<p>Why don’t you send links to your sources to this site, tommy, and then we can put them up against her official White House biography. I would tend to think that things like a marriage and a divorce could be easily verified.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=41[/url]”>http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=41</a></p>
<p>hereshoping…thank you…this is the first time I have ever seen a marriage date for her natural parents….after being told and telling others that NR’s parents were never married for well over 25 years it is good to have a date that would indicate otherwise.</p>
<p>“hereshoping…thank you…this is the first time I have ever seen a marriage date for her natural parents….after being told and telling others that NR’s parents were never married for well over 25 years it is good to have a date that would indicate otherwise.”
How, exactly, would something like this come up in the course of of normal conversation?</p>
<p>hereshoping…</p>
<p>Since all the “official White House” biography of Mrs. Reagan says is “Her story actually begins in New York City, her birthplace. She was born on July 6, 1921. When the future First Lady was six, her mother, Edith–a stage actress–married Dr. Loyal Davis, a neurosurgeon. Dr. Davis adopted Nancy, and she grew up in Chicago. And the site you gave has much more information “Mother: Edith P. Luckett, born 1888, July 16, Washington, D.C.; married first to Kenneth Robbins, 1916, June 27.” I have e-mailed the organization in Canton Ohio that gives the June 27, 1916 date. In my e-mail I said, “Do you have any documentation to prove that Nancy Reagan’s mother Edith P. Luckett married Kenneth Robbins, 1916, June 27; as it says on your web site? If so can you share it with me?” If I hear back from the people in Ohio, I will share any information they send.</p>
<p>Let’s all hope they are right. Mrs Reagan has done so much for so many people.</p>
<p>Zoosermom…You ask……How, exactly, would something like this come up in the course of of normal conversation?</p>
<p>While the Reagan’s were in the WH there was much talk in Washington about the fact that the First Lady was so overly interested in what the “upper crust of society” thought of her because of the circumstances of her birth.</p>
<p>Wait, go back to Ms. Rausch. She referred to “help” getting this annulment reversed. Who helped HER and why? (Deep Throat, “Follow the money…”) Is it that vast right-wing conspiracy thingie again?</p>
<p>It’s one thing to have been married and divorced. It’s another thing for the church that married you in the first place to officially say that you were never married (after two children at that). What a slap in the face! What a crock.</p>
<p>I don’t blame Rausch at all for using whatever means to validate her marriage, for her own sake and for the sake of her children. It shouldn’t have been annulled in the first place. </p>
<p>What kind of person would do this to their first spouse, and their children???</p>
<p>I think this is an old story, it was in the news a while back, maybe 5-6 years ago.</p>
<p>Actually, it’s a new story here in Boston. The reversal of the annulment has just been made public. The real story is that Rauch was able to appeal the annulment and won.</p>
<p>“While the Reagan’s were in the WH there was much talk in Washington about the fact that the First Lady was so overly interested in what the “upper crust of society” thought of her because of the circumstances of her birth.”</p>
<p>But telling people this for 25 years? That seems a bit weird to me. Actually a lot weird. I can’t imagine telling anyone anything about a public figure for 25 years.</p>
<p>No, he’s not a bigamist in the eyes of the Church, but he is an adulterer, and therefore not able to receive any of the sacraments of the Church.</p>
<p>I think there is a basic misunderstanding here of what a Catholic annulment really means. In a nutshell, it is an official Church declaration that what appeared to be a valid Christian marriage was in fact not, because one or both parties lacked the maturity or other essential qualities necessary for a true SACRAMENTAL union. It means the sacrament never existed. And it in no way de-legitimatizes any children from that marriage.</p>
<p>However, in this case, it appears that canon law was not followed by the Archdiocese of Boston in that an annullment requires contact with both parties. There is no way a valid annullment can be given without contacting both parties unless it is physically impossible to contact both. I highly doubt she was unavailable to provide her testimony. Obviously, corners were cut and strings were pulled on behalf of Kennedy, which is disgraceful. </p>
<p>I doubt that the annulment was overturned because the Vatican believes there was a sacramental union between Kennedy and Rauch. My guess is that they overturned it because the Archdiocese did not follow canon law.</p>
