October 13, 2009. A cool but relaxing holiday weekend in New York.
The Astor case was brought to verdict last Thursday, October 8th. That day, coincidentally, marked the 56th anniversary of the marriage of Roberta Brooke Russell Kuser Marshall to W. Vincent Astor, at the home of their friends the Joseph Pulitzers in Bar Harbor, Maine.
The verdict: Guilty on 12 or 13 counts. 85 or 86 years old, Anthony Marshall, devoted son for the first 83 years of his life to a finally very elderly and very self-centered mother, now faces jail for having interfered with what others have decided were not her intentions with her last Will and Testament.
Mr. Marshall was basically “turned in” by his son by his first marriage (which was dissolved in 1962) Philip Marshall who, it has been reported, was miffed that Charlene Marshall, his second stepmother, got the house in Northeast Harbor, Maine which Philip was expecting from his grandmother.
 |
 |
| Mr. and Mrs. Marshall hearing the jury's verdict: guilty, guilty, guilty. |
 |
|
One of the aphorisms in the Twelve Step Program is: No Expectations. A good idea often ignored by all but the wisest (whoever they are).
This is a tale of tall ironies. Before all of this came down, Philip Marshall and his twin brother, were always to receive one third of their father’s estate upon his death. This was the result of their mother and father’s divorce settlement made in 1962 in which Tony Marshall made this binding legal agreement. By today’s math that would have amounted to about $10 million each.
If. Big “if,” it turns out. Philip and his brother never knew that little bit of information and only learned it during the trial. Even their mother, according to yesterday’s New York Times, had forgotten the divorce settlement. I happened to have known this fact for months now, and assumed his sons knew.
Irony: Now, from the looks of it, the boys will not be getting that if the Will that is being contended is ruled invalid. Had Philip Marshall not brought this case against his father -- although he still would not have gained the house in Northeast which now belongs to his stepmother Charlene Marshall -- he would still inherit a sizeable fortune (sizeable at least to this non-rich writer).
Now that he has won his case against his father, however, he may have to settle for the paltry million his grandmother left him in her will.
The Times quoted Philip Marshall saying, referring to the news, that he had no regrets (although the same Times article reported him being “stunned” upon learning the details of his once-legal inheritance). He said he always felt “that this money didn’t belong to us.” He explained: “To take money that our grandmother intended to give to charity is like taking blood money.”
The house in Maine was another thing altogether. Although it is, in today’s prices, a multi-million dollar piece of real estate.
 |
|
| In better days, the dowager mother-in-law followed by her daughter-in-law Charlene Marshall. |
 |
| Charlene Marshall holding her husband's hand while talking to him after the verdicts are read. |
|
Back to the verdict: Watching the drama in the courtroom, I was sorry for this man whom I do not know. Re-reading the charges and the verdicts for each in the Times on Friday morning, I still found it difficult to see how Tony Marshall was found guilty from evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Many people I know share my sentiments and thoughts about it. Others seem very pleased and have nothing but epithets to describe this man. Among those who feel that way are people who do know him and his wife and knew Brooke Astor.
These people are generally in the Rockefeller-Kissinger-de la Renta camp. They were concerned firstly about Mrs. Astor’s well-being when she was alive, and secondly they were concerned about her final financial wishes being carried out the way she wanted them carried out.
These people also assumed that they always knew exactly how Mrs. Astor wanted her wishes carried out.
They went to all kinds of extremes. Annette de la Renta took the very valuable jewels which Mrs. Astor gave to her (during the same time she was regarded as in and out of her mind). It was later reported that Mrs. de la Renta didn’t actually want to the jewels for herself -- and even gave them away -- she just didn’t want Charlene to have them. That evidently was Mrs. Astor’s wish too. It’s one way to help out a friend in need.
Irony: in her lifetime after receiving her inheritance from her husband’s estate, Brooke Astor made more than 30 wills. Obviously it was something that she enjoyed engaging in. To many the act of making a will is the final act of mortal power, the final affirmation of self. In a way, for Brooke Astor, each will must have been a bit like planning a novel – something that greatly interested her. In those 30 wills were many changes in bequests that occurred over the years. This included the eventual exclusion of charities which were in earlier wills at the top of her must-give list.
Last Friday night 20/20, ABC did a long piece on the trial. I’d participated in this production, albeit briefly. I told the story of Vincent Astor’s forbidding his stepson (Marshall) to ever set foot in his houses and then warning Brooke that if she so much as spoke to him, she’d be out too. The mother never spoke to her son after that until Vincent Astor died (not long after as fate would have it). The anecdote served to punctuate the nature of the mother’s relationship to the son.
|
 |
| DPC recounting a tale of yore in the Astor/Marshall lives on ABC's 20/20. |
 |
| The Marshall son, Philip, who transformed a family affair into a public matter, at the expense, ironically and unbeknownst to him at the time, of his own future multi-milliondollar inheritance. |
 |
| Prosecutor Joel J. Seidemann. |
 |
| Prosecutor Elizabeth Loewy. |
 |
| The end of his mother's life and the end of his life also. |
 |
| Anthony and Charlene Marshall leave the courthouse after the verdicts are read. |
|
This was a son who apparently could accept maternal rejection, perhaps was even used to it. That’s not unusual; it happens often in life. What was curious to me was that he hung in there. Others have explained that he was motivated by the money. That may be although it may also be that he wanted to be near his mother, perhaps even be worthy of her attention or her caring. Going to the hardware store for oranges is not an uncommon occurrence in the lives of many of us. Especially when it comes to boys and their mothers.
