outdated, but he still kept Conrad on a leash until Wilhelm gave him the green light. Wilhelm II was a man with too much ego, too little competence and too much power at a critical time in history. He clearly loved his cousins and didn't actually want war, but he caused it nonetheless. Serbia may or may not have supported the Black Hand, but either way they agrred to bend to all reasonable demands by Austria. The demands made were so unreasonable that virtually the entire international community criticised them, including Wilhelm I believe.
@@Joshua-fi4ji you are right, that’s a more comprehensive answer. That’s what I meant, he did hesitate before declaring war but around him, military leaders and industrialists put pressure on Wilhelm II to declare war, blaming Russia for getting involved. He didn’t keep them in line and Austria, I agree with you, failed diplomacy which ruined Europe.
It was the excuse of Kaisser to go to war against UK. He didnt like anything british. He didnt felt close or loved by his British mother. And it was the British doctor who delivered him as a baby and cause his hand deformity. Imagine being deformed all your life because of the british doctor. Kaisser could stop because of blood relations. Instead he wanted that war to establish supremacy all over his family and different european kingdom. Showing what you are capable of.
As far as I understand it, the British monarch is formally the commander-in-chief of the British armed forces, and so George VI may have had the formal authority to give orders to the military, but in practice he may have been obligated to act only on the advice of the prime minister or the military command. So you're probably right that he shouldn't have given orders to the military on his own. As usual, thank you for the great job, Mark.
It has been mentioned by other commenters here, but this is unlikely to have been an "order" by the King in the sense his relatives believed it (we have only their evidence for that). The King would have taken very seriously his obligation to inform the Prime Minister of his wishes respecting this operation. To imagine that it was done behind Churchill's back (a studiously avoided assertion in the video) and / or against Churchill's wishes, is nonsense and muck-raking. The comparison has also been made by commenters on the role of George V and his private secretary in preventing the escape of the Russian Royal Family in 1917/18. The memory of that ghastly episode had surely not been forgotten by members of the British Royal House in 1945.
@@MichaelStBede Yes, I should say that I am not British, so I was not certain whether it was possible for the king to act on his own without informing the prime minister. Thank you for the correction.
"So you're probably right that he shouldn't have given orders to the military on his own" Well, if he is right, then there was no such "order". There is no direct proof of it and it is therefore pure speculation. The absence of proof is not proof of conspiracy either.
The law is clear. As you say the King is Sovereign and in the end, has the power to do it. Yes there is a convention that he follows the advice of the PM but it is just that, a convention and not a law. Its irregular but he can do it. Same as King Charles could.
I just wanted to congratulate you on a really nice find in the archives. Even if this doesn’t exactly rewrite history, it must have been exciting to find something that was genuinely new information. Nice work!
What I enjoy is this channel is not a rehash of well known history. Mark is very good at finding a new angle to an old story or presenting new information through original research. He is operating closer to an academic work aesthetic than most TH-cam channels.
I learned early on that the powerful and wealthy are always much closer to each other than they are to "their people" - the employees that work for them or the people/citizens they lead. This is expressed by language (some monarchs hardly spoke the language of the country they led but could converse with other monarchs, in French, without problem), and social status and customs (again, closer to another monarch than to the commoners in their own country). When I look at the "social elite" today, the Kochs and Bilderbergs and others, not much has changed.
That's the reason of having two different words in English for the same thing as meal and as the living animal used for that meal. The name for the animal is of British origin, because the people working in farms were Britons. The name for the meal was imported, because the people who tasted those meals without having worked a single second to breed the animal were the new lords who invaded England in 1066 or earlier to get more lands and serfs.
There is still a social circle above and beyond and outside of national boundaries + laws. The fact that this is dismissed and laughed at by the BBC for one,confirms it's true.
Strangely, I am not perturbed by this. A strong family is a blessing that I have personally not been granted, but I do understand that sometimes, "blood is thicker than water," and the fact the the late King George VI helped his family in Germany does not strike me as so much unpatriotic, or worse, but simply a charitable act towards his family. Sometimes the choice is between something "close the wind," and something "much worse." Neither option adopted is going to be viewed by everyone as exactly correct, but who among us has not made a similar judgement in the aim of kindness; ... the road to hell is paved with kindness - after the fact. Best wishes from George [aged 62] in Herefordshire, who is half-Norwegian.
The ultra-wealthy and powerful live on a different plane from us mortals. Ordering 'common' soldiers to save treasure for a wealthy clan member is deeply unethical. But expected ...
Don't forget that George Ist was the great-grandson of James 1st (6th of Scotland) of England, who himself was descended from the Tudors. To say George was German is a bit simplistic and prejudiced, particularly in this context.
@@debraturner4559 Alo wrong!Russian began WWI. when it declared war upon Austria. That led to a " Domino Rally" of alliances to mobilise! Initially Germany had no wish for a war and urged restraint to Austria in its response to the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand and his wife Sophie on Sarajevo, capital of Bosnia Herzegovina, by a Serbia nationalist. Austras brutal punishment of Serbia, viewed as totally unnecessary, caused Sebias allie , Russia, to declare war. this led Germany no choice but to support Austria. And so the carnage began which destroyed the old world order.
Marienburg castle looks absolutely amazing, especially surrounded by all those trees. Wouldn't mind sipping my morning coffee watching the sunrise from one of those balcony's.
Luckily the American Eighth Air Force didn't flatten it like it did the Focke Wulf plant and airbase there. A very costly endeavour that trip/ trips. I guess they were pretty good shots.
The Marienburg was sold in 2018 for €1 by Ernst August von Hannover. The new owner is the federal state of Lower Saxony. He sold the castle, because repairs with costs of 30 million were pending. Double-digit million amounts would also have had to be invested in the next few decades.
@@Rick2010100| Very old and odd-shaped roofs need repairing or restoration, regardless of one's bank account. It was the smart thing to do to preserve the structure.
@@k.r.baylor8825 My family once had 11 castles, palces and possessions. We reduced them to four and the roofing of the main palace caused expenses of 1.7 M Euros. The family possession include a real estates and farm land, forrests wich are leased. We try to keep the income of the historic possessions to maintain them, but you will not get rich with it, because the old buildings eat more money than a hord of horses eat hey.
It's amazing, so much time has passed since this painful time in human history. However we're still learning new things, spawned by a pair of shotguns... Fantastic work.
If that is the worst that King George did, then he was, by FAR, the better choice between him and Edward......
VERY Interesting information, and Thank you to HM King Charles for allowing access to this info.
I realise the King has other matters before him at the mo, but I wonder if he mayt recall pulling in to one side at the far end of Iver one afternoon, 69ish, to view the Ghurkas from Windsor, officiating as the Red Lion was being renamed as The Ghurka?
Many years back but I remember it. Has since reverted to the Red Lion, apparently.....
The Soviets would have confiscated everything, so I don't see how he did anything wrong. Protecting the property rights of civilians should be the aim of every free government in the world, and any organization that threatens that should be stopped. Socialism and communism are antithetical to human nature, that is why the only people that believe in it are either losers, criminals, or naive. The criminals always overtake the other two. This has happened in the Soviet Union all the way to the CHAZ.
Well, Edward was a Nazi sympathizer, and bordering on being a traitor.... that is not a very high bar to clear.
You're most welcome my dear chap. I always find it amusing reading the absolutely spiffing comments of my subjects under my assumed internet monikers!
Eddy & 'Simpy' (as we used to call her) were a bit of a let down for we Royal Highnesses.
Cheerio-
Chas the 3rd 🤴
Blood is always thicker than water.
Maybe the King didn't want to repeat what the family did when they didn't help Nicholas and his family in Russia. They were family, too.
True.
A communist
But King George V already has problems in England and he didn’t want Czar Nicholas to escalate the problem.
King George V actually forced the British government to rescind the offer to the Tsar & family to come to the UK fearing that such a move would imperil the status & security of the Royal family. He left his cousin to his fate.
