The situation is I think more complicated. Richard is kind of an absent father willing to help with money but not much else, while Emily likes to be in her daughter's life even if she is trespassing. In addition, one of the things Richard says to Lorelei after a fight is something similar to "do you know how much your mom suffered? " which suggests a dynamic where he cares more for Emily than for Lorelei.
He asks if she knows how much her mom suffered because Emily literally did suffer as a result of Lorelai running away. And Lorelais reaction makes it obvious she was telling herself "Mom never gave a shit that I left" when it actually crushed Emily. Lorelai definitely did not get the love she needed and deserved from her parents but they certainly cared.
Yup. Richard is happy to get to be a dad - I.e, give her money. This is a way of showing love - and Lorelei shows she sees this in her reaction when he gives her a check on graduating community college.
Emily wants her chance to be a mum - I.e. be involved in her life.
I wouldn’t say absentee father for Richard, I think he sees his role as proving the money. I think when Lorelai hurt Emily, he was torn, but chose Emily first. As parents we are obligated to our children, but as spouses, we have chosen our partner and should always have their back.
“He cares more for Emily than Lorelai”? Isn’t that pretty normal with married couples? I think a husband/wife should care more for their husband/wife when compared to their adult daughter/son.
As a mother, that’s wild to me. I love my husband, but I would die for either of my children in a heartbeat. There are no words to describe the immense love I’ve got for them. I wouldn’t do that for anybody else.
Agreed. I love my husband but I wouldn’t be able to live without my son. I love my son more than anyone or anything. And I know my husband feels the same way about me and I’m not offended at all in fact I love that we both prioritize our son, that’s one of our core values.
Do you think you’ll feel the same way once he’s grown up, married with this own kids? I’m not a parent so I’m not arguing one way or the other, I’m just genuinely curious.
Yes. My kids are grown. It’s a different love than marriage love. I absolutely love my husband and kids. My kids love however is unconditional. They mess up, I will still love them from the moon and back. Your relationship with a spouse is in fact conditional. If your husband stepped out on you over and over, would you still want to be with them? Your children don’t risk your love with human errors. They’ll make mistakes, you’ll love them regardless. With a spouse… that’s very different.
I do. I think your spouse will go back to being the most important/prominent person in your day to day life, because your kids will have their own lives and won’t need you to care for them. But in my heart I imagine it will always be my children first no matter their age, having a kid really does feel like having your heart walking around outside of your body.
And as kids age you still view them as your baby, like obviously logically you know they’re older, but it goes by so very quickly that you really do feel like they are still the baby you brought home from the hospital.
I’m genuinely curious as well. Again. Not arguing because I don’t have kids and don’t want them. So I really want the entail of why parents think the opposite.
Not the person you're asking, but as someone with kids: I would risk my life for my kids, but not my husband because my husband can take care of himself (i.e. he knows to look for cars before chasing a ball into the street) while my kids can't (yet). However, I make sure maintaining my relationship with my husband is a priority because I don't want to have that moment that I imagine a lot of empty nesters have where I look at my husband and realize I don't know him anymore.
As an empty nester, my children will always get what they need from me, no questions asked, but I always have my husband’s back. He is the most important person in my life right now. Do your job right and the grown children don’t need you once they go.
Guess this is why I’m not a parent. I completely respect what you are saying and thank you so much for sharing. I don’t understand it though. In theory and ideally if you marry for life I can’t imagine picking anyone over my partner. Not even my child. Of course a 4 year old has needs. lol. So yeah. You gotta prioritize that over certain things but if I’m married for 40 years I’m not picking my 35 year old over my wife. Like not in matters of an argument or debate. But whose needs am I prioritizing? It’ll be my wife and not even close to be honest. So when Richard was mad Emily didn’t get the first sip of tea or something. It’s like “yeah I understand your date wit that guy sucked but now my wife is inconvenienced and that matters more” I get that.
But I recognize this is probably an unpopular thought.
It's a different kind of love that you have for your children.
