WI: Prince William is born with Asperger's syndrome

Kokoda

Kokoda

Banned
A friend of mine, who belongs to this milieu, told me how incredibly cruel the world of the bourgeoisie and nobility is, and that how a simple physical defect or mental problem - that prevents you from fitting into the "mold" - can lead to you being completely ostracized and disinherited by your own family...

What if Prince Andrew was born with, let's say, a high-functioning autism that he can't hide even with a lot of masking : would he be gradually pushed aside and forced to leave his place to his younger brother the Prince Harry, or could the English monarchy accept a very socially awkward future king - bringing the world to an early awareness on the subject of autism?
 
Last edited:

Nazi Space Spy

Banned
I've thought of this before, because my own brother is severely autistic (non-verbal, behavior problems, lives in a group home). While I'm enormously proud of my brother for the overcoming of many, many obstacles (he can swim and speak, for example, though not necessarily in a conversive way), he's just not mentally competent for the realities of day to day life. If a child with this level of disability is born into the royal family, I'd imagine they'd treat him in a modern fashion professionally while hiding him away from the prying eyes of the public, much like they did with Prince John, who IIRC was also severely autistic.

A regency would be enacted if he were the direct heir, and the royal line would continue without him or her having an heir.
 
Kokoda

Kokoda

Banned
Nazi Space Spy said:
I've thought of this before, because my own brother is severely autistic (non-verbal, behavior problems, lives in a group home). While I'm enormously proud of my brother for the overcoming of many, many obstacles (he can swim and speak, for example, though not necessarily in a conversive way), he's just not mentally competent for the realities of day to day life. If a child with this level of disability is born into the royal family, I'd imagine they'd treat him in a modern fashion professionally while hiding him away from the prying eyes of the public, much like they did with Prince John, who IIRC was also severely autistic.

A regency would be enacted if he were the direct heir, and the royal line would continue without him or her having an heir.
Click to expand...
I feel for your autistic brother and hope he continues to get the proper care so he can live his best life.

Let's say Prince Andrew is not "disabled" in the literal sense but just Asperger's, which is to say just a big nerd who makes thousands of goofs with the protocol and prefers to collect insects in the gardens of Buckingham rather than attend banquets. Could the English monarchy accept this or would Asperger's syndrome be incompatible with the royal function? :openedeyewink:
 
Last edited:

Nivek

Kokoda said:
A friend of mine, who belongs to this milieu, told me how incredibly cruel the world of the bourgeoisie and nobility is, and that how a simple physical defect or mental problem - that prevents you from fitting into the "mold" - can lead to you being completely ostracized and disinherited by your own family...

What if Prince Andrew was born with, let's say, a high-functioning autism that he can't hide even with a lot of masking : would he be gradually pushed aside and forced to leave his place to his younger brother the Prince Harry, or could the English monarchy accept a very socially awkward future king - bringing the world to an early awareness on the subject of autism?
Click to expand...
how we know he isn't?
 

Declan

Well, as far as I'm aware, Aspergers is something that can be mitigated.

Insofar as William has it, Charles and Diana would be very careful at limiting his public exposure until he can manage it. By extension, this would include limting Harry as well since they do not want it to seem there's anything wrong with William. This does put a kink in Diana's plans of trying to raise the two boys as far away from "royal" precedent as possible. She'll try her best to bring the boys out in non-public settings where William's tendencies won't be noticed. She'll definitely be much more vitriolic to the press and a lot earlier on over any perceived intrusion on her personal life, lest William's condition leaks to the press.
Maybe her image as the perfect princess never really takes hold(since the press was a large reason why it did), and she's seen as just in the same way as the rest of them. A Diana without her public image actually is another rabbit hole of a timeline which I will not go down.

With regards to education, the Charles and Diana would arrange for the two to be homeschooled at the elementary level. For the secondary level, Eton and boarding school in general is pretty much out the window. They might just go with homeschooling again, but I doubt that Diana would want that. Likely outcome is that the family moves to the vicinity of the most prestigious non-boarding school in the country to send William and Harry to. That way, they get a quality, recognized education while having the comfort of home closeby which they did not have at Eton and something William would need in this ATL.