@@bunk95 be wierd at your own place
Queen Frederika's involvement actually adds another dimension to this story. In saving the Blankenberg effects from the Soviets, King George was aiding relatives of the Greek royal family, and the Greeks had been Britain's allies.
Prince Phillip?
Ah, I didn’t consider that. Then why the secrecy?
Not true Greeks, what is known as Greek Royal Family, where place there and are part of the Viking Norman Royal Families of Europe
I believe helping out family members is OK.
Just look at Mussolini, who didn't lift a finger to help Eddna Ciano save her husband. Not a nice thing to do. Or rather not do, to your own daughter.
That's true
NOW THIS IS HOW YOU RESEARCH A TOPIC.!!! You don't list to some crack pot online or read an article that just wants to get your clicks and make you mad. You go to the source!!! Brilliant work Mark
Yep, primary sources are always the most accurate
It's just another cheap shot at our royal family by a seasoned anti royalist .
what's wrong with helping to move a few bits of furniture and paintings for our royals during wartime to ensure they're kept safe.
MF needs to search the vaults of Switzerland and see what ww2 wealth was moved there 😂.
Hands off our royals .
@@janejones8672 , still this whole story is also clickbait and of zero importance for anybody.
Edward Prince of Wales sold his cousin Wilhelm Khizer hundreds of maxim machine guns. British troops told to walk over, then funnelled with barbed wire to their deaths. A deliberate planned event.
The destruction of the sovereign men women and children had begun.
My source the Imperial war museum and the RAF museum that I helped to set up
I live in Eastern Poland, and nearby Krasiczyn Castle, one of the finest renaissance palaces in Europe, was utterly ransacked by Soviet troops. The building is still being restored to this day, but the art can never be replaced. I have no doubt the art in Blankenburg Castle would've also ended up in the pyre. So the King pulled a few strings for a relative... look, I guess ethically we shouldn't do that, but we all do it to some extent, don't we.
Exactly!
Art is culture. It is an extension of the human mind. Saving it is always worth it.
It was because the Polish dared to be sovereign in defiance of their Russian overlords, who had claimed to be the protectors of the Slavic race. No one asked them for protection, least of all Poland, a country with a long-standing history of its own which was more grand than anything in the Russians past. Plus, all communists are one of three things, criminals, losers, or naive.
I agree with you .Hardly high treason
I would assume they would have most likely ended up in someone's possession
"The same George III that American viewers may be familiar with." Among the many things I love about Dr. Felton, his dry sense of humor is definitely at the top!
Being an American I like this comment too! Always makes me laugh that they called the movie The Madness of King George, because the III would have confused us into thinking it was the end of a trilogy LOL
@@larryplummer1843that was a good one! And accurate as well, no doubt
Who hired Prussian soldiers to fight in America, paying them with silver Thalers. Thaler = Dollar
@@larryplummer1843 The madness, is believed to have been caused by cyanide within the wigs worn by the King. Well, one of the many theories that is. The cyanide, may have seeped through into the King's blood stream.
@@AnEnemy100 Hessians, not Prussians. Two of my wife's direct ancestors were Hessians, captured and made POWs, who stayed in America after the Revolution.
Amazing work, Mark. And props to King Charles III for granting you permission to reproduce documents from the Royal Archives,
Thats a lil wild to hear. At least to the avg American man. Awesome though & shout out to the 3rd King charles🇬🇧🤜🏼🤛🏻🇺🇲
"My thanks to HM The King for kind permission to reproduce documents from The Royal Archives at Windsor Castle."
Mark, thank you so much for all of your work and effort, I have learned a lot from your documentaries.
Recently I learned that my grandfather fought in the Luftwaffe across Europe, and later joined the CIA as a secret agent in operations RED BIRD and CAUTERY, we learned all of that from a book written about him and other inmates in a Warsaw prison (where he was eventually executed), he also tamed wild cats in a circus and was a drug addict.
His wife (not my grandmother) was also in the same CIA OP but they did not know of each others involvement with the agency at all. He was CAUTERY-3 she was CAUTERY-10
Fascinating family history .
Wow. What a story that is! Amazing that you learned it all!
@@littlebrookreader949 weirldy enough I was sitting on the info for years but never looked into it until I did
What a vivid imagination you have.
Interesting, from what I could quickly find online, both programs were using defeated Germans to infiltrate and spy on the Soviets.
I used to work with a guy who was part of the “recovery team”. He was an army HGV driver. He spent 4 weeks driving a lorry filled with art treasures and personal objects from the castle to various other castles. Some was even brought back to the UK and taken, he believed to Buckingham Palace and other Royal residences in Britain. It might be a secret that was never written down, but it was talked about by those involved. Neither did they object or complain! It was seen as a cushy posting. No combat, decent surroundings, no night work and a chance to pocket the odd trinket to sell on and make a few bob. Interesting story, well told. Thank you.
Hummmmmm mark something smells fishy in Denmark
I imagine the Cheshire's found it a welcome change from being shot at by the Germans....
@@Grayman58To be fair, the war was over. It was probably an interesting detail, though, with opportunities for a bit of "ow the loot! Bloomin' loot! That's the thing that makes the boys stand up and shoot!"
If the Captain finished with 2 shotguns and a hunting rifle, I guess the other Cheshire men got something out of it too and wouldn't complain. Successful cover-ups always involve hush money.
Btw, the King served his country very well, too. Britain's post-war project was to turn Germany into an ally. They had to gain the sympathy of prominent German aristocrates for that project. King George VI did his duty, served his country, while also helped his family. Good.
Fascinating!
And very British to casually acknowledge the King giving permission to review and copy important documents.
No, it isn't. Andrew Lownie faces frequent obstruction in accessing documents about the royal family for his books.
@@AnthonyOMulligan-yv9cg No apostrophe please
@@AnthonyOMulligan-yv9cgNot my King.
@@AnthonyOMulligan-yv9cg😂
No, it is a legal obligation when reproducing documents from the Royal Archives.
As you mentioned, King George VI was a constitutional monarch. I suggest that this was a request that was accepted by those in position to make it happen, rather than an order. That the German relatives would see it as an order most likely reflects their different views of how monarchy worked in GB vs what had past been true in the Kaisers's Germany. Overall, if the alternative was putting it in the hands of the Soviets, I have no problem with it.
Obviously the govt of the day was involved in allowing the army to undertake such an operation
There are requests.
Then there are Royal Requests.
@@ant7936Exactly. The idea that the UK is really a constitutional monarchy is a little suspect to say the least. There are many occasions when it really doesn't seem to be the case. The UK is built on smoke and mirrors.
Wel you say that, but most historians now agree that the role of Kaiser was far more similar to the role of the British Monarch (i.e. a formality) than Berlin would ever admit.
Royalist apologist
Glad that the current Monarch gallantly yields to historical research. The mindset of those Royals born prior to WWI is a world apart from that of most of those born after the end of the 2nd World War. The "sin" of the King in 1945 is vanishingly small compared to the "accommodations" that his elder brother might have been willing to make had he still been King in June of 1940... YP
We now need KC to give permission ,for the bones of two young people .Thought to be the two princes missing for centuries.
Q E refused action.
@@karensayer3089you won't find them because the Princes didn't die when many have been led to believe they did.
The Queen Mother was full on when teaching her daughters The Nazi Salute, this would not have been without the whims in George's heart either. Quit blaming Edward, he was no hypocrite. 'all of a sudden, we can't appear German!' so out with Saxe Coburg-Gotha and now we're Windsor!' this was 1917. Germany was still in their heart all the way to the second World War. Elizabeth and Margaret were being taught 'for the love of Nazi' in 1946.
Edward abdicated in 1936, the year Elizabeth was born.
We MUST not inflict our morality on past generations!
@@bonniemagpie9960
Queen Elizabeth was born in 1926!
Whilst you may think Edward wasn't a hypocrite he very definitely WAS a coward and Nazi supporter.