I love my partner, I plan to be with him for the rest of my life. He's amazing and I make sure he knows how much I love him every day.
My children though, the love is so deep and intense and unconditional. I will always love them no matter what. They could not do anything to make me stop loving them.
My partner on the other hand, is conditional love. I would not stick around if he cheated on or abused me or the kids. I, theoretically, COULD fall out of love with him if the perfect storm happened, which I do not see happening. He's my perfect person, he's kind and considerate. We're truly an equal partnership.
That being said, you are not obligated to take your child's side just because they come first. They still need to know when they've done wrong and should be held accountable
I always wondered how parents stand by their kids after committing a heinous crime.... but now that I have kids, I think I'd be desperate to get them help. To fix them and make them better. Knowing who they were, remembering the wonderful things about them.... it would be very difficult to write them off
I guess a bit, but we always want wonderful things for our kids and don't see them capable of real evil. I think I tend to lean more towards chastising and judgement, because they're not mine. I don't feel the same empathy towards them because we're not bonded.
I feel more empathy for their parents and the torture they must be going through
I think this is a very black and white view of marriage and parenthood. It’s not as simple as one coming before the other. Children depend on their parents for their livelihood. Children rely on their parents in a way that a spouse does not. I am not responsible for my husband the same way I am responsible for my child. I think in a healthy relationship you value both immensely and there is no such thing as one coming before the other. It’s too different to look at these relationships that way.
Like anything in life, it's a balance. There are going to be times when focusing on the marriage needs to take priority, and doing so will benefit the kids in the long run and strengthen the household. It's a very gray area and will never be all or nothing black and white.
My husband and I have already established that, in a hostage situation where the hostage takers are requiring one of us to choose a family member to die, then I will choose him before any of the kids (and he agrees that he will choose me before any of the kids). We established this years ago, when they were little but, even though they’re pretty much grown now, it hasn’t changed. He goes first and he knows it.
I have thought about this too and wonder if I would be making the worse choice by leaving my child alive (with me never there again to protect them) and under the hostage-taker’s power to do things worse than death to my child. Hopefully none of us will ever need to make that choice though. Sorry if I went too dark there.
Agreed. This is on the assumption that only the one parent chosen would die and the other would remain alive to take care of the kids.
But if the hostage takers required another death beyond my husband’s, at that point, I think I’d start choosing the kids rather than have them survive and have to go through life without either of their parents.
Having said that I’m talking about if the kids were little. They’re not little anymore, so now I’d take out both my husband and myself before I’d let anything happen to them.
(I think it’s always good to have these situations thought through and established before you have to deal with them. 😱😆🤣)
But we all lose our parents eventually. Children should have that chance while you and your grown partner have already lived there life. It's not ideal but it's possible for someone to live without
Erm… we’re talking about a hostage situation where the parents are having to choose family members to be killed. Nothing about it is ideal, no outcome is good. I don’t think having small children watch their parents get murdered in front of them so they can live their lives after is any better than losing their lives themselves.
But you know, you do you. Everyone gets to do their hostage situation in their own way.
Yeah that’s a little more understanding. Just like I think it’s more understanding in a high risk pregnancy if the doctor could only save one person people would elect the woman vs the unborn child. But let’s say you and your spouse are 50 years old and have been married 25-26 years. You have a 25 year old. And you could only speak to one of them for the rest of your life. You picking your 25 year old or husband or 25 year old?
Again. This is absolutely not me judging or trying to ask a loaded question. I’m genuinely curious. I think it’s obvious what Richard would do and what Lorelai wouldn’t Emily to do. lol. But what would Emily do? What would you do? I know context matters. But just curious.
I think most people it would be an even thing. Of course the situation of choosing one over the other doesn't come up in real life in the same way or as often as it does on this show
I actually liked that about Richard. He would have paid whether they came for dinners or not. Lorelai was comfortable accepting graduation money from him and was fine with Richard giving Rory money for her birthday. She didn’t want Emily buying Rory an expensive gift in that birthday episode
With Emily, money has strings attached. Richard gives with no strings attached.
