The Queen Mother Explains the Hereditary Principle | The Crown (Helena Bonham Carter, Marion Bailey)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лют 2025
- Princess Margaret (Helena Bonham Carter) speaks to her mother about the five family members locked away in a mental institution. Queen Mother (Marion Bailey) said they had no choice and explained the hereditary principle behind it.
From Season 4, Episode 7: The Hereditary Principle
Stream The Crown on Netflix! www.netflix.co...
The Crown is based on Queen Elizabeth II as a young newlywed faced with leading the world's most famous monarchy while forging a relationship with legendary Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill. The British Empire is in decline, and the political world is in disarray, but a new era is dawning. Peter Morgan's masterfully researched scripts reveal the Queen's private journey behind the public façade with daring frankness. Prepare to see into the coveted world of power and privilege behind the locked doors of Westminster and Buckingham Palace.
#TheCrown #TheCrownSeason4 #QueenElizabeth #OliviaColman #TVShow
It's interesting how, in shows or movies that portray the royals, it's always the ones who marry into the family that seem to have the highest opinions about it, not the ones born into it.
Agreed, the only exception being Princess Diana
Umm..true but those burn into is an almost genetic arrogance that is pretty scary.
@@MTknitter22 exactly queen Mary obsession with royal blood was a sign go her insecurity about being minor royal along being descended from morganatic marriage .
Gets a little complicated when the ones who marry into it are in fact royals and relatives.
actually… it mimics real life of those individuals who enter families from a higher social/financial status than their own. It is only human for a person to be looking up the hill, hoping to find something clean and extra ordinary… But from the top of the hill, you can see all😂
Funny how Helena Bonham Carter played queen mother in King's Speach
Yes. She was excellent in The King’s Speech!
And Olivia Coleman played her in Hyde Park on Hudson
She's her own mother!!!
Funny, she also played a murderous fanatic obsessed with blood purity under her dark lord but in this scene she’s appalled 😅
My favorite role of her is the queen of hearts
As a disabled person, this episode really does stick in my ribs. It reminds me that we are only just a century from putting disabled people into aslyums, and why we put them there. We still have the language, and we pretend to be more humane, but we really aren't as advanced as we could be.
…not just “we” because we are talking about the BRF here. They have not changed.
@@MTknitter22 True. Otherwise they would treat their current sufferers of environmental induced mental health issues better.
Don’t forget this was a work of fiction. And still, it was at least 45 years ago when it took place. Probably before the Willowbrook scandal in New York for example
@@williamboo9017 I am well aware this is a fiction, most speculative historical drama is. But, the history behind the drama is real- that the British Royal Family stashed away its disabled relatives due to some mythology about pure bloodlines and isolates people who are different from them for the same reasons.
As a disabled person myself also, I don't like the idea of disabilities (namely birth defects) normalized and spread. Look at the TLC show, "Little people, big world". More than one person in the family suffers from dwarfism and have a billion medical problems. And yet, they act as though it's *no big deal*. They even want *more* kids with dwarfism in the family! Those are the people we should be ashamed of. Not people who accidentally have a disabled baby every once in a while.
Yet another example of: "The Crown must win. Must. Always. Win."; especially given the mindset of postvictorian era in which "rationality" and "strenght" were so highly valued and interpreted as a sign of good.
you're listening to fiction written by an anti monarchist that's based on rubbish
our Queen Mother's widowed sister in law had Nerissa and Kathryn sectioned
the Queen Mother could not over rule a parent
our press have more and more desperate for sales, because their circulations dropping further and further
What's wrong with rationality? It's a much better survival strategy for the inherently absurd institution of monarchy than excessive emotionality, that's for sure
@@hismajestysirkart0she4ka2ndIt has it downsides just like the other does. The situation at Aberfan and Diana's death showed that being seen as inhuman and without emotions make you seem abnormal. There is a point about being in control of your emotions, but Royalty survives on a blend of rationality and emotion. They use the emotion for their PR
@@Ashbrash1998 A monarchy is unlikely to survive on emotions and beliefs of the individual royals (who are flawed and likely to be controversial), but rather on the strength of the tradition, the support of those elements of society who favor the status quo, a good public image, adaptability and neutrality. If members of the royal family began to express their emotions, it would likely simply expose their privileged, out-of-touch nature to the public.
It's a scam. Milking idiots for a living for centuries. 😁
I had a granduncle and grandaunt who were institutionalized in the 1930s and spent the rest of their lives there (until the 1970s). Their parents never visited them. The family did not talk openly about them. It’s as if they didn’t exist. And my family is from Brazil. I’m astonished that people act surprised about what happened in this episode. Pretending not to have disabled relatives and hiding them were the NORM back then for everyone, not just royalty.
You're so right, people seem to forget that it was common to institutionalize family members with mental problems. It wasn't a class issue as rich and poor both did it. I have an uncle who was put into an institution in the 1940s and neither my dad or his siblings ever spoke about him, when he died his last two surviving brothers went to the institution to sign some papers and they told the hospital to just bury him on their grounds, they wouldn't even give him the dignity of a funeral.
My uncle was shell-shocked in the Second World War. My father never once spoke of his brother. When my uncle died, I found out that only one of his four siblings had visited him. When that uncle moved out of the area, he found a home for his brother close by so that he wouldn't be alone.
It's the reason why I hate people saying they were "shell-shocked" when they are mildly surprised. It's a vile condition, a type of PTSD.
@@zacmumblethunder7466 PTSD is the modern and more encompassing term of shell shock. The illness wasn't studied until WWI.
