The Slimline Royal Family Diet

Despite her 50 year reign I pretty much had never heard of Margrethe II of Denmark until she came down with COVID-19 following Queen Elizabeth II's funeral a couple of weeks ago. Sorry. But I was today years old when I decided I don't like her. Not sorry.

CONTEXT:

Margrethe Alexandrine Þórhildur Ingrid was born in 1940 making her 82 years old. In 1967 she married Henri de Laborde de Monpezat, known as Henrik, who died in 2018 aged 83.
The couple had two children, both born before her reign began - Crown Prince Frederik, who is 54 and Prince Joachim, 53.

So the story is that to slim-down and modernise the Danish Royal Family she is stripping Joachim's children(^) of their titles, effective from the New Year.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/29/denmarks-queen-margrethe-strips-four-grandchildren-of-royal-titles

Crown Prince Frederik married Mary Donaldson in 2004. They have four children:

• Prince Christian, who is nearly 17
• Princess Isabella, 15
• Twins, Prince Vincent and Princess Josephine, who are 11

Prince Joachim first married Alexandra Manley in 1995. They had two children before divorcing in 2005.

• Prince Nikolai, 23^
• Prince Felix, 20^

Prince Joachim remarried in 2008 to Marie Cavallier and they had two children together:

• Prince Henrik, 13^
• Princess Athena, 10^

Just think about that for a moment. The cardinal rule of parenting is to treat your children equally. Of course, life doesn't work like that: one son will be King, the other will not. But this just smacks of favouritism. The golden child, the heir, gets everything; the spare not only gets nothing but his children get stripped THROUGH NO FAULT OF HIS OR THEIR OWN what they have had since birth.

I've already seen from social media responses that there's a loud contingent of 'aw diddums, poor little rich kids' but that's REALLY NOT THE POINT. It's about the inherent unfairness of treating one group of grandchildren differently because they were not born to the favoured child. The wrong of taking back a gift. 
So I make no apology for the overuse of the word 'imagine' in the following rant. Whether or not you approve of royalty is irrelevant; put yourself in the shoes of a young man in his early 20s or a girl of 10 and imagine your granny doing something this unkind.

"The official reason was to allow the four children of her youngest son, Prince Joachim, to live more normal lives"

I've argued this before with Britain's (or America's) Harry and Meghan - stepping back from Royal Duties and / or renouncing titles does not a commoner make. Especially regards the security concessions (amounting to the team he is paying for being given any relevant information) Harry has asked for - opting out does not reduce or negate the RISK OF ASSASSINATION. Harry, Meghan, Archie & Lilibet will always be potential targets whatever their titles or roles, as will Nikolai, Felix, Henrik and Athena. This in no way affects who they are, for all it cuts at their personal sense of identity.

"With her decision, her Majesty the Queen wants to create a framework, for the four grandchildren, to a much greater degree, to be able to shape their existence without being limited by the special considerations and obligations that a formal affiliation with the Royal House as an institution implies."

Do you know what affiliation means? It means 'adopted as a son'. These are actual sons (and daughter) who are not adopted (which presumes that adoption is any less than biology), by unaffiliating them from the Royal House literally means rejecting them as family. How can that be anything other than cruel?

It is barking mad that Queen Margrethe thinks switching out 'Prince' and 'Princess' for 'Count' and 'Countess' would give them any more freedom over their personal destinies. There is nothing you can do as a count that you can't as a prince. It makes zero sense to me.

"They can't understand why their identity is being taken from them." 

This quote refers to the older two children as it was made by their mother but I imagine this will be just as hard on the younger two. Most little girls go through a phase of wanting to be a princess... poor little Athena *is* a Princess and is having it snatched away. I can't imagine any of them being disposed kindly toward their grandmother for this. Even at Nikolai's twenty-three I can't see this as being 'understandable'.

I've seen people comment that it's just a title, not their identity. Ye gods... Imagine you are a doctor... you get to keep your qualification but you are no longer allowed to use the title. Would you be hurt and angry about that? Maybe because that's something a Dr worked hard for you think it is different to a hereditary title... so imagine instead you have your SURNAME stripped. Your grandma has decided you're surplus to requirements so you no longer get to use the name you have had since birth. 
Maybe your title (Mr, Miss, Mrs, Ms, Mx) is irrelevant to you but it is literally still part of your name whether you use it or not. Also, if you *choose* to change your name (by deed poll, by marriage, whatever then that's a CHOICE) but imagine someone suddenly deciding you're no longer allowed to use the one you have. Your parents may be cruel, may reject you, but I know of no culture where they have the right or ability to take your familial identity away.

