The row over Prince William’s absence from this weekend’s Women’s World Cup final deepened as a former sports minister said the royal should be there.
Kensington Palace confirmed earlier this week that the Prince of Wales who’s president of the Football Association and thus responsible for facilitating the game nationally and internationally, would not be making the trip Down Under.
He will instead be roaring on the Lionesses, who are representing England in their first World Cup final since 1966, from home, as will Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who will also not be in attendance for Sunday’s clash with Spain.
Gerry Sutcliffe, who acted as sports minister under Gordon Brown between 2007 and 2010, told a newspaper outlet that he thought that the Prince of Wales should be there.
He said that he knew it was a long way and he was sure he had had family commitments but this was a unique moment and it was the World Cup final.
Kate Osborne, the Labour MP, told Times Radio that we all know that if this was the men’s final, Rishi Sunak, and the FA president, Prince William, would have been in attendance no matter how long the flight to Australia was.
Neither Prince William nor Rishi Sunak attended any of the England men’s World Cup games in Qatar last winter.
However, the row was intensified when the Royal Spanish Football Federation confirmed that Queen Letizia and her 16-year-old daughter, Infanta Sofia, would be in Sydney, to show, once again, that the royal household’s support for national football.
The pair will sit in the presidential box at the Accor Stadium, but won’t be joined by King Felipe, who’s occupied with other official responsibilities.
Letizia visited the Spanish team in Madrid before they travelled to the game, watching them train and being presented with a personalised jersey.
The federation said she finished the visit with a motivational speech that resonated greatly with the players and coaching entourage.
FA chief executive Mark Bullingham said that bosses had always known Prince William wouldn’t be attending, but that he’d been a brilliant supporter of the team throughout.
The heir to the throne led tributes to the Lionesses following their historic 3-1 semi-final win over Australia on Wednesday, describing it as a phenomenal performance.
He added: ‘Commiserations to @TheMatildas, you’ve played brilliantly and been fantastic co-hosts of this World Cup.’
But really, should Prince William have travelled all the way to Australia to watch the match, which would have generated uproar and an unnecessary carbon footprint – poor man can’t do right for doing wrong.
However, the Royal Family and MPs alike are consummate hypocrites who use private aircraft like they’re taxis, and not always for official business, but this trip is part of Prince William’s role and part of his role as a football patron.
Getting to the final of the world cup is a monumental event and supporting that is surely what he gets remunerated for, and it’s his job to support the achievements of the nation, after all, he travels all over the world frequently when it suits him to shake hands and wave, why not now?
I’m not really into the carbon footprint/global warming malarky, but those that do spout off about it should practice what they preach.
And it’s only a row because the media want to make it so. In the great scheme of things does it actually matter?
The Queen was away from her children for months at a time to go overseas and do her duty. Did she worry about her children, no of course not – there were nursemaids to muster around and help out. The King was also not a hands-on parent, due to the demands of the job.
I understand that Prince William is more of a hands-on parent and that we live in a more modern society now, but he will one day be the representative of this country, but if it turns out that he’s not going to be, what is he being paid for and do we actually need a Royal Family?
THE MONTHLY MOSQUITO 