admin
Uncovering The Past Abuse of Children in Care
Uncovering The Past Abuse of Children in Care
During the 1990s and into the 21st century, the problem of the widespread abuse of children in care has been increasingly recognised. There were many investigations and reports into such abuse in the UK. The same occurred in a number of other countries (such as Ireland, Canada and Australia).
This section of our website is dedicated to highlighting this problem. Although it focuses on what we know about abuse in the past, we also know that abuse continues to occur. Cases are regularly reported in newspapers and on radio and television. We want to make sure that governments and professionals deal with this problem properly. We also want to support those courageous care leavers and professionals who seek to expose such abuse.
We disagree with those who have claimed that the investigations and court cases of the past 15 years have been a witch-hunt and have exaggerated the problem. On the contrary, our members know that much of the abuse that went on in the past was never uncovered and has never been dealt with. Many of us have directly experienced or witnessed physical or sexual abuse that was never brought to light.
Throughout history, the possibility of abuse (whether physical or sexual) within the child care system has often been ignored. For example, outbreaks of venereal diseases in children’s homes in the early part of the twentieth century were usually explained away as the result of ‘innocent’ transmission through shared towels, toilet seats, etc. (see Carol Smart’s article).
It was only in the 1980s and 1990s that we saw wide acceptance of the existence of such abuse. As the Police Complaints Authority investigation into the Leicestershire child abuse cases noted: “…even today it is beyond the comprehension of most people that a parent might physically or sexually abuse a child. It is even more unthinkable that this could happen to children under professional care”.
The Abuse of Looked After Children: Developments in the 1990s
There is now overwhelming evidence of widespread abuse during past decades that went largely unpunished and largely unnoticed outside the care system. A wide range of professionals and responsible adults refused to believe complaints made by children and by other adults. Reading through the relevant inquiry reports provides graphic evidence of the scale of suffering involved. The three most important reports are the ‘Pindown’ inquiry by Alan Levy and Barbara Kahan, (1991), the Leicestershire inquiry (1993) and the inquiry into abuse in children’s homes in North Wales (known as the Waterhouse Report, 2000).
Pindown
A total of at least 132 children, aged nine and upwards, experienced what came to be called ‘pindown’ in a number of Leicestershire children’s homes between 1983 and 1989. ‘Pindown’ was little short of a system of solitary confinement for large periods of time. It varied in length but did last, in one instance, up to 84 continuous days. It was punishment for such activities as running away from care or school, petty theft, bullying and threats of violence. It exhibited “the worst elements of institutional control: baths on admission, special clothing, strict routine, segregation and isolation, humiliation, and inappropriate bed times” (Levy and Kahan, 1991: 167). The social workers involved even wrote down, in detail, how their system operated. When you read through the report, it becomes clear that the ringleaders were clearly proud of what they were doing.
Leicestershire
This inquiry looked at high levels of physical, sexual and emotional abuse in a number of Leicestershire children’s homes between 1973 and 1986. These were homes run by Frank Beck, but Beck was not the only person convicted. At his trial in 1991, Beck was found guilty of 17 counts of physical and sexual abuse. In a parallel Police Complaints Authority investigation into why so many of the complaints made to police by children had been badly dealt with, the police admit that the central problem for these children was “that they considered the police officers who dealt with them did not believe their stories. They were justified in that suspicion. To most of the police officers who dealt with them, they were no more than juvenile criminals who habitually told lies.”
North Wales
This inquiry looked at abuse within children’s homes in North Wales between 1974 and 1996. This was by far the biggest of the abuse scandals, with fifteen individuals convicted of offences. The investigation received evidence from 259 complainants and concluded that “Widespread sexual abuse of boys occurred in children’s residential establishments in Clwyd between 1974 and 1990” (page 197). In the neighbouring county of Gwynedd, the level of abuse was lower and was mainly physical.
The Government Response
The Conservative government in the 1990s said that the reforms introduced by the 1989 Children Act would help to prevent such widespread abuse in the future. However, Waterhouse and other enquiries showed that the 1989 Act was not enough. Also, the focus of the 1989 Children Act on the rights of children had died down by the mid-1990s. Many residential social workers and others talked about the ‘excessive’ powers that the Act had given to young people.
Concern with child abuse in the care system in North Wales grew gradually and Welsh Secretary William Hague set up a judicial inquiry in 1996. He also set up a review of the safeguards for children living away from home in England and Wales. This led to the 1997 Utting Report. There were numerous other investigations already being conducted by the police. By February 2000, as many as 32 separate investigations into abuse were underway in England and Wales.
The main parliamentary debate on the Waterhouse Report took place in March 2000. It is striking no one raised concerns about false allegations of abuse. Indeed, the most common concern is that the abuse uncovered represents the tip of an iceberg. Even as late as December 2001, only a few questions relating to ‘Operation Care’ from Claire-Curtis Thomas MP (from Merseyside) gave a hint of the backlash against the abuse investigations that is now underway.
Given the widespread revulsion expressed by MPs whilst debating the North Wales abuse cases, the establishment of a Home Affairs Select Committee investigation “into the conduct of investigations of past cases of abuse in children’s homes” was a surprise. It resulted from behind the scenes lobbying by supporters of alleged victims of miscarriages of justice. The committee, focused on these alleged victims, seemed relatively unconcerned with the problems of a justice system that could allow widespread abuse to continue for so long. This is clear from the Committee’s terms of reference:
The Committee will not investigate individual cases, some of which may still be subject of legal proceedings, but it will address the following issues:
1. Do police methods of ‘trawling’ for evidence involve a disproportionate use of resources and produce unreliable evidence for prosecution
2. Is the Crown Prosecution Service drawing a sensible line about which cases should be prosecuted?
3. Should there be a time limit-in terms of number of years since the alleged offence took place-on prosecution of cases of child abuse?
4. Is there a risk that the advertisement of prospective awards of compensation in child abuse cases encourages people to come forward with fabricated allegations?
5. Is there a weakness in the current law on “similar fact” evidence?
Committee chairman, Chris Mullin MP, confirmed that his priority was accused professionals, even while trying to reassure the victims of abuse:
This inquiry raises difficult and sensitive issues. It has been suggested that a whole new genre of miscarriages of justice has arisen from the over-enthusiastic pursuit of allegations about abuse of children in institutions many years ago. The decision to conduct this inquiry was taken in response to a large number of well-argued representations received by the Committee. We shall be looking at the methods by which convictions have been achieved and whether there are adequate safeguards. We shall bear in mind, however, that people convicted of sexually abusing children are more likely to continue protesting their innocence than any other category of prisoner.
If one reads the report, it is clear from the tone of the questioning of various witnesses to the committee where its priorities lay. Witnesses representing abuse victims were repeatedly questioned about the role of compensation in generating false claims, the potential for ‘false memories’ and the validity and dangers of police ‘trawling’ for witnesses and survivors.
