Katherine Bowes Lyon

Post by Aggie
Hi there, was wondering if any one knows if she's alive.... she's the
cousin of the Queen. Also, does anybody know her exact mental and
developmental state?
Does anybody know where she is right now?
~Aggie

They are nutters so I expect she's as nuts as the rest of them.
Interbreeding it called.

f***@verizon.net

2005-11-27 19:56:02 UTC

Post by JA**

They are nutters so I expect she's as nuts as the rest of them.
Interbreeding it called.

No, it called having no life & making up cruel fantasies to alleviate it.

SusanC

f***@verizon.net

2005-11-27 20:12:21 UTC

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Katherine%20Bowes-Lyon
(Unless my reader is sticking weird symbols into URLs again, in which case
it's
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/KatherineBowes-Lyon )

The short answer is that the most anyone can find out is that

"She is presently a patient at an unidentified nursing home in Surrey."

SusanC

s***@webtv.net

2005-11-27 21:55:24 UTC

Retarded

From what that encyclopedia says, she & another sister were mentally
retarded, & at ages 15 & 22, were placed in an institution. They had the
mental age of about six, & were largely unable to speak.

Susan, Su_Texas my opinions

Aggie

2005-11-27 23:29:17 UTC

Hi,

Yes, I've read that article, but it doesn't give much information, does
it?

I really dislike people's disgust with so called "nutters". It's like
some of you are living in a different world, an older world without
toleration or indeed pride in people with disabilities.

If she has been diagnosed as "mental", she just may be eccentric; and
if she is diagnosed as "retarded", she may just be of low intelligence.

In any event, she is a human being. Her plight is not something "just
for the family" or something "for her home to deal with". This implies
there is some sort of shame in being labelled "crazy". But the only
shame is for people who label them such.

Have any of you wondered why we know so little about this woman? Has
anybody ever seen a picture of her? Met her before?

She shares a quarter of the royal lineage of the Queen Elizabeth. And
she's been locked up for over 60 years.

Aggie

s***@webtv.net

2005-11-27 23:53:15 UTC

From: ***@gmail.com (Aggie)
Hi,

Yes, I've read that article, but it doesn't give much information, does
it?

I really dislike people's disgust with so called "nutters". It's like
some of you are living in a different world, an older world without
toleration or indeed pride in people with disabilities.

If she has been diagnosed as "mental", she just may be eccentric; and if
she is diagnosed as "retarded", she may just be of low intelligence.

In any event, she is a human being. Her plight is not something "just
for the family" or something "for her home to deal with".

This implies there is some sort of shame in being labelled "crazy". But
the only shame is for people who label them such.

Have any of you wondered why we know so little about this woman? Has
anybody ever seen a picture of her? Met her before?

She shares a quarter of the royal lineage of the Queen Elizabeth. And
she's been locked up for over 60 years.

Aggie

=======================

Hi Aggie,

I'd heard the story, but didn't know the particulars.

When an encyclopedia website was listed/suggested, I chose to read more
about it.

I was curious in how Katherine (Kathryn) was related to the Queen Mother
& the royal family.

I was not expressing disgust nor judging her, & I do understand how &
why people can get wrongly labeled.

I apologize if I caused offense.

Susan, Su_Texas my opinions

f***@verizon.net

2005-11-28 02:03:05 UTC

Post by Aggie
Yes, I've read that article, but it doesn't give much information, does
it?

But what information would anyone need that isn't in there?

Post by Aggie
I really dislike people's disgust with so called "nutters".

I dislike even the term, especially when it's used as a false insult.

Post by Aggie
It's like
some of you are living in a different world, an older world without
toleration or indeed pride in people with disabilities.

Well, the person who used that term is, AFAIC, a different world
than mine - for which I am grateful.

Post by Aggie
If she has been diagnosed as "mental", she just may be eccentric; and
if she is diagnosed as "retarded", she may just be of low intelligence.

If there's any reason anyone would have to believe these things,
I'd like to see it.

Post by Aggie
In any event, she is a human being. Her plight is not something "just
for the family" or something "for her home to deal with".

Uh, it certainly *is* just for the family to dealwith - it's no one's
business but theirs.

This implies

Post by Aggie
there is some sort of shame in being labelled "crazy".

How so?
It seems to me that privacy is for the dignity of the individual.
Why is it yours or mine or *anyone's* business - unless we have
any sort of evidence that this woman was wrongfully hospitalized.

But the only

Post by Aggie
shame is for people who label them such.
Have any of you wondered why we know so little about this woman?

Nope.

Post by Aggie
Has
anybody ever seen a picture of her?

I think a tab

Post by Aggie
Met her before?

Are you trying to say that she should have been put on display, like a
sideshow?

Post by Aggie
She shares a quarter of the royal lineage of the Queen Elizabeth. And
she's been locked up for over 60 years.

And unless you have any reason to believe that she is being abused,
there's nothing more to say.

The decision that you cannot deal with a beloved family member's illness,
and are forced to turn them over to professionals is *not* something most
people take lightly. I see no evidence that anyone involved here did that.

SusanC

Jean Sue Libkind

2005-11-28 02:37:18 UTC

Post by f***@verizon.net

Post by Aggie
Yes, I've read that article, but it doesn't give much information, does
it?

But what information would anyone need that isn't in there?

Post by Aggie
I really dislike people's disgust with so called "nutters".

I dislike even the term, especially when it's used as a false insult.

Post by Aggie
It's like
some of you are living in a different world, an older world without
toleration or indeed pride in people with disabilities.

Well, the person who used that term is, AFAIC, a different world
than mine - for which I am grateful.

Post by Aggie
If she has been diagnosed as "mental", she just may be eccentric; and
if she is diagnosed as "retarded", she may just be of low intelligence.

If there's any reason anyone would have to believe these things,
I'd like to see it.

Post by Aggie
In any event, she is a human being. Her plight is not something "just
for the family" or something "for her home to deal with".

Uh, it certainly *is* just for the family to dealwith - it's no one's
business but theirs.
This implies

Post by Aggie
there is some sort of shame in being labelled "crazy".

Post by Aggie
shame is for people who label them such.
Have any of you wondered why we know so little about this woman?

Nope.

Post by Aggie
Has
anybody ever seen a picture of her?

I think a tab

Post by Aggie
Met her before?

Are you trying to say that she should have been put on display, like a
sideshow?

Post by Aggie
She shares a quarter of the royal lineage of the Queen Elizabeth. And
she's been locked up for over 60 years.

And unless you have any reason to believe that she is being abused,
there's nothing more to say.
The decision that you cannot deal with a beloved family member's illness,
and are forced to turn them over to professionals is *not* something most
people take lightly. I see no evidence that anyone involved here did that.

Some people just like to interfere in other people's business. I wonder
how many invalids "Aggie" takes of or has in her life.

js

Aggie

2005-11-28 09:54:21 UTC

Hi Susan,

I think the conservative notions of yesteryear are still alive in well.

nutters.. I dislike even the term, especially when it's used as a false insult.

So somebody can actually be a nutter, if it was a true insult?

Well, the person who used that term is, AFAIC, a different world
than mine - for which I am grateful.

Yes it is a different world, I imagine... but if she can love her
half-sister, how different can it be?

Uh, it certainly *is* just for the family to dealwith - it's no one's
business but theirs.

In the newspaper article, we see the abuse that took place of these
women. But even if the outright abuse didn't occur, even leaving her in
the first place in such a home was abuse enough.

They abandoned her... They left her to rot for over 60 years. I don't
think a family should be able to do that with impunity. Especially when
it's a family founded on Royal... hypocrisy?

How is it indignant for a person to be in mental institution, or a care
home for the aged, or whatever it's called? They are the victims of
people like you, of people who look down their noses at these people,
who think they're pathetic. No, the people who lose their dignity are
the workers at her home, who like parasites benefit from the suffering
in the patients that they mostly cause. The indignant ones are the
family, who do nothing for their kin so that there will be no blemish
on their public image. Who put vanity ahead of family. Shame on them.