@OnLifeandLove Shell-shock is a type of what we now call PTSD, but had specific symptoms that don't apply to all types of PTSD. Sort of like the different types of cancer, they're all cancer but they have different causes and effects. The films of Shell-shock sufferers show a lot of physical effects that are unique to the condition.
Apparently there's speculation among medical historians that it was a result physical damage to the brain caused by vibration from being exposed to a continual explosive bombardment. As such, it appears to be mainly an historic condition as the nature of warfare is different now.
I'm not medical, so I hope I've made sense here.
Não imaginava que esse tipo de coisa acontecesse no Brasil...
Im so glad my cousin, whose quite mentally disabled, was wanted from the moment he was born. Fucking drunk doctor kept pulling on his head when the cord was very wrapped around it and deprived him of oxygen and did the damage. He is one of the most loving people youd ever meet, and his whole livelihood was robbed from him. Love him with all my heart.
From what you write here, I’d say he’s lucky to have you, I hope he has others who love him the same way. He got ripped off but love makes up for a lot of things we don’t have. Best wishes to him and to you.
oh yes , like you can judge if that Doktor was drunk and acted like it ...oh please some of you people and your made up stories ....jeez
@@olavwilhelm6843 were you there? Just be quiet. If you don't believe it, move on.
And the irony is that when the public found out, many were outraged, not because of some fabled purity but because they went through so many measures to keep up the façade that they treated the cousins as a problem
True, but different times by then. British society, and how it approached mental illness changed quite a lot in the 50 years from the 30s to the 80s.
"that man your perfidious uncle" not even mentioning his name, she really hated Edward VIII.
With good reason in the end.
She always blamed him for her husband's early death. He had always been a smoker, but became a heavy smoker because of the stress.
I'm not even British or was even alive when he was around and I hate him.
@@zacmumblethunder7466unless Edward personally shoved every smoke into Bertie’s mouth I’d say it’s his own fault for not seeking healthier means to cope with stress….
@@carson11100 Dude it was 1930's to 1950's everyone smoked there was a smoking room in the Hindenburg a ship filled with Hydrogen. Hell even in the 80's you could smoke in Schools, Hospitals, Planes, I have a McDonald's Ashtray my grandpa knicked I don't smoke but keep it as a collectable. It was a different time.
It’s terrible but rather common of that class and generation.. She mentioned Prince John (and there were others) who was hidden away but not institutionalized because he was royal. The Queen Mother knew that her blood line would be scrutinized as the non royal line and she probably didn’t want to be blamed for any unstableness in future generations.
The closest situation in America was Rosemary Kennedy, who was hidden away from her own siblings and mother until her fathers stroke. It wasn’t until after his stroke that the family found out where she was taken to and started visiting her.
Wtf are you talking about? They all knew exactly where she was in Wisconsin. None of them wanted to visit her. Rose stated in an interview, "she's retahded, so obviously there was no need to go out to Wisconsin to visit her."
And she was brutalized into her condition for heinous reasons. She wasn't ill; she was assaulted and maimed.
I realise the only reason I love this clip so much is because of Marion Bailey’s voice and accent. I’d love to hear her read audiobooks, especially a nice English murder mystery in the countryside.
She speaks true English. Us colonists haven't spoken it correctly in centuries.
Oooohhh that sounds good
The Bowes-Lyons' behaviour was appalling. But you have to remember that Elizabeth the mother was probably not so much concerned about some blood purity as she was about her husband and her daughters. It depends on the time. If it had come out in the 1930s that there was mental illness in the Bowes-Lyon family when Edward VIII abdicated, Prince Albert, aka George VI, would probably never have become king, and his daughter Elizabeth would never have become crown princess or queen. Too many people would have remembered that the youngest of the royal brothers, John, was also mentally handicapped and held unter lock and key. The government and half the House of Lords would probably have said that George's daughters, Elizabeth and Margaret, had hereditary problems on both sides and therefore could not be considered as crown princess or heir to the throne.
EBL was also old enough to have seen revolution and the overthrowing of royal families, including the Romanovs. She would have been extra wary.
As if the House of Lords wasn’t already filled with imbeciles (and the RF). So interbred.
Elizabeth was never Crown Princess since that title does not exist in the British Royal Family. She was Heiress presumptive.
Appalling behaviour by our standards. Unfortunately commonplace for the time. Through all stratas of society, mental illness was seen as shameful. Families with money were told by doctors to put their children into sanitoriums and forget about them. Families without money were told to put their children into asylums, that is if they weren't simply taken away by the authorities.
Up to the sixties, people could find themselves in asylums or "mental homes" as they became known for ludicrous reasons. Unmarried mothers, deaf children, anyone who had a panic attack in front of a doctor or other figure of authority.
The children with learning difficulties of the upper classes were actually better looked after than those from the "lower" classes as their parents could afford to ease their guilt.
That's what incest does...
That 'purity' is what caused the illnesses and disability.
Yes far far too much inbreeding in all royal families created from the ancient ingrained false firmly entrenched belief system of "keeping a ( a so called royal ) blood line pure". This goes back so far in SO many cultures world wide, hence all the infertility, miscarriages and infant moralities, so many diseases some very deadly inherited genetic diseases such as hemophilia, severe deformities, and many minor, and severe mental heath illnesses.
As my Veterinarian stated in animals ,as in humans, the more diverse a persons heritage is, from so many cultural back grounds world wide, these individuals tend to be the healthiest genetically generally speaking. These individuals have better fertility, less genetic diseases passed down to their children, and if they choose to live a healthy life style, tend to also have a longer life span too.
