Andrew - continuing his effort to end the Monarchy Part 3

[simpsonthecat]

Here we are

Previous thread
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/5487636-andrew-continuing-his-effort-to-end-the-monarchy-part-2?page=20&reply=150676336

Catherine Middleton would not have been allowed to marry William in a previous generation, so I am making a point about class.

Cabin crew have to look presentable and be polite while dealing with difficult members of the public. They have to hide any personal discomfort on long flights. In an emergency they have to be a stable presence that calms passengers. Added to that they need to be able to problem solve in difficult and sometimes life threatening situations.

If aptitude is inherited, The Princess of Wales is certainly not less suited to the job of being Royal than any member of the Royal family.

All the (current) wives are better than the born Royals, so that demonstrates the 'blood Royal' business is complete nonsense. They clearly don't need to be 'trained from birth' to do what they do. Its a very easy life, and one that often the ones who are supposed to be trained from birth to do it are not particularly good at it.

Margaret could have married Peter Townsend however would have to have given up her Royal status .
Clearly she wasn’t prepared to do that!

Yes , I’m surprised this wasn’t in the well known documentary “ the crown” , he was regarded as unsuitable because of the age gap, working for her father the king and the fact he was married.
as a divorced older man he wasn’t obviously a great choice but the queen offered her the choice of giving up her titles and Margaret decided that she would rather keep her titles than marry the “love of her life “.

To be fair on 'the Crown', I don't think they skipped around the fact that there was a 16 year age gap, she was a teenager when they met and he had a family.

Obviously ideas about relationships have changed since then, but this might have been a rare example of the family displaying appropriate caution.

“Family “ , don’t be coy , he was married! , in that time, even non royals would be unhappy about their young daughter choosing such a match.

I had read somewhere that she was going off him anyway. I think the being forced to give up the love of her life is not strictly true.

Hmm.

From The Crown's historical consultant:

'when history gets departed from, it's not done casually. It's done on the basis of wanting to convey a particular message that can only be conveyed by invention.'

Since season 5 it's been described by Netflix as a 'fictional dramatisation'.

This is fascinating and echoes so much of what I think

Emily Maitlis and Jon Sopel talking about how the Monarchy has changed and is changing so profoundly since the death of QE2 and what this means for the future. Absolutely right (do hope link works)

www.facebook.com/reel/3842382075895494

its rather alarming how many people think it’s fact and use the information from it as gospel!

I've never watched it. Not even 2 minutes of it!

The Guardian has an interview with Andrew Lownie today https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/feb/24/andrew-mountbatten-windsor-biographer-andrew-lownie-entitled

Me neither ( oh I’m telling a slight fib! , I saw half the first episode!) but I have sadly met people who think it’s real ! And I’m sad to say that a few posters have clearly used parts of it ( and downtown abbey strangely) in their arguments 🤷‍♀️

Neither have I.

Back to the main subject - MPs are currently debating a Lib Dem 'humble address' requesting the release of papers about AMW's appointment as trade envoy; to include what advice was received, what vetting there was etc.

The government has said it won't oppose this.

ETA The reports I've seen don't mention requests for any other trade envoy papers - but that may be just what's being reported.

In other news, there are reports online (not yet made BBC or Sky, has made Statesman) that the Norwegian PM, who 3 weeks ago was charged with gross corruption due to Epstein related activity, has been hospitalised following a suicide attempt.

Just trying to be accurate - I wasn't sure of exactly when he got divorced and when they became romantically involved.

Either way it seems at best creepy from a modern perspective.

Well I’m not sure what to think about that 🤷‍♀️ , obviously I don’t wish harm on anybody but I don’t want anyone to get away with anything either!

I watched it during Claire Foy's tenure. Olivia Colman was so badly cast that I couldn't watch it after that.

But tbh I only liked it for the costumes and cars and whatnot, because the queen was of an age with my mum, so I got to see an albeit sanitised version of the times.

Anyway I suppose the point I was eventually getting around to making is this … it’s about time that women are no longer held accountable for the behaviour of men !
had Andrew married someone else he would have probably done exactly what he did, the only difference would have been whether his wife happily and enthusiastically joined in!

Sarah Ferguson is responsible for her own behaviour, which is bad enough.

My only comment from the half episode I viewed may be classed as unfair or not what I would normally comment on but here goes…Claire foy was too attractive to play the queen ( no disrespect) and Matt smith wasn’t attractive enough to play Philip! 🤷‍♀️

Following on from my post above, I've now seen the wording of the Lib Dem motion (see photo).

It's a 'humble address' - the same type of motion as used by the Conservatives to force the publication of the Mandelson papers a couple of weeks ago. It's a process used to force a government department to release documents.
https://archive.is/JaPNZ

There was a lot of direct discussion about AMW and his behaviour during the debate.

A couple of thoughts:
-The post of Special Representative for Trade and Investment was not set up for AMW - the Duke of Kent held the role for years, apparently very successfully.
-I'm glad the motion was passed, though sorry they didn't take the opportunity to include relevant papers during the trade envoy years.
-I see they've finally discovered that 'Erskine May' doesn't prevent them discussing the RF in a formal motion. I'm sorry it took so long.

Yes shame its only about the suitability of the appointment and not about the oversight throughout, although so much is coming out now through whistleblowers that I think we can see there was hardly any oversight over his expenses or effectiveness. Overall I think its a good thing, as at least it demonstrates that if people try and hide things away, they may not be hidden away forever.

If anything happens to him, would he get a state funeral?

Definitely a good thing overall @RainbowBagels