Should Harry attend the coronation?

[Price21210]

I say NO.

Why put himself through it? His family is too cold and not just because of his actions or what has revealed. I think they have always been that way.

Besides, it will also be Archie's birthday.

Andrew isn’t selling stories about the monarchy and telling private stuff about them for money

Not yet ...

@Coxspurplepippin

"PA is an arrogant tosser with dubious taste in friends"

Skimming over Epstein's activities as 'dubious' is the very definition of minimising .
I don't know why you cannot understand that. Maybe you do understand .
Either way , it's offensive

The bald fact is Andrew is more acceptable to royalists than Harry because Andrew keeps his mouth shut .
Says it all really

Look at this, lots of comments minimising what Andrew did or saying he did nothing wrong.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/3745602-prince-andrew-guilty

More here
www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3759044-VG-Prince-Andrew-to-say-I-wasn-t-sure-before-but-I-believe-her?page=2

It is a lie to say everyone agreed what Andrew did was wrong.

Don't be so ridiculous. Not minimising in the slightest. You're looking for any excuse to take a pot shot. I made my disgust at Andrew's behaviour plain in my post. Maybe you cannot understand that. Maybe you do understand. Either way, it's offensive.

Andrew is not more acceptable at all. When he opens his trap and says something stupid, offensive etc, there are plenty of threads denouncing his behaviour.

When he opens his trap and says something stupid, offensive etc, there are plenty of threads denouncing his behaviour.

No, there are not! Seriously, I was the one who started a few of them, and I would be on H&M threads and if the name Andrew came up, I would be encouraging posters to come across to a thread I'd started and post about him. Did they? Did they hell as like. No.

So, no, not plenty.

Yes, there were threads, but nothing absolutely nothing compared to the near a thousand threads on H&M.

Well said @ZombiesForever

This is what I used to see on Andrew threads.

She knew what she was doing
Where were her parents?
She liked the money
She was 17 (so fucking what, age is irrelevant in trafficking cases)
Why was she smiling in that photo?
Andrew did nothing wrong
Why did those girls go to that island if they didn't want to?
They were all in it for the money

By victim blaming you are defending trafficking and hey... being friends with one sex trafficker is bad enough (JE), but being a decades long friend with someone who is in prison for 20 years for trafficking who you took into the inner circle of the RF (GM) is more than unfortunate

That's standard misunderstanding of abuse and exploitation which leads to victim blaming.

You'll see that on any thread which was started about a similar case, involving celebrities or everyday folk.

It's nothing to do with Andrew being a member of the Royal family.

'Yes, there were threads, but nothing absolutely nothing compared to the near a thousand threads on H&M.'

www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4343578-Prince-Andrew-has-bolted-to-Balmoral
www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/3807047-Prince-Andrew-fails-to-cooperate-with-FBI
www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4449237-Prince-Andrew-Thread-3
www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4358350-Prince-Andrew-thoughts
www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4567890-andrew-returning-to-public-life
www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4519070-Andrew-The-Abbey-Fergie-and-The-Fraudster
www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4464450-Prince-Andrew-Thread-4
www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4516586-who-advised-the-queen-to-walk-into-the-abbey-escorted-by-andrew
www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/4326214-Prince-Andrew-sued-by-Virginia-Roberts-ll?page=2&reply=110055118
www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/3747783-Prince-Andrew-Part-2?page=2&reply=91713250
www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3745482-To-support-the-Duke-of-York?page=11&reply=91641241
www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4216211-They-are-keeping-Andrew-out-the-way-arent-they?page=13&reply=106435164
www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/3744772-Prince-Andrew?page=38&reply=91687753

Not a comprehensive list by any means but each of these threads have hundreds of responses, most of them are full, so to suggest threads relating to PA attract tumbleweed is incorrect.

Yes, he should because the king is his father.
I don't believe he has done anything wrong, more importantly, is Andrew going to be there? I don't understand why people seem to be furious at Harry when Andrew is a sex offender.

The fact he IS a member of the royal family is pretty damning, don't you think?

Here we are... a family held up to the highest standards, revered by many, fawned over by others, the Monarch being head of the Church etc, receiving millions from us to fund their lavish lifestyle and one of them is friends with sex traffickers and may or may not have taken all the benefits associated with that.