Exactly. In the words of Eddie Izzard, "First rule of genetics: spread the genes apart."
@@Euroviking86Rule 0, as far as I'm concerned.
Actually the ironic thing is that genetic testing has subsequently discovered that the genetic abnormalities suffered by the Bowes-Lyon cousins came from their maternal family and not from the brother of the Queen Mother.
In the early middle ages marrying a close cousin was a sin so if you were too closely related (like Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry II of England) you had to get the Popes approval to do it. It got worse as the royal houses of Europe got fewer and fewer, leaving less 'equal' marriage partners, on top of the reformation cutting those potential matches in half since Catholics wouldn't marry protestants and vice-versa for many centuries
Archduke Franz Ferdinand famously said that many royals were forbidden from marrying who they wanted "because of some trifle in the family tree, as a result bride and groom are related many times over and half the children are idiots!"
He ended up marrying a minor noblewoman in an unequal match and had a very happy marriage and a loving family
Margaret absolutely understood the principles involved as well as any other senior member of the monarchy. She had no reason to be schooled ... it's for the benefit of the audience.
"My family, the Bowes Lyons" is also not something you would say to your daughter.
@@pneron2032It could be though....to distinguish the family she was born in from the family into which she was married and that she raised.
Even after he died, Queen Mother Elizabeth still held such a grudge on Edward VIII that she doesn't want to mention his name.
You mean VIII
@@andreskow7890 thanks for the correction.
Who could blame her? He was a terrible person. He liked the Nazi party. And he liked to be a playboy.
She blamed him for her husband's death. He smoked so heavily during World War II that it ultimately gave him the cancer that killed him. The duke of Windsor also smoked, but he lived another 20 years or so because he didn't have to deal with the stress of the war given that he had given up the responsibility of being king.
@@jasonkoch3182 if I was in her position, I'd blame David as well. He passed on a burden not a gift.
Prince John was finally mentioned
He died too young, they all acted like he never existed.
@@VenosEvans George V and Queen Mary of Teck are Prince John's parents. Prince John had an excellent life living out of public eye running his own farm because poor health. Being in the public eye would weaken his health even more, was not in his best interests or the Royal Families.
@@AnnaBellaChannel he was hidden from the public eye, his parents and relatives were ashamed of him cuz he was epileptic, at the time people like him used to be institutionalized.
They are saints compared to the Kennedys, we all know how Rosemary Kennedy was treated. Thank God her siblings cared for her.
Even before Edward VIII abdicated, he alienated his mother, Queen Mary, by his callous disregard of his youngest brother, Prince John. When John passed away at age 13, Edward wrote a letter to his mistress du jour describing John as an "animal" and his death was a real shame because it would spoil all the parties celebrating the end of the war (WW1). After John's death, he also wrote a letter to his mother, expressing those same horrid sentiments. Nobody has ever seen that letter, probably because his mother destroyed it in her grief and anger, but she replied to him in letter that tore him a new one, and then he had the reply to her letter, groveling and begging for her forgiveness. Edward was a real pos and I think it also displeased his parents that his mistresses were all exclusively married to other men.
@@ladyv5655 Well, historically kings would want their mistresses to already be married so that any pregnancies could be foisted off on the husband and they wouldn't have to be responsible for them. The husbands usually knew better (most likely had stopped sleeping with their wives once they became official mistresses) and were compensated for the illegitimate children. Edward was just planning ahead! ;)
Poor Rosemary. She did not deserve what happened to her.
@@thefairychild , true, but my issue is more about his monstrous disregard for the death of his sick brother and his cold cruelty in expressing those feelings to his grieving mother.
@@PuddilyOopsJoe Sr was a horrible person. 😢
Can I just point out that I highly doubt the queen mother in real life saw herself and her family as just minor Scottish aristocrats. In fact, the Bowes-Lyons were much more established and much wealthier than the Windsors (who some even considered more German than British, hence their name-change). While members of the nobility definitely respect the monarchy as an institution, they most likely see the royal family as simply their peers. That’s why she rejected Prince Albert’s proposal twice before finally saying yes.
Partly because she was hanging on for the older brother.
@@Icemint101ah, that explains the extra bitterness lol
When a Scottish aristocrat, Alice Montague Douglas Scott, announced she intended to marry a Prince, the son of King George V, her father exclaimed, "My dear, you have married beneath you!"
Bowes-Lyons isn't a German name, though. Though ancient Scottish nobles absolutely knew their place in society and considered themselves at the top of the nobility. Much of the Scottish culture was actually created and maintained by the Scottish nobility. The Germans were always seen as temporary outsiders that were needed to secure a Protestant heir from the Scottish Stuarts.
@@kincaidwolf5184 Huh? I never said the Bowes-Lyons were German. I was referring to the [newly named] Windsors.
What the Queen mon explained filled me with dread🥺
Yes sickening.
It’s evil incarnate, in a way that is uniquely human.
It does but it made sense for the times. Also, the royal family unfortunately were not the only ones that did this to loved ones. Many families would do the same for the simple ignorance of the matter and prejudice. I mean, JFK had his own sister Rosemary as an example as well. The mindset that everything "wrong" and "unsual" could be explained with "curses" and "witchcraft" was not far behind, unfortunately.
We must remember that those were sensitive times, WW1 saw the abolishment of many monarchies, some by extreme brutality, as was with the Romanovs. The british royal family certainly did not want to give the public a reason for their own downfall.
