|
Post by Sherlock on May 13, 2023 3:05:35 GMT -5
Yes, I agree that very young children were seen as "gender-neutral" until the age of four or five. Using "It" did not imply disrespect. Mrs Whatley uses "It" in her statements to refer to Charlie; she was not the only one. Lindbergh using this neutral pronoun however is consistent with other known aspects of his personality: his eugenics beliefs and the suggestion that he had Asberger's syndrome with lack of empathy being a key symptom. So its a small part of a package of (to us) strange behaviour by the father of a sick child: the "toughening up" episodes already mentioned which leave many feeling he was cold blooded, objective, distant, a loner marching to his own drum. I do think he loved Charlie but never expressed it, maybe because he couldn't, in ways we would find normal today. "It" was just one part of the complex and unusual personality of Charles Lindbergh.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 13, 2023 6:38:34 GMT -5
Actually, beautiful, blond Marilyn Munster was cast in the role of the family weirdo on that show. Marilyn is considered to be the ugly duckling, as many scenes bear this out. The rest of the Munsters see themselves as the normal ones. There's nothing like watching an episode of the Munsters to "lighten up." Looks like I got my wires crossed a little but you get the point. If you were walking around town and saw Gomez, he wouldn't be referred to as an "It" either. But the weird person with hair everywhere wandering out in front of cars babbling incoherently? There would be multiple calls to the Cops to say there was an escape from the "Loony Bin" (I've also heard the term "Booby Hatch" from the older folks) up on the hill. Anyway, this discussion brought back memories.... I also remember Beverly Hillbillies and of course the cartoons where the characters beat the hell out of each other. Bugs Bunny's Babyface Finster episode immediately comes to mind, I suppose, because of the topic. I just checked online the propriety of referring to a baby as "it." Historically it was quite common and not considered to be inappropriate or offensive. Girl and boy babies tended to be treated alike, dressed the same way, and boys often did not have their first haircut until the age of three or four. Distinguishing gender was not that important, and often an observer would not be able to tell whether a baby was a boy or a girl. The German and the Dutch also referred to a baby in a neutral way. I think you are getting the point of what I am making confused a little. I am not saying people didn't use the pronoun "it." I pointed this out below, and there's nothing odd about that. I am talking about replacing their name with "It" or referring to them as an "It." For example, since I've read Anne's diary five times already, she constantly refers to the child as "the baby." She doesn't, at least not that I've found, call the child "the It." She also uses "Charlie," "Jr.," and even in narration "C Jr." Why didn't she use "It" instead if it was so common? Her pet name, as far as I can tell, was "Fat Lamb" or "Lamb" not "It." Next, the gender of this child was important to the family even before it was born as indicated by what I wrote in V3. So I think it had to equally be after he was born as well especially when Lindbergh was doing things to "toughen him up" because I don't think for a second he would have done this to a daughter at that age. So its a small part of a package of (to us) strange behaviour by the father of a sick child: the "toughening up" episodes already mentioned which leave many feeling he was cold blooded, objective, distant, a loner marching to his own drum. I do think he loved Charlie but never expressed it, maybe because he couldn't, in ways we would find normal today. "It" was just one part of the complex and unusual personality of Charles Lindbergh. Yes, that's a major point about the child being sick at the time. I don't want to imply that it was unusual for men to attempt to "toughen up" their sons. The problem I have with Lindbergh was his methods alongside the fact the child wasn't well. We were all led to believe the child had Rickets. So knocking him over as he attempted to walk seems counterproductive in that regard because it risks serious injury. And the results? Dr. Van Ingen specifically referred to him as "spoiled" so it did not work. I've posted on this before, but there were letters and theories floated about some sort of "accident," one being the child fell down the steps. These are similar to A&M's theory only their's was more specific in that it had to do with one of Lindbergh's sick jokes he was constantly perpetrating.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on May 13, 2023 8:34:04 GMT -5
Charles Lindbergh was a very immature first time father, with no previous experience or general interest in the handling of infant children. He does not appear to have been very close to his son at the beginning, to the point of seemingly avoiding him. Many new fathers start off that way, perhaps feeling they are not 'hardwired' to show the appropriate emotional and physical affection and responses, for fear of adverse reaction on the part of the child or even unintentionally, physically hurting them. These general attitudes were far more prevalent in the 1930's, especially among career-oriented men of wealth and privilege, whose occupations and other interests made fatherhood an almost secondary and initially, a foreign pursuit. It wasn't until Charlie was about six months old and perhaps 'sturdy and interested enough' in Charles's mind, that his father began taking him "ceiling flying."