Are you trying to say that she should have been put on display, like a
sideshow?

Again, the sort of people who laugh at people who "see reality
differently, perhaps at a greater or even better level, but certainly
different" are the wrong ones. The sideshow was from a time where
people laughed at differences - but now we should embrace differences.
And not shun them. There is nothing to laugh at, when a person is being
themselves, just acceptance.

I am a person who has worked with the so-called "mentally ill", who has
volunteered. So I know what many of them (of us) are like. But... I
believe the term "invalids" disappeared 60 years ago, in fact I haven't
heard that term being used accept for black and white movies.

Aggie

Aggie

2005-11-28 09:58:38 UTC

And Susan, did you say you've seen a picture of her in a "tab"? What
does that mean? Thanks.

t***@comcast.net

2005-11-28 14:58:57 UTC

Post by Aggie
In the newspaper article, we see the abuse that took place of these
women. But even if the outright abuse didn't occur, even leaving her in
the first place in such a home was abuse enough.
They abandoned her... They left her to rot for over 60 years. I don't
think a family should be able to do that with impunity. Especially when
it's a family founded on Royal... hypocrisy?
Aggie

Leaving them in a home which could provide the 24/7 care they obviously
needed is abuse?
Remember- they had been under private care practically from birth
before being placed in the facility.

And since when do you get to decide what a family does or does not do
with impunity?

In the end the story is this.. the newspapers sensationalized what
is/was a COMPLETELY PRIVATE FAMILY MATTER.

--
The Verminator

r***@gmail.com

2018-03-22 22:13:32 UTC

Just for anyone's interest,my mother nursed her and said that she was in a straight jacket tied to her bed.I cant think of any thing worse,can you?

Brian Pears

2005-11-28 16:25:14 UTC

Post by Aggie
Have any of you wondered why we know so little about this woman? Has
anybody ever seen a picture of her? Met her before?
She shares a quarter of the royal lineage of the Queen Elizabeth. And
she's been locked up for over 60 years.

Locked up?? Pictures?? Met her?? Are you serious?

She is reportedly an old lady with the mind of a six-year-old
child and it seems that her family have ensured that she has
always received the constant care she so obviously needs. And
if you think that parading a relative with such a condition on
public occasions or subjecting her to the tender mercies of
tabloid journalists or paparazzi is appropriate behaviour, then
you really are a fool.

We have no right to know anything about anyone, royal or
otherwise - we all have the right to privacy and the right to
decide what facts are made public and what we keep to ourselves.
In the case of vulnerable adults like this lady, then it is up
to the family to make such decisions. In short, it is none of
our business.

--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK

Hal S.

2005-11-28 23:04:42 UTC

Locked up?? Pictures?? Met her?? Are you serious?
She is reportedly an old lady with the mind of a six-year-old
child and it seems that her family have ensured that she has
always received the constant care she so obviously needs. And
if you think that parading a relative with such a condition on
public occasions or subjecting her to the tender mercies of
tabloid journalists or paparazzi is appropriate behaviour, then
you really are a fool.
We have no right to know anything about anyone, royal or
otherwise - we all have the right to privacy and the right to
decide what facts are made public and what we keep to ourselves.
In the case of vulnerable adults like this lady, then it is up
to the family to make such decisions. In short, it is none of
our business.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK

-------------------------------------------

You're correct. Anyway, I don't understand Aggie's obsession with this
story. And it's not as of these women are members of the RF. Despite those
disgusting news items Aggie posted and despite Aggie's pronouncements, the
women are merely distant relatives of the RF THROUGH MARRIAGE. This is a
nonstory if there ever was one. I wonder how many distant relatives through
marriage Aggie looks after and provides for.

Hal S.

Aggie

2005-11-29 03:00:27 UTC

Hi there,

"Aggie posted and despite Aggie's pronouncements, the

women are merely distant relatives of the RF THROUGH MARRIAGE"

The woman Katherine Bowes Lyon is the first cousin of HM the Queen. Her
half-sisters are relatives by marriage.

She is reportedly an old lady with the mind of a six-year-old
child

Reportedly? How do we know what her mind is like. Everybody writes
"reportedly", but nobody has the facts in front of them. And so what
if she's old, doesn't mean we should throw them away.

and it seems that her family have ensured that she has
always received the constant care she so obviously needs.

Her family, including cousins (children of cousins) HM Queen Elizabeth
II, the Lord Clinton, the Earl of Strathmore (and his son the Lord
Glames) could have integrated her into their lives, but instead, they
threw her away.

And according to that article you covet, neither the Queen Mother nor
her litter ever visited Ms. Bowes Lyon.

If she is noble, then she should care for her family. If she is honest,
then she wouldn't be a patron of mencap.

Aggie

2005-11-29 08:22:25 UTC

And there has been an attempt to cover-up even the existence of
Katherine and Nerissa.... saying that they died 40 and 60 years ago.
The Queen Mother and her litter lived lavishly on the backs of these
women, who's existence was covered-up for vanity's sake.
-Aggie

Lux

2005-11-29 14:08:52 UTC

Post by Aggie
And there has been an attempt to cover-up even the existence of
Katherine and Nerissa.... saying that they died 40 and 60 years ago.
The Queen Mother and her litter lived lavishly on the backs of these
women, who's existence was covered-up for vanity's sake.
-Aggie

Thank you for bringing this interesting story to our attention. This
aspect I find particularly bizarre:FIVE children, from two sides of a
family, committed on the same day?!

"First reported in 1987.
United Press International April 6, 1987,
HEADLINE: Queen's cousins reportedly spent decades in mental hospitals
Buckingham Palace indicated Monday the royal family had no intention of

getting involved in reports that two of Queen Elizabeth's cousins,
thought for years to be dead, lived in a mental institution. The two
were Katherine Bowes-Lyon, 60, who is reportedly still alive and has
been living in a state-run mental hospital for 46 years, and her
sister, Nerissa, who died last year at the age of 66. They are the
daughters of the queen's late uncle, John Bowes-Lyon.

The news reports said Katherine was still alive, although
severely mentally retarded, and had been in the state-run Royal
Earlswood mental hospital in Redhill, south of London, since 1941. They

said Nerissa also spent most of her life there until her death last
year.

Also, Edonia Elizabeth, Rosemary Jean and Etheldreda Flavia Fane,
cousins of Queen Mother Elizabeth -- were placed in the mental
institution south of London on the same day in 1941. The three were the

children of Harriet Fane, sister of John Bowes-Lyon's wife Fenella and
sister-in- law of the late Queen Mother; cousins of the Bowes-Lyons
sisters."

That said, in those days this was common practice, even for regular
folks.

t***@comcast.net

2005-11-29 14:58:26 UTC

Post by Lux
Thank you for bringing this interesting story to our attention. This
aspect I find particularly bizarre:FIVE children, from two sides of a
family, committed on the same day?!

All five were children of siblings, which leads me to think that
perhaps a family financial problem may have been part of the reason.
All five had been under private care for years before the commital.

--
The Verminator

Jean Sue Libkind

2005-11-29 21:26:55 UTC

Post by t***@comcast.net

Post by Lux
Thank you for bringing this interesting story to our attention. This
aspect I find particularly bizarre:FIVE children, from two sides of a
family, committed on the same day?!

Perhaps the parents grew aged or the relative who had been supervising
their care. Sounds like they had been kept together... easier to care
for, certainly, but also perhaps they enjoyed each other's company. I
believe they went to the same institution; really, I'm not sure what
more anyone could have done.

js

Aggie

2005-11-29 23:00:37 UTC

"All five were children of siblings, which leads me to think that
perhaps a family financial problem may have been part of the reason.
All five had been under private care for years before the commital. "

What else do you know about them, im curious?

"it's not like she's locking
into some crumbling Victoria looney-bin like a savage - UK and Scotland
have
very modern, clinical, clean, safe institutions for mental health "

Royal Earlswood was a crumbling victorian looney bin....

