Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Queen and Meghan and harry

723 replies

Pixxie7 · 23/08/2021 04:47

Apparently the queen is considering taking legal action to stop the verbal attacks on the royal family.

OP posts:
Oldbutstillgotit · 27/08/2021 08:09

Good point @ WinnieTheW0rm

Becles · 27/08/2021 08:28

All those pretending that Meghan was just being a bit oversensitive should have a read of this article.

As long as you excuse, minimise, justify racist slights your words ring hollow. The world and commonwealth are judging us and no amount of frothing will take the bad taste away.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58321935

ancientgran · 27/08/2021 08:47

@Oldbutstillgotit

stairway

“To be fair to the Queen, she never wanted the position, if the Uncle hadn’t abdicated she wouldn’t no double had a much simpler and more pleasant life. She was not able to bring up her children herself because of her position and all of her children have suffered for it. Prince Andrew is obviously the worst of the bunch.”

As Edward had no children , HM would still have ended up as monarch .

If he hadn't married Wallis and married someone else he might have had children. It wasn't a given she'd be Queen and her father seemed totally unprepared for being King.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

The royal family
KidneyBeans · 27/08/2021 09:29

@stairway

To be fair to the Queen, she never wanted the position, if the Uncle hadn’t abdicated she wouldn’t no double had a much simpler and more pleasant life. She was not able to bring up her children herself because of her position and all of her children have suffered for it. Prince Andrew is obviously the worst of the bunch.
Well if she didn't want the position she could abdicate or dissolve the monarchy.

The fact is that she's chosen to promote the monarchy whilst putting her personal feelings above her Royal duty.

She can't have it both ways

oneglassandpuzzled · 27/08/2021 10:47

I think it's more often been the other way round: putting personal needs behind the needs of the Crown. Separating from her children when they were infants to go overseas for months and months, out of duty. Having to entertain the likes of Trump and have him to stay. Endless visiting of cement factories and civic centres in the rain at a stage where she was in her eighties, when she'd rather be back home with a copy of the Racing Times and a stiff drink.

Blossomtoes · 27/08/2021 11:28

As Edward had no children , HM would still have ended up as monarch

He might have had children if he’d married someone else. Who knows?

Puzzledandpissedoff · 27/08/2021 12:39

@Why2why here's the link I promised you about the Queen asking the Commonwealth to have Charles to lead them:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43820328

Why2why · 27/08/2021 13:19

@Puzzledandpissedoff thanks. Very interesting and it’s clear they wanted to be kind to the Queen but I expect during Charles’ reign that things will change.

MrsFin · 27/08/2021 17:05

She was not able to bring up her children herself because of her position and all of her children have suffered for it.

The good thing is, with the Queen living so long, and with people living longer generally, that we'll probably never have a monarch with a young family on the throne again.
Charles will likely be close to 80 when he accedes (he's 72 now).
If Charles lives as long as his parents William will be around 60 at least when he becomes king. And if William is also long lived, George is also likely to be relatively old when he accedes.
W&M seem to be able to compartmentalise job and family, whereas the Queen was always busy being Queen when her children were young.

Why2why · 27/08/2021 20:52

@MrsFin

She was not able to bring up her children herself because of her position and all of her children have suffered for it.

The good thing is, with the Queen living so long, and with people living longer generally, that we'll probably never have a monarch with a young family on the throne again.
Charles will likely be close to 80 when he accedes (he's 72 now).
If Charles lives as long as his parents William will be around 60 at least when he becomes king. And if William is also long lived, George is also likely to be relatively old when he accedes.
W&M seem to be able to compartmentalise job and family, whereas the Queen was always busy being Queen when her children were young.

Please let this charade end once the Queen departs this earth. There is absolutely no sense to this outdated practice.
AnnunciataZ · 27/08/2021 22:18

@oneglassandpuzzled

I think it's more often been the other way round: putting personal needs behind the needs of the Crown. Separating from her children when they were infants to go overseas for months and months, out of duty. Having to entertain the likes of Trump and have him to stay. Endless visiting of cement factories and civic centres in the rain at a stage where she was in her eighties, when she'd rather be back home with a copy of the Racing Times and a stiff drink.
From what I've read, the Queen felt her two older children were a bit hard done by as she had to go on long tours etc without them. And she was very young herself. But by the time Andrew and Edward came along she was more settled in her role and had more time to spend with them.