Given the scale of hidden abuse revealed by the inquiries, the priorities of the committee are questionable. No one wants to see falsely accused people put in prison. However, we already know from the inquiry reports that hundreds of children, at the very least, had been seriously abused in the care system and that this had been hidden for, in many cases, decades. Wouldn’t the committee have made a much better use of its time trying to understand why police and professionals had failed to protect so many young people from such crimes over such a long period? Throughout the Waterhouse investigation, members of parliament from all parties had been willing to accept, in the words of Roger Sims, a senior Conservative backbencher:
That the abuse of children in institutions is a widespread and continuing problem…while inquiries and reports are necessary, it is essential that, thereafter, measures should be implemented to ensure the prevention of further abuse. (House of Commons Debates, 17.6.1996, col.525).
However, in this case the Home Affairs Select Committee was responding to pressures from groups that represent professionals. The inequality between such groups and their often isolated and damaged former clients is obvious. Care leavers often lack the networks, resources and influence to challenge such professionals. It was reassuring, therefore, that the government’s response to the report of the Home Affairs Select committee roundly rejected most of its recommendations and supported the conduct of the police investigations into past abuse. For example, the government response into the Committee’s activities stated that the government “does not share its believe in the existence of large numbers of miscarriages of justice”. It also noted that “the weight given by the Committee to the views of those who believe in miscarriages of justice, including those who claim to be the victims themselves of such cases, is disproportionate”. The government reply is also highly critical of most of the rest of the Committee’s approach.
Moreover, the police have always robustly defended their investigation techniques in this area and their view that there was, indeed, widespread abuse in the care system of the past. As a group of professionals who are used to sniffing out false accusations, one would have thought that their views should carry more weight with some of the critics of past abuse claims. The idea that significant numbers of care leavers have managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the police, prosecutors, judges and juries is simply not credible.
Further Reading
Corby, B, Doig, A and Roberts, V (2001), Public Inquiries into Abuse of Children in Residential Care. Jessica Kingsley: London.
Home Affairs Committee, Press Notice No.9: ‘Home Affairs Committee Launches Inquiry into the Conduct of Investigations into Past Cases of Abuse in Children’s Homes’, 16th January 2002. House of Commons: London.
Home Affairs Committee, 2002b: Oral Evidence, uncorrected transcript, 25th June 2002.
Home Office (Secretary of State) (2003), The Conduction of Investigations into Past Cases of Abuse in Children’s Homes (The Government Reply to the Fourth Report from the Home Affairs Committee) (Cm 5799), Norwich: The Stationery Office.
House of Commons Debates (17.3.200), Vol.346, cols 623-691.
Kirkwood, A (1993), The Leicestershire Inquiry 1992. Leicestershire County Council: Leicester.
Levy, A and Kahan, B (1991), The Pindown Experience and the Protection of Children. Staffordshire County Council.
Police Complaints Authority (1993), Inquiry into Police Investigation of Complaints of Child and Sexual Abuse in Leicestershire Children’s Homes: A Summary. Police Complaints Authority: London.
Smart, C (2000), ‘Reconsidering the Recent History of Child Sexual Abuse, 1910-1960’, Journal of Social Policy, 29 (1): 55-71.
Waterhouse, R (2000), Lost in Care: Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the abuse of Children in Care in the former county council areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974. (HC 201). The Stationery Office: London.
Mother and baby home survivors’ stories published: ‘I was told I was going’
Mother and baby home survivors’ stories published: ‘I was told I was going’
27 September 2022
“I became pregnant and when my mother found out I was taken immediately to a doctor and within a very short period of time I found myself in a Good Shepherd mother-and-baby home.”
This is part of one woman’s personal testimony about her experience of mother-and-baby homes in Northern Ireland. Her account has been published along with a number of others, running to hundreds of pages and made available on the Quote oral history website run by Queen’s University Belfast, external (QUB).
Those who experienced life in workhouses and Magdalene laundries have told their stories and the transcripts also include evidence from children born in the homes. The testimonies have been anonymised but have been published with the full permission of those who gave them. One woman, referred to as LC, was sent to a Good Shepherd mother-and-baby home when she became pregnant, aged 17. “I was just told I was going and that was it,” she added.
“I was put in a car with the local parish priest and my mother and off I went.”
LC’s baby was adopted against her wishes but later in life she was able to reunite with her adopted child. A mother referred to as HS also entered a Good Shepherd home when she was pregnant, aged 19. She said that she was made to feel “isolated and sinful” there. DH, meanwhile, was born in a mother-and-baby home and then adopted. The impact that it’s had on me as a person has been significant,” he said.
DH had begun a process on reuniting with his birth mother when he was in his 30s.
Stigma of pregnancy outside marriage
Mother-and-baby institutions housed women and girls who became pregnant outside marriage. There was stigma attached to pregnancy outside of marriage and women and girls were admitted by families, doctors, priests and state agencies. The laundries were Catholic-run workhouses that operated across the island of Ireland. About a third of women admitted to the homes were aged under 19 and most were aged from 20 to 29. The youngest was 12 and the oldest 44. A number were the victims of sexual crime, including rape and incest. Numbers of entrants peaked in the late 1960s and early 1970s, before a rapid reduction in the 1980s. The oral evidence had informed a major Stormont report into mother-and-baby homes and Magdalene laundries in Northern Ireland, which was published in January 2021. It found that 10,500 women went through mother-and-baby homes in Northern Ireland and 3,000 were admitted into Magdalene laundries. The report detailed often harsh conditions and abuse suffered by some of those admitted to eight mother-and-baby homes, a number of former workhouses and four Magdalene laundries in Northern Ireland. Some women said they had been detained against their will, were used as unpaid labour and had to give up babies for adoption. The experts from QUB and Ulster University who carried out the research for the 2021 report had said they intended to make some of the transcripts of evidence “available for consultation by members of the public”. That has now been done with full transcripts of testimonies from 24 individuals about their experiences.
‘Traumatic and upsetting’
Thirteen of the testimonies are from “birth mothers” women who gave birth while living in the institutions. Five are testimonies from the children of birth mothers, one from another relative and five from “other observers” of the institutions. The “other observers” include an elderly retired priest, a woman whose father worked in a Good Shepherd convent, a retired midwife, a woman who had lived in one of the Sacred Heart homes and a woman who knew a number of residents of one of the homes. Details have been removed from the transcripts that would identify any of those who agreed that their experiences could be published. An introduction to the transcripts said that a “range of contrasting and complex testimonies” had been collected. “They ranged from testimonies that were highly critical of the mother and baby institutions and Magdalene laundries through to very different narratives from individuals who worked within them,” it said.
“Readers will no doubt be aware that the testimony they will encounter is often traumatic and upsetting. The transcripts reveal many birth mothers were pressured to give up a child for adoption. Several relate testimony about various forms of mistreatment. The latter included a range of details, spanning regimental institutional regimes that imposed cleaning chores on heavily pregnant women through to, in a very small number of cases, more serious allegations of sexual abuse.”
The interviews were carried out by Prof Sean O’Connell of QUB and Dr Olivia Dee. Prof O’Connell told BBC News NI that he wanted to pay tribute to the courage of all of those who had been involved in the process and came forward to give oral evidence. Following the publication of the research report in January 2021, a Truth Recovery Design Panel which had been established by the Stormont Executive subsequently recommended that a public inquiry be held into the institutions in Northern Ireland. The PSNI has also launched an investigation into allegations of physical and sexual abuse in the institutions.
