Kate and Gerry as parents

I apologise for contributing nothing new here but this is a quiet reflection on my part.

Reading some recent posts by the members, I couldn't help being reminded how woefully inadequate and ill prepared the MCs appear as parents. They had long wanted children but when they came they were treated more like accessories, to be seen with when they weren't busy enjoying themselves. Or so it appears.

Some heartwarming anecdotes posted here about how they were treated by their parents and how they themselves have dealt with their own children in difficult circumstances, make me realise belatedly such selfless maternal/paternal behaviour simply does not come naturally to the MCs. Perhaps their egos are too strong. The youngest boy of the family marries the only child and you have a pair of immature and self-centred individuals playing parents, without truly accepting the degree of responsibility parenthood brings, incapable of nurturing the young and vulnerable.

Their behaviour after Madeleine's disappearance merely underlines their priorities in life and clearly demonstrates to the world Madeleine probably suffered even in her very short life. This is a sad reflection indeed.

It is indeed a sad case. They are both narcissists and as a mother here pointed out (might have been Tuom) it's like a child having a child.

I thought it was a brilliant observation because Kate's statements are revealing on this point.
'She was my best friend' - that is most unrealistic when talking about a toddler.
'She was very loving' - I know the diary is full of 'I love you' but it was written for publication and none of it rings true anyway.

Everything Kate and presumably Gerry has to do for the children seems to be a chore - the videos show no real interaction and most curious of all, virtually no interaction of the parents on photographs with Maddie.

I feel they're almost surprised to have to give accounts of what Maddie liked to do and they come up with Dr. Who, Harry Potter at the same time as bedtime stories for two years olds, milk and biscuits. That's pretty well it and Dr. Who and Harry Potter are really not for a child aged four.

The sad thing is that we don't know what Maddie was really like because they don't know either.

tigger wrote:It is indeed a sad case. They are both narcissists and as a mother here pointed out (might have been Tuom) it's like a child having a child.

I thought it was a brilliant observation because Kate's statements are revealing on this point.
'She was my best friend' - that is most unrealistic when talking about a toddler.
'She was very loving' - I know the diary is full of 'I love you' but it was written for publication and none of it rings true anyway.

Everything Kate and presumably Gerry has to do for the children seems to be a chore - the videos show no real interaction and most curious of all, virtually no interaction of the parents on photographs with Maddie.

I feel they're almost surprised to have to give accounts of what Maddie liked to do and they come up with Dr. Who, Harry Potter at the same time as bedtime stories for two years olds, milk and biscuits. That's pretty well it and Dr. Who and Harry Potter are really not for a child aged four.

The sad thing is that we don't know what Maddie was really like because they don't know either.

I don't know if I was overly soppy, but as a working mother, my thoughts were always with my kids, and I would bore my friends and colleagues endlessly with tales of the funny things they said and did. 3/4 year olds especially, are a delight, and can talk the hind legs off a donkey. The adjectives used to describe Madeleine are generic, she was lovely, bright, pretty, words that would probably describe any little girl, although I do remember Gerry describing her as articulate, which made my ears prick up. It made me think, that when my kids had something to tell me something, they would not stop until they got to the end of their story, even if I was sitting on the loo, or rushing to get the washing in out of the rain. But then again, I can see how a tot, can be easily distracted. Apologies, I am just thinking out loud.

We are not really given a personal insight into the child. Among 3 siblings, was the she the outgoing one? the naughty one? did she have tantrums? did Kate recount special times with Madeleine, things they spoke about, other than 'best day ever'. Her favourite things, her fears? I'm afraid I haven't read the full book, and in a way, I can understand why a family would want to keep special memories private, although I don't have a great deal of belief in that, as from what I gather from the book, in some subjects, she gives us way too much information. Again, thinking out loud.

I think Kate was not a 'mumsy' type mother, and that she had an awful lot on her plate. I would imagine looking after 3 toddlers has to be as stressful as being being an air traffic controller, especially if it doesn't come naturally, and for some mums it doesn't. With young kids, there is no time off - ever. The family are too 'Brady Bunch' - perfect couple, perfect professions. perfect family. Again, can be explained, they don't literally want to wash their dirty linen in public. The rest of us, if we are honest, come from homes where 'its your fecking turn' or 'ffs what do you want now' - is closer to the norm. I think this story becomes easier to theorise if research starts prior to 3rd May.

