Amelia Earhart's Letter to Her Fiance on the Morning of Their Wedding

[+ quoththeraven]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4027/4479498064_d1dab64039_o.jpg

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/04/you-must-know-again-my-reluctance-to.html

 

They married in 1931 and were still married when Earhart's plane disappeared in 1937 while she was attempting to circumnavigate the world, so she never invoked the one-year bailout.

[+ poolboy48220]

I didn't see the whole 2009 movie about her, but if I recall, they paid particular attention to this letter.

[+ nycman]

"In this connection I may have to keep some place where I can go to be myself, now and then,

for I cannot guarantee to endure at all times the confinements of even an attractive cage. "

 

My LIFE....in one sentence.

 

Thank you so much for sharing this.

[rvwnsd]

She seems to have summarized herself nicely in this letter. Thank you for posting it.

[+ sync]

I apologize in advance for any evidence of disrespect. I'm not really appreciating this letter. I would expect a letter to someone's fiancée would be handwritten and would open and close with first names rather than initials. And, the content, rather than expressing joy and commitment, reads like a buy-out clause. Sorry Amelia.

[+ FreshFluff]

This doesn't sound like a woman who was marrying for love. She sounds more like a lesbian who was pressured to marry.

[+ quoththeraven]

This doesn't sound like a woman who was marrying for love. She sounds more like a lesbian who was pressured to marry.

Not to me. Earhart lived life on her terms. Why would she need to marry?

 

I'm more interested in the fact that she neither wants to be tied down nor does she want Palmer to feel the same obligation. Open relationships have been more common than we've been led to think.

[+ purplekow]

Wow. I think my version is a bit more romantic.

Mr P.

As we have discussed in contract negotiations, I am reluctant to sign this contract as I cannot be assured a future profit. Even so, I the party of the first part, hereby extend to you, the party of the second part, a one year lease option to buy. While these types of contracts are seen by some to be exclusively binding, neither of the parties involved herein, are solely contracted to the other during any period of time this contract is in effect. Both parties agree that except as specifically contracted, other activities and contracts are the sole concern of the single party and not the concern of the other. Any disputes are to be handled by non binding arbitration and all aspects of this contract are to be held confidential.

Signed this day and notarized by these witnesses.

 

Ms. Earhardt

[body2body]

Since Putnam was Earhart's promoter, and publisher it was often rumored that their marriage was one based as much on the commercial component of their relationship, combined with a genuine and deep friendship rather than a typical "romantic" relationship. The letter seems to reinforce this idea.

[BaronArtz]

This doesn't sound like a woman who was marrying for love. She sounds more like a lesbian who was pressured to marry.

 

I agree. And why would she wait until the morning of the wedding to bring these issues up with her prospective husband? Could she not disclose these a bit sooner? That is sort of insensitive to him. Rude even. Sorry, I am not impressed.

 

There are many reasons people marry. Love is not necessarily one of them. As this letter illustrates.

Edited July 5, 2017 by BaronArtz

[+ azdr0710]

this today in the news......

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amelia-earhart-may-have-survived-crash-landing-never-seen-photo-n779591

 

look very closely at the blow-up picture further down the article with Noonan and Earhart highlighted.....does the (our) right side of Noonan look somewhat cropped?....there is a distinctive sharp vertical line below what appears to be a hanging buoy or similar....anybody see that?

 

I don't have cable, so can't easily watch the upcoming special on the History Channel mentioned in the linked article above.....

[bigvalboy]

Very interesting. The story seems more plausible than anything I've read or seen regarding her disappearance. And @azdr0710 I see the line in the photo next to Noonan, but my feeling is that if the photo was cropped that crudely, then other photographic experts would have addressed that in their research.

 

I've also never understood why there are photographs of what appears to be the landing gear from her Electra E on a coral reef just off shore, but the rest of the plane was never found. Perhaps the Japanese indeed did take it away, and if they did, and the US knew about it, why wasn't anything ever said. I smell a cover up...

Edited July 5, 2017 by bigvalboy

[+ purplekow]

Very interesting. The story seems more plausible than anything I've read or seen regarding her disappearance. And @azdr0710 I see the line in the photo next to Noonan, but my feeling is that if the photo was cropped that crudely, then other photographic experts would have addressed that in their research.

 

I've also never understood why there are photographs of what appears to be the landing gear from her Electra E on a coral reef just off shore, but the rest of the plane was never found. Perhaps the Japanese indeed did take it away, and if they did, and the US knew about it, why wasn't anything ever said. I smell a cover up...

 

In 1937, the world was not yet at war and Japan and the US were not struggling for control of the Pacific as they would a few years later. If Earhart were rescued, there would have been no obvious reason for the Japanese to imprison her.

[bigvalboy]

In 1937, the world was not yet at war and Japan and the US were not struggling for control of the Pacific as they would a few years later. If Earhart were rescued, there would have been no obvious reason for the Japanese to imprison her.

 

Not necessarily, and not according to the article and the video, where it was widely known apparently, that the Japanese did indeed imprison her in Saipan. Jaluit was under Japanese control in 1937, and had banned all Westerners. According to the video, for decades locals have said that after Earhart crashed, the Koshu (a Japanese freighter) took her and the plane away. That event was even documented in a stamp in the 1980's. It also explains why there are photos of what appears to be the landing gear to the Electra stuck on a coral reef just off shore of the atoll where she and Noonan crashed landed. Experts could never understand what happened to the rest of the plane. Searches in the bay turned up nothing. This at least hints at why. In the Photo, the freighter is towing something that experts estimate is 38 ft long, the length of Earhart's Electra. One of the theories is that the photo was taken by a US or Australian spy, who was in fact later executed. It would have been impossible for the US to admit that they had evidence of Earhart's capture, because it would have jeopardized the safety of US spies operating in the Marshal Islands. Either way...it is a fascinating piece of new evidence.

