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

Puzzledandpissedoff

I think that David Attenborough quote is exactly right.

Sounds wonderful, upinaballoon, but just looking at things wouldn't do it for me; I want to handle them, but obviously won't get the chance!!

(Another deviation - I went on a tour of Britannia when on holiday in Edinburgh (think it was there) It's docked at Leith.

Ah, yes... but that was a money-savingexercise, otherwise they'd have to keep staff there all the time

Yep.

I noticed the famous frugal Tupperware was front of stage at the BBQ too 😆

On another note did anyone see the bit where they were decorating the Christmas tree, Andrew tried to get up the ladder while their backs were turned was told to get down by Anne and shrieked something rude back?

Signs of his the ghastly entitlement at play even then...

A couple of points about P. Andrew.
He was interviewed by the police (UK), who decided there was no case.
It was a civil case brought by Ms Guiffre, and both decided they did not want to settle, but would go to court.
However, I then read that Ms Guiffre was unable to produce the origial pic (the one of them together), and without that, then there is no guarantee that the pic was not photoshopped or doctored in some way. I knew then they would settle. I understand pressure was exterted on Andrew to settle by Charles and William, (as it was Jubilee year, etc) and the papers suggest that the sum involved was loaned to him, until he sold the Swiss chalet, etc. So without a conviction, there is no reason why he cannot take part in family events (but it has been agreed that he does not take part in Royal events).
I do not care for Andrew, because of the way he once sprayed paint? at photographers, demonstrating his sense of entitlement. However, I sort of feel sorry for him over the case brought by Ms Guiffre, as it was a lose lose whatever happened.
That said, he clearly showed lack of judgement over the years, (befriending Epstein was just one example).

@milveycrohn Agree Andrew is just not a likeable character, and this has played against him. He made seriously bad judgement calls but he is not a criminal in that he was convicted of nothing. A flawed and unpleasant, entitled individual yes, but to his critics he is the devil incarnate. What singles him out for added vitriol is he is a Prince and (a) should be held to a higher standard of conduct and (b) to the critics of the RF he is a stick to beat them with.

ultimately QE loved her son and chose to believe what he said, because there was no solid evidence otherwise. What could she have done anyway, stick him in the tower? He was stripped of so much and sidelined. He’s paying for his mistakes, unlike so many of the other people who associated with Epstein.

My issue with Andrew has very little to do with VG @milveycrohn .

It's Epstein and the fact that he stayed with him after his conviction. What right thinking person does that and then expressed no regrets?

I know that lots of people think that the Queen 'believed' Andrew, but I think it's perfectly possible for mothers to think their sons are dodgy/difficult/always been a problem/probably did do something but he'll never tell me the whole story, and be quite angry with them, without completely casting them out of the family and never speaking to them again. As someone has said on this or another thread, it's a good idea to have trouble near, where you can keep an eye on it.

The Queen comes under flak for going riding with Andrew but it wasn't a public occasion. If you are a member of the RF and you want to speak to another one privately I would have thought that the best place to do that is out in the open air, riding or walking, with a security person near but out of earshot.

@upinaballoon Was the Queen not going to church when Andrew accompanied her. It was significant.

He was stripped of so much and sidelined. He’s paying for his mistakes

He gets to rattle round the home he's leased on a very sweet deal (along with getting the run of the family palaces), still play dress-up and attend family jollies.

The fact he can't now skin the taxpayer for private travel to luxury golf jaunts and off-piste meetings with private bankers is a good thing.

The Queen comes under flak for going riding with Andrew but it wasn't a public occasion.

She chose to ride with him at a known pap haunt.

Pistolpose · Yesterday 16:31
A flawed and unpleasant, entitled individual yes, but to his critics he is the devil incarnate
What singles him out for added vitriol is he is a Prince and (a) should be held to a higher standard of conduct and (b) to the critics of the RF he is a stick to beat them with.

Absolutely agree with this.
And as for going to church - the Queen was a genuinely religious woman and no doubt saw church as the one place he ought to go to show repentance. Tho' of course, before anyone says it, we don't know if he IS repentant.

There were some on MN who even wanted him banned from his mother's funeral

Andrew is also a very useful distraction from the many other US & UK men who were much more involved in Epstein's illegal and unethical activities.

But no one seems keen to find out who they were, but are happy to lambast Andrew (not that he doesn't deserve it frankly).

As @MrsFinkelstein wrote "Andrew is a very useful distraction from the many other US and UK men who were much more involved in Epstein's illegal and unethical activities....... "

There are so many great investigative journalists I am surprised the heat hasn't been put on those other disgusting people - some household names- involved with Epstein.
That's not to absolve Andrew "I didn't know her but I gave her £12 million" from his involvement.

And he has allegedly been caught in a right web of lies about that.

https://nypost.com/2023/06/22/prince-andrew-may-have-kept-in-touch-with-jeffrey-epstein/

Regardless of VG, the association with Epstein after he was convicted was already unforgivable

Regardless of VG, the association with Epstein after he was convicted was already unforgivable

Precisely

The news that he may have told further lies is no surprise, but continuing the relationship was never acceptable in the first place

Yes, but, partly taking up what Badger B said at 6.19, wasn't church a better place to take him than anywhere else? He would be a lot more likely to encounter the notion of confession and hear the Christian gospel there than he was at Castle Epstein. She was a mother and a Queen and, whether she liked it or not, she was also head of a Christian denomination and Christianity teaches a very difficult lesson about forgiveness. I don't want to sound glib. I once heard a person complain that forgiveness is difficult and a priest pointed out that forgiveness might take a very long time. The Queen could have been angry with Andrew on several different counts. She wouldn't have made a state broadcast about how she felt. Perhaps there was a significance in her knowing that once he got into church he'd have to say a general confession. Perhaps she had had a conversation with her own chaplain about how to cope with it all and perhaps she had confessed her anger with Andrew to her chaplain. I suppose she wanted to sideline him without shutting him out totally from her life. Whatever she did would be in the public eye and she'd be criticised for whatever she'd done, which she has been, and no doubt she knew that.

@upinaballoon I can see where you're coming from but personally I think she shouldn't have had him in the car for the pap shot.
We'll agree to differ.

She was showing her support for him. No need for him to be photographed.

I got the impression she actually believed him

She might have done. Lots of mums swear blind their boy did not rape or abuse women even after overwhelming evidence leads to a court guilty verdict.

Just to clarify @Roussette, I don’t think people should be prevented from seeing it, I just don’t think it’s worth the effort (or at my age, the time!)

Crikey, that was a late reply, sorry all, I see the thread has moved on!

The only thing that makes me doubt is e.g. this:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-12372373/So-glad-come-portrait-three-notorious-party-guests-Prince-Andrew-Fergie-forget.html

At the time it was reported that Beatrice was “snubbed” because no senior royals (including William & Harry) attended her party. When you see how many dodgy guests there were though… maybe they did know Andrew was trouble.

everetting · Yesterday 19:48
She was showing her support for him. No need for him to be photographed.

Now I see the opposite there. She may well have been indicating that he needed to go to church for repentance and to pray for forgiveness. And she would support him in that. But I know that there are many people who see "going to church" as a proclamation of "I'm a good person".

Either way, the Queen was not responsible for his being photographed, even though she must have guessed that it would happen. Perhaps she thought a photograph of Andrew looking miserable on his way to church would be a good thing?