dead Ethel Kennedy

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,441]

 

 

Ethel Kennedy was in close personal proximity to two of American societies most dramatic political events of the twentieth century. The assassination of her brother in law US President John F Kennedy and right by the side of her husband Bobby Kennedy when he was shot dead in 1968 during his campaign to become the second Kennedy President. 

 

The first of these events particularly was burnt into the fabric of America's national consciousness to this day. 

Ethel was right there as one of the few remaining witnesses to this unique historical era and it's dramatic events. Not just a witness to history but a part of history alas even if she is often overlooked nowadays given her choice to rarely speak to the media. 

 

Had events been different she stood a very high chance of being American First Lady. 

She was a key member of what's often referred to as Camelot, the era of the Kennedys political prominence. 

 

Only Ethel who turned 89 a few weeks ago and Jean Kennedy JFKS younger sister who was high school friends with Ethel are the remaining surviving members of the "original clan"  and that era in their family. 

 

For all of the above reasons I feel she requires and deserves a thread of her own. 

 

A number of her many children and some grandchildren are still involved in US politics carrying the Kennedy family torch into the next generation. 

 

I personally find her a bit of an enigma yet more interesting than Jackie Kennedy /Onassis who's strongly rumoured to have had a love affair with Ethels husband Bobby Kennedy. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethel_Kennedy

[Zsa Zsa's leg 916]

Do we really think she'll obit? Seems unlikely on a busy news day.

[The Mad Hatter 1,093]

Tune down the thread starting its getting too much.

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,441]

11 minutes ago, jackschlotter said:

Do we really think she'll obit? Seems unlikely on a busy news day.

Goodness yes there's no doubt in my mind about that! I think every national UK newspaper would report her passing and all the broadsheets would give her a full obituary. 

 

She was at the epicentre of one of America's most famous political dynasties or clans. 

[RadGuy 1,625]

She could die on the day that Elvis and Tupac fly Jennifer Lopez's private jet into the White House and still obit.

[Zsa Zsa's leg 916]

6 minutes ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

Goodness yes there's no doubt in my mind about that! I think every national UK newspaper would report her passing and all the broadsheets would give her a full obituary. 

 

She was at the epicentre of one of America's most famous political dynasties or clans. 

Well, As an american I doubt that we'd even get a lot of news on her passing. Of course fox would cover it as they report on everybody, but I doubt it would get a daytime interruption for cable channels like ABC, NBC, or CBS. Newspapers in america cover everything though. 

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,441]

1 minute ago, RadGuy said:

She could die on the day that Elvis and Tupac fly Jennifer Lopez's private jet into the White House and still obit.

You put it perfectly and so much better than me! 

 

Your a bit of a forum King with your very intelligent and witty posts 

[RadGuy 1,625]

Just now, Gooseberry Crumble said:

You put it perfectly and so much better than me! 

 

Your a bit of a forum King with your very intelligent and witty posts 

Thank you

 

Unfortunately, I believe that your opinion isn't very popular haha.

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,441]

Just now, RadGuy said:

Thank you

 

Unfortunately, I believe that your opinion isn't very popular haha.

Your welcome! And don't worry I can live with that! 

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,441]

3 minutes ago, jackschlotter said:

Well, As an american I doubt that we'd even get a lot of news on her passing. Of course fox would cover it as they report on everybody, but I doubt it would get a daytime interruption for cable channels like ABC, NBC, or CBS. Newspapers in america cover everything though. 

Not neccesarily an interruption but definitely a prominent headline especially on the likes of CNN. 

[Sean 6,562]

31 minutes ago, jackschlotter said:

Do we really think she'll obit? Seems unlikely on a busy news day.

Christ!She will obit everywhere.Silly question.

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,441]

Just now, Shaun of the Dead said:

Christ!She will obit everywhere.Silly question.

Not only will she obit everywhere but I suspect after a little time has passed our multiplexes will be showing a film simply called Ethel -showing her perspective and point of view from within the Kennedy clan during the historic events just as there was a Jackie film earlier this year. 

It could actually be even more interesting potentially. 

[CaptainChorizo 2,013]

Even though she will obit, Sister In Law of Former President seems a pretty low bar for someone having their own page in the forum.

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,441]

1 hour ago, CaptainChorizo said:

Even though she will obit, Sister In Law of Former President seems a pretty low bar for someone having their own page in the forum.

I don't concur surprise surprise! A key surviving member of one of the world's most famous and influential (in the US) political dynasties in the 20th century. 

 

If JFKS daughter Caroline was diagnosed as terminally ill I think she'd be a contender for the deathlist and thus her own thread. Yet being somebody's daughter is no more noteworthy than being somebody's widow (that's a key part of her fame being Bobby Kennedys widow)  or sister in law. 

Their both  first order members of an extremely world famous family and thus in appropriate circumstances could have their own threads with little controversy. 

 

Their a bit like an American royal family. 

 

Princess Alice of Gloucester had her own thread and what did she do but marry into a political Dynasty,become the King's Sister in law and first hand witness the abdication crisis? 

So no I'm not persuaded by your argument but obviously respect your right to disagree! 

