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. 

Ranting For Redmayne (not Rowling)

Today I am feeling pissed off about the whole Eddie Redmayne / J K Rowling controversy.

Backstory: J K Rowling has been saying stuff and written a book perceived as transphobic which I have commented on before. Personally I see this as slightly problematic on two grounds
(i) personally I think she is less transphobic and more feminist: women are being erased from the women's rights they fought to gain by a movement to avoid trans exclusion
(ii) people are failing to differentiate between trans people and bog-standard liars who are using gender identity as a screen for their wrongdoing (and as this blog is largely about acting just Google the number of films this is an element of - eg Mulan, Mrs Doubtfire, LotR). Yes, it is an unfortunate stereotype but everyone who writes of predatory males and / or nurturing females is perpetuating gender stereotypes but when we try to dictate what stories can or should be told we're on very shaky ground.
Eddie Redmayne played Lili Elbe in the 2015 film The Danish Girl - a role he was vilified for as Lili was a trans or intersex woman at the time of her death. He is now playing Newt Scarmander in the J K Rowling spin-off Fantastic Beasts series. Redmayne has also been criticised as abelist for playing Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything (2014) which has been brought up repeatedly in this latest controversy.

Disclaimer: I am agender (biological female) and, in amongst everything else, I am pissed off that there is a new binary here - trans or cis. There is NOTHING in the narrative for agender, non-binary, genderfluid, non-conforming segment of society. These are my opinions from my point of view and I mean no disrespect to others who disagree.

First off...
The interview that's got everyone's knickers in a twist has been grossly misrepresented as Redmayne defending Rowling, as if he were supporting her comments. No, he said categorically that her comments were absolutely out of line; what he also said was that death and rape threats are totally unacceptable, whatever 'provocation' people may perceive. People might try reading the story, not just the deliberately provocative headlines.
I have seen comments not only saying that Rowling deserves death and rape threats because she's a 'public figure' but that she's a valid target because she's rich and white. I am with Redmayne on this: no matter how awful a person may be threatening violence is VILE. Just because a person is 'privileged' doesn't protect them from fear, being able to afford security doesn't guarantee protection from violence. The fact that trans people are frequently victims of violence does not make this okay either.

The criticisms against Redmayne for The Danish Girl...
CASTING
Once upon a time I went for a job as a sales assistant. I had no experience. My mental arithmetic is shaky. I have social anxiety. Did I turn down the job offer saying 'there's probably a better candidate out there'? Of course I didn't! I took the job and by the time I left (to care for my mum) 9 months later I was acting deputy manager!
Sure, actors get paid A LOT more than a sales assistant earns but if they're offered a job expecting them to refuse if kinda loopy. As it is director Tom Hooper claims he ONLY considered Redmayne for the part. Presumably he was chosen for his acting skill and resemblance (although I don't see it); presumably he accepted because he wanted to take on the challenge. 
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/real-reason-eddie-redmayne-was-cast-trans-woman-danish-girl-10480658.html
In a weird parallel I suppose Alan Rickman 'should have' rejected the role of Severus Snape in Harry Potter as he was way too old - but J K wanted Rickman. So they made an entire generation of characters older to match and created a bunch of timeline issues instead. Over the years I have seen some very odd casting decisions but film makers quite often know what they're doing. I am still amused that English actor Colin Firth revealed with some awe that Australian actor Guy Pearce (who I remember best from his days on Neighbours) did a better English accent than him in The King's Speech (2010).
Endlessly bitching about actors 'stealing' a role from another actor is ludicrous. Maybe some people ought to have thought twice before auditioning but a director / producer / casting agent made the most important call.

ACTING
I am really baffled by this attitude that only a trans person should play a trans character. This logic doesn't follow to other criteria. Childless people play parents, vegans play omnivores (see the fake Twinkies poor Woody Harrelson had to eat for Zombieland), innocent people play serial killers... unless Keanu reeves really is a vampire there's a serious lack of creature-of-the-night representation. Sorry, I know that's being stupid but acting is all about pretending to be someone you're not, right?! There shouldn't really be any expectation that an actor is (in any way, shape or form) the character they're playing. Probably because of being agender myself I don't read a character's gender as a defining characteristic unless it is written / played that way.
The only time I see an actor's reality being significant is when it's regarding race as whitewashing / black-face / yellow-face etc need to be things of the past. However, racial ambiguity is also a thing and if someone looks right for the part (especially in biopics) surely that is 'enough'? Colourism and racism within ethnic groups are equally problematic as the more commonly thought-of form.