-
Listen here to BBC News NI’s podcast ‘Assume Nothing: The Last Request’ about a man who was born in a mother-and-baby home and his last wish to track down his birth mother
‘We had our babies taken from us we didn’t give them away’
‘We had our babies taken from us we didn’t give them away’
Jeannot Farmer urges Scottish Government to get answers for victims affected by historic forced adoption ‘before it is too late.’ Women who were forced to give their babies up for adoption have made an urgent plea for help finding out what happened to their children. Campaigners said the words in an apology made by the Scottish Government last year “lose their worth every day” without measures to help victims of the “ongoing injustice”. It comes a year after former first minister Nicola Sturgeon delivered an official apology in the Scottish Parliament to those who have been affected by historic forced adoption policies. The recognition was the first formal apology in the UK to tens of thousands of unmarried mothers “shamed” and “coerced” into having their babies adopted. Group Movement for an Adoption Apology sent a letter and knitted baby bootees to over 60 MSPs urging them to back the campaign. Jeannot Farmer warns time is running out for families. She told STV News: “We chose to put out a statement expressing concern that people are still passing away not knowing what happened to their children. The pain associated with that is severe. I know what it was like to find my son after 31 years and how every birthday was worse than the last one not knowing where he was. I can’t imagine that being doubled. We have friends in that situation. Living with the stigma all of those years is very difficult. But the stigma is nothing compared to the loss of your child.”
Jeannot was one of thousands of women forced to give up her baby for adoption. At the age of 22, she gave birth to a boy while she was still a fourth year university student. Despite having explored options with social services, she did not want to give up her son. However, she was told while she was in hospital that her baby would be put up for adoption. “Sometimes I go back to the apology to remember what was said. Words like ‘historic injustice’ are meaningful and important. What happened was cruel,” she said.
“That day, the stigma and disgrace of giving my baby up for adoption was removed from me. Now I don’t have anyone thinking I have submitted my child for adoption voluntarily. That was done to me. My child was not taken, not given.”
It is estimated around 60,000 women in Scotland were forced to give up their babies throughout the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Hundreds of thousands of children were given up for adoption between 1949 and 1976 across the UK, at a time when unmarried mothers were often rejected by their families and ostracised by society. Adoptions were generally handled through agencies run by the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and the Salvation Army. What you’ll find is most mothers it happened to don’t really know what happened to them,” Jeannot said.
“We had this idea mothers giving babies up for adoption analysed the risks and benefits of keeping or giving them up, then came up with a rational decision. That happened to no one. A far more common story is the mothers gave birth, were sent to another room to hold the baby for a minute, then that baby was gone and never seen again.”
The group Movement for an Adoption Apology made a number of recommendations, such as councils delivering trauma-informed counselling services; easier birth record access; reunion services and formal apologies from institutions which administered services that resulted in coerced or forced adoption. But campaigners insist measures discussed in the Parliament on that day have “failed to emerge”. While work is currently underway to deliver funding for peer-support services, Jeannot said more work must be done to allow victims to access records. The system is already in place in states across Australia, where around 250,000 are estimated to have been affected by the practice. Jeannot said thousands risk being left with unanswered questions about their identity without the government taking action. “It’s incredibly urgent,” Jeannot said. “People are dying. People should be allowed to know the name of the person they have lost and find out if they might still be alive. We are losing the opportunity to pass on important information to our families and pass on a legacy for their relatives. Those questions, the hurt and the grief does not end with the passing of the father and the mother. Those ripples extend beyond. It’s also about passing on medical information; if a mother, sister or aunt has breast cancer, there is no way to tell a daughter who was adopted to get tested for the gene. It’s about what the children inherit too; ‘why do I have that shape of my nose?’ ‘Why am I good at art?’ People want to know these things.”
Jeannot said that it is important to remember mothers and adoptees reserve the right to refuse contact. She added: “People have a right to privacy, but people also have a right to information. It’s about a balance in-between those two things. But if our children had been taken by a random stranger, no one would question our right to know who they are. That’s what happened to our children who were taken. We didn’t give them away.”
Marking the anniversary Natalie Don, Minister for Children, Young People and Keeping the Promise said: “I acknowledge the immense pain and suffering that adoptees, mothers and families have endured as a result of these unjust practices. Addressing the harms caused remains a priority for this Government. We are establishing a series of lived experience sessions on historic forced adoption, to be facilitated by the Scottish Government’s Principal Psychological Adviser. These sessions will explore collaborative solutions and will discuss what form of support is needed to address the emotional and psychological impact of historic forced adoption for adoptees, mothers and families. We are also exploring what more we can do to ensure people affected by historic forced adoption are able to easily access the right information and support when they need it. This includes working with both the National Records of Scotland and Scottish Court and Tribunals Service in order to assist people with the practical aspects of accessing records, as well as signposting to further support. We continue to fund the charity, Health in Mind, to provide specialist support through peer support groups. Monthly peer support sessions are now being held for mothers and an adoptees group will begin shortly.”
‘I regret adopting my daughter I feel like I’m babysitting a stranger’s kid’
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/i-regret-adopting-daughter-feel-31947707
‘I regret adopting my daughter I feel like I’m babysitting a stranger’s kid’
A mum has sparked outrage after admitting she regrets adopting her daughter as she has never loved her as much as her biological children and still sees her as ‘someone else’s child’
By Paige Freshwater Content Editor
13:38, 23 Jan 2024Updated15:05, 23 Jan 2024
A mum has caused a stir by confessing she regrets adopting her daughter, admitting she’s never loved her as much as her biological children. She shared her story on Reddit, explaining that after having her son through IVF, she chose to adopt for her second child. However, she confessed she’s never been able to bond with her adopted daughter and over time, even began to resent her. The woman wrote: “So years ago before the birth of my first son, I was told it would be hard for me and my husband to conceive. We went through IVF and eventually I gave birth to my son. A few years later we wanted another child but didn’t want to have to go through the time and expense we did the last time with our son. So we decided to adopt. We adopted this beautiful baby girl whose parents were too young to raise her themselves. I loved her so much and treated her no different but I’ve never had the feeling she’s my own. I often feel like I’m babysitting someone else’s child. I feel terrible but I can’t help it. I’ve tried forcing myself to feel it but I just don’t. She’s 15 now and I’ve never felt a connection with her.”
But four years ago, the woman discovered she’d fallen pregnant naturally – and was expecting another girl. This only strained her relationship with her adopted daughter further, as she started to feel more excluded from the family. “We were so surprised since it just happened naturally and we found out it was going to be a girl. During the pregnancy, my hormones were all over the place and I started hating my adopted daughter because I felt if I had just waited then I wouldn’t have to have had her. When my daughter was born everything just felt right. I felt a proper connection like with my son and I bonded straight away.”
In search of sympathy, she confessed: “I sound horrible but adopting her was a massive mistake. I wish I could go back in time. I love her to pieces but unfortunately not as much as my biological children. I hate myself for it since I promised her parents I’d love her no different and I feel like I’ve let everyone down.”
