Princess Margaret Discovers Royal Family's Dark Secret | The Crown (Helena Bonham Carter)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 авг 2023
- 🍿Princess Margaret finds out about a secret from the royal family's past that isn't widely known. She also talks about how she feels she's been treated by her own family.
🔎"The Crown" Season 4, Episode 7
📩 / @movingpicsofficial
🎬The Crown (2016-2023): Follows the political rivalries and romance of Queen Elizabeth II's reign and the events that shaped the second half of the 20th century.
🎞️Don't forget to watch the full movie here:
www.netflix.com/ca/title/8002...
#theCrown #theQueen #HelenaBonhamCarter #PrincessMargaret #PrinceCharles #PrincessDiana #MovingPictures 
Кино
Princess Margaret:"It's wicked, and it's cold-hearted, and it's cruel, Shame on All of You"
IRL the Queen Mother didn't know.
Even if the Queen Mother knew, institutionalization of people like Nerissa and Katherine was not uncommon in those days. Even today, in modern mental health facilities, there are units for people with developmental challenges coupled with mental illness. Nowadays, mental health institutions provide temporary treatment of behaviours, and then discharge and monitor the person in the community. We do not know what everyday life was like for these women, or if they displayed challenging behaviours.
They were institutionalized after their Bowes-Lyon father died. They likely inherited the genetic disorder from their mother, not their Bowes Lyon father; the idea that they were removed from the public to protect the reputed Bowes Lyon bloodline is not proven and would make no sense given that it was likely the mother who passed on the developmental challenges, not the BowesLyon father. We now know that institutionalization can be harmful and cruel, but in those days that wasn’t well understood.
The Crown is not history. The Crown takes real life events and fictionalizes them, and the creator of the show is a known anti-monarchist; it’s not surprising that the story is spun to make the BRF look bad.
yet Margaret is portrayed treated otusiders in the same way - look at her comments regarding Diana
@@catherinethibeault6636 spot on in every aspect👏.
@@catherinethibeault6636Yes they like to dramatise and stigmatise. The problem I’m seeing is people are taking this drama as accurate and how things went down. Not really British people but foreigners because they don’t know any different historically speaking. Imagine putting an anti monarchist in charge of a drama based on our royal family. There is a huge conflict of interest there. I bet they were rubbing their hands together with glee.
Princess Margaret came to my small city in the 1960's.
My class went to see her. I was timid and these 3 older mean girls pushed me from my front row view. Well, she saw it happen. She walked away from greeting our Mayor and she came over and among all the hundreds of people, she asked those mean girls to step aside and she took my hand and said hello. This brought me back to the front row. Then she went back to the dignitaries.
It was the kindest sweetest thing. Those mean girls were humiliatedcby grace.
What a wonderful, kind thing for her to do. She certainly didn't have to do it. She empathized because she felt she had been treated the same way.
I love it! Princess Margaret was a class act.
This was a beautiful story. People don't forget acts of kindness like that one. It sounds like it was a powerful experience for you, and I hope it made a lasting impression on those girls as well. I'm very proud of her for doing that! Good leadership can be so powerful!
This was heartbreaking. The sad part is that the cousins , despite their disabilities knew they were related to the Royals. The pictures they had of Margaret sitting on their little table like a small shrine was so very sad. The horrific part was they could have easily been placed in a very private setting with top tier medical care. It's not like the Royals couldn't have afforded it.
This hospital was for the time that top medical care.
@@AnnaBellaChannel Seriously though. They couldn't have been in a private residence with 24 hour care? Sad. If I had the wealth the royals had, I would certainly do something like that.
@@weirdshibainu They did. The Royal Earlswood Hospital, formerly The Asylum for Idiots and The Royal Earlswood Institution for Mental Defectives, in Redhill, Surrey, was the first establishment to cater specifically for people with developmental disabilities. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Earlswood_Hospital
@@weirdshibainu The Queen's Cousins were place in a private hospital which was world leading for those with disabilities called The Royal Earlswood Hospital in 1941. This was all before NHS was born.
@@weirdshibainu The cousin are not royal. They were Scottish Nobles. Daughter's of the Queen Mother's older brother.
Helena Bonham Carter is a wonderful actress
"Darwin had nothing on you lot. Shame on all of you." SAVAGE! AND SO DESERVED!
I watched that scene 10/20 times.
Helena is such a great actress!
Begs the question: why are British actress so good?
@@yvonneplant9434British actors and actresses are so good looking and good in acting. I wonder same
@@comradeleppi2000The only thing I can think of is maybe " theater training". Or that English is THEIR language which is in their DNA for generations....hundreds of years. It's part of their identity in ways it's not for other English speakers.