Skipping forward a bit, William won't be pushed aside. He would have the intellectual awarness to resist it. As for eventual public appearances, as an adult, William's awkwardness for the most part might be reduced to royal stuffiness that most British people think the royals possess anyway.
 
Last edited:

Crazyduck156

Kokoda said:
A friend of mine, who belongs to this milieu, told me how incredibly cruel the world of the bourgeoisie and nobility is, and that how a simple physical defect or mental problem - that prevents you from fitting into the "mold" - can lead to you being completely ostracized and disinherited by your own family...

What if Prince Andrew was born with, let's say, a high-functioning autism that he can't hide even with a lot of masking : would he be gradually pushed aside and forced to leave his place to his younger brother the Prince Harry, or could the English monarchy accept a very socially awkward future king - bringing the world to an early awareness on the subject of autism?
Click to expand...
There hasn't been an 'English Monarchy' since the act of Union.

Its like saying will the New England Presidency ever accept a woman?
 

alspug

Considering when Prince William was born and his parents I would say that he would be treated as well as can be. He would likely be removed from succession by Queen Elizabeth depending upon the severity of the Aspergus. If it is closer to high functioning Autism then much of his life and education would be different. Prince Harry would however be way less likely to be allowed to see combat in Afghanistan.

I can not see the causes of aspergus and autism being looked at more closely and also the attention of Dianne and Charles would be more focused. I could also see an extra child being brought along(another sibling) so that they have the Heir and a spare as is desired.

On another note the arrival of a child with special needs may well see Prince Charles either divorce to worldwide condemnation or stop his wayward eye's and get closer to his young bride. So it is a make or break for the couple. My money would be on it making a long term relationship more likely out of the pressures and joint love/defence of William.

I am no fan of Prince Charles but he truly does love his children and I am sure he loved Dianne but fell out of love for some reason, possibly the bulimea etc.
 
David Flin

David Flin

Gone Fishin'
alspug said:
On another note the arrival of a child with special needs may well see Prince Charles either divorce to worldwide condemnation or stop his wayward eye's and get closer to his young bride. So it is a make or break for the couple. My money would be on it making a long term relationship more likely out of the pressures and joint love/defence of William.

I am no fan of Prince Charles but he truly does love his children and I am sure he loved Dianne but fell out of love for some reason, possibly the bulimea etc.
Click to expand...

OK. This is an area where I do have some knowledge. While I am not in a position to give examples or details, I am in a position to give my overall impressions, based on working as CPE for Charles for a time during the period (mid 1980s, and I'd rather not be more specific than that).

Charles' wayward eye? That had me spluttering into my cornflakes.

Charles has had precisely one love of his life. Camilla. Before marriage to Diana, he had a few dalliances, but from the moment he married Diana he was technically faithful to her until the divorce. One can argue - quite convincingly - that being self-evidently in love with another woman and only marrying Diana because of the pressure of the Firm and being convinced it was his "Duty" to do so counts as infidelity in all but name, but that's a separate discussion. He was technically and physically faithful while the marriage was in place.

Diana, by contrast, and to put it mildly, wasn't. By the mid-1980s, she'd had affairs with literally dozens of other men. Amongst the CPE, her codename was "Fireplace", and those responsible for her protection were given strict briefing instructions: "Don't." Whether her seeking such affairs was a good thing, a bad thing, or just a thing is beyond the scope of this discussion. However, the term "wayward eye" most definitely belongs to Diana and not to Charles.

As for the concept that Diana would be brought closer to the family through William having special needs - it is to laugh. Diana was interested in precisely one person in this world, and that was herself. The idea of her doing the hard graft involved with a child with special needs is - quite simply, mind-boggling. She barely bothered with the children as it was, preferring to leave the details to the staff. To Diana, William and Harry were no more and no less than photo opportunities. Put a camera within eyeshot, and she gave the relevant photogenic pictures. And, as soon as the pictures were taken, passed the child to the nearest staff and complained. God, that woman complained.

