Not Long Before His Assasination, JFK And Jackie Kennedy Did Something Meaningful—They Finally Fell Deeply In Love, A New Book Claims
The mere fact that First Lady Jackie Kennedy became a widow at 34 years old is tragic enough. But, as longtime Kennedy biographer J. Randy Taraborrelli writes in his new book JFK: Public, Private, Secret, it becomes somehow even more devastating to learn that the assassination of Jackie's husband President John F. Kennedy came at a moment in their relationship when they finally, after 10 years of marriage, were deeply in love.
When the two married on September 12, 1953, 'it really was an arranged marriage, even though they didn't actually use that language,' Taraborrelli tells me. 'I mean, JFK needed a wife. He was single and he was in his thirties, and his father knew that, without a wife, he was never going to be able to be president. You needed a First Lady, so he needed a wife—and Jackie ticked off all the boxes. She's beautiful, she's cultured, she's smart, she's educated, she's charismatic, she's everything that you would want in a wife.'
From Jackie's side, her mother Janet Auchincloss worried that her daughter—a ripe old 24 years old at the time of her marriage—needed to get settled, to marry and have children. Jack fit the bill for a suitable spouse. The problem? The two, as Taraborrelli put it, lacked chemistry. Today, he says, the relationship just wouldn't continue past the early dating stage, but at that time, these were two people who looked great on paper, and 'love was not in the equation.' These were two people who 'made the calculated decision that they were going to take a chance,' Taraborrelli says. 'Hopefully he would be faithful, but maybe he won't be—but at least you will be settled with somebody who has money and power. And that was really what the mandate was.'
John F. Kennedy and Jacqueline Bouvier sit together in the sunshine at Kennedy's family home at ... More Hyannis Port, Massachusetts, a few months before their wedding.
As Jackie prepared to marry Jack, Janet asked her eldest daughter if she loved him. 'And Jackie kind of waffled on it,' Taraborrelli says, before she told her mother, 'I enjoy him'—which Taraborelli says 'tells you everything you need to know. What also tells you everything you need to know is that Janet was okay with that answer.'
Their 10-year marriage was not smooth sailing. To reference an earlier point, Jack was decidedly not faithful (more on that in a moment). In 1956, the couple's first child, Arabella, was stillborn; Jack was away at the time of her birth, on vacation without his wife, and he didn't return from said vacation to be with Jackie even after such a crushing loss. It took him almost a week to get back to her, and only did so after a friend told JFK that 'if you don't get back to your wife, no woman in this country is ever going to vote for you,' Taraborrelli says. 'And that's what brought him back.'
A scene from the Kennedy-Bouvier wedding on September 12, 1953 in Newport, Rhode Island. (Photo by ...)
'He was so screwed up in his mind at that time,' he adds. 'And that was the beginning of everybody sort of realizing, we've got a big problem here with this guy. He's got no empathy. He's got no emotion. He's hard as a rock, and you can't get through to him.'
The problems persisted. According to JFK: Public, Private, Secret, in 1958—two years later—one of Jack's affairs, this one with Joan Lundberg, resulted in an unplanned pregnancy. Jack began his affair with Joan in the aftermath of Arabella's death, 'and nobody wanted anything to do with him,' Taraborrelli explains. 'This isn't to excuse it—I'm not defending him, but I'm explaining him. That's how it started with him and Joan. She was there. She was open. She didn't take his bullshit.'
'He's trying to figure it out, and he's doing it in a reckless way,' he continues. 'He's fallible and he's messed up and he's screwed up beyond belief, but he's trying to figure it out. And Joan was a conduit to that.'
Taraborelli tells me that, because JFK was opening up to Joan, he also began to open up more to Jackie. 'She was helping him become a better person,' he says of Joan. After the birth of Jack and Jackie's daughter Caroline in 1957, Jack began to fall for Jackie in a different way. 'And before Joan realized it, he was in love with his wife, and not with her,' Taraborrelli says. 'So it's such a crazy story, but man, it's exactly what happened.'
Even though Joan's pregnancy—which was ultimately terminated—was a wakeup call for Jack, his affairs didn't end in 1958. Though the dalliances were plentiful, one affair Taraborrelli refutes? The famous one with Marilyn Monroe—which Taraborrelli says 'we've gotten all of it wrong.'
Marilyn Monroe sings "Happy Birthday" to President John F. Kennedy at Madison Square Garden for his ... More upcoming 45th birthday.
'I now don't think that there was a relationship at all,' he says. 'I just don't believe it. And I think that you have to be willing as a historian like I am to change your opinion based on the current state of research.' He tells me, 'As sources come forward and give you new information, it's incumbent upon you to then change your story. You can't be that guy who's going to be wedded to a thing that you believed 30 years ago.'