And when katherine moved out to a "modern clinical, clean, safe
institution" like Kentwin House, she was exposed, for over 15 years to
all kinds of abuses which were invasion of privacy, etc. who knows what
else.

aggie

Jean Sue Libkind

2005-11-30 00:32:22 UTC

Post by Aggie
all kinds of abuses which were invasion of privacy, etc.

Excuse me. Let's put this in perspective.

Beating, starving, torturing, raping ... those are abuse.

Invasion of privacy (systematic in every medical institution; if you've
ever been in one you'll understand what I mean immediately), blood
tests, bad food, noisy halls, visits from clerics and being awoken to
take your sleeping pill.... these are not abuses but inconveniences.

Put a lid on your assult, Aggie-Mae. You have obviously never done
homecare for an invalid and you have no concept of life in a medical
facility. You're way off base.

And while you're yapping on how the mentally ill are poorly treated,
read about the "Great Release" from the asyli in the 1970s.... and ask
yourself why so many people are living on the streets now. Are YOU
taking them in? Are YOU helping homeless shelters? Are YOU part of
Habitat for Humanity.

People with windows should not play baseball on the lawn.

js

Why don't you pick a more justifiable topic:
prison abuse in Guantanmo?
Not to your liking?
Try the genocide in Darfur.

t***@comcast.net

2005-11-30 00:43:07 UTC

Post by Aggie
And when katherine moved out to a "modern clinical, clean, safe
institution" like Kentwin House, she was exposed, for over 15 years to
all kinds of abuses which were invasion of privacy, etc. who knows what
else.
aggie

What "invasion of privacy,etc" - Name ONE abuse she was specifically
subjected to.

While there were allegations of abuse in the institution there was
never ANY proof that she was the victim of ANY abusive act whatsoever.

Please stop being so melodramatic and deal with the known facts- not
the sensationalized claims of some newspaper.

--
The Verminator

f***@verizon.net

2005-11-30 02:29:52 UTC

Post by t***@comcast.net

What "invasion of privacy,etc" - Name ONE abuse she was specifically
subjected to.

Could it be the same abuse of privacy Aggie was suggesting when
she insisted people had a right to meet this woman?

SusanC

Post by t***@comcast.net
While there were allegations of abuse in the institution there was
never ANY proof that she was the victim of ANY abusive act whatsoever.
Please stop being so melodramatic and deal with the known facts- not
the sensationalized claims of some newspaper.
--
The Verminator

Aggie

2005-11-30 05:48:27 UTC

Ms. Bowes Lyon was exposed to many unsafe things:

"Ketwin House was finally closed last year after allegations that male
members of staff had been washing female residents and that patients
had been found wandering on dangerous country roads. There were also
concerns about alleged irregularities over patient finances, and at
least one complaint of physical abuse. At times just four members of
staff were on hand to care for 12 vulnerable patients, and Katherine
had been seen with bruising to her hand and hip. The fees to keep
Katherine Bowes Lyon at Ketwin House Ð around £770 per patient per
year at the time of its closure Ð were paid by the NHS despite the
Queen's fabulous wealth. Since their time in Redhill together, Idonea
Fane and Katherine had been companions for 60 years. When Ketwin House
closed the pair were finally, and painfully, separated."

Who knows what actual abuses she faced? Who knows if she was raped? It
certainly looks like it's possible.
==

I have volunteered and worked in an institution for the developmentally
disabled, and I do believe they can function in regular society, if
they had the support of family.

Katherine was abandoned by a cruel family, a family that we covet: the
Royal Family.

Aggie

volcaran

2005-11-30 10:38:56 UTC

Post by Aggie
"Ketwin House was finally closed last year after allegations that male
members of staff had been washing female residents and that patients
had been found wandering on dangerous country roads. There were also
concerns about alleged irregularities over patient finances, and at
least one complaint of physical abuse. At times just four members of
staff were on hand to care for 12 vulnerable patients, and Katherine
had been seen with bruising to her hand and hip. The fees to keep
Katherine Bowes Lyon at Ketwin House Ð around £770 per patient per
year at the time of its closure Ð were paid by the NHS despite the
Queen's fabulous wealth. Since their time in Redhill together, Idonea
Fane and Katherine had been companions for 60 years. When Ketwin House
closed the pair were finally, and painfully, separated."
Who knows what actual abuses she faced? Who knows if she was raped? It
certainly looks like it's possible.

Now you are being absurd. Maybe Ketwin House wasn't a model nursing
home in all respects but to extrapolate one reported case of physical
abuse to rape "certainly looks like it's possible" is nonsense. While
Ketwin House may have had problems perhaps the greater abuse is the
separation of the women forced by its closure. Since the home was state
run, the failings of the home rest with the administrators and the
inspection system not on the relatives who rely upon the provision of
proper care, unless you can demonstrate that the families were aware of
problems at the home and ignored them.

Post by Aggie
==
I have volunteered and worked in an institution for the developmentally
disabled, and I do believe they can function in regular society, if
they had the support of family.
Katherine was abandoned by a cruel family, a family that we covet: the
Royal Family.
Aggie

Sacha

2005-11-30 11:03:56 UTC

On 30/11/05 5:48, in article

Is this a serious comment? Someone has bruising, the cause of which is
unknown and you extrapolate from this that she might have been raped? I'm
afraid that at this point you're becoming extremely over-excited and I
really do hope that you do NOT have a job caring for others.

We 'covet' the royal family? I certainly don't covet anyone else's family!
As to Katherine being 'abandoned' by the royal family, she was not a member
of the royal family and had her own family.

--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

Brian Pears

2005-11-30 12:18:01 UTC

Post by Aggie
Who knows what actual abuses she faced? Who knows if she was raped? It
certainly looks like it's possible.

Well you don't know for one, so why ramble on about it - or
do you get a kick out of such lurid fantasising? Male staff
washing female patients, even if true, does not equate with
rape or even abuse. And you can't equate allegation with fact
in the matters of physical abuse or financial irregularity.

Ketwin House was badly run and it was closed as it should
have been, but the sensationalised tabloid expose was the
usual load of unsubstantiated hype. No criminal charges were
brought against the staff, nobody was 'struck off' by their
professional bodies, so nothing was proven.

Post by Aggie
I have volunteered and worked in an institution for the developmentally
disabled, and I do believe they can function in regular society, if
they had the support of family.

I wouldn't allow a nosy, interfering busybody like you
within ten miles of vulnerable adults.

Post by Aggie
The fees to keep Katherine Bowes Lyon at Ketwin House Ð around £770 per
patient per year at the time of its closure Ð were paid by the NHS
despite the Queen's fabulous wealth.

So you would deny NHS treatment to members of the RF.

Post by Aggie
Katherine was abandoned by a cruel family, a family that we covet: the
Royal Family.

You don't know the extent of her disabilities, you don't know the
extent of her needs and you don't know what prompted her
institutionalisation. You certainly don't know the motives
of her family or the attitude of the present RF. In short, you
know absolutely nothing about any of this so please cut the
crap.

--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK

2005-11-30 15:01:05 UTC

"Aggie" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:***@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ms. Bowes Lyon was exposed to many unsafe things:

"Ketwin House was finally closed last year after allegations that male
members of staff had been washing female residents and that patients
had been found wandering on dangerous country roads. There were also
concerns about alleged irregularities over patient finances, and at
least one complaint of physical abuse. At times just four members of
staff were on hand to care for 12 vulnerable patients, and Katherine
had been seen with bruising to her hand and hip. The fees to keep
Katherine Bowes Lyon at Ketwin House Ð around £770 per patient per
year at the time of its closure Ð were paid by the NHS despite the
Queen's fabulous wealth. Since their time in Redhill together, Idonea
Fane and Katherine had been companions for 60 years. When Ketwin House
closed the pair were finally, and painfully, separated."

Who knows what actual abuses she faced?

***Who knows what actual abuses anybody faces in hospital?

Who knows if she was raped?

