Where is Lady Louise?!

leogirl · April 20, 2008, 05:09:10 AM

Why are Prince Edward and Sophie hiding their daughter? :wait:

Why wasn't she at her brother's christening?
*William was at Harry's christening, at age 2 years, 6 months
*Beatrice was at Eugenie's christening, at age 2 years, 4 months

Louise is currently 4 years, 5 months old.

QuoteLouise was born with the eye disorder exotropia. In January 2006 it was unofficially revealed that Lady Louise had undergone a 30-minute operation under general anaesthetic to correct the problem.

QuoteIt was a very tough decision but they are delighted that the op was a success and Louise's eyesight will now have a chance of developing normally.

Is her eyesight/eye condition still a problem?

Inge Jones · April 20, 2008, 12:10:06 PM

Even if she does have an eyesight problem, they don't need to hide her away as if they are ashamed of it! What sort of message must that be giving her? As she gets older, she will be able to see that she was the only royal child kept out of family photos for so long and will wonder just what her parents do think of her.

Kate · April 20, 2008, 12:33:19 PM

The photo in today's Mail On Sunday, would have been much lovelier had Lady Louise been there!
I believe too, that any eye problem she may have had at her birth , should have been corrected by now. There is such advancement in this type of birth defect...She is such a lovely wee girl from the few photos we have been allowed to see.

heather · April 20, 2008, 03:36:27 PM

The child is hardly a monster, I have no clue why they hide her away.

angieuk · April 20, 2008, 05:10:26 PM

I agree, a very poor move on Edward and Sophie's part. How many years can they continue to hide her away like that and what a horrible way to treat the poor little girl who is nearly 5 now. I bet she would have loved to have been in the picture with her brother but they seemed too scared to show any pictures of her why??? I had an idea she would not be seen at the christening but I thought no they cannot be that unfeeling but yes they were just that.

I bet when William/Harry marries some day... you won't see Lady Louise as a bridesmaid if this is anything to go by!

Trudie · April 20, 2008, 06:05:41 PM

I think Edward and Sophie behave like King George V and Queen Mary hiding a not so perfect child away. This is the choice of ignorant parents who think they are protecting the child.

I have a niece who is now 25 she was born with hand deformities missing fingers and had surgery to make it less noticeable. Our family always downplayed it never drawing attention to it but not shying away from people asking questions. She was always front and center with the rest of her cousins and she is now a very self confident young woman. When she was three she started ballet lessons and some of the children were afraid to hold hands with her but she just smiled held up her hands and invited the class to see her beautiful hands. Because of that the children were never afraid to hold her hand again and she made many friends and all her boyfriends have always made her feel beautiful because she is.

My point here is there is no imperfect child just imperfect parents. :hmm:

Varya · April 20, 2008, 09:56:29 PM

I think it is sad that Sophie and Edward have hidden their daughter away. I hope they realize before it is too late that it will most likely do her more harm than good in the long run. But having said that, I do not know their reasoning and therefore cannot say for sure why they are doing this. :mellow:

Stix Chix · April 20, 2008, 10:03:06 PM

it is strange but it doesn't necessarily mean they are ashamed of her.....they might just be protecting her from the public glare for as long as they can. if that's the case then i'm sure we wont be seeing baby James very often either.

alsgal · April 20, 2008, 11:22:07 PM

maybe she's got the measles, or the flu????
and speaking of eyes, does James have a problem too??

Miss Scarlett · April 21, 2008, 12:03:19 AM

Quote from: Stix Chix on April 20, 2008, 10:03:06 PM
it is strange but it doesn't necessarily mean they are ashamed of her.....they might just be protecting her from the public glare for as long as they can. if that's the case then i'm sure we wont be seeing baby James very often either.

I am tending to go with this assessment... It seems that by declining the titled HRH and "prince
and "princess" for their children, Edward and Sophie simply want their children to lead as normal an existence as possible. I assume that would include not being paraded around for the media.

