Beautiful memorial service for Prince Philip

Silly question Lucca you know I post on royals threads,

I ignore the posts of the small number who in my opinion treat
the threads as a game

Lucca

volver

It wasn't my comment about why she cried.

It was someone else...

In fact on another thread a few days ago I said how sorry I was to see her so upset.

I’m so sorry Volver. Brain a bit iffy at the moment.

No worries Lucca

Look! Every part of the UK has folk in the spotlight. The RF are fair game because they’re never going to answer back.
Nicola ‘look how wonderful I am’ Sturgeon sets some people’s teeth on edge both in Scotland and England-can’t speak for NI and Wales. I’ve got a bet on with DH about who’ll be the first to defend NS.
Different posters jump to the defence of either of those whilst others do a ‘let’s see what I can find next’ for their particular target , and preparing the next salvo of “How much worse” their opponents particular target is, on account of how offensive their money, their clothes, their politics etc are to ‘normal’ people.
It’s quite relaxing to find it goes on even when I’m relaxing in the sun, waiting for my drink to cool.

eazybee

Yes it is spiteful when previous posts ostensibly concern the attendance of grandchildren at the memorial service for their grandfather.
The suitability or otherwise of a specific grandchild for a means of employment are completely irrelevant in this context, simply added in an attempt to demean that person.

I'm not trying to demean anybody. Somebody asked why anybody would dislike the York girls. Well I don't dislike them because I've never met them, but I'm entitled to raise concerns about how someone might get a job for which they appear to have no qualifications. If we are talking about the Royal family, and she's a member, well she's going to have to take the rough with the smooth. You want the palaces, you take the questions about how you get jobs that you are apparently unsuited for.

Actually, I suspect that VP of Strategic Partnerships involves schmoozing people and companies in order to get them to enter into collaborations with the people who paid her wages, so she could well be eminently suited to it.

I was the poster who initially picked up the poster who mocked Beatrice’s tears and indeed I got a bit of backchat from the poster. That poster who mocked Beatrice appears to have left the thread. It was nothing to do with volver or indeed anyone else. I wasn’t going to name the poster but I think someone else has. I’m pleased that she now appears to have left the thread because the comment was unkind, in fact nasty.
As for nepotism, it seems to be alive and well in the royal family and in other families. There are so many people who get where they are because of who they are, not what they can do. It was ever thus…….unfortunately.

Of course the flip side of this , is IF they can do the job , and appear to be the most suitable candidate,should they be penalised Because of their connections ?

Bridgeit

Of course the flip side of this , is IF they can do the job , and appear to be the most suitable candidate,should they be penalised Because of their connections ?

Seems like it.

Bridgeit

Of course the flip side of this , is IF they can do the job , and appear to be the most suitable candidate,should they be penalised Because of their connections ?

No, of course they shouldn't be penalised.

Please be sure to tell us if and when you see that happening.

When I’m bored I will be sure to make it a priority.

Posters have said he was only guilty by public opinion.

If that’s a comment about what I said I will repeat just to make it perfectly clear. I pointed out that Andrew has not been found guilty of anything because it has not been tested in court……unfortunately. That comment does not imply Andrew’s innocence or my approval, it merely states a fact. The payment of a massive settlement does imply guilt, in my opinion, but without a court case it is speculation, not proven fact. There are quite a few posters on Gransnet who speak about Andrew as if he has been found guilty. He has not. I’m sorry if facts get in the way for some, but it is a fact.
I do not approve of Andrew’s alleged behaviour, nor do I defend him in any way. I state a fact.

Agree maddyone

maddyone

^Posters have said he was only guilty by public opinion.^

If that’s a comment about what I said I will repeat just to make it perfectly clear. I pointed out that Andrew has not been found guilty of anything because it has not been tested in court……unfortunately. That comment does not imply Andrew’s innocence or my approval, it merely states a fact. The payment of a massive settlement does imply guilt, in my opinion, but without a court case it is speculation, not proven fact. There are quite a few posters on Gransnet who speak about Andrew as if he has been found guilty. He has not. I’m sorry if facts get in the way for some, but it is a fact.
I do not approve of Andrew’s alleged behaviour, nor do I defend him in any way. I state a fact.

Its absolutely true that Andrew has not been found guilty of anything in a court.

However he consorted with people traffickers, took their hospitality and paid $12 million to prevent the court case where he would have had to defend himself.

Any comments from anybody here about the fact that he had to delete an Instagram post where he was using the HRH title, which he's not allowed to use? Just an error, was it?

I agree with you totally volver. No argument from me about anything in your post. As I said, I don’t defend him in any way.

The silence of politicians on all the recent royal scandals is shocking. Our head of state and our parliament seem to exist in complete separate parallel worlds which only collide when heaping praise or conducting archaic ceremonies.

I think she did the right thing getting Andrew to walk with her. It's almost like she was saying" I've given over 70 years of my life to the UK, now I'm giving myself to my favourite son, so sod off!" Good for her, and she believes in her son, as a Mother should.

The cost, secrecy and dishonesty of the royals

effalump

I think she did the right thing getting Andrew to walk with her. It's almost like she was saying" I've given over 70 years of my life to the UK, now I'm giving myself to my favourite son, so sod off!" Good for her, and she believes in her son, as a Mother should.

Or, alternatively,

"I'm going to show my son off to the world and give him preferential treatment even although he's brought scandal on the monarchy and is (allegedly) involved in all kinds of nefarious dealings"

"And there's not a thing you can do about that, plebs. So narf off."

She has three sons, two married and accompanied by their wives , one son single so accompanied her. Common sense .

Charles accompanied her, who accompanies his wife, same with Edward .

Newsflash.

Women can enter churches by themselves, if they are not elderly and infirm, and in need of support.

Having seen the Queen so lonely and isolated from her family at the proper funeral, the last thing anyone wanted would have been to see her enter the church by herself with no family. Charles might have been an option but maybe he had to do all the pleasantries and hand shaking down the other end of the Abbey.

This is true Volver, however it is mannerly & considerate to assist anyone of any age who may or may not for what ever reason be a little wobbly on there feet , or just have lost a bit of confidence in their physical body…… our time will come !

Edward could have helped The Queen and Sophie would have entered with her two children.

I believe that the original arrangement was that The Dean of Westminster was to escort HM.
And that the change of plan wasn’t a popular one.

That was reported in the press !

I would not have expected any of my sons to not accompany their children under 18 years with their wives at my DH's funeral. They come as a family and the children need the support of both parents.