@@Vik_felironically enough, they just added another reason for the abolishment of the monarchy to the list
What I found fascinating about this scene is the idea they are self-aware in how absurd the notion is that genetics alone determine royalty.
‘They’ are not expressing any such thinking at all, as the scene and dialogue is pure fiction invented to fit an episode about the Bowes-Lyon cousins. However, the creator of the show is making his own published anti-monarchist views clear with dialogue such as this one, which, while I’m sure is entertaining to watch, would never have been phrased in any such way by the late Queen Mother. The thinking of the time in society in general was to keep private things which we today think we have an automatic right to know of, in this case not necessarily for fear of the monarchy itself, but for simply not knowing better, as it was with most such things back in the day.
Well, keep in mind that this is fiction. But also keep in mind that the queen mother would have seen the fall of the Russian, Austrian, German, Greek, Italian, Bulgarian, Romanian, and Yugoslavian monarchies. Those within the royal family knew that the monarchy survived only because the people allowed it to and that anything that threatened the people's confidence in the monarchy could easily have caused them to call for its abolition.
@@ladyrohan80 I think you are dead wrong. Whether the showrunner is anti-monarch or not, the queen mother was around to see the abolition of multiple monarchies. She knew that for the monarchy to survive, the people had to have faith in it. The monarchy can claim to have its power and influence from god, but they know it's really the people that allow it to function. And when Edward VIII abdicated, it shook the foundation of the monarchy and many at the time, both in the royal family and in the upper echelons of government, were terrified that anything else would end it for good. It was that attitude that shaped George VI and Elizabeth's approach to their role, and why the queen mother so desperately protected the crown as the expense of so many other things.
Especially once you reach the era where monarchs are no longer directly engaged in the progress or regress of their kingdoms and have become figureheads serving at the whim of a civilian or military government or an oligarchy. They have nothing to tout as their own accomplishment that justifies their position as head of state. They had not commanded an army or fleet in the field that was victorious. They have not championed reforms that made a difference in their subjects lives. They are simply there because hundreds of years ago an ancestor was in the right place at the right time and won a battle making them king or an ancestor was the next closest related male to a king of queen that died without children. It really is ridiculous when you think about it.
Not to mention that Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth II are both related to Prince Albert and Queen Victoria.
His mother was nuts too
@@useridgaf-p6b Alice had a reason to be nuts poor woman she was tortured. But helped people later. R.I.P Alice 🌹
@@shannonVwalker I didn't mean it in a derogatory way. I meant the family has had mental issues on all sides of the family. Yes, I am not up on how the Queen really felt about her, but I do think it was the normal daughter and mother in law relationship.
@@shannonVwalker she was tortured for being nuts. she developed some kind of sexual fantasy of having intimate relationship with Jesus.. that was why she was sent to the mental asylum.. but in her later years, she became a remarkable person..
no she was not
She had PTSD@@useridgaf-p6b
“i went from the wife of the duke of york, leading a relatively normal life”
yeah everyone relates to that mhmm
Obviously she meant normal compared to actually being a ruling monarch and being the spouse of one. As a second son of the king, George (or Bertie) was supposed to live in relative obscurity for the rest of his life with his wife and daughters; while his brother was supposed to remain king, marry a young noble woman and produce heirs. THAT was her point.
@@Emma88178 Yep, they would have been patrons of some charities, shown up to certain social events and royal engagements, but been of relatively little public interest or scrutiny as long as they didn't do anything that would invite negative attention. Their daughters might have generated some interest in society columns when they became old enough to be courted and eventually married, but after that the daughters would have lived in relative obscurity unless they married someone with a very high profile.
This episode annoyed me. It ignores the fact that, unfortunately, it was incredibly common for people to institutionalize children born with disabilities. I remember reading excerpts from a book about Chris Burke, a TV actor in the 90's with Down Syndrome. When he was born, the doctors told his parents that he was a "mongoloid," that he would probably never learn to talk, and that they recommended that they put him in an institution.
I'm not saying that it was right. I'm saying that the royal family's actions were part of a larger systemic problem with how the society treated people with disabilities.
They didn't just institutionalize them they declared them dead. Whlist these richest most pampered people in the world loaf about in their castles and accepting awards for doing nothing; they left these disabled children in a state run public institution and never visited them or spent any money on them. It wasn't just one child it was five children. They talk of setting an example and nobility but it's all horse-shit. They also hid King Edwards high treason from the public. They are not honest with the public and do not deserve the crown!
They used to call Down’s Syndrome babies "mongoloids" -- now they avoid all of this nomenclature fussiness by simply killing them.
Well, the question is not institutionalizing them (if it was in good place, which seems not sure). The question is storytelling that they were dead and hiding them from the world and NEVER visiting them. And you are right that even if the movie gives the impression that the queen try to justify the issue to the entire world, the story is that she is just explaining the fact to her daughter considering the life of their cousins and being shocked, perhaps being more modern and informed that the average people at that time.
@@delphinec9307 They were visited by the Bowes-Lyon side of the family. Their mother visited regularly until she became too old to go and when anyone else form the family tried to visit them they did not know who they were because they only had a family relationship with their parents and other cousin with in the hospital. The family continued to pay the yearly check for their care. The other family members could not visit them because the all 5 of cousins literally did not know who or what family member was visiting them. They only knew of the Royal Family because they were the children of the Queen Mother's Brother John. The cousins did not know anyone beside the there other cousins within the hospital and each other parent's generation. They had spend no time with anyone else within the family due to being sent to the hospital. Sources from within the family, however, report that their mother Fenella often visited the two sisters until her death in 1966; Lady Elizabeth Shakerley, Fenella's granddaughter, also said other members of the family had often visited over the years and had often sent gifts and cards on Christmas and birthdays. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, upon discovering that her nieces were alive in 1982, sent money for toys and sweets on their birthdays and at Christmas.