The book details Jack's relationships—his romantic ones, yes, but also his familial ones, like with his parents, Joseph P. Kennedy and Rose Kennedy, and his sister Rosemary, whose institutionalization deeply scarred Jack. 'I think what really surprised me, which I really didn't understand, was his torment and his conscience,' Taraborrelli says of JFK. 'For me, that was the surprise—the torment that he went through in his own psychology and trying to be a better person, and then the work he put into trying to be a better person.'
Three years after winning the presidency in 1960, by the end of 1963, that work was beginning to pay dividends. Jack and Jackie were never closer after the 1963 death of their fourth child, Patrick, who died that August and whose loss 'cut him to the bone,' Taraborrelli wrote of JFK. Seven years had passed between the loss of their first child and the loss of their last, and the change in Jack was starkly evident. 'He was going through this transition, this big change, and when Patrick died, it was like the floodgates opened and he realized how wrong he had been,' Taraborelli tells me. 'He wished that he could apologize to Arabella. There's a point in the book where he tells somebody 'I wish that I could meet her to apologize for the way that I treated her and her mother.' So he was taking full accountability for his actions, and for not just Arabella, but for everything that had happened in the last seven years. And it's really an incredible story of an incredible journey.'
John F. Kennedy, here as a presidential candidate, relaxes in his Boston apartment. (Photo by © ... More CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images)
Those last three months of their marriage were their best. Jack had actually never proposed marriage to Jackie; when they became engaged, 'it was just more like an agreement that they made in an airport lounge,' Taraborrelli says. He finally proposed—getting down on one knee and all—and they agreed to renew their wedding vows for their 11th wedding anniversary in 1964 at Hammersmith Farm, where they'd married in 1953. For their 10th anniversary in September 1963, Jack and Jackie returned to Hammersmith and were walking on the beach when Jackie's mother Janet spotted the couple, holding hands as they walked and lost in their own little world together. Janet turned to her husband (and Jackie's stepfather) Hugh Auchincloss and 'it was clear that their feelings for each other had grown,' Taraborrelli tells me. 'And Janet turned to Hugh and she said, 'My, my, it's finally happened.'' Ten years later, Jack and Jackie fell in love—and two months later, Jack was killed by an assassin's bullet in Dallas, Texas.
John F. Kennedy and wife Jacqueline Kennedy arrive with advisors for split-screen telecast of the ... More presidential debate with Richard Nixon and panelists in Los Angeles and Kennedy in New York City on October 13, 1960. (Photo by)
As Jackie and Janet planned the vow renewal, Janet turned to Jackie and said, 'My gosh, after everything that you've been through, you really do love him, don't you?' Taraborelli tells me he was incredibly moved by Jackie's response: 'Mummy, it's we who made him.'
'In other words, she's taking accountability, too,' he tells me. 'I mean, the book is really about taking accountability. It's about not blaming people for our messed up lives. I mean, Jackie had a bad marriage and she took accountability. My interpretation of this is that she's saying, 'I allowed him to have these other women, and you allowed me to marry him, and we allowed him to do all of this because he is JFK. And we loved him so much that we let him get away with a lot.''
'I think that she [Jackie] would never have been able to take this next step with him if she was going to hold onto anger and blame and the past,' Taraborrelli says of the planned vow renewal. 'They really wanted to let it all go. They wanted to not hold his past behavior against him for the rest of their lives. Janet says at one point in the book, 'We are a family, and families endure. And that's what we do. We endure.''
Jack and Jackie sailing in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts. (Photo by)
Their renewed commitment to one another was why Jackie was there in Dallas with him on that fateful November 22, 1963. 'I think they were on such a great track, and that's why it is so tragic,' Taraborrelli says.
In writing JFK: Public, Private, Secret, Taraborrelli tells me he didn't want to just write a presidential biography of JFK—that has been done. 'I wanted to give people not just the history, but the human emotions attached,' he says. After a journey through such emotional upheaval, as Jack arrives in Dallas, he truly seems a man on the precipice of real change—which makes what happened on that day in November even more painful.
'This is a story of a man who realized that he could be a better person and then worked toward that,' Taraborrelli says. 'This is a story of a person who was lacking in empathy, lacking in emotion—and finally figured it out. With the help of a good woman at his side, he did figure it out.' Taking accountability 'changed him, not only as a man, but as a leader—the kind of accountability we want in our leaders, too,' Taraborrelli says.
President John F. Kennedy and Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy on the White House lawn.