My parents didn't see fit to give me either of their names. Perhaps you will think that means, never having experienced that sense of belonging, that I don't know what I am talking about. Naturally, I believe the reverse is true - that I am fully cognisant of the sense of fundamental rejection that comes with being denied what is normally considered your birthright. It makes you feel neither fish, flesh nor good red herring. Bad enough from birth, I can't imagine the pain of being rejected anew at an age enough to understand.

I can understand, to an extent, the logic for sliming down the Royal Houses of Europe but there are far better ways of doing such things. For starters, how about offering the kids a CHOICE when they come of age? Rather than expecting Frederik's children to become working royals ASK THEM. It'd be quite something if Christian, Isabella, Vincent and Josephine were to reject the job, huh? If I were one of those siblings that'd be what I'd suggest - that we all ganged up against the system in solidarity with our cousins. Strike action!
Another idea would be to decide that, apart from the direct heir, no one's spouse would receive a title on marriage and no one's children would have a title either. It'd just be a matter of time until it slimmed down naturally. Far less hurtful too.

"Only the future king, Prince Christian, will receive an appenage, a decision taken in 2016"

An appenage is described as 'a grant of land or revenue' gifted when the royal child comes of age. Note the timing of this change - just as Nikolai was approaching his coming-of-age. The average family equivalent might be throwing a granddaughter a Quinceanera and then changing your mind when your eldest granddaughter hits fourteen... while promising to do one for just one of their (younger) cousins. Although a party is obviously not directly comparable to a gift that sets a kid up for life it's still going to be a bitter disappointment; expecting a celebration and being denied. Sure, that's a very privileged gift to receive but imagine being led to expect such a thing your whole life only to be told it's not happening practically on the eve? Not kind. And to keep that gift in place for the one kid who very specifically doesn't need it (because they stand to inherit everything)? Weird.

That was bad enough as it was a gift not yet given but taking back a gift, whether it's a child's Lego set or royal titles, is a big no-no. 

All I know is that if I treat my grandkids as shoddily as Queen Margrethe is doing I'd be disowned. And they'd be damned right too.

Big Kids In Buggies

Just saw a clip on Instagram that niggled so once again this Opinionated Potato is putting in their tuppenceworth...

GENERAL GIST: Take a stroller to Disneyland for a child 7 and under because it's a lot of walking and they need the sensory breaks.

Seven and under. Where to begin with this? First up this assumes you only have ONE child under seven or that your family consists of enough adults to have a stroller for each young child.
Assuming that is even the case it means the adult had to deal with the stroller ALL DAY regardless of whether the child is using it. Even if you need to take a stroller it can be quite difficult multitasking between dealing with the stroller and ambulatory children - meaning that any non-strollered child has their parents being necessarily more hands off. Part of the magic of a family holiday / day out is holding hands and physically interacting with their kids (or indeed coupled parents holding hands and physically interacting with each other).

Theoretical family, using neutral names for obvious reasons...
Parent: Sam
Parent: Lee
Child 1: Brook, 8
Child 2: Ocean, 5
Child 3: River, 2

By this advice Sam & Lee have a stroller each - one for River who genuinely needs it, and one for Ocean who may only use it for a short breaks. Sam & Lee don't get to hold hands at all during the day, they both get tired of pushing; no one holds Brook's hand, when Ocean is out of the stroller no one (other than Brook) is holding theirs. Basically everyone has a fairly sucky time except the only kid whose needs are being fully met.
If instead they only take a stroller for River then Sam and Lee can take turns pushing so they don't get so tired and can enjoy quality time with their children. If Ocean gets really tired maybe they can take a ride while River toddles or is carried? Overall the family get to physically interact a whole lot more.

Next objection: where are you even finding a stroller that can take a SEVEN YEAR OLD??? My eldest broke every buggy she ever had and we gave them up before she was THREE. That's not down to childhood obesity, she wasn't overweight. She was 9lbs 11oz at birth and off the growth chart completely by about 7 months.
At almost four she wasn't well and was tired so she sat in her baby sister's stroller... and it broke.
In later life I've realised that a lot of the dirty looks my elder daughter and I got when she was 'little' were likely not because I was a teen mum, but probably because it looked like I had a four year old in a babygro with a dummy.

