So was QEII kind of an idiot?

[Anonymous]

I feel like she had a certain amount of understanding of what the public wanted--duty, a handshake, or a glimpse of her cutting a ribbon. Her understanding of her role was old-fashioned--get out there and cut those ribbons--and people were fine with it, because they really did see her as being of a different generation.

But her understanding of what the modern public wants or needs only went so far. As her treatment of Andrew showed, and that will be a big part of her legacy.

She was a very hard worker, and that's something. Charles seems to have inherited that understanding. But Willy and Kate can't seem to do more than Thursdays at Work, where they cosplay baristas, and that's not going to go down well. Willy keeps saying he wants to focus on a few passion projects that are more meaningful than cutting ribbons. But so far, flying Heidi Klum and Kylie Minogue into Earthshot (financed by an Epstein friend, btw, and where Willy buys all the rights to whatever is invented for exchange for a one-time payment) doesn't seem to be, um, cutting the mustard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like she was overruled by William and the courtiers on the Harry work issue. In particular, a specific senior courtier William and Charles put in place when the Queen was declining in health. Harry wrote about going into the "Sandringham summit" thinking there were still several work options on the table, only to find this particular senior courtier (I'm forgetting his name) had only printed out documents for the "the Sussexes are completely out starting immediately" option.

The late Queen was clear that she wanted Harry and Meghan to keep their security, and also to keep their cottage. Charles and William pulled both of those back almost instantly. What else did the late Queen want for the Sussexes, that William and Charles overruled?

Please stop spreading this lie. Learn what RAVEC is and how it operates. RAVEC determines who receives state security and when. The BRF have never opposed Harry having state security in the UK (he’s exploiting it in Australia rn which isn’t going over well, and that goes directly to one of your points. He and Meghan are on a moneymaking trip and Oz is paying for security. It shows how half in and half out can’t work).

[Anonymous]

She died before a lot of the evidence came out about Andrew. The Queen was old, Greatest Gen, not even a boomer. I doubt she ever thought the epstein scandal was that big of a deal and figured it was consensual sex. Distasteful and embarrassing, but not a reason to cut Andrew off completely.

I think hindsight is 20/20 about how the Queen handled Diana's death. Her mother was still alive and able to influence her as well. It may have actually been better for William and Harry as children to stay in Scotland with family and be kept away from the crowds and media. It wasn't better for the Crown.

[Anonymous]

The late Queen and her sister were barely educated. I am sure they learned dinner party chat/ manners. Their social class was not brought up to have careers.

[Anonymous]

Elizabeth became Queen in 1952. She was good for her time as Britain was navigating the end of its Empire. But she clearly didn't have a feel for the Zeitgest. Her instincts were wrong about the death of Diana. And her sons, including the current king, are pompous twits. Andrew belongs in jail. And Charles just wants to oversee all his gardeners on all his estates rather than be a king. Harry is a failure. And William would rather be anywhere else than be part of the English monarchy. The UK really needs to have a think and decide if they want to continue to spend hundreds of millions supporting this family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like she was overruled by William and the courtiers on the Harry work issue. In particular, a specific senior courtier William and Charles put in place when the Queen was declining in health. Harry wrote about going into the "Sandringham summit" thinking there were still several work options on the table, only to find this particular senior courtier (I'm forgetting his name) had only printed out documents for the "the Sussexes are completely out starting immediately" option.

The late Queen was clear that she wanted Harry and Meghan to keep their security, and also to keep their cottage. Charles and William pulled both of those back almost instantly. What else did the late Queen want for the Sussexes, that William and Charles overruled?

Please stop spreading this lie. Learn what RAVEC is and how it operates. RAVEC determines who receives state security and when. The BRF have never opposed Harry having state security in the UK (he’s exploiting it in Australia rn which isn’t going over well, and that goes directly to one of your points. He and Meghan are on a moneymaking trip and Oz is paying for security. It shows how half in and half out can’t work).

Nope. Three of RAVEC's members report directly to Charles or William for their day jobs. One of these is Clive Alderton--Charles' principal private secretary, and Clive is the guy Charles and William put in when they pushed out QEII's former secretary, Geidt, who had been better disposed to Harry.

