(The original version of this post appears in my column in today's Keene, Sentinel)

(Young in, "She Had to Say Yes" which, apparently, she did)

Judy Lewis 2002 - The apple didn't fall far from the tree
About 75 years ago, when Hollywood starlet Loretta Young started filming “Call of the Wild” with film icon Clark Gable, she probably didn’t imagine her responding to such a “Call” would change her life forever. Single and a “devout Catholic,” Young left the film shoot pregnant and fearing a scandal that would devastate her career and Gable’s.
The daughter born of that union, Judy Lewis, 76, died this month. Lewis spent much of her life grappling with the painful reality that she was raised as Young’s “adopted” child rather than her natural born child. Lewis as even kept in seclusion by Young for a few months following her birth, then actually placed in a children’s home only to be retrieved two years later. All this was to add more credibility to the adoption myth.
In her 1994 book, Uncommon Knowledge, Lewis wrote of the painful abandonment she felt and, ironically, the truth about her parentage was the one issue that created divisive friction between mother and daughter their entire adult lives. Young only told Lewis who her father was after Gable died in 1966 when Lewis was in her 30’s.
Lewis wrote that a similar situation evolving when her book was published would not have caused such a stir. Today, 16 years beyond that, it not only creates no stir, it is almost common practice. Single women have and raise children of their own with no marriage plan: celebrities routinely have sumptuous weddings where their toddler out-of-wedlock children serve as ring bearers and flower girls.
In today’s new context, it is not uncommon to hear comments about what some see as the deteriorating morality of our society. Single parenthood is still frowned upon by many, and “single mothers,” in particular have become an idiom for “loose and irresponsible” women, despite the fact that their loved and cared-for children often seem perfectly content and thriving.
Though every child in an ideal world deserves and should have two loving parents, there can be no question that one loving and caring parent is certainly better than subjecting any child to the kind of abandonment, shame and rejection Loretta Young used against her daughter. Going through the bureaucratic hoops of placing the baby in an orphanage only to fetch her again two years later to raise her as an “adopted” child gives new meaning to the word bizarre. And to withhold the identity of the child’s true father until after that father was dead and the child over thirty years-old makes it clear whose interests the mother protected.
Unplanned pregnancies happen. Sometimes they are terminated: usually they go forward to the birth of a child. When that happens, both the mother and the father of that child have an obligation to the child. In Judy Lewis’s case, her mother clearly favored her career and former lover over her child.
Clark Gable as the father, on the other hand, apparently was telling them both what he told Scarlet in “Gone with the Wind”—that, “Frankly, my dear[s], I don’t give a damn.”


Salon.com
Comments
R♥
My guess is, it wasn't about "protecting" Clark Gable. It was about protecting everyone. Clearly he didn't want his child in his life. If he did, he would have been at the very least, a presence in her life. A beloved uncle or something. As her mother did, her father could have as well...created an illusion, an alternate relationship that would have kept them together.
No good would have come of it I don't think. I can be wrong, but I think Loretta Young did what she could to keep her child without suffering professional "consequences". Two years is not a short time, but it's not a very long time either. My guess is, she was in close contact with them throughout their separation. Did she never visit? This is such an interesting story...such dilemmas.
TO me what's sad is that her mother did her best to remain a working professional and raise her daughter but she comes out of it looking rather poorly from her daughters POV.
That was a heavy load to carry back then, having children "out of wedlock". Children were of such unions were considered to be "bastards". Ghastly ignorance and everyone suffered. I can't imagine a better solution than what Ms Young did. I really can't. So sad that her daughter is angry.
R
Honestly, think a bit more out of the box, for god's sake...Loretta Young was a rich woman: she didn't have to go through all these pseudo-Catholic hoops to wreck her child's world just to protect her and her lover's careers. She wasn't like the average woman of her time. She could have easily embraced her child and eventually no one would have given a damn.
Loretta Young's television show was one we watched regularly when I was a kid. I remember her sweeping through a doorway, always in a flowing gown. In our family she was seen as something of a saint, her devout Catholicism was always observed and admired. I thought she was a little creepy. I think that even more now. But does anyone really think that big Hollywood stars aren't generally pretty ruthless about their career advancement?
From those days, can you think of any prominent woman who owned up to having a child out of wedlock and refused to name the father?
Hi Mary Ann!
*waving*
Ms Young did better than most. She had a baby out of wedlock and made arrangements with an orphanage to take her and adopt her. She didn't have to sacrifice her career and she kept her life and her affairs private, did not expose herself or her daughter to ridicule or moral judgments. Those were NOT the times of bastard children acting as ring bearers. Sometimes there much to be said for privacy and discretion.
Whether she should have told her daughter of her father's identity is not for me to determine. As in ALL things there are always details that are omitted. I'm not saying she was right to do it but I refuse to judge her for it either. What HE did was his to account for. NONE of us know the circumstances. What appears to others as protecting him, might in fact have been an effort to protect her daughter.
So Ms Young should have taken on morality and mores and equality of the sexes? What I see is a mother who tried to do the best for herself and her child and I see a father who was not there. And I don't know exactly why.
If this woman was estranged from her mother at the end of her life, then I'm sorry for both of them. That's the saddest part of this story - embracing anger instead of acceptance and forgiveness. But what do I know? I wasn't there.
Of course you have the right to your opinions. I still disagree strongly with what you say...which is also my right.
Merry Christmas.
Hi right back atcha...Merry merry etc.
I don't think they knew as much about early attachment and how children who spent the first two years in institutions never lose the feeling of abandonment. I can imagine all the rationalizations that went into Young's decision.
I'm glad humans have evolved a little since then.