By Sarah
I'm a big Henry the VIII buff. Actually, I'm a big buff of his wives - all six of them. Who can resist a bunch of women so desirous of power (or with families so desirous of power) that they would agree to marry an elderly rotting man with a putrid festering wound on his leg and a penchant for uxoricide? It's amazing what some women will do for a bit of security, a chance at the golden ring, despite the, uh, potential downsides. Like losing a head or two.
Flash forward a few hundred years to Woodbury Mountain Toys where I was picking up a few last minute Easter trinkets for my children who are fast growing out of the toy store age. (Not me. I LOVE toy stores.) There I was examining a box of pickup sticks (perfect for an Easter basket) when I happened to eye Him - wealthy, old and, despite his expensive youthful snow gear, clearly very tired - with Her,his wife, who looked to be about the age of my last babysitter. I knew this was no father/daughter or, more plausible, grandfather/daughter relationship. They were tourists in matching snow togs. Plus, he had an artificial tan.
Oh, dear, I thought as she led him to the baby section. That poor man.
Wait! What was I saying? They were in the baby section because he had had sex with this young thing. And, judging from the HUGE diamond on her ring finger, it was quite a lucrative financial deal on her end. I pegged him at seventy something. No, eighty, maybe. Okay, late seventies. Looking about as good as a man could at his age.
But why in the world would any man in his seventies put up with 2 a.m. feedings and baby vomit and - worse - kiddie birthday parties when he could be relaxing on a beach, putting on a golf course, in bed by nine? I don't care how gorgeous this new wife was (and, trust me, she was gorgeous), she pouted like a child herself when he scoffed at Yet Another Stuffed Animal she was selecting for Precious.
The New York Times recently did a follow up to men who became fathers after retirement - apparently an increasingly popular trend. There was
the bittersweet photo of Tony Randall, also with the Youthful Tan, at age 78 walking through Central Park with his infant daughter in a Snuggli. All I could think was, those aching shoulders. Tony went on about playing catch with his children at age 90. The real catch was, he didn't live that long. He died at 84.
The question was (there always has to be some serious question in the NYT underlying a blatantly voyeuristic article) whether it was "right" for men of this age to be having children?
Of course, it's not "right." But when have men - especially powerful men like Henry the VIII or the elderly business moguls profiled in the article - ever done what was "right?" These are men who have always done what they wanted - like marry women fifty years younger. And don't tell me they're not showing off, because they are.
It goes without saying that unless you're some determined Italian dame with access to a few unethical doctors, most women in their sixties have come to terms with the end of their fertility. And I'm betting that even if we could have children at that age, we wouldn't want to. This is the Joy of Grandparenting - you get to cherish the little bundle without the burden of constant responsibility. Plus, you don't have to throw the dreaded birthday party. Hey, there's a whole big world out there. I know I don't want my last golden evenings to be spent helping junior solve for X. I got plans.
Consider also Anna Nicole Smith and her pathetic diaries that touched on her relationship with a man 63 years her senior, J. Howard Marshall (is that a name from Billionaires R Us or what?)
"Howard has been buying me som jewelry but he call me 15 or 20 times a day it drives me crazy. I love him but he aggravates me somtimes," Anna allegedly wrote. As for another contender, Paul, apparently he wanted to have sex all the time. (Who'd have thunk?) Guess it was a toss-up - drool and jewels or 24/7 sex. Geesh, Anna. Go read a book, already. Volunteer at Goodwill. Get out of bed!
Perhaps I'm being too harsh. Maybe these twenty-something women really do love their seventy-something husbands. I bet that, in a way, they do. The husbands might be kind and patient, willing to devote time to the family they couldn't be bothered with when they were making their fortunes. And just think how happy the old coots must be when bed time comes and there she is in all her youthful splendor.
Unfortunately, as my tired, skiing tanned octogenarian husband in the toy store made clear, though, bedtime isn't all day. There are still many hours left pretending to be thirty.
"Why can't we get an old fashioned toy?" he asked, pointing to me, the middle-aged housewife with the pickup sticks as Twinkie fussed over something electronic. "How about pickup sticks?"
Our eyes met and I felt a click of understanding. Give her up, I wanted to say. Come home where you belong. Have a cup of hot milk and an Epsom-salt soak. Let's talk about the Depression. How about we cut a rug.
"Pickup sticks?" Twinkie wrinkled her nose. "What are those?"
And then she beelined for the cash register, treading what I assumed was a well-worn path.
If Elaine were here, she'd have many great Floridian observations about this, I'm sure. Oh, Elaine, come back soon!
Sarah
OK, I learned a new word today: uxoricide. Did you know there is no equivalent term for wives who kill their husbands?
Also, festering is one of those words that really sounds like what it means.
I have two little brothers from my father's second marriage. It raises issues about familial terms. Or, as my daughter put it: "So let me get this straight. I will be able to drive my "Uncle" to his first communion, right?"
Uh, yeah, that's right.