What's super-weird is that, back in 2019, RAVEC determined the Sussexes faced the highest threat, but they haven't bothered to reassess since then and instead just unilaterally stopped his security. Tell us again how Charles and William's people have nothing to do with that. But oh well, these days Charles and William are beefing, and Charles seems to want to know his American grandchildren, or maybe he's just worried about his legacy and having more than a handful of family at his funeral, so it seems likely RAVEC will vote to restore the Sussexes' security.

The late Queen made it clear she wanted Harry and Meghan to keep Frogmore Cottage. This is well documented.

I've never understood the opposition to Harry and Meghan making their own income and supporting themselves, as if that's some sort of crime. Meanwhile, the rest of the BRF is basically grifting off the taxpayers and exploiting duchy lands for income. Finally, Meghan and Harry have made it very clear they're paying for their own security in Australia--you need to get off the hate subs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She died before a lot of the evidence came out about Andrew. The Queen was old, Greatest Gen, not even a boomer. I doubt she ever thought the epstein scandal was that big of a deal and figured it was consensual sex. Distasteful and embarrassing, but not a reason to cut Andrew off completely.

I think hindsight is 20/20 about how the Queen handled Diana's death. Her mother was still alive and able to influence her as well. It may have actually been better for William and Harry as children to stay in Scotland with family and be kept away from the crowds and media. It wasn't better for the Crown.

Yes, the age of consent in Britain is 16.

What makes that different, though, is if the girl has been trafficked, which Virginia clearly had been. It's not clear what the BRF knew, or when, and there's a decent chance they had MI5 or Met reporting and knew more than we did at the time. But, yes, the big Epstein info dumps only started last fall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Elizabeth became Queen in 1952. She was good for her time as Britain was navigating the end of its Empire. But she clearly didn't have a feel for the Zeitgest. Her instincts were wrong about the death of Diana. And her sons, including the current king, are pompous twits. Andrew belongs in jail. And Charles just wants to oversee all his gardeners on all his estates rather than be a king. Harry is a failure. And William would rather be anywhere else than be part of the English monarchy. The UK really needs to have a think and decide if they want to continue to spend hundreds of millions supporting this family.

Charles at least works pretty hard at his job, despite still undergoing treatment for cancer. Although Charles has some cash scandals and adultery in his past. The rest of the BRF is really a mixed bag. When the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent (ages 81 and 92, respectively) die, will the remaining family give value for money? Think about it, an 80-something is working harder than William.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elizabeth became Queen in 1952. She was good for her time as Britain was navigating the end of its Empire. But she clearly didn't have a feel for the Zeitgest. Her instincts were wrong about the death of Diana. And her sons, including the current king, are pompous twits. Andrew belongs in jail. And Charles just wants to oversee all his gardeners on all his estates rather than be a king. Harry is a failure. And William would rather be anywhere else than be part of the English monarchy. The UK really needs to have a think and decide if they want to continue to spend hundreds of millions supporting this family.

Charles at least works pretty hard at his job, despite still undergoing treatment for cancer. Although Charles has some cash scandals and adultery in his past. The rest of the BRF is really a mixed bag. When the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent (ages 81 and 92, respectively) die, will the remaining family give value for money? Think about it, an 80-something is working harder than William.

Harry talked about these ratings in his book and basically said it was all nonsense and that the numbers reported by the "hardest working Royals" were basically exagerrated and manufactured.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think her decisions on those three subjects (Andrew, Diana, H&M) were not great and in hindsight, were not the best, but most people don’t make the best decisions when dealing with a predatory son, a tragedy with your DIL and your whiny/bratty grandson.

It’s awful she didn’t do more on Andrew, but I feel like most parents with predatory sons don’t do more either - we just don’t scrutinize them because they aren’t public figures.

Agree with this, and over her 8345347 year reign, if those were the only major errors in judgment she made (and they were all involving her close relatives which is so messy!), I'd say she did a pretty good job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elizabeth became Queen in 1952. She was good for her time as Britain was navigating the end of its Empire. But she clearly didn't have a feel for the Zeitgest. Her instincts were wrong about the death of Diana. And her sons, including the current king, are pompous twits. Andrew belongs in jail. And Charles just wants to oversee all his gardeners on all his estates rather than be a king. Harry is a failure. And William would rather be anywhere else than be part of the English monarchy. The UK really needs to have a think and decide if they want to continue to spend hundreds of millions supporting this family.