<p>With regard to the comment about the Catholic Church being more welcoming to a confessed murderer than to an invalidly remarried person, in a sense this is true. The confessed murderer is welcome to receive the sacraments while the remarried “adulterer” is not. This is a very painful situation for many Catholics as the sacraments are the lifeblood of the Church.</p>
<p>I am Catholic, if that’s not obvious yet : ), and I have helped a dear friend through her annullment process by providing written testimony on her behalf. There are many hoops to jump through, but to her it was worth it because she desperately wanted to be able to receive the sacraments again.</p>
<p>tommy, I have no idea what you’re getting at regarding Nancy (I didn’t even vote for RR. btw). Why don’t you just give us links to your sources for your assertion that Nancy’s parents were never married instead of emailing the first lady site for their documentation? Wouldn’t that be easier all around?</p>
<p>The rules and practices of most faiths seem odd to those who are not believers in them–and sometimes to those who are :)!</p>
<p>However, there is a lot of misinformation in this thread that I would like to correct. Thus:</p>
<p>"After twelve years of marriage and two children, it’s hard for me to see that this was not a real marriage. "</p>
<p>That may be your opinion, but the Church decides whether a marriage is valid based on the circumstances which existed at the time it was entered into. I’m not a theologian, but one requirement is that the partners entered into it of their own free will at the time and were not coerced into the marriage. For example, in the old days, if a Catholic woman got pregnant, the couple was rushed into marriage. The required bans were waived. (You can tell looking at a marriage register that the woman was pregnant, at least if there wasn’t a war on.) Many of these marriages were disasters. </p>
<p>I had a Catholic friend from an immigrant Irish family. She was dating someone in the sixties. He got very drunk. She drove him home and helped him to bed. At that point, he raped her. She dumped him. She later learned she was pregnant. He offered to “do the right thing” and marry her. Her parents blamed her–whatever were you thinking when you went back alone with a drunk man and entered his BEDROOM? </p>
<p>They married and had three kids. It was the marriage from hell. He resented having married her and insisted she had tricked him into it. She hadn’t wanted to marry him, but abortion wasn’t an option. (Ironically, he was seen as a “good catch.”) </p>
<p>Finally, after years of resentment and bouts of excessive drinking where he would beat her in front of the kids, she divorced him. She got a Church annulment. She DESERVES an annulment. This was not a marriage she entered into of her own free will. Last time I saw her she was engaged. She is in her mid 60s. She used to take her mail to the local post office. One of the clerks was a devout Catholic who lost his wife to cancer a few years ago. He has five adult children. He was lonely. They made small talk when she brought in her Christmas packages to mail. One day he asked her if she would have coffee with him. I am thrilled for her. </p>
<p>While her case was extreme, there are many couples who married only because of a pregnancy. The Church no longer allows someone who is pregnant to marry quickly. You’ve got to wait the normal amount of time–though there are no longer banns. You can go get married civilly if you want, but you still have to go through pre-Cana and everything else. In our diocese, the minimum time from the time you first approach a priest to say you wish to marry and the wedding is six months. </p>
<p>Another reason is a history of homosexuality. In the 50s and 60s, when many gays were closeted, many of them married naive women who didn’t have a clue that their husbands were gay. When the 70s struck, many of these men came “out” and dumped their wives. Some were fathers. The Church has annulled many such marriages. These men really didn’t enter into marriage of their own free will–they did so to meet societal and family pressures. And the women who married them would not have done so if the men had been truthful about their sexual histories. </p>
<p>Ms. Rauch is not Catholic. She has single-handedly spread many falsehoods about the whole annulment process. For example, she has screamed and yelled that she was oppposed to an annulment because it would make her twin sons illegitimate in the eyes of the Church. That is utter and complete nonsense. A Church annulment doesn’t make the children illegitimate in the eyes of the Church. Canon Law–see the Catechism of the Catholic Church–expressly says the contrary. (A civil annulment doesn’t make the children of the marriage illegitimate under common law either.) Her comments have discouraged many Catholics who would benefit from an annulment from seeking one because they think she knows what she is talking about when she says it makes her sons illegitimate. So, they remarry outside the Church because they’d rather have to deal with that–and many feel very guilty–than to hurt their children with the stigma of illegitimacy. It’s hogwash! </p>