To this, one Reddit user replied: “Therapy for you. Under no circumstances tell your daughter that you don’t love her as much as your bio kids, though that’s something that’s not hard to miss. Reach out to her birth family, if they’re decent people and you haven’t maintained contact, and see if they’d be interested in spending more time with her. This girl deserves to be enthusiastically cared for and loved by the people in her life. What about your husband? Does he feel the same way?”
Another person commented: “Since you already had a biological child you shouldn’t have adopted. I have heard lots of adoptees say they have always felt like they were competing with the biological child of the adoptive parent. I will say at least you have the courage to be honest, which is rare among adoptive parents. Does the child have any interaction with her birth family? Perhaps if she had a good relationship she could go back to them.”
A third person chimed in: “I really hope your adoptive daughter doesn’t know how you feel. Have you looked into professional help for yourself to dissect what’s going on and why you haven’t allowed yourself to bond? There are so many techniques out there that could have been used to create that bond. I know because I used some of them when I struggled to bond with my adoptive daughter. They worked. I feel so upset on behalf of your 15-year-old. I hope she never finds out and that you’ve said this because you want things to change. You can work to repair and create that bond rather than dwelling on the past and your own anger and regret. I hope you haven’t damaged her through any perceptible emotional distance on your part. How dreadfully sad that you still feel you are babysitting someone else’s child after all these years. Please stop dwelling on what might have been and step up to being the best parent you can be to her by seeking help if need be.”
New rights for UK donor babies as they turn 18
OCTOBER 3, 2023
New rights for UK donor babies as they turn 18
by Helen ROWE
Around 30 young adults conceived via sperm or egg donation in the UK will soon be able to discover the identity of their biological parent. The new rights come as rising numbers of children are being conceived using the technology, posing a range of challenges for the children, their families and donors. The UK law removed the anonymity of egg and sperm donors in 2005 and gave children the right to receive basic information about them when they reached 18. With the first children covered by the legislation turning 18 this month, they will finally be able to request details such as the donor’s full name, date of birth and last known address. Advances in fertility treatment methods and changing social attitudes have seen an increasing number of donor-conceived children being born not just to people facing fertility challenges but also same-sex couples and women in their late forties and even fifties. Initially the numbers of children who will have the right to know will be small, with just 30 people becoming eligible between now and December this year. Data from the UK’s Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) shows that will rise to more than 700 people by the end of 2024, increasing to 11,400 by 2030. According to the latest available figures from the regulator of fertility treatment and research using human embryos, 4,100 UK births around one in 170 were the result of donor conception in 2019.
Few months off
The cut-off point for the legislation has left some donor-conceived people disappointed that the identity of their donors will remain a mystery. “I’m happy for the people who want to find out but I’m also a little annoyed that I was a couple of months off, so I won’t have the chance,” 19-year-old student Jamie Ruddock, from Brighton on England’s south coast, told AFP.
Ruddock said he had known for as long as he could remember that he had been donor-conceived and while he was not looking for another father figure he was still curious. His older brother along with their father had begun looking for the donor via a DNA ancestry testing service but had not had any success. “My brother definitely has a bigger sense of curiosity than I do but if my brother finds him I would like to have a conversation with him,” he said.
People in the UK conceived by egg or sperm donation will now be able to trace their biological parents. Nina Barnsley, director of the UK’s Donor Conception Network, said many of those eligible to ask for the information might not even be aware of how they were conceived. When new techniques such as artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization (IVF) were first introduced some four decades ago, infertility was something of a taboo subject and parents often did not tell children how they were conceived. But for many years now, psychologists have advised families to be open with the information as early as possible. Others might not have realized the significance of the legislation or have other priorities.
‘Incredible gift’
“Certainly in terms of our donor-conceived young people, many have got far more important things going on in their lives with exams and girlfriends and boyfriends, travel and work and other challenges,” said Barnsley.
“Being donor-conceived may well just be low on the list of interests.”
Having the right to access the information, however, could still be important to them in the longer term, even if it also brought potential challenges. Some parents would inevitably be “anxious about making the donor into a real person in their lives and how their children would feel,” she said.
At the same time many were also “curious about these donors and wanted to thank them to acknowledge their contribution towards helping them make their families,” she added.
Donors are being urged to get in contact with the clinic where they donated and make sure their details are up to date. “This is a very important time for young adults who were conceived by the use of donor sperm or eggs. Many will hope to find out more about their donors as they reach 18,” said Professor Jackson Kirkman-Brown, chair of the Association for Reproductive and Clinical Scientists (ARCS).
He said it was important that donors too reach out for support and guidance to help them navigate any approaches. “Being a donor is an incredible gift and alongside the sector ARCS are keen to recognize and support those who enable people to have the families they desire,” he added.
‘Real taboo’: include birth trauma in UK women’s health strategy, MP urges
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/jan/09/real-taboo-include-birth-trauma-in-uk-womens-health-strategy-mp-urges
‘Real taboo’: include birth trauma in UK women’s health strategy, MP urges
Theo Clarke shares own experience and says large number of people contacted inquiry into birth trauma after call for evidence
Birth trauma remains a “real taboo” and should be part of the UK government’s women’s health strategy, an MP leading an inquiry into the subject has said.
On Tuesday, the all-party parliamentary group on birth trauma launched an inquiry, led by the Conservative MP, Theo Clarke, and Labour’s Rosie Duffield, looking into the causes behind traumatic births and to develop policy recommendations to reduce the occurrence of birth-related trauma. The inquiry is open to parents and professionals in the maternity field, and is expected to report on its findings in April.
Clarke, the MP for Stafford, said she was “delighted” to be launching the first parliamentary inquiry into birth trauma, and said the topic was “long overdue for discussion within parliament”.
“I was amazed that literally within the first five minutes of announcing the call for evidence on social media we already had submissions into our inquiry inbox, probably the quickest response I’ve ever had to anything I’ve announced as an MP in my career,” Clarke said.
“That really shows how incredibly important this subject is and how mums in the UK feel that they need to be listened to and they want their stories to be heard.”
Clarke was inspired to launch the inquiry after needing emergency surgery and thinking she was going to die after the birth of her daughter in 2022. “I gave birth to my daughter last year and had a third-degree tear, which is a very significant birth injury, and which resulted in me having a huge surgery,” she said.
Between 25,000 and 30,000 women experience PTSD after birth in the UK, according to the Birth Trauma Association.
The inquiry is currently collecting written and oral evidence to inform the policy report. The report is due to put forward policy recommendations for the government and will be published April 2024.
Evidence will be heard over several sessions between February and March. Its main objectives will be to “identify common features in maternity care (antenatally, during labour and birth, and postnatally) that contribute to birth trauma, highlight examples of good practice, both in the quality of maternity care and in providing support to women who have had traumatic birth experiences, and to look at the impact of birth trauma on women’s relationships, ability to bond with their baby and future decision-making”.
The inquiry said they particularly welcomed submissions “from people from marginalised communities such as those who are racially minoritised, LGBT, economically disadvantaged, homeless, asylum-seeking or displaced, care-experienced, neurodivergent or facing any other circumstances [that mean] their voice is less likely to be heard”.
