Agreed. And I have to say, while it's a lovely sentiment to not want to distract from Emily Blunt's performance, and she wanted Emily to make it her own, that's just not going to happen. Julie Andrews IS Mary Poppins. People associate her with that role, that's the icon...people are going to compare. It's never going to be Emily's own, no matter how well she performed it. And my first thought of why Julie Andrews wasn't in the sequel was that perhaps she didn't approve. I'm glad to know that wasn't the case, and Julie really is a class act. But it's rather an unrealistic expectation that fans wouldn't compare, or would see it as someone else's role. At least for me, it will always be Julie's. Just like Richard Harris will always be Dumbledore, even though Michael Gambon played the role in many more films. It's why remakes often don't work as well as the originals. Because you have that image in your head of that person in that role....and it wouldn't have been the same had anyone else played that character. People fell in love with it as it was....sure, the story is great, but the actors really bring it to life. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And while this isn't a remake, you really can't escape the fact that it's the same iconic character, but not the same actor playing it. So there will be comparisons and discussions about how it was different. I think by doing a cameo, it would have made it clear that she supported Emily playing the role, passing on the torch so to speak.
(And there was also the telltale sign of white milk drops on the side of his mouth.) I told him he was in the dog house (although we don't have a dog house). 
