This is a really disgusting “article”. Full of outright lies.
One example: In the absence of abuse on the part of the half sibling, here is no legal way from the grave to prevent your children from seeing their half-sibling when the father has complete custody. In this case, the half-sibling is a toddler, not capable of abuse.
John Edwards, as the only parent, makes those decisions now and no one else.
Elizabeth Edwards’ children, whom she clearly adored, deserve better than to see this sort of vile garbage being published about their mother.
The Enquirer is often right- in the OJ case, it had more on the ball than the NY times, a fact I rather enjoyed.
There are several things in the article that can be checked out. Did John speak at the funeral? Is his name on the program?
I read an article about Elizabeth where a friend talked about her. Her first words were with Elizabeth you always knew where you stood, that there was no pretense with her. As all women know, that is code for Elizabeth could be a witch. She also was a very, very good lawyer. I have no doubt that at least a good deal of this article is true.
And from what I can see, the man deserves every bit of it.
My (very) Southern, and lovely wife says of both of them: “Bless their hearts...”
Only another Southerner will truly understand. LOL.
I heard she was a real b*tch to Edwards long before the cheating.... THey deserved each other.
She had no legal or moral responsibility for Quinn (sp). She did have a responsibility to her kids to make sure John (or anyone) had no way to control her assets after her death.
This article and the one in National Enquirer are the result of someone using the legal language in her will for this story.
I have no way of knowing this, but my sense is that she did make some sort of peace with scumbag before she died, if for no other reason than for her two younger children. I cannot see her leaving them with a legacy of hate for their father.
As I told someone earlier, just because she forgave bad boy, doesn't mean she would not prevent him from having any control whatsoever over her assets once she left. Nor does it mean she was required to welcome the mistress & lovechild into her family.
She didn’t do squat. Edwards will live out his wicked life just fine. He has enough money plus he will make more, his kids will move on with their lives knowing him as their only parent and this Hunter chick will keep on breathing, that’s more than Lizzy is doing. These revenge articles are sad attempts by “First-wives-club” types to create a sense of power for themselves.
my BS meter is jumping off the charts over this so-called inside view of the deathbed scene.
Who would the source be? John? I don’t think so.
The kids? no way.
Who else in this story had a motive to paint Elizabeth in a bad light and offer some sort of excuse as to why John may not jump on the marriage wagon as soon as Elizabeth is gone?
I think Reille is the “source” here, and I think the story is as loopy as she is.
If true, this is petty and cruel. I doubt such a thing is enforceable, and it calls into question the veracity of the article's claims as a whole.