Much as Wallis was a vile gold-digger who wanted all the trappings of royalty without any of the duties and responsibilities - she almost certainly DIDN'T actually want to marry him so she wouldn't have to DO anything besides sponge off the nation - we should have a national holiday in her name to remind us that thanks to her we had a far better man as king than Edward could ever have been.
Just when you think you've heard it all about WWII, another intriguing tidbit comes up! Thank you, Dr. Felton!
Naughty little tidbits. Just love em, mate.
Not a doctor. Does not practice medicine.
@@user-ru9gf7ky2y Yet lots of people who practice medicine don't use the title. My FIL was an NHS consultant for over half a century, but always used the title 'Mr'.
@@user-ru9gf7ky2y Have you ever heard the term "doctor of philosophy"? No? What a shame.
@@user-ru9gf7ky2y Not every Doctorate involves Medicine...
It continues to amaze me how you manage to uncover all these nuggets of history which help provide a fully authentic picture of this period. You must put in an enormous amount of time and effort to do all this. Thank you so much.
Well said
I think he sees and can get access to the same historical sources as others, but our dear Professor Felton harmonizes all that information and recognizes these nuggets that others miss!🎉😊❤
Dr. Felton, your research abilities are outstanding and unmatched! It is absolutely amazing you encountered this bit of historical information about King George!
Kudos!
Hear, hear!
Not only about King George, but also the power of Hitler’s brainwhasing on entire German society.
The fact that you spotted this, and were able to put the narrative together is proof of what a fine historian you are. Great work, truly.
'...with a certain failed Austrian painter and his friends' That made me laugh out loud!
CORRECTION! Hitler was not a "Failed" painter. He could paint the rooms of a two bedroom flat in only one day. Two coats!
Even Mark Felton is not safe from the long arm of YT's [redacted]
A GREAT PAINTER...A VISIONARY.
I prefer "Charlie Chaplin impersonator"
Yeh because he wasnt that bad at watercolours. Leadership was his biggest failing.
You can count on Mr.Felton to uncover the most obscure stories and secrets of WW2. Really very interesting!
But as is often the case, good researchers don’t necessarily make good (succinct) writers or engaging narrators.
@@vintedge9721is that why you've come here?
@@ULHISyes, I came here for concise, accurate, engaging information. Sadly, that’s not always the case.
@@vintedge9721 would you say lack of animation and jokes factored into your decision?
et dieu sait si il y en beaucoup .
To be fair, while the King was behind it I'm sure that HE didn't issue the orders.
Rather "Winston, I need a small favor". "No problem your majesty, it will be done".
When the King says "Jump".....
I agree. Withholding any mention of this from the recording keeping bureaucracy could not have been accomplished without orders from the highest level.
It's quite clear in the video HE did order it. The cover up wouldn't have worked without government/palace collusion though. A lot was covered up in those days particularly with Edward VIII.
There was a general election on July 5th, 1945 that saw Clement Attlee replace Winston Churchill.
@@BrainWrap42 yes but I think he would have been "caretaker" PM for a bit longer
Great doco Mark. I'd have probably done the same as George VI.
And I did really like "The same George III that American viewers may be familiar with!" What a line!
Sadly, Americans are schooled to view King George III as a "tyrant" - he wasn't - he had a Prime Minister and a Parliament. The colonists turned to an absolute monarch* (Louis XVI) for assistance.
George III was in reality the best by far of the five Hanoverian kings who preceded Queen Victoria.
*Absolute monarchy was abolished in Great Britain in 1689.
Dunno if you’ll ever see this, but your videos are the only thing that keeps me going throughout the workday. Makes the 12 hour shifts just a bit more bearable. Wish I was in a position to donate to your patreon, but I just wanted to show my appreciation for all the hard work you put into these amazing videos. Thank you Mr Felton.
If you watch the commercials you’re pulling your weight
Bro working 60 hours a week and can't afford 5 bucks a month
@@ThisNachoFriendthat’s unchecked capitalism for you mate
Why didn't Britian with its German royal family not support Germany like Italy had done?
Nothing quite like picking up a porcupine and trying to avoid the quills! Great report, Dr. Felton! Thanks again for your very interesting work!
I remember watching and enjoying the 2014 film The Monuments Men and I wondered at the time if any other such rescue operations of art treasures might have taken place. I would never have imagined that King George VI would have been so involved in another "rescue" from the Soviet looters.
Once again Dr. Felton in 2024 has uncovered another nugget of WWII history. Good job
He was Commander In Chief of all British Forces. He had the legal power to request or "order" them to do anything he desired. The Sovereign is the ONLY person in Britain who can declare war. Which is exactly what he did in WW2. Saving family heirlooms from the Soviets was within his scope power. I don't he abused his power in the least. Nor does the constitutional Monarchy's role laid out by Parliament.
It’s also HM FORCES not the British Government Army!!
Read the book. The film was atrocious
Mark, I think many of us if we were in King George VI shoes would've done the very same thing. It's quite fortunate that none of the British Soldiers were killed in this operation.
Yes, lucky that no British troops were killed helping the richest family in Britain to save their foreign relatives private property, foreign relatives mind you who were EAGER supports of the murderous regime that had just killed 460,000 British tax payers.... the same tax payers who the king was now stealing money from to help out his foreign relatives....
You couldn't make it up !!!!
I expect that every time you walk into a museum's archive, the staff nervously await your discoveries! No stone left unturned! Thanks Mark.
Had King George VI abused his powers in such a way as to cost soldiers' lives, I would find this abuse of power worth being indignant about.
As it translates, for the regular army grunt, as just another "bulls••t" assignment from a galaxy of bulls••t assignments, I acknowledge the "abuse of power," but not much beyond that.
Also the British moved the boundary, what he did makes perfect sense. It should also be considered that the Hanovers were part of the British Royal family till Queen Victoria, so therefore it was part of the Royal collection he was saving from Russian hands.
@paddyleblancYeah, yeah. The war was over. As long as it was something that didn't involved getting shot at or bombed, I doubt the regular soldiers cared.
@@stephenhemingway8218 Victoria was in fact the last Hanoverian British monarch. Only Edward VII and George V were of the House of Saxe Coburg Gotha.
@@1slotmech I agree.
Only thing I would have been Interested in was going home to my family.
Peace everyone.
@@ktipuss See Useful Charts .- ? something about male preference/ no females allowed on certain thrones ?
Once again Mark, you bring us a story that could not have been told by anyone other than you. As the son of a man who fought in WWII, and who would not talk to us about the painful memories, I really cannot get enough of your fascinating content.
Many thanks for your Grandfather’s service ❤
A bit of a history check for the Brits holding on the 'The Brits won WW2- it was in fact the USA- solders and money that won the Allied victory.
@@francisravenscroft-dw6giyeah that would be true, except when USA said they weren't interested in helping UK help keep people of Europe remain alive from Nazi, Fascist or Japenese for the 3 years they had been fighting with many other countries in the world. If rest of world had same attitude as u Americans, Europe, Africa and Asia would have had no hope for 3 years.
I'm Irish, I'm 32, I would say im still young. Can you believe we weren't thought about WW2 at all. I know my country remained "natural", but allowed the allies to stop and refuel here, and any Irish men and women who went to fight with the British. They were ostracised when they came home, which disgusts me. They fought for our freedom but fought alongside the British, so we're considered traitors. So sad, I regret to even think what they had to go through after a war, to then come home and be misunderstood and hated. I had to research ww2 as an adult and have had an obsession with all information since then. I'm sorry you weren't able to find out what your dad went through. The pain must have to been too much. I thank him and all the Irish forgotten heroes, who fought for all our freedom. They truly were the best generation. Rest in peace.
He showed more compassion than his own Father, King George V.