I did not say they were all tumbleweed. Why do you make stuff up? I said at times it was like tumbleweed

At a time when there was a lot going on, Andrew dodging papers being served on him, developments over the water with his legal team, the posts were small in comparison to H&M. And many posters making no comment whatsoever on Andrew - too busy with the ones they despised (H&M)

Well done on your linking of those threads, good work. Still no comparison to when I once looked at how many H&M threads there were about 2 years ago and we were up to 560 or threabouts (no, I didn't count them, MN has a counting facility, I just searched threads with the name H or M in)

So by that reckoning, we're over 1,000 now I imagine.

Of course, I understand H&M are more controversial, but still... there have been times I've been perplexed at how little interest there is in the disgraced member of the RF who was basically sacked from the job.

Yes it's damning. But the point you're labouring is that you seem to think he's being excused AS a member of the Royal family whereas H and M are criticised for far less.

And I disagree with you. I don't think anyone who excused him did so because he's a Royal, but because they would have the same opinion about anyone from any background in those circumstances.

Whereas the issue many have with H and M is about the things they have said and done AS Royals about BEING a member of the Royal family. Because that status is absolutely intrinsic to their 'story' and why people have the opinions they do.

Which is why I think it's invalid to compare perceived public opinion about them and Prince Andrew when they're completely different people and completely different issue's.

I don't think you'll find a single person who in seeming to excuse Andrew is doing so because he's a member of the Royal family nor any threads started from that viewpoint.

And I disagree with you. I don't think anyone who excused him did so because he's a Royal, but because they would have the same opinion about anyone from any background in those circumstances.

See I don't agree (but we can disagree affably!)
By not condemning him very vigorously, for some posters (please note, I say SOME) , it is a way of making out H&M are far worse.

Misogynistic? I thought it was funny, and quite apt.........😀

If you're talking about threads which mention Andrew, there's probably hundreds. There are certainly many about him but with fewer posts (still in the hundreds though).

It's not that there's no interest (well, there's little 'interest' in the tosser) but there's been loads of threads every time he's done something (Maitlis interview) or been in the press (civil case). When there's been 'a lot going on', there've been plenty of postings. There's more about H&M because they've done more publicity - interviews, books, TV programmes, titles for their kids, speculation regarding coronation attendance etc etc. If/when Andrew does another interview there'll be plenty of traffic.

This thread title is about Harry but obviously Andrew is now mentioned on it, as he's mentioned on many other threads without being in the title. I can't be bothered to check how many threads he's mentioned in - I'm off down the pub.

I know about the volume and I know about the threads so we will have to agree to disagree, won't we?

Enjoy the pub!

I think they should do what they want.

my friends toxic daughter did not attend her sisters wedding.
nobody missed her, or gave her a second thought, because the day wasn’t about her.

in the end, she was the only person who missed out.

They will attend (briefly) to get a few pictures but the money making potential must be going down from doing this. Unless of course, Harry pulls a dramatic stunt at the coronation by whipping out his red, white and blue todger 😂

It would be an odd decision to go considering how he feels about the RF, the UK & the media.

But having said that it was a strange decision to use titles for their children considering they 'fled the uk' on a freedom flight to escape a life shackled to a racist institution that drive them away.

You'd expect them to want nothing to do with his family and go completely NC and lead a peaceful life, not go running back for major international televised events 🤔

He refused to sing the lyrics last time, this time he will have to sing GSTK and bow before Charles - he may agree to do it beforehand but ultimately not deliver just to grab headlines. Whichever way they try to justify it, their attendance will be a demonstration of hypocrisy and greed at it's finest.

Edward didn't sing the National Anthem either. Does he deserve derision too?

I don't know the context in which he never sang it but Harry has helpfully set out the context for his dissent in great detail.

'this time he will have to sing GSTK and bow before Charles '

He'll look ridiculous whichever her does. A hypocrite if he bows and sings, a petulant attention seeker if he doesn't. It's a lose lose situation, all entirely of his own making.

Or hers? He's the dummy who went along with it and forgot himself too.