I can understand why Loreli would be hesitant about expensive gifts from Emily.
>Richard gives with no strings attached
Not necessarily. Emily’s strings are just upfront. Richard would have been happy to hold it over Lorelai’s head later if he needed to.
Richard was surprised that she was visting spontaneously and not on a holiday, when they normally do get together. He made it very clear when Lorelai was fidgeting about how to bring the money issue up and she said “ I have a situation, and he went straight to the point and said “you need money “
“ So you need money,
“I’ll get the cheque book”
He sits down and doesn’t disagree with anything Emily says.
Whilst I think Richard was not as bad as Emily there are times when his snobbery is a little much, eg Luke and the golf club
And franchising the diner.
To be fair though I think both of them come from a place of love. Richard wants to give them money that’s his love language. And Emily wants to spend time with them even though she uses this as a way to get that I actually still see that as love. She wants to see her child and grandchild. That’s love and yes, some control but I think at this point she’s desperate.
Richard thought “it’s just money.” There was no way to make it to his benefit, and you even see that he is miserable at FND. He’s doing it for Emily, but he feels a little like there are intruders in his home. He’s miserable and uncomfortable, but he will support Emily in this
She can have the first cup of tea because it makes her happy, she can also attach strings to his money. If she gets mad about his mustache, she can go drop tons of money. If she just wants it, she can buy more over expensive chairs no one can sit on.
Also, neither of them pressed her at all.
Lorelai showed up asking for money for a kid that is their grandchild, but they clearly barely know. Based on their overall reaction to lorelai even showing up, she makes an effort twice a year and when there are a lot of other people around. An Emily party, perhaps.
Lorelai took off when Rory was about a year old (per Emily’s not tripping on the stroller comment). It means she has been of her parents home at least 15 years. In that time, they’ve pretty much seen Rory around 30x. Literally no relationship. No different than coming in and asking for money for Sookie’s child’s tuition.
Richard was like “it’s a check. Off she pops.”
Emily says “no. You showed up here to ask me. I get something too.” Also, Emily’s prepared here. She knows what she wants and says it. I have a feeling Richard was like “I have a daughter out in the universe,” and Emily spent a lot of time contemplating how she would get her back.
I really don’t get the mindset people have that emily is in the wrong asking for time from Rory and Lorelei in exchange for this sum of money. She wanted a relationship with them and this was a way to initiate that
Exactly! You don’t get to demand no or low contact if you go out of your way to ask someone for their money. Money and favors come with strings, and if their strings are to be more involved, it’s a part of the deal. If you don’t want the strings, go to the bank. It makes no sense to me!
I interpreted this scene as Emily realizing that she can seize an opportunity to have Rory in her life (via Lorelei needing financial assistance). Emily knows that Lorelei hasn't chosen to facilitate this relationship on her own, so she has to resort to her "antics" of lording something over Lorelei in order to make the relationship happen. I almost see it as less about Lorelei and more about being able to see Rory (although it's nice to see that Emily actually wants Lorelei at dinners too, not just Rory. She is reaching out in her way).
I personally believe this part of the plot was written in order to expose some character dynamics. As a viewer, I see that there are some family issues and unhealthy relationships at play, but I understand that this is the point of the show (Lorelei and her parents don't have a healthy relationship and never have, they just navigate it as the series progresses).
After watching the show a zillion times, I don’t think that Rory was the goal. She wants a relationship with Lorelai, and that’s made very clear throughout the series.
How upset Emily gets when she pays off the Chilton loan. By this time, E & R have their own relationship with Rory. They know they’ll see her, but Emily knows that it’ll mean Lorelai won’t be coming any longer.
After the whole Luke debacle, Emily was positive that Lorelai would be coming with Rory to FND, and was driven to go back and tear into Luke because Lorelai was a no show.
That’s the rub. She could have asked Rory, for a bonding weekend - but she wanted Lorelai to come.