What is telling about the secrecy of this matter is that the current King and grandson of George VI opened the archives to you and you were able to tell this story. That nobody else violated that secrecy is a tribute to them. This is why we have protocols about release of documents deemed secret. Without them innocents are caught up in it and hurt. Thank you again for bringing this to light and letting us make up our own minds about it. With what we now know about the history of East Germany, the King's actions are clearly vindicated and his use of HIS troops was probably a welcome change for men who had so recently been fighting for their lives.
Wow! Mark… what a great find on your part. Learning something “new” like this about that War almost 80 years later is amazing. Your research abilities are incredible. More proof as to why your videos are some of the best on TH-cam. Great work.
0:15 Confirmed: The King watches Mark Felton videos!
"By all means, Dr Felton - reproduce whatever documents you see fit if it means more of these fascinating videos! But on one condition - Don't change that introductory music, it really rocks my casbah!"
Yeah, but the Shareef don't like it,
😂😂😂
Well, Dr. Felton is a historian in the Royal Society, yes?
The “royals” sympathising with, and aiding the enemy? Tell us something we don’t know.
@@richardhart9204 The war was over, at least, in Europe.
It is my humble opinion that this was an intelligence operation (Authorized at the highest level, with Churchill approval) that was all about the capture of the German Foreign Office Documents, whose exposure would have been much more harmful to the royal family than the Duke´s furniture. I think that HM The King knew quite well what was on stake here, and he played the role with his usual dignitiy and loyalty. Thank you very much for this superb investigation, Dr. Felton! Regards!
What you're describing is an abuse of process. We were meant to be fighting AGAINST tyranny and dictatorship.. not allowing the richest in our land to dip their hands into the pockets of the rest of us when it suited them.
the king is the highest level of authority when you join the british arm forces who do you swear loyalty to ?
@@nozyy5684 Why not do some reading about the English civil wars and the menaing of the phrase "Constitutional monarch" before making completely uninformed comments in a public forum.
It'll prevent you from typing total nonsense in future.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 King George VI? with the rank of the Field Marshal? do you think they give no orders, could have had no influence in this?
2@@y_ffordd Ceremonial and not substantive. Read more about " Magna Carta" & the causes & results of the English civil war
Being ex UK armed forces, when I joined the RAF in 1991, I pledged allegiance to the Queen and not to the government. So if the head of the Royal family had requested the use of their armed forces to carry out a similar task and my chain of command had requested my participation then I would do my duty and serve those I had pledged to serve and defend. This event happened at a time when all participants were playing it by ear and working out what the best way forwards was on a daily basis.
I see it as an extra layer of protection against coups and dictators.
I always wondered about that -- if the King gets mad at the government, and they don't play ball, I guess he can send troops into the Parliment building and clean house...
I always wondered about that -- if the King gets mad at the government, and they don't play ball, I guess he can send troops into the Parliment building and clean house...
@@thomasdye6424 But as hatred for tradition and royal family increases with every generation, it works in their favour to NOT behave so callously.
This is the most significant addition to WWII history I've seen in a long time.
"Blood is thicker than water"... this shows the King's loyalty and compassion to family, even wayward relatives... one shouldn't misjudge him for his kindness and dedication to his kin.
Except for the hemophiliac relatives. Their blood is thinner than water.
The full saying is “The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of womb” essentially stating it is who one’s chooses rather than mere tangential relations to people. But I quite agree with your sentiment
“Wayward relatives “. You mean Nazis right? They were Nazis who murdered thousands of British people because they were Nazis.
Eben
Regardless of his motives, it was a misuse of power that he shouldn't have had in the first place.
Well done to our present King, Charles III for not preventing Mark from conducting his research at Windsor Archives. No family is without fault, and transparency is always the best option. 😊
Not so sure this was a fault. This was making a hard decision during a difficult time.
transparency? the German but not German royals? the only truth the royals show you is that which they want to, this is minor and they knew it.
Not really a usual family
Well, if I would have been in King George VI position, I would have done the same, because the alternative would have been giving valuable art tresors to the Soviets. I see the point that British state resources were used to help the King's German relatives. But I also believe that it was in Britain's interest that the art treasures not end up in Moscow. So where is the fault?
no family is without fault, you guys always treat whites with respect
Thank you for digging these great stories out for us!
It’s a good job they used the Cheshire Regiment, if it had been the Green Howards that treasure would have found its way to every Pawn shop in Middlesbrough.
And very quickly too
“Green Howards” is a reference to whom?
@@johndough1703 to the Green Howards Light Infantry Regiment.
Green Howard’s were line infantry not light infantry .
@@JohnHannigan-wx8ng sorry I was thinking of the Royal Green Jackets
Thank you! You have gained my respect with your exhaustive historical research and balanced perspective!
Thanks for the reply. The exact “constitution” of Britain has always fascinated me as an American. The U.S. Constitution is a neat, 3 page instruction sheet. A person online summed up Britain for me once. There are some laws, a lot more traditions, and everyone just sort of “knows how it works”.
But first and foremost ,the monarch is a constitutional one,which means he cannot make laws,or get involved in politics in any way,the king does not get a vote,that is the price to pay for being accepted as monarch
@@jeanbrown8295 While technically it's true. That's not in reality how it works. As this can be seen in the case of WW1 where it was the kings and the Army generals that had a lot of influence over the governments in Europe, in Great Britain the King was the head of the Army, technically he was the boss, the government managed "day to day affairs". In the later years in WW2 this was less prominent in terms of direct decision making, and the government grew much more hands on, as time went on. Historically kings and Queens did have real influence, and technically still do have power but it's not displayed for political reasons.
The British Constitution baffles many. It's wrong to say we don't have a 'Constitution': we do but it isn't written down in one document. Actually the US Constitution is based upon ours - if you think the President is the King and he appoints the government that is basically how ours worked. What people forget is that it is the King's Government but made up of people who sit in either House. All Acts of Parliament require the King's consent, although no sovereign has refused assent since 1708. Also the King acts on the advice of his Ministers, and the office of Prime Minister was not offically acknowledged until 1917 ! His power comes from being 'First Lord of the Treasury', that is to say the office of Lord High Treasurer (occupied by Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley for Elizabeth I) was put into commission, hence the title. And so on. It has grown organically and it works. It only goes awry when idiotic people try to meddle with it !
@@Andy-sj7ej exactly, and I think lots of people forget that the monarch still has informal influence with the government, but those conversations happen behind closed doors, and are kept confidential.
Yes, that’s true. But if I remember right there were a couple of cases where the King felt that a murderer under Sentence of Death should be reprieved. This sentiment was conveyed to the Home Secretary, but he disagreed. The murderer was hanged. Thus the influence only went and goes so far.
Mark, I watch every one of your videos when I see you post one and I have to say you are by far the most detailed and unbiased storyteller I’ve seen. You have the one single channel on TH-cam that I’ll watch every video from. I can’t wait to see what you’ll have next
I think it was the right thing to do, forget the constitution and the fact that troops were used. This is a man who literally gave his life for his country. He was naturally a Nervous Man, not suited to being a king, but he did everything his country asked of him to the detriment of his own health during a life and death struggle with one of history’s most evil men. So he gets a pass from me on this one. Mark, thankyou for your tireless work on this subject matter, this is a discovery of historical proportions, well done 👏👏
Gave his life for his country? Oh give over.
the constitution should be followed to the letter. leaders face a burden, such is life.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 I’m sure he done more for his country than you’ve ever done for yours, unfortunately for you being a keyboard warrior doesn’t count👍
@@Trecesolotienesdos that’s your opinion, mines is different but I respect yours👍
Great detective work. One of the main factors that brings me back to your videos is how impartial, objective and factual they are. Thank you.
We are used to Mark Felton's retellings or bringing out half-forgotten war histories but in this case we are in front of a completely new discovery.
It is quite understandable that King George VI wanted to keep this affair secret, as it is understandable that he was also a human being for whom his extended family meant something, even if they have been in the recent time in the opposite camp.
Edit: of course is 'understandable', I type from a Spanish language phone and almost every English word is underlined as a typo, so I more aware when a correction is made than when is not.