Posted by: Kathy Reschini Sweeney | April 17, 2007 at 04:38 AM
As with everything in life, you get what you pay for. She gets, if she's lucky, a nice guy with money. He gets, also if he's lucky, to have sex with Miss May 1957, to whom he wanked off when he was 14. And although he may have aged in these past 50 years, damned if she hasn't.
Posted by: Josh | April 17, 2007 at 05:00 AM
Sounds like someone might want to read Women Who Kill by Ann Jones (try ABEbooks)----good reading, great office decoration and essential background about women's rights and wrongs through the years in the US.
This is spooky.............I'm on the high of the first night after my last chemo treatment......what's your excuse Kathy, Joh and Sarah???
Mary Alice
Posted by: Mary Alice Gorman | April 17, 2007 at 05:36 AM
Here's an equivalent term for wives who kill their husbands, if mine says one more time that I am imagining that weird sound my car is making: ramonicide.
The old coots with the babies--icks me out. And by babies, I mean that both about the offspring and the wives.
Good blog, Sarah.
Posted by: ramona | April 17, 2007 at 06:51 AM
Surely a woman who goes after an elderly man has some really warped issues. I was obsessed with horses as a teenager until my aunt, the shrink, said I probably had a sexual attraction to my father. Result: I forgot about horses instantly. I mean--ick.
Posted by: Nancy Martin | April 17, 2007 at 08:32 AM
Sarah, you have reminded me that once my kids learn all the letters, upper AND lower case, plus their corresponding sounds, I still have to get them through algebra.
Dear God. Great blog, and for some reason it makes me want to take a nice long nap.
Posted by: Harley | April 17, 2007 at 08:38 AM
p.s. has anyone noticed that Henry The Eighth has uh, youthened considerably for his latest TV appearance on THE TUDORS? Not that I've seen it, but the billboards sure are pretty.
Posted by: Harley | April 17, 2007 at 08:40 AM
Harley,
I thought of you when I read the "Casting About/Grapevine" section of Soap Opera Digest this week. Some L.A. soap is looking for a short-term role for a late 40's-early 50's actress with light coloring (is that code for something?) who looks like someone else from the back. Mary Duval is long dead (the big "C" and all), but wouldn't it be fun to hop back into it for a week? Passions gave Roscoe Born a three-day gig so that he could keep up his insurance with the union--also according to S.O.D.
Posted by: Josh | April 17, 2007 at 08:56 AM
Okay, I'm not getting the father/horse connection, Nancy. Are you saying your father was Mr. Ed.
Ah, for the innocence of the Mr. Ed days, no? I was telling the women of TLC that I chose today's blog subject because it wasn't what was going on in the news. But now I think I should probably say something.
What's to say? I'm so, so sorry. Please let this anger stop? Maybe if we were kinder to each other, the environment, the less fortunate, the poor and the oppressed, maybe awful, hideous, violent acts like this would not happen.
God, I feel depressed.
Posted by: sarahS | April 17, 2007 at 09:10 AM
Stranger things have happened I suppose than a wealthy man in his seventies marrying a 'youngster'and having a baby or two. Nannies, separate wings for the kids, and maybe even tutors for that danged X would make life a lot easier...for the parents anyway. One wonders though if when Anna Nicole said "I love him, but..." she meant as a pet rather than a mate. And nothing says it better about the old man/ dishy young woman pairing than The Eagles' "Lyin' Eyes".
Posted by: Maryann | April 17, 2007 at 09:12 AM
Sarah, I'm tired of the violence as well, but I finally agree with Dr. Phil on something. He said last night that children today are programmed to think of this type of behavior as a possible solution because of video games that glorify killing and he wasn't all that kind about TV violence either.
And Nancy...obsession with horses equals obsession with father? Nah. It equals something fun. Maybe your aunt was just jealous. :o)
Posted by: Maryann | April 17, 2007 at 09:20 AM
Sarah - thank you for a blog that gave me something else to think about.
And who would have thought that Henry, with his disposable wives and his physcial grotesqueness, would ever be seen as a good alternative to think about?
Maryann - that song plays in my head every time I see one of these February/December couples.
Posted by: Kimmie | April 17, 2007 at 09:28 AM
Great blog, Sa.
I'm of two minds on this young wife thang. K, I get the salacious part (c'mon, what man wouldn't?) By why marriage and why kids? Seems to me that if you're fabulously successful in America's exploitive economic system, you are probably skilled at manipulation. Couldn't you get the sex without the commitment? It's not as though these old guys are too "moral" for that.
So what gives? I think it is massive fear of death. It is mighty pathetic -- and unmanly -- but who am I to laugh at their terror? Sovegna vos.
Posted by: charlie | April 17, 2007 at 09:36 AM
Sarah, whenever my mother starts to rhapsodize about the good old days after WWII, when the world was safe and pure and wonderful, I like to remind her that that only applied if you were a white, middle-class Republican male Episcopalian. (Or Anglican, to stay on topic.) Everybody else, maybe not so much splendicity all around?