Clarke spoke of her own experience during a Commons debate on birth trauma in October, and said the reaction to her speech showed just how important the issue was to many people in the UK.
She said: “There is such a focus on the baby post-birth that we sometimes forget about the mums and the fact that they need care too. And I was really amazed when I shared my personal story last year the huge amount of people that contacted me from across the country that shared their own difficult stories.
“It was very clear to me that there was a real taboo about talking about birth trauma, and people felt that they couldn’t share with friends or colleagues at work if they had had a birth injury or had mental psychological distress based on giving birth.”
Separate to the inquiry, Clarke has called on the government to consider birth trauma as part of the women’s health strategy update next week, because “it is recognised and included”.
Touched By Adoption
Touched By Adoption
So many lives,
So many hearts,
So many tears,
So many smiles.
One mother cries,
One mother smiles,
One mother’s guilt,
One mother’s joy.
A child lost,
A child gained,
A child missed,
A child loved.
So many emotions,
So many pains,
So many regrets,
so many disappointments.
One day the pain may go,
One day there may be joy,
One day there may be answers,
One day who knows what happens.
Britain’s ‘most hated woman’ who tried to buy twins from the US for £8,200 in cash-for-babies scandal wants to meet the girls one last time now they have grown up
Britain’s ‘most hated woman’ who tried to buy twins from the US for £8,200 in cash-for-babies scandal wants to meet the girls one last time now they have grown up
Judith and Alan Kilshaw adopted Kiara and Keyara Wecker from US mother
Tranda Wecker, then 28, had put the girls up for sale on the internet
Another couple, Richard and Vickie Allen, had already bought them for £4,000
By Harry Howard For Mailonline
Published: 11:21, 17 November 2022 | Updated: 13:36, 17 November 2022
A mother who was reviled as Britain’s ‘most hated woman’ after paying to adopt baby twins from the US said she wants to meet the girls one last time. Judith Kilshaw and her husband Alan sparked an international storm after it emerged they paid £8,200 in December 2000 to adopt babies Kiara and Keyara Wecker. The Kilshaws then flew to the US and brought the girls back to their home in Buckley, North Wales. The girls’ mother, Missouri hotel receptionist Tranda Wecker, then 28, had put them up for sale on the internet. The trouble and publicity began when it emerged that another couple, Richard and Vickie Allen, had already bought the babies for £4,000. The Allens, who had been caring for Kiara and Keyara for two months when they were taken to the UK, furiously insisted they had had been kidnapped. The FBI became involved, with the subsequent international legal battle ending with the children being raised by a third set of foster parents in Missouri. Now the story is being re-told in Amazon Prime documentary Three Mothers, two Babies and a Scandal, which launches on Friday. According to the Mirror, Ms Kilshaw, now 67, says in the programme that she would ‘like to meet’ the girls so she can ‘find peace’. It emerged in 2018 that the girls, then 18, had just started university and were both studying social sciences. Mrs Kilshaw left her husband in 2007 for a man 13 years her junior who she had met in a nightclub. Mr Kilshaw passed away aged 63 after suffering from lung disease. Mrs Kilshaw said in the Amazon documentary: ‘Every day I think about what might have happened, what life might be like now if the girls had stayed with us. It’s usually a nice outcome in my mind, but that’s all ifs and buts and maybes really, isn’t it? You’ve got to face reality. I’m glad they moved on, I’m glad they went to university, I’m glad they have a life that’s the best thing you can hope for. All I want now is to find peace, and that’s the thing I still haven’t managed to find. I would like to meet them, but together with the others. It would be a very interesting if everybody involved could come together, say our piece and make our peace.’
The Allens had bought Kiara and Keyara, then six months old, from an adoption agency named A Caring Heart after being among the first to see the internet advert. The girls’ mother had fallen pregnant as her second marriage was coming to an end and had decided to part with her unwanted children by selling them. The Kilshaws then offered twice as much as the Allens had paid, but did not know the girls had already been sold. The couple had spent £4,000 on unsuccessful IVF treatment and had looked into surrogacy before deciding to adopt abroad. With the Kilshaws offering a much better price, A Caring Heart’s boss, Tina Johnson, told the Allens that their mother wanted to say a final goodbye to them and they would be away for just a couple of days. Johnson then took the twins to a nearby hotel and passed them to the Kilshaws. When the Allens saw the British couple apparently leaving with the babies, a fight broke out. The Kilshaws, who went on to rename the twins Kimberly and Belinda, drove away with the babies and their birth mother, as the Allens gave chase in their car. The couple ended up driving 4,000 miles to Arkansas, where they could formally adopt them. During the drive, the Allens had called them and said: ‘We know where you are. We are going to find you.’
The Kilshaws ended up paying more money to Wecker, for her flight back to Missouri, as well as £1,400 to a lawyer to organise adoption papers. Eight days later the Kilshaws were back in the UK and were at first cared for at the couple’s farmhouse. But a protection order was served on the Kilshaws in January 2001 and the twins were taken into the care of Flintshire social services. Flintshire County Council later lodged an appeal to the Family Division of the High Court to make the twins wards of court. Then-Prime Minister Tony Blair even weighed in as the scandal grew, calling the sale of the children over the internet ‘disgusting’. In April 2001, the Kilshaws lost their battle to keep the children after a judge ruled it would not be in the ‘welfare interests’ of the twins. In California, the Allens were forced to withdraw their custody claim after Mr Allen was arrested in the spring of 2001, when two babysitters, ages 13 and 14, said he had sexually molested them. The outcome of that case is unclear. Kiara and Keyara ended up being taken in by foster parents in Missouri. The case came after Mrs Kilshaw had offered her grown-up daughter £3,000 to act as a surrogate mother. Louisa Richardson, then 22, angrily rejected the offer. Mr and Mrs Kilshaw already had two young sons at the time but wanted a daughter. It was after that refusal that Mrs Kilshaw found the advert for the US twins. In their quest to keep the twins, the Kilshaws had even been on TV personality Oprah Winfrey’s US show, where they faced Mr and Mrs Allen. Mrs Kilshaw has since split from her second husband Stephen Sillett, whom she married when she was 53 and he was 40.
Dealing with reunion
Apart from the first months of reunion Anthony was out in Canada for two years but we were able to keep up regular communication.
One of the ways was through adoption.com’s chat room and sometimes we would have long chats. Anthony didn’t have a very good sense of humour and didn’t seem to realize how incredibly funny he could be. Occasionally I teased Anthony that the midwife dropped him on his head when he was born and knocked his sense of humour out of him which he did see the funny side of.
Anthony wanted me to have another child as he wanted a sibling as his father rejected him so he couldn’t have a relationship with his half-brother. There was a slim chance that Rick and I could have a child together but it didn’t happen which Anthony had to learn to live with.
Around this time a lady who emailed me who sounded desperate about wanting to find her son who was adopted – he was 22 years old – and asked me for advice. I didn’t have a clue where she got my email address so assumed it was from one of the groups/forums I belonged to and was certain she was British as well. Had to be honest that I found Anthony by accident and through which website. Gave her some constructive advice about how to go about searching and who to approach for help on the matter. I hoped to get some feedback though.