Amidst the carnage and destruction of World War 2, I am strangely moved that their was still a family connection.
That it had not utterly died like so much else in those terrible years.
Be careful of the sins you condemn people for - which would you choose?
Prince Andrew + Jeffrey Epstein
or
King George VI helping his German cousins retain their family belongings.
In conclusion: God Save The King!
usually, I very much enjoy his videos but at 7:05 MF twists the facts a bit too much: the kaiser _didn't start that terrible war_ nor was Germany 'responsible' for WW1 as the _Treaty of Versailles_ stipulated by insistence of the French. there are so many good books out there from distinguished historians explaining what happened in the summer of 1914 and how it all came about (e.g. _The Sleepwalkers_ )
It is "understandable" that he wanted to conceal his own criminal behavior, no doubt.
I met a thirty something girl from Germany recently. Smart lady, degree, good job, was blown away to duscover how "German " the British royal family was.
Are.
When it comes to preventing the Soviets from capturing priceless items, the ends justify the means in every instance.
The soviets had murders there relatives.
your use of the present tense is somewhat concerning
@@dxb338😂 Meet the new boss. Same as the old one.
@@dxb338There's a Red Army in Ukraine stripping it bare right now...
Some served with the Nazis . . . @heitors.3917
While I understand Dr. Felton's unease with the King coloring (colouring?) outside the line, I think any treasures saved from the Soviets were certainly a net good, regardless of ownership.
why? What's the difference? so what if some Nazi aristocrats artwork ends up in Moscow?
@@rickyp6815that's the neat thing it wouldn't. 😂
@@ohio948 ignorance and lack of education! obviously you never been to The Hermitage!!
besides the British Museum is FULL OF STOLEN TREASURES... i guess the druids were not very cultured.
took away from their beer and plunder........
@@rickyp6815 Most of the German royalty couldn't stand the Nazis. His attempts to buddy up with them could very well have been politics. Plus, much of the art captured by the Soviets simply disappeared.
@@rickyp6815 You ought to bone up more on what the 'heroic' Red Army did to the people it 'liberated'.
The camps were pretty much the only place they were genuinely the heroes.
The most explosive Mark Felton video yet! The content is always top notch, but this one really brings history back to life.
It would certainly have been an explosive revelation in 1945 or 1946 but today? Not so much.
You mustn't have seen his videos concerning Hitler's prosthodontia.
Along with his video describing how it was proposed that Edward VIII become the new King of Germany in 1946.
❤❤❤❤❤
Mark you are one of the very best investigative historian that I know of. This was a wonderful taste of history you have given us. I have thought and still think that George VI was a very great man. I look at through the lense of my own life, I being a capitalist conservative but have family members who are devout communist supporters. I detest their political positions, and at times I've been very angry with them. With that being said they are family, and I still have a bond with them. If I was pushed into a similar situtaion I'm sure I probably would do the same for them, blood is blood.
To add a bit of perspective, in March 1945 US Gen. Patton ordered a raid on Hammelburg Oflag XIII-B POW camp to rescue his son-in-law, Col. John K. Waters, who was a POW there. It was a disaster. Only 20 of the 300 soldiers sent on this mission returned. The King's overreach seems quaint by comparison.
The great Patton however failed even WORSE than what you have mentioned !! Patton FAILED to rescue Col. Hogan and his "heroes" from their brutal captivity at the nearby Luft Stalag !!
One more reason he had to be sacked
Never heard this Patton Story ?
That is shocking! 280 men sacrificed to save the life of one! 😥
@@carolannemckenzie3849 How many lives will be lost by all the Weapons Joe Biden abandoned in Afghanistan ?
Wow, this is amazing amazing amazing research. I don’t think any of us can truly appreciate how blessed we are to have men like Mark researching for hours to produce this outstanding content. Great work.
Remarkable Mark, fascinating and your question at the end, “what would you have done?” Yes indeed.
I think if the prime minister concurred with the operation, I don’t see any issue with that.
I think Winston would have approved. That's assuming he didn't know about it in the first place! @@petershen6924
Yes always good to ask this question as we can never be certain what we would have done.
This is great investigative journalism.
Even HM King Charles III is a subscriber to Mr Felton's youtube channel.
Have you investigated Charles III, out-of-wedlock child when he was 17 and the woman was 18 at the time, that woman being the King's Consort Camilla. This might get very interesting when Charles die if true, mind you when you see the picture of this person you will have no doubts that it is his son
Marky Mark has one of the best TH-cam channels out there for world war II history. Very few are equal, but in my opinion none are better.
@@southerneruk
Do you have some links for that - it would be interesting to be able to follow that up.
😆😆😆👏👏👏 That one got me good! lol!
HM the King is cool! 👍
Great video. Congratulations Dr Felton. Your premise that King George VI exceeded his constitutional role in ordering this is undoubtedly true as are your apposite comments on his motivations and the potential views of the tommies involved and the wider British public had his involvement been realised at the time. However, at a guess, and with the benefit of hindsight, his actions here will, very understandably, be approved of by many, if not most, of your audience. A fantastic piece of research. You are a wonderful historian.
Absolutely. Had these artifacts been left to the Soviets, there's no doubt in my mind that they would have ended up looted or destroyed.
@@pierrebegley2746 No doubt? Why do you think the Soviets would have destroyed them?
@@rickyp6815What passes for the upper echelons of what passes for Soviet society may have had some sense of value regarding works of art but to the armed peasantry of the red army, the furniture and picture frames were naught but firewood, and the paintings and upholstery that filled them nothing but tinder to ignite them.
TY-Herr Felton, Best work out there, as usual for you.
Looking at this new matter makes me suspect HM King George VI knew exactly what he was doing when he gave the transport order , in that by doing so he removed the guilt from all others involved.
As king he knew the truth would come out in time, as it always does, so I see only a string of good outcomes, rather than bad pr. HM still has a Nobel air 50 + years after death.
“Nobel” air or “Noble” air? There is a bit of a difference.
Ignoble air
What's noble about abuse of power?
This is among the best channels on history youtube has to offer
❤❤❤❤❤
I'm not quite finished with the full video, but......
I'm actually GLAD that the King stepped in and kept these Treasures OUT of the hands of the Soviet Communist!
I certainly understand your attitude about it being a ROYAL ORDER, etc. But, under the prevailing circumstances? He did the only think he logical could.
You are right. Russians never give anything back, ever. Romania never managed to recover its National Treasure (120 tonnes of gold and precious items) it evacuated to Russia in WW1.
QUITE RIGHT A D MAKES UP FOR HIS FATHER ABANDO I G THE TSAR TO THE RUSSIANS
And why exactly keeping German "treasures out of hands of the soviet communist" is a good thing? American looting of German treasures gives you no moral qualms but Russian does? Interesting...
No, he kept these treasures in the hands of a private citizen. Private wealth protected by private means and many a Private of a citizen army carrying it on their backs for their betters!
@@timdinch5598 What?
More background history and thanks to the King for his assistance in this video that was not further viewed till now. Well done Dr. Felton
Here, here!
@@skyden24195
Hear (listen to), not here. It's a shortened version of, 'Hear him! Hear him!', meaning, listen to the speaker because what he is saying makes sense.
Sorry to be the Grammar Police, but it's as easy to get it right as it is to get it wrong. Once you understand the origin of the phrase it makes perfect and obvious sense.
@@sirderam1 thanks. I actually did think I was probably giving the wrong spelling as I have never been inclined to use the phrase before so was unsure of the context(?) of its meaning. Now I know. Always good to learn new things.
I will admit when I saw the title of this video I was a interested in what George VI could have done that was so secretive. And as an American watching this, I would first assume it was hiding relatives that were Nazis or something far worse. Thankfully that was not the case. Looking at this from a modern perceptive, I personally have no problem with George VI exerting his authority to save the art work and help the Duke of Brunswick. The reasons are as follows.