The whole marriage was doomed from the moment it started; Charles never loved Diana, but had been bullied into doing his duty (Camilla was unacceptable at the time. The Queen Mother hated Camilla, and practically forced the Diana fiasco. Likewise, Diana never loved Charles. She loved the concept of being the fairy tale princess, and expected that - as she was Princess of Wales - the world should worship the ground she walked upon.

Charles never fell out of love with Diana. He was never in love with her in the first place, and the bulimia and Diana's multiple infidelities and her brutal treatment of staff that annoyed her and her brainlessness and her... Sorry. I get carried away by thoughts of that woman. Suffice it to say that, to adapt a quote said about Henry VIII: "If all the pictures of narcissism were lost to the world, they could be recreated from Diana."
 

alspug

I think I have said it before but King Charles gained my admiration due to a near assasination in Australia where a man jumped onto the stage with a starters pistol. He simply watched the man without flinching despite knowing he was milliseconds from death. The starters pistol may be distinctive but if it was pointed at someone I can assure you that person expects to be shot. He has incredible backbone and guts. William and Harry have both inherited the raw courage as seen by their non royal activities. Prince Harry has made a huge mistake in his marraige in my opinion but thats his relationship to endure. Kate on the other hand seems like an excellent Match to William.

Again I have limited information and draw my knowledge from what sources I can. Dianne was known for her daliances and may well have cuckolded the King several times. The divorce and subsequent Marraige to Camilla was not recieved well due to a we love Dianne press. It's a pity King Charles was not allowed to marry Camilla, I think she had had a few boyfriends and was unsuitable due to that. Again not sure on much but that King Charles has a rocky path ahead of him and so far is making it look easy.
 

usernamebutepic

Just look to King Charlie. Guy talks to plants! is/was obsessed with conservation/botany/architecture (an expert on the field to some, look at poundbury) shouldn’t change the dynamics all the way. Might not be with Kate tho but he’d be an “eligible bachelor” i.e Charles in the 1970s due to his status…
 

HugoHistory1991

alspug said:
I think I have said it before but King Charles gained my admiration due to a near assasination in Australia where a man jumped onto the stage with a starters pistol. He simply watched the man without flinching despite knowing he was milliseconds from death. The starters pistol may be distinctive but if it was pointed at someone I can assure you that person expects to be shot. He has incredible backbone and guts. William and Harry have both inherited the raw courage as seen by their non royal activities. Prince Harry has made a huge mistake in his marraige in my opinion but thats his relationship to endure. Kate on the other hand seems like an excellent Match to William.

Again I have limited information and draw my knowledge from what sources I can. Dianne was known for her daliances and may well have cuckolded the King several times. The divorce and subsequent Marraige to Camilla was not recieved well due to a we love Dianne press. It's a pity King Charles was not allowed to marry Camilla, I think she had had a few boyfriends and was unsuitable due to that. Again not sure on much but that King Charles has a rocky path ahead of him and so far is making it look easy.
Click to expand...
so Camilla was the reason why Diane divorced King Charles and left the royal palace
 
David Flin

David Flin

Gone Fishin'
alspug said:
may well have cuckolded the King several times.
Click to expand...

Stone cold absolutely certain.

Off the top of my head, and for certain:

Barry Mannakee (an early CPE, before my time, who lost his career as a result. Screwing your charge is a big no-no as a bodyguard, Hollywood notwithstanding).
James Hewitt.
James Gilbey
Will Carling (rugby player).
Oliver Hoare (old Etonian).
Hasnat Khan
Bryan Adams (a singer, of sorts, I'm reliably informed).
Mark Nicholas (a cricketer, of sorts. Kind of.)

Those are just the stone-cold certainties that I can recall, and in a two-year period in the mid 1980s.

HugoHistory1991 said:
so Camilla was the reason why Diane divorced King Charles and left the royal palace
Click to expand...

No. The reason for the divorce was that it was reckoned that the scandal of a divorce was regarded as the lesser problem compared to Diana's behaviour. Diana was too fond of the title Princess of Wales to give it up willingly.
 

