SGUK Ep 159
The Human Cost of the Crown – Duty of Care in the Public Eye
Introduction
Welcome to this four-part series exploring The Firm – not as a family, but as a business. This week we begin not with rumour, but with record: two cousins of the late Queen, institutionalised as children and effectively erased from public view. Their names were Nerissa and Katherine Bowes-Lyon. Their story is heartbreaking – not just because they were hidden away, but because they were forgotten by the very people who claimed to represent duty, dignity and care. If we view The Firm as a business, what obligations were neglected? If this is how insiders are treated, what does it say about everyone else?
The theme of this podcast series is one where we look at the human cost of Monarchy and Duty of Care. Throughout all 4 episodes, I will explain the concept of The Firm as a business entity and the intention to outline the series’ intent to explore the human side of the Monarchy, their responsibilities and the implications of neglecting Duty of Care.
We will look at Duty of Care and its Legal framework, particularly the responsibility of employers regarding employees well-being. We will explore how the Royal family’s responsibilities align or misalign with general business practices. The impact of failing Duty of Care on employee mental health and potential repercussions. Examples of relevant academic/business models will be explored. Throughout the series we will certainly look into the Duty of Care framework, and highlight key legal standards and practices that all employers, including the Monarchy must adhere to. We will look at the Well-Being Model, and explore the psychological and organisational impacts of employee wellness on productivity and reputation.
I will focus on documented cases while drawing attention to the disparities between public narratives and observable realities. I won’t be speculating on any of the episodes, but I will be looking at the Monarchy closely and how it operates. It is the Monarchy that has stated over and over again, that it is The Firm and that the Firm is more important than family. I am taking them at their word, and will be discussing the activities of the employees within the Firm, and The Firm’s responsibilities as a business and how it provides and looks out for its employees according to the law. At no point will I name names. It will be left to the audience to decide what applies to whom, if at all. Where situations are already in the public domain, or at the very least have been documented but possibly not be shouted from the roof tops, I will name those people and their treatment by others because those details have now been published into the public domain, but not promoted.
In this episode I will be sharing documented examples of how public facing institutions sometimes fail in their Duty of Care – cases where discrepancies between internal awareness and public narratives raise serious questions. All of what I discuss is based on documented timelines and observable outcomes. I won’t speculate. I won’t need to. In some instances, what hasn’t been said speaks volumes.
The legislation around Duty of Care includes employer responsibility, mental health in high-pressure roles and safeguarding. Interspersed will be documented cases in other institutions.
My aim is to shift the focus from emotion or speculation to structure, responsibility and institutional behaviour. Using the description used by UK Royal Family being referred to as The Firm, enables me to look at and explore Duty of Care, negligence and harmful decision-making without naming anyone
The Story Behind the Queen Mother’s Nieces – Nerissa and Katherine Bowes-Lyon
That case was publicly confirmed in the 1980s and is thoroughly documented, despite the secrecy around it. They were institutionalised as children, declared dead in official records while still alive, and reportedly received only minimal contact from their family. From that documented case, there are some acts which cannot be ignored, and discussions can be held on areas such as neglect, class-based cruelty and performative image control – and how that legacy lingers.
Let’s Have a Look at our First in our Mini Series
Title: “Behind the Façade : When The Firm Forgets Its Own
- Neglect in Plain Sight: The Cost of Being Inconvenient
Direct Extract from a publication. Full details in the Reference Sources below.
What Happened To Nerissa And Katherine Bowes-Lyon, Queen Elizabeth II’s Cousins Who Were Deemed ‘Imbeciles’?
By Amber Morgan | Edited By Jaclyn Anglis
Published May 9, 2025
Updated May 12, 2025
In 1987, the British public learned that Queen Elizabeth II’s severely disabled cousins had spent most of their lives in a mental hospital — allegedly hidden from the outside world for decades.
Nerissa (left) and Katherine Bowes-Lyon, the “hidden” cousins of Queen Elizabeth II.
In 1987, the British tabloid The Sun published a shocking story.