First, it allowed the safe transportation of priceless artifacts away from the hands of the Soviets. It is well documented that any rare artifacts and artwork that was recovered by the Red Army was then given to the NKVD and basically held hostage in Russia. Any of the artifacts that exist to this day are either in Russian museums, in private collections, or in parts unknown.
Secondly (and arguably the most important of the two), George VI's personal orders for this operation is certainly out of the ordinary. However that doesn't mean it was unapproved or fully frowned upon by the higher echelons of British High Command or the Government (at least not that we know of). Almost certainly this operation would have been know by Churchill. Otherwise a more substantial paper trial would be presentable, including notes by high ranking officials. More likely there are still pages pertaining to this operation that have not been released yet to the general public. It is also worth noting that even though George VI overextended his authority as a constitutional monarch in this matter, he never did so again (that we know of). If such actions were to be repeated after this operation, then there would be cause for concern. Thankfully this was one of those "one and done" occurrences.
Thank you Dr. Felton for sharing this knowledge and I always look forward to your videos.
Well stated. I agree with each point you make.
@@caeruleusvm7621 Well we dont know, and we dont know what cover-ups for other things there might have been. Perhaps , for now, it is best not to know.
I think we have to remember it was the actions of German nobility vs the ordinary peasant/worker that gave rise to the writings and philosophy of Marx and Engels - and that nobility amassed those treasures on the efforts of such peasants , they also failed to work with Britain post WW1 (though Britain could hardly work with itself and demanded uneconomic reparations after WW1), one way or another there has been about a 1000 years of war between the European Powers - despite the Family connections between most of them - and the lot of the foot soldier becomes kill or be killed, at best this would be an interuption to normal duties , and a hope to get back home.
This unlikely uncovering of the monarchs help to a relative would never have been exposed without Mark's eagle eye realising that the fine 16 guage shotguns had interesting provenance(to be investigated furthe) and hence the monarch's involvment in the affair .A fine bit of work ,Mark
Fair shout Sir. 👍📚☘️
Very informative. Dr. Felton does it again.
"For God's sake! I'm as English as Queen Victoria"!
"So your Father's German, your Mother's German, and you married a German..."
Captain Darling!
Jeremy Clarkson: James the queen is German, but i dont see your going Deutschland Deutschland über alles.
James may: i do.
Richard Hammond: yes he does
We are nearly all descendants of the Angles and Saxons, those areas of Europe now in Germany, England means Land of the Angles and has been known as Angland and Angleland at times through history, still Angleterre in French. The Saxons got overlooked, as did the Jutes from Jutland.
In fact, so called "Windsors" are in fact not even German. They are hodge-podge of various "noble" families with no real nationality.
Every British monarch since George II has been born in Britain and identify as British. As far as I am concerned that makes them British.
Mr Felton, this is honestly one of the most if not the most stellar historical investigations outside of researching for a book I’ve come across. Outstanding investigation, analysis and presentation of a small but highly revealing episode in British history.
Thank you for your channel Mark it brings me hours of enjoyment and learning.
Outstanding detective work and great credit to King Charles. Begs the question: what other secrets the Monarchy of the UK, await to be uncovered. Keep up the good work.
It makes you wonder. Charles has also indictated he would be open to DNA testing the princes in the tower which QE blocked.
@@commodorezero The late Queen lived long enough to become aware of more scandals that she thought would be best left lying undisturbed.
He should find the letters the Nazi Duke Windsor wrote to his cousin in Kronberg Castle. Those are the ones Blount stole and supposedly sent to Windsor Castle. I am sure the Queen Mum burnt them.
What she didn't know is that Blount photographed them and gave the film to the Soviets.
Mark, maybe you ought to ask Putin if he will give you access to the photos, since I am sure that if you ask the Royal Archives, they will say they have no such letters.
I believe Queens Elizabeth II, being a very traditional Christian, was not comfortable with the exhumation of bodies from royal tombs. She was supposedly worried that granting permission would set a precedent for opening other royal crypts for research (including her family). Each time a royal crypt is opened, it requires royal permission and by setting a precedent she could expose herself to pressure to do it again. On that basis, it is theorised that she decided that anyone buried there should remain undisturbed, regardless of who they were.
It’s unlikely it’s for any sinister reasons since there is enough of a departure from the old House of York and the modern House of Windsor that any revelations would not have affected her personally.
As said, Charles III has a different outlook on life and religion and is likely to be more open to the idea.
@@commodorezero
Yup!
The Archer.
Once again Mark impeccable research in explaining this. These sort of historical facts should be be taught at school. I am surprised why television programs have not used you as your knowledge is first class.
As a Canadian waterfowl and upland game bird hunter I like the way the Duke of Brunswick tips the mover . That 7mm looks sweet too
A handsome tip indeed
And thanks to KENTUCKYBALLISTICS I now know what the concept of 'bore' means with regards to those guns. He has a 4 Bore rifle that basically looks like it should have a mini tank built around it.
Bird murderer
@@GH-hh8cm 😂😂
@@GH-hh8cm Likely geese, which are prolific vermin in Canada. Tasty though. 😋
Another very intersting video. Great work Dr. Felton.
Wow what an epic amount of research regarding such an obscure and unknown situation brought to light. As always, great reporting!!
I thought this also, magnificent investigative work.
Brilliant work, Mr. Felton. I appreciate (in addition to your detective skills) your pronunciation of German names and places.
As an American, I don’t know what British sensibilities are, but I think that George VI did the right thing as a compassionate relative. A little forgiveness goes a long way. And I must say that it is impressive that King Charles thinks highly enough of your work that he has permitted you to research the Royal Archives at Windsor castle.
Yes it’s very generous of Hus Majesty to allow the rest of us to know our nation’s history.
I’m also American and disagree. I think it George VI made a terrible move and his action offers yet one more example supporting republican rule -where individual merit dictates circumstance more than bloodlines.. Indeed, I find it difficult to comprehend why any modern nation would continue to support a parasitic monarchy.
Being an American, it was a little hard for me to follow all the royal lines and connections but this was a fascinating story, as always. Thanks for taking the time to do the necessary research Doc!
Just know they are all related
"it's a Big Club. And you and I are not in the Big Club"
Personally. I wouldn't want to be associated with any of this bunch/ Nor government big wigs either.
@@luckyguy600 yes they are a horrible lot all round,always were and always will be and hate the great unwashed.
@@luckyguy600 To be fair most Americans can't even find their own country on a map. So we don't expect you to understand
Yeah this was very easy to follow and understand. Dont be an asshole.
What a fascinating story. Quite a conundrum George VI faced at that time. I guess the old cliche is true "Blood is thicker than water" or thicker than political considerations.Thank you Dr. Felton. I absolutely love this channel.
You are a fantastic researcher, to find out all this just from the small clue of the guns being on sale. Most people wouldn't have realised the possible significance they held. Well done.
Fascinating and so well-done! A video that's just like stepping back in-time to witness a secret! This might be your best video yet and that's saying a lot! Keep up the great work and flawless research! This is quickly becoming one of my favorite channels.
did anyone else hear "something completely different" and immediately think, "IT'S...."
no? just me? okay.
love your work, Doctor Felton.
Your interpretation of the limits of the monarch's reserve powers is quite wrong Mark. Queen Elizabeth II made an error when she took the prime minister's advice to prorogue parliament under Boris Johnson. The monarch can override a minister's advice where necessary - that ability to override or act independently is essential to preventing Westminster democracies from becoming elective dictatorships. (See Mountbatten exercising power after Indian Independence and the removal of Whitlam's government in Australia). Officers in the armed forces swear their allegiance to the monarch and not the government of the day for the same reasons.
whitlam was an elected dictator??
Johnson lied to the Queen but ordinarily she had to act on the PM's advice, and would assume it was on good faith.
@@Trecesolotienesdosindeed, Bozo put QE2 in quite the invidious position with that stunt.