[Grim Up North 3,776]

I think it was msc who said that threads are a meritocracy and if it is not threadworthy it will sink to page 37 and may as well not be a thread.

 

I've never started a thread but if I was considering doing one for a person then after doing a search to check there was not one already I would follow the following logic.

 

1) Is this person old and so famous that there will be news about them weekly to give the thread legs? If yes, start thread, if No then go to 2)

2) Is this person ill/at risk of dying and famous enough that there will be some coverage following their illness/life endangering activities? If yes, then 3), if No then don't start a thread.

3) Can I find a thread that covers the reason why this person is famous? If Yes, then post in there, if no then Start a thread

 

Otherwise what will happen is you will write a long opening post justifying the thread (see many recent examples including this one) which will be followed by some posts debating whether or not there should be a thread and then the thread will sink to page 37 until such a time that something happens to justify them having a thread of their own at which point either

Someone will do a thread search and resurrect your thread by posting in it or

Someone will set up a new thread and a Mod will have to merge the two threads.

 

The answers for Ethel are

1) No

2) No

 

If you want to raise her as a possibility of dying then you could have stuck her in the Ideas & Possibilities thread.

[Toast 16,303]

A brilliant summary.      It deserves to be pinned somewhere.

 

 

Oh, and there's also this thread which covers various members of the Kennedy clan.

[msc 18,667]

 

I just don't see the issue about new threads - its a forum after all, and there isn't a ration on threads per month. Admittedly, I hate making new threads, and studiously try to avoid it, so hypocritical. However, Ethel, with the best will in the world, isn't really worthy of one. If Bobby had won in 1968, she'd have been First Lady and due one, but he got shot, she didn't, and them's the breaks. Threads for an individual should be for big names likely to appear on the Deathlist itself, like Johnny Hallyday, David Attenborough or Robert Hardy (his thread is only on Page 19 )...

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,441]

3 hours ago, Grim Up North said:

I think it was msc who said that threads are a meritocracy and if it is not threadworthy it will sink to page 37 and may as well not be a thread.

 

I've never started a thread but if I was considering doing one for a person then after doing a search to check there was not one already I would follow the following logic.

 

1) Is this person old and so famous that there will be news about them weekly to give the thread legs? If yes, start thread, if No then go to 2)

2) Is this person ill/at risk of dying and famous enough that there will be some coverage following their illness/life endangering activities? If yes, then 3), if No then don't start a thread.

3) Can I find a thread that covers the reason why this person is famous? If Yes, then post in there, if no then Start a thread

 

Otherwise what will happen is you will write a long opening post justifying the thread (see many recent examples including this one) which will be followed by some posts debating whether or not there should be a thread and then the thread will sink to page 37 until such a time that something happens to justify them having a thread of their own at which point either

Someone will do a thread search and resurrect your thread by posting in it or

Someone will set up a new thread and a Mod will have to merge the two threads.

 

The answers for Ethel are

1) No

2) No

 

If you want to raise her as a possibility of dying then you could have stuck her in the Ideas & Possibilities thread.

Don't concur. I think the answer to both your questions for Ethel is yes and yes. 

 

I see nothing wrong in elaborating in an opening post as to reasons why person X is threadworthy. I think it gives a good starting foundation to the thread and I'm not particularly surprised that not everybody agrees with me! 

Only to be expected on any forum as their full of humans who tend to be creatures who are balance of objective and subjective such is life! 

 

I also think the criteria that a thread is only justified if there's a likely update on them weekly is a misplaced or wrong test. Afterall lots of the threads on people actually on the deathlist are not posted on or updated weekly. Infact some haven’t been posted on since the first week in January. 

 

We will have to agree to disagree. 

 

All the best. 

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,441]

1 hour ago, msc said:

 

I just don't see the issue about new threads - its a forum after all, and there isn't a ration on threads per month. Admittedly, I hate making new threads, and studiously try to avoid it, so hypocritical. However, Ethel, with the best will in the world, isn't really worthy of one. If Bobby had won in 1968, she'd have been First Lady and due one, but he got shot, she didn't, and them's the breaks. Threads for an individual should be for big names likely to appear on the Deathlist itself, like Johnny Hallyday, David Attenborough or Robert Hardy (his thread is only on Page 19 )...

I could easily see Ethel being worthy of consideration or likely to go on the deathlist in the future. 

[Grim Up North 3,776]

Are WUMs and trolls the same thing?

[Spade_Cooley 9,679]

WUMs are like trolls' grandfathers.

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,441]

6 minutes ago, Grim Up North said:

Are WUMs and trolls the same thing?

If this is a passive aggressive indirect at me for politely and civily disagreeing with you then it's a poor response and unnecessary. 

 

My best to you 

[Bibliogryphon 9,691]

In my mind individual threads should be reserved for those people who have actually been on the Deathlist and everybody else should be in a category thread.

[Toast 16,303]

Too many threads leads to a lot of repetition. 

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,441]

2 hours ago, Bibliogryphon said:

In my mind individual threads should be reserved for those people who have actually been on the Deathlist and everybody else should be in a category thread.

Obviously I don't concur and we will have to agree to disagree