Fully agree....could they not have treated them in some human way while they lived in luxury??? I think the entire lot of the royal family should be dissolved......what a worthless lot@@delphinec9307 fully
Yes that was how it was back then with most families. Anyone's prospects of marriage were diminished if they had a member of the family who was mentally of physically disabled. It was thought by society at the time that asylums were best for all concerned and effective treatments and medications were in reality non existent. They only barbaric forms of treatment. Still not perfect today but we have come a long way and we should remember what people through no fault of their own suffered.
All the aristocratic bloodlines have schizo, but it’s more akin to memory overload or a mental weakness to the physical body which results in either madness or stroke to the being that doesn’t have the capacity for blue blood, many cases, at the moment the family (tier 4-5) is trying and failing to institutionalize us despite us adapting very well to the genetic memory and such associated with such lineages. Being a relaxer and having fun is the best way to adapt to blue blood in a vessel aside from other forms of alleviating the issues that come with such out of reach for most.
This is the worst directed scene. The actress playing the Queen Mother is such an amazing talent, and for most of this scene, the camera shows us the back of her head WHILE SHE IS SPEAKING! 🤯 It always irritates me because her delivery and expressions are among the best of all the actors on this show.
I think it was shot perfectly. They wanted to focus on Margaret’s reaction to what her mother was saying.
It's because the scene wasn't focused on the queen mother. It was focused on Margaret. The point of the scene is to watch Margaret react to what her mother is telling her.
I’m Irish ☘️ and I really enjoyed the whole series of the the crown, I must say you brits are a mad race of people as In honouring as if they are Gods.
Ironic. Blood purity and she’s saying it to Carter who played Bellatrix
I KNOW RIGHT!
The fact is that Margarat would not have needed that lecture. The Crown made habit of inventing things for dramatic effect.
almost as if it was a drama series instead of a documentary
Facts.
Game of Thrones moved on from that by upgrading exposition to "sexposition."
Yes, because it was a fictional television drama.
This was a very common early 20th century perspective on eugenics.
I don't blame the Queen Mum for being furious with Edward VIII. He forced her husband to become King, she to become Queen and her first born to become Regent after her husband's death.
None of this was what she or her husband wanted or were raised to expect.
That they rose to the occasion is impressive and ERII did a much better job than she was given credit for.
No sane person 'wants' to be ruler.
No sane nation keeps a monarchy
They were completely foolish not to think this would happen. Their father literally told ppl that his son would make a full year as king.
Regnant not regent.
@@nataliewalton8590 King George V said that "The boy will ruin himself in twelve months".
Not only hereditary principle, this was how most mentally deficient people were dealt with. Put away in mental institutions. Different times. Don’t judge history by today’s standards.
The unfortunate reality is that this is what many families, not just posh ones, did to their families back then. It was a burden many could not afford, and they would be "sent away" and it's just heartbreaking. It's also pretty grim to see that even after all of this time, their main goal is to maintain the veneer. No matter what they have to do.
The mental illness was not in the Bowes-Lyon family but from the wife of the Queen Mother’s brother
Still they're going to question the integrity of the bloodline.
That was not know at the time, however.
In that find her in a confused situation happened to her from a tired days can't to get some rest then 😅
She played the Queen (consort), the wife of the then King George VI, long before her daughter ascended to the throne hence making her the "queen mother". Same person at different times in life in different positions.
Yes, but in this point in time she's the Queen Mother? And she doesn't say she became QM when she became the Queen, does she?
Thank you so much! I've wanted to see this scene on youtube for so long👑❤️
While this is fiction, the point is not wrong. The fiction is rooted in truth. This is one of the main reasons Charles was to marry Diana: She was far enough removed from Monarchy bloodline, but not TOO far - she still has the bloodlines of most of the royal houses within her. The result is William and Harry are THE most blue blooded Princes in History. THEY are decedents of EVERY single royal house since 1066. When William met Catherine, this was allowed to happen for two reasons. First, she is almost 100% English, thus further removing the German Line further out. Secondly, Catherine DOES have some noble hereditary ancestors, but is unrelated to William. This infuses the Winsor line with Fresh 'blood' and helps push out the hemophilia, and the hereditary mental illness that plagues the line. It's alll fascinating.
❤❤❤❤❤ impt
And yet ... .......
The irony of her saying that the family better have a 100% pure bloodline is really ironic considering how the mental and physical health of many monarchs and their children ended up due to generations of consanguine marriages and procreation among royal families across Europe (ie. inbreeding). She was right though… the Windsors (fka House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Hanover before that) already had a history of bloodline issues with King George III’s mental illness episodes and all the way down to the Tsarevich Alexei of Russia’s hemophilia… Royal bloodlines were already questionable in their purity. Thank God the present day royals allow marriage to commoners now to branch out the family tree!
And yet .........
Its still happening. The royals put out a statement that both had died some time back when they hadn't. They just left the cousins to die locked up when they have plenty of money to hire full time care for them at home. Sickening people.