Assuming your child has no disabilities (more on that in a moment) why are you thinking a 5, 6, 7 year old is going to struggle to walk around a theme park? Do you walk too fast for your kid? Are you not taking regular rest breaks? Most of the comments were from parents going "WTF?! My kid has more energy than I do!" and especially adding in the excitement factor... I mean I'd get it more if you were walking around a particularly unexciting art gallery and the kid was bored out of their tiny mind.
Mostly I'm thinking that this is a DRIVER PROBLEM. Most kids don't walk any great distances or over prolonged times and if you're concerned about little Joey managing to walk around all day TRAIN THEM, like you're training for a big hike or whatever. Before I took my kids anywhere we'd brush up on what to do if we got separated etc etc so unless your trip is super impulsive surely you factor in prepping your kids for what you have in mind?
So ahead of a planned trip to Disney (or wherever) start taking your kid(s) on walks. Short at first, building up if you can. Ensure the pace is sedate enough, take rest breaks, and pay special attention to the comfort of their shoes and other clothing. Chances are they'll be fully able and if they're not you'll be better prepared knowing exactly what you do need.
It might help the parents too, if they're quite sedentary.

Which brings me to what I'm gonna term here INableism Obviously if your kid has any particular special needs, diagnosed or otherwise, you likely already know the right course of action for your family, but the context of this seemed to be a travel agent or childcare expert (I wasn't paying attention) being asked for advice. And yeah, this is my unsolicited advice: don't assume anyone can't do a thing until you either ask them or try.
Assuming people with disabilities are going to struggle with certain tasks is inverted ableism. Someone in my family has a physical disability and their primary school teacher was SHOCKED they'd learned to tie their laces. It went down in family legend as being a really important example that you shouldn't assume. Assuming a woman can't lift something heavy is sexism, as is assuming that a man can lift it. Assuming a child can't walk around a theme park is pretty much just ageism.
A kid isn't going to wake up on a specific birthday suddenly able to climb a mountain or whatever - just like they're not innately able to adult at 18. Skills need to be taught, learned, practiced, reinforced.

I once knew someone who'd make wild sweeping statements as to what their kid could do, liked and disliked, what interested them... Didn't encourage their kid to try anything new EVER - skills, foods, experiences. Nope 'Mother Knew Best' poor kid. Don't be her.

The Queen's Cousins

Fell down a bit of a rabbit hole last night and find myself needing to put in my tuppence-worth, quelle surprise.

I remember watching The Queen's Secret Cousins (2011) and it annoyed me as misrepresentation at the time. I was reminded of that irritation during the recent coverage of the death of HM Queen Elizabeth II where the tale got wheeled out again.

So last night, set off by a vague reference, I found myself looking to see if there was any further information and I found this rather lovely review from The Guardian (source: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2011/nov/17/tv-review-the-queens-hidden-cousins) which all the quotes in bold are from.

"The voiceover whispered of "dark secrets". Only none were forthcoming in The Queen's Hidden Cousins (Channel 4); unless by secrets you include a story that was all over the tabloids in 1987." 

There's almost a quarter of a century between 1987 and 2011; it's not unreasonable to think that a lot of viewers in 2011 had never seen or heard of the scandal. I was 9 years old in 1987 and disinclined to read tabloids. Nowadays a lot of the tabloid reading adults in the UK weren't even born in '87! Certainly it's been no secret for many, many years but it's still getting trotted out intermittently as a 'shameful scandal' against the Royal Family although none of the people involved are in any way Royal - the late Queen Mother (1900-2002) was Royal by marriage, not by birth, and this is her family.

I would like to take a look at the idea that The Queen Mother was in any way culpable for her nieces treatment. Sure, she was a patron of Mencap (a charity for people with learning disabilities) but at a familial level was it really anything to do with her?

Let's start with the Bowes-Lyon family tree (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngRK08NpoNo): Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, later The Queen Mother, was the ninth of ten children; from them she had 23 nieces and nephews. The eldest of that generation was only 10 years her junior.

The cousins in question were Nerissa Bowes-Lyon (1919-1986) and her sister Katherine (1926-2014), the children of her brother John (1886-1930). Not only was this brother fourteen years her senior but there were four other siblings between John and Elizabeth. 