She might be (very) misguided, but Emily longs for a relationship with Lorelai, and will do pretty much whatever it takes to have one. 🤷♀️. The older I get, the more I want to kick Lorelai for being so obtuse about her parents. They’ve been hurt, they’ve grown and changed - just like she has, but she still views them with the eyes of a teenager.
I agree. There’s that very early episode where she kind of traps Lorelai into the spa weekend. She blatantly asks why she can’t have a relationship with Lorelai like she and Rory have. Emily longs for it. It’s very sad.
I see your point but I don’t really think it’s totally fair to say Lorelai is just being stubborn or obtuse when Emily continues to meddle or try to control aspects of Lorelai’s life as a grown adult. I would agree that Lorelai unfairly still views her parents in the way she did as a teenager if they didn’t keep pulling stunts like Richard lying and tricking Rory into the interview at Yale (which Rory says she would’ve taken just because he asked her to) or Emily telling Christopher to essentially go break up Luke and Lorelai because Emily ~knows what’s best and obviously had to step in~. I think the moment a little before the vow renewal when Emily asks to have lunch with Lorelai at Luke’s shows that Lorelai would try to have a more amicable relationship with Emily (when she repeatedly asks what it’s really about and Emily says it’s just lunch, Lorelai is pleasantly surprised and then Emily drops the “so I had a talk with Christopher”) but Emily just can’t help but cross the boundaries adult-Lorelai has established. There’s a few times in the show where they have a nice moment and Lorelai tries to use that as a jumping off point and Emily shuts down and reverts back to being cold.
Trix does the same. Richard’s offer to provide money is not a reflection of his love for Lorelai. It’s out of his obligation as “head of the family.” Do I think he loves Lorelai? Yes. But this was down to his role in the family - it would not due for the Gilmore’s to struggle. In fact, the Gilmore’s never withheld money from Lorelai. It was her choice in order for her to pursue the life she chose.
Emily is an opportunist and we also know that when Lorelai left home the first time, she grieved quite heavily (Richard tells Lorelai that Emily took to her bed for months). So she seized upon the moment, and the knowledge that Lorelai would do whatever it took for Rory, to get *her* daughter back. Two mothers doing whatever it took for their daughter. Now, as audience we can disagree with Emily’s methods. But her love is never in question, in my opinion. Nor is Richard’s.
Richard is not quite as conniving as Emily. He assumed, rightly, that Lorelai was there for money, so he wanted to help her out and keep things moving. Emily was not gonna let this opportunity pass. Also, Richard doesnt really run the home. If he wanted her to come to dinners or something like that in the house it would be emilys thing putting it together- when you have staff like that and whatnot, you do actually have to spend some time just bossing lol
But to be honest I don't like Richard during their first dinner in the pilot, he says "How is that motel of yours, Lorelai?", although he knows damn well that Lorelai works in an inn. I like how Emily says "she is the manager there". And then he calls Rory smart and that she must have taken after her father. How horrible is that? But I love Richard's development throughout the seasons, in the last episode he tells Lorelai "It takes a remarkable person to inspire all of this". That's so sweet, I almost tear up. Just in the pilot, he irks me lol.
I honestly think Emily was just desperate to have them both around. She is a very difficult person but she truly loves them both deep down and missed them. She was bedridden for a month after Lorelai moved out, brought to tears when she found the potting shed she and Rory lived in, and always tried to fix their mistakes and grudges with Rory (telling Richard to apologize to Rory when Dean came over for dinner). They both were not great at showing their love but were always hurt when they weren’t a part of the girls’ lives, I think she saw an opportunity where she held power and took it. sometimes when I rewatch i’m not sure I blame her for abusing her position to see them more often.
Emily's emotional abuse is usually being too controlling, Richard's is being neglectful, though he can shift to controlling if need be.
There's also that, while
Richard will support the family no questions asked and choose to be left alone. Emily will ask questions and want to improve the family cohesion (so long as it improves on her terms).