DANGER OF HARM TO ACTORS
A big cause of a trans-gender person's dysphoria is the expectation that they play a certain role society has assigned to them and this can be the root of deep and lasting trauma.
I saw several comments querying what danger it would pose to a trans-woman actor to be obliged to present as male, to relive their transition process. Certainly there are actors who'd be up to the task but even so it shouldn't be taken lightly. One douchebag person on set could make it horrific; and for that actor to have their former gender onscreen, online, made into GIFs and memes... that's a helluva Pandora's Box to open.
OBVIOUSLY that should be a trans-actor's choice but I feel that the public 'demanding' a trans-actor put themselves through that is a bit much. Different if the vocal opponents are themselves trans-actors who feel they should have been cast. Meanwhile, critics are saying a cis actor (who is at near zero risk from harm in the role) is unable to understand or explore gender identity? That's pretty insulting - do you really expect an actor who plays a rocket scientist, a politician, a doctor or a lawyer to understand those roles? Probably not. Can an actor understand those roles? Quite possibly, actually. People can have a great capacity for empathy and comprehension.

ASSUMPTION OF GENDER IDENTITY
I can't find anything where Redmayne confirms his gender identity as cis/male...or cis/het for that matter. This bothers me because the Twitterati are out baying for his blood because 'as a cis/het male' he should never have 'stolen the role' from a trans-actor to play a trans-woman. He never 'stole' anything - he was given it, and assuming his gender (and sexuality) seems off to me. He could easily be non-binary or genderfluid. Why do the general public feel so comfortable in assuming who he is?!
Eddie Redmayne is 38 years old... I was about that age when I realised I was agender, which tbh I didn't know was a thing until people started on about being cis-gendered. Lots of people 'come out' far later in life, or never. Just because someone is famous doesn't mean we're entitled to know how they identify. Using a masculine name and pronouns doesn't actually mean anything about how a person FEELS. Please stop assuming someone is cis/het 'just because' they're not out 'out' as anything else. they don't have to be. And NEVER 'out' anyone - maybe they haven't figured themselves out yet.

TRANS vs CIS
Over and over I've seen the comment that trans actors ONLY should play trans characters, while cis actors should stick to cis characters.
First up, why should any actor be limited to roles conforming to their gender identity, and once a person has transitioned why should they be pigeon-holed and type-cast as a trans-actor? They should just be an actor, as any other - right?! 
Secondly, if an actor such as Redmayne were genderfluid / non-binary / whatever where would that fit in?! Not to say a non-binary person could do it any better than a cis person.
Thirdly, if gender is not binary (male / female) then it follows that gender identity is not binary either (cis / trans). So who can non-binary actors play??? Who can play a non-binary character?! If I were an actor it'd be nice to think I could 'do' a cis woman. Maybe I'm deluded (I'm certainly no actor) but it *should* be possible.
In my humble opinion the depictions that should be condemned are the humiliating, derogatory ones where a trans or ambiguously gendered character has been used and often abused 'for a laugh'. How the role is portrayed ought, imho, be more important than who played it.

As for criticisms of ableism against Redmayne...
The Theory of Everything covers Hawking's early development of Motor Neurone Disease. Exactly how are you going to find an actor with the right type and level of disability to portray a character before and at the onset of their symptoms?
I should like to see greater representation for disabled actors but I can't deny that there are logistical problems here, especially for a progressive and incurable condition. There are also psychological considerations - how does such an actor cope mentally with 'acting' their real-world traumas?
In a story like Hawking's where he was well known there is also an importance of having an actor play him who can 'pass' as him. Assuming you find a disabled actor who is physically and mentally able to take the role what are the chances of them looking like a particular celebrity?!

The God, the Goddess, and the Girl

When my grandparents died, many years ago, and only a few weeks apart, I envisioned my grandfather who had passed first rejuvenated as the young groom he had once been - but instead of awaiting his bride at the alter he was awaiting her at the pearly gates. When she passed she was returned to her youthful state, radiant and joyful, reunited with her husband. It was a comforting vision.
Recently I heard of a child's passing which let to a rather different imaginary scenario. The name is deliberately omitted as it could apply to anyone with such a disability; this is not intended to represent their experience and I mean no disrespect.

