do we believe her?

Hemsley a cursory internet search on Lady Lucan shows that she suffered post-natal depression and it was a condition set by the divorce judge that a nanny be in residence at all times.

Very harsh to call her a cold bitch when she narrowly-escaped being murdered. And why shouldn't she have fought for custody of her children?

I felt that at first marrying someone clearly out of her social league overawed Lady Lucan and in the end destroyed her. She cut a very sad lonely figure particularly recently and it seems inexplicable that whatever the circumstances, her children have, it would seem, completely abandoned her. She's now an old lady and when all said and done, she is their mother, and if nothing else they would, I would think, have a duty towards her.

Niggly, I agree with you, the children should feel some duty of care. It's puzzling that they seem not to. Maybe they have inherited emotional detachment from both their parents. How very sad for everyone concerned.

Lord L was an abusive bully. Lady L's vulnerabilities along with her husband's behaviour either led to, or exacerbated her mental health problems. It's unlikely their children had safe and loving care in their early years. It's always tragic when families are estranged but I don't see how her adult children have a duty of care. I realise that sounds harsh but the extent of distress and estrangement doesn't suggest reconciliation of any kind is likely to be successful. More pain all round seems more likely.

My DH had a very difficult relationship with his mother, boarding school at the early age of 7, divorced, then absent father, (abroad with new lady), neurotic mother, necessitating school holidays with grandmother, etc! Horrible to me over many years, making contact with her very difficult, but even so for all this, as she got older and eventually frail we,and DH's two siblings did make sure that she was looked after appropriately and visited, not that often I'll admit, but enough; Carers, and latterly the Home contacted on a regular basis and her well being kept an eye on. She was his mother and to leave your own mother to fend for herself in old age, however awful she's been, imo says more about you than her.

I so agree with you nigglynellie I dId exactly the same thing and as an only child it was hard.
I couldn't have done it without my H's total support.
He knew just how I would feel if I didn't act in that way.

I agree with iam64 (by the way do you change your name after each birthday) those children must have had a horrible life with a nanny being murdered their own father accused and disappearing out their life and a beaten to submission mum who had mental health problems and a detachment none of us can believe They were taken from her care so probably have little feelings for her or know her I don't think they have any duty of care just because she gave birth to them they were lucky to escape I would think

Lady L also had a horrible life courtesy of her violent arrogant and generally vile husband which certainly contributed to her neurosis. Thank goodness she had the coverted son else she would have been truly worthless in her husband's eyes which he would certainly have made clear to her in no uncertain terms!
You would think that her children might just acknowledge that her behaviour could just possibly be partly attributable to her unhappiness and despair, and perhaps be a little less judgemental. Perhaps though, as previously suggested, they're just a chip off the Lucan block. Poor lady.

Remember that Lady L met her husband at her sister's house. Her husband was part of Lord L's social group. Both her sister and husband turned on Lady L and took her husband's side from day 1.

They were the people who encouraged the children to say that they wanted to live with them rather than their mother (who would, understandably have struggled with parenting them at that time). Is it really surprising the children do not have anything to do with her, when they have been brought up by relations in a home where the attitude to their mother was of contempt?

Lord L was an abusive bully. Lady L's vulnerabilities along with her husband's behaviour either led to, or exacerbated her mental health problems.
It seemed as if Lucan, using his influence, coerced her doctor into questioning her mental health and introducing her to medication which may well have caused her to function in a zombie-like state when the children were young.
Another way of controlling her, when she did fight back he hit her.

One of my closest friends was a trainee barrister in the set of chambers that acted for the Lucan family at the inquest. She was present throughout the court proceedings. She was appalled by the treatment of Lady Lucan by the family. She was blanked by them all - no eye contact - nothing. Chilling behaviour. The family reaction to Sandra Rivett's death was equally dreadful "pity about the nanny" was the throw away line. Lady Lucan married out of her class and was never allowed to forget it. Her sister was accepted by that hideous set and it was she that went on to bring up the children. So sad for LL that co-ercive control was a long way off becoming a crime - and feminism was only just starting to emerge. Such a sad sad story all round.

I can understand the children's attitude when they were (very) young and easily influenced, but I'd have thought as they grew older and presumably able to realise that there were two sides to this awful saga,they would have made a more informed opinion, and might just have been able to judge their mother less harshly. Their attitude to the death of Sandra Rivett was truly callous and to this day they say that she was killed by 'person unknown'!!! They sound horrid, and probably Lady L is better off without them, sad though this is.