The preservation of a bloodline's purity is exactly what can cause the very problem they are trying to avoid in the first place. By limiting the introduction of new genes into the family, this can create genetic anomalies. One need only look at the Hapsburgs. The families who intermarry with one another in royal circles already share common bloodlines because they've been intermarrying since the medieval period, even Elizabeth and Phillip, despite how much he's regarded as an outsider, are technically cousins who share a bloodline back to Queen Victoria. It may not be straight up inbreeding, but it can cause the same issues in the long run.
Helena's eyes speak volumes.
I've enjoyed watching HBC from portraying a junkie doctor on Miami Vice to Lady Jane (my ABSOLUTE favorite)❤❤❤
"What do you mean?"
"I mean... You foolish girl... Foolish, willful little girl... But.. after all.. We are the Queen!
The look on HBC's face when her mother the Duchess of Suffolk said that to her while she was sitting on the throne... Spoke volumes...
It's still the same in many regions the world, today .....people who are not mentally capable are locked up, caged or chained or just abandoned if the family cannot afford the proper medical care....
Saxe-Coburg Gotha...suddenly when WW1 happened, they changed it to Windsor to protect themselves from English Celtic riots and condemnation. They are NOT English.Let that sink in
the proud daughter of an earl would never call her family "minor Scottish aristocrats"
They were minor Scottish aristocrats to the English aristocrats at the time.
@AnnaBellaChannel yes and tge Queen mother's legitimacy was questionable- according to a number of books written on her life over the years.
@@reneedaughter That rumor was never proven. And Mrs. Simpson used the "Cookie" nickname out of jealousy.
@@SymphonyBrahms It wasn't disproved either. Thus the use of the word questionable.
She would when that was the truth. Scottish peers were not nearly as respected as English peers to the point where Scottish peers were not guaranteed an automatic seat in the House of Lords. Her family didn't receive that right until George VI granted them a new peerage in the Peerage of the United Kingdom to allow them to have their lifetime seat in parliament.
OUTRAGEOUS that people actually thought this way. It really is sickening.
👩🏻💻🇺🇲 From the time Queen Elizabeth II was born she was 3rd in line behind King George V, with Uncle Edward and father, Albert, sandwiched in between. That was in 1925 and for 11 years Edward, the Prince of Wales was not showing any leanings toward marriage and children. Henceforth, 1936 became
the Year of Three Kings;
1. King George V, died in January, 1936.
2. King Edward VIII, January to December, abdicated, 1936.
3. King George VI, December, ascended,1936.
Queen Elizabeth II was always pretty high in the Line of Succession from the second she was born.
They could have paid for them in a better class of home and decent burials.
I agree!
Indeed, apparently, when one of the sisters died, their only grave maker was their identification number without any names
They could have, but they didn't want to risk the money / paperwork trail.
Yes which makes them look even worse.
I'm unsure what was a better class of home for the time. Their psychiatric facility looks clean and well-maintained and the staff were attentive. The only cruelty (which actually is one) is that they weren't acknowledged or visited by the royal family they were closely related to.
Helena Bonham Carter has played both characters shown in this scene.
This tragically was quote common for millenia among royals throughout europe, middle east and asia even to this day in the middle east
And not just royals
the bowes-lyons were not “minor” aristocrats lol, they more ancient and illustrious than even the spencers. the queen mother knew exactly what heredity meant
They were considered minor aristocrats by the British establishment.
@@SymphonyBrahms no they weren’t they were upper echelon
Yes they were. Totally minor. No Scots are grand royals. And Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was not born grand and in fact was the daughter of a cook. She acted like a frumpy, dour, middle class matron and not a Queen at all. I found her to be very common in fact in her licentious behaviour,
. She was a drunk and a lush, gambled and was broke when she died, with her queenly daughter having to settle her bills to dressmakers and milliners, decorators, horse breeding trainers and other endless shameful Debts. Please learn the facts before you go idolising these shameful people.
I still get a kick that Helena Bohem Carter of all people has a scene where the importance of blood purity is emphasized 🤣
WW1 was about these Royal Relatives fighting each other.
We have to consider the times as well. Is the principle right? Not at all. But it makes sense in a time where barely anything was known about mental illnesses. The Queen Mother has also gone through the death and persecution of royal families like the Ramanovs to be scared of what might happen to hers. And even if you don't like it, the truth was she was right. The Royals were not the only ones in the wrong, the people would burn them to hell and have those questions if they found out. They would be ruthless. It's a matter of the time and ignorance, we can even see it by the cousins' professional "diagnosis". And there is a point - if there is only one family that has the birthright to rule entire kingdoms, they better be 100% perfect by blood. It is horrible but unfortunately makes sense. Like The Queen Mother said: everything changed overnight and the cousins paid a terrible price for it.
Not to mention that Princess Margaret herself had questionable sanity.
There was no ancesteral Windsor line .. the house of Windsor started when George VI changed the family name in 1917, from the German Saxe-Coburg- Gotha
They're all really German peasants who got lucky. And they continue to act that way to this day.
I doubt she would’ve had any control at all even if she wanted to prevent it. The Crown in the 1920s would’ve never tolerated having them tied to the Royal Family. Margaret didn’t have the power to marry without being outted and the Queen Mother wouldn’t have had pull in this matter. The Crown must win. Must always win
It's okay that Judi Dench or Maggie Smith can retire. Because we now we have one of the greatest British actresses ever: HB Carter.
Dame Maggie is gone. RIP.
She talks about Prince John - he was epileptic.