An original expression by Rev'd Heggie Speller (ULC)

The God and the Goddess stand at the edge of the forest, looking out into the clearing. The God wears heavy robes in autumn gold and russet, he wears a magnificent pair of golden antlers on his head; he has a long bushy beard entwined with ivy, flowers and pine-cones. The Goddess looks rather like the girl's mother did - just before she brought home a baby brother. The Goddess' robes are floaty and pale, silvery like her skin.

The God and the Goddess stand at the edge of the forest, looking out into the clearing. Time does not work here as it does in the mortal world: they are always here, and always guiding the recently deceased in their journey through the forest - regardless of how long the journey might take. A small innocent child's journey might be a mere skip through the woods on a summer's day; an old man, burdened by guilt and regrets might have a trek through a near endless night, hounded every step of the way by fearsome beasts and spectres as he is forced to confront his wrongdoing.

There is always enough time. They have guided every soul that has appeared in the clearing, just as they always will. Every journey is different but they follow similar patterns, none is particularly unique - not even this one.

The God and the Goddess stand at the edge of the forest, looking out into the clearing. They are imbued with a certain amount of omniscience, not that it is usually necessary - they journey usually explains itself and much of the life that went before - but today the Goddess feels the new arrival's rare experience, she will need this insight to begin this particular journey.

This clearing, if you will forgive the pun, is not the physical plane. But a disembodied spirit is a distressing state find yourself in. So here, in the first steps away from 'life' the spirit manifests a form. The form is usually as the spirit was in life only whole and healed from any sickness or infirmities; the aged find themselves in the prime of life, the lame can walk, the blind can see, the mentally impaired are freed of those constraints. This is often a joyful moment but for those who have never experienced things such as independent movement or sight or clear thought it can be confusing, even frightening.

In the clearing stands a girl young girl, not a small child but not yet approaching the cusp of womanhood either. The girl exudes fear and the Goddess intuitively understands why - the girl's earthly existence was an especially difficult one. For all the girl's appearance is of having had several years on the mortal plane she had been born with a disorder which rendered her life experience more of a protracted infancy; everything is new and frightening to her, for all this place is designed to comfort all as the arrive. The girl has the air of a newborn fawn - struggling to stand on spindly legs that have never been used for such a purpose before; the wide eyed fear of a deer caught in the headlights only emphasises this impression.

"My dear, all is well," the Goddess speaks in a low tone as one gentling a skittish creature. "You have fallen asleep in one place and awoken in another, that is all."

The girl is just as confused that she understands what the Goddess has said as she is by being here.

"Your mother, your father, your brother, all your family... they will follow in their time. When you reach the other side of this wood they will be right behind you."

The girl's expression is astonished by the reference to her family, but not nearly so much as in a moment's time. The Goddess asks the girl's name and, having 'heard' the echo of the girl's mother's voice cooing her name from within the girl's memory, the goddess speaks the name aloud.

"I- I- I don't understand," the girl stutters, she has never spoken before. Her voice, barely used in life is suddenly formed into words and it startles her just as everything else has. Language is new to her but somehow it it there, in her newly able mind.

"All is well, child," the Goddess repeats soothingly. "You have fallen asleep in one body and awoken in another, that is all."

"I am... standing? Speaking?"

"Yes, child," replies the Goddess who has moved forward a little - the girl did not see her move but she is clearly now closer, the God is further behind. "When we travel through this place what was before is no more. It is no bad thing - what was broken is mended, what you could not do before you can now."

"Why could I not... before?"

"Every body is different - boys or girls or in-between, tall or short or in-between, fat or thin or in-between - and where some bodies work well, some don't. Some bodies start out okay and develop problems, some are born with problems."

"And I was born with problems?" The girl's face moved into an awkward facsimile of a frown, having never formed the expression before.

"Yes, child," the Goddess knew to leave it there whilst the girl used her new-found faculties to process the information.

"And the problems are gone now because that's... better? Better to not have problems?"

The Goddess can feel the bubbling resentment in the girl. Why should she have had to endure so much in her short life? The Goddess could see in her memories lying immobile while others moved around her, moved her inert body - sometimes, but never meaning to, causing her pain in the process. She hadn't resented it in life for she didn't understand it - now she was starting to. The God could see and feel all this too, and for the first time the God spoke, his voice rumbling deep like distant thunder:

"The differences we have in life are only for a time - when you move past time we move past differences too. Some people have an easy time, some people have it harder but by the time you get to your journey's end all is equal."

It was too advanced a concept for the girl who was still struggling to accept she was standing for the first time, barefoot on soft damp grass; speaking for the first time, to two strange beings she didn't recognise.