Edited July 6, 2017 by bigvalboy

[Moondance]

I smell a cover up...

I thought this had all been settled, and that everyone knew that Earhart's Lockheed Electra was specially designed for time travel, and that Earhart and Noonan died when they crashed ... in Roswell, New Mexico, 10 years after they disappeared over the Pacific.

 

No?

[bigvalboy]

I thought this had all been settled, and that everyone knew that Earhart's Lockheed Electra was specially designed for time travel, and that Earhart and Noonan died when they crashed ... in Roswell, New Mexico, 10 years after they disappeared over the Pacific.

 

No?

 

No...It has been reported to me that Earhart and Noonan actually were blown off course, and crashed off the coast of California somewhere. They apparently made their way north, and where in fact spotted poolside at the Cal-neva Lodge as late as 1962.

 

http://snowbrains.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/dollbaby-2010032510444-Cnev1-original.jpg

Cal Neva pool 1962 This photograph has been authenticated by CIA.

 

If you look closely, you can actually see them on the upper deck at the upper right hand corner of the photograph. It is clearly Earhart standing there with a cocktail talking to Noonan. It has also been reported that Frank and Elvis were there that weekend also. So now... it all begins to make more sense.

Edited July 5, 2017 by bigvalboy

[+ FreshFluff]

I'm more interested in the fact that she neither wants to be tied down nor does she want Palmer to feel the same obligation. Open relationships have been more common than we've been led to think.

 

@BaronArtz has a good point. She gave him this letter on the wedding day, giving him no time to think over the terms. Even if they had discussed some of those things before, she should have given him the letter earlier. If a man handed this letter to a woman on the wedding day, we'd call him a cad.

[BaronArtz]

@BaronArtz has a good point. She gave him this letter on the wedding day, giving him no time to think over the terms. Even if they had discussed some of those things before, she should have given him the letter earlier. If a man handed this letter to a woman on the wedding day, we'd call him a cad.

 

Indeed. If somebody did that to me on my wedding day I would have thrown him/her under the next bus.

[+ WilliamM]

@BaronArtz has a good point. She gave him this letter on the wedding day, giving him no time to think over the terms. Even if they had discussed some of those things before, she should have given him the letter earlier. If a man handed this letter to a woman on the wedding day, we'd call him a cad.

 

It's difficult to "unpack" a letter between people you know well who are about to be married. Even more difficult for people whom you do not know. FreshFluff, this may be the first time we have ever disagreed on this site.

[Bearofdistinction]

This doesn't sound like a woman who was marrying for love. She sounds more like a lesbian who was pressured to marry.

 

DING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Moondance]

This doesn't sound like a woman who was marrying for love. She sounds more like a lesbian who was pressured to marry.

DING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ohhhhh ... so that's what a lesbian sounds like!

 

And you're sure you're not falling back on some old-fangled thinking there?

 

Because that tired speculation about Earhart being a lesbian has been around forever -- and the sum total of what it's based on seems to be short hair, pants, a "manly" career and aspirations other than marriage and family.

[+ WilliamM]

Not to me. Earhart lived life on her terms. Why would she need to marry?

 

I'm more interested in the fact that she neither wants to be tied down nor does she want Palmer to feel the same obligation. Open relationships have been more common than we've been led to think.

 

Agree completely. And Ms. Earhart writes early in the letter that most of these issues were already discussed.

 

I have read a few biographies about show business marriages of convenience. The respective authors have great difficulty in explaining the marriages even after years of research. And it is not certain that Earhart's situation was a marriage of convenience. See @Moondance's post above.

[Moondance]

It's difficult to "unpack" a letter between people you know well who are about to be married. Even more difficult for people whom you do not know...

Amen to that. To me, it's foolish to think you can "read" a relationship on the basis of a single letter -- or, beyond that, ever fully understand anyone else's relationship. And I think that's especially true with Earhart, a woman who lived outside the conventions of her time.

 

And as to the notion that she must have felt "pressured to marry," she'd been engaged before and ultimately broke it off. If she managed not too feel "pressured to marry" as a younger woman, why would she have felt "pressured" as a mature, accomplished, financially independent one?

... Earhart lived life on her terms...

Amen again.

She gave him this letter on the wedding day, giving him no time to think over the terms. Even if they had discussed some of those things before, she should have given him the letter earlier.

Perhaps Earhart's letter strikes you as ill-timed only because we don't know how often, or how thoroughly, its concerns had been discussed before. Maybe Earhart simply felt a need to commit what they both already knew to writing (she suggests as much in the letter).

 

It's just as possible to interpret the letter as generous. It expresses concern for her work, but also for his, for her happiness, but also for his. Couldn't we consider this laudable when we reflect on how inequitable marriages of the time often were, how bound by expected stereotypes?

 

Maybe -- just maybe -- the only new detail in the letter is the one-year "escape clause." But it is another example of Earhart's even-handedness, allowing herself an "out," but also expressing, in advance, her readiness to understand if Putnam should want to opt out.

 

My own guess would be that Putnam knew, understood and loved Amelia enough, that he was unbothered, and even unsurprised, by her note.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Moondance

[+ bigjoey]

In 1937, the world was not yet at war and Japan and the US were not struggling for control of the Pacific as they would a few years later. If Earhart were rescued, there would have been no obvious reason for the Japanese to imprison her.

 

Japan had invaded Manchuria in 1931 and had attacked Shanghai by 1937. The war in Asia by Japan had long started.

[+ purplekow]

Japan had invaded Manchuria in 1931 and had attacked Shanghai by 1937. The war in Asia by Japan had long started.

Yes China and Japan were at war.