Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
KidneyBeans · 30/08/2021 09:23

Or are you just trying to say that her role as their mother has nothing to do with those choices?

I think her maternal preferences are in direct conflict with her professional duties. So yes clearly there is a conflict between between how she has previously treated/raised her children (and continues to treat them) and her duty to the country and justice system

Blossomtoes · 30/08/2021 09:25

I said nothing of the sort. I pointed out that you weren’t being fair when you said:

It's a shame it doesn't mean raising her sons to not consort with sex offenders and to cooperate with the justice system

Perhaps try not putting words in other people’s mouth? It’s intensely annoying to be told you’re said something you haven’t.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 30/08/2021 09:26

There's nothing to be educated about, KidneyBeans, since what you stated are facts. It's just that some don't seem to like them, and seem determined to turn them into something else

Granted the Queen can't control the personal choices of her ghastly family, but she doesn't have to reward them for the worst ones, and the idea she's powerless about it is simply amusing

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

The royal family
Blossomtoes · 30/08/2021 09:29

I’m perfectly happy to accept facts. I absolutely will not be bullied or have words put in my mouth. And I completely agree with your last sentence @Puzzledandpissedoff.

KidneyBeans · 30/08/2021 09:32

@Blossomtoes

I said nothing of the sort. I pointed out that you weren’t being fair when you said:

It's a shame it doesn't mean raising her sons to not consort with sex offenders and to cooperate with the justice system

Perhaps try not putting words in other people’s mouth? It’s intensely annoying to be told you’re said something you haven’t.

So what is your point then @Blossomtoes ? That now they're adults and she's done 'raising them' she has no control over sheltering andrew at Balmoral or wanting to honour him despite appalling behaviour?

Is it literally just my use of the term 'raising' you're nitpicking over in a effort to counter the fact that she clear prioritises her personal preferences over her duties as head of state?

Bjarnum · 30/08/2021 09:34

@Theunamedcat

Trymp and Clinton etc went to the island with the trafficked women they were knee deep with him too the law suit is a civil matter and if I had a choice I would sue the royal family over trump anyday they woukd rather pay you off trump will drag you through court
Quite right! No thread creep!
Blossomtoes · 30/08/2021 09:35

I’m done with you @KidneyBeans. Your aggressiveness and hectoring make any discussion too unpleasant for me to engage with you. Everyone else posting to this thread manages not to do it.

KidneyBeans · 30/08/2021 09:35

@Blossomtoes

I said nothing of the sort. I pointed out that you weren’t being fair when you said:

It's a shame it doesn't mean raising her sons to not consort with sex offenders and to cooperate with the justice system

Perhaps try not putting words in other people’s mouth? It’s intensely annoying to be told you’re said something you haven’t.

Where have I said that you've said something you haven't? What words have I put in your mouth?
KidneyBeans · 30/08/2021 09:38

@Blossomtoes

I’m done with you *@KidneyBeans*. Your aggressiveness and hectoring make any discussion too unpleasant for me to engage with you. Everyone else posting to this thread manages not to do it.
You seem to be taking offence where none is intended. I'm not offended that you've accused me of putting words in your mouth when literally all I've done is ask questions to clarify your point.

I don't think false accusations and strops are warranted, but your choice of course.

Blossomtoes · 30/08/2021 09:43

You don’t think “So you’re saying ..” followed by a a whole load of stuff nobody else has said is putting words in my mouth?

Perhaps you don’t realise how aggressive your posting style is.

KidneyBeans · 30/08/2021 09:47

@Blossomtoes

You don’t think “So you’re saying ..” followed by a a whole load of stuff nobody else has said is putting words in my mouth?

Perhaps you don’t realise how aggressive your posting style is.

Not when it ends in a question mark. Thats how questions work. I'm trying to clarify your perspective.