On the other hand, on Friday, the anniversary of Columbine, I have to participate in an event at a large public high school. Since yesterday, I've been wracking my brains for a decent excuse--other than, "I'm just a big chicken-sh*t"--to cancel.
Posted by: ramona | April 17, 2007 at 09:43 AM
I agree, Ramona. Pre civil rights, not so good. Also not so good post civil rights. But at least we were on the right track.
BTW - I just finished THE LOST ART OF KEEPING SECRETS by Eva Rice. It's about a bunch of upper crust teenagers in upper crust England in the 1950's. I don't know what it was about that book, specifically, but I LOVED IT. I hated to see it end. If you like Daphne du Maurier. If you love Britain and great characters without too much sex and absolutely no violence. (Though plenty of sexual tension.) Go out and get this book.
Talk about escape from modern day woes!
Posted by: SarahS | April 17, 2007 at 09:49 AM
As a new card carrying member of AARP I feel that I'm suddenly an expert on this subject.
I just don't understand these old geezers. The older I get the more I think of walking on the beach, reading, relaxing, and having a wife to talk to who remembers the things I'm beginning to forget.
Posted by: Lee Lofland | April 17, 2007 at 09:51 AM
Per the comment about The Tudors on Showtime: that show is set during the earlier years of Henry VIII's time, when he was gallavanting with Bessie Blount and still married to Catherine of Aragon. He was actually quite the good looking man in those days, and even when he became enraptured with Anne Boleyn he was still fairly good looking and in his 30s. As for "younger women," all of his wives were not spring chickens either. Catherine was six years older than he was; Anne Boleyn was 34 when they finally married; Jane Seymour not much younger. Katherine Howard was 18, but she was his last fling, and it didn't last long before he found out about her. His last wife, Katherine Parr was in her 30s as well and was twice a widow. Yes, they all had ambitious families and Katherine Parr had the worst of it, since he was a mess by the time she married him, but she'd been married to two older men before and was basically chosen because she could take care of him. She did marry her "true love" Thomas Seymour (Jane's brother) after Henry died and had a bit of happiness (although Thomas did dally with Princess Elizabeth).
History lesson over; but throughout history powerful men have been able to get what they want. Henry is far more interesting, though, than someone like Tony Randall, in that his marriages spawned the Reformation and changed religious history.
Posted by: Karen Olson | April 17, 2007 at 10:05 AM
Nancy, regarding your aunt's comment: Eeewww! No, no, no, no!
Of course, that pretty much sums up my feelings on the Anna Nicole/J. Howard Marshall thing, too.
Posted by: Annette Dashofy | April 17, 2007 at 10:05 AM
About 9 years ago, I took my daughter to London, where we did the Tower of London thing. Among the many suits of armor we saw was one of Henry's. He was a big guy. And judging from the, er, details of the armor, he was, um, a big guy. Or had armorers who knew how to suck up to royalty :)
Great blog, Sarah.
Posted by: Kerry, The Martial Tart | April 17, 2007 at 10:32 AM
Hold on....Here are the age differences between Henry VIII and 5 of his wives. (Only Catherine of Aragon was older than he.)
10 years Anne Boleyn
17 years Jane Seymour
21 years Catherine Parr
24 years Anne of Cleves (interesting story, that one)
29 years Katherine Howard.
I rest my case.
Posted by: sarahS | April 17, 2007 at 10:34 AM
My point was only that Henry VIII's wives, besides Katherine Howard, were basically considered "old maids" during their time when he married them. Also, he was looking for someone young enough to have babies for the succession. These men with their trophy wives today don't have such issues.
Posted by: Karen Olson | April 17, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Ok, first of all, horses and Freud? Come on, you learn that in first semester General Psych, which I did really well in, because I just labeled each chapter to match the relative who had that kind of whack.
And Charlie - the voice of reason, baby. Here are the two key things:
1. Men cheat and have babies when they get old because they fear death ("Moonstruck")
2. Young wives want to have babies because they get to control the wealth for the next generation. And generallly, lots of women seem to want to have babies. Know what I do if I ever even get a glimmer that I want a baby? I spend some time with one of my cousins who has three or four of them running around. That fixes it every time.
Oh - and uh, as far as Henry's endowments? I hate to be crass (not really) but when you have a stomach like that, you had better have at least ten for her to get two. I'm just saying.
Posted by: Margie | April 17, 2007 at 11:37 AM
Margie, there's a theory out there that Henry was impotent. Possibly because of syphillis (he shared mistresses, including Mary Boleyn, with France's king Francis I, who had it). In fact, there's some that say Anne Boleyn complained about the impotence to her brother, which helped her enemies. Henry probably would've loved Viagra.
Posted by: Karen Olson | April 17, 2007 at 11:48 AM
My Father had a daughter a year after I did. Luckily, he lived in a different part of the country so I didn't have to raise her along with my own.
Posted by: Lynn | April 17, 2007 at 01:26 PM
Holy mackerel, Lynn, that tops all!
Posted by: sarahS | April 17, 2007 at 02:58 PM