The Bowes-Lyon family said that family did visit them. But the hospital contradicted them. And flat out stated that the family flat out abandoned them. I find it peculiar that after Margaret confronted her MUMMY that she started sending them a monthly check. They KNEW ABOUT THEM. And didn't care until the public found out.
Honestly, it is not the point if they visited or not. To declare someone dead while you live in luxury and pretend to have a fairytale life is disgusting. That is far worse in my opinion.
The Queen Mother didn't know until the public did
This was an EXCELLENT scene!!! Brava, HBC, you really chewed the scenery!!! 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👑🎭
@@Theturtleowl When people tell you who they are, believe them.
@@LittleBitofHopeToo2518I'm the rightful owner of all of your possessions and earnings. Time to pay up.
Our son was born with Downs. My father-in-law asked us if we were going to institutionalize him. He was relieved when we said absolutely not. Thats what he knew growing up in Texas that folks who were mentally ill or special needs were institutionalized. The doctors didnt have a clue how to take care of these types of people. They always recommend to the families to institutionalized them.
My mother asked me to have my son locked away when he was diagnosed with autism that was in year 2000 obviously I didn’t it caused a big rift 18 years later she wanted him to
Like her !!!
I know of an older woman whose family had sent her off to the state home for developmentally disabled, but when the doctor examined her, he told the family that the only problem the child had was that she was deaf. So she was transferred to and got her education at the state school for the deaf instead.
I'm glad you and your family know better than to do that to your son. Even in the late 80s through the 90s when I grew up this was still going on. It's crazy how recent it was. I grew up with PTSD that gave me anxiety fear and anger that I couldn't control. Instead of working with me properly doctors and therapists convinced my family to send me away to mental hospitals and group homes. I was in and out of those places constantly because I wasn't getting the proper care I needed during the short times that I was able to stay home. My parents didn't want to deal with me. So they kept sending me back. This went on from ages 7 - 16. Nearly 10 years. While those places eventually taught me to control my anger, being there so young increased my PTSD, and eventually I grew to distrust my family as I got older. When I finally stayed home at age 16, I was old enough to realize how irritated they always were with me, like they resented me. The rest of my teens were not peaceful. To this day I still don't trust them with my feelings or mental health. I talk to my friends about day-to-day things and vent to them and I am currently seeking professional therapy, hoping that therapists in 2024 will be a lot smarter and understanding of how to truly treat mental health. A long-winded reply just to say I completely understand, and I am very glad that you had the heart and intelligence to avoid institutionalizing your son.
@xrarelightx I'm sorry for all of the things that you have had no choice but to go through! I hope that you find the help that you are looking for. There are a lot of mediocre therapists out there, but there are also some good ones.
Also, I hope that you know that after you grow old enough to leave your biological family home, you get the opportunity to choose your family. I'm wishing that you get the chance to build a loving and compassionate support system that encourages you to be strong and challenges you to be the best version of yourself that you can be. ❤
In 1981, I worked for a brief period of time in a home for mentally handicapped adults. There were 25 or so residents and it was my job to prepare and serve lunch. I was only 18 and needed a lot of help from the residents, which they cheerfully offered. It was a happy place, full of laughter and kindness. There were some squabbles and drama, but mostly people were supportive, friendly and caring towards each other. The only time I saw sadness was when I had to explain to a young man that while we could be friends, I couldn't be his girlfriend. He knew the difference. All this to say - times have changed, and some things may be better, but it wasn't always awful and people did the best they could.
What is awful is the dismissal of the family, the lying to pretend these family members don't exist. Having mental disabilities doesn't make the heart and humanity stupid, but to pretend that only what's accepted as "normal" is to be treated with dignity, to pretend to be a "perfect" family, amounts to stone cold inhumanity. They could have embraced all their family members and also given them the care they needed. The world would have greatly benefitted from their example.
I think Margaret, Diana & Harry all have a lot in common.
very interesting , and accurate.
Do not compare Dirty Harry to Diana or Margaret. He married a common prostitute who was incidentally a psychotic.
And Anne in my opinion
@@tabora_ agreed. They all had a heart. Something the others lack.
@@nylotus It was a different time. And Harry doesn't have a heart and he's also a hypocrite. He wants privacy himself, but doesn't care about his family's privacy.
Genetic abnormalities do rise when you intermarry within the family. Glad they started to marry outside of the family finally.
While there was some intermarrying in the Baron Clinton line, from which they descend, they were not royal. They were relatives of the Queen Mother - she came from the nobility.
This was not from the royal side of the family.
