>>I agree with Janice that those two should not have had children.
Then that must go double for Henry Fonda. Peter still says what a terrible, selfish, insensitive parent his father was, and did so as recently as the last Oscars. Then there were his five wives. I guess that explains Jane's behavior as you mentioned previously - the suicide of her mother, all those step-mothers and a distant, unloving father.
I guess Hollywood stars shouldn't have children. Remember, Maureen and Michael had their own diva, Jane Wyman, as their mother, with all her post RR husbands.
All-in-all, the Reagans probably did better than many of their peers, especially considering that RR had far more fame and more demands on his time than most from 1964 forward. No suicides or drug addicts like Paul Newman, John Lindsay and the like. (Even frumpy Betty Ford became an alcoholic and drug addict!).
I remember reading that some stars moved their families out of the US during the 1960's to save their children - like Angela Lansbury and Lee Remmick. The Reagans certainly didn't have that option as Governor, but they did send them to boarding schools. Maybe Ron and Patti would have been worse otherwise - maybe you should ask them if they would rather have not been born?
>>no one has ever written anything critical of Billy's fathering skills
I guess your allusion to his "other" child proves his fathering skills!<VBG>
As for parenting, I'm sure Chelsea is privately embarrassed about her father. At least that's what they say about her at Stanford. Perhaps a reason they cancelled their planned attendance at Stanford for parent's weekend. |
