To be sickened to hear all the tributes being paid to Cecil Parkinson

[wasonthelist]

The "father" who refused to have anything at all to do withhis daughter -

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/12120477/The-only-promise-Cecil-Parkinson-ever-kept-never-to-see-his-daughter.html

Major and Currie was it? Or have I got the names wrong? (I'm hopeless with names).

THat emerged later, but yes.

But jm in RL was hugely attractive, if you like tall v witty cricketing men. He made me laugh so much it hurt.

I like a bright, funny man any day. But wouldn't touch a married one. Currie herself is quite funny. I bet they spent a lot of time amusing each other.

I'm trying to imagine what the papers/world would be saying about a female politician who abandoned her baby at birth to its father without any contact whatever after. Sackcloth/ashes/burning at the stake/tar and feather/scarlet letter etc. don't you think?

The announcement of Cecil Parkinson's death which clearly lists the children of his marriage and excludes Flora is shocking, frankly. The announcement could have said "and his children and grandchildren". The way it is drafted it specifically excluded her. But she is his child no matter what he would have wished. People are bloody really.

I don't care who has sex with whom. Never did. But abandoning your own child ... that is about as bad as you can get in my book.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/12120477/The-only-promise-Cecil-Parkinson-ever-kept-never-to-see-his-daughter.html 'The only promise Cecil Parkinson ever kept - never to see his daughter']] (Telegraph -- article originally published on January 6th 2002.)

Meant to add -- the obituary that follows contrasts well with the article, esp this paragraph:
'Parkinson’s conduct was not blameless and although he supported Flora, his daughter by Sara Keays, financially, on her 18th birthday it was noted that he had never met her. The affair overshadowed the rest of his career and he never managed to escape the label of the man who had tarnished the Conservatives’ image as the party of the family. The irony was that if Parkinson had left his wife of 26 years and his three daughters – in traditional Westminster fashion – he would probably have saved his political career. As it was, he was punished for standing by them. '

I think his family should feel shame at the way they worded that announcement - to specifically exclude Flora. They had to put the boot in, even when announcing their father's death. It seems the apple really doesn't fall far from the tree.

It is ironic that he went to so much trouble to hide what he had done and yet it was the way he tried to hide it which ruined him in the public's eyes, rather than the initial wrong doing of having the affair in the first place. The cover up is what he is most remembered for.

I must admit that if my h had done this, I would hate the thought of him forming a relationship with that child - maybe it was her condition for staying with him. I hope that as a decent person, I would have recognised that child's innocence and his responsibility to her. That Mrs P appears to have condoned his actions is very telling.
Actually, I wouldn't be able to forgive a 12 year affair and therefore have no idea what his wife was thinking.

Annandale porking without portfolio sheer genius

Wives then were more powerless. Less likely to have had a job and career

In general yes, but Parkinson's wife was independently wealthy (it was her not him that had family money behind them) her children were adults (or very close to adulthood) when the scandal broke. It wasn't a case of being left in a freezing bedsit with a pile of dirty nappies and without a penny to her name.

She made a choice to stay with her husband and was prepared to accept that he would effectively abandon a daughter who required lots of extra support.

Thinking more about it, does anyone think that the wording of his children's statement deliberately left out Flora as an acknowledgement that he was actually a shitty father to her, so they didn't want to say something which wouldn't be true from her perspective? If so, then I have judged them harshly and apologise.

Last week he was a cheating scumbag who was a vile, hateful cunt to his daughter. I'm not aware of anything that changed in respect of that in the last week. The only thing that I think is in very, very bad taste is how he treated Flora.

A 12 year affair, he was the married one, not her.
The word I would use to describe him is ruthless. The pregnancy was probably viewed as simply a situation needing sound legal advice and money.

Telling anecdote from someone here about him queue jumping, barging into her and not caring.
Irrelevant whether he's alive or dead, I'd have posted the same a week ago.

In 1983 scans were uncommon.

No, they definitely weren't. I had three during my pregnancy in 1983.

Rubbish does get spouted as facts! Scans were definitely not uncommon in 1983.

It was such a scandal, and he didn't come out of it with any dignity at all.

He broke his marriage vows, so I can't find it in my heart to blame SK.

(I only had one scan during my 1983 pregnancy, and wasn't told the sex of DD because it wasn't hospital policy)

Sorry if I got it wrong. Blimey. I suppose routine might have been a better choice of word. Although I could be wrong. I thought it was slightly later than 83 that scans became routine.

Revolting man.

It's always very odd when current events (1983 = very short time ago IMO) become history. Really don't recognise some of the picture of the sepia-tinted 80s that people are drawing here!

The Times had a slightly different take on it this am. I am marginally more sympathetic to him, less to his wife, if true.