***Why would you even imagine that rape was a likelihood?

It
certainly looks like it's possible.

***Abuse can take place in any venue, including the family home, where
there's less accountability than in a specialized hospital.

==

I have volunteered and worked in an institution for the developmentally
disabled, and I do believe they can function in regular society, if
they had the support of family.

***I know a couple of families that care for developmentally disabled
children at home, and it takes more than justn the support of family to make
it work. Nowadays -- at least in the United States -- the public school
system is set up to accommodate many of their needs, and even to teach them
modest occupational skills.

***But even with a system of community support, taking care of a
developmentally disabled child in the home takes a huge toll on the
caregivers -- and also on the rest of the family, including the children
who are not disabled -- and that often affects the quality of the care
received. A developmentally disabled child needs far more care and attention
than a normal child, and IMO, most families do not have the resources or the
time to provide what is needed.

Katherine was abandoned by a cruel family, a family that we covet: the
Royal Family.

***That's very dramatic, but it's nonsense. In the first place, in our more
enlightened times, specialized hospitals and residences and nursing homes
are usually able to give better care and are also less socially isolating
than home care. And in the second place, she was not a member of the Royal
Family, and it was not their responsibility to oversee her care. -- Q

Aggie

Hal S.

2005-11-30 16:01:00 UTC

"Aggie" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:***@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ms. Bowes Lyon was exposed to many unsafe things:

"Ketwin House was finally closed last year after allegations that male
members of staff had been washing female residents and that patients
had been found wandering on dangerous country roads. There were also
concerns about alleged irregularities over patient finances, and at
least one complaint of physical abuse. At times just four members of
staff were on hand to care for 12 vulnerable patients, and Katherine
had been seen with bruising to her hand and hip. The fees to keep
Katherine Bowes Lyon at Ketwin House Ð around £770 per patient per
year at the time of its closure Ð were paid by the NHS despite the
Queen's fabulous wealth. Since their time in Redhill together, Idonea
Fane and Katherine had been companions for 60 years. When Ketwin House
closed the pair were finally, and painfully, separated."

Who knows what actual abuses she faced? Who knows if she was raped? It
certainly looks like it's possible.
==

-------------------------------------------------

"Who knows?" You certainly don't. And how does it look like it's possible
she was raped?" Bruising on the hand and hip certainly don't give rise to
that speculation, at least to a sound mind.

Hal S.

-----------------------------------------------

I have volunteered and worked in an institution for the developmentally
disabled,
----------------------------------------------------

I don't believe that for a second unless your job was carrying out the
trash. You certainly don't come across as mentally and emotionally equipped
to care for patients' needs.

Hal S.
-----------------------------------------------------

and I do believe they can function in regular society, if
they had the support of family.

Katherine was abandoned by a cruel family, a family that we covet: the
Royal Family.

Aggie
----------------------------------------------

When are you going to get it through your thick head that these women
aren't/weren't members of the Royal Family in any sense? You still haven't
told us how you provide and care for your own distant relatives through
marriage. Put up or shut up. Your rants have no basis in fact and, hence,
are not worth responding to anymore.

Hal S.

Jean Sue Libkind

2005-12-01 23:03:52 UTC

Older women frequently bruise in these areas as a result of blood tests
and injections. Proves nothing.

js

JFlexer

2005-11-30 18:11:16 UTC

Post by Aggie
"Ketwin House was finally closed last year after allegations that male
members of staff had been washing female residents

so what. They're professionals... not perverts...

Post by Aggie
and that patients
had been found wandering on dangerous country roads.

Have you ever tried to take care of a patient in advanced senility or with
Alzheimers'?? They are determined, stubborn, and do the damnedest things...
including "escaping" on a regular basis. (and, yes, I can speak from family
experience...) I am certain that there are characters with similar
independant streaks in most mental health care facilities.

Post by Aggie
There were also
concerns about alleged irregularities over patient finances, and at
least one complaint of physical abuse.

heresay.

Post by Aggie
At times just four members of
staff were on hand to care for 12 vulnerable patients,

that's a pretty damned good ratio -- sounds like a good facility to me.

Post by Aggie
and Katherine
had been seen with bruising to her hand and hip.

Old folks, mentally ill or not, fall all the time. They bruise themselves
all the time.

Post by Aggie
The fees to keep
Katherine Bowes Lyon at Ketwin House Ð around £770 per patient per
year at the time of its closure Ð were paid by the NHS despite the
Queen's fabulous wealth.

It is almost certain that there are blood relatives closer to this woman who
have guardianship of her. The Queen is hardly in a position to be asked to
be responsible for her care. Most likely, the major decisions about her
care were made before HM was born - before anyone had a clue the Duchess of
York would become Queen...

Post by Aggie
Since their time in Redhill together, Idonea
Fane and Katherine had been companions for 60 years. When Ketwin House
closed the pair were finally, and painfully, separated."
Who knows what actual abuses she faced? Who knows if she was raped?

ridiculous allegation.

Post by Aggie
It certainly looks like it's possible.

Occam's razor says otherwise.

You have no idea what her diagnosis is. Regardless of your experience as a
"candy striper," you are in no position to make a diagnosis or judgement
with regard to her illness, state of happiness, or quality of care. Your
conclusions are baseless and absurd.

Your obsession with this issue is disconcerting. You are starting to sound
like Su-Texas...

I am through with this conversation.

-J

Lux

2005-11-30 21:20:34 UTC

I understood the article to say 2 of the children were of John Bowes
Lyon, and 3 were from his WIFE's family, i.e., the children of her
sister. Therefore they would not be the children of siblings (as far
as I know), but would be an example of mental illness of defect on two
sides of one family, the husband's side (QM's father) and the wife's
side through her sister. THAT is unusual and very sad.

I know that earlier in the 20C it was not uncommon to commit people for
life, as there was no medication or sophisticated therapies. As the
century wore on, I do think it became a matter of neglect, selfishness,
and shame to just leave people there.

Post by t***@comcast.net

Post by Lux
Thank you for bringing this interesting story to our attention. This
aspect I find particularly bizarre:FIVE children, from two sides of a
family, committed on the same day?!

Brian Pears

2005-11-30 22:00:38 UTC

Post by Lux
I know that earlier in the 20C it was not uncommon to commit people for
life, as there was no medication or sophisticated therapies. As the
century wore on, I do think it became a matter of neglect, selfishness,
and shame to just leave people there.

There are no "therapies" for severely retarded development as
there now are for illnesses causing psychosis. Those unfortunate
enough to suffer such a handicap need constant care and will
always need it. It is not "neglect, selfishness, and shame" to
ensure that a loved one receives such attention in a place
geared to the task - indeed it could be neglectful and selfish
and shameful to keep such an individual within the family where
she could not receive the professional care and attention she
needs.

--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK

Lux

2005-11-30 22:23:17 UTC

YAWN! Do we KNOW all 5 children were retarded? Even so, you are
wrong, there are newer therapies for retarded people in the sense of
maximizing their abilities and mainstreaming them more into the
community that is very different from the way this was dealt with in
the old days. When I talk about people from those times leaving
relatives "there" for 50 and more years, I am not merely talking about
this particular family. A person can be placed in a home without being
abandoned on top of it. I have no idea whether that happened in this
family or not.

Brian Pears

2005-12-01 02:51:00 UTC

I have no idea whether that happened in this family or not.

It is very apparent that you have no idea.

--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK

Aggie

2005-12-01 04:33:54 UTC

Gentleman, please, keep some order here. There is no need for
name-calling or other improper acts.

Some of you think that what has happened to Katherine Bowes Lyon is ok.
And some of you don't. It's a difference between morality, between how
we see humanity. There is no need to get personal.

To the issue. I know that Katherine is not a member of the Royal
family, but she is a first cousin of the Queen. So first of all, such a
person deserves some privelage, for the same reason the Queen deserves
privelage.