There are some people in society who beloved women can have it all. Career, life partner, nice houses, cars, children, little fancy doggies for clarrying around in the handbag.the car, the holiday, being onto friends, Facebook, fitness, coffee and Twitter. It seems that young professionals in the 30-45 year group are actually still in the student/Friends tv show mindset and anything. Which can enhance their image, be it kids, car, doggie etc can be bolted on and then disposed of when the lifeplan needs tweaking,my good lady and I waited ten years, five heartbreaking ones before our first daughter came naturally to us. Then seven years on, a second daughter, and now she has a daughter. Bringing up these two took virtually all our time, patience love and had anything happened to either. of then I and my wife would have done everything, for as long as it took to look and search.for them and whoever did what. Losing our youngest in shops when she was 3 for a few minutes made us panic, but we always found them.we taught them very early about rights and wrongs and. What to do if things went wrong. We would have had no experts, protection, we would have answered all police questions and been getting plant bites, thorns and all sorts to physically search if one went missing. Thankfully it didn't. But that is how we would respond as parents, .No campaigns, profiles, selfish books accusing and blaming others and no wider agenda. Then my wife is a real .mother, unselfish, not jealous of her children, not needing perfection or design label clothes to .prove the kids were dressed, she always insisted on a toothbrush each for all of us. Those few examples are how families, with real love and real interraction, go about things. Whatever the truth is, the child Madeleine deserves to have honesty and integrity from those who were supposed to protect her. No, we would never go out and leave young children of such tender age on their own, if that is what happened shame on anyone who allows their daughter to be taken, putting 2 other children at risk. How one. or both parents is not locked up just for that is a miracle. If as many here seem to believe there is a more sinister, .untold story then ultimately it will be found out. The child deserves better than whatever the treatment she had and from whoever it was. It would not take much for a troublesome child to cause a busy mother suddenly looking 3 small children to lose it and hurt the one causing the problem. Young parents snap alll the time. Those seeking perfection and needing to seek affection for themselves might snap if a child becomes the centre of attraction instead of being the seen not heard latest accessory. Perhaps though now, it might be the time, five years on to explain what happened. Confession can. Be good for the soul, but, if as some observers have isuggested, their is no soul, then the sadness one feels for this poor, missing child is immense. If the abduction story is true, imo I doubt this, then there must be more physical proof than constantly changing witness statements, from people who allegedly had been, erm, drinking.

anil39200 wrote:There are some people in society who beloved women can have it all. Career, life partner, nice houses, cars, children, little fancy doggies for clarrying around in the handbag.the car, the holiday, being onto friends, Facebook, fitness, coffee and Twitter. It seems that young professionals in the 30-45 year group are actually still in the student/Friends tv show mindset and anything. Which can enhance their image, be it kids, car, doggie etc can be bolted on and then disposed of when the lifeplan needs tweaking,my good lady and I waited ten years, five heartbreaking ones before our first daughter came naturally to us. Then seven years on, a second daughter, and now she has a daughter. Bringing up these two took virtually all our time, patience love and had anything happened to either. of then I and my wife would have done everything, for as long as it took to look and search.for them and whoever did what. Losing our youngest in shops when she was 3 for a few minutes made us panic, but we always found them.we taught them very early about rights and wrongs and. What to do if things went wrong. We would have had no experts, protection, we would have answered all police questions and been getting plant bites, thorns and all sorts to physically search if one went missing. Thankfully it didn't. But that is how we would respond as parents, .No campaigns, profiles, selfish books accusing and blaming others and no wider agenda. Then my wife is a real .mother, unselfish, not jealous of her children, not needing perfection or design label clothes to .prove the kids were dressed, she always insisted on a toothbrush each for all of us. Those few examples are how families, with real love and real interraction, go about things. Whatever the truth is, the child Madeleine deserves to have honesty and integrity from those who were supposed to protect her. No, we would never go out and leave young children of such tender age on their own, if that is what happened shame on anyone who allows their daughter to be taken, putting 2 other children at risk. How one. or both parents is not locked up just for that is a miracle. If as many here seem to believe there is a more sinister, .untold story then ultimately it will be found out. The child deserves better than whatever the treatment she had and from whoever it was. It would not take much for a troublesome child to cause a busy mother suddenly looking 3 small children to lose it and hurt the one causing the problem. Young parents snap alll the time. Those seeking perfection and needing to seek affection for themselves might snap if a child becomes the centre of attraction instead of being the seen not heard latest accessory. Perhaps though now, it might be the time, five years on to explain what happened. Confession can. Be good for the soul, but, if as some observers have isuggested, their is no soul, then the sadness one feels for this poor, missing child is immense. If the abduction story is true, imo I doubt this, then there must be more physical proof than constantly changing witness statements, from people who allegedly had been, erm, drinking.