<p>There are many reasons for annulments. Having read the articles in Time and elsewhere when the annulment was first granted, I am personally convinced that the congressman had a bona fide case for an annulment. That conclusion is based on Ms. Rauch’s own comments at the time, which would support Mr. Kennedy’s case. I am merely speculating, but I know one of the grounds for an annulment is X, and based on Ms. Rauch’s own comments, X existed in their case. </p>
<p>I haven’t read the update, but I suspect the process was the problem, not the grounds. The other spouse MUST be informed of the proceedings and she claimed that she wasn’t. Moreover, based solely on annecdotal experience, the Church tends to be reluctant to annul a marriage when the tribunal is convinced that one party to it sincerely believes there was a sacramental marriage. </p>
<p>What kind of person would do this? I can’t comment on Rep. Kennedy, but I can tell you that most of the folks I know who do this are good and sincere Catholics who wish to marry in the Church. In many cases, the fact that there are children of the first marriage is the incentive for seeking the annulment. If you are trying to raise your children in the Catholic faith, you will be reluctant to remarry outside that faith because of the example you are setting for your children. If you hope to have children in the second marriage, it is also important for that reason. It’s hard to raise children in a faith if you have violated one of its rules yourself. For example, how do you explain why you never take communion ?
And many Catholics seek annulments just for the healing power. That may sound strange to you, but if a Catholic really and truly believes that a divorce doesn’t end a marriage, (s)he may need an annulment to really feel that the marriage is “over.” It’s a very, very different process than a divorce and is positively therapeutic for some people.</p>
<p>So, please don’t mock what means a lot to many people. </p>
<p>PS Illinoismom posted while I was typing and made some points much better than I did!</p>
<p>^^Nice post!
And I’m so glad that lady took her mail to the local post office! :)</p>
<p>
Well, the Church DID decide that a valid marriage existed. It’s not just my opinion. One of my sisters has had an annulment, and the circumstances seem more than justified to me. What’s important, though, is that they were validated by the Church. It does seem pretty convenient to me that Kennedy’s concerns about the validity of his first marriage only came to light when he wanted to marry his secretary. Without knowing anything more than this, I’m suspicious about the situation. Marriage IS a sacrament in the Church, and that means working out problems that occur over many years. Just because he was tired of wife #1 does not make it O.K. for him to dump her and move on. jmo</p>
<p>SJMom,</p>
<p>I’m honestly confused by your reply–not just trying to argue for argument’s sake. I’m not trying to comment on the Rauch-Kennedy marriage (at least primarily). I was just making the point that in the annulment process the number of years you have been married and or the number of children you have is irrelevant. You can be married for 30 years and have 12 kids and you may still be entitled to an annulment. You could be married for 3 months and have no children and not be entitled to one. So, the fact that Rauch and Kennedy were married for 12 years and had 2 children (twins, born within a couple of years of their wedding) doesn’t prove --or disprove–whether this was a sacramental marriage. </p>
<p>In the examples I gave, people had long term marriages and had children, but they were nevertheless entitled to an annulment because of very compelling circumstances. I made that point because a surprising number of people, including practicing Catholics, think that if you were married a long time and had children, an annulment is impossible. I thought that was what you were saying. If it wasn’t, I’m sorry. I sincerely misunderstood.</p>
<p>I couldn’t agree more with you that a man is not entitled to just dump his wife because he is bored with her. But in fairness to Rep. Kennedy, I don’t think that’s what’s happened–at least according to Ms. Rauch herself. She has talked and written at length about what went wrong with her marriage. I’m crediting her accounts. The problems in their marriage emerged when the twins were born. Again, all I know is what she said. </p>
<pre><code>My understanding is that Ms. Rauch felt when the twins were born that it was important for her to be home with them as a full time mother. Her husband wanted her to be out there with him campaigning, meeting constituents, and going with him to social functions. She said she didn’t want her children to be raised by a nanny. She refused his requests and insisted on staying home with the twins. My recollection is that she stayed at home in Massachusetts and refused to spend any time in DC. He was commuting back and forth between the two and wanted her and the twins to do the same, at least until they were school age. She felt this would be very disruptive and refused.
