Posted on 10/25/2004 3:23:21 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
yeah, I read he had honeymoon in paris.
I only know of one Kerry step-son, and he has been silent.
Can't imagine why the MSM isn't all over this. /sarcasm
Can you imagine if President Bush step-children not actively supporting him? The MSM would be hounding them extensively.
The New York Times, Sunday, May 24, 1970, p. 78
John Kerry Weds Miss Julia Thorne
Special to the New York TimesBAY SHORE, L. I., May 23 -- Miss Julia Stimson Thorne, whose ancestors helped to shape the American Republic in its early days, and John Forbes Kerry, who wants to help steer it back from what he considers a wayward course, were married here this afternoon at the 200 acre Thorne family estate.
Some 250 guests attended the ceremony amid the flowering dogwood, tulips, lilacs, azaleas and rhododendron of the Umberto Innocenti-designed gardens overlooking the Great South Bay. Msgr. Eugene V. Clark of St. Patrick's Cathedral performed the ceremony, assisted by the bride's stepgrandfather, the Rev. Charles Leslie Glenn, assistant dean of the Episcopal Cathedral of S. S. Peter and Paul (National Cathedral).
The bride wore a cream-colored wedding gown, first worn two centuries ago in the wedding of her ancestors, Catherine Peartree-Smith and Elias Boudinot 4th, who served as president of the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation. Alexander Hamilton was best man at that wedding and among those present was George Washington.
Whether today's wedding becomes a similar footnote to history may depend on the bridegroom, a graduate of Yale and a veteran of the Vietnam war, who is considering running for Congress from his native Massachusetts.
Mr. Kerry, who criticized the fundamentals of American foreign 'policy as class orator at the 1966 Yale graduation exercises, said he joined the Navy and went to Vietnam because he wanted to study that policy first hand.
There, he earned the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, the Combat Action Ribbon and three Purple Hearts as the commander of a patrol boat on the rivers of the Mekong Delta.
He recently discussed his conclusions over network television when he offered views opposing Herbert Klein, the Nixon Administration's director of communications, on the Dick Cavett Show.
Following the customs of Italy, where the bride has made her home, the couple had witnesses instead of honor attendants and a best man. The bride's witnesses were her brother, Landon. Ketchum Thorne 3d, and Count Guiseppe Cigala-Fulgosi; and the bridegroom's were his brother, Cameron Forbes Kerry, and the bride's brother, David Hoadley Thorne, a Yale classmate, who introduced the couple during a Long Island visit several years ago.
Mrs. Kerry is the daughter of Mrs. Alice Barry Thorne of Rome, and Mr. Thorne Jr., a former minister of economics to Italy and; the Benelux countries, who published The Rome Daily American. A former banker in New York, he now manages the family's investments from a Wall Street office.
The bride is a granddaughter of Mrs. Thorne, who owns the estate, and the late Mr. Thorne, a utilities underwriter and banker, who was a managing partner and helmsman of the Whirlwind and unsuccessful America's Cup contender in 1930.
The bridegroom is the son of Mr. and Mrs. Richard Kerry of Groton, Mass., where his father, a retired Foreign Service officer, is a lawyer. He is the grandson of Mrs. James Grant Forbes of St. Briac, France, and the late Mr. Forbes, an international lawyer and banker in Boston, London and Paris.
Mrs. Kerry, who, was a member of the Junior Assemblies in 1962, was graduated from Foxcroft and attended the New York School of Interior Design. Her husband was graduated from St. Paul's. After a wedding trip to Jamaica, the couple will live in Massachusetts.
---
Photo Caption: Mr.and Mrs. John Forbes Kerry, who were married on Long Island yesterday. She was Julia Stimson Thorne.
Hmmmm. It seems John Kerry has two versions of his honeymoon. One on the beaches of Jamaica and one in Paris with the North Vietnamese communists.
I also found this paragraph really strange:
Following the customs of Italy, where the bride has made her home, the couple had witnesses instead of honor attendants and a best man. The bride's witnesses were her brother, Landon. Ketchum Thorne 3d, and Count Guiseppe Cigala-Fulgosi; and the bridegroom's were his brother, Cameron Forbes Kerry, and the bride's brother, David Hoadley Thorne, a Yale classmate, who introduced the couple during a Long Island visit several years ago.
The wife "made her home" in Italy so couldn't find a single female to witness her wedding. Collectively, the witnesses were Kerry's brother, Julia's 2 brothers, and Count Guiseppe Cigala-Fulgosi???
Just your all-american kind of folks, huh?
