Think this sums up the British 'royal' family.

Tiocfaidh Armani

By Sam Marsden in London

Monday November 14 2011

Nurses who cared for two cousins of Queen Elizabeth who were born with learning difficulties have spoken of how the sisters were never visited by the royal family during decades in an institution.
Nerissa and Katherine Bowes-Lyon, nieces to the British Queen Mother, were sent to the Royal Earlswood Hospital in Redhill, Surrey, in 1941, aged 15 and 22 respectively.
Hospital staff interviewed for a Channel 4 documentary said they were not aware of them ever receiving visits, Christmas cards or birthday cards.
They described how Nerissa, who died in 1986 aged 66, had no members of her family other than her sister at her funeral and was buried in a "pauper's grave".
Former Royal Earlswood nurse Dot Penfold said: "All the time they were there so far as I was concerned I didn't ever see anybody visit them."
Her colleague Bridie Tingley added: "There was no connection with the royalty. At Christmas time they never got a sausage."
Hospital carers described how Nerissa and Katherine would stand up and curtsy or salute when they saw members of the royal family on the television.
Nurse Onelle Braithwaite said staff could not "contain the excitement" of the sisters when the Prince of Wales married Diana, Princess of Wales, in July 1981.
There was public outcry in 1987 when it was revealed that Nerissa and Katherine had been in the Royal Earlswood for more than 40 years.
Burke's Peerage, the guide to aristocratic family trees, had recorded the sisters as having died in 1940 and 1961.
Buckingham Palace declined to comment about the documentary.
'The Queen's Hidden Cousins' will be broadcast on Thursday November 17 at 9pm on Channel 4.
- Sam Marsden in London

Disgusting:mad:

The King of Moo

In fairness you could say the same about the situation of a lot of kids, both here and in Britain, who were born with learning difficulties in those days.

While it is horrible, I don't think it's fair to single them out.

prinz

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

Disgusting:mad:

Howaya Martin! Getting over your recent election performance now I see..

Tiocfaidh Armani

The King of Moo wrote: »

In fairness you could say the same about the situation of a lot of kids, both here and in Britain, who were born with learning difficulties in those days.

While it is horrible, I don't think it's fair to single them out.

Those lots of kids weren't direct relatives to royalty though. Maybe that has something to do while they're singling them out.

charlietheminxx

Yeah, perhaps it wasn't just a royal issue, but society in general.


The treatment of people with special needs over the years has been appalling.... I'm thankful that this isn't the case today.

The King of Moo

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

Those lots of kids weren't direct relatives to royalty though. Maybe that has something to do while they're singling them out.

They're being singled out because they're related to very famous people.

It's a practice I don't like: it seems to suggest that people like the sisters are only worthy of discussion if there's a celebrity angle.

Like when you see stories in tabloids of siblings of famous people who aren't 100% perfect and are poor or criminals.

summerskin

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

By Sam Marsden in London

Monday November 14 2011

Nurses who cared for two cousins of Queen Elizabeth who were born with learning difficulties have spoken of how the sisters were never visited by the royal family during decades in an institution.
Nerissa and Katherine Bowes-Lyon, nieces to the British Queen Mother, were sent to the Royal Earlswood Hospital in Redhill, Surrey, in 1941, aged 15 and 22 respectively.
Hospital staff interviewed for a Channel 4 documentary said they were not aware of them ever receiving visits, Christmas cards or birthday cards.
They described how Nerissa, who died in 1986 aged 66, had no members of her family other than her sister at her funeral and was buried in a "pauper's grave".
Former Royal Earlswood nurse Dot Penfold said: "All the time they were there so far as I was concerned I didn't ever see anybody visit them."
Her colleague Bridie Tingley added: "There was no connection with the royalty. At Christmas time they never got a sausage."
Hospital carers described how Nerissa and Katherine would stand up and curtsy or salute when they saw members of the royal family on the television.
Nurse Onelle Braithwaite said staff could not "contain the excitement" of the sisters when the Prince of Wales married Diana, Princess of Wales, in July 1981.
There was public outcry in 1987 when it was revealed that Nerissa and Katherine had been in the Royal Earlswood for more than 40 years.
Burke's Peerage, the guide to aristocratic family trees, had recorded the sisters as having died in 1940 and 1961.
Buckingham Palace declined to comment about the documentary.
'The Queen's Hidden Cousins' will be broadcast on Thursday November 17 at 9pm on Channel 4.
- Sam Marsden in London

Disgusting:mad:

ahhh, i see you found that axe you have to grind.