I enjoyed reading that Anil, I think you have said in words what many of us feel. One of the key expressions I remember in the first news reports was that 'its something we have all done'. It was used by columnists, reporters, presenters, and everytime I heard it/read it, it irked. Like yourself, I couldn't imagine anyone doing that kind of thing. Then I began to think it was some great big middle class thing that I wasn't part of, but I've never seen it before.

I once had the privilege of spending Hogmany in Scotland, and every house having beds made up for the bairns that you carried or dragged along with you to see the New Year in with all your friends and family. No child was ever left alone. Even living in London, I remember flipping a coin with another young couple to see which pair had to stay in and babysit and which pair got to go out on that magic night. It does make me wonder how doctors, of all people, could take such terrible risks. The phrase 'we all do it' just didn't ring true. And if it were true, we would be hearing about terrible accidents all the time. I cannot think of a more dangerous situation than 3 inquisitive toddlers being left alone in an empty apartment. Mosts mums know that you cannot turn your back on a toddler for a second, or you would spend 7 hours in A&E. Was the apartment childproofed? Ie, locks on cupboards, sharp corners covered? Like most mums, I was a constant visitor to Mothercare's safety range. Kids can and do, fall over their own shadows. I felt as though I was being brain washed to believe 'its something we all do' and it has become part of the Mccann story. Who? or what is being protected here? And why are they so intent on us believing it?

In my opinion, it was overkill, it made some of us ask questions. Its like someone trying to convince you black is white, when you know full it isn't. In the early days, I think I would have changed my opinion if they had said, 'we were wrong' and please, please use us an example to never leave your kids alone. I think they have been building a case from day 1.

Well said Cristobell. It just isn't credible that the McCanns - and their friends, don't forget - would have behaved in such a thoughtless way.

Mind you, nice but dim Fiona Phillips admitted that she once left her children in a hotel room and they were found running amok in the corridors and that's why she subscribes to the "we all do it" nonsense!

So yes, there are some people who would but most certainly would not.

tigger wrote:
I thought it was a brilliant observation because Kate's statements are revealing on this point.
'She was my best friend' - that is most unrealistic when talking about a toddler.

Indeed so. Many couples when asked describe their partner as their "best friend". I used to think it was nonsense, until I got married, and realised that the passion and love also includes a deep friendship, (or should !)

To be 'best friends' with a 3 years old is pathological. Or does it tell us something about the K & G relationship ?

PeterMac wrote:

tigger wrote:
I thought it was a brilliant observation because Kate's statements are revealing on this point.
'She was my best friend' - that is most unrealistic when talking about a toddler.

Indeed so. Many couples when asked describe their partner as their "best friend". I used to think it was nonsense, until I got married, and realised that the passion and love also includes a deep friendship, (or should !)

To be 'best friends' with a 3 years old is pathological. Or does it tell us something about the K & G relationship ?

Absolutely correct imo PeterMac. Even allowing for this strange description, having a best friend means also being a best friend. In cases of missing children best friends are an invaluable source of information about the person. Best friends can paint an enormous picture of that person. I still don't know many details of Madeleine from her 'best friend' other than she can give her tuppence worth and she was/is beautiful, lively and intelligent, likes Dr Who and Harry Potter (both strange for a 3 year old imo). This best friend is also Madeleine's mother. Your children are not your best friends. You like your children (sometimes you can't stand them) you may even like one of your children more than another for personality reasons but your children are not your best friend. How can a 3 year old be a best friend to her mother? I can understand a close friendship between a mother and a teenage daughter but a 3 year old? You couldn't make it up - or perhaps you can.

I'm editing to add that you love your children. That love is unique.

I disagree, My 5 yrs old son is also one of my best friends. I do not think there is anything wrong or unusual about describing your son or daughter in this way. Infact I call him `bud` for Buddy as hes been little buddy since he was born

david_uk wrote:I disagree, My 5 yrs old son is also one of my best friends. I do not think there is anything wrong or unusual about describing your son or daughter in this way. Infact I call him `bud` for Buddy as hes been little buddy since he was born [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

yes david-uk, but is this just how YOU see it?

For genuine friendship, it needs to be both ways. Your son is not yet of an age to make the 'adult' decision about 'best friends'.

Sure, children have 'best friends' but they can change quickly and in a fickle moment. That is not 'true best friends'.

It is, in my opinion, an imposition of an adult to claim a youngster as a best friend. It, to my mind, puts an onus of responsibility onto the child who, in my opinion, should have the liberty to find and create his own 'best friend' relationships and not have them assumed, or imposed, by a possibly 'needy' adult.