Texan here, I empathize with the British monarchy & its scattered family. I can't imagine having blood relatives stuck but unable to help for fear of exposure. The laws of men can't detract from love of family. Love your videos as usual Mark
Another brilliant video and I'm only 30 seconds in. Great that you got permission from King Charles III.
Dr Felton. Congratulations on a superb piece of research. A fascinating story and hopefully it gets added to the post war European history. Being an American, I do not fully understand how the ruling monarch would be able to direct such an operation without speaking to the PM or whomever was the head of the British Army at the time.
What would I do if the King. Now that is a question deserving a step back into post WWII Europe. Today, 80 years or so removed, we still do not know everything about those last days of the Nazis and the beginnings of the Cold War cBy this time, the British and American top politicians were aware the Stalin was not going to relinquish what countries the USSR had captured. To help my extended family and their possessions get from under Soviet rule or worse (see Czar Nicholas and family’s fate) I would gladly do if none of my country’s subjects were in harms way in the process. Yes it is family helping family. It is also potentially helping future generations remain in good graces with “the west”.
I wonder how much Churchill really knew of Stalin’s post war intentions. After all, it was Churchill whom allowed Doenitz’s government to continue on primarily to get as many Germans out of East Prussia as possible. We will never know if the King spoke with Churchill about this operation but regardless it is a superb bit of research that makes one wonder about that moment in history. Thank you for doing the research and presenting the facts!
Excellent work !! I've said it before, but I'll say it again : you never cease to amaze me Dr. Felton 👍
Greetings from the Netherlands ✌, TW.
As an undergraduate, I was a history major with an emphasis on Modern Britain. I also attended a summer program in the UK that was taught by professors and lecturers from London School of Economics, focusing on post-war Europe in the late 1940s to the early 70s.. This information is far beyond my level of knowledge, but I can appreciate just how significant your findings are. There are so many unanswered questions regarding the roles of many members of the House of Windsor during the war and the extent of their contacts within Nazi Germany Well done, Mark. I hope your research is given the recognition it deserves.
Overstep authority or leave treasures to barbarians to destroy? That's no choice at all.
Well the problem is in 45' Russian still were treated as allies.
@@simon2493 Yes and no - It was becoming clear what was shaping up
@@simon2493 Technically, maybe.
@@simon2493 By 1945 it was already a very uneasy relationship. The enemy of my enemy only goes so far, and what kind of monster Stalin was seemed very clear.
@@simon2493 oh please. Reports were public by that point about what they were doing. R*ping and stealing across the land. Their liberation from the Nazi's who were worse still was welcome, but it came with a HEAVY toll.. But at least they didn't enact a genocide in the millions like the loser Nazis. I'm sure the King would know what was coming, and choose to act to save valuables and people. I would if I had the power to. So I guess that's my answer to the question posed at the end of this video.
"Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."
Henry Lewis Mencken
I've always loved that quote. It tickles me, particularly as I had a strict Presbyterian upbringing 😉
Ah yes. Some people most certainly are never happy unless no one else is.
Thankyou, I'd heard that quote or perhaps a bowdlerised version of it many years ago. Good to know the correct quote and to whom it is attributed.
This assumes a whole new meaning and relevance if Wokeness is substituted for Puritanism.
Oddly enough, the Germans have a word for that. Schadenfreude.
I can not believe Churchill , Field Marshal Montgomery did not know!... great as always!
I think perhaps it was Mr Atlee who would have been in the know?
They did know, just they been told to be silent. P.S. Montgomery did find out after they did the job.
Churchill lost the 5 July 1945 General Election, Attlee was PM at the time, but irrelevant as the monarch has the sole prerogative on matters regarding the leadership, deployment, and actions of their armed forces.
FYI: Under a CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy powers are split between reserved, prerogative, statutory, and judicial powers. In the territories of the British Empires the monarch has sole reserved prerogative powers on all matters dealing with the leadership, disposition and deployment of their armed forces (they are their sworn bodies to do with as they please). The monarch also notionally has the sole prerogative power to enter treaties with foreign entities, say a cousin, or go to war, with a cousin, but have often delegated that to their Prime Minister, as the monarchs is empowered to have a sworn subject do something in their name, rather than sign treaties themselves. Parliament's statutory and the Courts judicial powers are limited to the jurisdiction of Kingdom they sit in, and to the powers they have asked the monarch to delegate to them, through statute. What the monarch has his army do in a foreign part, is constitutionally nothing to do with the UK, Canadian, Australian, ... parliament, or the respective territorial courts.
In James Pope-Hennessy's superlative biography of Queen Mary commisioned by HM Queen Elizabeth in 1959 'Queen Mary', and in the 2018 book by Hugo Vickers 'The Quest For Queen Mary' which details Pope-Hennesy's interviews etc in the writing of his original biography using access to PH's notes that had been embargoed for decades, it is mentioned a number of times how Queen Mary would correspond with the deposed Kaiser. I remember being quite surprised that this would occur.
Also, up to the point he was interned by UK in WW2 (he'd fled here), the Kaiser's grandson Prince Frederick would regularly meet with QM. She was very fond of him apparently.
Henry 'Chips' Channon speaks about this a lot in his recently released unexpurgated diaries which had also been embargoed for 60 years. He died in 1958.
Seriously recommend the Channon diaries to anyone interested in the goings on of High Society/Royalty from the 20s through to mid 50's obvs including WW2...quite the eye-opener!
My mother always said, "Blood is thicker than water." Another excellent video and congratulations on the discovery. Something that should certainly be brought to light.
And I am confident that this type of behavior is exactly what Queen Victoria had in mind and would have greatly approved of GR VI's behavior.
Mr. Felton, again you have surpassed yourself in your investigation into some very interesting history. First, I am in my early 70's now and was a Nuclear Missile Launch Officer in the Strategic Air Command back in the 1970s. My mother was German, my grandfather on my mother's side was a first lieutenant in the Kaiser's Army on the Western Front. Later, I had two uncles that were in the Wehrmacht on the Russian Front in WWII. My mother and her sister and parents lived near Berlin during the whole course of WWII. My father was a tech Sargent in the US Army Occupation Forces in Berlin. So, naturally, I have sympathies for the German people. It is horrible and incredibly sad that German and British cousins could kill each other in two world wars. Today, we cannot believe that that type of thing could happen. By the way, nothing except the Nazi concentration camps, could be as bad as Stalin's Soviet Union.
I was born in England but had a father in Hitler youth. Today it's impossible, tomorrow not, because human nature does not change.
While I admire the research I can't share the outrage. Someone was going to take these treasures, we saw the Americans just snatch stuff that they had no right to do & I doubt that either they'd be back, or the Soviets would take or destroy them. As for how the soldiers felt removing the possessions? I doubt any of them were much bothered, since they weren't getting shot at.
"...since they weren't getting shot at."
😀😄😆 Right!
Well said.
Rape has always been associated with pillage and plunder… all things often assumed as of a fighting mans tithe… so … ya know.
@@BSdetected rape? Wtf? A bit rash.. don't ya think?
Probably got some nice food too. I hope so.
This is one of the few times I'm going to disagree with Dr. Felton. Wilhelm II didn't start WW1. The Treaty of Versailles required Germany to take full responsibility for the entire war. Germany was the last of the Axis powers to surrender. The last full year & a half of the war was the Allies against Germany alone. Looking at the causes of the WW1, ALL the nations of Europe kept trying to get the other to start a war to try out the new weapons all the nations were building. The assassination of the heir to the Austria-Hungary throne, a non-entity to all the royals of Europe at the time, in a backwater country in the Balkans that meant nothing to ANY of the governments of Europe at the time was nothing more than an excuse for the Britain, France, Belgium, Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary & the Ottoman Empire to try out their new weapons. There was no one person responsible for WW1. ALL of Europe was responsible for WW1.
Wilhelm II did have to give the order though which meant Germany entered the war.