Our eldest dog, Bouncer, wasn’t to goo and he collapsed once then his back legs went on him again while we were out. It was probably to do with his heart murmur but it was still upsetting to see it happen as he seemed so happy. We were thankful he had gone on this long really as we knew he had a heart murmur for the past 6 years.
Queen Elizabeth II dies at 96 after historic 70-year reign, plunging Britain and a world that loved her into mourning for an unparalleled lifetime of ‘service, duty and devotion’ and making Charles the new King
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4071298/Qeen-elizabeth-II-dead-aged-96-prince-charles.html
Queen Elizabeth II dies at 96 after historic 70-year reign, plunging Britain and a world that loved her into mourning for an unparalleled lifetime of ‘service, duty and devotion’ and making Charles the new King
* The death of Queen Elizabeth II is announced at the age of 96, ending the longest reign of any British monarch
* Doctors became concerned about her health today with her children and grandchildren racing to Balmoral
* World joins Britain in mourning, and celebrating, devoted sovereign who ruled the country for 70 years
* Queen’s son Charles, the former Prince of Wales, becomes King and is expected to address the nation shortly
Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary became Queen on Feb 6 1952 aged just 25, when her father George VI died
* Her reign spanned 15 British Prime Ministers from Sir Winston Churchill to Liz Truss and 14 US Presidents
* And on September 9, 2015, she became longest-reigning British monarch, surpassing Queen Victoria’s record
* Queen dies aged 96: Follow for the latest updates from Balmoral as Britain’s Elizabeth II passes
By Martin Robinson, Chief Reporter and Mark Duell and Nick Enoch and Harry Howard, History Correspondent For Mailonline
Published: 18:30, 8 September 2022 | Updated: 18:37, 8 September 2022
Queen Elizabeth II has died today aged 96. Her son Charles, the former Prince of Wales, is now King. He will address the shocked nation imminently, as the world grieves Britain’s longest-reigning monarch. All her children had rushed to Balmoral after doctors became ‘concerned’ for her health. Hours later she died, surrounded by her family. At 6.30pm her death was confirmed. A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: ‘The Queen died peacefully at Balmoral this afternoon. The King and The Queen Consort will remain at Balmoral this evening and will return to London tomorrow’.
The Queen’s death will see Britain and her Commonwealth realms enter into a ten-day period of mourning as millions of her subjects in the UK and abroad come to terms with her passing. And as her son accedes to the throne, there will also be a celebration of her historic 70-year reign that saw her reach her Platinum Jubilee this year – a landmark unlikely to be reached again by a British monarch. Tributes are already pouring in for Her Majesty, to many the greatest Briton in history and undoubtedly the most famous woman on earth. To billions around the world she was the very face of Britishness. To her subjects at home, Her Majesty was the nation’s anchor, holding firm no matter what storm she or her country was facing from the uncertain aftermath of the Second World War to, more recently, the pandemic. She was also steadfast as she dealt with tragedies and scandals in her own family, most recently the fallout from Megxit and the death of her beloved husband Prince Philip. Charles will embark on a tour of the UK before his mother’s funeral with his wife Camilla, who the Queen announced would be crowned her eldest son’s Queen Consort in an historic statement to mark Her Majesty’s Platinum Jubilee and 70 years on the throne on February 6. The Queen’s passing came more than a year after that of her beloved husband Philip, her ‘strength and guide’, who died aged 99 in April 2021. Since his funeral, where she poignantly sat alone because of lockdown restrictions, her own health faltered, and she was forced to miss an increasing number of events mainly due to ‘mobility problems’ and tiredness. In July she travelled to Scotland for her annual summer break, but cancelled her traditional welcome to Balmoral Castle in favour of a small more private event because of her health, believed to be linked to her ability to stand. And at the end of July, Prince Charles represented his mother and opened the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham with the Duchess of Cornwall. In late August Queen missed the Braemar Gathering the first time she was not at the Highland Games in her 70-year reign. But she was well enough to meet with Boris Johnson at Balmoral to accept his resignation, before asking the 15th Prime Minister of her reign, Liz Truss, to form a Government. Her Majesty, who stood with the support of a stick and smiled as she greeted Ms Truss in front of a roaring fire, had not been seen in public for two months. It would be her final picture. In June Her Majesty missed every day of Royal Ascot for the first time since her coronation in 1953. A month earlier she was forced to miss the State Opening of Parliament for the first time in 59 years, due to what her spokesman described as ‘episodic mobility problems’ which they said she was continuing to experience. But despite her frailty, she continued to receive her daily Red Box from Downing Street containing Government paperwork to read and sign and continued engagements to the end most significantly with the memorial service for her late husband at Westminster Abbey at the end of March and her appearances over the course of her Platinum Jubilee weekend in early June. Before Her Majesty’s death, the past two years had been hugely challenging and upsetting for the ageing monarch. She was forced to cut adrift Prince Andrew, reputedly her favourite son, after he initially fought then settled a civil case with Virginia Roberts Giuffre for up to £12million. Ms Giuffre, a sex slave of Jeffrey Epstein, accused the Duke of York of sexually abusing her. His mother stripped him of his titles but there was a show of support weeks later when he was with her from start to finish at Philip’s Westminster Abbey memorial service. And there was continuing grief for the Queen because of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s decision to quit as frontline royals and the soap opera this brought with it including the public rift with Charles and Prince William. She was however able to meet their daughter Lilibet who was named after her with the nickname used by George VI and her husband the Duke of Edinburgh when the family came to the UK for the Platinum Jubilee in June but barely took part. However, as the Jubilee celebrations kicked off with Trooping the Colour, the Queen delighted tens of thousands of Britons who had packed The Mall by appearing twice on the Buckingham Palace balcony with senior members of her family, including Prince Charles, Prince William and Kate Middleton. She then headed to Windsor to symbolically light the first in a chain of beacons stretching around the UK and across the world, brushing off previously announced ‘discomfort’ that forced her to miss the next day’s Service of Thanksgiving at St Paul’s Cathedral. And Her Majesty shocked even members of her own family by appearing alongside Paddington Bear in a sketch to kick off the Platinum Party at the Palace gig on June 3. On the last day of the Jubilee celebrations, after a majestic pageant depicting every decade of Her Majesty’s reign had processed a long a two-mile route, the Queen appeared for a final time on the Buckingham Palace balcony, delighting the millions watching on in person and on TV. As Charles put it on her 80th birthday, his beloved ‘mama’ had been ‘a figure of reassuring calm and dependability an example to so many of service, duty and devotion, in a world of sometimes bewildering change and disorientation’. As king his reign begins at a time where the monarchy will be destablised by his mother’s death after her seven decades on the throne. He plans to slim down the number of taxpayer-funded royals because he realises that the public don’t want to pay for a huge Monarchy, insiders have said. The Queen acceded to the throne on February 6, 1952, thrust on the rather shy and tentative 25-year-old while on a royal tour of Kenya with her beloved husband and soul mate Prince Philip following the death of her father George VI, who was her idol. Later in life, Elizabeth looked back to her young adulthood, when she faced the daunting prospect of, in the near future, leading a Britain still reeling after the Second World War. ‘When I was 21, I pledged my life to the service of our people, and asked for God’s help to make that vow,’ she recalled. ‘Although that vow was made in my salad days, when I was green in judgement, I do not regret nor retract one word of it.’