She made some rather cutting remarks --understandably, she was bitter after the divorce–about how his siblings turned out and said that he had expected her to be more like his own mother–whom she felt had done a lousy job because she relied too much on “household help” to raise her children.
I’m not a theologian but there’s a concept called something like “failure to make a community of life” or some such title which is one of the grounds for an annulment. It essentially means that the two people involved never had a real agreement as to what their concept of marriage was. Unbelievable as it “sounds,” Ms. Rauch’s own statements suggest that while she and Kennedy had discussed having children, they had never discussed how they would interact once they did. He had made it abundantly clear to her that he wanted a life in politics before they were married. He assumed that she would be a political wife and do the things most political wives do.
Now, obviously, different politicians deal with this differently. Senator Schumer, for example, lives in a bachelor pad with some other male politicians while he is in DC and commutes to NY every weekend. His wife and daughters --well at least one is an adult now, but wasn’t when he was first elected–lived in his Congressional district. His wife has always worked. They were a bit older when they married and they discussed all this before they wed. They agreed that his wife would stay in New York and continue working at her job rather than move to DC.
</code></pre>
<p>If Ms. Rauch’s accounts are truthful–and I assume they are–she and Mr. Kennedy never, ever discussed these issues before the twins were born. Their disagreements about these issues caused great conflict in their marriage. </p>
<p>I do not find it at all suspicious that Kennedy only became concerned with the validity of his marriage when he wanted to remarry for two reasons. First, that’s when most people seek an annulment–when they need one to marry. Second, again, just based on media reports, my understanding is that it isn’t really Mr. Kennedy who wanted to marry in the Church. It’s his second wife. (By the way, I may be mistaken, but I think she had a more important position on his staff than secretary.) My understanding is that his second wife is Catholic, has never been married before, and wants very much to be able to receive the sacraments. </p>
<p>I do not know the Kennedys or Ms. Rauch. I do not know whether he is entitled to an annulment. I don’t think, again based only on media accounts, that the Church found that the Rauch/Kennedy marriage was valid. My understanding is that the annulment was reversed because the proper procedures weren’t followed. To draw an analogy, if a criminal defendant is convicted, the conviction may be overturned because of an error by the judge or improper juror conduct, etc. That doesn’t mean that the defendant is innocent–only that the state hasn’t proven his guilt. </p>
<p>I want to stress that I am not presuming to judge whether or not Mr. Kennedy is entitled to an annulment. I do know though that he didn’t just dump his wife because he got bored with her–at least if that wife is telling the truth, and I think she is.</p>
<p>After what Newt and Rudy have made their wives and kids go through (and repeatedly at that), this story barely deserves an asterisk.</p>
<p>jonri, I’m too tired to continue this discussion, but I’ll just finish a few thoughts. The Vatican decided the marriage was valid, so whatever you or I may think is irrelevant. You do seem to be intent on pointing out that Ms. Rauch somehow deserved the treatment she received, which seems deplorable to me. I think there are rare situations where an annulment is appropriate, but I also think it can be overused. I believe marriage is a sacrament, and that the kind of issues you described regarding the Kennedy marriage just come with the territory. All marriages have challenges, but they are supposed to be lifelong commitments within the Church. </p>
<p>I don’t think that the Vatican would have overturned the ruling for simple procedural reasons – it’s not like a US court of law. And I don’t really see how you can claim, “I do know though that he didn’t just dump his wife because he got bored with her.”</p>
<p>First Rudy (a Catholic) married his first cousin. He got that one annulled on obvious grounds. Then having committed adultery the first time, he got married, had kids, and committed adultery at public expense, in the Mayor’s Mansion, repeatedly, with his daughter present. Then he moved out, and a judge ruled that he could not be trusted with unsupervised visitations with his daughter. Then he could divorced. So we have a adulterous bigamist who can’t be trusted with his own daughter. </p>
<p>But Rudy is an angel compared with Newt.</p>
<p>We all knew Clinton was a serial adulterer and yet we voted for him anyway.
Any reason then why we can’t vote for Rudy? At least he had the grace to marry his conquests.
Besides, I thought the personal lives of our politicians are not our business.</p>