But, as somebody has noted: "As the century wore on, I do think it
became a matter of neglect, selfishness,
and shame to just leave people there. " Indeed she was left there, and
hardly anybody comes to see her.... and the Queen nor her mother never
came to see her at all. They just left her there... and reported her
dead to Debrett's.

Now, some say that it was normal to leave 5 members of the family in a
mental institution. Fine. I accept that. But keep in mind that their
idea of "mentally ill" was far more encompassing than it is now. One of
them could have had a stutter... the other may have had crooked eyes...
another may have made some bad decisions like walking around the home
with a toilet seat on their head.... etc. So that's unfair.

But anyway, what's the excuse for leaving her in there to rot in 1971?
1981? 1991? 2001? People were aware of more enligthended things then.
And surely the Queen and her Mother, given their extensive lectures and
talks of civility etc etc blah blah blah, and patronage of the
disablity organization MENCAP, and receiving awards from that
organization (oh my).... could have had the knowledge, the intelligence
and the DIGNITY to visit or save her cousin? To give her cousin Nerissa
at least a decent funeral, not some plastic tag on her grave. I mean
some sort of respect.

But in death, like in life, the women were treated like... like....
what the gold toilet bowel prevents the Queen from sitting in.

Aggie

t***@comcast.net

2005-12-01 05:02:28 UTC

Post by Aggie
But, as somebody has noted: "As the century wore on, I do think it
became a matter of neglect, selfishness,
and shame to just leave people there. " Indeed she was left there, and
hardly anybody comes to see her.... and the Queen nor her mother never
came to see her at all. They just left her there... and reported her
dead to Debrett's.

Neither the Queen Mother nor the Queen reported either of the girls as
dead- get the facts straight!

The is NO proof that the present Queen was even aware of the situation
- nor the Queen Mother. If the girl's mother reported them dead why
should anyone doubt her?

--
The Verminator

volcaran

2005-12-01 10:01:16 UTC

No, its a difference between knowing the facts and wide speculation in
the absence of fact. It is impossible to comment reasonably on the
treatment of the women without knowing their medical history and family
circumstances etc. However, you seem content with making absurd claims
and accusations because you don't know.

Post by Aggie
There is no need to get personal.
To the issue. I know that Katherine is not a member of the Royal
family, but she is a first cousin of the Queen. So first of all, such a
person deserves some privelage, for the same reason the Queen deserves
privelage.

"Privelage" (sic) is not an issue.

Again speculation.

Post by Aggie
Now, some say that it was normal to leave 5 members of the family in a
mental institution. Fine. I accept that. But keep in mind that their
idea of "mentally ill" was far more encompassing than it is now. One of
them could have had a stutter... the other may have had crooked eyes...
another may have made some bad decisions like walking around the home
with a toilet seat on their head.... etc. So that's unfair.

More absurdity in the absence of fact.

Post by Aggie
But anyway, what's the excuse for leaving her in there to rot in 1971?
1981? 1991? 2001? People were aware of more enligthended things then.
And surely the Queen and her Mother, given their extensive lectures and
talks of civility etc etc blah blah blah, and patronage of the
disablity organization MENCAP, and receiving awards from that
organization (oh my).... could have had the knowledge, the intelligence
and the DIGNITY to visit or save her cousin?

Irrelevance.

Post by Aggie
To give her cousin Nerissa
at least a decent funeral, not some plastic tag on her grave. I mean
some sort of respect.

Do we know the "plastic tag" was not a temporary grave marker? Few
people have their headstones ready in my limited experience. What
wasn't decent about her funeral?

Post by Aggie
But in death, like in life, the women were treated like... like....
what the gold toilet bowel prevents the Queen from sitting in.
Aggie

Brian Pears

2005-12-01 10:26:52 UTC

Post by Aggie
another may have made some bad decisions like walking around the home
with a toilet seat on their head.... etc. So that's unfair.
But in death, like in life, the women were treated like... like....
what the gold toilet bowel prevents the Queen from sitting in.

Two toilet analogies in one post - perhaps that just about sums
up your mentality.

You are seeking to create a scandal where none exists. You know
nothing of the situation, nothing of the families and nothing of
the ladies' handicaps, yet you feel equipped to pontificate on
what should have been done. Moreover you disingenuously seem to
regard putting vulnerable individuals in the care of professionals
as mistreatment. Well we can all be thankful that nobody is ever
going to be stupid enough to allow you to make any decisions about
the disposition or treatment of any handicapped person.

--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK

rickym

2005-12-01 17:28:19 UTC

Two toilet analogies in one post - perhaps that just about sums
up your mentality.
You are seeking to create a scandal where none exists. You know
nothing of the situation, nothing of the families and nothing of
the ladies' handicaps, yet you feel equipped to pontificate on
what should have been done. Moreover you disingenuously seem to
regard putting vulnerable individuals in the care of professionals
as mistreatment. Well we can all be thankful that nobody is ever
going to be stupid enough to allow you to make any decisions about
the disposition or treatment of any handicapped person.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
From the beginning, I've felt that "Aggie" is a troll. --r

Jean Sue Libkind

2005-12-01 22:54:06 UTC

No, the Queen deserves vastly different privileges because of the
position she holds. Moreover, Katherine was not a member of the royal
side of the Queen's family.

Queens do not answer questionnaires. That is what staff is for.

Stupid argument; you have no idea why Katherine and her cousins/siblings
were institutionalized.

Are you aware of the effects of long-term institutionalization and how
impossible it is for the mentally capable to adapt to the real world,
let alone adapt with a handicap.

Oh, wait. Yes, you are aware of it but still haven't mastered it.

Post by Aggie
But in death, like in life, the women were treated like... like....
what the gold toilet bowel prevents the Queen from sitting in.

Women can be mistreated because of their gender, quite true. I don't
think that is what is going on here but none of us have the facts to
make either the accusation or the rebuttal.

js

Lux

2005-12-02 00:53:04 UTC

Post by Aggie
Gentleman, please, keep some order here. There is no need for
name-calling or other improper acts.
Some of you think that what has happened to Katherine Bowes Lyon is ok.
And some of you don't. It's a difference between morality, between how
we see humanity. There is no need to get personal.
To the issue. I know that Katherine is not a member of the Royal
family, but she is a first cousin of the Queen. So first of all, such a
person deserves some privelage, for the same reason the Queen deserves
privelage.
But, as somebody has noted: "As the century wore on, I do think it
became a matter of neglect, selfishness,
and shame to just leave people there. " Indeed she was left there, and
hardly anybody comes to see her.... and the Queen nor her mother never
came to see her at all. They just left her there... and reported her
dead to Debrett's.
Now, some say that it was normal to leave 5 members of the family in a
mental institution. Fine. I accept that. But keep in mind that their
idea of "mentally ill" was far more encompassing than it is now. One of
them could have had a stutter... the other may have had crooked eyes...
another may have made some bad decisions like walking around the home
with a toilet seat on their head.... etc. So that's unfair.
But anyway, what's the excuse for leaving her in there to rot in 1971?
1981? 1991? 2001? People were aware of more enligthended things then.
And surely the Queen and her Mother, given their extensive lectures and
talks of civility etc etc blah blah blah, and patronage of the
disablity organization MENCAP, and receiving awards from that
organization (oh my).... could have had the knowledge, the intelligence
and the DIGNITY to visit or save her cousin? To give her cousin Nerissa
at least a decent funeral, not some plastic tag on her grave. I mean
some sort of respect.
But in death, like in life, the women were treated like... like....
what the gold toilet bowel prevents the Queen from sitting in.
Aggie

Still interested in the topic of how 2 sets of siblings, 5 cousins,
could be committed on the same day, I see that the Trefusis-Bowes Lyon
children Nerissa and Katherine were 22 and 16 when institutionalized in
1941, with a reported mental age of 6. Their father, the QM's brother
died in 1930. It seems with a mental age of 6 they could have been
taught to speak. Anyway, one of the sisters apparently took delight in
Diana and Charles' wedding on TV, although not told they were
relatives. The Trefusis-Fane sisters, their cousins, were "certified"
but I do not see what their illness was. There are not any really good
sources on this that I can see, on the internet, anyway. How very sad.