Rocky_Dennis

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

Those lots of kids weren't direct relatives to royalty though. Maybe that has something to do while they're singling them out.

Just because they are royalty, that doesn't mean they have an automatic obligation to look after their cousins.

If this was any normal Joe Soap, you wouldn't hear about it, anyway, were they first, second, third or fourth cousins?

It doesn't state that in the article, they could be distant relatives.

admiralofthefleet

they're all a bunch of inbreds and buckingham palace is the second largest brothel in the world (the vatican being the first)

Lollipops23

if they went in in 1941, Queen Elizabeth would have still been a child, maybe 10/11 years old. Not really fair to blame her..?

Also, it was commonplace for kids with learning difficulties to be sent awayin those days- hell, even kids with epilepsy were! Not saying it was right, but families genuinely thought it was the best (and kindest) thing for them.

Tiocfaidh Armani

The King of Moo wrote: »

They're being singled out because they're related to very famous people.

It's a practice I don't like: it seems to suggest that people like the sisters are only worthy of discussion if there's a celebrity angle.

Like when you see stories in tabloids of siblings of famous people who aren't 100% perfect and are poor or criminals.

My bone is these people are shown as a higher brand of person to the rest of us mere mortals and they left their relatives to rot for decades because they had special needs. It's appalling. Here's hoping one day the places around the world who employ these sort of parasites to be unelected benefit spongers give them all the boot!

44leto

I believe there is a royal list and it is not compiled by the palace but westminister. So if they are not on that list they are not recognised as Royals.

The British constitution is a funny thing it has no formal constitution like ours, its more based on tradition and law.

mike65

The Channel 4 tie-in programme is on this week. No doubt Tiocfaidh Armani will be having a furious **** while its on.

Dotrel

Is this what we've come to expect from the Germans?

ejmaztec

They always did like keeping their skeletons in the cupboard, and never wanted the public to know that any of them were less than perfect.

A bit like this one, about whom a film was made a few years ago:

British empire monarch George V and his wife Queen Mary decide to hide their last-born son, Johnnie, from the public, being embarrassingly affected by epilepsy. While his protective elder brother is ruthlessly groomed for court life, Johnnie gets packed off to a country cottage on the royal estate Sandringham. With his full-time governess Lalla, a substitute-mother, he's abandoned to playfulness and virtual social neglect. The Great War and the Russian Revolution change life in Britain, also at court, even at Sandringham, where royal refugees are expected

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349747/

Lollipops23

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

My bone is these people are shown as a higher brand of person to the rest of us mere mortals and they left their relatives to rot for decades because they had special needs. It's appalling. Here's hoping one day the places around the world who employ these sort of parasites to be unelected benefit spongers give them all the boot!

I think the last 30 years has shown that they are just human beings, with human flaws.

Also, you may want to look into how much tourism revenue the royals generate for the UK before you say boot em out. Doesn't matter a jot to us, they don't run Ireland.

The King of Moo

I'm not sure I get the point of this thread anyway: are there that many people in this country who don't think that monarchy is an incredibly outdated concept and those involved are incredibly out of touch with reality and the rest of humanity?

My bone is these people are shown as a higher brand of person to the rest of us mere mortals and they left their relatives to rot for decades because they had special needs. It's appalling. Here's hoping one day the places around the world who employ these sort of parasites to be unelected benefit spongers give them all the boot!

And there's probably about ten people in the world who actually believe that they're superior, and I don't think you'll find any of them posting here!

ejmaztec

The King of Moo wrote: »

I'm not sure I get the point of this thread anyway: are there that many people in this country who don't think that monarchy is an incredibly outdated concept and those involved are incredibly out of touch with reality and the rest of humanity?

It's one of them there "stick it to the Brits" threads that we've all come to know and love.

Tiocfaidh Armani

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I think the last 30 years has shown that they are just human beings, with human flaws.

Also, you may want to look into how much tourism revenue the royals generate for the UK before you say boot em out. Doesn't matter a jot to us, they don't run Ireland.

I think something before that gave the reason why people visited the UK. The monarchy were way, way down the list of reasons.

Is this what we've come to expect from the Germans?

Touché:D

hangon

Even as an agnostic i am tempted to quote the Bible: "Let those amongst us who is without sin,cast the first stone".

