Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Original poster

How do you think QEII would have handled the situation with AMW if she was still alive and reigning? (title edited my MNHQ at request of the OP)

98 replies

SecondSpare · 09/12/2025 09:13

Been reminiscing quite a bit recently about the late Queen. I have been wondering if she would have taken the same actions that King Charles III has taken in relation to the former Prince Andrew, who is now known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.

Do you think she would have acted as decisively in stripping AMW of his royal status and stripping him of his titles? I think it would have been absolutely gut-wrenching for her to do, particularly given the widely-held notion that Andrew was her favourite child.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
ChloeMorningstar · 09/12/2025 09:14

I'm going to pop a message to MNHQ to sort your title out.

I don't think she would have done anything, she didnt before

rainydecembernights · 09/12/2025 09:14

No I don’t think she would have done it.

Original poster
SecondSpare · 09/12/2025 09:15

I've messed up the title and can't rectify it. Oops.

OP posts:
upinaballoon · 09/12/2025 10:08

I don't know, is my un-useful answer.
I don't think it's necessarily true that he was her favourite. I get tired of hearing it. Some of the folks on the Channel 5 programmes trot it out as if it's definite and I don't think it is/was.
By the time she died what had happened? He had been demoted to no longer being a 'working' royal, and was in the shadows. That was a big shift, under her watch.
She was in a very difficult position. She was the mother of a son. She was the secular head of a Christian denomination, and Christianity teaches that we are to be willing to forgive not only seven times, but seventy times seven if necessary. She was responsible for keeping the monarchy existing and handing on the job of monarch.
At one service the rest of the family members were allowed to walk up the aisle and Andrew was only allowed to join at the top of the church and help her walk round somewhere. She didn't 'flaunt' him. It was a discreet way of dealing with the situation. I can't remember the occasion.
Why did Charles take away the titles? Because the book 'Entitled' had come out and because an e-mail or e-mails had been published, linking him with Epstein?
I think the late QE2 would most likely have listened to advisors and done the same as Charles, but with a bit more sadness.

upinaballoon · 09/12/2025 10:12

And when she'd done the same as Charles, she'd have had a private talk to Sophie about it, and maybe to Anne, and she'd have had some very private moments with her chaplain and with her God and then she'd have had a nice cup of tea.

TheNightingalesStarling · 09/12/2025 10:13

Andrew might have been her "favourite son" but she was a very pragmatic woman. Ultimately she would have listened to advisers and put Country First ad she was taught to do.

And a lot more people will have been paid off before it got to stage it did.

ThatCalmFinch · 09/12/2025 10:16

I don't think she would have done the same as Charles, she was a committed Christian hence the forgiveness aspect, plus she never felt the need to be answerable to the public.

simpsonthecat · 09/12/2025 11:34

QElizabeth would have done nothing more than she did. 100%. She had opportunities before to do more over decades and she didn't.
And yes she did flaunt him particularly after the car crash interview. She didn't have to. She could have thought it would be sensible to not go riding with him or take him to church so soon after that debacle, but no, she made it quite clear that her loyalties lay with him.
What has happened to him now, is down to her and her enablement over decades

MrsLeonFarrell · 09/12/2025 12:13

I think she would have done the same as Charles but not as quickly. I suspect Charles and William would have had to persuade her that it needed to be done.

I don't believe he was her favourite child though.

simpsonthecat · 09/12/2025 12:17

I think he was. Would she have tolerated his behaviour in any of her other children....no.

Arlanymor · 09/12/2025 12:19

She contributed £2m to Andrew's settlement with VG. I think that tells you everything you need to know about how she would be handling things now.

Mumofteenandtween · 09/12/2025 12:21

I think that the Queen was more secure in her position as Monarch than the King is.

And I think that what you are willing to forgive / excuse / ignore from a child is very different to what you are willing to forgiven/ excuse / ignore from a sibling.

So no. I don’t think she would have.

Zippedydodah · 09/12/2025 13:51

I don’t think she would have done anything except shut the conversation down and keep favouring him above everyone else.

QuornToBeWild · 09/12/2025 16:34

She paid off his victim, which speaks volumes. Glad that Charles is at least doing something. She lost a lot of people’s respect when she paid all that money to make it all ok that her son raped and abused poor Virginia. The queen showed her true colours at the end. Sickening.

Viviennemary · 10/12/2025 12:05

No she wouldn't have stripped his titles. She would have ignore it all and told him to keep a low profile. He would have kept his house too.

RainbowBagels · 10/12/2025 12:19

Zippedydodah · 09/12/2025 13:51

I don’t think she would have done anything except shut the conversation down and keep favouring him above everyone else.

Agree. She was told things about him for years. She did nothing, apart from defend him and protect him.

deeahgwitch · 10/12/2025 12:46

MrsLeonFarrell · 09/12/2025 12:13

I think she would have done the same as Charles but not as quickly. I suspect Charles and William would have had to persuade her that it needed to be done.

I don't believe he was her favourite child though.

I agree with you on all the above.

