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

The royal family

To be shocked at some RF members turning their back?

1000 replies

fiheka · 06/05/2021 16:35

It has been reported that some Royal Family members literally turned their back on Prince Harry at Prince Philip's funeral and refused to even acknowledge him.
I have had extended family members behave badly and are in no hurry to be friendly. But I think this is appalling behaviour. I would never do that and especially not at a funeral.
It reminds me of that video being shared where William and Kate totally snub and ignore Harry and Meghan.
It is just so rude and awful.

OP posts:
Bellevu · 11/05/2021 23:34

A black woman stopping by to thank @mumsnethq and the many posters on this thread for continuing to illustrate the insidious and toxic nature of the black experience in the UK. Please do go on showing the world what lie behind those perfunctory assurances of inclusion and equality.

#SomeOfMyBestFriendsAreBlack #IDontSeeColour
#Uppity
#Ungrateful

catinboots123 · 11/05/2021 23:49

@Bellevu are those hashtags direct quotes from this thread? I may have missed those posts

Marmaladeagain · 11/05/2021 23:50

I think a US poster

ohforarainyday · 12/05/2021 00:00

I watched the Queen's Speech today. 95 and still working. That's service.

Giving a speech announcing voter suppression and doing the Tory's dirty work.

Yes, such "service!"

SheldonesqueTheBstard · 12/05/2021 00:03

We aren’t all snowwhite here bellevu but crack on with your sweeping statements.

SheldonesqueTheBstard · 12/05/2021 00:17

And for what it is worth, we can choose to dislike the actions of two people when it is nothing to do with their heritage.

To the best of my knowledge the only person who has used those phrases on this thread is you.

Billandben444 · 12/05/2021 07:16

@Bellevu

You're welcome

Billandben444 · 12/05/2021 07:17

Giving a speech announcing voter suppression and doing the Tory's dirty work

How is ensuring a voter is who they say they are suppression?

ChiefInspectorParker · 12/05/2021 07:39

This reply has been withdrawn

Message from MNHQ: This post has been withdrawn

derxa · 12/05/2021 07:45

@ChiefInspectorParker

Yes, such "service!"

Be reasonable. The Queen doesn’t get to argue with the government. One of her best qualities is the way she has remained apolitical over a very long reign. She’s not doing the Tories’ dirty work (fwiw I don’t like it either), she’s doing her job, at 95 years old and just widowed, and I for one admire her for it - and yes, I’m grateful for her service, actually.

Well said
FannyCann · 12/05/2021 08:09

*Giving a speech announcing voter suppression and doing the Tory's dirty work.

Yes, such "service!"*

I believe The Queen has worked with 14 prime ministers overhear reign. I'm not sure if the exact proportion but probably a fairly even split between labour and conservative.

So a considerable amount of her reign has been devoted to service to the labour party, whatever that may have involved. Plenty of Tony Blair dirty work I'm sure.

FannyCann · 12/05/2021 08:10
  • over her reign
Blossomtoes · 12/05/2021 09:14

The rule for Archie was not changed in 2012. Do keep up

Archie didn’t exist in 2012 when the rules were changed. You’ve fallen even further behind.

Blossomtoes · 12/05/2021 09:17

@ohforarainyday

I watched the Queen's Speech today. 95 and still working. That's service.

Giving a speech announcing voter suppression and doing the Tory's dirty work.

Yes, such "service!"

Doing her duty which is to deliver the speech written by the government of the day, regardless of whether or not she agrees with it.
Mummy194 · 12/05/2021 09:27

@Blossomtoes

The rule for Archie was not changed in 2012. Do keep up

Archie didn’t exist in 2012 when the rules were changed. You’ve fallen even further behind.

Ah ok,

The rule for the future children of Harry were not changed in 2012. Understand better now?

Blossomtoes · 12/05/2021 09:29

The rule for the future children of Harry were not changed in 2012. Understand better now?

I always understood. Just like you were always wrong.

Marmaladeagain · 12/05/2021 09:33

Harry isn't a direct line in the succession any more - William's children are. There is no need to adapt for someone so far away from the direct line now. Harry has convinced lots of people, not just Meghan, that he's important in the RF, he isn't.

It would be like Edward asking for rules to be changed for him etc - he is far away from the line of succession now, even though is mum is Queen. Harry is the same - not a direct line heir so no rules are going to be changed to suit his inflated ego.... he isn't same as William.

Mummyoflittledragon · 12/05/2021 09:39

@ohforarainyday

I watched the Queen's Speech today. 95 and still working. That's service.