Even William is related to his wife somewhat, also Meaghan is related to Harry via her father. When you mess with a “royal” there will unfortunately always be some sort of blood relation I think, unless you have little to know white ancestry perhaps
Not entirely unthinkable even 40-50 years ago. I grew up friends with a kid from a rich family. There was an older sister - never seen, rarely spoken of - and she lived in the house! Didn't seem to take meals with the family (I was there enough) or to be included in anything. Doubt she was locked in her room but visitors weren't to see. No schooling, no training, no specialized help. My friend, if he spoke of her at all, seemed to consider his sister almost as an object rather than a person, and certainly as Mom and Dad's 'problem' Different world.
Humans that subject themselves to distance and lack of emotional regulation with each other become blissfully unaware of how cruel they’re capable of being.
Funny, that Helena Bonham Carter has played the character of the Queen Mother in "The King's Speech" and is playing Princess Margaret here.
She is a phenomenal actress.
@@brendafuller907 I agree.
You're right, it's hilarious. 😶
SHe has some very good family roots linked to the writers of the Curious George book series. Her Grandfather served as a dipomat from Spain in Germany during WW2 and while his country told him to not do anything he could not stand by even if it meant his death from Spain. So he wrote passports to the Jewish People until he was found out, He was striped of all his titles, dishonored and many more things that i could to recall and spent the rest of his life trying to began his honor that he should have never lost at all and did his children. Helena got to met one of the very people that her grandfather helped save.
Also she portrayed Jane Gray in Lady Jane and then Anne Boleyn in the TV serial Henry VIII so it isn't the first time Helena Bonham Carter portrayed royals in the same family twice
Helena Bonham Carter has always fascinated me.
why?
I can watch this over and over again. And I agree with another comment on here: this was not just a rich problem. Unfortunately, it was the norm in those days. Today, we know that no child could thrive being locked up in an institution, not even a perfectly healthy child.
Yes sadly VERY much the norm no matter what class or location.
Kennedy's had their oldest daughter lobotomized. Was it right ? no. There wasn't any enlightenment back then about such things.
Helena always steals the show.
I"ve worked in this type of institution here in the US, and patients who were abandoned here came from all socioeconomic groups. Community based resources were not available until the late 80s. Some individuals were so impaired that they couldn't be cared for at home because they needed 24 hr supervision for the remainder of their lives.
A relative worked as an orderly in one such hospital. Many times he was with others that had to subdue a patient going through a violent episode. Contrary to police or prison guards, they would hold the patient rather than beat him into submission. The pretense that all mentally challenged could be held at home is ludicrous. Specially as the parents grow older and relatives have moved away. Many persons required permanent, professional care. When they do not get it, they, eventually, end up in prison where they are subject to abuse by prisoners and guards.
This was very common at the time. Michael Cain's mother had a son who was retarded and epileptic and she kept him hidden. Playwright Arthur Miller had a son with Down's Syndrome who was institutionalized and forgotten. President Kennedy's sister was lobotomized, sent away, and none of them saw her for 20 years.
If that discussion happened I will be a fan of Margaret for the rest of my old life
absolute nonsense
@@glen7318 Yep
This was a FANTAAAAASTIC scene. I'd like to think that Princess Margaret REALLY DID THIS. If so, it must've been awful to find out. What barbaric treatment of mentally challenged people. Literally horrible.
Doubt it Margaret was a snob, she was rude and self righteous
@@ais8358 I see. Then You knew her PERSONALLY for years??
The Queen Mother genuinely didn't know. She may have had a scene with one or two Bowes-Lyon relatives
It is, but that's what happened back then and it's not like they were the Queen Mother's children, they were her brother's children, it was up to him and his wife to decide what to do with them
@@ais8358I have also that she was a snob and very arrogant, but I also heard she was actually furious at her mother upon this discovery. I guess this is more based on the fact that she also struggled with mental health and got no support from her family.
Brilliant writing.
And HBC is masterful.
The Queen Mother has alot to answer for.
How that what was done with disabled kids at the time it’s not like she could have taken them
The Kennedy family went further and had a daughter lobotomised.
We need to understand that life is very different now . To start with many babies with visible issues are never born so caring for them is not an issue. Many families to whom thalidomide damaged babies were born , had them take into care, also Down’s Syndrome babies , spina bifida, cerebral palsy . The normal way to proceed was care and forget about them . Few families had the resources to provide proper care for those with mentally or physically limiting issues.
