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

PrincessTigger · Yesterday 21:13
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.

Seems from the non-attendance of senior royals that they DID know Andrew kept very dodgy company!
Did "they" (advisors and senior royals) tell him this? And was he too arrogant to cut his "friends"?
Perhaps the Queen should have stepped in at this or an earlier stage. But it seems he could sweet-talk her. Beloved son/war hero.

Why is it QE’s fault Andrew kept bad company? He had two parents.

Ohpleeeease · Yesterday 12:23
Why is it QE’s fault Andrew kept bad company? He had two parents.

I'm not saying that QE should have spoken to him about undesirables as his parent. She should have laid down the law as Queen. She seemed quite capable of doing this with other family members, and she was obeyed.

That is an excellent point. Lots has been said about the fact that she was his mother and he was supposed to be a favourite and that mothers want to believe the best of their sons and so on. I have no problem with all of that. However, she was also the Queen and much is said about her dedication to duty and to protecting the monarchy and she could have done much much more and much sooner to curb his behaviour. His behaviour, and not just in relation to Epstein, has definitely damaged the monarchy.

Re other family members - I am thinking Charles and Diana - enough is enough - time to divorce, and Anne - letters in headline news - get yourselves married. Any more?

Does anyone know where this 'favourite son' stuff started? Richard Kay was trotting it out recently on Channel 5. I mean, do you know which journalist started it and why?

Also very much agree with you about her role as Queen, BadgerB ... you have to wonder if this "favourite son" thing began at least partly because she chose NOT to exert her auth, especially when she'd done it with others

A mothers place is always in the wrong. Can you imagine a MN post blaming the actions of a son on his mother? By the time Andrew was behaving so badly he was a grown man. He is responsible for his own actions

Let's throw Philip into the fray then, since there were two 'parents' involved here. He always came across to me as a dreadful human being and awful parent.

A mothers place is always in the wrong.

She was a Queen, not just a mother, and as Queen and not as sister she scuppered the relationship between Margaret and Group Captain Townsend on grounds that were related to the image of the royal family.

Did she never think, as Queen, of hiring a fleet of private investigators to examine the background and pick up any gossip on people buzzing around her offspring? Did it never cross her mind that there would be appalling people trying to break into their circles and benefit from association with them? Did nobody ever sit the four children down and warn them that their status made them targets of people with more to gain than to offer in any friendship? Did the topic of borrowing miney to fund lifestyles ever come up - it's a recurring theme throughout the history of the royal family and of England itself and she should have learned something from any history lessons she sat through.

HM didn't scupper the relationship between Margaret and Peter Townsend. She asked them to wait for a couple of years, during which time Margaret grew up. She was free to marry him at 25, but decided that she was not prepared to lose her position in line to the throne, although she would have been able to keep her title. None of us will ever know why she really made that decision, but I think there is a realistic possibility that HM saved her from making a mistake by asking them to take time apart.

The queen wasn't some all powerful, all knowing god at the centre of some great big spider web. She had far more important things to do than wonder what her son (a grown man) did. Neither did she have a crystal ball.

I didn’t know what the Queen was expected to do. The Palace did their best to keep Andrew gainfully employed for years but he was/is a liability. Cutting him loose could have been far more dangerous than just tucking him under your royal wing and hoping for the best.

I think A was paid to stay silent. Better for the monarchy to keep him inside the tent. It continues with his tenancy at Windsor safe for now. Silence money I'd say.

She had far more important things to do than wonder what her son (a grown man) did. Neither did she have a crystal ball.

But she sent her sister's boyfriend out of the country to keep them apart for reasons similar to the reasons why she should have kept a very close eye on Andrew, namely the good name of the RF and the reputation of the monarchy, and she most definitely used her authority in the family as queen to do so.

@mathanxiety I'm sure she took the advice of the men in grey suits and was guided by the courtiers and the establishment as a whole. I think in her early life she went along with much more than maybe she wanted. I'll say it again, she was as much trapped in the layers of protocol as every monarch is, and had far less power than we credit her with, especially as a much younger woman.

She had far more important things to do than wonder what her son (a grown man) did. Neither did she have a crystal ball.

It's beyond credibility to suggest she didn't know what was going on. The 'what to do with Andrew' problem was conveniently solved for her when he became a trade envoy but she wasn't unaware of the unsavoury Epstein association (Vanity Fair article 2011 leading to a 'Crisis meeting') and she went on to award him a Knight of the Victorian Order gong after the Epstein association broke.

How Queen Elizabeth II Gave Prince Andrew a Royal Honor After Epstein Scandal Broke (newsweek.com)

She chose to blunder on regardless.

Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order actually, Cathy - the highest rank in the order there is, and an award that's given at the sole discretion of the monarch

Can't have Andrew piddling around with a lesser rank, now can we?

I'm just amazed that the public and the press watched that happen and there was barely a murmur about it, its so deplorable she did that. Its the worst thing she's done in my opinion and far worse than leaving the royal family to make your own living.

Andrew is the gift that never stops giving to the anti monarchists. Thankfully his behaviour is not the fault of his mother and made up just a fraction of her 70 year reign. But let's just keep hammering away at an elderly woman's love for her son, however misguided and blinkered, because that's what mothers do don't they, love their children no matter what?

what a mother does in private is one thing, but to publicly support him when you are the head of state is wrong.

I saw an article this morning that said even more of Andrew’s former roles have been reallocated to other royals, so it seems his exile is permanent (good)

Good indeed. Now just need to evict him from his mansion!

yes actually, the way parents respond to what their children do matters, and can be criticised. HER behaviour is what is being criticised, what she did in response as mother and Queen. We are absolutely entitled to criticse the monarch for giving her son the Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order at a time when he was being accused of sex crimes involving young people. It was disgusting and remains a strain on her character and judgement.