Prince Andrew Thread 2

[Roussette]

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4442126-Prince-Andrew

Here is previous thread.

I've started a new thread because today and tomorrow is crucial as far as the pending civil case.

And I also had a few comments I wanted to say to posters at the end of the last thread, but it ran out.

Quoting @Biwi

So which is it? Was she right to shield her grandsons, or should she have left them and come to London?

Imho, the choice wasn't one or the other.

The Queen has lots of staff at her disposal. Some of those are presumably PR professionals trained in how to handle unexpected situations. She could have made a private statement from Balmoral or done something to publicly pay her respects to Diana whilst at the same time protecting W & H.

Instead she seemed to do everything she could to almost ignore Diana's death and apparently Charles had to beg to use a special royal flight to bring her body home from Paris. That did not leave an altogether good impression. Part of looking after W & H is surely respecting their mother's memory properly and acknowledging her untimely death, in public?

While I can understand that the entire family was shell shocked and protecting W & H was quite rightly their priority, harsh though it seems, the Queen can't just decide to act as a grandmother when it suits and ignore her wider role. Being a monarch doesn't work like that and the wider public, whether the rf like if or not, are party to the births, marriages and deaths of the rf family because that is the way the "faustian pact" works. If they lived their life privately, behind palace walls, the institution wouldn't survive would it?

@Malariahilaria

The headlines were atrocious.
I would like to think she was doing what was best for the two boys at the time.

The Queen isn't lucky enough to run her own religion. The Church of England isn't a religion. It's one among many Christian denominations.
She's the head of the denomination, because of something which happened centuries ago.
I don't know quite what disestablishmentarianism refers to, so I might google when I have time.

The Queen isn't lucky enough to run her own religion

My bad.

When was she elected ?

Prince Andrew was advised not to slope off on his family’s ski holiday – fearing the publicity would add to an avalanche of woes

He had to be advised 🙄

@Vapeyvapevape I read an article about that that quoted a "source" saying Eugenie and Beatrice felt sorry for him and he didn't deserve the bad press. The whole article was painting him as a victim.

Being a monarch doesn't work like that and the wider public, whether the rf like if or not, are party to the births, marriages and deaths of the rf family because that is the way the "faustian pact" works.

I agree it’s a Faustian pact, but I just can’t blame any human for not acting in a particular way at a time of horrific tragedy.

My conclusion is not that she was ‘wrong’, but that the whole thing is toxic and consumes the people involved

I don’t think it’s possible to act the ‘right’ way because the whole concept is fundamentally bonkers.

My conclusion is not that she was ‘wrong’, but that the whole thing is toxic and consumes the people involved

Where shall I mail my republican badge, T-Shirt and mug to ?

The reigning monarch has been appointed as the Supreme Head of the Church of England since Elizabeth 1 in 1558.

Sorry for requoting a long post but Paquerette, that is complete bollocks.

ALL recipients of public funds must be accountable to us, the public. Or you'll have a free-for-all, which is what's currently going on in the 27 mansions.

Crooked doctors and nurses get struck off and are held accountable. In theory.

Meanwhile, crooked invent-a-job royals continue to get funded by the taxpayer and aren't required to tell us what they are doing with our money. In practice.

Yes supposedly the Queen was protecting the boys as their mum had died, and then made them walk behind her coffin. Hardly showing a protective instinct.
Lots of people were not happy at the boys being made to do that, but at the time most speculated it was because they were worried the public might throw things at the RF and the boys there would stop that happening.

because they were worried the public might throw things at the RF and the boys there would stop that happening
I never knew that was one of the reasons !

Men and their various sexual "needs" indeed. I may be naive but surely NAMALT? But a heck of a lot of them seem to be. What is it about their need for sexual gratification with underage girls that they need intermediaries to supply them with the objects of their desire.

I really cannot understand it, but of course I am obviously very innocent as to the ways of many men in the world.....

@NiceShrubbery

Sorry for requoting a long post but Paquerette, that is complete bollocks.

ALL recipients of public funds must be accountable to us, the public. Or you'll have a free-for-all, which is what's currently going on in the 27 mansions.

Crooked doctors and nurses get struck off and are held accountable. In theory.

Meanwhile, crooked invent-a-job royals continue to get funded by the taxpayer and aren't required to tell us what they are doing with our money. In practice.

No, your post is complete bollocks. Either as you say “all recipients of public funds must be accountable to us” or none of them are. You can’t just cherry pick the ones you like over the ones you don’t like. It’s not a popularity contest.

Crooked nurses and doctors generally don’t get struck off/held accountable. Way too many posts/threads about that. Including my own experience.

The public’s behaviour after Diana’s death was frankly embarrassing and the Queen was the only reasonable one

I agree about some of the public behaviour, though it wasn't a well received view at the time, but the Queen might have better deserved being called "the only reasonable one" if she'd squashed the idea of the boys doing that appalling walk

And BTW, to whoever said Andrew might be given another hat so as to walk beside Tony in the parades, as a Knight of the Garter he's already got one
You didn't really think she'd withold that particular bauble from him did you?

Eh? You're the one cherry picking.

Of course the NHS accountability system is broken and corrupt. But at least there IS one and the public acknowledge the need for it to exist and some people could, if they were arsed enough, bring its failings more into the public eye.

The Royals have NO accountability. At all.

@Vapeyvapevape It was suggested as the reason in lots of newspapers at the time. The public mood was very negative towards the RF but very sympathetic to the boys.

The Queen did her usual thing of following protocol. Diana was not a RF member, so she thought publicly her death should be ignored by the RF.

I thought this thread was about PA and the VG case but it just sounds like a RF bashing thread now

Of course @NiceShrubbery can cherry pick the ones she wants. Last I heard the RF don't save lives

The publicly funded RF don't do anything for me, if they weren't here, my life would not be affected one iota.

Obviously not the case with all the public service workers we've talked about.

@RoyalFamilyFan that really is a shitty thing to do .

I also didn't know that the soldiers in the regiments that PA is chief of, have to drink a toast to him (I thought it was to the Queen) . No wonder they want him stripped of his titles.

@KittenCatcher

I thought this thread was about PA and the VG case but it just sounds like a RF bashing thread now

What's the problem with that?

We're all here just waiting to hear what the judge's verdict is. So a lot of general chatting right now.

It's how threads tend to go, you know?

I thought this thread was about PA and the VG case but it just sounds like a RF bashing thread now
Yup, you're right there!

Men and their various sexual "needs" indeed. I may be naive but surely NAMALT?

Anyone remember the olden days HIGNFY where they used to joke quite openly about Prince Philip using prostitutes?