The complicated sisterhood of Jackie Kennedy and Lee Radziwill

 

Jackie Kennedy had a life of her own apart from her husband and it was full of glamour, lovers, sorrow, and sibling rivalry.  From Vanity Fair, a look at the most famous sisters in the world, the Bouvier girls—Jacqueline and Caroline Lee.

 

27 comments

  1. George says:

    Jackie Kennedy had a life of her own apart from her husband and it was full of glamour, lovers”

    This gives the false impression that this claim is made in the Vanity Fair article. It is not.

    It is just more evidence-free character assassination of the Kennedys by Morley.

    • “This gives the false impression that this claim is made in the Vanity Fair article. It is not.” — George

      Greg, did you even read the article? Kashner sites specific incidents to support the claim that Jackie Kennedy had a life “apart from her husband … full of glamour, lovers” How did you translate that as a ‘character assassination of the Kennedys’? How does Jacqueline Kennedy’s life choices impact the character of “The Kennedys?” In some convoluted way, this seems to be a gallant attempt at defending her – and the Kennedys, a family she was only married into for a very short period – but the undercurrent is an objectification of Jacqueline Kennedy as a fantasy figurehead instead of recognizing that she existed, a woman, beyond her marriage to John Kennedy. Her grandfather, NYC developer James T. Lee, was involved with the Rockefeller’s Chase Bank for decades. Does that fact assassinate her character? No. It informs us, and it should help keep us honest in our debate; or we can remain hypnotized by our own romantic fantasies?

      http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/12/realestate/streetscapes-jacqueline-kennedy-onassis-s-grandfather-quality-developer-with.html

      • Tom S. says:

        leslie,
        It must have been time to shift back to criticizing Morley, since this site and the moderation of comments submitted to it have been raked over thoroughly, right down to an inference that the site is akin to a prison and the moderator compared to a prison warden. I think it is
        a safe bet that what you are reacting to is the probing stage of a nascent move by “the team” against every new article discussion on JFKfacts.org.

    • George says:

      Where in the article does it say she had lovers – let alone any during the Kennedy marriage. Give me a direct quote from the article, Leslie. and then back it up with evidence.

      Morley has a habit of supporting every claim of infidelity made against the Kennedys. All he needs as “proof” is the allegation itself.

      I don’t really care what my post seems like to you, btw. My concern is that allegations need evidence. Here, unless you can point me it, there wasn’t even an allegation and Morley pulled it out of thin air.

      • Greg, what do you think Jeff Morley has to gain by suggesting that Jacqueline Kennedy had lovers?

        We’ve gone down this road periodically on this site, more specific to allegations of John Kennedy’s affairs. His sexual dalliances or proclivities, let alone Jackie’s – past or future- do not alter the fact that our nation was subjected to a coup d’etat. You’re engaging on this thread for some reason other than to defend Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy’s honour; we know that because your feigned puritanical mindset about fidelity is in direct contradiction to the language of degradation, in particular of the feminine, on your website.

        Instead of obsessing on “Arthur and Guinevere and Lancelot’, why not bring a 10 point or less argument to this site that Lee Oswald was on the steps of 411 Elm at the time the shots were fired that killed Jackie’s husband.

        • George says:

          I’m not obsessing about anything except facts and evidence in support of those facts. It appears no more exists in this instance than in the Mimi Alford BS that Morley supports.

          Yes it does if those are false allegations. It is the 2nd assassination.

          And it has nothing to do with puritanical mindsets. I don’t have one. Nor do I degrade women.

          You were asked to provide a quote from the article which would support Morley’s assertion and any evidence which would back it.

          Instead, you have chosen to divert from that by trying to make it about me.

          That answers my question.

          • You seem to be the expert in interpreting what people mean. Please share your interpretation of Jeff Morley’s lead in this thread and how that subjective interpretation prompted your indignation, “Where in the article does it say she had lovers – let alone any during the Kennedy marriage.”

            I’ll go first, my subjective interpretation: Jeff didn’t quote from the article, he linked to the article. He said, “a life of her own apart from her husband” (no timeline there) followed by ” …. glamor, lovers, sorrow, sibling rivalry.” He then presented the Vanity Fair link. FWIW, no where in his statement did he say she had lovers during her marriage (not that it matters).

