George going to Marlborough? Article linked.

[Greatballzoffire]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12872215/William-kate-snub-eton-george-marlborough-college-second-visit.html

I have never and would never minimise Andrew’s behaviour and how you can take that from what I said ( using your example) is beyond me .

However , the fact that you can’t reel off a list of the late Queen’s mistakes rather speaks for itself.

Re. Queen's mis-steps - some (not me, as it happens) consider her handling of the aftermath of Diana's death was poorly judged.

@goodbyestranger "Why would it matter if a child in the rf didn't pass the Eton test? It doesn't make that child a less valuable person."

1. It's very much "Protect the heir", and
2. for monachists, George not passing the Eton test would mean they would have to find another way to talk about his uncle Harry's own intelligence.

(Though I'm not sure I agree with you on these schools being principled enough to not take students solely based on their name, I will accept that by your posts you just might have a bit more insider knowledge than most here)

I'm pretty sure Harry got into Eton. Wasn't it there he made disablist comments about the school matron? It doesn't sound a particularly nice school anyway. Kindness clearly wasn't on the curriculum so it looks to suit a certain personality type.

@ANightingale As their grandmother, maybe the queen thought it best to stay away from London and for her and her son to support the bereaved boys? The grief fest enjoyed by the British public didn't need to be fed by the sight of Diana's children raw from their loss.

I'm pretty sure Harry got into Eton

He may not have achieved the required marks but his mother had recently died in terrible circumstances and the eyes of the whole world were on those boys along with very unkind articles and comments about their father’s side of the family.
Surely it was reasonable to allow him to join his brother there.
I appreciate this meant people missed out on enjoying the fact he couldn’t pass the entrance exam.

@rosyglowcondition I agree, which is why I added the caveat that I'm not in that camp - but there are those who would count it as a mis-step.

Yes, she rightly put the kids first.

However , the fact that you can’t reel off a list of the late Queen’s mistakes rather speaks for itself

Mylovelygreendress I'm more than equal to the task but I know how these threads tend to go and if people respond in detail I tend to feel obliged to do the same. As it is, I'm dipping in and out of MN as light relief from a vast pile of other stuff I need to do ahead of Christmas so all any refusal to engage indicates is precisely that: too busy and not interested in batting off ghastly pro queen adulation, based on emotion rather than facts.

Much of that was whipped up by the media, which in turn help create the spectacle of frenzied public mourning that demanded her participation when she was primarily concerned about her grandsons. I think history will be kind to her in this regard.

I know I’ll be deleted or shunned but I couldn’t care less about Andrew.

Why on earth do you think you will be deleted for saying that? Which MN rule do you imagine you are breaking?

Me neither.

The media were just deflecting from the blame. They did the right thing. The way everyone behaved that time was selfish. She had two young children and that is where the compassion should have been. Not demanding that they show up to be seen by the public. Awful.

Nor me.

Did the public demand the presence of the boys? I only remember that it was the Queen’s presence the tabloid press was screaming for - and that the people followed suit.

I wasn’t in the UK but heard the news of Diana’s accident in the middle of a sunshiny day, that she was hurt, and not long after that we heard she had died. In the days that followed the media coverage was pretty much continuous. It seemed to be the Queen that the British public wanted to see. I was quite shocked when Diana’s sons went to see the flowers and cards at KP.

I just never got the impression the public were demanding to see the boys (although I did watch the hysteria with which they were greeted by some members of the public). It seemed to be all about ‘where is the Queen? ‘why hasn’t she returned to BP?’ ‘Why is the flag not at half mast?’

Indeed. Underhand remarks about a lovely boy who appears thoughtful and kind, and remarks about the late queen being not very smart and making a lot of missteps during her reign. Any remarks about Harry's level of intelligence I also don't like. He was bereaved at a very impressionable age and clearly still has demons. I hate the way he is portrayed as thick, even though I do feel he has very much lost his way and trapped in the LA pseudo psychology web.

Then it descended into underhand, unsubstantiated insults towards a 10yo

Kensington Palace has put out an article about George's secondary school destination. They made a big point about the ISEB tests and how things were being done by the book. All absolutely fine. It's also absolutely fine if he doesn't get into Eton and another school is judged a better fit which is exactly what the article is saying. How extraordinary to regard discussion - prompted by Kensington Palace itself - as an insult. Many, many boys take the test and don't get into Eton. In what way is it insulting to any of those boys to acknowledge that another school will suit them better? What nonsense.

Also absurd not to be allowed to acknowledge that the monarchy is in a much weaker state than it was at the start of QEII's reign, and that she probably has some responsibility for that. Bizarre level of blinkeredness....

Opinions differ in the same way as recollections....

Your opinions ( to which you are entitled) would carry more credibility if you gave some examples of the late Queen’s mistakes .