I see nothing wrong with saying 'I love my kids to bits', they are 'superb little companions', but to claim them as a 'best friend' to my mind, is to impose upon their freedom to grow up and develop their own world.

bobbin wrote:

david_uk wrote:I disagree, My 5 yrs old son is also one of my best friends. I do not think there is anything wrong or unusual about describing your son or daughter in this way. Infact I call him `bud` for Buddy as hes been little buddy since he was born [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

yes david-uk, but is this just how YOU see it?

For genuine friendship, it needs to be both ways. Your son is not yet of an age to make the 'adult' decision about 'best friends'.

Sure, children have 'best friends' but they can change quickly and in a fickle moment. That is not 'true best friends'.

It is, in my opinion, an imposition of an adult to claim a youngster as a best friend. It, to my mind, puts an onus of responsibility onto the child who, in my opinion, should have the liberty to find and create his own 'best friend' relationships and not have them assumed, or imposed, by a possibly 'needy' adult.

I see nothing wrong with saying 'I love my kids to bits', they are 'superb little companions', but to claim them as a 'best friend' to my mind, is to impose upon their freedom to grow up and develop their own world.

Well thats how you see it. Do you have children of your own?. This is not meant how it may sound , I am curious in relation to your response. I believe there is a difference between loving your kids to bits and having the kind of relationship with them where you can claim they are one of your best friends. My main point in raelation to this case ,is that I do not think this is an odd thing to say about your child.

I'd appreciate a psychologists' view of this, but being 'best friends' with a child that cannot yet make an independent decision to be your 'best friend' - particularly a child of only 5 years old - no, imo it's a one-way street if the adult thinks he or she can treat a dependent child like a best friend.

A best friend is someone you can tell all about your troubles, you've got a similar sense of humour and often like doing the same things.
Best friends doesn't come into relationships unless there is a certain equality of understanding. My own best friend and I have long telephone conversations because we now live 500 miles apart. I tell her she's got too many dogs and too many clothes, we laugh at her love problems and I moan about my family. We are 'there' for each other, that's being a best friend and it cannot be the same with a child many, many years younger.

david_uk wrote:

bobbin wrote:

david_uk wrote:I disagree, My 5 yrs old son is also one of my best friends. I do not think there is anything wrong or unusual about describing your son or daughter in this way. Infact I call him `bud` for Buddy as hes been little buddy since he was born [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

yes david-uk, but is this just how YOU see it?

For genuine friendship, it needs to be both ways. Your son is not yet of an age to make the 'adult' decision about 'best friends'.

Sure, children have 'best friends' but they can change quickly and in a fickle moment. That is not 'true best friends'.

It is, in my opinion, an imposition of an adult to claim a youngster as a best friend. It, to my mind, puts an onus of responsibility onto the child who, in my opinion, should have the liberty to find and create his own 'best friend' relationships and not have them assumed, or imposed, by a possibly 'needy' adult.

I see nothing wrong with saying 'I love my kids to bits', they are 'superb little companions', but to claim them as a 'best friend' to my mind, is to impose upon their freedom to grow up and develop their own world.

Well thats how you see it. Do you have children of your own?. This is not meant how it may sound , I am curious in relation to your response. I believe there is a difference between loving your kids to bits and having the kind of relationship with them where you can claim they are one of your best friends. My main point in raelation to this case ,is that I do not think this is an odd thing to say about your child.

I can see your point david_uk. For me though, it is when the comment is
taken in the context of everything else that is said (or actually not
said in this case) about Madeleine's personality and her place in the family, it is strange. Kate
has little else to say about her "best friend". To say "shes lovely", she likes Dr Who etc tells us very little about her or indeed her place within the family unit. Of course she was the eldest but was she the thinker, the comedien, the trouble maker, who and what was she within their household ?

It should be similar to saying she is a daddy's girl or mummy's girl, if you understand what I am trying to say. Of course we love all of our children equally but in every family there is a different connection with different children. My eldest would be a real daddy's boy (so his best friend in this house), my middle child is the peace maker and shows no favourtism to either parent one way or the other. My youngest is my little buddy, my best friend (in our house). However if I were asked to talk about them, it would the last thing I would say about them, I would have probably bored people to death before I got that far. It does not define who they are, it merely shows their place within our home.

So in itself it is not an unusual or strange comment, I agree with you, but in the overall scheme of things it tells us nothing at all about Madeleine and who she was.

Even going back to the where were you when I cried comment Madeleine supopsedly made. They as parents should have known their child well enough to say oh here we go Madeleine is off again, making up stories, dreaming, whatever it might be. Or oh, hold on, our little girl never wakes up, never complains of crying in the night, something must have upset her to a great extent because she is now talking about it.

