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
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
VanillaSugarandPumpkinSpice · 29/10/2016 20:13

Prince Andrew is a randomer, allegedly. The real Prince Andrew died shortly after birth so they swapped him. This is why he looks like NO OTHER member of the Royal Family Shock

Groovee · 29/10/2016 20:58

Vanilla, I googled too and was looking on the images and saw no likeness but did think that Andrew has Phillip's ears!

BillSykesDog · 29/10/2016 21:33

He's the spit of David Linley, Margaret's son.

QueenLizIII · 29/10/2016 21:44

I guess you have to look to the future and there is utterly no point in B&E becoming full time roles because of who they are going to become in the Royal family in the future.

In the here and now, they are granddaughters of the Sovereign and daughters of a Prince born to a Sovereign.

When Charles is on the throne, they will the Sovereigns nieces.

When William is on the throne they will be the Sovereigns cousins.

When George is on the throne they will be the Sovereigns second Cousins.

As time passes they are going to get more and more distant in terms of blood relations to the current Monarch. There is little point making them full time royals now when in a generation or so they will be in obscurity.

mathanxiety · 29/10/2016 21:54

I think he has a look of May of Teck.

LikeDylanInTheMovies · 29/10/2016 22:00

Prince Andrew is a randomer, allegedly. The real Prince Andrew died shortly after birth so they swapped him. This is why he looks like NO OTHER member of the Royal Family

Except for the fact he looks a lot like the Queen and Princes Margaret whereas the other children have a stronger resemblance to Philip. I've no time for the royals but these rumours are bollocks.

SenecaFalls · 29/10/2016 22:05

Andrew does look like Mary of Teck, as does the Queen. And Princess Charlotte. Mary of Teck had some very strong genes.

QuackDuckQuack · 29/10/2016 22:05

Prince Andrew is a randomer, allegedly. The real Prince Andrew died shortly after birth so they swapped him. This is why he looks like NO OTHER member of the Royal Family

Why would they do that? Why would anyone think that they would do that? Maybe a few centuries ago that might have been vaguely plausible. Though less so for a third child and less so when the monarch is a queen, so not a queen consort trying to provide the sought after son.

DanGleballs · 29/10/2016 23:21

I agree, Charles would have been 9 and Anne 8, safely past the vulnerable early years.

We are now educated enough not to blame the death of a baby on the mother (abuse notwithstanding ). The nation would have mourned with the royal family and it would have probably boosted goodwill towards them rather than damaging it. There would be no advantage in the swap but a big risk of it being discovered.

JosephineMaynard · 30/10/2016 00:29

It's ridiculous to suggest that Andrew is some sort of cuckoo in the nest. What possible, plausible reason could there be for the royal family to do that sort of thing? Especially with Queen Elizabeth being queen in her own right.

As for it being vaguely plausible a few centuries ago - there's plenty of monarchs who had stillborn babies or babies who died young. Take Queen Anne, who came to the throne in 1702. Queen in her own right, not a queen consort. She'd have know for almost a decade before she ascended to the throne that any child of hers would be heir to the throne. She had 12 stillbirths, and 4 other children who died before 2 yrs old. Her only child to survive infancy died when he was 11. The line of succession after Queen Anne was far more uncertain than the line of succession after Queen Elizabeth at the time of Prince Andrew's birth. Queen Anne would have had a far stronger motivation to swap a healthy baby in than Queen Elizabeth, who had 2 older, healthy children already when Andrew was born.

QueenLizIII · 30/10/2016 01:31

Catherine of Aragon had about 6 children and only one survived. Her daughter Mary.

Henry VIII hung her out to dry for it and divorced her. And the next one etc.

Even Henry VIII didnt cover it up by swapping a healthy baby for a dead one to secure his dynasty, he wanted a blood heir.

There is no reason Queen Elizabeth would conceal the death of a child with two older children, one of them a boy.

merrymouse · 30/10/2016 01:12

I think from now on the test every Royal will have to pass will be 'less embarrassing than trump?' Andrew doesn't pass that test.

DanGleballs · 30/10/2016 01:30

I don't believe that Andrew is a substitute baby at all but there is a precedent for it. The 'baby in a warming pan' rumours meant that the Home Secretary was present at all royal births until 1936.

BillSykesDog · 30/10/2016 01:48

There's no way Andrew is a substitute baby. What's more interesting is that the Royals won't allow testing of Royal tombs like Richard III, Edward IV and what might be Edward V and his brother. That would solve age old mysteries, as would rests on some other graves. I'd love to know the results of that. Nobody is quite sure which body in the Tower of London is Anne Boleyn's. I'd love it if they could confirm it with DNA from Elizabeth the I.

OlennasWimple · 30/10/2016 02:06

I quite believe the Royals have their secrets, but not that they extend to swapped babies and cuckolds!

Harry is looking more and more like the other members of The Firm ie losing his looks William is the one who sticks out, and as there are fewer people around who remember Diana with fondness, his looks won't garner him the support that they have done to date.

LikeDylanInTheMovies · 30/10/2016 02:58

It is quite spectacular how as a brood they go from being attractive in their 20s to prematurely middle-aged in a very short period of time. Anne, Andrew, William and now Harry have all done it.

TrumpsFluffyHair · 30/10/2016 03:03

I'm not sure why people think Andrew is a cuckoo in the nest. He's definitely a royal. And all his cuntiness lies at their door. He's a petulant, wanker, a product of his home.

TrumpsFluffyHair · 30/10/2016 03:05

What's more interesting is that the Royals won't allow testing of Royal tombs like Richard III, Edward IV and what might be Edward V and his brother.

I didn't know that! Over the years I'm sure there have been so many babies swapped for other babies it's no wonder they don't want their tower of genetic cards crumbling.

TrumpsFluffyHair · 30/10/2016 03:07

Why people lionise this dull and uninspiring family is beyond me........

LikeDylanInTheMovies · 30/10/2016 03:13

Trump's I don't think they're dull, I think they're fascinating because they are so dysfunctional. The middle aged royals all seem unhappy and unfulfilled in different ways.

LikeDylanInTheMovies · 30/10/2016 03:15

I think being a republican I'm probably inclined to feel sympathy for them that an accident of birth has put them in this absurd position.

merrymouse · 30/10/2016 03:18

Go back enough generations and, even with a clear direct line, the Queen is no more significantly linked to Edward IV than any random British person.

TrumpsFluffyHair · 30/10/2016 03:30

I see what you mean about being their dysfunctionality (I;m sure that's not a word) being fascinating but Andrew just seems to me like some bad tempered accountant from Slough with ideas above his station! Obviously that's not how he sees himself. In his mind he's a major player in the history of British royals.

Without wanting to seem (too) shallow, at least other European royal families manage to be attractive. No one fancies any of the British royals (except perhaps Harry after one of his naked exploits).

RatherSheepish · 30/10/2016 05:45

Looks-wise, Andrew was reasonably dashing in his youth though, wasn't he?

Swipe left for the next trending thread