I see no reason to believe that Charles Lindbergh did not love his son from the very beginning and that if "It" was in fact, a pet name for his son, it was not used clinically or derogatorily, but probably drew from the same sense of humour and field of word play that he shared intimately with Anne. My personal thoughts and feelings tell me what we're seeing here is little more than a straight adaptation of the commonly used term 'it,' only "dressed up" in a kind of humorously-inspired formal sense, that addresses Charlie in the more regal form of the moniker, ie. "It."
In any case, I agree with Sue that this topic might benefit from some lightening up. I also have to believe this is one of those relatively benign topics that with the right degree of lobbying and select sourcing, has the potential to devolve into another one of those grand 'tempests in a teapot.'
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on May 13, 2023 8:48:40 GMT -5
To back up Sue's earlier post about Charles Jr. being called 'It" by his father, here is the newspaper story that appeared in the Reading Eagle, March 6, 1932. This story was probably what Brant and Renaud were referring to when they mentioned this in their book in 1932. imgur.com/VVkoMGU
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on May 13, 2023 11:16:03 GMT -5
Hi Joe, Some "lightening up": That must be the first time I have read the words "sense of humour," "word play," and "Charles Lindbergh" in the same sentence. He comes across as an immature prankster rather than a witty master of word play. Pouring water onto Anne's dress as she was in conversation with Amelia; he seems to be totally oblivious to how this would be seen by others. Maybe he didn't care what they thought. Lindbergh's "occupations and other interests made fatherhood....a foreign pursuit." Is this a Freudian slip? CAL certainly made fatherhood a foreign pursuit in Switzerland and Germany after WW2 as he produced seven extra-marital children. Not the result of passionate affairs but deliberate and intentional. I tend to think that this revelation drew many former "fence sitters" over to the "inside job" version of the case, even though it isn't directly related. "Anyone who would do that...." Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by ace on May 13, 2023 14:53:06 GMT -5
Years ago I reached out to Jim Fisher after reading his first book and I asked him if the (then) recent discovery of the seven extra-marital children fathered by CAL had caused him to alter his views at all about Lindbergh's possible role. He was not swayed in the least. In fact, he was confident that Hauptmann had had his own extra-marital affair while Anna was visiting her family in Germany. I thought that was a strange response, and still do.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on May 13, 2023 16:18:30 GMT -5
Hi Ace, Even if Jim Fisher was right about Hauptmann having fun while his wife was in Germany, there's all the difference in the world between this and CAL's deliberate fathering of seven offspring. Having nailed his colours to the mast in his books it was always unlikely Jim Fisher could be swayed by any subsequent developments. His attempt to "balance out" Hauptmann's alleged conduct with CAL's proven behaviour is pathetic.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on May 13, 2023 18:13:20 GMT -5
Wow.. talk about distracting influences. Is anyone here perhaps forgetting whose guilt was so clearly established by the circumstantial physical evidence involving ladder and his attic wood, ransom note and his own handwriting, ransom money found in his garage, description of Cemetery John, as well as the unexplained personal enrichment to the tune of well over $40,000 during a time when he was not working while losing money in the stock market? The LKC essentially begins and ends with the involvement of one Richard Hauptmann. The extra-marital affairs of both Charles and Anne Lindbergh, during a time in their lives when they had clearly grown apart, came two to two and a half decades after the abduction and murder of their first-born son in 1932. A little perspective, perhaps?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on May 13, 2023 18:26:46 GMT -5
Hi Joe, Some "lightening up": That must be the first time I have read the words "sense of humour," "word play," and "Charles Lindbergh" in the same sentence. He comes across as an immature prankster rather than a witty master of word play. Pouring water onto Anne's dress as she was in conversation with Amelia; he seems to be totally oblivious to how this would be seen by others. Maybe he didn't care what they thought. Lindbergh's "occupations and other interests made fatherhood....a foreign pursuit." Is this a Freudian slip? CAL certainly made fatherhood a foreign pursuit in Switzerland and Germany after WW2 as he produced seven extra-marital children. Not the result of passionate affairs but deliberate and intentional. I tend to think that this revelation drew many former "fence sitters" over to the "inside job" version of the case, even though it isn't directly related. "Anyone who would do that...." Sherlock Anne's diary accounts provide important insight into the select kind of chemistry and sense of humour shared by both her and Charles during their early years together. I understand you're moving in and around, and also well beyond that time frame to capture the momentary snapshots that perhaps seek to better represent the entire course of their relationship in your own mind, but shall we discuss this a bit more? Have you read Hour of Gold Hour of Lead?