            I believe this is a valuable exercise Greg, as it mirrors the interpretations of Oswald’s words used in the Prayer Man argument . . . purely subjective and constitutes a weak foundation to build a case – either in favour of your hypothesis about the PM or an attack on Jeff Morley. It lacks critical thinking, and it appears to be emotionally driven. That’s my interpretation of your process.

          • I tiptoed into your site Greg (holding my nose), knowing I could find an example to contradict your claim ‘Nor do I degrade women.’ It took me about 5 seconds to identify examples coming from Lee Farley your administrator and Hasan Yusef your moderator. Hasan’s might pass moderation on this site:

            “Leslie Sharp should change her last name to “dumb bitch.” It suits her.”

            I suspect that Lee Farley’s would not. At the risk of encouraging traffic on your site, it’s worth providing clues to the link in order to expose your hypocrisy and the pattern of your site. In light of recent concerns on a global level about internet abuse and intimidation, you might want to rethink your charter.

            Lee Farley
            Administrator
            Posts: 812
            “JFK Facts Website, April 20, 2016 at 6:27 AM

            Btw, where is Lee Farley?

          • Speaking of patterns, Greg, did you follow the events at Marquette University related to Asst. Prof. McAdams and the female student who was teaching a class and triggered a reaction in one of her own students who then sought solace and support from McAdams? McAdams fanned the flames and eventually the woman left the university after being the subject of online crude and demeaning attacks and private emails, some of which skirted on threat, In return for his role in the drama, Asst. Prof. McAdams was placed on notice by his employers. Apparently all of this relates to his current absence from jfkfacts.org. The point? When I read the comments on your public forum that attack me personally, the comments that attack the moderator of this site, and the attacks on other commenters on this forum, I thought of Asst. Professor McAdams.

            Any comments?

  2. George says:

    “leslie,
    It must have been time to shift back to criticizing Morley, since this site and the moderation of comments submitted to it have been raked over thoroughly, right down to an inference that the site is akin to a prison and the moderator compared to a prison warden. I think it is
    a safe bet that what you are reacting to is the probing stage of a nascent move by “the team” against every new article discussion on JFKfacts.org.”

    You are certifiable, Tom.

    • Tom S. says:

      You are certifiable, Tom.

      Am I? Your coordination is, to describe it politely, rather unique, creepy. It must be difficult to feign cluelessness as often as you and
      your team have attempted in your comments, especially since April 17th when you and your group began a coordinated occupation of discussion threads here on JFKfacts.org. – http://jfkfacts.org/in-jfk-lore-who-is-prayer-man/#comment-870282

      I am a one person team, so I have to try harder. Luckily, I am experienced, a fact you and your group readily and repeatedly share with JFKfacts.org discussion threads readers.

      http://jfkfacts.org/a-question-for-2016-presidential-candidates/#comment-747079
      Vanessa – April 13, 2015 at 8:44 pm

      Hello there Tom, nice to meet you.

      I’m not quite sure what you mean by that comment. I was talking to Terry about how we ROKCers were all banned from Ed Forum. We’re now reinstated but I found I had to remind them and was advising him to do the same…..

      http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13133861-eddie-piper-his-escort-service?page=5

      Greg at April 15, 2015 at 9:40 PM

      We shouldn’t say too much, Vanessa… it may risk our memberships over there under the current (what day is it?) forum TOU.

      Okay Greg. Those are very wise words, I should listen to you more.

      • George says:

        That’s some conspiracy you have uncovered there! An open discussion about not breaking the terms of membership at the Ed Forum.

        Way to go Tom.

        Why not put on that fake beard and nose and pop over and hang out by the water cooler with your little microphone shoved right up your carnation? Who knows what hot goss you’ll pick up?

        I know who the creep one is…

  3. Fearfaxer says:

    I think it’s pretty obvious this site has been targeted by a group of people who want to cripple its effectiveness by filling it up with a lot of pointless arguments about trivial matters.