"Don't worry, child," murmurs the Goddess. "What was is done, and is no more. Now you can walk and talk and run and play and always hereafter - that is all that matters."

"What... what happens now?" The girl asks eventually. "What am I to do, now that I can?"

"Come with us, child," says the God.

"Come with us, child," says the Goddess.

"Where?"

"Into the woods, to the other side," says the God.

"You lived among trees before, didn't you?" The Goddess asks and the girl nods. "Now walk among them, run your hands across the rough bark, feel the leaves crunching underfoot."

"And my family will follow?"

"For you it will be only a moment, for them it will be many years," says the God.

"They will see you again and be overcome with joy," says the Goddess. Time does not work here as it does in the mortal world: the Goddess has seen the reunion happen already and knows her words to be the absolute truth.

The girl is still unsure but as she is unsure of everything going into the woods with the two strangers before her makes as much sense as anything. She feels wobbly on her feet, the pressure on her soles is strange, but as unfamiliar as the motion feels she takes her first steps and is graceful. The girl moves toward the God and the Goddess and enters the forest with them.

There is always enough time. The God and the Goddess encourage the girl to look and absorb every colour and texture and experience the wood gives her - they stop to smell the wild roses and the movement of a caterpillar, they stand in the stillness and listen to the birdsong. And yet the girl's journey is done in a heartbeat for there are no chasms to cross, no darkness to endure, no ferocious animals to outrun; the girl's sufferings are over.

They emerge from the forest into an open meadow. Wildflowers bob in a gentle breeze, stands of trees offer welcome shade, willows trail in a shallow stream that ripples over polished stones.

"What now?" asks the girl. As she turns the God and Goddess are leading her mother and father and brother out of the forest. Her mother and father are much as she remembers them, but her brother who was just a little boy a moment ago is an older man - for he grew up, got married, had children and saw them grow to adulthood long ago.

Despite them all seemingly arriving together they greet each other with such joy it is as if they have not seen each other in years. The girl stands in confusion and watches the outpouring of love between them. Then, finally, her mother sees her - her smile is brilliant sunshine, her tears of joy are soft summer rain.

"My baby! My baby!" she cries, raining kisses on the girl she has not seen in decades. The mother is overwhelmed at the strength in the arms that were never able to return her hugs before.

"Mummy!" cries the girl in return, so far as any of them are concerned this was her first word, for the God and the Goddess are forgotten about and the family is whole again.

Time does not work here as it does in the mortal world; the family meet and greet those who died long before and those who had yet to be born. The girl's fragile, limited mortal existence fades from her mind like a dream upon waking - she runs in the grass and picks handfuls of colourful flowers which instantly reappear on the broken stems; she paddles in the chill water of the stream. Her family too forget the sufferings they saw her endure and watch the child she has been reborn as with joy. Eternity is a family picnic on an idyllic late-summer afternoon. There is no hunger, nor thirst; no pain, no regret; no need to sleep, no need of any kind at all. They are complete.

The God and the Goddess return through the forest to the arrivals clearing in the mere blink of an eye, ready to guide and reunite more souls crossing from life into the hereafter.

Grilling a Barbie Controversy

"[The introduction of Barbie dolls with wheelchairs / prosthetic legs] adheres to safe disability stereotypes, and reinforces the perception that disability means a visible mobility impairment."

Stumbled across this (https://themighty.com/2019/03/new-disabled-barbies-representation/) opinion piece by Erin Pritchard while reading a BBC story about a new Rosa Parks Barbie.  And I'm just...gobsmacked to be frank.

Representation matters, visibility matters but precisely how specific do you expect a MASS PRODUCED TOY to be???? People come in an infinite variety - unless you have dolls custom made they're really not likely to look like anyone in particular. Does anyone really think it's feasible to make dolls in seven billion variations?! We're supposed to be cutting down on plastics for heaven's sake!