Nobody could have predicted that she would have reigned for 70 years, helping steer the country through crisis after crisis as well leading the Windsors through choppy waters that at times threatened the future and integrity of the Royal Family right up until her death. Charles will now face the difficult task of following his mother. Those who knew the Queen as a child described a serious and loyal daddy’s girl who idolised her father, who at the time of her birth had no desire to be King George VI or make his beloved eldest daughter his heir to the throne. Baby Elizabeth, with her blonde hair and piercing blue eyes, entered the world at 2.40am on April 26 1926 in a Mayfair townhouse to her proud parents Prince Albert, Duke of York, and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. Within a decade the Yorks would be Britain’s most reluctant king and queen after the abdication of Edward VIII. Her Majesty was a curious and bright girl, described by Winston Churchill as a ‘character’ at the age of two, while her governess later wrote of a love of animals and dedication to responsibility that would see her reign for seven decades. In fact, when she went on her first overseas tour, accompanying her parents to Africa in 1947, she famously said: ‘I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.’
Nobody could have predicted that she would have reigned for 70 years, helping steer the country through crisis after crisis as well leading the Windsors through choppy waters that at times threatened the future and integrity of the Royal Family right up until her death. And after Prince Philip’s passing, Her Majesty’s health quickly began to suffer. In October 2021 the Queen spent a rare night in hospital after doctors sent her for tests, forcing her to apologetically miss a visit to Northern Ireland. She had worked ten of the previous 20 days, and was back at her desk within hours of being discharged, despite having to cancel an appearance at the Cop26 summit in Glasgow. Concerns for the nation’s longest reigning sovereign had been heightened in recent months given her age, frailer appearance of late and positive Covid-19 test on February 20, 2022. She had to cancel a series of engagements including virtual audiences after suffering from ‘mild, cold-like symptoms’. The Queen had to rest for three months on doctors’ orders and had also been regularly seen using a walking stick. She remarked during a Windsor Castle audience in February 2022: ‘Well, as you can see, I can’t move.’
She would later admit that Covid had left her exhausted. But even while suffering from poor health, she continued with ‘light duties’ as head of state – including working from her red boxes, sent to her every day and containing policy papers, Foreign Office telegrams, letters and other State papers which had to be read and, where necessary, approved and signed. There were also countless virtual engagements. When she missed the State Opening of Parliament, it was the first time she had done so since 1963, when she was pregnant with Prince Edward. The only previous occasion was when she was pregnant with Prince Andrew in 1959. In her place, Prince Charles, who was accompanied by Prince William, read her speech for the first time as the Queen watched on TV from Windsor Castle, but the Sovereign’s Throne in the House of Lords remained symbolically empty. Days after missing the State Opening of Parliament, the Queen was clapped and cheered as she attended the Royal Windsor Horse Show over successive days, watching an all-star line-up that included Dame Helen Mirren, Tom Cruise and Katherine Jenkins perform. Her Majesty, who looked cheerful and well, was given a standing ovation as she walked to her seat despite her recent frailty, surprising those who believed she may miss the event altogether. The monarch then caused further surprise just a couple of days later when she unexpectedly visited Paddington Station in London to officially open the Elizabeth line with her youngest son Prince Edward, who had been scheduled to attend on his own. Her Majesty used a walking stick but was steady on her feet as she was shown how to top up an Oyster card. At the Chelsea Flower Show, the Queen refused to let her mobility problems stop her from attending as she toured the event in a chauffeur-driven golf buggy. But it was over the Platinum Jubilee weekend in early June that the Queen really displayed her commitment to duty. On the day of Trooping the Colour on June 2, 2022, she appeared on the Buckingham Palace balcony with senior royals including Prince Charles and Prince William. Also present was the Duchess of Cambridge and her and William’s children Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis. Her Majesty beamed as 71 aircraft took part in a flypast above Buckingham Palace as part of the tributes to her. In a sign of the toll that the appearances had had on her, a spokesman said later that day that due to ‘discomfort’ she had suffered, she would miss the next day’s Service of Thanksgiving. But she was still able to head to Windsor Castle that evening to symbolically launch more than 3,500 flaming tributes to her 70-year reign. The event formed part of a dual ceremony with her grandson the Duke of Cambridge, who was waiting 22 miles away at Buckingham Palace where the centrepiece of the beacon chain a 68-foot ‘Tree of Trees’ sculpture was illuminated. The next day, The Queen watched on television as her family and hundreds of other guests packed into St Paul’s to pay tribute to her. It was Harry and Meghan’s first joint engagement in two years, but the couple were kept apart from Prince William, Kate, Prince Charles and Camilla and left separately. It was announced that day that Her Majesty, a keen horse racing fan, would also miss the Epsom Derby, an event she has attended on dozens of occasions throughout her reign. On the final day of the celebrations, a two-mile pageant told the story of her life, and the nation, with an eccentric and imaginative carnival-like display. The Queen appeared on the Buckingham Palace balcony at the end of the day, where she watched a stirring rendition of the National Anthem. Her Majesty was seen turning to Prince George and asking: ‘Wow! Did you expect that?’ after the anthem rendition.
In a message of thanks after her appearance, she acknowledged her absences in previous days but said her ‘heart’ had been with well-wishers. In a further sign of her devotement to duty, she also said she remained ‘committed to serving’ the nation to ‘the best of my ability’ a promise she kept. Her reign will define the British monarchy for centuries. In 2015 she passed Victoria to be Britain’s longest-reigning monarch and at her death was both the longest-reigning and the oldest-ever ruler in the 1,100-year history of the English crown. Her 73-year marriage to Philip was the longest for a sovereign. The Queen took such records in her stride. On turning 80, she quoted Groucho Marx: ‘Anyone can get old,’ she said. ‘All you have to do is live long enough.’
Through such longevity Elizabeth inevitably experienced personal lows as well as great national highs but won deeper admiration for the stoicism she showed in the face of adversity and her ability to remain untainted by scandals that occasionally engulfed her family. She famously declared 1992 her ‘annus horribilis’, after it saw a devastating fire gut Windsor Castle and the marriages of her children Anne, Charles and Andrew all falter. Five years later she steered the Crown through its gravest crisis since the abdication of her uncle, Edward VIII, when Princess Diana was killed in a Paris car crash. And in the last years of her life she faced her grandson Harry exiting royal life and entering into a war of words with ‘The Firm’ after moving to California with wife Meghan rather than continue living in Frogmore Cottage in Windsor. The Sussexes also carried out a bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey in March 2021, and Harry is planning to release a tell-all book. In January 2020 the Duke and Duchess of Sussex shocked the world by announcing their intention to step down as senior royals. Buckingham Palace said all were ‘saddened’ by their decision to permanently step down as working royals, but they remained ‘much loved members of the family’.