I hardly think killing those babies in the womb is better. Are we actually worse now?
the whole family didnt do that just the father
The lobotomy was done because she had an "energetic" temperament. Imagine a colicky child with the strength of an adult who routinely suffered violent seizures. At the time, lobotomy was the treatment most likely to provide her relief from both conditions.
Rosemary never lived in poverty. Nor was she ward of a state, nor was she buried in a pauper’s grave. She was buried with her parents. She lived in a beautifully appointed house, and was looked after by Catholic nuns. When her siblings found out what happened and where she was they immediately took charge and visited her (since half of them were minors when it happened and the other half were controlled by their horrible father). They also created Special Olympics, Best Buddies, Special Arts, Shut down Willow Brook and spoke out about her constantly in the 60s when they came into power. Rosemary died with her siblings by her side.
To compare that to what happened to these girls is ridiculous.
Thank you....i lost this scene ..this is such a gem 💎❤
I never knew Cormoran Strike knew Princess Margaret.
It wasn't the Royal Family that did this. It was the Bowes Lyon family
They are related to each other, so they knew what was going on. They knew
@mypointofview1111 Do you know everything that members of your extended family do? I know that I don't. Mental illness wasn't the talking point then that it is now, and was seen as something to hide. I can't agree with you.
why would they know?@@mypointofview1111
One of the cousins literally died in 2014. What are you even talking about?
this scene breaks my heart
Beautiful acting
"Not everything can be explained away with the abdication." What a line slap it on a tea shirt. it's actually the perfect summary of the george and Elizabeth's regins. They tried to blame everything in some small way because they should have never been king or queen till 1972.
But I have to say Queen Mary deserves a bit of credit for being human in a time when it would of been easier to just be cruel. Prince John, her youngest, had epilepsy and some form of autism spectrum disorder. Now publicly, he wasn't talked about till his death, but she went and arranged for her boy to go live on the comfort of sandrighmam house. This is where she deserves praise. Mary went to the staff workers and made a little social network so that he could have children around him his own age. She could have easily done what the Lyons did and sent him to hospital no she made sure to keep him in normal conditions for a young prince. He even did gardening.
There's a fascinating documentary called Prince john or something like that i highly recommend you watch!
Today the world is far sympathetic than it was 50 yrs ago. Public would have spat on the monarchy if they knew that the monarch had crazy relatives and her genes carried the madness.
Different times, different rules; but what is said in this Video is true none the less.
I like Margaret!
The way they still didn't own up to their doings
Who didn't?
@j-mshistorycorner6932 The Queen Mother.
@@magicmonkey1645 she didn't do anything
@@j-mshistorycorner6932 Did she ever even try to help them? I am not critising, I just asking as a genuine question, because apparently, she herself said "I am not a nice person."
@@magicmonkey1645 she didn't know they were alive. Her sister-in-law told everyone they were dead.
You'd think the royal family would have gotten them rooms at a nice nursing home or even a house with private nurses. They have lots of houses. They could have spared a country cottage.
it wasn't up to the Royal family to look after tehm
You're missing the point. It's not the level of care provided about which they were embarrassed; it was the very existence of genetic abnormality in the bloodline that could have called into question their right to rule.
It's awful, but it's also common in past decades for these kinds of family members to be put away and never spoken about. I found out as a teen my maternal grandfather had a half sister that had been put away and forgotten about. We had a huge family. There was no reason for that. I found out that my mother had visited her when she first married my father, but not after that. I couldn't understand that. She just left her. What that poor woman must have thought to have been abandoned like that. Heartbreaking.
1) this wasnt the royals.. this was the Queen mother's side of the family.
2) Pretty much for the entire history of the planet and civilisation, people with special needs were treated differently. They were either kept in their home in a separate room or something and not let to mingle with the others... or theybwere put in institutions. Its nit until the last 30 years or so that mental health is treated as an actual illness. Even now, in India, people with mental health issues are put in institutions unless they are rich or have the means to reach a personal psychiatrist/psychologist
So you think close family doesn't matter, and that if everyone is doing something horrible, it's ok? wow, just wow. You are what is wrong with humanity.
There are certain conditions that really necessitate institutionalization. They simply can't be managed in a domestic environment. Unfortunately, the world's gone soft.
Please! This isn’t just royalty’s secret. Upper mid class and above have plenty institutions for family members who are peculiar. Ask any psychiatrist.
St. Andrew's hospital in Northampton was one of the best known asylums for the challenged Upper class.
In this case it was nobility's secret, the Queen Mother didn't know
The American Kennedy's....
@@michellestone1261Correct. Rosemary Kennedy was lobotomized. 😢
Even Joe Kennedy senior had his daughter Rosemary institutionalized and lobotomized without his daughter’s permission or let his wife know.