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on May 14, 2023 3:18:39 GMT -5
A sense of humour in it's purest form is an unselfish thing, exercised for the amusement of others. Lindbergh's "sense of humour" was exercised for his own amusement, often resulting in the distress of the victims of his practical "jokes." I don't deny that there was light- hearted banter between Lindbergh and his wife in the early years of their marriage (I have read "Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead") but one swallow does not make a summer. The evidence, taken in it's totality, indicates a self-absorbed immature joker. The veiled aggression present in these "jokes" provided amusement for Charles Lindbergh and nobody else.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on May 14, 2023 8:32:23 GMT -5
It's unlikely anyone would ever suggest that Lindbergh was a fervent humanitarian, but I think you're fixating on a very select and socially undesirable character trait and somehow attempting to draw an untenable parallel between it and the kidnapping, given the lack of one shred of evidence he was involved. How would you then feel about Richard Hauptmann laughing at his wife falling into the river during their California trip, ignoring her plight before Kloppenburg came to her rescue, and his conclusively proven role within the kidnapping?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on May 14, 2023 8:40:59 GMT -5
Hi Ace, Even if Jim Fisher was right about Hauptmann having fun while his wife was in Germany, there's all the difference in the world between this and CAL's deliberate fathering of seven offspring. Having nailed his colours to the mast in his books it was always unlikely Jim Fisher could be swayed by any subsequent developments. His attempt to "balance out" Hauptmann's alleged conduct with CAL's proven behaviour is pathetic. The "balancing out" of Hauptmann's alleged conduct notwithstanding, Lindbergh's extra-marital affairs and fathering of 7 more children in the 1950's during his many world travels, appear to be a kind of keystone consideration here when attempting to explain a perceived, but wholly unsubstantiated role within the kidnapping. Do you believe one has anything to do with the other?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 14, 2023 9:34:31 GMT -5
Years ago I reached out to Jim Fisher after reading his first book and I asked him if the (then) recent discovery of the seven extra-marital children fathered by CAL had caused him to alter his views at all about Lindbergh's possible role. He was not swayed in the least. In fact, he was confident that Hauptmann had had his own extra-marital affair while Anna was visiting her family in Germany. I thought that was a strange response, and still do. Although he's correct that Hauptmann cheated on Anna, the reason for doing so was quite different from Lindbergh's obvious motivations. For example, Lindbergh was trying to have children with these women, and Hauptmann was not. One clearly has nothing to do with the other. What this proves, to me, is that he could keep HUGE secrets with numerous people for an unlimited amount of time if necessary. Part of any argument against his involvement in this case, by Lone-Wolf enthusiasts, was that conspiracies either do not exists or could never be kept secret if they did. Wow.. talk about distracting influences. Is anyone here perhaps forgetting whose guilt was so clearly established by the circumstantial physical evidence involving ladder and his attic wood, ransom note and his own handwriting, ransom money found in his garage, description of Cemetery John, as well as the unexplained personal enrichment to the tune of well over $40,000 during a time when he was not working while losing money in the stock market. Yes, they found ransom money in Hauptmann's garage. While I believe I was finally able to prove the origins of Rail 16, each of your other points above are debatable. So looking at the Rail 16 connection, this proves, to me, that Hauptmann was involved. It does not automatically tie him to everything else and in fact there's evidence all over the place that indicates multiple people were involved. So a claim like the one above is misleading and I'd even go so far as to say that its by design. Next, I mentioned Rabbi Neulander in V4. Why is he in Jail? The Cops caught the men who actually did it - right? And yet, they were able to prove a conspiracy, and that Neulander was the man behind the murder.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on May 14, 2023 15:48:15 GMT -5
I completely agree with Michael's remark that Lindbergh could keep huge secrets etc. And the reason for his secrecy was often deception. The secrecy/deception involved in every practical joke, his pose as the caring father employing gangsters to search for his living son, and thirty years later he's still at it. The elaborate arrangements he made to ensure his fathering of the 7 children remained a secret. The false name, the secret bank accounts, the regular payments, and not least the huge deception of his wife as to where he had been and what he had been doing. Deception was part of Lindbergh's DNA. He enjoyed it. He seems to have had a pathological need for it throughout his life. So when we suspect Lindbergh's involvement in his son's abduction we are not impugning the character of a pillar of society, the honest and respected member of his community, a man with many friends etc. Only based on his known and proven deceptive character he becomes a "person of interest." When we then factor in all the indications of an inside job it is inevitable that his name will be at the top of the list.
|
|
|
Post by obi on May 14, 2023 16:28:17 GMT -5
I have often wondered why anyone would assume a wealthy, world famous, globetrotting adulterer only fathered seven children outside his marriage.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on May 15, 2023 2:38:23 GMT -5
Yes obi, maybe there are more revelations coming down the pike. This was the small scale secret operation of a "baby farm" without any thought that he would be an absent father unable to be there for his kids as they grew up. He didn't care; he had produced these 7 children making 12 in total. Was he trying to atone for something he had done long ago?