On the Windsor side, what was done to the young, epilectic Prince John
is fantastically repugnant. Well, no wonder they had no problem
leaving their cousins the Romanovs to hang out to dry. Some people
will stoop to any level and shrink from nothing to maintain their
position.

I believe Cams has some Trefusis connection.

Brian Pears

2005-12-02 01:28:43 UTC

Post by Lux
On the Windsor side, what was done to the young, epilectic Prince John
is fantastically repugnant. Well, no wonder they had no problem
leaving their cousins the Romanovs to hang out to dry. Some people
will stoop to any level and shrink from nothing to maintain their
position.

On the subject of Prince John, this is part of the article at:

http://www.britannia.com/history/biographies/princejohn.html

"To the touchy-feely, care in the community, equal rights for the
disabled world of today, shutting John away appears cruel and
unfeeling. It was, in fact, the only recourse open to his
parents, given the social mores of the time. Isolation also had
benefits for John himself, releasing him from the rigours of
being royal and therefore, in a sense, public property. His
life, for however long it lasted, could be sheltered and serene
and there is some evidence that his happy nature was unaffected
by his condition. He was not nicknamed 'the Imp' for nothing.
His favourite game was playing soldiers, with a wooden sword and
a paper hat on his head. Queen Mary probably spent more time
with him than she did with her other children, and John's charm
was said to lighten her distress when she visited him at Wood
Farm. Queen Mary was nowhere near as cold and unfeeling as she
has often been depicted and though she was always reticent about
it, John's early death struck her hard and deep.

Neither of his parents were there when John died in the early
hours of 18 January 1919. Death came too suddenly. At 5.30 am,
the telephone rang at Buckingham Palace. Mrs. Bill was on the
line, telling the Queen that John had had a severe fit and could
not be woken up. . It was not unexpected. Since John turned
thirteen in July 1918, the fits had grown worse and more
frequent. Now, six months later, he was dead.

Despite the hour, King George and Queen Mary immediately drove
down to Sandringham and Wood Farm., to find Mrs. Bill
'heartbroken but resigned' and the dead boy lying as if asleep
on his bed.

'Little Johnnie looked very peaceful ...' the Queen wrote later.
'He just slept quietly in his heavenly home, no pain, no
struggle, just peace for the little troubled spirit.'

John was buried on 21 January in the graveyard at Sandringham
Church, in what his mother described as a very private ceremony.
From there on, the lost prince passed out of royal history and
public ken to re-emerge briefly eighty years later though only
as a faded photograph in an old album found during a house
clearance."

--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK

Lux

2005-12-02 23:04:42 UTC

http://www.britannia.com/history/biographies/princejohn.html
"To the touchy-feely, care in the community, equal rights for the
disabled world of today, shutting John away appears cruel and
unfeeling. It was, in fact, the only recourse open to his
parents, given the social mores of the time. Isolation also had
benefits for John himself, releasing him from the rigours of
being royal and therefore, in a sense, public property. His
life, for however long it lasted, could be sheltered and serene
and there is some evidence that his happy nature was unaffected
by his condition. He was not nicknamed 'the Imp' for nothing.
His favourite game was playing soldiers, with a wooden sword and
a paper hat on his head. Queen Mary probably spent more time
with him than she did with her other children, and John's charm
was said to lighten her distress when she visited him at Wood
Farm. Queen Mary was nowhere near as cold and unfeeling as she
has often been depicted and though she was always reticent about
it, John's early death struck her hard and deep.
Neither of his parents were there when John died in the early
hours of 18 January 1919. Death came too suddenly. At 5.30 am,
the telephone rang at Buckingham Palace. Mrs. Bill was on the
line, telling the Queen that John had had a severe fit and could
not be woken up. . It was not unexpected. Since John turned
thirteen in July 1918, the fits had grown worse and more
frequent. Now, six months later, he was dead.
Despite the hour, King George and Queen Mary immediately drove
down to Sandringham and Wood Farm., to find Mrs. Bill
'heartbroken but resigned' and the dead boy lying as if asleep
on his bed.
'Little Johnnie looked very peaceful ...' the Queen wrote later.
'He just slept quietly in his heavenly home, no pain, no
struggle, just peace for the little troubled spirit.'
John was buried on 21 January in the graveyard at Sandringham
Church, in what his mother described as a very private ceremony.
From there on, the lost prince passed out of royal history and
public ken to re-emerge briefly eighty years later though only
as a faded photograph in an old album found during a house
clearance."
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK

The pieces I saw said the parents never saw John again after he was
sent to Wood Farm. If this version is correct, no problem obviously.

2005-12-02 04:27:03 UTC

It seems that even though they were in private care during their childhood,
they were unable to learn to speak.

Post by Lux
Anyway, one of the sisters apparently took delight in
Diana and Charles' wedding on TV, although not told they were
relatives. The Trefusis-Fane sisters, their cousins, were "certified"
but I do not see what their illness was.

Their condition was that they had a mental age of six -- and possibly less
than that. They were obviously unable to attain any degree of
self-sufficiency.

Post by Lux
There are not any really good
sources on this that I can see, on the internet, anyway. How very sad.
On the Windsor side, what was done to the young, epilectic Prince John
is fantastically repugnant. Well, no wonder they had no problem
leaving their cousins the Romanovs to hang out to dry. Some people
will stoop to any level and shrink from nothing to maintain their
position.
I believe Cams has some Trefusis connection.

Alice Keppel's other daughter -- not Camilla's grandmother, Sonya Keppel,
but her great aunt, the notorious Violet -- married Denys Trefusis.
Denys was a first cousin once removed of Fenella Bowes Lyon. -- Q

Lux

2005-12-02 23:09:52 UTC

Post by Q

It seems that even though they were in private care during their childhood,
they were unable to learn to speak.

Their condition was that they had a mental age of six -- and possibly less
than that. They were obviously unable to attain any degree of
self-sufficiency.

Do you mean that the 3 Trefusis-Fane sisters were also retarded, and to
the same degree as their cousins the Trefusis-Bowes Lyon girls? How
very strange. No, of course no 6 year old could be self-sufficient.

Right, Violet Trefusis is who I was thinking of.

2005-12-03 04:26:02 UTC

Post by Q

It seems that even though they were in private care during their childhood,
they were unable to learn to speak.

Their condition was that they had a mental age of six -- and possibly less
than that. They were obviously unable to attain any degree of
self-sufficiency.

Do you mean that the 3 Trefusis-Fane sisters were also retarded, and to
the same degree as their cousins the Trefusis-Bowes Lyon girls?

Apparently that was the case. The Trefusis sisters -- Fenella and
Harriet -- each had children who were normal, besides the ones who were
handicapped.

Post by Lux
How
very strange. No, of course no 6 year old could be self-sufficient.

The children -- all of them were girls -- were kept at home until adulthood,
or at least, late adolescence. Perhaps it was at that point that it became
difficult to keep them busy or give them adequate care.

Post by Lux
Right, Violet Trefusis is who I was thinking of.

I don't think that Violet had any children with Denys Trefusis. Maybe she
never even slept with him.
-- Q

t***@comcast.net

2005-12-01 01:33:20 UTC

Post by Lux
I understood the article to say 2 of the children were of John Bowes
Lyon, and 3 were from his WIFE's family, i.e., the children of her
sister. Therefore they would not be the children of siblings (as far
as I know)

DUH!!
Let's do the math shall we......
A. Two were from John and his wife and 3 were from John's wife's
sister..
B. John's wife and her sister were sibling's
C. Thus all five children WERE children of siblings.

--
The Verminator

Brian Pears

2005-11-29 09:06:31 UTC

Post by Aggie
Reportedly? How do we know what her mind is like. Everybody writes
"reportedly", but nobody has the facts in front of them.

It is none of your or our business.

Post by Aggie
And so what if she's old, doesn't mean we should throw them away.