To say "she moved on" so they did too is strange. What is relevant is the fact that she said it, they should know her well enough to able to state with near certainty whether or not it was something for them to worry about. Of course she moved on, that is what three year olds do. What is the end of the world one minute is fixed within 60 seconds when their attention is caught by something else.

I think quite simply they did not know their little girl and what made her tick.

I also see no problem with the 'best friend' statement. IIRC Kate said 'she was my best friend'. So here, the statement is saying that of all my friends, she was the best. I don't think she stated that 'they' were best friends - i.e. each other's best friends, which are two separate statements.

What is out of the ordinary is the claim about Harry Potter, Dr Who. Both of which are entirely innappropriate for a three year old child. If she was allowed to watch them, I have no wonder that she had trouble sleeping at night!

What I do see here though are marketing opportunities, - JK Rowling, David Tennant - maybe he was on their list of celebs to target for a bit of publicity.

I know many parents and not one of them said they would leave their children alone.

Children have a habit of trying to copy their parents and might try to cook or connect electrical devices while they are alone.

The Mccanns have admitted their child neglect it is time to charge them like is normal for most people in the UK who do this.

The real crime however is a much worse one which now is very difficult to prove unless the body is found and even then difficult.

It seems that the Mccanns have got away with their lying and falsehoods.

They seem to have made a lot of money also.......The Mccanns are just evil.

Hi and hope you find this forum as fascinating as I do. Some really good people here and I keep learning. As a parent I would never have lefy children of that age unattended in that way. What I cannot understand is the silly, deluded fools who seem to think it was ok or they made a mistake. Or that they were naive. Naive at their age and in their professions? Nah!

I still think we have to consider the possibility that the McCanns didn't leave the children alone, and perhaps left them with all the other children in another apartment, taking it in turns to babysit with the other parents and possibly a certain nanny.
This could have been said to make the public believe there was a window of opportunity for an abduction.
They will put up with the finger of neglect pointing at them, far less damaging and the lesser of the two evils to them (for the time being) than the other scenario.

Good point.

The whole blog can be found on McCannfiles.com. It's brilliant, although since 2009 we have more information than was available at the time. The observations are so spot on - it's well worth the long read.
Here is a clip: (I have read elsewhere that they behaved more like the cast of 'Friends' than normal adults - this snippet highlights this)
quote:
The National Health Service, that vast, over-inflated monopoly bureaucracy, so often more welcoming to its employees than to its patients, was the comforting arena for their dreams and struggles, the latter rarely involving any risk to pocket or possessions. So, single minded, decent, in many ways admirable people these, sharing the slightly mindless interests of medical students, growing apart, in the modern way, from their family origins, sharing also, due to their institutionalization in the NHS and despite their exposure to the sufferings of patients, a certain blinkered innocence about the teeth and claws of real life waiting in the shadows for all of us.

And, indeed, with these interests, their very young children and their collective boyishness, which embraces the ladies as well, with the exception of the aging in-law Diane Webster, it is easy to forget just how old they are. The running joke which caused so much mirth at the chilly dinner table on May 3 - that Jane Tanner was going to "relieve", snigger, giggle, her partner back at the apartment – seems more suited to a university bar or rugby changing room than to the evening meal of a hospital consultant with receding hair, his colleagues and their partners. Perhaps this collective naivety, now coming under pressure from the realities of approaching middle age, is the key to the first of a series of failures of judgement that they made: their absolute unwillingness to accept that having infants in the family changes everything for ever, including such trivia as the planning of holidays.unquote

Very insightful and astute that. Like I said I cannot get the old bonce round the idea of grown adults being naive. Now I think about it, its mor a case of not wanting to accept personal responsibility and it seems much worse because they SHOULD have known better. Camomile tea time again for me I think but what a fine piece.

Didn't Diane Webster make some comment about their silly games?

Miraflores wrote:Didn't Diane Webster make some comment about their silly games?

Yes she said something like the raising of the alarm was just one more of their silly games. I can imagine they took over the bar with their loud talk and guffaws of mirth.

Miraflores wrote:Didn't Diane Webster make some comment about their silly games?

Perhaps there had been a rehearsal on a previous day?

Spaniel wrote:

Miraflores wrote:Didn't Diane Webster make some comment about their silly games?

Perhaps there had been a rehearsal on a previous day?

Mmmm, nice one!

a very nice one !
Take your places everybody........and...............ACTION !
then
cut !
Take 2 etc...........

that's a wrap !

who was the director ?