I don't think it is fair to blame children who were separated from their mother for long periods of time (every summer) brought up by a nanny and who lost what was obviously a loved father at a very early age. They are arguably far more damaged than Lady L ever was. I agree she had mental health problems and these were exasperated by her marriage and the family she married into. But when I watched the films of the couple and the children it was Lord L who interacted with them, chased them and laughed with them. Lady L for whatever reason just seemed to stand beside them and pose.
It is interesting that there is now evidence being produced saying there was sometimes another man in the house, which was Lucan's story.
I thought her account of what happened was a little too lucid for someone who had been dealt several blows to the head, was terrified and probably sedated.

Grananarchist thank you for that insight.

Not all the footage of the children with Lady L were of her standing and posing though, she was interacting with them I thought, perhaps in a rather more reserved manner than their father did. It's easy, of course, to spend half an hour with them being jolly and playing games then handing them back to nanny, whilst keeping mother drugged and quiet by manipulating her into thinking she was mad.

Most upper class children were brought up by 'Nanny' and certainly didn't grow into adulthood hating their mothers as these three appear to do. Could be that they're ashamed of her lower social status, and don't want to associate with a mere Majors daughter, let alone be related to one!!
Whatever the ins and outs of it, it was a personal matter between their parents with fault no doubt on both sides, that happened a long time ago. she's now an old increasingly fail old lady, and not to care whether your own mother is alive or dead or what her circumstances are is to me pretty shocking.

95% of the time while she was being filmed she just stood or sat near them, occasionally she held one of them (usually posing it for the camera). They both had nannies I suppose, so both had the opportunity to hand them back- although that may not be true, she had a nanny because of a court order, he didn't necessarily.
We only have her side of the story. He probably treated her much the same way as most treated mental illness in those days i.e. pull yourself together-tough love. It wasn't right but it wasn't unusual and it shouldn't be judged by today's standards.

Most children don't have a mother accusing a father of murder and attempted murder. They seem to have a very close relationship with her sister niggly so the Major's daughter theory doesn't work.

Well, probably not, but imo their attitude as mature adults is harsh and unforgiving. Their mother, by any standards, had an awful life with a vile violent manipulative husband. Surely the hardest of hearts could find a little sympathy, even with reservations, for her predicament both then and now.

I'm not sure that he did treat her like that though; I got the impression that he tried to get her into a private mental hospital - when she was applying for custody of the children.

It also seemed that she got on particularly well with the youngest daughter who can't have been very old when she was taken away and brought up by her aunt and uncle - so some brainwashing of the children by her sister and BIL may have happened.
Don't forget - sister was also a 'social climber' and to have taken Veronica's side against Lucan and all his powerful friends could have been disastrous for her too. The sister also put up with a ménage à trois, didn't she, when Shand Kydd moved his lover in, rather than lose her social status.
Bill Shand Kydd, Aspinall, Goldsmith et all all knew a lot more than they have ever let on.

They probably all thought they were above the law - and they were right.

Most children don't have a mother accusing a father of murder and attempted murder.
So you think he was not guilty then trisher?

I think he was, otherwise he would not have fled - and the oldest child saw her mother bleeding and half strangled on the night of the murder and was told to go away by her father (apparently). She will know the truth.

There doesn't seem any doubt LOrd L murdered Sandra Rivetts and seriously injured his wife.

Which makes you wonder about the real reason they have chosen not to speak to their mother for so long. If she does know the truth and it doesn't match her mother's story she was put in an untenable position. There was also the reported statement from the children, never given at the inquest, that another man stayed regularly at the house. Police chose not to look for him because they were convinced it was Lucan.
He might have done it, but there was never a trial so he has never been found guilty by a jury and as always in English justice the accused is assumed innocent until convicted.

Are you suggesting Lady Lucan lied trisher, why would she do that, what would she gain by falsely accusing her husband. She was injured, she ran for help and told police her husband did it. He disappeared. If he wasn't guilty why did he run? How did he know he was being accused and so go to friends for help.

Surely if Lucan wanted to get custody of the children he would have seized the chance to pin the murder on the mystery man who stayed in the house. Running away just proves his guilt. Even if he had panicked the friends he went to for help would have told him to go back and tell the police what really happened. They don't seem to have done so, presumably, they thought he was guilty.

The fact that he was trying to get her into a private mental hospital just suggests that he was an old fashioned aristocrat who wanted to get rid of his wife.

I think to be on the outside and ostracised from that powerful group of people means that she would not have stood a chance of gaining custody of her children or standing up against the insinuations of mental illness, unfaithfulness or anything else they would wish to throw at her.