You do like the emotive phrase. Arranging round-the-clock care
for someone who needs it is not throwing them away.

--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK

JFlexer

2005-11-29 20:39:01 UTC

Post by Aggie
Hi there,
"Aggie posted and despite Aggie's pronouncements, the

women are merely distant relatives of the RF THROUGH MARRIAGE"

The woman Katherine Bowes Lyon is the first cousin of HM the Queen. Her
half-sisters are relatives by marriage.

She is reportedly an old lady with the mind of a six-year-old
child

Reportedly? How do we know what her mind is like. Everybody writes
"reportedly", but nobody has the facts in front of them. And so what
if she's old, doesn't mean we should throw them away.

and it seems that her family have ensured that she has
always received the constant care she so obviously needs.

<snip>

Who said anything about "throwing them away" - it's not like she's locking
into some crumbling Victoria looney-bin like a savage - UK and Scotland have
very modern, clinical, clean, safe institutions for mental health like most
of the western world. I'm sure she very well cared for, with all her needs
managed and as much pleasure and activity as she could want.

None of the families involved are strapped for cash - I'm sure that
everything is well managed and NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS...

stop trying to create a scandal where there isn't one...

-J

s***@webtv.net

2005-11-27 23:22:05 UTC

quotes from that encyclopedia:

Katherine Bowes-Lyon (born 4 July 1926)

... is a niece of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, and a first cousin
of Queen Elizabeth II.

Her parents were the Hon. John Henry Bowes Lyon and the Hon. Fenella
Hepburn-Stuart-Forbes-Trefusis.

She was joined there by three of her first cousins, who had been
certified mentally disturbed, ....

... all daughters of the Hon. Harriet Hepburn-Stuart-Forbes-Trefusis
and Major Henry Nevile Fane:

Idonea Elizabeth (1912-2001), Rosemary Jean (1914-), and Etheldreda
Flavia Fane (1922-).

[end quotes]

----------------------------

The common last name seems to be:

Hon. Fenella Hepburn-Stuart-Forbes-Trefusis .... [who married the Hon.
John Henry Bowes-Lyon, Elizabeth's brother?]

Hon. Harriet Hepburn-Stuart-Forbes-Trefusis

----------------------------

quotes & sorta-quotes from encyclopedia, Wikipedia:

The Queen Mother

Lady Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon (Born 4 August 1900)

Before her husband's accession to the throne, she was known as Her Royal
Highness The Duchess of York, ....

... and before her marriage she was styled The Lady Elizabeth
Bowes-Lyon as the daughter, of the 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
in Scotland [Claude Bowes-Lyon], .... & 1st in UK.

Claude Bowes-Lyon married Cecilia Cavendish-Bentinck on 16 July 1881,
... & the couple had ten children

Their ninth child, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, married the Duke of York,
later King George VI, .... and in later life was known as Queen
Elizabeth The Queen Mother.

[end quotes]

----------------------------

Susan, Su_Texas my opinions

s***@webtv.net

2005-11-27 23:43:44 UTC

Quotes from thepeerage:

"Children of Charles John Robert Hepburn-Stuart-Forbes-Trefusis, 21st
Baron Clinton and Lady Jane Grey McDonnell:

Hon. Harriet Hepburn-Stuart-Forbes-Trefusis+ b. 14 Nov 1887, d. 15 Mar
1958

Hon. Fenella Hepburn-Stuart-Forbes-Trefusis+ b. 19 Aug 1889, d. 19 Jul
1966"

------------------------------

Susan, Su_Texas my opinions

Aggie

2005-12-02 00:38:53 UTC

Firstly, to make clear, this world would not be the same without the
bully mentality which has infiltrated some of you (but not all of you).
To those who have been more gentlemanly and less vocal, boisterous and
insulting, I commend you.

To respond to people's comments:

"How did anyone live off the backs of these nieces, let alone the Queen

or the Queen Mother? Did she use them as bed supports or did she steal
their money? "

She used them so that she can appear virtuous, honourable and
unscathed. It is simply a matter of vanity. By having the world know
that she has 2 niees and 3 nieces by marriage, she would have been
looked down upon just a tiny bit... just a small amount. But that was
enough.

"The Queen is not and never was responsible for those women. She
was not their next of kin and was never in a position to dictate their
treatment or their circumstances."

These are her cousins. I understand that the ruling class is raised to
not be close with family, this does not excuse her actions. These are
not cousins by marriage. These are first cousins!! Well, only one first
cousin is alive today: Katherine.

She has been denied her nobility, the ability to lead a good life,
because of the ancient and cruel methods of the state. And no one was
there to help her.

Were there no rooms in Glamis Castle to house her? No servants to
attend to her? Her blood is as noble as many of her relatives.

Yes, I don't know about her diagnoses, her problems, etc. That was the
point of this discussion in the first place. For, if she is able to
live in "normal" circumstances, then she should be granted this. She is
important - she should be SEEN as important too.

"Perhaps the Queen Mother agreed to become patron of MENCAP just
*because*
she had relatives who were mentally handicapped and knew of the sadness
it
had brought to members of her family."

What sadness? She never went to see her own nieces. Nor did her entire
family.

"I'm still waiting for you to tell us how you are caring for and seeing
to the welfare
of your distant relatives by marriage. "

Not by marriage, but by blood. And no I am not taking such care of, on
a daily basis, any member of my family, for they do not need it yet.
But when my parents will need it, they get it. They will not be
abandonded. That's what family does.

Aggie

Hal S.

2005-12-02 02:25:50 UTC

"Aggie" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:***@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
snip of lunatic ravings by Aggie.

Post by Aggie
Not by marriage, but by blood. And no I am not taking such care of, on
a daily basis, any member of my family, for they do not need it yet.
But when my parents will need it, they get it. They will not be
abandonded. That's what family does.
Aggie
---------------------------------------------

You just don't get it, do you, you idiot? These women are not the queen's
parents. They are not blood relatives. They are distant relatives by
MARRIAGE. I hope you aren't an example of the rest of your family. That
gene pool must be woefully shallow.

Hal S.

Aggie

2005-12-02 11:45:20 UTC

"You just don't get it, do you...? These women are not the queen's
parents. They are not blood relatives. They are distant relatives by
MARRIAGE"

No Katherine Bowes Lyon and her deceased sister Nerissa Bowes Lyon are
the daughters of the Queen Mother's brother.

Now the 3 Fane sisters are cousins by marriage, if that's what you're
thinking.

Aggie

Jean Sue Libkind

2005-12-02 20:09:05 UTC

Post by Hal S.
snip of lunatic ravings by Aggie.

Actually, I think they hit the bottom of the food chain with Aggie.

js

t***@comcast.net

2005-12-02 02:50:24 UTC

Post by Aggie
Were there no rooms in Glamis Castle to house her? No servants to
attend to her? Her blood is as noble as many of her relatives.

What has Glamis Castle and the staff thereof have to do with it? It is
the Family home of the Earls of Strathmore. Neither the Queen Mother
nor the present Queen have had any say in its running nor in who the
Earls should have living there. Are you suggesting that the Earls
should have wrested the girls away from their own mother - a mother who
had DIRECT responsibility for their care?

--
The Verminator

Aggie

2005-12-02 11:35:07 UTC

The question of whether the Queen does not have the power and/or should
not get involved in the health and welfare of her cousin:

The Queen can overrule anything. Not that she does, but she is the
supreme authority. Even within the larger aristocracy, her opinion
holds great sway.

Her next of kin may have forsaken her, but that doesn't mean that the
rest of the family should watch. It is their responsibility to ensure
the wellness of Katherine, and if that means that pressure is to be
applied to the next-of-kin, so be it.

The Queen has declared that she is noble, of great moral worth. She
must therefore express this in her actions, otherwise she is a liar.
This is the truth that most citizens recognize.

But what if she has been living her life upon the suffering of her own
cousin, only 4 months older than her?