Instead of juicy drama about Princess Diana’s troubled marriage, the public received the disturbing news that Nerissa and Katherine Bowes-Lyon, cousins of Queen Elizabeth II, had been wrongly declared dead nearly a quarter century ago. Not only had they both survived much longer than originally thought, they had spent much of their lives in a mental hospital.
Nerissa and Katherine, born in 1919 and 1926, respectively, had developmental disabilities that were so severe they only ever reached a mental age of six years old. Apparently hoping to hide this from the public, their mother, Fenella Bowes-Lyon, had them institutionalized. Later, Nerissa and Katherine were wrongly recorded as deceased in the 1963 edition of Burke’s Peerage, which claimed the sisters perished in 1940 and 1961.
However, the ugly truth was revealed in 1987, just a year after Nerissa’s real death in 1986. Katherine, who was still alive but frail, was photographed for The Sun, and the widely distributed image shocked the British public. The controversy led to allegations of a scandalous royal cover-up, an eye-opening documentary about the disabled women, and even a scene in the hit Netflix series The Crown that featured the “hidden” sisters.
The Early Lives Of Nerissa And Katherine Bowes-Lyon — And Their Institutionalization
Chronicle/Alamy Stock Photo: Fenella Bowes-Lyon and two of her children, Anne (left) and Nerissa (right).
Nerissa Bowes-Lyon was born on February 18, 1919 in London. She was the daughter of John Herbert Bowes-Lyon (the Queen Mother’s brother) and Fenella Bowes-Lyon. On July 4, 1926, the couple welcomed Katherine Bowes-Lyon. The couple also had three other daughters.
Soon after both Nerissa and Katherine were born, their developmental disabilities became apparent. The two girls were ultimately non-verbal, and that, combined with their limited cognitive abilities, led their relatives to believe that they had a severe hereditary condition, which was likely passed down from their maternal grandfather Charles Trefusis.
Later, Nerissa and Katherine’s professional caretakers discussed their disabilities — which were never precisely diagnosed — in more detail.
“They didn’t have any speech, but they’d point and make noises, and when you knew them, you could understand what they were trying to say. Today, they’d probably be given speech therapy and they’d communicate much better. They understood more than you’d think,” Onelle Braithwaite, a nurse who cared for the girls, stated, according to the Daily Mail.
Another caretaker named Dot Penfold said, “They were no problem to look after but they were mischievous, like naughty children. Katherine was a scallywag. You could scream at her and she’d turn a deaf ear.”
At the time, many families went to great lengths to hide their disabled relatives from the public eye. For a family with ties to the British royals, this was even more of a priority. The Bowes-Lyon sisters were first cousins of Queen Elizabeth II through Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother (known as the Honourable Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon prior to her marriage to King George VI), Queen Elizabeth II’s mother. The girls’ father, John Herbert Bowes-Lyon, was the Queen Mother’s brother.
Given that it was then common practice for aristocratic families to hide certain relatives from society to avoid embarrassment, Nerissa and Katherine weren’t the only ones with ties to the royals to be tucked away. In 1916, King George V had sent his son, Prince John, away to the family’s Wood Farm at Sandringham Estate, due to the child’s severe epilepsy.
For the Bowes-Lyon sisters, the decision to institutionalize them came at the hands of their mother, Fenella, years after their father died from pneumonia in 1930. The girls were initially sent to Arniston School, an institution that was specially designed for the disabled children of aristocratic families.
But then, in 1941, the Bowes-Lyon sisters were moved to the Royal Earlswood Mental Hospital in Redhill, Surrey when Nerissa was 22 years old and Katherine was 15 years old. Curiously, Fenella’s sister, Harriet, had her three daughters, who had a similar disability, institutionalized there on the same day. Nerissa and Katherine would be virtually hidden until 1963, when the publication Burke’s Peerage, a reference book about the British aristocracy, listed Nerissa and Katherine as having died in 1940 and 1961.
Nearly a quarter century later, in 1987, it was revealed that Nerissa had actually died just one year earlier in 1986 — and Katherine was still alive.