If I've misunderstood then you are free to correct me rather than make unwarranted accusations and call me names, which is hardly a pleasant or constructive approach to discussion Confused

Why2why · 30/08/2021 09:53

And so here we are fighting over a Royal Family that does not know we exist, would not accept us as we are of the commoner class and who only care that we pay our taxes to keep them in the style they’re accustomed to.

If only they were discussing us endlessly as we do them. The extent to which they discuss us must be all about how to pull the wool over our eyes.

Blossomtoes · 30/08/2021 10:53

And here we go again @KidneyBeans. I haven’t called you names. I don’t do that, it’s not my style. If you want me to clarify something, just ask. It’s not difficult.

KidneyBeans · 30/08/2021 11:02

@Blossomtoes

And here we go again *@KidneyBeans*. I haven’t called you names. I don’t do that, it’s not my style. If you want me to clarify something, just ask. It’s not difficult.
I did ask You called me 'aggressive' and 'hectoring' in return Confused
KidneyBeans · 30/08/2021 11:04

Anyway, the point is that you're saying duty is in the Queen's DNA. My point is that she's very selective as to how she does that duty, and she abandons it entirely when it comes to at least one of her sons.

So I don't think her commitment to duty is actually very committed or noble

Blossomtoes · 30/08/2021 11:24

I think she’s got a complete blind spot when it comes to her favourite son. It really is as simple as that. And there’s nobody to challenge her, as far as I can remember the only time it’s happened was Blair in 1997.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 30/08/2021 11:33

I think she’s got a complete blind spot when it comes to her favourite son

I agree, but make that all of them - and maybe we should be grateful that at least Anne manages to keep her head down and avoid frightening the horses

Appropriate for an equestrian I guess, but there you go Wink

Roussette · 30/08/2021 11:35

Total blind spot with her son, yes. Apparently he is the only one of her children to bow his head and kiss her hand when entering a room she's in.
Pass the sick bucket someone...

Having a favourite impacts all the other children, it's ridiculous. And given he has taken full advantage of the fact he's golden boy, it's hardly surprising Charles can't stand him (apparently)

KidneyBeans · 30/08/2021 11:44

@Roussette

Total blind spot with her son, yes. Apparently he is the only one of her children to bow his head and kiss her hand when entering a room she's in. Pass the sick bucket someone...

Having a favourite impacts all the other children, it's ridiculous. And given he has taken full advantage of the fact he's golden boy, it's hardly surprising Charles can't stand him (apparently)

More importantly her favouritism affects her ability to effectively do her duty.

It's all very well saying she won't abdicate because of her duty but actually she's pretty comfortable throwing duty, responsibility and the integrity of the monarchy under the bus when it comes to showing favouritism to her son. To my mind that sort of nepotism shows a lack of ability to do her duty effectively

Itsthepitstoo · 30/08/2021 11:46

@Blossomtoes

He needed reining in back then and she didn't do it

How many of us “rein in” our 40 year old kids? Seriously? I don’t know about yours but mine would tell me to mind my own business if I attempted it.

She had absolutely no qualms about 'reigning' in other members of the RF, for less. Taking away their patronages and titles.
Blossomtoes · 30/08/2021 11:54

She had absolutely no qualms about 'reigning' in other members of the RF, for less. Taking away their patronages and titles

She didn’t take their patronages and titles. They walked away from them to live on the other side of the world.

Itsthepitstoo · 30/08/2021 11:58

They wanted the to carry on working for her in Canada - a cw country, without the taxpayer money, she refused.

Roussette · 30/08/2021 11:59

She took them away.

Andrew has walked away too. His are intact.

The fact he is funded by the taxpayer, skulking around, and still in the UK is irrelevant, but he resigned from royal duties, just like H.

Blossomtoes · 30/08/2021 12:01

She refused to allow them to cherry pick. They couldn’t stay in Canada because the Canadian government refused to pick up their security bill. How can you do your duty as a patron from another continent?

Roussette · 30/08/2021 12:04

Forgetting covid, by travelling?

What an asset they could've been. What a huge loss for us.