But this wasn't a royal family issue, these were Bowes-Lyon cousins and the genetic disability came through their maternal (Trefusis) line among whom there were at least three other people similarly affected.
But it was a royal issue. If it became public knowledge that Queen Mother Elizabeth had relatives with Genetic disorders, it would have affected the reign of Elizabeth II. Royalty is considered to be perfect inside and out. No one wants and trusts a ruler with defects
But the gossip was that the queen mother was the child of the cook ; in their house hold which is why she was registered so late . It was whispered she was born ‘under the blanket’ from the Lord and cook so this gene will not be in our royal family .
@@sallyann4660 Ah, that old chestnut. It was never "widely rumoured" until it was invented by no less a person than Wallis Simpson, who (rightly) saw the Queen Mother as her nemesis in relation to ever being accepted by the royal family. The late registration of her birth was a simple mix-up: her father wanted her birth registered in Scotland so they missed the deadline.
The cook in question worked in Scotland: Elizabeth was born in Hertfordshire, some 455 miles (733 kilometres) south. There is no way that a staff member employed in one part of the country would be allowed to take leave of absence to travel to another of the family's houses, nor would any female member of staff be allowed to stay if she was pregnant, not even if she was married.
The name, that again is just nonsense. There was a well-established tradition on her mother's side of the family, the Cavendish-Bentincks, for giving daughters the names of flowers - she had sisters called Violet and Rose, an aunt was Hyacinth, another Violet, etc.
As for your reference to the possible genetic abnormality, that came from the Trefusis family which had nothing at all to do with either of the Queen Mother's parents - but can be traced to the family of the Spencers.
it is just a load of hooey. =@@sallyann4660
Pretty disgusting behavior. With the money they have they could have housed them in a nice house together with private nurses.
There weren't five. There were two - and I'm not entirely certain her "favorite brother" was the one fourteen years her elder. John Bowes Lyon had five daughters, but three were apparently utterly normal. The other three mentioned here were cousins on the maternal side, so no relation to either Queen Elizabeth. Like many things in the Crown, truth is substantially augmented here.
Queen Mother was wicked to let that happen.
The bowes-lyon sisters were in Royal Earlswood, which is in my home town. A lot of history that unfortunately a lot of the population here don't know about.
Don't forget everyone - this a drama. A conversation between 2 people on a beach with nobody else there. Totally unprovable.
Ok, thanks.
Princess Margaret was a person who spoke the truth. Hiding away the parts of your family because they weren't perfect was totally backwards and wrong. That's how the world worked back then.
so why would Margaret see it any other way?
Institutionalizing family members with special needs and disabilities was just what people did in those days. My grandmother had a sister that was blind and deaf and they sent her to an institution. They weren't by any means a rich family, and they weren't trying to hide her from society; that's simply what was done at the time and what they thought was best for her.
But did anyone in the family visit her? When someone is institutionalized with no members of the family ever visiting them again, THAT is part of the whole situation I don't understand.
People used to be sent to institutions if they had seizure disorders.
that was common for people to be put in institutions and left there@@sew1835
The Queen, Queen Mother, and Princess Margaret had no legal right or authority to circumvent the choices of the parents. These Bowes-Lyon family members were being cared for in an appropriate setting with medical personnel, for the time period. The Royal Family had no say in the matter. It is cruel that they were declared as dead to the rest of the family.
One of the girls literally died in 2014.
My Father died in 1999 and My Mother in 2009.
After My Mother’s death I was accidentally informed that I had Cousins on My Father’s side of whom I knew absolutely nothing.
I was born in 1956.
I love her if she was really like this ❤
Not a sister’s job to determine what happens to her brother’s children.
Given the opportunity they would have locked Diana away too I suppose.
What nonsense🙄
@@caro_Uk They sure made her life a living hell !!!
@@caro_UkDuring the 1800s, there were cases of "difficult" wives being declared insane by doctors siding with the husbands and then locked away in asylums for the rest of their lives. Read about Elizabeth Packard of Illinois, she was very lucky that her son rescued her when he turned 21.
and how did they do this?@@Ronald-ks2iy
@@caro_Uk No, it is not. Even William recently said his mother was paranoid. They mocked Meghan when she admitted to thoughts of suicide. Why is it the very people who call you crazy are the ones who make you feel and look that way? Where is Kate?
I reckon most comments are from the UK. Here in the USA, the closure of mentally impaired asylums only led to the relocation of the patients to jails. During the 1960s and 1970s, State governments decided they would save a ton of money by moving from housing to 'ambulatory' treatment. Unfortunately, 'ambulatory' does not work for persons that can barely take care of themselves. They end up becoming homeless that take refuge in drugs and eventually go to prison for minor or major crimes. A large portion of our prison population should actually be housed in one the former institutions.