How The Ugly Truth Was Revealed To The Public
PA Images/Alamy Stock PhotoThe Royal Earlswood Mental Hospital in Redhill, Surrey.
In 1987, a photographer from The Sun posed as a relative of Katherine Bowes-Lyon and successfully gained access to her facility. The British public had long believed that both Katherine and her sister Nerissa had died many years ago, but there was now clear evidence that Katherine was still alive. And while Nerissa was dead, she had died only a year prior.
Before long, a photograph of Katherine, looking weak and confused, appeared on the front page of The Sun with the headline: “Queen’s Cousin Locked in Madhouse.” A scandalous story soon unfolded in the media.
Not only were the sisters institutionalized, but they had apparently been hidden from the public for decades, and they were also wrongly declared dead. This sent shockwaves through the U.K. and led to a harsh backlash against the Bowes-Lyon family — and allegations of a royal cover-up. The public wanted to know how and why the women were recorded as deceased and why their family members had seemingly abandoned them.
Buckingham Palace released a simple statement regarding the news: “We have no comment about it at all. It is a matter for the Bowes-Lyon family.” Meanwhile, the Bowes-Lyon family was scrambling to do damage control.
Daily MailThe Daily Mail reports on Queen Elizabeth II’s “hidden” cousins in 1987.
Some relatives suggested that Fenella Bowes-Lyon had wrongly declared her daughters dead by accident, perhaps filling out forms for Burke’s Peerage in an incomplete manner. Later, other relatives fought back against allegations that no one in the family had ever visited the sisters at Earlswood.
Lady Elizabeth Anson, for instance, insisted that “there was no attempt at a cover-up” and that many relatives had visited the sisters regularly. But a general manager for the East Surrey Health Authority said, “Both sisters had regular visits from their families up until the early 1960s, when one of their closest relatives died. Since then, they have had few visitors.”
Dot Penfold, a former ward sister at the hospital where the Bowes-Lyon sisters stayed, also said that they went years without visitors: “The impression I had was that they’d been forgotten.”
Meanwhile, some members of the public argued that the sisters never should have been housed at the Royal Earlswood Mental Hospital in the first place. Since its inception, the hospital had a notorious reputation for being overcrowded and even faced allegations of abuse.
The Heartbreaking Legacy Of Nerissa And Katherine Bowes-Lyon
Cemetary
Andrew Stehrenberger/Alamy Stock PhotoThe cemetery where Nerissa and Katherine Bowes-Lyon were buried.
When Nerissa Bowes-Lyon died at Earlswood at age 66 in 1986 — just one year before The Sun story came out — no one from her family attended her funeral. She was laid to rest at Redhill Cemetery and given a meager grave consisting of a plastic marker with her surname and a serial number.
Though Katherine was still alive when the news about the sisters broke, much of her life was reportedly lonely, even after her fate was revealed.
An administrator at the mental hospital where Katherine lived described her as “an elderly, frail old lady, one who finds it very difficult perhaps to understand this sort of thing [and] what’s going on in the world around her. She’s really little more than a child,” according to Vanity Fair.
That same administrator claimed that Katherine had not been visited by a family member since the 1960s, and even after the story broke, there was still no evidence she had received any visits from relatives.
In 2011, a documentary called The Queen’s Hidden Cousins premiered on British television. The film sought to unpack the broader historical trend of U.K. society’s upper crust apparently hiding disabled family members.
Just a few years after the film’s release, Katherine Bowes-Lyon died on February 23, 2014, at age 87. Though she had been living in a different facility by that point, she was ultimately buried close to her sister.
END OF QUOTE FROM THE PUBLICATION
If the UK Monarchy like to refer to themselves as The Firm, then if they wish to throw out phrases and descriptions like that without scrutiny for such an entity, then it invites the same scrutiny (and in my opinion it should not be a law to itself, where they can pick and choose what they do and when, and treat people how they like without question), accountability and transparency expected of any business or corporate entity.