HugoHistory1991

David Flin said:
Stone cold absolutely certain.

Off the top of my head, and for certain:

Barry Mannakee (an early CPE, before my time, who lost his career as a result. Screwing your charge is a big no-no as a bodyguard, Hollywood notwithstanding).
James Hewitt.
James Gilbey
Will Carling (rugby player).
Oliver Hoare (old Etonian).
Hasnat Khan
Bryan Adams (a singer, of sorts, I'm reliably informed).
Mark Nicholas (a cricketer, of sorts. Kind of.)

Those are just the stone-cold certainties that I can recall, and in a two-year period in the mid 1980s.



No. The reason for the divorce was that it was reckoned that the scandal of a divorce was regarded as the lesser problem compared to Diana's behaviour. Diana was too fond of the title Princess of Wales to give it up willingly.
Click to expand...
Wait she was used to princess of wales right
 

Sekhmet_D

alspug said:
It's a pity King Charles was not allowed to marry Camilla, I think she had had a few boyfriends and was unsuitable due to that.
Click to expand...
Surely that can't have been the reason, because if anybody thinks Diana was a virgin at the altar, I have a bridge or several to sell you.
 
David Flin

David Flin

Gone Fishin'
HugoHistory1991 said:
so how the world would have look like if Diana was alive
Click to expand...

We'd have less of the fawning over her in the tabloids; she'd now be in her sixties, and less photogenic than the relatively new royal spouses (Kate and Meghan) who would now be more photogenic than her.
 

PrussianCaptain12345

David Flin said:
OK. This is an area where I do have some knowledge. While I am not in a position to give examples or details, I am in a position to give my overall impressions, based on working as CPE for Charles for a time during the period (mid 1980s, and I'd rather not be more specific than that).

Charles' wayward eye? That had me spluttering into my cornflakes.

Charles has had precisely one love of his life. Camilla. Before marriage to Diana, he had a few dalliances, but from the moment he married Diana he was technically faithful to her until the divorce. One can argue - quite convincingly - that being self-evidently in love with another woman and only marrying Diana because of the pressure of the Firm and being convinced it was his "Duty" to do so counts as infidelity in all but name, but that's a separate discussion. He was technically and physically faithful while the marriage was in place.

Diana, by contrast, and to put it mildly, wasn't. By the mid-1980s, she'd had affairs with literally dozens of other men. Amongst the CPE, her codename was "Fireplace", and those responsible for her protection were given strict briefing instructions: "Don't." Whether her seeking such affairs was a good thing, a bad thing, or just a thing is beyond the scope of this discussion. However, the term "wayward eye" most definitely belongs to Diana and not to Charles.

As for the concept that Diana would be brought closer to the family through William having special needs - it is to laugh. Diana was interested in precisely one person in this world, and that was herself. The idea of her doing the hard graft involved with a child with special needs is - quite simply, mind-boggling. She barely bothered with the children as it was, preferring to leave the details to the staff. To Diana, William and Harry were no more and no less than photo opportunities. Put a camera within eyeshot, and she gave the relevant photogenic pictures. And, as soon as the pictures were taken, passed the child to the nearest staff and complained. God, that woman complained.

The whole marriage was doomed from the moment it started; Charles never loved Diana, but had been bullied into doing his duty (Camilla was unacceptable at the time. The Queen Mother hated Camilla, and practically forced the Diana fiasco. Likewise, Diana never loved Charles. She loved the concept of being the fairy tale princess, and expected that - as she was Princess of Wales - the world should worship the ground she walked upon.

Charles never fell out of love with Diana. He was never in love with her in the first place, and the bulimia and Diana's multiple infidelities and her brutal treatment of staff that annoyed her and her brainlessness and her... Sorry. I get carried away by thoughts of that woman. Suffice it to say that, to adapt a quote said about Henry VIII: "If all the pictures of narcissism were lost to the world, they could be recreated from Diana."
Click to expand...
This so much this. Diana's propaganda machine lives on decades after her death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top