A statement added that the Queen had ‘written confirming that in stepping away from the work of the Royal Family it is not possible to continue with the responsibilities and duties that come with a life of public service’.
But the Sussexes hit back with a statement of their own, saying: ‘We can all live a life of service. Service is universal.’
Sex allegations dogged her second son Andrew, the Duke of York, who settled his legal battle in New York with accuser Virginia Giuffre in February 2022 without the civil case having to go to trial. But the Queen also had to ensure he was removed from royal life and stripped him of his honorary military titles. Besides his appearance at the memorial service for Prince Philip, Andrew was not seen in public at the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations. He had been set to attend the Service of Thanksgiving at St Paul’s but then pulled out after testing positive for coronavirus. The disgraced Duke of York was also listed on the order of service during Garter Day but did not appear at the actual event. It was later reported that Prince William and Prince Charles had lobbied the Queen to ensure he did not feature in public. Despite the turbulence with members of her family family, the Queen remained a steadfast figure throughout. She was composed, pragmatic and private, relying on her unshakable Christian faith to support her through the darkest moments. And she also calmed the nation when faced with the global coronavirus pandemic, assuring Britons in March 2020 that the nation’s history ‘has been forged by people and communities coming together to work as one’. Born in Mayfair on April 21, 1926, Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary of York was niece of the King, third in line to the throne and unlikely ever to ever be crowned. That afforded ‘Lilibet’ and her sister Margaret a sheltered if privileged upbringing. But in 1936, when she was just 10, her uncle abdicated, making her father King and changing her destiny forever. Just 16 years later, Elizabeth came to the throne as a rather shy 25-year-old, ruling over a nation that had lost much of its power in the world and an empire that was crumbling fast. Yet, she surprised many by emerging stronger than ever from the winds of change, steering the monarchy safely through an era of storm as well as calm. She refused to be panicked as public weariness at the antics of some younger members of her family led to a deeply damaging collapse in popularity and threatened to undermine the old-fashioned values of stability, honesty and hard work embodied by the Queen. Through trials and tribulations, the Queen never lost her overwhelming sense of duty to the nation and it repaid her with an appreciation that often stood in marked contrast to its view of other royals. The Queen recognised the worth of traditional values in a changing world but refused to be bound by them. As a long reigning constitutional monarch, her knowledge and professionalism were unparalleled. Fourteen prime ministers came and went during her reign, from Sir Winston Churchill to Boris Johnson. Liz Truss was her 15th. She was Head of State, the Armed Forces, the Commonwealth and the Church of England, but also a wife, a mother of four and Granny to eight grandchildren and Great-Granny to 11 great-grandchildren. Her whole world, family and daily surroundings were steeped in British history. The Queen spent more than two-thirds of her life on the throne and in September 2015 at the age of 89, she became Britain’s longest ever reigning monarch, overtaking her royal ancestor Queen Victoria. Like Victoria, the Queen celebrated a Diamond Jubilee, becoming only the second British monarch to complete 60 years on the throne. She was the longest reigning still serving monarch in world taking the title after the death of the revered Thai king Bhumibol Adulyadej in October 2016. Critics saw the Queen as remote, out of touch, less modern and less approachable than other European royals. But supporters heralded her as a great British institution and deserving of respect. Public adoration peaked during the Silver Jubilee of 1977, the Golden Jubilee of 2002 and Diamond Jubilee of 2012. However, the Queen’s 50th year on the throne in 2002 saw her suffer the devastating double blow of losing both the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret within weeks of one another. With the death of her beloved mother, it was left to the Queen to take on the role as the Royal Family’s matriarch. As monarch, she served as a focus of national pride through conflicts in which British servicemen paid the ultimate price in her name. She was a figure of continuity as her country changed in the 20th century, through the Millennium and in the 21st century, from new technological advances to a succession of British governments of different political persuasions. Lately, the Queen had begun to make a number of concessions to her advancing years including cutting down completely on long-haul travel and getting other members of the family to undertake investitures on her behalf which involved her standing on her feet for more than an hour at a time. A temporary handrail was installed in the steep steps outside St Paul’s Cathedral for the Queen and Prince Philip, then 95, to use at a service to celebrate the monarch’s 90th birthday in 2016. She was also seen using a walking stick at some of the last engagements but has reportedly dismissed any talk of her using a wheelchair. The Queen also relinquished more than two dozen of her most high-profile patronages as she took another step back from royal duties, with Charles, Prince William, Prince Edward, Princess Anne and their partners taking up the slack. During her lifetime there was unprecedented change. Penicillin was discovered, man landed on the Moon, Britain got its first woman prime minister and the internet was invented. She was a constant for the UK and the Commonwealth in those times. The public looked to the Queen in times of crisis or tragedy September 11, the London bombings, the death of Diana and, more recently, the coronavirus pandemic. After the Princess of Wales was killed in a Paris car crash in 1997, millions of mourners were left wondering why the Queen took so long to speak publicly about the tragedy. The royals were perceived as being unemotional and criticised for their reserve. At the time, the Queen was doing her duty as a grandmother, consoling the heartbroken Princes William and Harry at Balmoral. Aides acknowledged important lessons were learned in terms of what the public expected from the royals in times of grief. Ironically, it was probably the Queen’s early recognition that the monarchy needed to be modernised as the traditional class barriers of British society were eroded that led to its later difficulties. Soon after acceding the throne on the premature death of her beloved father, George VI, in 1952, she began to sweep aside some of the more open signs of class distinction and royal mystery. The Queen introduced the idea of ‘walkabouts’ haphazard but happy meetings with people in the crowds thronging the streets around official visits and refused to drop them despite security worries. The annual ‘coming out’ presentation of debutantes at Buckingham Palace was ended in 1958 and garden parties, receptions and lunches were extended to an ever wider cross-section of society. Gone for ever was the long accepted idea that ‘society’ was confined to the few people suitable for presentation at Court. A significant watershed and probable beginning of the idea of the royals as soap opera came in the late 1960s with the filming of the TV documentary Royal Family. Smashing viewing records around the world, it gave the first intimate glimpse of the Queen and her relatives at play as well as at work. But it also whetted the appetite of a royal-crazy world for public revelations about long-protected private lives. The prolonged silence observed by the press barons of the 1930s over the affair of Edward VIII, then Prince of Wales, and American divorcee Wallis Simpson became inconceivable in the modern day. If the Queen presided over a sea-change in the way the Royal Family was perceived, she also handled with great skill and statesmanship the massive social and political upheavals of the post-war world. She helped steer the transition of the British Empire into a looser grouping of Commonwealth nations bound together by ties of friendship as well as tradition. Many newly independent states chose to drop her as Queen, but she undertook the titular role of Head of the Commonwealth and attached great importance to its work. Like the 14 prime ministers who served her at home, dozens of Commonwealth heads of state drew on her great experience for help and advice, gathered over several decades of extensive overseas trips. Prince Philip stepped down from doing public engagements in 2017 but was still by the Queen’s side throughout his final years before his death in April 2021. Now the huge job of leading the country has been left to her son Prince Charles, who has an enormous challenge on his hands and will certainly not be monarch for anywhere near the length of time as his devoted mother.