Skip to comments.Monday morning answers - Who was Kerry's first wife?
Posted on 10/25/2004 3:23:21 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Why have we not heard anything about Sen. John Kerrys former wife, the mother of his daughters? What can you tell us about her? When divorced, remarried, etc.? - P.S., Lebanon
You probably havent heard anything about her because shes an exceedingly private person.
Kerry married the former Julia Thorne, a Philadelphia heiress, in 1970 in Bay Shore, N.Y. They honeymooned in Jamaica.
As you note, they had two daughters, Alexandra in 1973 and Vanessa in 1976.
The couple separated in 1982 at a time when Thorne was battling a deep depression and contemplating suicide.
"After 14 years as a political wife," she wrote in a book about depression titled "You Are Not Alone," "I associated politics only with anger, fear and loneliness.
"I could no longer pretend I was of use to my husband or my children. I knew that once I was gone my family and friends would be relieved of the burden of my incompetency."
The couples divorce was final in 1988 but was not annulled by the Roman Catholic Church until 1997 two years after Kerry married Teresa Simões-Ferreira Heinz, a former United Nations translator and widow of Pennsylvania Sen. H. John Heinz III, a Republican.
Thorne now lives in Bozeman, Mont., with her new husband, architect Richard Charlesworth, and recently completed a course of treatment for cancer.
Shes spurned attempts to get her to talk about her ex-husband.
"Julia does not want to answer questions from the media," a family friend told the Bozeman Daily Chronicle earlier this year. "She hopes her desire for privacy will be respected and honored thoroughly. She wants to be left alone."
(Excerpt) Read more at bristolnews.com ...
Who wouldn't married to LURCH! Of course Tahreeza just boozes it up to blur her vision of him! LOL
Does his annulment make his kids bastards like him?
Sen. Kerry's party years?
I'm sick and tired of idiotic statements like that.
If you are ignorant, keep your mouth shut.
Why? GWB is not a Democrat.
That was the expression Thorne used when rich boy got the annullment. THK insisted on the annullment as part of her Catholic upbringing and to keep John boy's prenup. Thorne was exceptionally disturbed that Kerry had deligitimized their wedding and basically made bastards out of his children.
That was a legitimate question.
Ted Kennedy and Robert Kennedy did the same thing - annulled the marriage after children already arrived.
It doesn't square.
And I, being the child of an annulled marriage, am extremely offended by it.
Robert Kennedy Jr., wife said the same thing we have got an annullment to marry is new wife.
Don't take it out on the poster.
That's nice. Too bad we've grown out of the feudal era, and annullment no longer has any status effect on the children. She, as well as some others here, need to rejoin reality.
Looking at his 'lovely' daughters, I'd say a stump-broken horse.
The first wife is pretty, and looks very sensitive. Probably needed more attention than she was getting...
The interesting thing to me is that she blames her lonliness and anger and depression on the political life. I suspect living with JFK, unbearable narcissist that he is, sucked the life and the air out of her world.
What always disturbs me is that he left her when she was so ill and left the children. And now as the world has turned, she has just finished a course of chemo while her daughters, abandoned by their father, are at his side helping him in his ambition to hear "hail to the Chief".
With his rich wife, his political life, his ambtion, there are his daughters. And the first wife is at home with cancer. I dont know about anyone else, but I would be at my motheers side.
She's certainly had more than her share of misery and betrayal.
I think the media should leave her be....completely.
Right you are, cajungirl. The mother's side would be the place to be. Maybe they also are there. I would hope so. Or maybe they inherited his "self-serving" gene.
Perhaps he was actually putting Ms. Thorne first when he left her is the midst of depression. Seeing John Kerry leave the scene for good would lift anyone's spirits.
Sorry I think she has a duty to warn the rest of us what a selfish egotistical POS he is.
You are so right! Leaving her certainly did "lift her spiritis",,she seems happy now.
The fact that she's now a recluse who apparently fell to pieces whilst married to him and fought the "disappearing" of her marriage to him serves as pretty good evidence of his "character". [gaaah!...saying that made me nauseous]
I read somewhere that she quietly "supports" his bid for president so I really doubt she'll be writing an expose' any time soon.
All of America knows of her existence and the anullment issue will only weigh on the minds of those who hold such things as marriage sacred.
It may be that she -fears- to speak of him publicly.
Based on what I've seen of him, he strikes me as a vicious, violent, potentially dangerous person.
