Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

The Duke of York wants his daughters to be full time Royals?

918 replies

MidnightVelvetthe7th · 23/10/2016 14:45

www.express.co.uk/news/royal/724136/prince-andrew-requests-princesses-beatrice-eugenie-kensington-prince-charles-queen-william

This is a Sunday Express link, not a Fail one.

So Andrew wants both of his daughters to have full time royal roles funded by the public & have larger apartments at Kensington Palace. Given that the only time I ever see them in the news is for dreadful outfits & holidays, to me they are embarrassing & a bit cringy.

Andrew is complaining that they are overshadowed by William, Catherine & Harry. But if you believe & support a system of privilege by birth such as the monarchy, then it stands to reason that the direct heirs are more important than the rest.

Does Andrew have a point & IABU?!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
15
BillSykesDog · 27/10/2016 08:46

Camilla had a 'past' because it was well known she'd slept with quite a few people so Charles would have had difficulty marrying her. Plus he was dithering and she was 26. He went off to sea and wasn't due back for some time so she got fed up waiting and married Andrew Parker-Bowles. Plus by all accounts she was madly in love with APB and preferred him to Charles.

They couldn't divorce after the boys because it was seen at the time as being absolutely impossible for the heir to the throne to divorce because it was against the teachings of the C of E of which they would be head. It was a huge scandal when they did divorce, and Diana had to cause massive amounts of trouble to get the Royals to the point where they felt it was better to get her out rather than force her to stay unhappily in.

Roussette · 27/10/2016 08:50

The press coverage that went on for years was just so tedious. It was like looking through a microscope at someone's marriage and making judgements about it all depending on what story the press had picked up on that day.

Whatever anyone thinks of the Royal Family, at least there is some quiet stability now and good on William from shielding his young family from the Press. Hardly surprising given what his mother went through.

BillSykesDog · 27/10/2016 09:01

The press coverage was bonkers. Especially as pre internet we had less choices of sources for news so it was just so concentrated.

I remember all the hysteria when she died. And really it was hardly surprising. Most people knew more about her life, what she was doing, what she thought, her health and about her relationships than they did their neighbours or children or friends. I don't think that level of saturation could ever happen again now the sources of news are so diffuse and people just won't click if they don't want to know.

diddl · 27/10/2016 09:26

"Plus by all accounts she was madly in love with APB and preferred him to Charles."

That would explain why she didn't wait for Charles.

Plus if he hadn't actually asked her, why would she wait?

It seems so daft to me talking about her having "a past" I mean they would have been getting married in the 70s!

Would she really have been worse than Philip??

BillSykesDog · 27/10/2016 09:33

Philip was a man which made all the difference. He couldn't carry a child which would be rumoured not to be a genuine royal. Although look how that turned out with Diana. And yes having a past was an issue right into the 80s. Diana's uncle felt he had to publicly say she was a virgin before she was married, and it's rumoured she had a medical exam to confirm it too.

diddl · 27/10/2016 09:39

"And yes having a past was an issue right into the 80s. "

For whom though?

A self inflicted issue iyswim?

VanillaSugarandChipSpice · 27/10/2016 09:39

BillSykes can you clarify what you mean about Phil the Greek not being able to carry a child ...?

VanillaSugarandChipSpice · 27/10/2016 09:40

On another note, I'll never forgive Andrew for getting the marvellous TV series "Rev" cancelled Angry

BillSykesDog · 27/10/2016 09:56

Vanilla, he's a bloke. So he can't carry a child. Women can get pregnant by someone other than their husband and pass the child off as the husband's. Fathers can't pass off another mother's child as their wife's. Because the royal family is all about bloodline and family inheritance the integrity of the bloodline was/is seen as really important. So women who were 'pure' were seen as preferred because there would be less chance of speculation her children were not her husband's and therefore broke the bloodline.

It's basically the old fashioned view that women have to be pure but men can put it about. A lot of that is rooted in prejudice about women passing off other people's children as their husband's, and a belief that if she had slept with someone other than her husband before marriage she'd be more likely to sleep with someone afterwards. The ideal was that women would only ever sleep with their husbands, so ensuring any children's father could never be in doubt.