For middle class people, those with good jobs, family and SPECIALLY, good insurance, the idea of 'institutionalizing' a relative must sound horrible, almost immoral. However, there are large portions of the population that simply cannot sustain taking care of a niece, cousin, brother, forever into adulthood. Specially with the demographic mobility of the USA society. Let me explain: Visiting other countries, some much poorer than the USA, I realized that such care involves the entire family group. A cousin with mental retardation might be visited by aunts, uncles, cousins. Immediate family like brothers and sisters might not live that far away. Furthermore, since no family is free from having a affected member, the issue brings more empathy among extended family. When a person with a challenged relative marries, chances are the other spouse also has a relative that is affected, such that it is not a foreign concept. ('oh, you have a nephew that has such problem, I have a cousin that has something similar'). One example I saw in one of my last travels to a Third World country was that, as limited as they are economically, when the father of a challenged young man was out of town, his brothers would call the nephew that was 'living on his own' for a few days and his cousins in town would visit him to make sure everything was OK. With that being said, in the USA, where after high school the must pressing matter is financial stability and one brother ends up in California, a sister ends up in Florida and the last brother moves to North Carolina, while the parents remain in Ohio, such familiar networks are almost non-existent. When the family in charge of the challenged member falls into financial hardship, or dies of old age, the challenged member ends up in the streets for a while and, eventually, in prison.
For us a a society to consider institutionalizing a taboo, when, in reality in our socio economic reality there is no other solution (other than the eventual prison sentence) is ludicrous. It is the ultimate show of lack of mercy of our society. But, our political climate does not allow for solutions either. You have two extreme ideologically charged parties. Where the Democratic doctrine is that all people are equal, so if a person does not want to be institutionalized he should not be, and the Republican party that uses moral absolutes like mantra where if the person knows the difference between right and wrong and steals, that person belongs in prison, then there cannot be a workable solution.
As current reality stands, I can only say that in grade school they teach you that in the 1930s the Nazis were criminals that emptied the German mental asylums by euthanizing the mentally challenged in order to save the state money. And we all agree that is cruel and wrong and immoral. Yet, in order to save money, our different states dumped the mentally challenged on the streets and then in prison. At what point one is 'better' than the other, I do not know. We all agree that killing is wrong, since death is an absolute. But, apparently, we cannot agree that imprisoning the most vulnerable and condemning them to a pit of despair that crushes their souls is not 'that bad'. What I do know is that the same Jesus that we are taught cured the blind and raised the dead, also helped those that had demons. But politicians seem to skip that part of the Bibles they carry when the cameras are recording them.
"No choice" but to lock up those afflicted with the consequences (probably) of upperclass inbreeding. Margaret was right to say "shame" on them.
Margaret had a lot in common with Harry and I don’t blame him one bit for bailing on these awful people
The Crown is sensationalist rubbish. Beautifully produced but as real as Lord of the Rings.
@Mimi-cq4bg
Back in those days, institutionalizing
people with severe mental and
physical disabilities that was the norm.
Nerissa and Katherine Bowes-Lyon
were two of the 5 children of John Herbert
Bowes-Lyon (brother of the Queen Mum)
and The Hon. Fenella Hepburn-Stuart-
Forbes-Trefusis
The girl's father died in 1930 (before
Princess Margaret was born) and
the girls' mother died in 1966.
The severe mental retardation
came from the Hepburn-Stuart-
Forbes-Trefusis sdie of the family
OR from Fenella's mother's side of the
family (i.e.Lady Mary McDonnell --
daughter of Mark McDonnell, 5th
Earl of Antrim)
Anyhow Nerissa and Katherine B-L
had several cousins who were also
living in the same institution. I am
not sure if they were the children
of Fenella's sister (Harriet) or if
the others were the cousins of
Fenella and Harriet.
RF is ruthless. Where is Kate?
dont be silly. If you follow the RF, you should know that Kate is on sick leave@@gardenroom65
@@gardenroom65 - at home - recuperating from a surgery. She has a right to keep the details to herself. She is a public figure NOT public property! We should be more concerned about the health/mental fitness of people with actual power - like President Biden- now there’s something to WORRY about. He does, after all, have access to U.S. nuclear codes.
This is one of those scenes I hope did happen or something like it.
The Queen Mother didn't know, so I hope not exactly like this
@@j-mshistorycorner6932 the way they treated those girls was wrong. My sister hs special needs and she lives with me and I could never imagine shipping her away to live in a home just because of her disability alone.
