So was QEII kind of an idiot?

[Anonymous]

Hard to call any leader or monarch an idiot when we've got DJT in charge of our own country.

[Anonymous]

Of course not, she did an incredibly difficult job that none of us can imagine. It’s easy to judge when you are not actually in the situation. I’m not perfect, nor was she. But 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.

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

Was that sarcasm? Because most fathers--and mothers--work full-time, even though illness. And Kate said cancer was present in 2024, then she told us in that September 2024 video that she had completed treatment and was "cancer free." Meanwhile William went missing for most of 2024, even though his father was receiving cancer treatment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hard to call any leader or monarch an idiot when we've got DJT in charge of our own country.

Truth. And if you want to talk about protecting criminal children, Donald can provide a few examples.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. Yes, but Elizabeth 2 was indeed a member of the Greatest Generation. She was born in 1926, the tail end of that cohort. The Silent Generation years are 1928 to 1945.

[Anonymous]

When you think about it, by the time the Andrew and Sussex stuff was going on, she was just so old. We wouldn't generally expect people in their 80s and 90s to take that stuff on.

I think she had no clue about the true nature of the Epstein stuff, by the way.

[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.

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

Charles was still undergoing actual cancer treatment in 2025, but he still worked more than twice as hard as William.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The lady was a monarch and a mother, wife, and sister to a bunch of people whose lives were warped by an accident of birth.

Her whole life was changed by her uncle's terrible taste in women.

I think she didn't want to invade every shred of privacy her family had to find out "the truth".

A lot of them have been photographed naked for one reason or another. Charles, Harry, Kate up top due to sunbathing (from a road a really long way away).

I'd still give the woman a pass. How many adult men are going to share intimate details of their love lives with their mother?

Also Sarah Furgueson - some American was sucking her toes while she was topless...remember?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Charles was still undergoing actual cancer treatment in 2025, but he still worked more than twice as hard as William.

Yawn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best thing Prince William did was marrying someone who is intelligent and academically accomplished. It seems strange there hadn't been more of an emphasis on finding smarter spouses.

In Great Britain at around age 16 student took O-Levels (Ordinary Levels) exams, which are now called GCSEs in the UK. The US Equivalent would be exams in 10th Grade (Sophomore year).

Then students specialize and take A Level Exams two years later A-Levels (Advanced Levels) at age 18 (what you just did). Students usually pick only 3 or 4 subjects and study them in massive depth. A bit like Advanced Placement (AP) classes here.

Princess Diana failed every single O level exam she attempted - twice.

Prince Charles earned 2 A-levels, including a B in History and a C in French.

Prince Harry A-level results included a B in art and a D in geography. (His Art teacher alleges he cheated on his art A-level and didn't really do much of the written work involved.)

Prince William achieved three A-levels, including an A in geography, an A in history of art and a C in biology.

In comparison Princess Kate earned two As at A level in Maths and Art, and a B in English.

Kate can barely talk, what are you going on about? Several of her classmates said she cheated her way through St. Andrews, and she's never used her degree. Then there are her gems, like, "can you smell the smell by smelling it?"

And my grandmother got into Cambridge after failing her math exam, so there's that. All it takes is connections. Do you think any school or university in the world was going to turn down Prince William, or flunk him after they took him?

I had never heard she cheated and I used to follow her pretty closely. Where did you read that? I never thought she was a rocket scientist, but she seemed like a quiet sporty type who probably studied an average amount. I definitely wouldn't have pegged her as a cheater. She seems like someone who would never take a risk like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hard to call any leader or monarch an idiot when we've got DJT in charge of our own country.

AMEN

And what a cruel thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best thing Prince William did was marrying someone who is intelligent and academically accomplished. It seems strange there hadn't been more of an emphasis on finding smarter spouses.

In Great Britain at around age 16 student took O-Levels (Ordinary Levels) exams, which are now called GCSEs in the UK. The US Equivalent would be exams in 10th Grade (Sophomore year).

Then students specialize and take A Level Exams two years later A-Levels (Advanced Levels) at age 18 (what you just did). Students usually pick only 3 or 4 subjects and study them in massive depth. A bit like Advanced Placement (AP) classes here.

Princess Diana failed every single O level exam she attempted - twice.

Prince Charles earned 2 A-levels, including a B in History and a C in French.

Prince Harry A-level results included a B in art and a D in geography. (His Art teacher alleges he cheated on his art A-level and didn't really do much of the written work involved.)

Prince William achieved three A-levels, including an A in geography, an A in history of art and a C in biology.

In comparison Princess Kate earned two As at A level in Maths and Art, and a B in English.

Kate can barely talk, what are you going on about? Several of her classmates said she cheated her way through St. Andrews, and she's never used her degree. Then there are her gems, like, "can you smell the smell by smelling it?"

And my grandmother got into Cambridge after failing her math exam, so there's that. All it takes is connections. Do you think any school or university in the world was going to turn down Prince William, or flunk him after they took him?

I had never heard she cheated and I used to follow her pretty closely. Where did you read that? I never thought she was a rocket scientist, but she seemed like a quiet sporty type who probably studied an average amount. I definitely wouldn't have pegged her as a cheater. She seems like someone who would never take a risk like that.

There was a private forum for St Andrew's students, which some journalist infiltrated, and he said he found old posts from 2001/2002 that were complaining that Kate copied other students' work. It could be just jealousy, who knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best thing Prince William did was marrying someone who is intelligent and academically accomplished. It seems strange there hadn't been more of an emphasis on finding smarter spouses.

In Great Britain at around age 16 student took O-Levels (Ordinary Levels) exams, which are now called GCSEs in the UK. The US Equivalent would be exams in 10th Grade (Sophomore year).

Then students specialize and take A Level Exams two years later A-Levels (Advanced Levels) at age 18 (what you just did). Students usually pick only 3 or 4 subjects and study them in massive depth. A bit like Advanced Placement (AP) classes here.

Princess Diana failed every single O level exam she attempted - twice.

Prince Charles earned 2 A-levels, including a B in History and a C in French.

Prince Harry A-level results included a B in art and a D in geography. (His Art teacher alleges he cheated on his art A-level and didn't really do much of the written work involved.)

Prince William achieved three A-levels, including an A in geography, an A in history of art and a C in biology.

In comparison Princess Kate earned two As at A level in Maths and Art, and a B in English.

Kate can barely talk, what are you going on about? Several of her classmates said she cheated her way through St. Andrews, and she's never used her degree. Then there are her gems, like, "can you smell the smell by smelling it?"

And my grandmother got into Cambridge after failing her math exam, so there's that. All it takes is connections. Do you think any school or university in the world was going to turn down Prince William, or flunk him after they took him?

I had never heard she cheated and I used to follow her pretty closely. Where did you read that? I never thought she was a rocket scientist, but she seemed like a quiet sporty type who probably studied an average amount. I definitely wouldn't have pegged her as a cheater. She seems like someone who would never take a risk like that.

There was a private forum for St Andrew's students, which some journalist infiltrated, and he said he found old posts from 2001/2002 that were complaining that Kate copied other students' work. It could be just jealousy, who knows.

Sounds suspect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes but she was Greatest Generation I believe. She was of age during WW2, correct? And worked in the red cross or something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course not, she did an incredibly difficult job that none of us can imagine. It’s easy to judge when you are not actually in the situation. I’m not perfect, nor was she. But she did a pretty good job !

+1