Pro Queen / anti M&H

There’s some that are indifferent to all of them. Don’t start another pile on against M and H.

Simple really.

I like some of dh's family but not others. Same with the royals. I expect most people have similar feelings.

As a wise Christian, with a strong sense of family, the Queen presumably seeks to practise forgiveness and follow a path towards healing.

When did the Queen make it abundantly clear what her feelings for the couple are ?

She may love them dearly or she wants to avoid another Oprah
interview, and there is Harry’s book looming

So the conundrum is why, if these are the wishes of the Queen, steadfastly followed and supported by many, are her wishes for M&H to remain close and involved, not supported by her supporters on GN? Surely this casts doubt upon the leader royalists revere?
I’ve read posts criticising the actions of H&M, or poking fun at their versions of avoiding publicity.
I haven’t read any GN posts that say they don’t support HM’s desire to keep H&M close and involved.
Could you cite some of those?
Or is this but a conundrum of your mind . . . A false creation stealing upon your heat oppressed brain?

Nell8

As a wise Christian, with a strong sense of family, the Queen presumably seeks to practise forgiveness and follow a path towards healing.

Yes, true. I'm not Christian but have friends that are. Some practise forgiveness and show their faith through their daily life, others don't. I guess the Queen falls into the former group.

Family is very close to the Queen’s heart, no matter how badly some members behave. She is by nature someone who strives for unity. Those who admire her don’t like to see family members treat her badly, nor do they like the way that Harry turned his back on his country and the Queen’s example of service.

Hahaha, Mollygo, heat oppressed brain. Bit hyperbolic for the NE. It's freezing up here.

Well said GSM

The queen is wise indeed. In extending the hand of friendship, and reconciliation, she is negating the unpleasant things Harry may wish to include in his forthcoming 'book'.

I admire the Queen and feel that H&M have been rather foolish. They could have stepped back from the top tier without a big announcement and moving to the States. Being under the 'umbrella' of the RF they'd have no worries about paying for security, nor would they need to sell stories to keep afloat financially. That will eventually run out of steam and then, how to earn a living? They have very publicly dug themselves into a hole of their own making which has done them no good.

A boy was born. The Government and Parliament from the moment of his birth, without consulting him and without his permission, gave him a role in public life as understudy to his elder brother.

The boy was also subjected to a law that restricted his rights over marriage.

When his elder brother had a son, the boy, now a man, was no longer needed for the role of understudy.

Former Prime Ministers get security for life, so why not the same for the person, who as both boy and man, fulfilled the high-profile role assigned to him by the Government and Parliament.

The Government and Parliament produced the situation. He was not in slavery. He exercised his right to choose his way in life, as do former Prime Ministers.

Government and Parliament should recognise that obligation is a two-way street. Grown up people put a child in that position.

GagaJo

Nell8

As a wise Christian, with a strong sense of family, the Queen presumably seeks to practise forgiveness and follow a path towards healing.

Yes, true. I'm not Christian but have friends that are. Some practise forgiveness and show their faith through their daily life, others don't. I guess the Queen falls into the former group.

Andrew next.

www.thesun.co.uk/news/18745941/forgive-prince-andrew-archbishop/

Oooof. Different thing altogether I think. But then, he's the favourite.

vegansrock

There’s some that are indifferent to all of them. Don’t start another pile on against M and H.

I agree with vegansrock.
Talk about the Queen, talk about M & H, talk about PA but why start a thread that potentially incites posters on here to start criticising each other? GN members were mentioned 3 times in the OP. I assume this is what it will end up like.
Better things to do.
GSM says it all succinctly.

The system of monarchy determined Harry’s future, not the government or parliament (whatever the distinction there is).

Maybe I’m being naive here, but first, why shouldn’t H&M fly over with their family to celebrate HMQ’s jubilee? Second, it seems to me that the tabloids spend many thousands of words explaining how H&M are trying to avoid publicity but aren’t succeeding - probably because the tabloids keep writing about them! I read an article in the Daily Fail saying they shouldn’t be coming at all as it would overshadow the Jubilee! But the tabloids will be writing about their visit, won’t they? I despair. In my opinion, Andrew is the one who has behaved appallingly and certainly shouldn’t be bracketed with H&M. However, I think it will be lovely for HMQ to see her little namesake this weekend and pray that the tabloids don’t write ridiculous articles quoting sources at the Palace or friends of, etc.

Agree LLFL.

I think this is unnecessarily confrontational and argumentative- why all this pro/anti opposition?

It isn't intended to be.

It's just the contrast that came to me. Supporting QE (I'm not anti QE despite being a republican, I think she's v good at her job) but being against something she clearly wants.

An Act of Parliament restricted his right to have a legal marriage much more than the restrictions that apply to most people.

A recent Act of Parliament still restricts his rights over marriage, though it did remove those additional restrictions of right to a legal marriage from many people.

Goverment and Parliament have, through no fault of his own, applied those restrictions to him.

Government and Parliament created the situation. Government and Parliament should provide him with the security for life as he served the role they assigned to him.

I'm not really into Monarchy at all, and would prefer an elected HOS.

But, the Queen has done what was required, and we provided the financial support, as required.

I've got nothing at all against H&M - they chose to live in America, and good luck to them. They are not costing us anything any more, so, not our problem, in my view.

The Queen wanted them here, it's her party, and she can invite who she wants to.

Andrew should be removed from any sort of royal function - he's just an embarrassment.

To be honest, there doesn't seem to be much interest in this Jubilee around here - no flags up, no bunting, no parties, nothing.

But, each to their own views on monarchy etc.?

Most of the Royalists have put M&H firmly on the naughty step and think they haven't been there long enough or shown sufficient remorse for their misdeeds. They will only be allowed back if they slip down into abject penury and return to beg the Queen, on their knees, for a small corner of a dungeon in one of her castles

Germanshepherdsmum

Family is very close to the Queen’s heart, no matter how badly some members behave. She is by nature someone who strives for unity. Those who admire her don’t like to see family members treat her badly, nor do they like the way that Harry turned his back on his country and the Queen’s example of service.

I agree completely GSM. Whatever anyone else’s opinion is, Harry will always be the Queen’s Grandson and if she wants him with her for the celebrations, that is her choice. Also the presence of him and his family might help heal a few family rifts.