"The Queen's Missing Cousins" (2011) - Channel 4 Documentary on Bowes-Lyon Cousins


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Elly C

Elly C

Heir Apparent
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
4,225
City
Kingsbridge
Country
United Kingdom
"The Queen's Missing Cousins" (2011) - Channel 4 Documentary on Bowes-Lyon Cousins

A new documentary is airing on Channel 4 in the UK tomorrow evening concerning the Queen's cousins. Unsurprisingly, it appears to be causing some upset

Channel 4 documentary
 
Elly C said:
A new documentary is airing on Channel 4 in the UK tomorrow evening concerning the Queen's cousins. Unsurprisingly, it appears to be causing some upset

Channel 4 documentary
Click to expand...

And what an old, old story that is. Don't know why they bring it up again, as the facts have been in the public domain for decades.
 
I don't get how "the two daughters were largely shunned by the Royal Family." These were the Queen's maternal Bowes-Lyon cousins, not Windsors and thus were never part of the royal family.
 
EmpressRouge said:
I don't get how "the two daughters were largely shunned by the Royal Family." These were the Queen's maternal Bowes-Lyon cousins, not Windsors and thus were never part of the royal family.
Click to expand...

Its the same way that the US press wrote that story about Michael Sakel (sp) when he was convicted for murder. Despite that the fact that he wasn't an actual Kennedy (but rather Ethel Kennedy's nephew from her brother) the headlines read Kennedy Family Member convicted of murder.

Its all about sensationalism....most people don't know that the Queen Mother was Elizabeth Bowes Lyon before she married into the royal family.
 
Many years ago we heard about these cousins, the only thing that shocked at the time was, I believe Burke's Peerage had them listed as dead. As Empress Rouge said, they are not Windsors, they are Bowes- Lyons, this happened in another era and it was the usual thing to do. I don't think that these girls even realised that they were related to the Queen, or if they could understand, it would make any difference to them.
 
Windsor notwithstanding...Bowes Lyons is part of the Queen's family. I have no doubt that they were well cared for. We will never know the details, and we don't need to.
 
Ok so let me get this right: my cousins on my mother's side of the family should be of less importance to me than my cousins on my father's side of the family? I have never heard of this before.
According to the documentary the Queen stated years ago that it was a matter for the Bowes-Lyon family. Unfortunately for Katherine and Nerissa, it wasn't a matter for the Bowes-Lyon family at all given they abandoned them.
 
Last edited:
Further to my previous post, Katherine Bowes-Lyon is still alive and so the situation is not something unfortunate that simply happened years ago - it is an on-going situation in the present.
 
Channel 4 is making a story about news from 1987. Seems like a cheap shot. Is the Queen to be responsible for the actions of every family that married into the Royal family? I can't say that my aunts or uncles would take too kindly to me questioning the actions they took, probably on the best of medical advice at the time, 70 years ago regarding the care of their children. I certainly don't think I would have the right to step in and change their families arrangements.
At any rate the story in the link above says that they were in fact visited, became agitated by visits, and received gifts at Christmas. Lady Elizabeth Anson says they were not forgotten by the family. The documentary seems to be a bit of a hatchet job.
 
Last edited:
:previous: Exactly. The story gets recycled every few years. At the time, according to what was known about disabled people, the kindest thing for them was for them to be in an institution where they could be taken care of professionally. It's the same as when people make the choice of admitting their aging parents to a home; their personal and medical needs are too much for the adult children to cope with. I believe that the mother of the "girls" felt the same way.
 
The main reason to bring it up, I suppose, is that there are many of us out here who have never heard the story before.

Media works that way. Not every gets the story the first time around - and I'll wager that many younger people don't know the story either (I don't know it because I live far away from the situation - at least I think that's the reason).
 
^^^
I suspect the main reason to bring it up has more to do with ratings and money than educating the British public about people they have never heard of.
 
Except it's getting international attention as well. It's not the difficult to watch British television here in the States - in one form or another - we'll be looking out for it. We're talking about it here, aren't we?

And, if the makers of it are going to make any money, they'd better hope the British public tunes in as well. I'm sure the story still has legs. At any rate, judging from the Channel 4 forum on the topic, Brits are still quite interested in the topic (and some express surprise at not having known more about it before this recent airing).
 
The Telegraph in his review wrote that they claimed that the girl's father never visited his daughters in hospital. That's surely true. Because, as the reporter found out after he had seen the documentary and checked some of the facts, their father was already 11 years dead when they were admitted to th hospital.... Should he have visited them from the grave?

And why don't they ever write or report about the other three mentally handicapped granddaughters of the 21.Baron Clinton by his other daughter? These were institutionalized as well... But it seems only those with a connection to the queen are of interest. Again and again.
 
For me, the program was very enlightening.
 
There are a lot of reasons why some parents have children with less then perfect brain functions - many of them have perfectly healthy children and also have another who has a problem - why that happens is still up for investigation in most cases.
 
Jacknch said:
Ok so let me get this right: my cousins on my mother's side of the family should be of less importance to me than my cousins on my father's side of the family? I have never heard of this before.
According to the documentary the Queen stated years ago that it was a matter for the Bowes-Lyon family. Unfortunately for Katherine and Nerissa, it wasn't a matter for the Bowes-Lyon family at all given they abandoned them.
Click to expand...
The point was that it was the rescision of the Bowes-Lyon family to deal with, not the BRF.

Marlene Koenig addressed this on her blog and said the issues came from the Clinton Barony family that the Bowes-Lyon family married into.

angieuk said:
The Queen's hidden cousins: They were banished to an asylum in 1941 and left neglected now an intriguing documentary reveals all | Mail Online

Very sad, could be because of too much in-breeding?
Click to expand...
Anyone can have genetic issues due to a variety of factors, inbreeding isn’t always the cause.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The missing cousins were also featured in the last series of the Crown.
 
From Marlene Eilers Koenig’s blog, it was said that the genetic issue came from the Clinton family which the Bowes-Lyon family married into.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blog Real
Queen Letizia's 50th birthday: 15 September 2022
Replies
25
Views
4K
Blog Real
Blog Real
Blog Real
Queen Elizabeth: Love, Honour and Crown - Documentary Channel 4
Replies
2
Views
785
Curryong
C
T
Charles III: New King. New Court. The Inside Story
2 3
Replies
76
Views
12K
shady lady
shady lady
Blog Real
Kings Ferdinand I, Francis I, Ferdinand II, Francis II & Kingdom of the Two Sicilies
Replies
3
Views
624
Blog Real
Blog Real
M
Family Bylaws Concerning the House Law of the House of Luxembourg-Nassau
Replies
1
Views
456
Tatiana Maria
T

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom