Outrage! over tabloids’ Elizabeth Nazi salute story

This is going to be one of those broadsheet columns that uses supposed tabloid excesses as an excuse to discuss stories normally viewed as unworthy of the host organ’s elevated status.

"I ruff you," the Sun writes. "Woman plans to marry her dog – after her cat 'husband' died." Wait, it's not that. (But I do recommend checking out Dominique Lesbirel and her inter-species romances.)

No, we are of course discussing the unfair, unreasonable, hugely amusing reporting of Queen Elizabeth’s “Nazi salute”.

This story should, in theory, be uninteresting to The Irish Times in about 12 different ways. However, reporting from a proud Republic, we regard the attention paid to these displaced Hohenzollern potentates as absurdly inappropriate.

We are far more interested in discussing whoever the hell the current prime minister of Slovakia might be (Robert Fico obviously, you dolt!) as he or she (I just told you) had to present himself or herself (keep up) to the electorate.

More importantly, the ancient footage of the queen being coached into a Nazi salute by her uncle Edward was taken at a time when she could not possibly have understood the gesture's significance.

Daily denunciations

We say this was a terrible thing for the

Sun

to publish. Boo! We are joined in outrage by the

Daily Mail

, which unleashed daily denunciations of Rupert Murdoch and his rough agents. Endless stories featured clips and stills from the films. Yards of virtual and literal newsprint talked us through the frightful moment when the future queen, then just seven, raised her hand in an innocent act of mimicry.

Now, you might have thought that if the Mail was so appalled by the story, the best move would have been to mention it briefly in one insignificant paragraph. Shows how much you know.

If we were being cheap and irresponsible, we’d use the furore to ponder again Edward VIII’s unstoppable ability to embarrass the British royal family. The late Queen Mother (who is also depicted joining in the salutes) never forgave her brother-in-law for the abdication that propelled her husband unexpectedly towards the throne. It was one thing to be pictured drinking gin on yachts with American divorcees; quite another to insist on marrying one of the blasted creatures.

Edward’s apparent affection for the Nazis – Albert Speer claimed Hitler believed a rapprochement with Britain could have been arranged if he stayed on the throne – helped steady Stanley Baldwin’s resolve to engineer the monarch’s removal.

Exile to the Bahamas did something to nullify the threat. Edward’s death in 1972 did some more. But last week he rose from the grave to extract postmortem revenge for those successive shades of banishment. It’s quite something to insert a blade that takes 80 years to draw blood.

Anyway, as I say, it's irresponsible to bring any of this up. It's worse still to remind ourselves how the Queen Mother herself failed to get hold of the Nazi threat until the jackboots were closing on Warsaw. "Right up until the start of the second world war, the then Queen was an enthusiastic appeaser of Hitler," Frances Wheen wrote on the occasion of her 100th birthday. These thoughts are beneath us and we are genuinely shocked by the Sun.

Well, we aren’t really. It might be nice to live in a world where such things don’t register as news. It is unquestionably true that the story tells us nothing about the current queen’s judgment or her political leanings. The very words “Queen filmed doing Hitler salute” are, however, so indecently delicious that no tabloid could fail to run this antique trifle.

Of course, it’s meaningless. Of course, it’s a wonderful scoop.

We reserve our right to feign outrage. (See also pages, 4, 14, 23 and 43.)

Leaders of the packs

Madness appears to have broken out in opposition parties on both sides of the Atlantic. If polls are to be believed,

[ Jeremy Corbyn ]

, veteran bearded left-winger, will be the next leader of the Labour Party; and

[ Donald Trump ]

, poorly thatched comedy blowhard, will be the Republicans’ candidate for the 2016 presidential election.

The men bear only superficial comparison. Even Corbyn’s most vigorous opponents would admit he is a serious politician. Trump, by way of contrast, offers walking, gibbering proof that there are limits to the power of satire. Even Jon Stewart could not have guessed that Trump, who missed the Vietnam conflict thanks to a “bone spur”, would question John McCain’s status as a war hero.

Corbyn could take the leadership. Trump almost certainly won’t win the Republican race. But, whatever happens, the polling surges offer the party managers unwelcome news about the depressing state of the “mainstream” candidates.

Mrs Clinton and Mr Cameron can hardly believe their luck.