What is worse is that it appears that Kerry was married in the same Bay Shore, NY parish that I was. St. Patrick's
But, but, I thought Jean AlQuery said that he just happened to visit with the North Vietnamese delegation in Paris when he happened to be there on his HONEYMOON! Surely he wouldn't LIE about something like that, would he? /sarcasm
No, neither did his divorce. He is a bastard regardless of his marital status, or lack thereof.
Then she was disturbed for NO REASON. I hope she has learned differently since that time. If the legal dissolution of her marriage did not render her children illegitimate, then the dissolution of the Sacrament certainly didn't.
Bless her. I feel for her re: depression. That is no fun; especially having children to care for. I hope she's better. The media definiteley ought to leave her alone.
You don't know what you're talking about. Annulments are not a fund-raising mechanism, even if they are far too common. The Church asks applicants to cover the significant expense of processing their application. It's only fair, since not charging them means that applicants are asking other Catholics -- who gave money for other reasons -- to pay their way. Even so, in true hardship cases applicants' fees are waived.
Bottom line: annulments are available to rich and poor without distinction, and they aren't sold. OK?
WHAT IS THIS!!!!!!!!!!
You may not agree with it, but it doesn't make it any less real or correct. Annulment is not a LEGAL matter, and the legal status of a couple at the time of the birth of their children is what determines the legitimacy of those children. Annulment is a religious matter, which is dealt with privately. Divorce is the public legal matter, and as I said in a previous post, if the legal dissolution of a marriage does not make children illegitimate, then a religious annulment certainly doesn't.
I suspected your antipathy with your first comment on the matter. You said you were a former Catholic and you know a little about the practice. It just goes to show that a LITTLE knowledge is a dangerous thing, because you know NOTHING about annulments.
Your friend's father may have been a fargin bastige, but getting an annulment of his marriage did nothing to change the legitimacy of his kids. This lie has been perpetrated for YEARS among anti-Catholics, and even among some Catholics who didn't like divorce.
My former sister in law ( since deceased) tried to tell her kids the same thing in order to try to have them convince my brother not to go through with the annulment of their marriage after she decided to divorce him. I think she was afraid she wouldn't continue getting child support if the annulment were granted. She was wrong. Those boys were his as well, and he'd be responsible for them no matter what, and he continued to be. I'm sorry if your friend's father ditched his responsibilities, but that had NOTHING to do with his being Catholic, or having been granted an annulment, it just had to do with his being a fargin bastige.
WRONG. An annuled marriage, according to the Catholic Church simply means that the SACRAMENT of Matrimony was not valid for some reason. Reasons include the psychological inability of one or both parties to enter freely into the Sacrament, being pregnant at the time of the wedding, which would mean that neither are entering into the marriage freely, having kept some secret from a spouse which could change the nature of their covenant with each other (being a drug addict, severe alcoholic, previous marriage without obtaining a divorce), or the intention of one of the partners to not live up to their vows, i.e. the husband continuing to go out with other women even though he was married. This was the situation with Princess Caroline's first husband. From the time they were married, he never stopped going out with other women; it was clear he never intended to live up to his vows. Their marriage was annuled, and though many assumed that it had to do with the fact that she was rich and could get an annulment easily, it was the fact that her husband was a philanderer that did it.
An annulment cannot be obtained without a divorce, so again, if the legal dissolution doesn't affect legitimacy, neither does annulment.
What does an annullment mean to the Catholic Church? What is it saying, versus a divorce? The only way I can understand it is just as Thorne did. And it is no reflection on the children when Daddy is ill-behaved. It says to me that John Kerry disgraced his wife and children through the annullment. Whether that was deserved is another matter.
An "anullment" is a divroce. The Catholic church doesn't want to appear to be giving out divorces but that is what they are doing after 18 years of marriage and two kids later. God isn't fooled and neither are people. In the eyes of God Kerry's first marraige was valid and he got a divorce.
Nope, an annulment is a statement that a SACRAMENT wasn't valid, so that neither party will be held by the vows taken. An annulment can't be obtained until a legal divorce has occurred. The Church is simply stating that the conditions didn't exist for either or both parties to be in a state of mind to bind themselves freely to each other in the sacred covenant. If the Sacrament was never valid, then those people are free to try to marry in the Church again.
There have been instances in which the Church did not allow one of the parties to marry in the Church again because it was clear that the impediment to entering freely into the covenant still existed, so the Sacrament would again be invalid.
You may not agree, but that's the way it is. I just won't let people get away with the lie that kids are made illegitimate by an annulment, simply because they don't like or understand the process.
Indeed it is wrong that the daughters didn't stay by their mom, and I'm wrong as to which set belongs to which parent. Thanks for your patience while I work through my befuddlement.
I am befuddled a good bit of the time so you are forgiven.
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.