Royal Genes


Safe For Kids





Queen's first cousin Bowes Lyon lived under threat of abuse



10 Feb 2006 21:00:30 -0800 alt.talk.royalty
previous


Aggie...


the_verminator...
"Maybe" is an admission of lack of knowledge
It is also completely non-responsive to the matter at hand.


the_verminator...
[COMMENT]

Nope- the premise of this discussion is that you believe that you are
entitled to PRIVATE FAMILY INFORMATION. Once again- neither the Queen
Mother nor The Queen have any responsibility in this matter. The fact
that you believe they do does NOT make it so.


edespalais...
Can it be seen that a lady was abused? Was it such, how Mr Camilla
learned ..


mjcar...
You are right, absolutely right. I see it at last. And I blame Tom
Parker Bowles - the so-called noble Tom Parker Bowles, the so-called
heroic Tom Parker Bowles, who pretends to the world and the English
Parliament and the archbishops that he is full of charity and gallantry
in his gastronomic ventures, but in reality has turned his back on this

edespalais...
Was Tom also abusd?

poor defenceless close relative of his step-brothers' grandmother. If
he doesn't do something sharpish, I fear he will seriously tarnish his
chances of being elected to the throne when his step-half-father-in-law
dies - and then where would we all be, I ask? Oh dear!!

volcaran...
Forgive me for asking but it is a more interesting question than those
posed by the originator of the thread - who exactly is TPB's
step-half-father-in-law?

the_verminator...
Prince Charles!
At least that is how Aggie has managed to express the relationship

edespalais...
in a rather polite way

overall :)


mjcar...
A good question: I had in mind the future Queen Camilla's present
husband...


the_verminator...
She won't get it... but *I* love it !

edespalais...
Why does she [?] not get it ..


Hal S....
Terrific, but the nutter will think you are writing in support of her loony
tunes.

Hal S.
"The head of the organization said no such thing! He said there had
been
abuses but he did NOT say that all patients suffered them nor did he
mention anyone by name"

So he didn't mention them by name? The bottom line is that the head of
the organization acknowledged there were abuses, acknowledged the
institutions are vast and impersonal.

That's enough for me; if I knew my first-cousin was being housed in
such an institution, where there is a risk of abuse, I would take her
out of there. Is this not the morality of the common person?

Alas, it's too common. For Queen Elizabeth, it was not enough. She was
content for her first-cousin, who of course is not a 'distant
relative', to live under the threat of abuse, whether or not the abuse
actually happened or not.
next