Aggie

Brian Pears

2005-12-02 15:18:21 UTC

Post by Aggie
But what if she has been living her life upon the suffering of her own
cousin, only 4 months older than her?

For goodness sake cut the crap, these ladies were never the
responsibility of the Queen - or are you suggesting that
everyone is responsible for the care of their cousins? You
really do write a load of rubbish.

Someone suggested you were a troll - either that's true or you
are in need of urgent help yourself. The Queen isn't living her
life on the sufferings of anybody - but you are. You obviously
get your kicks from conjuring up lurid and far-fetched fantasies
about this poor old lady.

--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK

Aggie

2005-12-02 11:37:03 UTC

"Are you aware of the effects of long-term institutionalization and how

impossible it is for the mentally capable to adapt to the real world,
let alone adapt with a handicap."

Yes, what a great argument for saving them.

Aggie

Jean Sue Libkind

2005-12-02 20:04:02 UTC

Post by Aggie
"Are you aware of the effects of long-term institutionalization and how
impossible it is for the mentally capable to adapt to the real world,
let alone adapt with a handicap."
Yes, what a great argument for saving them.

After all these years, I think the humane thing is to leave her in
familiar circumstances.

js

Jean Sue Libkind

2005-12-02 20:02:31 UTC

Post by Aggie
Firstly, to make clear, this world would not be the same without the
bully mentality which has infiltrated some of you (but not all of you).
To those who have been more gentlemanly and less vocal, boisterous and
insulting, I commend you.
"How did anyone live off the backs of these nieces, let alone the Queen
or the Queen Mother? Did she use them as bed supports or did she steal
their money? "
She used them so that she can appear virtuous, honourable and
unscathed. It is simply a matter of vanity. By having the world know
that she has 2 niees and 3 nieces by marriage, she would have been
looked down upon just a tiny bit... just a small amount. But that was
enough.

Why would having five nieces and nephews by marriage cause people to
look down on her? You're getting yourself tied into knots to the point
where your rebuttals no longer make sense. I suspect even you are not
reading posts by Aggie any more.

Post by Aggie
"The Queen is not and never was responsible for those women. She
was not their next of kin and was never in a position to dictate their
treatment or their circumstances."
These are her cousins. I understand that the ruling class is raised to
not be close with family, this does not excuse her actions. These are
not cousins by marriage. These are first cousins!! Well, only one first
cousin is alive today: Katherine.

Man, if I interfered in the lives of my cousins' children, I'd catch
bloody hell... and I should.

Post by Aggie
She has been denied her nobility, the ability to lead a good life,
because of the ancient and cruel methods of the state. And no one was
there to help her.

She has 24/7 care. What's the problem.

Post by Aggie
Were there no rooms in Glamis Castle to house her? No servants to
attend to her? Her blood is as noble as many of her relatives.

Hidden away in a haunted castle? Oh, yes. I can hear what you'd say then!

Post by Aggie
Yes, I don't know about her diagnoses, her problems, etc. That was the
point of this discussion in the first place.

And you've done no research into her health to clarify the issue, have
you? You are still harping on your original, unfounded suspicions. Do
you know how to google?

Post by Aggie
For, if she is able to
live in "normal" circumstances, then she should be granted this. She is
important - she should be SEEN as important too.

If wishes were horses, all men would ride.

js

Aggie

2005-12-04 08:24:22 UTC

Please stop saying "Why would having five nieces and nephews by
marriage cause..." because Katherine Bowes Lyon is not a cousin by any
marriage. She is the daughter of John Herbert Bowes Lyon, the brother
of HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, and his wife, Fenella (which
sounds like "Camilla").

Aggie

Aggie

2005-12-04 08:26:07 UTC

"original, unfounded suspicions. Do
you know how to google? "

I've googled, and I've found nothing more than has been said here. I'm
hoping somebody here can have some better knowledge as to the state of
this woman, how she is being treated.... so that we can decide whether
she needs help or not.
Aggie

t***@comcast.net

2005-12-04 12:43:54 UTC

Post by Aggie
"original, unfounded suspicions. Do
you know how to google? "
I've googled, and I've found nothing more than has been said here. I'm
hoping somebody here can have some better knowledge as to the state of
this woman, how she is being treated.... so that we can decide whether
she needs help or not.
Aggie

NEWSFLASH!
"We" have neither the right nor the authority to make ANY such
decision. That is for her family and those chosen to care for her to
decide.

Now will you keep your nose out of what is clearly a PRIVATE FAMILY
MATTER!

--
The Verminator

Hal S.

2005-12-04 18:03:06 UTC

You are really in a different world. Why would WE decide if she needs help?
You're the one in real need of help.

Hal S.

f***@verizon.net

2005-12-04 19:02:11 UTC

You are really in a different world. Why would WE decide if she needs help?
You're the one in real need of help.

No,no - how dare you?
Of course Aggie's right!
The women are being horribly mistreated - raped every other Tuesday, in
fact!
& the reason we aren't reading anything about it is because there's a
massive cover-up under direct orders from Buckingham Palace.
Aggie absolutely has to fly over there RIGHT AWAY & demand justice!
RIGHT NOW!!

SusanC

Jean Sue Libkind

2005-12-04 21:31:59 UTC

Post by f***@verizon.net

You are really in a different world. Why would WE decide if she needs help?
You're the one in real need of help.

I'll kick in for a one-way ticket.

js

Brian Pears

2005-12-05 02:22:32 UTC

Post by Jean Sue Libkind
I'll kick in for a one-way ticket.

A return would be a waste of money. If she really did visit
that institution and spouted her nonsense, I don't think they
would let her out.

--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK

Hal S.

2005-12-05 02:31:20 UTC

Post by Jean Sue Libkind
I'll kick in for a one-way ticket.

A return would be a waste of money. If she really did visit
that institution and spouted her nonsense, I don't think they
would let her out.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK

---------------------------------

Maybe the loon, is going online from the inside.

Hal S.

Aggie

2005-12-11 05:09:13 UTC

Hi everyone,

Does anybody know of any book references to Ms. Katherine Bowes Lyon?

Take care,
Aggie

Post by Jean Sue Libkind
I'll kick in for a one-way ticket.

A return would be a waste of money. If she really did visit
that institution and spouted her nonsense, I don't think they
would let her out.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK

---------------------------------
Maybe the loon, is going online from the inside.
Hal S.

Hal S.

2005-12-11 18:00:32 UTC

Maybe your care giver at your institution could help you out.

Hal S.

Post by Aggie
Hi everyone,
Does anybody know of any book references to Ms. Katherine Bowes Lyon?
Take care,
Aggie

Post by Jean Sue Libkind
I'll kick in for a one-way ticket.

A return would be a waste of money. If she really did visit
that institution and spouted her nonsense, I don't think they
would let her out.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK

---------------------------------
Maybe the loon, is going online from the inside.
Hal S.

Aggie

2005-12-12 00:03:54 UTC

I would much rather take on such a responsibility myself. So-called
"Care givers" just look down on me, you know what I mean?

t***@comcast.net

2005-12-12 05:15:01 UTC

Post by Aggie
I would much rather take on such a responsibility myself. So-called
"Care givers" just look down on me, you know what I mean?

Well of COURSE they look down on you.. you're tied to your bed most of
the time to prevent injuries to yourself and/or others !!

--
The Verminator

Aggie

2005-12-12 10:26:32 UTC

Fortunately I am given an opportunity to avenge myself.

In other news:

"The prince sent his relative David Bowes-Lyon, 58, who is the son of
the Queen Mother's first cousin, to represent him at the funeral."

This is the funeral of Mr. Alfred Anderson, the great old man.
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2300862005

So... the Bowes Lyon's are involved in engagements on behalf of the
Prince? Hardly just a group of "in-laws" that the Royal Family ignores.

And I'm glad Charles is seeing the other Bowes Lyon family members, too
bad he doesn't have time for Katherine. He must be the sort that looks
down on people, you know what I mean?

Aggie

Brian Pears

2005-12-12 11:55:59 UTC