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

Apparently he was very enamored by the film Shakespeare in Love, so that’s why he chose Wessex.

I agree it’s good that Prince Edward and Sophie are now Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh. They have given loyal service to the Queen, and were clearly very close to her and Prince Philip.

I have seen on threads disparaging comments about The Dukes of Kent and Gloucester (and Princess Alexandra) being “hangers on” despite being .the grandchildren of King George v and Princes from birth. Both inherited their Dukedom’s from their fathers (the Kings sons) and were respectively 7th and 4th in the line of succession when Princess Elizabeth became Queen. They, along with Princess Alexandra, have provided dedicated service to the Crown but slowly they have moved to 30th (Gloucester) and 40th (Kent) in the line of succession.

The same will happen to Prince Edward, DoE who has already gone from 3rd to 13th. Returning the title to the crown rather than making it hereditary is a very sensible and pragmatic move.

@Roussette as you point out Nerissa Bowes-Lyon was born who 1919.and Katherine Bowes-Lyon was born 1926, the same year the Queen was born. At that time the world was a very different place and the Queen would have been excluded from any conversations about her cousins whilst she was growing up. She was 15/16 in 1941 when they were placed in the mental hospital so would not have been party to the decision nor to the incorrect info about Nerissa’s death.

I certainly have some cousins I am much closer to than others, but even those I am close to I would not feel comfortable interfering in decisions they have made about immediate family members. Offer help and advice, if asked, but not question their decisions.

Anyway, I note however that should either Charles of William seek to interfere int he upbringings of Archie and Lilibet, that will be supported by various posters here on the basis that they will obviously know what’s best for their extended family. But somehow, I think that would be different….

I find it beyond bizarre that Every. Single. Thread. and every single discussion has to have H&M (or their children in this case) thrown forward.

I think I bettter start talking about Andrew now...

@Foreversearch

It's not the fact they were placed in a mental institution. What I say on here is nothing to do with that. It was a very different time. We all know that. It is the latter years, the death, not death, the no headstone until the public got hold of it, the no visits, no-one at the funeral apart from hospital staff. One of the sisters only died in 2014. The QM knew about them from the early eighties.

Maybe I'm odd? Having not long ago been to a first cousin's funeral, she went before her time, she was in care for many many years after a terrible cruel brain bleed just after she had her son who is now late twenties (RIP G) , I just get my head round it.

@Roussette I am sorry for your loss.

That is very kind of you. She was a wonderful woman until a freak minor incident over 25 years ago that robbed her of her life as she knew it.

My mum was a nurse in a hospital ‘for the mentally handicapped’ in the 70s and 80s. Sorry but that was the term used then. Lots of poor men and women dumped into a hospital in the middle of the country, physically taken care of but with not much of a quality of life. She had so many sad stories.

I totally agreed. The whole family acted as if they had never existed.

This is a good move. Edward is involved in many of the same things as his father was - the D of E scheme in particular. It's also lovely that we have a Duchess of Edinburgh for the first time in a long time.

Also very much agree with this. Children who had learning difficulties or physical disabilities were seen as something to be ashamed of. The upper classes were most definitely not alone in this belief. The census asked whether people were imbeciles, idiots or lunatics - all words we would consider hugely offensive today. Parents genuinely thought sending their children away was best for everyone.

I'm only 50 and grew up opposite a family who had a child with cerebral palsy who was institutionalised. Because when he was born around 1970, that's what happened. Attitudes have changed enormously in the second half of the 20th century. I really don't think we can judge the Bowes-Lyons on decisions they made 100 years ago.

The years prior to 2014 (when the last sister died) aren't 100 years ago. That's not the point I've made. I'm talking about latterly.

The last woman did less than 9 years ago. Zero visits from the family, at the funeral and no headstone paid by the family.
NINE years ago. So don't go talking about a hundred or even fifty years ago. They acted as if those women no longer existed.

They thought they were long dead. It was only recently that it was revealed they hadn't died in the 60s.

I haven't seen one of my first cousins in over 20 years. He may well be dead too for all I know. The Queen Mother was one of 10 siblings. There's no denying they weren't treated well by today's standards. It's a bit of a stretch to think there was deliberate collusion by the Queen to hush it up. More likely she was told by her own mother that the two cousins had died years before and she simply accepted it, and why wouldn't she?

I'm very pleased for them. They do a lot of work, and it's nice that he now has the title (agree that his 60th birthday would have seemed more special, but nice to have it done before the coronation).

I also feel a bit sorry for the Kents, Gloucesters and Princess Alexandra when people call them "hangers on". A lot of the generation above the Queen died young, so her cousins had to be the working royals really — there weren't other people to do it until the Queen's own children were older. They support hundreds of charities between them and carry out engagements well past normal retirement age.

@KnittingNeedles They knew the two women were in an institution. It would have taken one phone call. They were simply not interested in if they were dead or alive.

Apparently the QM found out in 1982 and sent them some money for sweets.

Untrue. The QM knew in the eighties that they were alive.

More likely she was told by her own mother that the two cousins had died years before and she simply accepted it, and why wouldn't she?

Or simply didn’t know they existed at all.

One of the cousins was older than her and one was only a few months younger. If they were never mentioned how would she know?

I discovered while doing my family tree that my Great Aunt, who I thought had 9 children, had had 6 children more than I knew. They’d all died under 2 from various things (measles, pneumonia, what we’d now call SIDS). Even when discussing the family tree with my grandparents, my Great aunt and two other great aunts they simply didn’t get mentioned as that just was their way of dealing with it.

That’s not the same as the Queen knowing though.

her mother knew - that’s not her.

Zero visits from the family, at the funeral and no headstone paid by the family.

Which family? Their own family, you mean? A general manager for the East Surrey Health Authority told the Associated Press in 1987: ‘Both sisters had regular visits from their families up until the early 1960s when one of their closest relatives died… Since then, they have had few visitors”

I think the situation of these women was awful, being written off as imbeciles (as they were termed) and condemned to institutionalised lives with little quality. What I don’t see however is why they should be the particular responsibility of the Queen, who was a child when their family made the decision to commit them. As I noted above, QEII had more than 20 Bowes Lyons cousins. The Queen Mother was also one of more than 10 children. Presumably all of them equally should have been responsible for this?

These are first cousins of the Queen. Saying no one knew is rubbish. The Queen's mother knew. Doesn't anyone here ask about their family, their cousins, who lives where, what they do etc?

Making out that everyone thought they were dead is just nonsense.

@Serenster Okay a strange idea of family. We should all only care about our own kids and nobody else in our family?

Don't you ever ask your parents about your family? Don't you ever look into how many children your uncle or aunt had? Where they are now etc?

I know about all my extended family, and first cousins aren't exactly extended are they

I agree.
My family is not close. I still know what happened to my first cousins. Kids ask about their parents brothers and sisters, kids they had and where they are.
Nobody cared about them, that is all.
But Charles does not give a shit about his own son and grandchildren, so runs in the family.

As I said up above - I did ask. They didn’t talk.

I found out about children in my tree dying from doing the tree. None of the adults (I was brought up by my grandparents so it was their generation I was asking) mentioned them when I was asking.

Just because you ask doesn’t mean you get told…