Back to 20/20: The program also had an interview with the grandson, Philip Marshall whom I’d never seen before, although I’d heard a lot about him. Perhaps it was the way he was lit, but he looked like good casting for a very good villain, the kinda guy who looks like he might have more than a good card trick up his sleeve. It might have been the natural repose of his face, but there were moments when he looked like he was pleased that someone (dad) was suffering the consequences. The consequences of ... (fill in the blanks).
It was a clip well beyond any soap opera in execution. This was reality TV at its finest. Oedipus. The Rex. Whatever it is for Philip Marshall in his relationship with his father, the result was an act of retribution at its highest. Watching him talk about the matters on 20/20 last Friday night, I could only wonder what happened between father and son. I couldn’t even guess, but I know one thing: whatever it was, it happened long before Charlene Marshall ever came into their lives.
This case began with stories in the press of the aged Mrs. Astor living in slothfulness because of the neglect of her son and his harridan-of-a-wife who was mean to the help. Remember those tabloidal tales that aroused the vigilant to heated reproach?
We were told that the dowager, now non compos mentis most of the time was sleeping on urine soaked sheets with nothing but a shabby blanket to keep her warm in a house where the heat had been turned down by the greedy son to save money for his inheritance. A millionairess, no less, kept prisoner in her own castle.
We later learned that these stories were not true. Although little was made of that fact: the die was cast. Brooke Astor had been suffering from elder-abuse at the hands of son and daughter-in-law. Period. End of Story. Even after the trial and the verdict, his perception remains with the public and provides the impetus for a harsh punishment.
It got worse. In the court trial, there was reference after reference to the woman’s whimpering anguish or pouting anger at the way she was being treated by her son and that woman, his wife. This evidence presented a weakened centenarian, in ill-health, at least partially out of her mind. It was the out-of-her-mind part that clinched the case. That and Charlene, the wicked daughter-in-law who took advantage of her. Or so we were told.
Witness after witness described Mrs. Astor’s attitude about her son and her daughter-in-law during these times. She didn’t like her daughter-in-law before she lost her mind, they said; and she didn’t like her after. Her state of mind was never at issue in any testimony referring to how she felt about her son and daughter-in-law. Her state of mind was only at issue when matters of will changes or other personal mother-son matters occurred. And although Mrs. Astor had always been something of a serial will-writer, by the end of her life it was naturally assumed that she was out of her mind when she signed the last wills (or if they weren’t allgedely“forged”).
Meanwhile back at the 20/20. All talk of Brooke Astor assumed a position of propriety bordering on saintliness. The problem with saintliness with us humans is that it often masks a sanctimonious heart. Mrs. Astor was a thrillingly interesting character and her life, now completed, right down to the trial of her son leaving a verdict of guilty on the table, her life was not the stuff of her own novels, but the stuff of Edith Wharton. Mrs. Wharton did not write about saints. She wrote about New York society and its denizens in and out of wealth.
Brooke Astor’s son and her daughter-in-law were never quite up to par for her and thusly for her “friends.” This happens all the time in human relations; we all know about it, know examples of it, even have experienced it. It’s the result of people enjoying the self-elevating thrill of prejudice, even at the expense of their own. Mrs. Astor engaged in that sort of thing all the time when it came to her own. She engaged in it when it came to others too. It’s ordinary. It’s often what is called gossip.
And it’s unkind. That is not a small word in human relations especially between parent and child.
Nevertheless, the lady was not stupid (when she had her wits about her). She was not insensible when it came to her decisions. She was imbued with a natural sense of responsibility. Whether she had true empathy or sympathy for those who benefited from her charity is not important. She allowed herself to be seen that way. She knew what she was doing and she set a good example. When it came to charity.
It was sorrowful watching the elderly son on 20/20 , to imagine that his life with his mother – which lasted 82 years – might end with him in prison. And irony of ironies, it comes as a result of an action taken by the man’s own son and his mother’s friends. I don’t question their motives whatever they might have been and whatever they may be. And I don’t question their judgment, however that may have been arrived at – possibly with the able assistance of The Lawyers. But the final act of these people against the memory of this woman, their friend, was to, in effect, imprison her son for allegedly going against the will of the woman who lived to her centenary but only delicately and often uncertain.
New York Epilogue. This was a household, a life, which was about the money. It was about the money for the lady and about the money for everyone around her, including her staff, her son, naturally, and at least one of her grandsons, not to mention the Metropolitan Museum and The New York Public Library.
It was about the money. It was about the money when Brooke Russell married Vincent Astor. It was about the money when the lawyer referred to it as a trial “about greed” (the lawyers’ greed, notwithstanding of course – the legal bills have now run into the millions and have crippled the Marshalls). It was always about the money.
And the ultimate irony is that by the time it’s over, there will be much much much less for everyone, including every charitable institution.
|
