Burn of the Day
- Donald R. McClarey
Donald R. McClarey
Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three, one in Heaven, and happily married for 43 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.
😂 Definitely left his brain behind when he entered that marriage.
How might he have turned out if his father had given him the (second) greatest gift: the gift of actually loving, caring, and treasuring his mother? (The first being loving/fearing God).
.
Instead he has for a father someone who openly lied before God and the rest of the world. Who used his spouse as a mere breed horse, for whom he appears to have had open contempt. What kind of damage might that have caused?
.
His brain may well have been buried with his mother. Having said that, he should fire is book editor. He never should have admitted in public to certain frost bit areas. He will be ridiculed for the rest of his days.
How might he have turned out if his father had given him the (second) greatest gift: the gift of actually loving, caring, and treasuring his mother? (The first being loving/fearing God).
Some things we know from what people will say on the record and from published correspondence.
Over the period running from 1976 to her death in 1997, Diana Frances Spencer had periods of estrangement from (1) her step-mother (who was not implicated in her parents’ divorce), (2) her mother, (3) the younger of her sisters and said sister’s family, (4) her brother (who told her in 1996 she wasn’t welcome at the family homestead), and, of course, her husband. Did you catch that William made a point of inviting to his wedding in 2011 both of the women who had been employed as his nanny during his youth? His mother had canned one of these women and trashed the other in the media (as she was employed by their father and DFS could not fire her). Did you notice that Diana Frances Spencer over the period running from 1986 to 1997 had three known paramours, one of whom was an exceedingly inapposite choice for companionship and one of whom bore a disconcerting resemblance to her brother? How about her oh-so-appealing feud with her neighbor at Kensington Palace, Princess Michael of Kent?
Diana was pretty but not very smart.
Diana scored high on the hot and crazy matrix and her second brat took after her.
HA!! Give yourself a comment-of-the-week award for that one, Donald! 😀
Diana was pretty but not very smart.
She failed all of her O-level examinations. Someone familiar with the British system of the era told me that was exceptionally poor performance and an indicator that she should never have been enrolled in an academic program. (The alternatives were a VoTech program and a ‘secondary modern’ program of the sort portrayed in Too Sir with Love). Her sister Jane passed a mess of A level examinations and her brother landed a berth at Oxford (not sure if he finished).
Between her and her husband there was an intellectual gap and an age gap. You don’t have to be intelligent to be able to build relationships with people in a domestic setting. She failed again and again, and the smart money says it was because of an entitlement mentality and poor emotional self-regulation (which, for some puzzling reason, had no obvious impact on her sons). Princess Michael of Kent forgot herself in an interview once and said a woman benefits from a strong mother to teach her how to cope with everyday life and that neither Diana nor Sarah Ferguson had had that.
Not sure Harry exactly takes after his mother. It does seem he was hollow in some way and susceptible to the malign influence of his wife. Meghan Markle’s older sister made a series of embarrassing youtubes in 2018 denouncing her; it seems sis knew what was in the offing.
Whatever Diana’s problems, Charles married her. He is (was at the time) the person who would become the head of the Church of England and a Christian. We are not supposed to commit adultery or divorce, and men are supposed to love and cherish their wives (wives respect the husband.)
.
Charles (and likely his family) chose a mare with which to sire an heir, not wife.
Harry is a big boy. Harry is only accountable for Harry. He had the world at his feet (although perpetually immature) before he met that woman. He started some key initiatives because he had all the financial resources and doors open for him. To name only a few- He founded the Invictus Games which was something to be proud of. He was the Patron for Britain Rugby League and Union which probably irks him to the core that his Sister-in-Law Kate Princess of Wales took over as Patron (if you are a League fan you would understand what an honour that was). He had a respectable relationship with the people of his country and the Commonwealth and was generally likeable despite his immaturity.
Then suddenly it wasn’t enough.
He knew from a very young age that he would not be King, so he can’t play the “victim” as an adult.
Spare– fancy choosing that title for your personal memoir. One feels quite embarrassed for him and the fact he constantly puts his foot in his mouth. The fact he could be easily swayed by her and parked his brain since he met her, is a demonstration of his fragile character. Harry needs to grow up.
He was the hero of a series of time traveling novels decades ago. The cry of the SAS men under his command was Gpd save Harry, England and Saint Geoorge! When he was in the Army it looked like he might live up to it. The series is the Axis of Time series by John Birmingham. Not bad reading actually:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_Time
Thanks Don- will look into that. Harry the “hero” of any war MUST be a work of fiction. When the Taliban are after him for admitting to “war-crimes” then it’s time doe him to have a good look in the mirror. The whole thing k feels like a Babylon Bee. 😂
He has always struck me as a very weak willed character, putty in the hands of those around him. His wife is quite aware of that and makes sure he is always with her.
Whatever Diana’s problems, Charles married her. He is (was at the time) the person who would become the head of the Church of England and a Christian. We are not supposed to commit adultery or divorce, and men are supposed to love and cherish their wives (wives respect the husband.)
It’s exceedingly doubtful that Prince Harry’s personal short comings are a function of his father failing in ‘actually loving, caring, and treasuring his mother’, which was your original thesis. And whatever we’re ‘supposed to do’ or not, Diana Frances Spencer made it quite challenging to ‘cherish’ her, quite challenging for Charles and a half a dozen others among her proximate relations. When you’re done playing the White Knight, you might ask yourself to what degree the destructive dyad Harry has formed with Meghan Markle might be a function of having had a mother who fit into the ‘borderline personality disorder’ taxon.
He has always struck me as a very weak willed character, putty in the hands of those around him.
If you say so. He never struck me that way. What’s so dismaying about this is that up until age 33 he seemed be someone passably capable and possessed of adequate social skills. Not much of an intellect, but that does not set him apart from most people. Not sure he had the option to stay in the service, but if he did have the option, it’s regrettable he did not remain there. (The Queen’s Kent cousins were in for 20 years each, as was Prince Andrew. Harry was discharged after 10 years).
Charles (and likely his family) chose a mare with which to sire an heir, not wife.
He couldn’t marry Camilla Shand, as she’d married someone else. He couldn’t marry Dale Tryon as she was married to someone else. He couldn’t marry Amanda Knatchbull, as she turned him down. He’d have married Camilla Shand, but he was taking advice from his great-uncle, whose frame of reference was somewhat dated, and his great-uncle tells him Camilla won’t do, so she marries someone else. Diana Spencer was someone favored by his mother and father as she looked suitable on paper. They soon discovered to their dismay that she had a menu of dispositional and behavioral problems they hadn’t known about, even though they knew the family fairly well.
By the way, he didn’t need a mare. The rules of succession, in contrast to what was the case during the late Plantagenet period and the Tudor period, were quite clear. As of 1981, the throne would have passed to Andrew, then to Edward, then to Anne, then to Anne’s son Peter, then to her daughter Zara, then to his Aunt Margaret, then to his cousin David Armstrong-Jones, then to his cousin Sarah Armstrong-Jones. All of these people eventually had children and several of them are still married to their first and only spouse.
Here’s a surprise:
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2023/01/during-early-stages-of-my-fathers.html