FDR and Eleanor - The Roosevelts: An Intimate History (2014) Discussion

[–] NancyDPA 10 years ago

I started watching the series because we recently visited FDR's home in Hyde Park, and we didn't realize all the amazing things he did for the country during the Depression. But I am really curious about his relationship with Eleanor. Of course, the Park employees at Hyde Park did not discuss their private life or the stories about Franklin's infidelities. But it seemed that he and Eleanor had a very strange relationship, and I am anxious to learn more about that. But in any event, she has to be one of the most incredible women in history!

reply

[–] mickeeteeze 10 years ago

I would think his infidelities will be brought up in the documentary. Particularly with the one 'aide', which was a long term thing.

It's certainly part of his history, and Eleanors.

reply

[–] digitaldiva 10 years ago

Hi mickeeteeze,

I'm sure his involvement with his aide will be brought up. Franklin broke Eleanor's heart.

reply

[–] doug65oh 10 years ago

They did cover FDR's involvement with Lucy Mercer, actually - not in any great depth, but well enough considering the broad scope of the series.

reply

[–] monifest 10 years ago

Last night, they mentioned another woman who was very close to him after he came down with infantile paralysis. This relationship was the topic of a lot of speculation, but it seemed to go on with Eleanor's blessing. By this time, Eleanor was making a name for herself and she probably felt that Franklin needed something to look forward to, due to his illness.

reply

[–] doug65oh 10 years ago

That could very well fit one, the other, or both Daisy Suckley and Missy Lehand. It was Daisy who gave FDR Murray, the Outlaw of Falahill - otherwise known as Fala.

reply

[–] sekhmet999 10 years ago

Franklin and Eleanor were related by blood.

reply

[–] jimcat63-1 10 years ago

No, a fifth cousin is related by marriage. There is no true blood left when you are that far seperated .

.

reply

[–] Yorke71 10 years ago

Of course they were related. Here's a link to the family tree: http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/teachinger/q-and-a/q6.cfm They were each descended from Nicholas Roosevelt. Being related by marriage means there was no common ancestor. By the sixth generation the genetic link is diluted, but it's still there.

reply

[–] jimcat63-1 10 years ago

As I wrote. No true blood. You say diluted. Same thing.

I am willing to bet that many people from rural counties often married remote cousins without even knowing it.

.

reply

[–] damastro 10 years ago

As I wrote. No true blood. You say diluted. Same thing.

Given that a child inherits 50% of their chromosomes from each parent, fifth cousins will tend, barring inbreeding in the line to their common ancestor, to share .049% of their chromosomes by inheritance. So on average they will have 2 chromosomes in common. That seems to me like a genuine, if small, blood relationship (I don't know how it compares to the chances of having chromosomes in common with a random stranger).

And yes, all people are related by blood if you go back far enough, if you could somehow trace the family tree, but these two people had a known traceable blood relationship, with a likely shared genetic heritage.

I am willing to bet that many people from rural counties often married remote cousins without even knowing it.

Probably even more of them knew it. You go back far enough (maybe not that far for some of us), we are all descended from villages that were basically extended families with little outside marriage.

reply

[–] MdmBadenov 10 years ago

fanaticita, excuse me? FDR and ER were fifth cousins, but not by blood?? How does that work? If someone is a cousin to someone, the two are related "by blood"---or more accurately, by DNA. Yes, they were blood kin but only distantly.

reply

[–] sekhmet999 10 years ago

Distant enough to marry without causing genetic problems, but still blood relations.

reply

[–] fanaticita 10 years ago

They certainly had an interesting relationship! They seemed to fill a certain need for each other, but led very separate lives, which also led them to find others to confide in and be close to. What bothers me though is how little (especially FDR) seemed to care for his children. They weren't abandoned, but very neglected. Shame.

reply

[–] jaynekranc 10 years ago

I knew that, but I didn't know how much of the relationship was based on her needing to be needed. Her mother left her with basically no self esteem and she really needed someone to need her. He did, because she was different from everyone else, not the same old same old. And of course she was TR's favorite niece.

reply

[–] vpking77-276-694061 10 years ago

I knew this 45 years ago. I thought it was taught in school that FDR and Eleanor were distant cousins.

reply

[–] doug65oh 10 years ago

It was. I remember hearing it spoken of in...probably 5th grade.

reply

[–] irishm 9 years ago

I learned it in school too. As a kid some 40 years ago I remember thinking how strange it must have been for a woman to get married and not have to change her name... if your name is "Jones" it might happen once in a while, but for a distinctive name like Roosevelt, maybe not so much.

reply

[–] TorontoJediMaster 8 years ago

I think their problematic relationship with their children was likely due to their own difficult childhoods. Eleanor had lost both of her parents at an early age. Franklin, meanwhile, was raised by his aged father and smothering mother. He really had nobody to teach him how to be a good father. He did, however, seem to be a caring one until he contracted polio which caused him to go his own way for years in an attempt to rehabilitate himself.

reply