Barbie's are DOLLS, they are very much of the Caucasian persuasion with a lot of parents rightfully indignant that ethnic variants are hard to come by.
They do not have realistic body proportions, have been criticised for glamorising anorexia and certainly do not represent the obesity problems especially prevalent in the western world.
Dolls are for creative play...why are modern-era kids so incapable of making stuff up?! Or is just that adults can't imagine being creative? There's a comment following the article "Autistic Barbie doll with stim toys and noise cancelling headphones in case of sensory overload." ...in my youth a pipe-cleaner would be fashioned into headphones & other accessories improvised to achieve this.  A bit of blu-tack for a hearing aid (Hearing Impaired Barbie), a lollipop stick or a roll of paper for a cane (Visual Impairment Barbie), we used to PRETEND. WHY do you need a special doll for that? Erin Pritchard (who has dwarfism) asks "What about a cousin for Barbie who has a more contested disability, such as dwarfism or vitiligo etc." So I ask, which of the myriad different forms of dwarfism do you feel they should represent? YOURS, I suppose... Also, do you want representational dolls for those who undergo limb-lengthening surgeries?! Vitiligo can be represented with a custom paint job if you're up for a bit of craft work. Improvising a wheelchair might be rather harder to achieve, not to mention the multitude of different disabilities that might require a person to use one. And whilst you can remove a doll's limb, creating a prosthetic could be tricky. Then there's the fact that many people have combined disabilities - a person with dwarfism AND vitiligo for example? You simply can't give everyone representation and as I've already stated, with a bit of imagination (optional glue, paint, scissors and sticky-back plastic) dolls can often be adequately customised anyway.

The author cites this WHO South-East Asia factsheet (http://www.searo.who.int/entity/ disabilities_injury_rehabilitation/wheelchair_factsheet.pdf) to show that (a) 10% of the world population have disabilities only 10% (i.e. 1% of the whole) require a wheelchair for mobility. However, many disabilities have no physical characteristics - in terms of Barbie, a person with a cognitive or intellectual impairment, developmental disorder or mental disability may look like any other Barbie. Even many conditions under the heading of physical disability might have no outward sign - chronic fatigue, epilepsy or fibromyalgia for example. I'd be interested to know what proportion of people with a visible disability use a wheelchair, because in terms of Barbies it's all about looks!
I'd also like to point out that one way or another most of us will be in a wheelchair at some point, even if temporarily - sprained ankles, broken bones, an expectant mother being wheeled down to delivery...a lot of older people, such as my stroke-survivor mum, might be wheelchair dependent without being 'registered' anywhere as being disabled and therefore not included in any statistics.
But most importantly, The Guardian article (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/ 2019/feb/25/disability-barbie-dolls-emojis) that the opinion piece is responding to - which is itself an opinion piece by Karl Knights (a writer with autism, ADHD & Cerebral Palsy) - states clearly that "Mattel commented that a wheelchair has been among the most frequently requested accessories for the doll." There is, quite clearly, a demand for this type of doll. I'm certainly not seeing anything in his piece to back up Ms Pritchard's assertion that Mattel are "reinforcing the problematic stereotype that all disabled people use a mobility aid, in particular a wheelchair" - she's reading an opinion piece by a man with a disability who is happy at a form of non-patronizing representation and interpreting into HIS words that Mattel are representing ALL disabled people? That's not even what Mr Knights is saying in that article! The closest thing I can see is "If I had even something as simple as an emoji representing myself as a kid, I wouldn’t have felt so isolated." - clearly using 'I', clearly not mentioning wheelchairs, just referencing the idea that acknowledging that disabled people exist is important with no caveat that it has to be the same kind or form of disability.
"If companies still choose to use a more “acceptable” impairment to indicate that they are inclusive and diverse, can they please not claim they are representing us all?" (1) who is to decide what is an "acceptable impairment"? The wheelchair is an internationally recognised symbol of disability - yes, it is enormously problematic and there are campaigns for awareness that non-wheelchair users can use disabled loos & parking spaces - but at the same time it is an inclusive and diverse symbol because it is used by people with such a wide variety of needs (2) they never did make that claim - it is your misinterpretation.

I for one am glad to see Mattel doing ANYTHING to improve diversity - more natural body shapes, more ethnic variety, any level of disability representation - these things are GOOD.  For people who've read my blogs before you might be surprised at me, an agender potato, defending Barbie.  Admittedly I LOATHE the pink but Barbie has long been a remarkable 'role-model' for girls with some impressive careers represented.  For example she was first depicted as an astronaut in 1965, only 2 years after Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman in space - the US didn't have a female astronaut until 1983.  She was also the first female POTUS in 2000 (tbh a lump of plastic is still a better candidate than Trump).  She has been a business executive (in 1960, not a secretary until 2007), two forms of Olympian (1975), a pilot (1990), an army medic (1993), a paratrooper (2000), a surgeon (1973)...and a sign language teacher in 2001. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie%27s_careers).  Barbie may be unashamedly feminine but it's a gender stereotype in itself to suppose that that is somehow innately negative.