He was also likely on the autism spectrum
Just shows the ignorance of the people who make this programme. Or the deliberate twisting of facts to fit an anti monarchy agenda
And Charles...
Some historians have speculated that he was on the autism spectrum, which sometimes led to uncontrolled outbursts. Not that it makes shutting him away from the public any better. 😢 (Btw, I highly recommend the film, _The Lost Prince_, which tells Prince John’s story in greater detail.)
Prince John was also had his own working farm to run and a garden to upkeep. He also had lots of delicate local children who were also sent to the countryside for better air to improve their health to play with, go to the sweet shop, eat the sweets while resting on cushions. After looking after his farm and doing his art.
This was a great scene.
Once the crown goes, they lose their meal ticket. A big deal
Not at all. They are all independentally wealthy, and can walk off and have private lives with little, or no, scrutiny.
They sure got a good actress to play the mean old cow.
"Mean old cow"? No she wasn't
@@Emma88178 She was known to be mean to people. Many have testified to that.
NOBODY had a clue about 'genes' or a genepool' in the era in which this conversation is purported to have taken place. Bloodlines, and ancestry yes, but the existence of genes was [as yet] unknown.
Hogwash. Gene theory begins in the 19th century and had already been applied to nobility ,as anyone familiar with Goya’s treatment of the Spanish monarchy is well aware.
Its not a documentary, people!
Exactly . it is anti monarchy propaganda. Why not just create a fictitious royal family if they wanted to create a 'drama'
Yes. Otherwise how did Charles not made the list.
Of course not, but if the reactions and emotions are fictional, the facts are true and I consider highly possible that the motivation of hiding these disabled people was really the one given by Queen mother in this line.
"Prince John; your uncle...(you...)"
Missing context: Is she saying Elizabeth should or shouldn't marry Phillip. Thank god they've at least tried to out marry now. (Diana, Sarah, Kate, Megan)
Lady Diana and Sarah are fourth cousins. The Royal family need their blood links to the Modern English Nobles which the British Royal Family had lost due to most of the English nobility being Roman Catholic and the Royal Family being Church of England.
@AnnaBellaChannel Some. C.o.E is still the largest denomination in the UK, I think. They also can't marry into the Scandinavian, Dutch, and Protestant German royal families because they're too closely related. Too high levels of inbreeding can create genetic problems like Prince John, who died at a young age.
@@nicholasprakash3411 The Church of England's Worshipping Community in 2021 was about 1.7% of the population of England. It is very small.
Prince John 😢
Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother: "...resulting in the children of my brother..."
Princess Margaret: "Katherine and Nerissa."
Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother: "...and their first cousins..."
Princess Margaret: "Idonea, Etheldreda and Rosemary."
I know that The Crown is somewhat based on historical events, but I do like the manner in which Princess Margaret (played by Helena Bonham Carter), now in her prime, humanize the "Hidden Cousins" in her conversation with the staunch Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. Nerissa (1919-1986), Katherine (1926-2014), Idonea (1912-2002), Etheldreda (1914-1972) and Rosemary (1922-1986) lived a sad life, but I do hope they experienced some of the great things that make us humans. May their souls rest in peace.
Also, i love the names Idonea and Etheldreda, the first meaning "To Love Again" and the latter meaning "Noble, Strength".
I'd watch the movie for this scene alone.
THAT was some crazy sh-t. Couldn’t believe it was real after seeing it on The crown.
A ridiculous scene that evidences the absurdity of Peter Morgan's mind - how he has got away with it without any scrutiny is the true mystery of our time
Did you personally know the royal family yourself? How do you know all this?
The book slide 😂
So what, even if it had gotten out, George could have been asked to hand over the throne to the next brother. It is not as if there was no one in the line. Perhaps they just wanted to hang on to the crown and fancy titles.
The queen mother: can you imagine what the headlines would been if it were to get out.
Me: yes it would’ve read, “queen mother beacon of Hope during World War II, imposes cruel hardship on disabled relatives to preserve outdated principles.” The body of the story would go onto to read, “despite all the rumored disgust of her Nazi brother-in-law, it would seem that the queen mother and the late duke of Windsor shared a common belief in eugenics. The imposed poverty, exile, and lack of add to quit care for her cousins has continued to this day, all in the preservation of the so-called values of an era happily retired and forgotten. And wile the queen mother may have preserved the appearance of so-called purity in her bloodline. She certainly has shown a lack of purity of heart. The embarrassment this cruelty brings upon her majesty and the nation as a whole should renew the existential question of whether Britain needs the monarchy, or does the monarchy need Britain.”
Different values then. The papers would not be so sympathetic to people with a disability in the 70s or 80s. They would ridicule the family for it. She was a product of her times.
It also wasn’t her own personal doing. She simply adhered to what her brother and her side of the family decided to do. It wasn’t her decision at all.
@@MsJubjubbird I disagree. It was the mid 80s, not 1920. Also Diana and others at that time we’re ushering in a new era with regards to sympathy for those who were different. And wild people had their attitudes towards down syndrome and other disabilities, they were more empathetic to that than they were to anyone who contracted aids. Not that empathy should be a contest.
@@antmagor the 90s and 00swas more when this stuff really came about. Also it's much harder for people to change their values when they have been enforced and reinforced for six decades
The Queen Mother??? What does she have to do with it? They weren't her children. She didn't have them committed. That was their parents.
¡Hola, buenas tardes! 🌤️
How ridiculous monarchy and hereditary privileges are is perfectly explained here.
Exactly. I loved the Crown, but it didn't make me any less of an anti-monarchist, quite the opposite.
