Osipi
Member - in Memoriam
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 17,267
- City
- On the west side of North up from Back
- Country
- United States
Frances did have access to the children, she didn't have full custody but that wasn't unusual at the time for a wife who had left her husband and was the guilty party in terms of adultery.
and given that there were fewer ground for divorce In those days it wasn't unknown for there to be claims made that weren't strictly true. For example, divorces esp In the 20s and 30s were often collusive (although this was forbidden ad if found out could stop a divorce), with the husband "assuming guilt" and "being discovered in bed wit a woman" so that he could be divorced for adultery.
Frances was the guilty party in terms of adultery and she may have countered with an accusation about cruelty...
and Frances did move away to somewhere that it wasn't easy for the children to vist as often, Johnny shut himself up and kept the children at a distance.. so as time passed both parnets were less avaialbe for the children.
I don't think that the children's welfare and happiness were the paramount concerns for either of them, they were mainly being selfish...
I think too that at the time of Johnnie and Frances' divorce, in the upper circles, it was unusual for the parents to do a whole lot of parenting themselves. Children were to be seen and not heard and mostly in the care of the nanny. There weren't family dinners around the table. There weren't parents helping their kids with their homework (before sending them off to boarding school) and for the main part, the children were to be enjoyed when the right situation arose and of course, the all important heir to the title must be procured.
Neither Frances or Johnnie were the "hands on" kind of parents for the most part but I do think they both loved their children dearly.