Queen Elizabeth

[Nono22972]

No disrespect to her but people and the media often talk about her sense of duty, her stability and professionalism but what would would say are some of the things in her last 15-20 years on the throne that you would criticise her for?

My obvious response is how she handled the Prince Andrew situation and staying on the throne as long as she did. She should've abdicated 10 or 20 years before her death, in my opinion

In the period and class concerned it was regarded as being in the child’s best long-term interests. We don’t like it now, but you can’t look back at 1950s parenting and expect people to have known what we now know about child development and psychology.

Speaking as one whose children didn’t go to boarding school even though their father went, at eight. I disagree with his parents’ educational approach but it was all they knew.

Nor does it mean every single one of them agrees with whatever a particular mumsnetter, or any other person watching, says about her. What a ridiculous suggestion.

@ElephantLove
"I thought she was a miserable sour faced cow"

Lots to criticise. But no need for misogynist language.

why is it ridiculous? do you think every one of the millions of people who watched it loved and respected her?

I was agreeing with you! Just because my dad watched, doesn't mean he agrees with what Polkadotdalmation, or Bob next door, thinks of the Queen... he despised her but still watched.

I just don't think the Queen was particularly maternal, and a lot of it was covered up under the premise of duty.
When Charles was a tiny baby he was left, with his nanny, at their weekend home,so the Queen only saw him at weekends.
She went to Malta for several months and left toddler Charles behind.
At this stage in her life she was not overburdened with duty. This was choice.
As one of her former Private Secretaries stated 'If the Queen had spent us much time parenting as she spent on breeding horses things might have been a lot better'.

sorry my mistake, so used to being jumped on took it the wrong way.

No worries, I could have worded it better :)

People can choose to nit pick small mistakes

I don't call her defending Andrew by standing by the side of him very very publicly... a small mistake. I don't call Andrew 'a small mistake'.
She enabled him and his dubious dealings for decades. As for H&M being lower than Andrew, don't make me laugh!

Andrew managed to turn the Monarchy into a complete laughing stock. Worldwide.

Andrew didn't just make the monarchy a worldwide laughing stock, he showed how morally corrupt it is.

Many families deal with similar issues and show far more moral fibre than the RF did.

I really disliked her handling of the Andrew situation.
She made a point of him accompanying her to church when there was a lot of publicity about him and that despicable paedophile Jeffrey Epstein in the media.
It really was giving the 2 fingers to the public.
Not her finest moment.

@Abra1t
"I disagree with his parents’ educational approach but it was all they knew."

A lot of people did know. The 1950s weren't the dark ages!!

A lot of people did know, I agree, but some people, like my in-laws, believed that encouraging ‘independence’ among young children set them up for the lives they would lead: often living in far-flung parts of the Empire. It was a ‘sacrifice’ that was part of the deal.

I don’t know anyone today who would think this was a good thing, but people are products of the prevailing culture in their class and time, and if all their friends are doing the same thing with their children, it’s likely they will, too. Life in Britain after the war was pretty harsh. People were brisk and non-demonstrative by our standards.

We may not agree with them and I certainly don’t and my children never boarded, I think it’s damaging for young children.

I always feels that she would have enjoyed her life much more splitting her time between Balmoral and Sandringham, and breeding her horses. She took her vow of service very seriously.

I didn't feel strongly against her allowing him to accompany her to church although I do understand why people see that as a public rather than private occasion. Where I do absolutely agree though is that, in allowing him to escort her into a very public occasion and by giving him additional honours when his links with Epstein were very much in the spotllight, she appeared to be giving him official support

Many families deal with similar issues and show far more moral fibre than the RF did

^ This. Years and years before it all broke in the news, the Queen let it be known that she was concerned^ about Andrew's Trade Envoy role playing golf and his friendship with Epstein.
Concerned. Right.
She did absolutely nothing about it.

She enabled him and his awful behaviour and then when the shit hit the fan, stripped him of his titles (no choice... the Armed Forced didn't want him as their Head), gave him a shiny bauble for Services to the Queen instead (Order of the Garter) and took him off to Church to show she stood by him. Then probably shelled out millions to pay off the court case.

Just appalling.

@Abra1t "I don’t know anyone today who would think this was a good thing,"

Sadly, I do.😢 There are significant numbers of them on here.

Can we chat about Henry 8th or is history banned now 😁

Roussette · Today 12:08
People can choose to nit pick small mistakes

I don't call her defending Andrew by standing by the side of him very very publicly... a small mistake. I don't call Andrew 'a small mistake'.

Can we give her the benefit of the doubt here? He hadn't been convicted of the crime. He no doubt swore to his mother (and everyone else) that he was innocent.
His mother believed him. Would I believe my son in a similar situation? I don't know - but I do know I'd want to.

100%! Even if your child does something wrong or stupid, you still love them as your child - well most people do!! I've no doubt she believed him - he has always denied it. He was a prick getting involved with Epstein but it hasn't been proven that he was engaging in any abuse. He seemed to find Epstein more 'useful' than anything - didn't he lend Fergie a huge amount of money at one point?

This mother was a woman in her mid 90s, probably sick, sore and tired of all the grief. No luxuries could compensate for a life lived so much in the spotlight, under constant scrutiny, constant criticism. This was not a role she sought out for herself - she was born into it, and accepted it as her fate. Would you enjoy hauling your arse out of bed, say when you've a bad period, getting made up, dressed up and trotting out to some boring reception making small talk with strangers? I wouldn't!

It would be a strange person in 70+ years in public service that never got anything wrong!!

She probably would have been happier breeding horses than being Queen, but she took what she perceived as her duty very seriously.

@ElephantLove "miserable sour faced cow" is a horrible way to speak about anyone. HMTQ was usually seen smiling, including beaming at Liz Truss a couple of day before she died!! Can't you give her any credit?! That must have taken so much strength of will, and she knew she was dying.

Speak for yourself she wasent my granny 🙄

it hasn't been proven that he was engaging in any abuse.

And it never will be.

Andrew will never appear in any court in any capacity but throwing money at the problem to make it go away is not a good look.

didn't he lend Fergie a huge amount of money at one point?

He paid off one of her debts having negotiated it down substantially.

When his little black book of celebrity numbers was recovered there were more listings for her than for Andrew.

Yes, exactly, the whole point is the fact he was the Queens son meant he was never going to be held accountable and they could always say, it was never proven. Its a disgusting abuse of power to shield your son from these horrible claims. The way his lawyers responded before they settled was disgusting. I wonder who paid their bill?

Their bill was astronomical... he had legal teams here and in the US, the best of the best. I imagine the Queen stumped up for that too.

It got to the point they were besmirching the victims, yes. Just awful but we've had it on these boards too.

Of course, he would never have been held accountable, the Monarchy are powerful.

She should have paid for her and her husband's funerals.