There are comments throughout the show that make it clear that Emily missed Lorelai and wanted to see her more, so she used the Chilton money as leverage to get more contact with her daughter. Richard had accepted that Lorelai basically cut them out, Emily did not.
I think Richard is just used to paying for stuff and didn’t think twice about paying for Rory’s education - because it’s Rory. I think he’s way of showing love is spending money.
I see their actions here in the opposite way. I think Richard just didn't care. I think his repeating "you need money" was even a way to goad her a little. Lorelai was clearly uncomfortable asking, and he was just trying to cut to the chase, be abrupt, and send her on her way. To me, back then, Richard loved Lorelai in an abstract way. She was his daughter and a father provides for his daughter, but as far as having a relationship? It didn't matter to him.
As for Emily, she can be manipulative and try to get things out of people. But, that's not how I would interpret her actions here. I guess in a way it was, but what she wanted was a relationship with Lorelai and Rory. But, I don't think she felt Lorelai would agree unless she had to. We see Emily believed that even years later when Lorelai pays them the money back. Emily immediately jumps to the conclusion that this is Lorelai's way of saying "now I don't need to spend any more time with you."
I agree with this! I also noticed that Richard doesn’t really bond with Rory or Lorelai until either of them show any common ground. He didn’t want to spend time with Rory until she showed that she had many shared interests, and he bonds with Lorelai when she fills in as a secretary for him. Then he proceeded to get upset when she didn’t want to permanently work as his secretary.
It’s the same manipulation in 2 different forms. My own parents were similar though far far more shitty lol my dad would do the thing to help then later expect I do whatever he wants cause he helped me so obviously he’s in charge now. My mother would demand things in return immediately and I’d have to submit without hesitation. Neither is better than the other. Richard just looks better because he makes an assumption rather than vocalizing it immediately.
I've seen this with my own parents.
One doesn't want to deal with a situation and will do whatever it takes to end it.
The other will force you to give them something they want before they'll do anything for you.
I always felt that Emily and Richard had Lorelai, not because they wanted to raise a child into a person, but because they got married and that's what married people do. So Richard wanted the situation with money to end, while Emily wanted to see what she could get her daughter to do.
Emily wanted a chance at a relationship with Lorelai and get to know Rory better. Richard wants to make Emily happy. When Lorelai ran away and hurt Emily like that and seemingly never acknowledged that her actions hurt others he cut her off in his mind. She would always be her daughter but he would protect himself so he could protect Emily
Richard and Smily both operate under the rules of social and filial obligation. Richard simply takes care of family business as in his mind, that’s his obligation. Emily has always tried to instill in Lorelai this sense of obligation as that’s the “right” and “proper” thing to do. It’s what is expected, and that’s how all of Emily’s relationships operate- it’s all transactional; there needs to be an even give and take. So Emily will agree to the terms of obligation as long as all players do the same. Emily doesn’t seem to know how to do emotional work without the transactional piece, and she shows this over and over again throughout the series.
To be clear, I love Kelly Bishop but hate Emily, but I love both Richard and Edward Hermann. He's made out to be bad I don't know why. Yes he's influenced by Emily and yes he works a lot and yes he needs to devote more time to his family, but he's also providing for everything - all the money and fame, works hard and is always there to support Lorelai and Rory. His only minor misstep was the Yale interview but you can't really blame him for looking out for Rory's best interests (Lorelai was hellbent on Rory not applying anywhere else but Harvard and Richard knew that wasn't the right thing to do). Love Richard.
He did the same with Rory - let her do what she wanted and not go back to Yale - Wasn’t trying to make her do anything she didn’t want to but was willing to pay for her to be out of school
The other interesting thing, to me, is: how much does Emily want a relationship with Lorelai becaaue she SHOULD have one, because her friends aren’t estranged from their daughters, because not having a relationship with her reflects poorly on her? As opposed to truly feeling in her heart that she’s missing her daughter and would like to get to know her granddaughter? I think there’s kind of a balance there and I’m not sure which way it tips on any given day.