Giving a speech announcing voter suppression and doing the Tory's dirty work.

Yes, such "service!"

It is the norm to take a form of ID with you to vote. Just not in the U.K.

How dismissive of the role the Queen plays. You do get the Queen doesn’t write the rules?

Marmaladeagain · 12/05/2021 09:41

I agree with this thinking and I hope this is the outcome, wider family members are appointed title of Prince etc as a job title, rather than a birth right etc I think potentially that's the way it's going. Charles has wanted it slimmed down and instead of waiting for his reign, I hope the process is starting soon - the 2012 changes pointedly not including other children of the Prince of Wales was the start of that. Below describes what I'm hoping for - live as untitled citizens and choose to maybe do the job when they're older and when not doing the job, they're note Prince etc. Much more suitable and don't end up with quite such entitled people as Andrew and Harry who think just being related makes them special, rather than it being the duty performed that is honoured.

"In essence, the Monarch decides who becomes a prince or princess, and the rules are manipulated to achieve the desired outcome. That basic fact should be embraced, as any “mystique” the 1917 Letters Patent creates is outweighed by the disadvantages that flow from its unequal and untransparent nature. This then creates the opportunity to think more deeply about the nature of “service” and on what terms a member of the Royal Family undertakes such service.

Instead of the 1917 Letters Patent entitling members of the Royal Family to be a prince or princess, in the future, the Monarch could “appoint” (perhaps by Letters Patent) those who are to undertake public duties to the dignity of prince or princess. This more flexible approach would allow members of the Royal Family to gain a title after enjoying their childhood and early adult lives as more regular private citizens. This would give them a better opportunity to acquire experience outside of monarchy before taking up royal duties at an appropriate point in their lives. This approach would be more transparent, and the equality issues that flow from the 1917 Letters Patent would not arise. It would not follow that the “appointment” of prince or princess would be revoked on retirement, or perhaps even in Prince Harry’s situation. In the future, he may wish to take up public duties once again. An alternative is not to use the title in such circumstances, similar to how the Sussexes are not using the title His/Her Royal Highness (HRH)."

Viviennemary · 12/05/2021 09:46

The Queen has to make the speech setting out the policies of the current government. Whether or not she agrees with them.

Marmaladeagain · 12/05/2021 11:54

thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/552896-queen-of-england-promises-to-ban-conversion-therapy

This his hilarious - the RF have had to put a tweet out explaining how monarchy works Grin for the confused US, that keep telling us how terrible we are in the UK. They do not understand our politics or day to day life, but do seem to think they have an informed opinion so often.

Some of those posters dismiss Harry's racial slurs of no consequence - the majority of UK minority communities are in fact of South Asian heritage and it is a very big deal him using those phrases.

The US, particularly the charity section - because the country doesn't have the same level of support provided by the state as UK, their system is engineered to make it tax efficient and very, very lucrative for people to give to charity/create Foundations, to do work in the US that the state in UK does for our country. It isn't same and people make a great living in the US out of looking benevolent, when it's a product of their system of inadequate provision for poorer people. It is money making for the foundations (very lucrative) and the "poor" people benefit, it is not how the UK would like or wish to run our country.

So that's why no need to fall for H&M's claims of charity - if they were doing it here in UK where it's much more accountable and difficult to make huge, huge amounts of money - that's one thing, what they're doing is a very self-interested way of making money whilst looking "kind".

Bit like how the US do not understand monarchy role, the UK (lots of people) do not understand the vast difference in US charity and UK.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 12/05/2021 12:14

(The US) do not understand our politics or day to day life, but do seem to think they have an informed opinion so often

Sounds familiar, at least on MN; after all, countless folk lack any understanding of how American systems work, but it doesn't prevent the endless anti-Americanism posted

FWIW, despite spending a lot of time there, I don't have a full understanding of it either - but at least I try to restrict my opinions to issues I know something about

Viviennemary · 12/05/2021 12:15

Foundations are only obliged to give 5% of theifpr income to good causes. The rest can be expenses. Some say as little as one percent.

ajandjjmum · 12/05/2021 12:38

@Viviennemary

Foundations are only obliged to give 5% of theifpr income to good causes. The rest can be expenses. Some say as little as one percent.
I am shocked by that!
SheldonesqueTheBstard · 12/05/2021 12:42

Jeezo.

I take it there are strict policies in place to ensure that liberties aren’t taken with expenses?

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.