Just so people know there talking about hiding the fact that having kids with a family member has consequences we look up to a family that has sex with their own relatives. im sorry that makes me physically sick
I had to google the word perfidious lol
Let's lighten up a little. It makes no difference if the Windsors had royal blood or that of a "commoners'" -- blood is always thicker than anything else, and anything else especially means wealth, what side of the track you come from, what your family's contribution to politics, business or religion and academia for that matter, and it's thicker than water which sustains us all, regardless of what's listed above. The Queen Mother was being protective in the best way she knew how to be in that given point in time. People didn't talk about the retarded kin or relative whose brain might've been so seriously damaged from riding in a car, on a bike or train. It was a "tragic shame" they couldn't occupy their appointed place at the dinner table, so to speak, and little was said as to why and this was done in respect to the person affected by retardation or a serious accident causing brain injury or something simple as a stroke. I've survived three of them, and the last was the biggest. I know at the age of 72 that my kids are more sensitive to what might happen or I might do as a result of my stroke and increasing age. But there's one thing to keep in mind, what QM Elizabeth was also teaching Margaret is that only one of the most wretched kings in British History with a history of mental illness, was none other than her traitorous uncle King Edward who abcicated his throne for a Nazi sympathizing American twice divorced woman who didn't even love him in return. Yes, she was touchy, as the Queen Mother had every right to be. We all have our sins, family ghosts and legends from the past that we've been taught to ignore or shake off as politely as possible. They are still our blood or married to our immediate blood relatives and thusly family. There are fewer incredibly dumber ways to bring more havoc and preying eyes upon your family's activities and reputation than to mistreat a relative who may truly not be able to control his or her urges or emotions. It'll always come back to bite the people so keen on maintaining "control" even at all costs.
Everyone in this comment section is being purposely obtuse. Yes the fact that someone might carry a genetic disorder matters when their children are set to inherent the burden of the crown. Her mention of purity is entirely in this context.
Three mentally disabled cousins of the queen's cousins also lived in Earlswood Hospital. Harriet Hepburn-Stuart-Forbes-Trefusis (1887-1958), sister of Nerissa and Katherine's mother Fenella, married Major Henry Nevile Fane, and three of their seven children lived in Earlswood Hospital. David Danks, then director of the Murdoch Children's Research Institute,[11] thought that a genetic disease in the Hepburn-Stuart-Forbes-Trefusis family[12] may have killed male members of the family in early childhood and caused learning disabilities in females.[13] In 1996, the surviving cousins were moved to Ketwin House care home in Surrey.[14] When it closed in 2001, they were moved to another care home in Surrey.[7]
Explication for the audience as dialogue . . .
As if the queen wouldn’t know this
This scene alone, in and of itself, is a glaring, undeniable justification for the absolute abolishment and eradication of this ridiculous monarchy system
.
Well, the same thing happened to the Kennedys in America, so are you also for the absolute eradication of the American presidency?
It's fiction you numpty
@@roberthancox Sir, please don't use that word - most of us know it means stupid! STOP!! You seem to be obsessed with this word - I've come across your post before. This is not very nice of you and it doesn't say much about you as a person.
This scene is stupid. Princess Margaret would know full well why they were hidden away. It’s the only logical conclusion.
Exactly
Crown before family.
I have no royal lineage at all and I’m a complete imbecile. Living happily.
She forgot the Hapsburgs
Rosemary Leach was amazing
Did the Queen Mother really blame every problem in her life on the bloody abdication?
Why does the thumbnail make the Queen mother look like a mafia boss evil woman from gta5?😭
Because apparently that’s exactly what she was. Earth to you!?
This is a very contrived bit of over-explanatory dialogue in an episode that plays very fast and loose with the facts.
Yeah, the scene suffers from very clunky exposition - it bothers me when it is written is such a way that is so unlike a natural conservation between a mother and daughter.
I love “imbecility” and “idiocy.”
Well that explains a lot of some of the behaviour we see today.
Old people oh old people 😢
so, what would've happened if King Edward never abdicated, and Wallis ended up pregnant? They would've had to let them get married,right?
Probably not - wouldn't have been the first king of England to have a bastard child.
She was 41 and had never had children with her 2 prior husbands. Edward had had mumps as a child. It is possible they were both infertile, since they never did have children together.
@ vodkagal28
Not that crowd; most
of them had abortions.
Edward VIII traveled
with a fast crowd.
There is no proof that
Edward VIII (Duke of
Windsor) ever had
a child with any one
of his many mistresses
and he had a lot of them
long before Wallis.
Wallis did not have children
with either of her first two
husbands. Or any of her
many lovers, for that matter.
However, it is possible that
The Duke of Windsor's
grandfather, Edward VII
had illegitimate children.
Some say that his mistress
Alice Keppel (Camilla Shand's
great-grandmother) had two
daughters (her only children)
by men other than her husband.
Some say that Camilla's
grandmother was Edward
VII's child. And that is one
of the reasons that he was
so generous to Alice Keppel.
(Edward VII left her a very
rich woman with a very nice
house and a jewel collection.)
She most likely would not have children as she had been married before and was older but if they did, I reckon Edward would still abdicate or the child might be considered a bastard like many did.
Any child of a monarch that was born out of wedlock is ineligible for the line of succession.
All families have all manner of illnesses.
* "No gods, no masters" *
I love the crown, but in no season did they make the queen mother as grand as she was.
1k your welcome
Elizabeth would have been Queen as the DoW had not children.