Butterfly40

> Butterfly, you come not to praise Sharon but to bury > her. Your a Saint, so why not simply come out and > say your against all Sinners who believe Jeanette and > Nelson were in love. You don't want their love story > told do you? That's okay. We forgive you. Besides, > Blossom would never have given Sharon the story to > tell if Blossom knew that Jeanetter sincerely did not > want the story told. Blossom loved Jeanette and > would not have done anything to hurt her sister. That > simple. Well, you are right about one thing .....I definitely did not come here to praise Ms. Rich, and I don't believe I ever claimed to in my post. I question Sharon's motives ..... why does she feel it is her duty to tell the world about this supposed love affair between J and N? Why is it any of her business? It just seems to me that she has spent a great deal of her time focusing on this topic. If she is so intent upon keeping J and N's memory alive, as she claims on her site, there are far better ways to do that than to keep harping on something that may or may not have occurred. And, if you had read my post thoroughly, you would have seen that I mentioned that I do in fact feel like J and N had an intimate relationship off-screen .... I simply feel that all of the sorted details are no one's business. And aren't you going a bit too far in assuming that Blossom's blabbing would be totally ok with Jeanette?? Did you know Jeanette personally? And, quite frankly, I find your use of "saint" and "sinner" rather odd, and will not admit to being either.

I just watched this the other day, so it's fresh in my mind ... Jeanette MacDonald in "Smilin' Through", as both Kathleen and Moonyean Clare. I personally liked the character of Moonyean better than Kathleen. And, the death scene - so sad ..... great work by MacDonald!

Hi! I'm new here, and a big fan of Jeanette and Nelson's - Jeanette's, particularly. I find this thread fascinating, and just had to weigh in. >> I may be mistaken about this, but doesn't Sharon Rich > claim that she has a different manuscript from the > one Professor Turk allegedly used for his book? And > that her manuscript was Jeanette's "true" memoir? According to her "maceddy" website, she claims that the manuscript she published dates from the Summer of 1960. I don't know what manuscript Turk used ... does he say in his book? As far as Rich claiming that she has the "true" manuscript/memoir, her website doesn't appear to claim that now, but I do think I remember reading something to that effect on her site when she first announced that she had gotten her hands on a copy of Jeanette's "autobiography".... I could be wrong about this, but I don't think so. > Also, assuming Jeanette did have romantic liasons > with Stone and Eddy yet elected not to include > references to them in drafts of her memoir, it seems > likely that she wished to keep this aspect of her > life completely private. Therefore, wouldn't Miss > Rich's making them public be considered a disregard > for Jeanette's feelings on the matter? Rich claims to be such a fan of Jeanette and Nelson, yet I personally feel that she has no respect for either one of them. If Jeanette and Nelson wanted the world to know that they indeed had an intimate relationship, they each had plenty of opportunity to spread the word. If an off-screen relationship existed between them (and for the record, I will state that I believe it did), why is it really anyone's business? I can't in any way-shape-or-form pretend to know what Jeanette and Nelson would want, b/c I never met them, but judging from what I have read, it would seem that neither one of them would be very happy to know that their most personal, intimate business is being put out there for the entire world to see and scrutinize. > Also, I agree that if Miss Rich discovered the unpublished > manuscript from one of Jeanette's ghostwriters and > published it without the estate's approval, it seems > likely that she, in effect, stole it, and published > it without authority to do so. It was Jeanette's life > story, not the co-writer's. Perhaps Jeanette didn't > secure all the proper legal formalities to protect > her work, but it still may be viewed as a betrayal of > "trust" on Miss Rich's part and, perhaps, a criminal > action. I couldn't have said this better myself - I agree wholeheartedly! I would like to know who gave Rich the authority to publish this manuscript. I would think that something this personal would require the approval of Jeanette's estate. The mere fact that Rich has gotten her mits on a copy of the manuscript does not automatically give her the right to publish it. Who is in charge of Jeanette's estate, anyway? Anyone know?