@@hera7884 It was pretty cruel
So, what came of Margaret's discovery, in real life?
It was a scandal in around 1987. There is a documentary about it. The first cousins of the Queen were placed in the asylum in 1941, and stayed until their deaths. Nerissa was 22, and Katherine was 15 when committed. There are no records of ANY of the Family ever visiting them. Nerissa died in 1986, and her grave was marked with a plastic tag. Katherine died in 2014. They were relocated after the scandal.
They died. Nerissa died in 1986 and Katherine in 2014. Neither girl ever learned to talk. According to the 1963 Burke's Peerage recorded that Nerissa had died in 1940 and Katherine in 1961 which was clearly not the case. As mentioned in this clip, there were other members of the Royal Family who were also locked away. The sisters received no money from the family other than £125 paid to the Royal Earlswood Hospital. (Whether that was £125 for each woman, or for all the relatives is not made clear.)
There will still be members of the Royal Family that are housed in similar circumstances.
@@KebabMusicLtdThey were part of the Bowes Lyon family (the Queen Mother’s family), not the royal family except by extension through marriage. Although I understand the Queen Mother was pretty cold hearted and vain.
The cousins of theirs weren’t cousins of the Royals.
of course they were related - the Queen Mother’s neices are cousins of the Queen - how is that not related - they were maternal relatives not paternal - but relatives all the same
please if someone could tell me who the actor is who plays the priest in this scene?
He was played by Tom Burke, according to IMDb.
Even the Kennedys
This seems like a poor excuse. One of the cousins literally died in 2014. The Queen and other relatives could’ve done more.
Rosemary never lived in poverty. Nor was she ward of a state, nor was she buried in a pauper’s grave. She was buried with her parents. She lived in a beautifully appointed house, and was looked after by Catholic nuns. When her siblings found out what happened and where she was they immediately took charge and visited her (since half of them were minors when it happened and the other half were controlled by their horrible father). They also created Special Olympics, Best Buddies, Special Arts, Shut down Willow Brook and spoke out about her constantly. She died with her siblings by her side.
To compare the situations are ridiculous.
It wasn't unheard of to put family members born with mental and physical disabilities into institutions. On of my close friends sister was born with downs syndrome and the first thing the doctor recommended was to put her in the asylum hospital because she wouldn't survive past 3 years old. But they refused and worked with her and she lived a long life into her 60's
This doesn't surprise me in the slightest, I mean look at Prince John, look what they did with him.
Prince John was well cared for and looked after by his family, the trusted family Nanny on his families land. The Prince had his own household and farm to run. There was WW1 on at the time.
Ha! As if there is only one.
It is in the Quran that if you have a special needs child and you take care of all their needs with love and patience and you treat them with care and dignity and respect and love, you are guaranteed a place in heaven.
Which sura is that?
Yeah, and it also says horses fly.
I especially like Surah 9:5. That apparently guarantees a place in heaven too.
@@LittleBitofHopeToo2518
And the Christian bible says virgins have children and men can part seas. It also says a man can be brutally executed, but rise from the dead and fly up to heaven.
How were these people related?
As I recall, they were children of one of the Queen Mum's brothers.
First cousins with the queen I think
Sentenced to life in a gilded cage at birth.
The least they could do would be to take care of their relatives in house. It's not their fault they were affected from all the incest
They weren't the result of incest
Try not to look at it though 21st century eyes. That is how things were done 100 years ago, and more, generally on medical advice. You have people who can't cope with the real world, so for their own sake put them in a controlled environment. That was seen as the best thing for them. People get angry when they hear about the epileptic son of King George V and Queen Mary being kept at Sandringham. The doctors said that it was best for him to be kept quiet and isolated. I'm a historian and writer and have read the papers about it. The advice was given for the good of the afflicted person. Times have changed thank goodness. Even back in the 18th century, King George III was removed to Kew to recover from his episode of insanity.
Remember, in some countries, female babies were left outside to die because they weren't wanted. Let's just be glad that attitudes have changed.
It was because of mental illness and mental disability, not the effect of incest. Get your facts straight!
They weren’t from the Royal family, look at a family tree.
@@nicolad8822 Correct. They were part of the Bowes Lyon family, not the royal family. The Queen Mother was born in the Bowes Lyon family (Scottish aristocrats) and she married into the British royal family to the man who became King George VI unexpectedly only after his older brother, King Edward VIII, abdicated in 1936.
You would have to say that this is something of a double-edged sword for the Royal Family. It could and should certainly be argued that the Royal Family might have done more for the sisters and others who were so institutionalised, and such a suggestion would have great merit.
