Edward the new Duke of Edinburgh

[SnottyLottie]

www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/03/10/king-charles-prince-edward-royal-family-title-duke-edinburgh/

In order to honour Edward’s 59th birthday

The chopping and changing of when the Queen is supposed to have googled her family to find they exist makes this conversation an absolute waste of tome

pre knowing about them - which is when the Google thing first came up - what was she meant to Google exactly?

It’s amusing that you assume disagreeing with you makes someone a royalist

@Coxspurplepippin So if you found out your two first cousins had been put in an institution after birth (this fact was broadcast in 1987 and was in all the media), you would just ignore them? Not even a Christmas card? A visit? Fuck em nothing to do with you?

Yes I did say that. But you can see from my post above, the staff at the Hospital said no one visited.

To be honest, I am more inclined to believe them over anyone else. There will be staff at this hospital who may well have looked after one or other, or both, of these poor women for possibly decades. Apparently, one did speak a little bit. It must've been more than just a job... and quite upsetting at times I'm sure

She could have googled the daily news about her own family. It was all over the papers and TV in 1987. The public knew, but the incredibly ignorant according to posters Royal Family did not.

Well I can’t speak for any other posters, but I personally am certainly not trying to suggest that The Queen was somehow kept in the dark about a national news story for 35 years. It’s the people who seem to think she should have known somehow before this that their “deaths” hadn’t actually happened that I take issue with.

Exactly, @Coxspurplepippin. My first cousin who is closest to me in age could quite possibly be in an institution. The last time I saw him was in 2001 at my grandad's funeral. He has loads of cousins as on his mother's side she's one of about 8.

It's like saying I should be taking personal responsibility for knowing the ins and outs of his life even though I am one of about a dozen or more cousins.

It’s the people who seem to think she should have known somehow before this that their “deaths” hadn’t actually happened that I take issue with.

I don't understand.

I knew.

One sister only died in 2014... that is nine years ago

@Roussette I remember one of the nurses being interviewed saying one of the sisters used to say she was closely related to the Queen and maybe she or other members of the family would visit. Both sisters collected Royal Family memorabilia. The nurses though it was a fantasy and did not believe they were close relations of the Queen. I always thought that was really sad.

It's like saying I should be taking personal responsibility for knowing the ins and outs of his life even though I am one of about a dozen or more cousins

Yeah... let's just hope another cousin gets involved, I am Queen after all and far too busy to bother with my first cousins.

If you can’t have a discussion without resorting to insults that says far more about you than anyone else

@KnittingNeedles The Royal Family did know in 1987 though. Because that is when the public knew. So even if the QM had lied, from 1987 they all knew. The last sister died in 2014. So at a minimum they knew for 27 years before she died.

But you can see from my post above, the staff at the Hospital said no one visited.

The nurses said no-one.

The male staff member said “very few”

So there’s not even a single story on that either

Katherine Bowes-Lyon actually died in 2014. You knew about the real death, as did we all.

I’m talking about the fact that the Bowes-Lyon sisters were reported as having died in 1940 and 1961 respectively - hence I put “deaths” in quotation marks.

I have first cousins who I have never met and an aunt and Uncle as well, so I wouldn’t consider them family at all.

Yup - two complete strangers who I'd never met, never knew the existence of, who had closer family members. Why would I visit? Some weird sense of duty? Compassion? I could have feelings of duty and compassion for all sorts of people who I actually have a relationship with.

Why does it make a difference that there is a 'blood' link? The anti monarchy posters on here are always very dismissive of 'blood' links but in this instance it makes someone responsible for someone they've never met.

I'm sure there are many people currently in institutions who rarely receive visits (in fact I know there are). I'm assuming all you compassionate types are visiting people unknown to you on a regular basis.

So what is it then - very few, or none?

Still interested why responsibility falls to the Queen, post 1987, to visit her cousin rather than all the rest of the Bowes-Lyon family?

Do you also have family annual Christmas lunches for over 200 members of your extended family?
This is not a family that ignores extended family. Only those in institutions.

And it’s all absolute nonsense as google didn’t even exist until more than 10 years after she found out they existed!

How many times do we have to repeat... the public knew before 2014.

I don't know why you can't get that?

I've known for a long time of their existence. And here is an article from 1987 all about them. 1987 OK?

And another one from 1991.

www.upi.com/Archives/1987/04/06/Queens-cousins-reportedly-spent-decades-in-mental-hospitals/8478544680000/

www.nytimes.com/1991/05/12/magazine/windsor-knot.html

To be charitable - some people who have grown up in the same street as their cousins, or who see cousins every weekend, find it almost impossible to get their heads around the fact that not every family is like theirs, and many people would not be able to pick out their cousins in a police line-up.

Do you also have family annual Christmas lunches for over 200 members of your extended family?

I’d have to borrow some chairs…

My links are in response to Woman's post at 15.59

I mean I know some families are only interested in their immediate nuclear family, but that is not what happens with the Royal Family.

Indeed.