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on May 15, 2023 6:28:42 GMT -5
The Lindbergh marriage was essentially over when Anne had an affair with her physician, an affair that lasted about two years in the 1940s. Anne's problem most likely began previously when she told Charles she needed a psychiatrist. Charles refused to accept her problem and "locked her out of his bedroom." At that point, though there was no divorce, the two of them essentially lived separate lives. Charles' affairs with the German women occurred following Anne's adultery. If he had a mistress in America, the press would have gotten wind of it. His relationships were not publicly known until one of the children identified her father following his death.
|
|
|
Post by obi on May 15, 2023 7:22:03 GMT -5
I know if I were proven to be CAL’s child I would not expose it out of respect for my mother. I never wanted that type fame interfering with my life. Reporters, hangers on….I suspect there are many of CAL’s hidden offspring who feel the same. If women of that era threw themselves at actors Buster Keaton and Fatty Arbunkle I imagine they really went for CAL. The Beatles have an ‘army’ of children that have stayed hushed up for 50+ years. I still think seven children only scratches the surface and others will surface.With his history I think the odds are against there only being seven.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on May 15, 2023 10:31:39 GMT -5
I agree that some women would throw themselves at CAL. As you say its something male celebs have had to deal with for ages. But CAL would be wary of potential paternity claims and somehow I cannot see him as a serial womaniser. His seven children were the result of a specific project rather than random passionate affairs or one night stands. The pregnancies were organised, planned, and intentional rather than accidental. He provided financial support to the three mothers.
So if there are more extra marital children I would expect them to be the result of a similar organised project rather than random accidents. But didn't he once say he wanted twelve children? I'm sure i read that somewhere. If so, maybe the seven filled his quota.
The outstanding question of course is: "Why on Earth did he do it?"
|
|
|
Post by obi on May 15, 2023 11:51:28 GMT -5
With all due respect for your knowledgeable, well researched and thought provoking posts, I must admit total ignorance of “organised, planned, and intentional” pregnancies. I understood he met the first mother at a party. She was a hat maker. He was Charles Lindbergh. The next was her sister. The next his secretary. Doesn’t seem very calculated to me. One thing I do know about is being married, working long periods away from home with willing members of the opposite sex always around. I guess my views are likely clouded by my (dis)respect for Charles Lindbergh’s character. I do appreciate and respect your response.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on May 16, 2023 1:03:32 GMT -5
Thanks for your kind words re my posts which I am sure I do not deserve. There is a saying that if something happens once its accidental, if it happens twice its a coincidence, but if it happens three times (or more) its a pattern. If the first pregnancy had been an unwelcome accident precautions would have been taken to make sure it wasn't repeated. They weren't. In those pre-contraceptive pill days, Lindbergh clearly did not want to wear his socks in bed. These women were not "groupies" but respectable "hausfraus" who willingly entered into a secret pact with Lindbergh in return for well organised financial support. These children were planned and produced intentionally. The secrecy fits in well with Lindbergh's passion for privacy and deception. "Nobody knows what I do." I hope this helps to explain my using "organised, planned, and intentional" Best regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on May 16, 2023 9:48:53 GMT -5
Thanks for your kind words re my posts which I am sure I do not deserve. There is a saying that if something happens once its accidental, if it happens twice its a coincidence, but if it happens three times (or more) its a pattern. If the first pregnancy had been an unwelcome accident precautions would have been taken to make sure it wasn't repeated. They weren't. In those pre-contraceptive pill days, Lindbergh clearly did not want to wear his socks in bed. These women were not "groupies" but respectable "hausfraus" who willingly entered into a secret pact with Lindbergh in return for well organised financial support. These children were planned and produced intentionally. The secrecy fits in well with Lindbergh's passion for privacy and deception. "Nobody knows what I do." I hope this helps to explain my using "organised, planned, and intentional" Best regards, Sherlock A great post, Sherlock! These extra "families" were intentional. There were going to be no more children with Anne and Lindbergh still wanted to continue having offspring. This is how he chose to do it.
|
|