    As to whether or not Jackie had lovers while married to JFK, Gore Vidal stated that she did in his memoir “Palimpsest,” and named one name — Hollywood superstar William Holden. He was as intimate a friend as she had in the years before their relationship was ruptured, and I think his claim is very believable.

  4. How disappointing to discover Greg the George is determined to spread his virulent spores further on JFKfacts. I would have hoped such virus would have been contained to on vector and quarantined.

    It must have been moonglow way up in the blue…

    William Holden it seems that Jackie knew. Biblically speaking.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2640882/EXCLUSIVE-She-wait-allowed-seduce-creaky-French-elevator-Jackie-Kennedys-secret-lovers-revenge-JFK-William-Holden-steamy-night-Brando-forbidden-affairs-Bobby-AND-Teddy.html

    \\][//

    • George says:

      Like I said, allegations themselves are all you guys need when it comes to the Kennedy’s private lives.

      I really don’t give a flying fruit bat who they bedded. I just want some-one to pony up with something with a bit of substance as evidence.

  5. ed connor says:

    I am somewhat suspect about the quote attributed to Jackie, that she told Peter Duchin “We both live and do very well in this world of WASPS and old money…”
    The term “WASP” was coined by E. Digby Baltzell in his 1964 book “The Protestant Establishment.”
    I read that book. I was a student of Dr. Baltzell at the University of Pennsylvania. In fact, he awarded me with one of my very few “A’s”.
    I suspect the writer embellished a bit; it doesn’t seem likely that Jackie would have used the term “WASP” in the 1950’s, since it didn’t become common usage until after the assassination.

    • George says:

      Thank you, Ed.

      I’d go a bit further and say there is zero chance she said it.

      The Online Etymology Dictionary claims that he [Batzell] also coined it. But other sources state that it was coined in 1962 by Erdman Palmore [another sociology professor, I believe].
      http://www.mootgame.com/mootlistOut/11_01_05.html

      So it was either coined in 1962 or 1964. Either way, it was not in usage at all in the 1950s.

      The article is just the sort of subtle anti-Kennedy propaganda that Morley loves.

      Take this for example:

      “Lee has remained discreetly silent about her brother-in-law’s conga line of paramours, which included Marilyn Monroe, Marlene Dietrich, and Judith Campbell Exner.”

      Perhaps her “steadfast” silence is is the same steadfast silence that prevents me from talking about all of those Elvis sightings I’ve had? You know – the ones I just made up.

    • ed connor, a fair observation. Did the author of the “Vanity Fair” piece get lazy? Did Gore Vidal incorporate the term “WASP” and VF conflated the two versions, “ . . . as she [Jackie Kennedy] told society bandleader Peter Duchin in reference to Newport, many years later, “YOU AND I PETER, BOTH OUTSIDERS.” Sarah Bradford does not quote Jackie as using the term “WASP”.

      This from the book, “America’s Queen, The Life of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis” by Sarah Bradford

      ‘Even after the Bouviers’ unmasking in the sixties, Jackie’s eccentric cousin Edie Beale boasted to writer Gail Sheehy in 1972, “We’re all descended from fourteenth-century French kings.” When Jackie married John F. Kennedy in 1953, newspaper reports trumpeted the alliance of the wealthy Boston Irish senator with the descendant of a family of French aristocrats. “I don’t know how Janet [Jackie’s mother] got away with this,” Gore Vidal said. “Well, it only worked with the press, I mean they were somehow Plantagenets and Tudors—it was just nonsense. They were pretty lowly born …” They were Catholics, but not grand Catholics, of Mediterranean descent in a Protestant WASP world. None of this was to matter outwardly to Jackie, as the classy beauty she grew up to be, but it contributed to an inner sense of apartness; as she told society bandleader Peter Duchin in reference to Newport, many years later, “YOU AND I PETER, BOTH OUTSIDERS.” . . . It is worth noting that of the three important men in her life—John F. Kennedy (Boston Irish Catholic on both sides), Aristotle Onassis (Greek) and MauriceTempelsman (Jewish)—not one could remotely be called a WASP.

      https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/b/bradford-queen.html

      note to Greg: “ . . . the three important men in her life.” This does not argue that these were the ONLY men in her life, it only qualifies them as “important”. Sorry.