Duty of Care becomes a workplace responsibility
Public Funding makes it a public interest
PR manipulation becomes strategic branding – not family privacy
And, neglect, secrecy, or harmful practices become failures in leadership and governance
With the fairy tale replaced with Structure, in essence it begs the questions around – how they operate, who they protect, and who they silence.
Main Talking Points Arising from This View
Framing The Firm As a Business:-
- Like any business, there are legal obligations – Health and Safety, Reasonable Adjustments, Disclosures
Chronic Health Conditions Hidden in Plain Sight
- Evidence in front of our eyes. Non Royalists can see it plain as day but as usual get the usual groups to deflect attention elsewhere with nonsense.
- Evidence in gait, posture, speech, co-ordination over time
- Public footage out there vs the complete absence of acknowledgement
Why It Matters
- Hiding health challenges implies weakness, which reinforces stigma
- The silence also creates an unsafe precedent for anyone working within or around that structure
Contrast With Other Public Figures
- Consider against other international figures (eg US Presidents, activists, world leaders) who have disclosed health conditions and remain respected.
Legal Echoes
- UK Equality Act 2010
- Workplace adjustments
- Transparency expectations for publicly funded institutions
Summary:-
Focus: Nerissa and Katherine Bowes-Lyon – institutionalization, secrecy and betrayal.
Style: Class, image control, and what it says about The Firm’s treatment of vulnerable family members.
Tone: Everyone who knows of that story, will know how they feel about it When you have read articles on the situation, you will no doubt have a range of emotions about how that situation was handled by The Firm.
The Message:- If that is how they treated blood relatives, what hope is there for outsiders?
Thoughts:
- When silence is strategic, it becomes structural, and when that structure is built on hiding pain or need, the cost isn’t just internal – its cultural.
- When health is hidden, power is protected.
- The Firm’s silence on illness speaks louder than any Royal wave.
- You can’t fix what you refuse to admit exists.
- If it were any other workplace, lawyers would be involved.
- Not every disappearance is a mystery – some are policy.
- Behind the gold and glitter, lies an HR nightmare.
Duty of Care: The Legal Obligation of UK Employers to Safeguard Employee Mental Health and Well-being
In the realm of employment law, the recognition of mental health and well-being as essential aspects of workplace safety has significantly grown. Employers in the United Kingdom are not only responsible for their employees’ physical safety but also have a legal duty to prioritise and protect their mental health. This article delves into the duty of care that UK employers owe to their employees concerning mental health and well-being, exploring the legal implications associated with non-compliance.
Understanding the Duty of Care
The duty of care refers to the legal obligation imposed on employers to take reasonable steps in ensuring the health, safety, and well-being of their employees. In the UK, this duty extends to encompass both physical and mental aspects, emphasising the need to provide a supportive and mentally healthy work environment. Employers must acknowledge and address potential risks and stressors that can impact employees’ mental health, such as workplace harassment, excessive workloads, inadequate support, and discriminatory practices.
Legal Framework
The UK’s legal framework establishes various laws and regulations that form the basis for employers’ duty of care towards their employees’ mental health and well-being. The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 serves as the primary legislation governing workplace health and safety, outlining employers’ general duty to ensure, as reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of their employees. This legislation is complemented by the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, which detail employers’ specific responsibilities, including conducting risk assessments and implementing appropriate control measures.
Furthermore, the Equality Act 2010 plays a crucial role in protecting employees’ mental health. This legislation prohibits discrimination, harassment, and victimization on various protected characteristics, including disability. Mental health conditions can be classified as disabilities under the Act, granting affected employees the right to reasonable accommodations and safeguarding them against discrimination or harassment related to their mental health condition.
Legal Implications
Failure to fulfil the duty of care concerning employee mental health and well-being can result in significant legal consequences for employers. If an employer neglects their obligations, and an employee suffers harm as a consequence, the affected employee may bring a claim against the employer. Such claims may include allegations of negligence, breach of statutory duty, or discrimination.
