by Meury » Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:46 pm
This programme has generated much discussion in my extended family. Each of us is close to a story which has similarities. We missed parts of the programme, and do not know everything that was disclosed about the photographs, but we are unanimous in thinking that cutting someone out of photographs is a very feminine thing to do, or at least what a deserted person would do. It is so very unlikely that the deserter would hang around to find, and to deal to all of the photographs. The deserted person is the one we would expect to cut out the person who had hurt her so much, yet retain her family photographs. A deserter would ignore, totally destroy, or take the lot away, wouldn't he? Further we felt that George Baugh was not a bigamist at the time he left, so we cannot work out why he would want to destroy photographs to cover his tracks. Did we miss something?
We also missed any detail about what the three little girls were told by their mother, over many years. Hurt women in our experience have three choices - paint their ex-partner in a very bad light, remain completely silent about him, or give information when it is available in an impartal way. Was there evidence to show which way Marion behaved?
From our common experiences, we know that many fathers and parents-in-law do try to keep in touch with their families, but are not welcomed, or are blocked from doing so. They do tend to give up in the face of things. George Baugh did try to talkto his mother, indicating the the marriage was in trouble. His departure may have seemed sudden, but perhaps not to his wife. We know of situations when men have been utterly desperate to keep their children in that era, but were persuaded not to try. Courts in our country tended to leave custody with the mother. The departing husband would have no home to take one or more of the children to, having left the wife in control of the family home. He would have to find alternative accommodation and there could be little money left over.
Not one of us condones the fact that George Baugh ignored his little girls, and they have been damaged by what happened, but can we be certain that he did not try? We are well aware of women here who would rather go through hell than take any assistance from men who did not love them and would not, could not, stay. Did he eventually decide that he could no longer bear to be painted in such a bad light, and, as we say, decided to 'up tools' and head off to the other side of the world, away from the pain of it all. A close family member of mine has been known to weep because he had lost his children to a wife who threatened to kill herself if he took the children. He suffers agony as he sees how the chidren were brought up by such a woman, who clearly bad-mouthed him to them and to his own family. Because the split left him out of a home and a job, he was forced to take a low-paying job and there was not even enough money left to feed himself after he had paid maintenance for his family. He was often fed by family and friends who knew of the situation he was in. He removed himself from the immeditae scene but with the help of friends did manage to keep contact with his children. It was difficult.
Is there evidence that Marion asked him or his family for help, or refused it for that matter? Did she know where they were?
George Baugh broke the law by marrying without being divorced, but Marion took a new partner as well, and that too was frowned upon at that time. Each found their own solution, and both were considered wrong by the puritans amongst us in those days. Photographs showed the second Baugh family to be happy. It would seem that Marion's second relationship must have been as well. I missed the detail about that. The evidence would seem to be, though, that the first Baugh family happily grew into strong, wonderful women.
Let us hope that they all continue to be happy. We would appreciate a follow-up programme on that.