Who would JFK have been in 1964? No one will ever know for sure. 'What I would love to have happened would be that he would serve a second term, he would be a great president,' Taraborrelli says. 'Toward the end of his life, he and Jackie would've been happy because now he had the coping skills in place and he understood who he was, and he would've spent the rest of his life trying to make it up to his wife, and they would've had more children, and it would've been great. That's what I would love to think. But the devil's advocate version of it is do people change? Really, we don't know if Jack would have reverted back to his former self. We don't know the rest of the story because he's cut off at the redemption. And sometimes, like they say, a leopard doesn't change his spots.'
'My feeling is that we can only know what we know, and what we know is the journey to get to this point was hard-earned,' he continues. 'And that at the end of the book, there is redemption. And I like to think, just because I grew to love these characters so much in telling their stories, I like to think that they would've lived happily ever after. But life is hard, and marriage is hard. So who knows what was going to happen in the years to come, but I would love to think that they would have just continued to be happy together.'
President John F. Kennedy and First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy stand together at the National Guard ... More Armory on November 29, 1962.
Taraborrelli tells me that someone recently told him that JFK: Public, Private, Secret reads like fiction—but adds that, if it were fiction, the ending would be different. In the fictional version of Jack and Jackie's story, he says, they would renew their wedding vows, have a second term in office, and, after that term ended, move to New York City, where he would be a statesman and she would begin working for a publishing company. There would be a happily ever after. 'That's fiction,' he says. 'Real life is what really happened, which was just when he was figuring out who he was as a man, and just when she had forgiven him for all of his transgressions in the past and took accountability for them, for her participation in it, for her culpability in their bad marriage—just when they had really figured all this out, his life was taken. And it's such a terrible, terrible ending.'
Beyond the Kennedys, Taraborrelli tells me that he hopes his latest book—which came out on July 15—can be a larger message for all of us still here. 'I guess what I want people to take from this book is that it's not too late to change,' he says. 'It's not too late to forgive, and it's not too late to take responsibility for your own life. And I hope that's the message that people take away from this book.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Redistricting battles in Texas and elsewhere: Will courts play a role?: ANALYSIS
As Democrats search for ways to delay, if not defeat, Republican efforts to redraw election maps for political gain ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, they say, they may not find much help from federal courts. A landmark 2019 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court -- Rucho v. Common Cause -- removed federal judges almost entirely from the business of mediating disputes over partisan gerrymandering. "Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust. But the fact that such gerrymandering is incompatible with democratic principles does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. The ruling effectively shut the courthouse door on legal challenges to creatively-drawn electoral maps that dilute the influence of certain voters based on party affiliation. MORE: How redistricting in Texas and other states could change the game for US House elections "Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions," Roberts concluded in the opinion. Race, however, is a different matter -- and one that the Supreme Court has recognized a limited role for judges in examining under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 2 of the Act prohibits the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race, which has historically been interpreted to include the drawing of congressional districts that "crack" or "pack" communities of color in order to limit their influence. As recently as 2023, the high court said lower courts could intervene in "instances of intensive racial politics where the excessive role [of race] in the electoral process ... den[ies] minority voters equal opportunity to participate." MORE: Abbott threatens to oust Democrats who fled Texas over redistricting Some Democrats have begun alleging that the Texas GOP effort (and those in other states) is racially motivated. "They're coming in and cracking up parts of Austin voters and then merging my district with [Democratic] Congressman [Lloyd] Doggett's district, all with the intended effect of making it so that voters of color have less of a say in their elections, and so that Donald Trump gets his preferred member of Congress," Texas Democratic Rep. Greg Casar told ABC's Selina Wang on Sunday. Former Obama attorney general turned voting rights advocate Eric Holder told ABC News "This Week" co-anchor George Stephanopoulos on Sunday he is contemplating the possibility of new litigation under the Voting Rights Act. "This really exacerbates that which they've already done and strengthens the case that we have brought," Holder said of Texas' Republicans' redistricting efforts. A race-based challenge to any new Texas congressional map would get through the courthouse door, but it could ultimately face a skeptical Supreme Court, which has increasingly looked to eliminate any racial considerations under the Constitution. The justices are already considering a case from Louisiana involving the competing interests of the Equal Protection Clause and Voting Rights Act when it comes to race. Plaintiffs allege race was impermissibly used to create a discriminatory districts under Section 2; opponents argue that requiring a creation of new map that explicitly accounts for race is itself a violation of colorblind equal protection. When the court hears arguments this fall, there are signs several of the justices could seek to have Section 2 strictly limited or struck down entirely. "For over three decades, I have called for a systematic reassessment of our interpretation of §2," wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in June. "I am hopeful that this Court will soon realize that the conflict its §2 jurisprudence has sown with the Constitution is too severe to ignore." Ultimately, despite widespread public complaints about gerrymandering and the challenges it creates, the most likely and lasting solution may lie in legislatures and Congress. "The avenue for reform established by the Framers, and used by Congress in the past, remains open," Chief Justice Roberts wrote in Rucho. Proposals for fair districting criteria and independent commissions have circulated in statehouses and Congress for years. On Monday, one Republican lawmaker — Rep. Kevin Kiley of California — introduced a bill to ban mid-decade redrawing of congressional maps nationwide. Such a proposal could halt the state redistricting "arms race" now underway if it was adopted, though that looks highly unlikely.