Obviously all families have different dynamics but from everything I've seen over the years siblings usually have closer relationships to same sex siblings who are also close in age. It's not particularly remarkable that Elizabeth may not have been especially close to John. Siblings don't always stay in close contact anyway. 

My mother has a brother and sister - she had a fairly good relationship with her sister but no contact with her brother for years now. My father has three brothers - all close in age - and he has nothing to do with any of them.

There were certainly a large number of other family members who could have but did not interest themselves in Nerissa and Katherine but no one's mentioning them, I assume because they're not Royalty.

"Maybe the Royal Family's apathy towards Katherine and Nerissa was catching"

If anything it would have been the other way about - if the Bowes-Lyon clan had interested themselves more maybe the Royals would have also. Families can be estranged for any number of reasons and <<<UNPOPULAR OPINION>>> perhaps it's more toxic to expect people to be close just because they're related.

Aside: So much has been made of the Duchess of Sussex cutting her attention seeking toxic father Thomas Markle out of her life but people (and MSM) choose to ignore that Thomas has never met Ashleigh and Chris Hale, his grandchildren by Meghan's half-sister Samantha (Ashleigh is approximately 37 while Chris is about 35) and estranged from her other daughter, Noelle Rasmussen. But the narrative is all poor Thomas, cut out of Archie & Lilibet's life. I'm certainly not disputing the poor Nerissa, poor Katherine narrative but they had Bowes-Lyon and Trefusis relatives before the House of Windsor and there might well have been other factors at play. Just using this as an example that interpersonal relationships are frequently complicated and the media doesn't always present a balanced perspective.

This is WITHOUT factoring in that the Queen Mother was a wife with young children herself (the late Queen Elizabeth II and her cousin Katherine were the same age), her husband's family and her Royal duties. To my way of thinking the idea she should have known Nerissa and Katherine's fates is a bit of a stretch, especially as families often tried to hide how disabled their children were.

The Royal Family proper (i.e. the lines directly related to the monarchy) are not insubstantial in themselves. The Queen Mother had in-laws, and the late Queen Elizabeth II had another seven cousins on her father's side (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6F5JC9Ut3I). There are also more distant cousins such as those via Edward VII or Queen Victoria who may well have taken precedence over their Bowes-Lyon relations with the young Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret Rose.

All things considered I don't find it at all remarkable that The Queen Mum (allegedly) didn't know what became of two relatives out of so many. She had plenty else going on in her life.

"Surely someone must have noticed that the women had disappeared"

WHY?! Neither Nerissa or Katherine would have lived at all publicly. They would not have gone to school, or have been debutantes, or simply attend family events. Who exactly would have missed two young women who had probably not been seen since early childhood?!

John's widow Fenella (nee Trefusis - this is relevant later) is described as having been 'a leading guest' at the wedding of Princess Elizabeth & Philip Mountbatten in1947 (17 years after John's death; source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bowes-Lyon) but it does not necessarily follow that the family were close. A lot of people include close relations in their wedding parties... and never speak to them for decades. 

As an aside to my own familial experiences I have far less cousins but even in these days of social media I have little idea where they are, what they're up to, if they've put any kids in institutions... How much do YOU know about YOUR extended family?

"Katherine and Nerissa Bowes-Lyon, then aged 15 and 22 respectively, had been secretly placed at Earlswood mental hospital in 1941 by their parents"

Well, that's blatantly untrue, isn't it?! Their father John had been dead for 11 years, all that time Fenella was raising her four surviving children alone; she never remarried. Also, define 'secretly'? They didn't make it public, it was later reported (quietly) that they had died... but there's a subtle difference between secrecy and privacy. Secrecy makes it sound underhanded, and perhaps it was. But it could just have been a private family matter no one felt like sharing.

"If the family had stayed together for that long, what was the breaking point? It must have been something quite dramatic."

Also nonsense in my humble opinion. Any parent of a severely special needs child (let alone a lone parent, let alone two special needs children, let alone trying to balance the needs of their other kids) can reach breaking point over nothing at all. Eventually an awful lot of carers burn out.

It is also worth noting that in 1941 Nerissa and Katherine's sister Anne, then 24, was recently married and had her first child that year (Lady Elizabeth Shakerley 1941-2020). Is it possible that the sisters were hospitalised so that Fenella could be an active grandmother, or perhaps their disabilities made them a risk to the new baby. Just because someone is mentally disabled it does not follow that they are passive or inactive, physically incapable of doing harm; indeed, some mentally disabled people can be dreadfully violent.