I think it is commendable that they have sheltered their children from so much of the spotlight that is likely very difficult on such a young child. It is easy to say they are "hiding Louise away" because there was something wrong with her eyes. I tend to think they are not hiding her away altogether --just from the public and media spotlight.

Windsor · April 21, 2008, 12:30:19 AM

At home playing! :thumbsup:

sandy · April 21, 2008, 12:43:03 AM

I think Louise should have been there. Why not? William wasn't kept home when his younger brother was Christened he was front and center.I hope in future the Wessexes don't keep Louise home and let them all four be a family unit not just baby James. She's just as entitled. The poor girl will have emotional scars if she thinks her parents kept her away because of her eye problem. And that's much worse for any child.

echo · April 21, 2008, 12:44:39 AM

is this the only time they kept Louise home or were there other times?

Jenee · April 21, 2008, 02:14:18 AM

Perhaps they are trying to keep her out of the 'fish bowl' and give her some semblance of a normal life?

sandy · April 21, 2008, 02:42:43 AM

Princess Anne's two children have no titles and Anne professed giving them a normal life, yet they were photographed since babyhood and appeared in family portraits. I hope that Louise isn't hidden away. A normal life shouldn't mean the child his hidden away. Let's see how this progresses if all we see are the family of Wessexes Sophie, Edward, and James and not Louise yes she is being hidden away. There is a precedence for this: Prince John the youngest of George V and Mary was kept away and hidden on a separate estate. He was born retarded or autistic

Varya · April 21, 2008, 03:23:12 AM

They may not be titled but they are apart of the royal family. I think that Louise should be included, maybe not very much, but at least at something such as her own brothers christening, especially because there was only one picture released. It's not as if there were tons of photographers there.

leogirl · April 21, 2008, 03:24:56 AM

She should go to family events and appear in family photos. If she doesn't, then how is she "normal"?

Pri · April 21, 2008, 03:26:21 AM

Does her condition show any physical difference?

leogirl · April 21, 2008, 03:27:43 AM

She looked fine in the last pic I saw. So I don't think so. I mean one of her eyes could be "lazy" but that's not really a reason to hide.

Pri · April 21, 2008, 03:32:08 AM

I wouldn't think so either. Even still, don't hide her away so that the little girl feels like she should be ashamed. Children can sense things like that.

Inge Jones · April 21, 2008, 08:46:47 AM

I am still thinking it's to do with them not wanting her eye photographed. Most of the royal christening photgraphs, including that of little James, show the baby fairly closely. The only one we had of Louise's christening she was at a great distance and you couldn't see her face detail at all.

The other two pictures I have seen was on her way to the yacht when they were going on holiday with the Queen - where she was wearing a hat that flopped down all over her face. She could only see where she was going by tilting her head right back. The other was where she was wearing a riding hat - again more or less hiding her eyes. I have seen not ONE SINGLE picture by which you could see what her face looks like.

Based on this, and by a marked contrast between her christening photo and that of her brother, I say that they're embarrassed by her eye.

princessoctavia · April 21, 2008, 02:49:44 PM

I dont think people should jump to conclusions we know absolutely nothing Im not saying their not hiding her away because of her eye condition but for all we know there might be an entirely innocent explanation

alsgal · April 21, 2008, 02:52:49 PM

she might be a spoiled brat, that likes to throw tantrums

sandy · April 21, 2008, 03:14:28 PM

It doesn't matter. I have a relative about Louise's age (born the same year and month) and he is going to nursery school, has an active life and is not hidden away. She should have been there. And she's a 4 year old, William went to Harry's when he was 2.

fawbert · April 21, 2008, 03:54:46 PM

The Wessexes are following the example set by the Queen, particularly with HM's younger children, in keeping Lady Louise under wraps. Prince Edward was seldom seen in public throughout his early childhood, and I believe that the photographs of the christenings of the Duke of York and Earl of Wessex were not released to the Press.