Wilhelm II didn't intend to start the war, but his terrible tact and diplomancy resulted in the war anyway. He was responsible because he could have kept his generals in line and he could have kept Austria in line and mediated a peace.
He ended up giving Austria the greenlight to invade Serbia after Russia had committed to its defence, when a diplomatic solution was available.
He also isolated the British by challenging them to a naval arms race in the previous years and approved the use of the outdated Schlieffen Plan, despite knowing this would Britain, it's Empire and it's allies into the war.
And yes, the French really wanted a war and jumped at the opportunity, but they didn't start it.
Russia didn't really have a choice once they started mobilising, but they mad eit clear from the start they'd protect Serbia.
Austria was pretty much run by Conrad Von Hotzendorf after Franz Ferdinands execution and he was set on war regardless. Franz Joseph was old and outdated, but he still kept Conrad on a leash until Wilhelm gave him the green light.
Wilhelm II was a man with too much ego, too little competence and too much power at a critical time in history. He clearly loved his cousins and didn't actually want war, but he caused it nonetheless.
Serbia may or may not have supported the Black Hand, but either way they agrred to bend to all reasonable demands by Austria. The demands made were so unreasonable that virtually the entire international community criticised them, including Wilhelm I believe.
@@Joshua-fi4ji you are right, that’s a more comprehensive answer. That’s what I meant, he did hesitate before declaring war but around him, military leaders and industrialists put pressure on Wilhelm II to declare war, blaming Russia for getting involved. He didn’t keep them in line and Austria, I agree with you, failed diplomacy which ruined Europe.
It was the excuse of Kaisser to go to war against UK. He didnt like anything british.
He didnt felt close or loved by his British mother. And it was the British doctor who delivered him as a baby and cause his hand deformity.
Imagine being deformed all your life because of the british doctor.
Kaisser could stop because of blood relations. Instead he wanted that war to establish supremacy all over his family and different european kingdom.
Showing what you are capable of.
I think we have not joined in the first world war None of our buisness
Another great video, thank you Dr. Mark Felton!
As far as I understand it, the British monarch is formally the commander-in-chief of the British armed forces, and so George VI may have had the formal authority to give orders to the military, but in practice he may have been obligated to act only on the advice of the prime minister or the military command. So you're probably right that he shouldn't have given orders to the military on his own. As usual, thank you for the great job, Mark.
I admired and loved King George VI, It just seemed obvious that he was a good and kind man. OK to try to help relatives even if on the other side.
It has been mentioned by other commenters here, but this is unlikely to have been an "order" by the King in the sense his relatives believed it (we have only their evidence for that). The King would have taken very seriously his obligation to inform the Prime Minister of his wishes respecting this operation. To imagine that it was done behind Churchill's back (a studiously avoided assertion in the video) and / or against Churchill's wishes, is nonsense and muck-raking. The comparison has also been made by commenters on the role of George V and his private secretary in preventing the escape of the Russian Royal Family in 1917/18. The memory of that ghastly episode had surely not been forgotten by members of the British Royal House in 1945.
@@MichaelStBede Yes, I should say that I am not British, so I was not certain whether it was possible for the king to act on his own without informing the prime minister. Thank you for the correction.
"So you're probably right that he shouldn't have given orders to the military on his own" Well, if he is right, then there was no such "order". There is no direct proof of it and it is therefore pure speculation. The absence of proof is not proof of conspiracy either.
The law is clear. As you say the King is Sovereign and in the end, has the power to do it. Yes there is a convention that he follows the advice of the PM but it is just that, a convention and not a law. Its irregular but he can do it. Same as King Charles could.
I just wanted to congratulate you on a really nice find in the archives. Even if this doesn’t exactly rewrite history, it must have been exciting to find something that was genuinely new information. Nice work!
What I enjoy is this channel is not a rehash of well known history. Mark is very good at finding a new angle to an old story or presenting new information through original research. He is operating closer to an academic work aesthetic than most TH-cam channels.
I learned early on that the powerful and wealthy are always much closer to each other than they are to "their people" - the employees that work for them or the people/citizens they lead. This is expressed by language (some monarchs hardly spoke the language of the country they led but could converse with other monarchs, in French, without problem), and social status and customs (again, closer to another monarch than to the commoners in their own country). When I look at the "social elite" today, the Kochs and Bilderbergs and others, not much has changed.
That's the reason of having two different words in English for the same thing as meal and as the living animal used for that meal.
The name for the animal is of British origin, because the people working in farms were Britons.
The name for the meal was imported, because the people who tasted those meals without having worked a single second to breed the animal were the new lords who invaded England in 1066 or earlier to get more lands and serfs.
True , they live in their own bubble whatever country they reside in ..............
I found it quite interesting that the famous “Willy-Nicky” letters between the German and Russian emperors just before WWI were written in English…
Because they were all educated here and spoke fluent English with cut-glass accent and the Saxe Coburgs spoke fluent German.
There is still a social circle above and beyond and outside of national boundaries + laws. The fact that this is dismissed and laughed at by the BBC for one,confirms it's true.
Please do continue Dr. Felton, the world needs more truths uncovered.
Thank you Sir.
Strangely, I am not perturbed by this.
A strong family is a blessing that I have personally not been granted, but I do understand that sometimes, "blood is thicker than water," and the fact the the late King George VI helped his family in Germany does not strike me as so much unpatriotic, or worse, but simply a charitable act towards his family.
Sometimes the choice is between something "close the wind," and something "much worse." Neither option adopted is going to be viewed by everyone as exactly correct, but who among us has not made a similar judgement in the aim of kindness; ... the road to hell is paved with kindness - after the fact.
Best wishes from George [aged 62] in Herefordshire, who is half-Norwegian.
The ultra-wealthy and powerful live on a different plane from us mortals. Ordering 'common' soldiers to save treasure for a wealthy clan member is deeply unethical. But expected ...
Don't forget that George Ist was the great-grandson of James 1st (6th of Scotland) of England, who himself was descended from the Tudors. To say George was German is a bit simplistic and prejudiced, particularly in this context.
Well said.
George I and II were certainly Germans. George III, OTOH, never visited his German lands, and spoke English as his milk tongue
And also simplistic to say that Kaiser Wilhelm II started World War II.
@@debraturner4559 Alo wrong!Russian began WWI. when it declared war upon Austria. That led to a " Domino Rally" of alliances to mobilise! Initially Germany had no wish for a war and urged restraint to Austria in its response to the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand and his wife Sophie on Sarajevo, capital of Bosnia Herzegovina, by a Serbia nationalist. Austras brutal punishment of Serbia, viewed as totally unnecessary, caused Sebias allie , Russia, to declare war. this led Germany no choice but to support Austria. And so the carnage began which destroyed the old world order.
@@debraturner4559WWI, but yes you are correct otherwise
Marienburg castle looks absolutely amazing, especially surrounded by all those trees. Wouldn't mind sipping my morning coffee watching the sunrise from one of those balcony's.
Luckily the American Eighth Air Force didn't flatten it like it did the Focke Wulf plant and airbase there.
A very costly endeavour that trip/ trips.
I guess they were pretty good shots.
The Marienburg was sold in 2018 for €1 by Ernst August von Hannover. The new owner is the federal state of Lower Saxony. He sold the castle, because repairs with costs of 30 million were pending. Double-digit million amounts would also have had to be invested in the next few decades.
@@Rick2010100| Very old and odd-shaped roofs need repairing or restoration, regardless of one's bank account. It was the smart thing to do to preserve the structure.
@@k.r.baylor8825 My family once had 11 castles, palces and possessions. We reduced them to four and the roofing of the main palace caused expenses of 1.7 M Euros. The family possession include a real estates and farm land, forrests wich are leased. We try to keep the income of the historic possessions to maintain them, but you will not get rich with it, because the old buildings eat more money than a hord of horses eat hey.
It's amazing, so much time has passed since this painful time in human history. However we're still learning new things, spawned by a pair of shotguns... Fantastic work.
Thanks!