I've also wondered if it would've been better for her to start an abdication tradition like they have in the Netherlands. She could've retired in her 80s and given Charles a chance at the role before he reached retirement age himself. I mean I'm not a fan of his but to get well past retirement age without even starting the job you're born to do must grate a bit!

Original poster
Pixxie7 · 27/08/2021 22:52

AnnunciataZ @ totally agree, the queen vowed never to abdicate which IMO is selfish. She can’t fulfil the role fully and is dependent on her family to carry things out for her. She should now retire and allow PC to become king.

OP posts:
Roussette · 27/08/2021 22:55

I think she should've abdicated 20 years ago. I've said that many a time on here.
Other European royal houses have managed it.
I think the RF would be stronger if she had

Blossomtoes · 27/08/2021 23:08

@Pixxie7

AnnunciataZ @ totally agree, the queen vowed never to abdicate which IMO is selfish. She can’t fulfil the role fully and is dependent on her family to carry things out for her. She should now retire and allow PC to become king.
She seems to be doing pretty well to me. On what planet is continuing to work when you’re 95 selfish? The role has been pretty much conducted on Zoom for the last 18 months anyway.
Original poster
Pixxie7 · 27/08/2021 23:32

Blossomtoes@ when I say selfish I was thinking of Prince Charles he has had to spend his whole life preparing to be king. If someone wants and is able to continue to work fine. But hers isn’t an ordinary job.

OP posts:
Original poster
Pixxie7 · 28/08/2021 06:05

It looks like Prime Charles and Prince William will intervene regarding Prince Andrew.

OP posts:
Roussette · 28/08/2021 07:11

She seems to be doing pretty well to me. On what planet is continuing to work when you’re 95 selfish?

Selfish isn't the word I'd use, maybe misguided and unfair.

It's like the family business where the MD who happens to own the company will just not step down to allow the company to evolve and improve, and let the son or daughter take over and make it their own.

stairway · 28/08/2021 07:14

The Queen’s position is more similar to the Popes though, in that she believes it is God given and she is duty bound to full fill it to her dying day.

Roussette · 28/08/2021 07:24

That's the misguided bit.

stairway · 28/08/2021 07:57

I don’t think it’s misguided. it’s her belief as head of the Church of England.I think the the younger ones are doing more and more but she is happy to remain the figure head and is still immensely popular. I think it is perhaps cruel to put too much pressure on her though, particularly regarding Andrew.

SpindleWhorl · 28/08/2021 08:03

It's like the family business where the MD who happens to own the company will just not step down to allow the company to evolve and improve, and let the son or daughter take over and make it their own.

You must have met my father ...

Roussette · 28/08/2021 08:05

I think it would be a different RF if she had abdicated. Yes, it's obviously her belief because she's still the monarch. The Queen is very popular I agree, probably in part because of the longevity.

I think it is perhaps cruel to put too much pressure on her though, particularly regarding Andrew

Just not sure what this means. What cruel pressure? She is partly responsible for the Andrew situation and should've taken some action decades ago.

Blossomtoes · 28/08/2021 10:18

Given that abdication is a dirty word in the RF it’s entirely understandable that the Queen won’t do it. It may be 85 years ago but I bet the trauma of Edward Vlll’s abduction is still painful for the Queen. She was ten when her father as thrust into a role for which he was as unsuited as he was untrained and she saw the results. Duty is in her DNA and for her that means dying in harness.

Roussette · 28/08/2021 10:47

@SpindleWhorl

You must have met my father

Oh yes Spindle... I had one of those too..... the stories I could tell on this subject...

Yes, I agree Blossom

KidneyBeans · 28/08/2021 10:51

@Blossomtoes

Given that abdication is a dirty word in the RF it’s entirely understandable that the Queen won’t do it. It may be 85 years ago but I bet the trauma of Edward Vlll’s abduction is still painful for the Queen. She was ten when her father as thrust into a role for which he was as unsuited as he was untrained and she saw the results. Duty is in her DNA and for her that means dying in harness.
It's a shame it doesn't mean raising her sons to not consort with sex offenders and to cooperate with the justice system.

Priorities eh?