BillSykesDog · 27/10/2016 10:03

For whom though?

A self inflicted issue iyswim?

I think mainly for older generations who've died off now and still really frowned on divorce or sex outside marriage. But those attitudes died with them really.

But the Queen Mother's generation really frowned on divorce. Look at Edward VIII having to abdicate to marry Wallis. Divorcees were banned from court and the QM used to insist she had never met a divorcee even when her daughter and 3 of her grandchildren were divorced! And none of her grandchildren lived together before marriage like W&K. It's still debatable whether W or H would be able to marry someone divorced or with children. Koo Stark got vetoed for Andrew because she was topless in a film.

Attitudes have changed because the stigma has gone around divorce and sex before marriage. But in the 80s there were still people around born in the Edwardian era who were the bedrock of the monarchy's support and highly disapproved of it.

BillSykesDog · 27/10/2016 10:05

Although I suspect even if Charles had married Camilla then she would have been the one cheated on and treated badly. Charles once said to Diana he had no intention of being the first Prince of Wales not to have a mistress.

diddl · 27/10/2016 10:07

Yes, I do know what you're saying.

I can't help thinking that the "Charles must marry a virgin from a good family" was something that they cared about more than the public.

BillSykesDog · 27/10/2016 10:33

I think you're right Diddl. Sarah Ferguson had a past, but she was accepted because it was hugely unlikely her children would succeed to the throne. But it wasn't okay for the Princess of Wales .

The other school of thinking though is that the Queen didn't actually care about it and Charles just uses it as an excuse for not marrying her when he had the chance because he was a ditherer having too much fun being single!

QueenoftheAndals · 27/10/2016 11:38

They're not even English, mostly all German. I am sure if they did a DNA test on the royals, there would be very little 'blood' from the islands.

Does it really matter? The Queen is technically half Scottish though the Queen Mum's family had been born in England for years. Philip is mainly Danish and German despite being born a prince of Greece, but given Charles' and William's marriages the younger generation of royals are pretty much all British.

Peregrina · 27/10/2016 11:51

So the Queen is technically no more Scottish than I am, because my maiden name was Scottish, but it must be at least a century and a half since anyone in the family was born there.

Like everything else, it's all a great big act.

BalloonSlayer · 27/10/2016 12:27

On another note, I'll never forgive Andrew for getting the marvellous TV series "Rev" cancelled angry

How did he manage that, Vanilla?

LikeDylanInTheMovies · 27/10/2016 12:28

The last of the Queen's descendants on her mother's side to be born in Scotland was the,8th Earl of Strathmore. Born 1704.

The Queen Mother was English born and English educated.

hopetobehappy · 27/10/2016 12:29

German with strong links to nazism.

Bestthingever · 27/10/2016 12:29

Yes Vanilla I'm dying to know the answer to that as well!

BillSykesDog · 27/10/2016 12:38

hope, I always find that really offensive. Because Philip fought in the war and the Queen was part of the war effort. Philip's sisters were married to Nazi's but that's not his fault.

Peregrina · 27/10/2016 12:44

Many of the UK upper classes were sympathetic to Nazism.

hmcAsWas · 27/10/2016 12:45

...and this is why the monarchy - an outdated feudal relic, is a farce

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 27/10/2016 12:55

There are arguments that Wallis Simpson was not the real reason that Edward VIII had to go. It was his view of nice Mr Hitler that was a problem. There is no suggestion that George VI shared his view. Arguably Phillip was in a position to make a choice between his sisters' side and opposing Nazism. He chose to risk his life opposing it.

blaeberry · 27/10/2016 12:58

None of the Queen's descendants were born in Scotland. Some of her ancestors might have been...

LikeDylanInTheMovies · 27/10/2016 13:02

Far point blae.I always get the two mixed None of the Queen's ancestors have been born in Scotland since before the act of union.