[Jr Modding] Okay, you two, if you can’t keep it clean, maybe you should take your filthy talk elsewhere. [/Jr Modding] 
ETA: And Leo, I think you meant “who,” not “what.”
Yes, yes, meanwhile on Planet Earth, the one populated with Humans…
It was a difficult pregnancy.
Oh, there are documents. There are letters and journals. Go back and read my post about the royal archives and he Argyll ducal records.
The Lococks don’t want the throne. They just want to know the truth about their ancestry. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that points towards the story being true.
As for disturbing the dead, the same cemetery that is thwarting the Lococks moved hundred of bodies so they could build a coffee shop. And they gave those bodies to an osteological research lab instead of reburying them.
Yes, there’s a coverup and it includes suppressed documents.
I’d say that the two are about equal.
Knowledge of history only means that history books, great and not-so-great will be written. Nobody will heed it, except for those who buy history books.
Ouch! Ninja’d.
Usually secret archives are not really secret per say, rather they are so irreplaceable and frail that only the most trusted of researchers could ever be permitted to look at them. There are also “secret” historical artifacts but again they are not really hidden or a secret just that they are one of a kind and perhaps no one has any way right now to find out more information until the technology arises.
Leopold’s personal assistant/nurse was sacked about the same time.
Leopold’s teacher, a bishop, was also sacked because Louise was in love with him !.. That same bishop was rowing for Lewis Carol when Alice in Wonderland was first authored… And may have given Louise council on sexual matters…
It seems odd the doctor then marries some lower class person who already has two children , AND adopts a third. However he may have been sexually dysfunctional since he never had children of his own, and she may have been injured, sexually useless, by childbirth. He would have had been involved in many births to unwed mothers, and mothers who died during childbirth, the adoption could be from anywhere… the money may have been purely goodwill for being good in terms of service to the poor, and teaching of other doctors.
I have to say that Hawksley’s claims struck me from the start as being overhyped nonsense. Indeed, I have a strong suspicion that she’s an object lesson in how a clueless amateur can be their own worst enemy when attempting even the simplest types of historical research.
That the Royal Archives contain some documents relating to Princess Louise is not a secret and some historians have been given access to them. But sensible, experienced historians know that when dealing with the Royal Archives, you first need to convince its staff that you are indeed sensible and experienced. Before accepting Hawksley’s claims about why she was denied access, I would want to get a sense that she isn’t a nutter with an agenda. Which, as it happens, is probably exactly the same test that the staff of the Royal Archives applied when considering her application. And it’s not as if they would have told her that if that was the real reason.
In any case, the chances of anything incriminating surviving in the Royal Archives can confidently be said to be zero. It is now well-known that the royal papers for that period were systematically weeded, first by Princess Beatrice and then, on an even more extensive scale, by Lord Esher. See Jane Ridley’s Bertie and Yvonne Ward’s Censoring Queen Victoria for the full hair-raising details.
As for the Argyll archives at Inveraray, successive dukes have long been notorious for allowing no access at all to any of their papers for any period and on any subject. So there is no reason to suppose that they consider Princess Louise’s papers to be more sensitive than anything else they have.