UK's royal family has plenty autistic individuals

Post Reply New Topic

It's not a sensation but do you know that British royals are often on the Spectrum?

George V (1865-1936) was known as for being pedantic and collecting stamps.

His son John Charles Francis had epilepsy and many believe he was autistic. He died aged 13 and they hid him from public gaze since he turned 4.

His brother Albert Frederick Arthur George (George VI) had stammer and speech therapy didn't help it.

Nerissa and Katherine Bowes-Lyon were first cousins of Queen Elizabeth II and Princess Margaret. They never talked and spent most of their lives in Earlswood Hospital for the mentally disabled.

As to the younger generation, James, Viscount Severn is sound and sometimes light sensitive. He seems to be tense in public.

Any other royal autistics? Name a few.

Speculative.

The most one can say is that they had Autistic traits.

It is fine to say I suspect so and so historical figure was autistic. But I have a problem with people making blanket declarations that historical figures were autistic. We do not know their entire lives and there are many traits common to autism and other conditions. These traits are based on writings of their contemporaries and some terms had different meanings and context back then.

I was wrong, you were right. I should have named it ''Royal Speculation''.
Would be a pleasure to know more about these people.

This is one reason I do not like that we can not alter posts after a relatively short period of time.

I think most Autistics speculate somewhat about historical figures and celebrities. Right after I was diagnosed I saw aspies everywhere.

It is good for fun or to show people that people with Autistic traits can be successful but it should not go beyond that. This has been weaponized by people who would like to shrink the diagnostic criteria or think most Autistics are not really Autistic.

Autism pioneer Uta Frith, DBE (Hon), FRS, FBA, FMedSci ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uta_Frith ) wrote the book titled Autism in History: The Case of Hugh Blair of Borgue ( https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/autism ... 0631220893 ) with Rab Houston, MA (St. And.), PhD (Cantab.), FRHistS, MAE, FRSE ( https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/st ... uston.html ) creating a "unique collaboration between a social historian and a cognitive scientist which studies the case of an 18th century Scottish landowner who, regarded as a 'fool,' was actually autistic."

This book shows that retrospective diagnoses can be done well if full disclosure is offered up front, and their research is plentiful and accurate.

Many WP topics have focused on the idea that, while observation works best to conclude a diagnosis for autism (especially in children), many adult diagnoses are made possible based on research of the extant memories of family members, school and other records, and self-reported facts about the diagnosed individuals themselves. After all, royals and nobles are among the most quantified and measured individuals on the planet. I dare say that the statements made by their cohorts just might be quite accurate.

So, if surveying records and interpreting reported facts is the current state-of-the-art for diagnosing adults today, why wouldn't it work well when certain individuals in history showed signs (and many records, journals, diaries and descriptions offered by those who knew the individual)?

Using this technique, several professional diagnosticians have offered diagnoses about computer creator Alan Turing, U.S. President Jefferson and, yes, lesser nobles like Hugh Blair.

While I would never claim that such-and-such retrospective diagnosis is based on fact, I could say easily that it is based on likely evidence (not proof). I believe that those professional diagnosticians would agree.