But it also has to be accepted that information about the existence of these people reaching the media and the press may have caused both sisters and the other members of the family unwanted exposure to public scrutiny. That wouldn't have been fair to any of them.
Of course, part of the problem here is the inbreeding that has been central to the existence of the Royal Houses of Europe for centuries.
The Queen mother was a terrible person over and over and over.
The entire myth of "God" having anything to do with Monarchy depended on throwing out what they saw as "unnatural", I mean the entire foundation of the Monarchy is rotten. Human lives treated this way to protect a fairytale.
OK, I may be wrong in my comment, but in all families of all the following bands, these being A, B, C1, C2, D, E, F, matters of this nature would of been contourtited in the day by prestige, snobbery, Upper class appearances, reputation, shame, ignorance etc etc, but also the laws of the day. There is also a very stagnant and horrifying possibility... that if Germany had won the war or Oswald Mosley Fascist ideology had caught on in politics. Turning the UK into a Facisit Country or Renegade Scottish nationalists proposed an alliance with Germany in the second world war so as to set up a Scottish republic while England was under attack. Our generation today would have accepted the outcome of the Royal Families outcast family members. If you know history, then you will understand this.
The founder of Planned Parenthood was a eugenicist. Plenty of people support culling certain demographics, or at least, have been fooled into supporting it by being told that to do otherwise is to infringe on someone's rights.
Okay, everybody remember 2 things, while this is terrible treatment, it's what was done back then by those with mentally ill relatives and maybe most important, they weren't the Queen mother's children, they were her brother's children, it was up to him and his wife to decide what to do with them
Idk man, if you know and allow your brother to lock his children in the basement then it’s kinda YOUR responsibility to help them even if they are not your children or your legal responsibility. Responsibility isn’t constrained by clear lines, even the law struggles to keep up with who gets what blame
Who knows what she really knew, plus I don't think they were in the basement, they were locked in an institution-a danger to themselves and others@@yucol5661
What a horrible way to excuse someone's bad behavior. "Well everyone was doing it so it's ok". You don't sound like a very nice person.
@@LittleBitofHopeToo2518 no it doesn't excuse anything. It's awful treatment and I said that above. It's just what happened back then
@@LittleBitofHopeToo2518 Let's use your logic. "Everyone" today eats meat. Can you imagine a future where no-one does? Will you pillory the folks today that were brought up eating meat? Think man!
This was normal practice at that time. How often do we even now read about a family that had been told to institutionalize their child, "it would be better for the child as they know how to care for them." That was/is a total lie. In high school around 1970 I heard about the secret sister of one of in crowd girls. She was not seen, attended any special educational program but kept behind doors. This was common practice and not only the wealthier practiced it, many did of all statuses. HOWEVER, in your richeous indignation remember today it's not as common because as soon as parents are told their child will not be normal the next sentence is SHALL WE SCHEDULE YOUR ABORTION NOW? Some parents want to try to help their child they love already have the best life possible. The others say yes SCHEDULE THE ABORTION, frequently telling themselves it's best for THEIR BABY. Each has to do what they feel they need to do and we all will someday know the answer.
we need a neurodivergent queen/king ffs
That would be disastrous. Leave it to the normal.
The narrative is so right. Now we have middle aged, balding armchair ratbags from the media gas lighting who ever the can to get an easy quid.
Princess Dianna and Prince Harry have been reincarnated via Princess Margaret.
Well, Princess Margaret lived until 2002, so she did see and know Diana and Harry. I think its their spirit that is similar to her. I remember when a scene from this episode was first posted and people were wondering "why didn't Princess Margaret connect with Princess Diana? They had so much to relate to." Historically speaking, they were cordial until the 1995 Panorama interview. But Peter Morgan wrote this episode and had Margaret uncover the Bowes-Lyon institutionalized relatives to make a point about how the British monarchy treats difference. It's a profound point.
@@outinsiderNot that profound when the monarchy had nothing to do with it
@@j-mshistorycorner6932 It had nothing to do with their natural neurologies no, but how they treated those who didn't allegedly keep the bloodline pure in any perceived way has a lot to do with it.
Huh?@@outinsider
🤣
Inbreeding.
So, basically she is taking about Diana 😢
She turned around and ostracized Diana. Just another hypocrite.
how did she ostracise Diana?
A FANTASTIC scene....you go Margaret. And in real life....the"royal family" really isn't are they? SHAME on them all.
this is nonsense. Margo was unlikely to challenge the fact that her relatives had been instituitionalised, which was normal at the time