Perhaps he "made her a deal" for her silence.
Chilling thought, isn't it?
The dems would've loved it if Jane Wyman had spent some time trashing her first husband.
Leave his kids out of it. They have enough problems.
Gee, John Kerry sure knows how to lure the rich ones, doesn't he?
I agree. Even as an example of how despicable Kerry is, this one should be left alone. She has suffered enough. Of course, if it were a Republican X-wife cancer victim, she would be "fair game" to the dimos.
Sometimes it's better to err on the side of mercy...:)
A: The Government. But he divorced when he found someone who can spend other peoples money even faster.
They honeymooned in Jamaica.
remember when the swifties said that Kerry met with the enemy in Paris, the kerry campaign came out and said he was on his honeymoom there and while in Paris was asked to join a meeting??????
Well, after seeing it posted for the 50,000th time during this campaign it put me over the edge lol
It's just a dumb crass ignorant remark.
It's meant to be a slap in the face to those Democrat/Catholics who like to toss their vows, write a check, and carry on.
THE SENATE'S NEW ROMEO?
Published on February 22, 1989
Author(s): John Robinson Globe Staff
WASHINGTON -- His divorce has been final for only six months, but already Sen. John Kerry has acquired a first-class rake's reputation in the rarefied world of rich, handsome, young bachelor senators.
To hear the gossips tell it, the tall, dark-haired former Navy officer with the surgically improved chin has been cutting a swath through the ranks of America's most available young women, inspiring both admiration and envy among the capital's preening young singles.
I'm thinking the remarks may be skirting too close to home for some.
Don't say that kind of thing please! No child is what you say...never! Let's leave the kids out remember? I know you didn't mean that.
See, that's the problem.
There's lots of Catholics who are not Democrats.
The annulment process can take 2 years or more for most people.
No matter how hard/easy/right/wrong it is to get an annulment, it has no bearing on the legitimacy of the children, and that is the fact. The children are irrelevant to the discussion. In fact, the annulment is irrelevant. It was his ex that sought the divorce in the first place.
If you want to call Kerry a bastard, just call him a bastard.
I don' think your comments are out of line at all. I am sick of the corrupt Catholic church aiding and abetting liberal New England politicians. How the hell do you get a 27 year old wedding annulled. And if so, are not his daughter's born out of wedlock, since the marraige never existed?
I know the feeling! The Catholic church has been very clear that an anullment has no effect on the standing of the children. As for those "write a check" anullments we hear about... I know someone who always said, "do those people really think they are going to fool God?" It is unfortunate, however, that those sham anullments cause people to look askance at every anullment....
The parents, now divorced, presumably once obtained a civil license and entered upon a legal marriage. Children from that union are, therefore, their legitimate offspring. Legitimate means legal. The civil divorce and the Church annulment do not alter this situation. Nor do they change the parents responsibility toward the children. In fact, during annulment procedures the Church reminds petitioners of their moral obligation to provide for the proper upbringing of their children. Nevertheless, persons pondering the Catholic annulment process do often express this concern about the legitimacy of the children after that procedure. Its a persistent rumor.
I certainly do agree with you, though, that the annulment of a 27 year marriage, with children, is pretty fishy... like many other political annulments. Nonetheless, I have yet to see a Catholic authority stating that the children are illegitimate after an annulment. I think whether Kerry, Kennedy, et. al., should have gotten an annulment is another issue entirely and I suspect most posters on these threads would agree on that point.
Problem is the Catholic church backing the process.
You can no more annul part of a family than you can be a little bit pregnant.
It's a farce to squeeze cash.
Although Trick may have been a little, uh, crude in the way he stated it, I do wonder about the status of the girls. An 'annulment' means the marriage never existed. So what would the status of the two girls be as far as the RC is concerned? I don't know.
Almost sounds to me like there's no sense is bothering with a 'church annulment' at all. I thought these things were almost impossible to get. Doesn't seem like they are all that difficult.
Yes, I do remember that. Good catch.
Sadly, the process is very long and drawn out for most people and requires quite a bit of paperwork. If one perserveres and does the work, I think the chances of success are quite good... but many people give up, particularly people who are intimidated by the paperwork and process. And in my experience, the "advocate" (parish priest who is supposed to assist) often does not offer much help.
And her twin brother just sticks to Kerry. I don't get it.
Someone needs glasses!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.