The Kennedy's Joe and Rose had a daughter who was born with Mongolism,when she reached Puberty she became erm VERY interested in sex.

Joe went on the best medical advice and forced a Lobotomy on her,Rose opposed it but it happened.:(

The King of Moo

Actually, there's one person here who seems to have an unhealthy fascination with the British royal family .

K-9

The King of Moo wrote: »

I'm not sure I get the point of this thread anyway: are there that many people in this country who don't think that monarchy is an incredibly outdated concept and those involved are incredibly out of touch with reality and the rest of humanity?

Nah, they're Brits.

Shows the terrible attitudes society had to mental illness and as others said epilepsy. Single mothers similarly here.

Joe Kennedy basically locked up a daughter of his who was a bit "slow", sister of JFK, subjected her to a lobotomy as well.

Ah, hangon got there first!

Pherekydes

Dotrel wrote: »

Is this what we've come to expect from the Germans?

?

The Bowes-Lyons were English.

Fratton Fred

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

My bone is these people are shown as a higher brand of person to the rest of us mere mortals

By who?

And why do you care?

Lollipops23

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

I think something before that gave the reason why people visited the UK. The monarchy were way, way down the list of reasons.

Consider the amount of merchandise sold for the wedding in April alone. I just think they're pretty banal- they don't hold much sway in the running of the country or anything and they're not hurting anyone. I am quite glad they've tightened up on who exactly gets to benefit from the royal purse though, too many 2/3rd cousins were being bankrolled for a long time.

Tiocfaidh Armani

K-9 wrote: »

Nah, they're Brits.

Shows the terrible attitudes society had to mental illness and as others said epilepsy. Single mothers similarly here.

Joe Kennedy basically locked up a daughter of his who was a bit "slow", sister of JFK, subjected her to a lobotomy as well.

Ah, hangon got there first!

I know well about the crazy attitudes back in the day. I found out a few weeks ago my ‘aunties’ weren’t really my aunties. My da’s mother had a child outside wedlock and the father did a bunk, so her family hid her and the pregnancy and raised my da as their own and he only found out who his mother was when he needed his birth cert for the American Army.

Tiocfaidh Armani

Fratton Fred wrote: »

By who?

And why do you care?

Care? Not so much care but I take an interest in a lot of current affairs and the concept of royalty I find repulsive, especially the collection of inbreds who the Irish press fawn over.

By who? Do you not read the press?

old hippy

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

My bone is these people are shown as a higher brand of person to the rest of us mere mortals

Don't know many who buy into that portrayal, tbh

Fratton Fred

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

I know well about the crazy attitudes back in the day. I found out a few weeks ago my ‘aunties’ weren’t really my aunties. My da’s mother had a child outside wedlock and the father did a bunk, so her family hid her and the pregnancy and raised my da as their own and he only found out who his mother was when he needed his birth cert for the American Army.

You should read Paul McGrath's autobiography.

OldGoat

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

I know well about the crazy attitudes back in the day. I found out a few weeks ago my ‘aunties’ weren’t really my aunties. My da’s mother had a child outside wedlock and the father did a bunk, so her family hid her and the pregnancy and raised my da as their own and he only found out who his mother was when he needed his birth cert for the American Army.

Luckily you aren't royalty or people might be outraged by your families attitude to stuff.

Fratton Fred

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

Care? Not so much care but I take an interest in a lot of current affairs and the concept of royalty I find repulsive, especially the collection of inbreds who the Irish press fawn over.

By who? Do you not read the press?

I avoid the press that fawn over the royals and celebrity, maybe you should as well, or are you a secret Hello! Reader?

They are a nation's head of state though, so they should be afforded some respect.

problemchimp

ejmaztec wrote: »

It's one of them there "stick it to the Brits" threads that we've all come to know and love.

I think Tiochaid Armani has a point in starting a thread on this subject as there is a documentary about to be shown on the subject. If you don't like the thread, go somewhere else.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

Care? Not so much care but I take an interest in a lot of current affairs and the concept of royalty I find repulsive, especially the collection of inbreds who the Irish press fawn over.

And you hate the Brits.

problemchimp

Moises Teeny Photo wrote: »

And you hate the Brits.

And you don't, what's your point caller.

Pherekydes

problemchimp wrote: »

I think Tiochaid Armani has a point in starting a thread on this subject as there is a documentary about to be shown on the subject. If you don't like the thread, go somewhere else.