Cynic17 · 10/12/2025 16:25

upinaballoon · 09/12/2025 10:08

I don't know, is my un-useful answer.
I don't think it's necessarily true that he was her favourite. I get tired of hearing it. Some of the folks on the Channel 5 programmes trot it out as if it's definite and I don't think it is/was.
By the time she died what had happened? He had been demoted to no longer being a 'working' royal, and was in the shadows. That was a big shift, under her watch.
She was in a very difficult position. She was the mother of a son. She was the secular head of a Christian denomination, and Christianity teaches that we are to be willing to forgive not only seven times, but seventy times seven if necessary. She was responsible for keeping the monarchy existing and handing on the job of monarch.
At one service the rest of the family members were allowed to walk up the aisle and Andrew was only allowed to join at the top of the church and help her walk round somewhere. She didn't 'flaunt' him. It was a discreet way of dealing with the situation. I can't remember the occasion.
Why did Charles take away the titles? Because the book 'Entitled' had come out and because an e-mail or e-mails had been published, linking him with Epstein?
I think the late QE2 would most likely have listened to advisors and done the same as Charles, but with a bit more sadness.

Excellent, sensible analysis right here.

FluentOP · 10/12/2025 20:53

SecondSpare · 09/12/2025 09:13

Been reminiscing quite a bit recently about the late Queen. I have been wondering if she would have taken the same actions that King Charles III has taken in relation to the former Prince Andrew, who is now known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.

Do you think she would have acted as decisively in stripping AMW of his royal status and stripping him of his titles? I think it would have been absolutely gut-wrenching for her to do, particularly given the widely-held notion that Andrew was her favourite child.

Sweet FA.

BeeWitchy · 10/12/2025 22:19

She was the secular head of a Christian denomination, and Christianity teaches that we are to be willing to forgive not only seven times, but seventy times seven if necessary.

Given the accusations Andrew has faced, how was it the late Queen’s place to forgive her son?

upinaballoon · 10/12/2025 23:15

BeeWitchy · 10/12/2025 22:19

She was the secular head of a Christian denomination, and Christianity teaches that we are to be willing to forgive not only seven times, but seventy times seven if necessary.

Given the accusations Andrew has faced, how was it the late Queen’s place to forgive her son?

I haven't got a degree in philosophy or religion but here goes. What does the Lord's Prayer say? Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.
Did Andrew in any way trespass against his mother? I'm not trying to be stuffy by using the old-fashioned word. If I were in a philosophy or religious discussion group and this was under discussion I would say that he did hurt/upset/do harm to his mother in the sense that he has been part of a big scandal which was not exactly monarchy-rocking but a huge hoo-ha, with maybe more to come. So, yes, it seems to me the teaching of the Christian church is that it was the late Queen's place to forgive him for what he had done to her that was harmful to HER. Please notice that I was quoting that teaching in a general way and I think it is a very difficult piece of teaching.
Do I think that it was the late Queen's place to forgive her son on behalf of ANYONE ELSE he harmed? No, I don't. Please notice and understand that I haven't suggested that anywhere. I am not writing this in an angry way - just trying to be clear about what I do think. I've only used the capitals for emphasis.

Twonewcats · 11/12/2025 01:11

I loved the Queen.....mostly.
But there's definitely a rose-tinted spectacles thing with the RF. Eg, Diana wasn't classed as sweetness and The People's Princess when she died, yet it's been airbrushed that she was 100% wonderful and that KC was awful to her. That's not how it was at the time. Yes, of course there would have been an element of the press spinning stories whichever way they chose, but still.
And when she died, the late Q eventually made a public statement, which iirc was because of the pressure on her to do so. At the time, it seemed that she wasn't going to (since diana wasn't a Royal any more etc), but the deafening silence started to create a backlash and so she made a speech.
Additionally, i have three sons. They all have their difficulties and stresses, but if I was told that any of them (esp as a grown, educated man) had raped someone who'd been trafficked, I'd struggle to feel anything for them again. I'd be so completely disgusted and disappointed in them. SO my point is, firstly what facts did she know re VG? Did she think he was being accused of something that couldn't possibly be true, and that the damage to RF would be too devastating if they didn't get rid of VG?
OR did she have actual knowledge/a strong suspicion of what actually happened and decidd to support and defend him and make it all go away?
Until we know which it was, I don't know why she did what she did 😞

CathyorClaire · 11/12/2025 21:33

E2 dragged her heels for over a decade after MW had both been abusing his position as Trade Envoy to much disquiet and subsequently been associated with a convicted sex offender.

She acted with minimum force when his position became unsustainable yet stuck two fingers up at the plebs shortly after when she was seen riding out with him in view of a known pap haunt at Windsor.

De-princing hadn't happened for (I think) around 100 years. I think she thought then she'd done enough to deflect criticism and would have stuck there while possibly suppressing public appearances.

I don't think Royal Lodge occupancy would be in any doubt.

KittyEckersley · 11/12/2025 21:38

I think, given her age, some of the newspapers were waiting for her to die before really going for Andrew.

Londonrach1 · 11/12/2025 22:31

She would have done nothing...wasn't it admit nothing etc