Fenella Hepburn-Stuart-Forbes-Trefusis was 52 in 1941. She was likely getting to old to physically care for them any more. She may well have felt that they would be happier and more settled in an institution. Perhaps she had health issues of her own (as many carers do) and was concerned that her daughters ought to transition to a hospital before her own death.

Second guessing the strains which Fenella was under is vague at best but remember that the 1940s were not only a different age culturally speaking but also technologically - there were no communication devices for the non-verbal, wheelchairs and other aids were primitive at best, even basic care needs like laundry would have been quite burdensome without modern appliances. Certainly Fenella was better placed than most but that does not infer that she had it at all easy.

"None of this would have mattered so much if there had been any attempt to discover why the two women were placed in care in 1941, as this was the one part of the story that was genuinely still a mystery"

They were placed in care because they were non-verbal and estimated to have a 'mental age' of six years - isn't that enough of a reason? I assume the author, John Crace, means what medical condition(s) led to this unhappy situation... But between their medical records being justifiably private and the lack of genetic diagnostics when they were young it's very unlikely a definitive answer could ever be provided.

A different Anne, Anne Tennant, Baroness Glenconner had her engagement (to the future father of Diana, Princess of Wales) broken off after "his father objected to the match on the grounds of "mad blood", as one of her grandmothers was a Trefusis" (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerissa_and_Katherine_Bowes-Lyon)

This is no mere paranoia about heredity, but based in fact. I mentioned earlier that Nerissa & Katherine's mother was a Trefusis, I have shown an example of another Trefusis descendant having her engagement called off due to the family's reputation... Fenella had five children - two disabled, two healthy, one who died in infancy. Her only sister's story followed the same pattern: Harriet Hepburn-Stuart-Forbes-Trefusis (1887-1958) married, in 1910, Major Henry Nevile Fane and had seven children (source: http://www.thepeerage.com/p1246.htm#i12451): three disabled, three healthy, one who died in infancy. There was quite plainly something wrong in that family and potential suitors were understandably alarmed.

The three disabled children of Harriet were also, eventually, life patients at Earlswood - Idonea (1912-2002), Rosemary (1914-1972) and Etheldreda (1922-1996) (source: https://www.tatler.com/article/real-story-nerissa-and-katherine-bowes-lyon-the-queens-cousins-the-crown-season-4). It is perfectly possible that Harriet and Fenella having between them five daughters with similar, if not identical disabilities, may have chosen to send the young women to Earlswood together. While apparently cutting off all contact with the five girls it was likely a hard decision; very few parents get up one morning and decide to write their kids off completely. It's also worth noting that popular thought at the time was to make a clean break of it - that it would be distressing for the disabled person to see family members and not be taken home with them, it would likewise be extremely painful for the family members leaving them behind.

It seems improbable that a birth-injury disability such as cerebral palsy would (a) not be recognised as such and (b) affect at least five of twelve cousins (after all, we don't know whether the two who died in infancy would have been similarly affected or not). Much more likely is some genetic illness although what motivation would there have been for seeking a diagnosis at such a late stage when their siblings children, and indeed THEIR children, all appear to have been unaffected. Sure, there's curiosity but realistically only Katherine could have been genetically screened, the others having died before such testing was widely available. Even if she had been screened that does NOT guarantee any answers. 

"If the 85-year old Katherine had made her first ever public appearance on the Buckingham Palace balcony: that would have been abusive"

Obviously this was a scenario that was never going to happen - as a Bowes-Lyon she would not have got a balcony spot in a month of Sundays. But even if it had been an option I agree with Crace; it would have been abusive. While hiding people with disabilities away is, thankfully, largely done away with there is nothing admirable about putting them on display to be gawked at like in old freak shows. Like I said earlier - there's a big difference between secrecy and shame, and privacy and protection.

Maybe their family did them dirty but it was in line with societal norms of the era and judging them by the standards of several generations later is pointless. Also, no one has ever really addressed whether Earlswood was a good, bad, or indifferent place to be. I also think this sort of story is immensely unhelpful to struggling carers who may need to consider residential homes

Perhaps we need to consider empathy before judgement, especially in a historical context where little can ever be certain.