If that's the case then there's a forum for that sort of thing.

hangon

K-9 wrote: »

Ah, hangon got there first!

K-9 i resent you suggesting i have had a lobotomy!:)

on topic nobody can be sure what efforts people may have made for their loved ones or how much it may have broken their hearts.

problemchimp

Pherekydes wrote: »

If that's the case then there's a forum for that sort of thing.

?

prinz

problemchimp wrote: »

And you don't, what's your point caller.

Yeh yeh yeh yeh yeh go on yeh yeh

ejmaztec

problemchimp wrote: »

I think Tiochaid Armani has a point in starting a thread on this subject as there is a documentary about to be shown on the subject. If you don't like the thread, go somewhere else.

I think it's a brilliant thread, perhaps the greatest thread that's ever been.

al28283

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

My bone is these people are shown as a higher brand of person to the rest of us mere mortals and they left their relatives to rot for decades because they had special needs. It's appalling. Here's hoping one day the places around the world who employ these sort of parasites to be unelected benefit spongers give them all the boot!

Your bone is that she's the Queen of England

latenia

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Also, you may want to look into how much tourism revenue the royals generate for the UK before you say boot em out.

France, Italy, China and the USA all get more tourists despite their lack of a royal family and I've never heard anyone mention the Spanish royal family as a factor in choosing their holiday. If anything, a bloody coup would help tourism. I know I'd visit the queen's private art collection (the largest, most valuable in the world) if it was put on display and the various palaces and castles would attract millions more visitors if they were opened up properly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_rankings

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I just think they're pretty banal- they don't hold much sway in the running of the country or anything and they're not hurting anyone.

Prince Charles has the right to veto any act of parliament which might interfere with his business empire-his powers are actually greater than the queen's in this regard.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/prince-charles-legislation-veto-duchy-of-cornwall?INTCMP=SRCH

Tiocfaidh Armani

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I avoid the press that fawn over the royals and celebrity, maybe you should as well, or are you a secret Hello! Reader?

Independent and Irish Times my dear boy;)

Adyx

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

Care? Not so much care but I take an interest in a lot of current affairs and the concept of royalty I find repulsive, especially the collection of inbreds who the Irish press fawn over.

By who? Do you not read the press?

I notice you haven't mentioned any of the other European royal families.

problemchimp

ejmaztec wrote: »

I think it's a brilliant thread, perhaps the greatest thread that's ever been.

Well done

K-9

hangon wrote: »

K-9 i resent you suggesting i have had a lobotomy!:)

@Tiocfaidh Armani, I know somebody who just talked to her natural mother for the first time recently. The mother never told her brothers and sisters to this day that she had a baby. I don't blame her tbh, that's the grip the church had on the minds of people.

Tiocfaidh Armani

Moises Teeny Photo wrote: »

And you hate the Brits.

British people are great, sorry but don't make stupid accusations. I know it gets peoples backs up when you show anything critical of your beloved royals. Sensitive little souls and all...

Snakeblood

latenia wrote: »

France, Italy, China and the USA all get more tourists despite their lack of a royal family and I've never heard anyone mention the Spanish royal family as a factor in choosing their holiday. If anything, a bloody coup would help tourism. I know I'd visit the queen's private art collection (the largest, most valuable in the world) if it was put on display and the various palaces and castles would attract millions more visitors if they were opened up properly.

Totally against the notion of a royal family, but are you seriously arguing that because other places have other things (the grand canyon, sun, Yellowstone, haute cuisine, the Louvre, the Eiffel tower), the Royal Family aren't important for tourism?

And bloody coups generally don't help tourism. tourist don't like the blood for some reason.

al28283

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

British people are great, sorry but don't make stupid accusations. I know it gets peoples backs up when you show anything critical of your beloved royals. Sensitive little souls and all...

Well your criticism of them is quite silly

Tiocfaidh Armani

Adyx wrote: »

I notice you haven't mentioned any of the other European royal families.

The Irish public don't care about other 'royal' familes though, why would anyone start a thread on them? Did they disown special needs relatives of theirs? If not why even ask?

problemchimp

al28283 wrote: »

Well your criticism of them is quite silly

I take it you have seen the documentary so.

ejmaztec

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

British people are great, sorry but don't make stupid accusations. I know it gets peoples backs up when you show anything critical of your beloved royals. Sensitive little souls and all...

There seems to be more interest here in the royals, than there is in the UK.