  6. George says:

    ‘How disappointing to discover Greg the George is determined to spread his virulent spores further on JFKfacts. I would have hoped such virus would have been contained to on vector and quarantined.}” My new BFF

    But Willy, we have had complaints that we came here only to propagandize about Prayer Man, and now you and Leslie think we should stick to that? What’s all that about?

    • Tom S. says:

      But Willy, we have had complaints that we came here only to propagandize about Prayer Man, and now you and Leslie think we should stick to that?

      The only other commentor who regularly refers to himself as “we” is Dr. McAdams. It really is creepy, whether you like it,
      or not, that you have to participate at JFKfacts.org as a component of a “we,” if you are not referring only to yourself.

      If you discuss who will comment, what “we” will convey in a comment, when “we” will or will not submit a comment, or any other planning or co-ordination, it becomes a commenting operation. Comments are moderated. Comments submitted as components of a commenting operation of a “we” may not be compatible with the discussion comprised of uncoordinated comments submitted by distinct, unaffiliated individuals not involved in any side communication with each other related to the submission of comments to this site, or unrelated, for that matter. IOW, the regulars commenting here became acquainted here. Their interaction in discussion threads is unpredictable, agreeing on some issues, disagreeing on others.

      But, compared to what your “we” have been communicating, there is a spontaneity and a sincerity that is easy to differentiate. For example, each first time commentor, or commentor back after a long hiatus, of your “we” operation these
      past two weeks begins with a criticism of the website, sometimes of Jeff Morley, always of me.

      Maybe you expect that your lack of tact or diplomacy lends a “we are real” air of legitimacy diverting attention from your operational tactic, that you are all participants in a comments submission operation. Unfortunately, the aggressiveness, laced with dubious or outright inaccurate accusations and other claims results in a noticeable phoniness to the content and the delivery. …And if this is the impression your commenting operation imparts generally, imagine how it must be tainting the extraordinary claims of your professed, raison pour ce faire.

      • George says:

        Never has so much been made of so little. I was taking the mickey of your tactic of insisting there is a “we”.

        But go ahead and knock yourself out. The paranoia displayed does have some entertainment value – limited and lowbrow though it is.

  7. George says:

    What I find disappointing Willy my friend, is Leslie’s avoidance of providing the quotes I asked for from the article – particularly after she claimed I never read it.

  8. “What I find disappointing Willy my friend..”~George

    I know you think you are getting my goat, or pushing my buttons with your “friend” BS. But you are not. You only make yourself out as ridiculous as you are in triplicate.

    You still haven’t figured out that the joke’s on you!
    \\][//

  9. George says:

    I am not Hasan and or was his comment degrading of women plural – just one.

    Also please note that I do not endorse all comments at ROKC any more than Morley would endorse all comments here. That would be rather schizophrenic, would it not?

    As for analysis, it is still just you trying to dig your way out of a hole.

    So Morley just wrote a random sentence that had little or nothing to do with the content of the article? Maybe it should have been “moderated” to make a clear connection between the comments and the article?

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lD7PfZtTaaMJ:jfkfacts.org/assassination/fact-check/fact-check-oswalds-girlfriend-is-she-for-real/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

    • Any response to the Lee Farley paragraph in that same thread, Greg? He’s not a mere commenter on your site, he is on your team. Are you endorsing that particularly obnoxious paragraph of his? If your defence of Hasan is that he only degraded me, that means he has never before said anything equally absurd about others, particularly women. Do I have that right?

      Morley stated the obvious, Greg, Jackie Kennedy was her own woman prior to her marriage to John Kennedy, during her marriage to John Kennedy, and after his murder. She was glamorous, she had lovers (you do understand that husbands can be lovers as well?), she experienced deep pain and loss, and she had a strained relationship with her sister. Why does that disturb you so much?

  10. BBerg says:

    The book revealing this information is almost 2 years old was published in 2014 and did have sources for the information disclosed.Jackie was ” complicated”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more