Associated Press
24 minutes ago
- Associated Press
August recess can't hide tensions ahead for Congress on spending and Trump nominations
WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawmakers have left Washington for the annual August recess, but a few weeks of relative quiet on the U.S. Capitol grounds can't mask the partisan tensions that are brewing on government funding and President Donald Trump's nominees. It could make for a momentous September. Here's a look at what's ahead when lawmakers return following the Labor Day holiday. A bitter spending battle ahead Lawmakers will use much of September to work on spending bills for the coming budget year, which begins Oct. 1. They likely will need to pass a short-term spending measure to keep the government funded for a few weeks while they work on a longer-term measure that covers the full year. It's not unusual for leaders from both parties to blame the other party for a potential shutdown, but the rhetoric began extra early this year, signaling the threat of a stoppage is more serious than usual. On Monday, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries sent their Republican counterparts a sharply-worded letter calling for a meeting to discuss 'the government funding deadline and the health care crisis you have visited upon the American people.' They said it will take bipartisanship to avert a 'painful, unnecessary shutdown.' 'Yet it is clear that the Trump Administration and many in your party are preparing to go it alone and continue to legislate on a solely Republican basis,' said the letter sent to Senate Majority Leader John Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson. Republicans have taken note of the warnings and are portraying the Democrats as itching for a shutdown they hope to blame on the GOP. 'It was disturbing to hear the Democrat leader threaten to shut down the government in his July 8 Dear Colleague letter,' Thune said on Saturday. '... I really hope that Democrats will not embrace that position but will continue to work with Republicans to fund the government.' Different approaches from the House and Senate So far, the House has approved two of the 12 annual spending bills, mostly along party lines. The Senate has passed three on a strongly bipartisan basis. The House is pursuing steep, non-defense spending cuts. The Senate is rejecting many of those cuts. One side will have to give. And any final bill will need some Democratic support to generate the 60 votes necessary to get a spending measure to the finish line. Some Democratic senators are also wanting assurances from Republicans that there won't be more efforts in the coming weeks to claw back or cancel funding already approved by Congress. 'If Republicans want to make a deal, then let's make a deal, but only if Republicans include an agreement they won't take back that deal a few weeks later,' said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tenn., a veteran member of the House Appropriations committee, said the Democratic minority in both chambers has suffered so many legislative losses this year, 'that they are stuck between a rock and their voting base.' Democrats may want to demonstrate more resistance to Trump, but they would rue a shutdown, he warned. 'The reality would be, if the government were shut down, the administration, Donald Trump, would have the ability to decide where to spend and not spend,' Fleischmann said. 'Schumer knows that, Jeffries knows that. We know that. I think it would be much more productive if we start talking about a short-term (continuing resolution.)' Republican angry about pace of nominations Republicans are considering changes to Senate rules to get more of Trump's nominees confirmed. Thune said last week that during the same point in Joe Biden's presidency, 49 of his 121 civilians nominees had been confirmed on an expedited basis through a voice vote or a unanimous consent request. Trump has had none of his civilian nominees confirmed on an expedited basis. Democrats have insisted on roll call votes for all of them, a lengthy process than can take days. 'I think they're desperately in need of change,' Thune said of Senate rules for considering nominees. 'I think that the last six months have demonstrated that this process, nominations is broken. And so I expect there will be some good robust conversations about that.' Schumer said a rules change would be a 'huge mistake,' especially as Senate Republicans will need Democratic votes to pass spending bills and other legislation moving forward. The Senate held a rare weekend session as Republicans worked to get more of Trump's nominees confirmed. Negotiations focused on advancing dozens of additional Trump nominees in exchange for some concessions on releasing some already approved spending. At times, lawmakers spoke of progress on a potential deal. But it was clear that there would be no agreement when Trump attacked Schumer on social media Saturday evening and told Republicans to pack it up and go home. 'Tell Schumer, who is under tremendous political pressure from within his own party, the Radical Left Lunatics, to GO TO HELL!' Trump posted on Truth Social. __ Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.
Fox News
24 minutes ago
- Fox News
Charlamagne responds to Trump's social media attack after Fox interview
"Breakfast Club" host Charlamagne tha God doubled down on his criticism of President Donald Trump's policies and second term record after Trump lashes out at radio host on social media.