Charles at least works pretty hard at his job, despite still undergoing treatment for cancer. Although Charles has some cash scandals and adultery in his past. The rest of the BRF is really a mixed bag. When the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent (ages 81 and 92, respectively) die, will the remaining family give value for money? Think about it, an 80-something is working harder than William.

Harry talked about these ratings in his book and basically said it was all nonsense and that the numbers reported by the "hardest working Royals" were basically exagerrated and manufactured.

When showing up at a reception is called work, you have to wonder what is the value of the British royal family. Pretty sure Lewis Hamilton or Mick Jagger or Judi Dench or a 1000 other Brits are more useful than the Duchess of Glostermirshire popping by for some free drinks. It remains baffling why the British continue with this nonsense. And clearly William and Harry don't want the positians. And Charles is just doing his duty, but would really rather spend his time with some begonias.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elizabeth became Queen in 1952. She was good for her time as Britain was navigating the end of its Empire. But she clearly didn't have a feel for the Zeitgest. Her instincts were wrong about the death of Diana. And her sons, including the current king, are pompous twits. Andrew belongs in jail. And Charles just wants to oversee all his gardeners on all his estates rather than be a king. Harry is a failure. And William would rather be anywhere else than be part of the English monarchy. The UK really needs to have a think and decide if they want to continue to spend hundreds of millions supporting this family.

Charles at least works pretty hard at his job, despite still undergoing treatment for cancer. Although Charles has some cash scandals and adultery in his past. The rest of the BRF is really a mixed bag. When the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent (ages 81 and 92, respectively) die, will the remaining family give value for money? Think about it, an 80-something is working harder than William.

Harry talked about these ratings in his book and basically said it was all nonsense and that the numbers reported by the "hardest working Royals" were basically exagerrated and manufactured.

I have no doubt it's nonsense. Apparently they clock zoom calls with staff as "work." And Anne is notorious for scheduling 3 1/2-hour engagements in a day then taking the rest of the week off. But still, even if you scaled everything down 30% or 50%, it's not a great look that William is massively outworked by his 70-something sick dad, and Kate is outworked by a 90-something who lost his wife last year.

I can see a massively scaled-down monarchy, one with much greater financial transparency. No more £10s of millions from the duchies, tax-free, "earned" by leasing out moldy housing (Ch 4 did a documentary about that) and empty prisons. Downsize to just a few palaces and open up the rest to the public--France teaches us that Versailles brings in way more tourism than any British palace, and apparently Legoland Windsor gets more visitors than the castle.

[Anonymous]

Regarding Harry’s security….

He was more interested in the intelligence of threats against his family. And he cannot help it that he was born into royalty.

If the tax payers don’t want to pay it, fine. But the King has enough money to pay for it. And he should. It is his son.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elizabeth became Queen in 1952. She was good for her time as Britain was navigating the end of its Empire. But she clearly didn't have a feel for the Zeitgest. Her instincts were wrong about the death of Diana. And her sons, including the current king, are pompous twits. Andrew belongs in jail. And Charles just wants to oversee all his gardeners on all his estates rather than be a king. Harry is a failure. And William would rather be anywhere else than be part of the English monarchy. The UK really needs to have a think and decide if they want to continue to spend hundreds of millions supporting this family.

Charles at least works pretty hard at his job, despite still undergoing treatment for cancer. Although Charles has some cash scandals and adultery in his past. The rest of the BRF is really a mixed bag. When the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent (ages 81 and 92, respectively) die, will the remaining family give value for money? Think about it, an 80-something is working harder than William.

Why are you so hard on William? He has kids and a wife with cancer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She died before a lot of the evidence came out about Andrew. The Queen was old, Greatest Gen, not even a boomer. I doubt she ever thought the epstein scandal was that big of a deal and figured it was consensual sex. Distasteful and embarrassing, but not a reason to cut Andrew off completely.

I think hindsight is 20/20 about how the Queen handled Diana's death. Her mother was still alive and able to influence her as well. It may have actually been better for William and Harry as children to stay in Scotland with family and be kept away from the crowds and media. It wasn't better for the Crown.

FYI, there is a generation in between Greatest and Boomer. It is called the Silent Generation.