Pro Queen / anti M&H

So.

The Queen is our sovereign lady. She has the power to influence the government of this country. We must give way to her in all things and never criticise her.

But we know better than her what is good for her when it comes to family and we will protect her.

Doesn't work for me, I'm afraid.

Zoejory

Odd question. I am pro my sister but very much anti her husband who I really can't stand.

They have much more impact on me than the Queen and H&M.

So it can be done

Glorianny, you should write short stories.

Thanks Zoejory. It is so obviously a fairy story isn't it?

A beautiful but wicked fairy stole the heart of a handsome prince and cast a spell on him, so he abandoned his family and followed her etc etc

H&M are part of her family and she will want to forgive them and keep them close. We on the other hand feel no such connection to them and have no obligation to forgive them. Forgiveness requires remorse on their part and they have shown none. Our feelings are protective towards the Queen and we anticipate they will be doing more harm when the book comes out. That's why our feelings are different to the Queen's.

Spot on 100% GSM.

I think ultimately, those that dislike M&H would like them banished, like the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. But QE knows how much damage that caused her family, so will never tolerate that. I assume Charles (who I don't support, weak man) agrees, but who knows?

Odd question. I am pro my sister but very much anti her husband who I really can't stand.

They have much more impact on me than the Queen and H&M.

So it can be done

Glorianny, you should write short stories.

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.

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

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.?

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.

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.

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

Agree LLFL.

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.

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

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.

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

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/

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.

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.

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'.

Well said GSM

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

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.

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.