Negligence claims require the affected employee to establish that the employer owed them a duty of care, breached that duty, and that the breach caused foreseeable harm. To avoid liability, employers must demonstrate that they took reasonable steps to address mental health issues, such as providing training, and support mechanisms, and implementing appropriate policies.
Breach of statutory duty claims can arise when an employer fails to comply with specific health and safety regulations, such as those related to risk assessments or the duty to provide reasonable accommodations. Employers may face civil penalties and fines if found to be in breach.
Employers should also be mindful of the potential for discrimination claims if an employee faces adverse treatment due to their mental health condition. The Equality Act 2010 imposes strict liability for discrimination based on protected characteristics, and employers must have robust policies and procedures in place to prevent such incidents.
Conclusion
The duty of care places a legal obligation on employers in the UK to prioritise and safeguard the mental health and well-being of their employees. Neglecting this responsibility can lead to legal claims, financial penalties, and reputational damage. Employers should adopt a proactive approach, fostering a positive work environment, providing mental health support, and implementing comprehensive policies and procedures to identify and mitigate mental health risks. By prioritising employee mental well-being, employers not only fulfil their legal obligations but also contribute to the creation of a healthier, happier, and more productive workforce.
Laws that the Monarch is exempt from
Since 1967, exemptions have been written into more than 160 British laws to grant sweeping immunity to King Charles II in his capacity as monarch
Paying taxes
Under the Sovereign Grant Act of 2011, the King is not “legally liable to pay income tax, capital gains tax, or inheritance tax because the relevant enactments do not apply to the Crown.” The same rule applies to the income from the Duchy of Cornwall, which Prince William owns.
Racial, ethnic, and sexual equality laws
In the 1970s, the British government introduced laws against racial and sexual discrimination in the workplace, which were later folded into the 2010 Equality Act. However, documents by the Guardian revealed the Queen was reportedly exempt from these laws.
This means that any individuals working for the Royal Family cannot file a complaint to the court if they faced any discrimination under the categories of race, sex, and equal pay. A spokesperson from Buckingham Palace previously told reporters that the royal household and the sovereign complied with the provisions of the Equality Act, “in principle and in practice.”
The six-factor model of psychological well-being is a theory developed by Carol Ryff that determines six factors that contribute to an individual’s psychological well-being, contentment, and happiness.[1] Psychological well-being consists of self-acceptance, positive relationships with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, a feeling of purpose and meaning in life, and personal growth and development.[2] Psychological well-being is attained by achieving a state of balance affected by both challenging and rewarding life events.[3][4]
Recap and Conclusion
In the first episode of six, we have had a brief look at what happens when health – particularly visible, chronic health conditions – is hidden, downplayed or outright denied by the institution known as The Firm.
We are not talking about privacy. We are talking about ‘patterns’: patterns where silence becomes a tool of control and vulnerability is treated as a liability.
In any workplace, an unacknowledged health issue would raise red flags for HR, for occupational health, even for safeguarding, but in The Firm it is ofte spun as dignity – or not spoken about at all.
I haven’t named names – because it is not necessary. The facts are visible. The public footage is archived and the silence is louder than any press release
Final Thoughts: read out earlier.
- When silence is strategic, it becomes structural, and when that structure is built on hiding pain or need, the cost isn’t just internal – its cultural.
- When health is hidden, power is protected.
- The Firm’s silence on illness speaks louder than any Royal wave.
- You can’t fix what you refuse to admit exists.
- If it were any other workplace, lawyers would be involved.
- Not every disappearance is a mystery – some are policy.
- Behind the gold and glitter, lies an HR nightmare.
Ivy Barrow
18th May 2025
Reference Sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerissa_and_Katherine_Bowes-Lyon
https://allthatsinteresting.com/nerissa-and-katherine-bowes-lyon
https://time.com/6275480/king-charles-iii-privileges-laws-exempt/
http://thecornerofexcellence.com/en/carol-ryff-model-of-psychological-well-being/
https://exploringyourmind.com/carol-ryff/
https://glossary.psywellpath.com/six-factor-model-psychological-well-being