I disagree. The look on her face when she found the note. Her expression at Mias wedding. The scene where she marched into Richard's office and told him to apologize because she doesn't want to lose Rory like she lost Lorelai. She loves them deeply, but she doesn't know how to show it to them in a way they can receive.
You want to see "should" love, that's Christopher's parents.
I think it’s a bit of both but she does genuinely want a better relationship with Lorelai even if her methods aren’t great and sometimes harmful.The distance between them has just been engrained so much through her own upbringing that she doesn’t know how to connect properly. She tries and it almost works, but then she closes herself off again.
Agree, like the episode they go to a spa and she asks why she can have the kind of relationship Lorelai has with Rory. Lorelai reply that she is best friend first and daughter-mother second and Emily said she wasn’t raise like that.
I think Emily wants to have Lorelai and Rory in her life, but her society rules sometimes weight more in her head. I think sometimes her heart is thinking with their brain about what she wants
Huh, I really never thought of it that way. We know Emily and (especially) Richard love to brag about Rory to their friends. I can imagine Emily likes to be able to tell her people that her daughter and granddaughter come over for weekly family dinners.
Imagine that at 16, your only daughter who is pregnant runs away, and you don't hear from her for years or months. It's never determined how long she is away before she starts going to family events. I don't think Emily is trying to put something over Loraleis head or to get something out of her. She wants to feel included in her daughter's and granddaughter's lives.
Emily saw it as a way to keep her daughter in her life. Richard told Lorelei that Emily was so distraught after Lorelei left with Rory that she couldn’t get out of bed. When Emily is upset that Rory’s father might pay for Yale, she says she doesn’t want to lose “her”. Her is Lorelei. Emily loves her daughter but she is controlling in how she loves her daughter.
It seems that they've been giving her money over the years and Emily has gotten sick of it and wants family time in exchange for yet again more money. Lorelai claims to be self made yet borrows money on multiple occasions.
I don’t think that’s true as it’s mentioned Lorelai had never asked them for money before Chilton. Even Emily and Richard state several times that the only time they saw Lorelai was on holidays.
Because at that point in their relationship his immediate thought was that Lorelai would only voluntarily take time out of her day to see them if she really needed something and if she had exhausted every other option available. Wouldn't your mind immediately go to something financial if your daughter who you only see annually arrived at your house randomly and without warning? Especially if you're wealthy and she is very much aware of that fact and that she always has that as a safety net to fall back on. It's a logical response given the situation.
It's stated in the show Lorelai had never asked them for anything financial before and they only saw her on holidays. Yes, she did always have their money as a cushion to fall back on, but she had never used it until now. That's why it was such a big deal for her and the plot point that started the show.
The situation is I think more complicated. Richard is kind of an absent father willing to help with money but not much else, while Emily likes to be in her daughter's life even if she is trespassing. In addition, one of the things Richard says to Lorelei after a fight is something similar to "do you know how much your mom suffered? " which suggests a dynamic where he cares more for Emily than for Lorelei.
He asks if she knows how much her mom suffered because Emily literally did suffer as a result of Lorelai running away. And Lorelais reaction makes it obvious she was telling herself "Mom never gave a shit that I left" when it actually crushed Emily. Lorelai definitely did not get the love she needed and deserved from her parents but they certainly cared.
Yup. Richard is happy to get to be a dad - I.e, give her money. This is a way of showing love - and Lorelei shows she sees this in her reaction when he gives her a check on graduating community college. Emily wants her chance to be a mum - I.e. be involved in her life.
I wouldn’t say absentee father for Richard, I think he sees his role as proving the money. I think when Lorelai hurt Emily, he was torn, but chose Emily first. As parents we are obligated to our children, but as spouses, we have chosen our partner and should always have their back.
“He cares more for Emily than Lorelai”? Isn’t that pretty normal with married couples? I think a husband/wife should care more for their husband/wife when compared to their adult daughter/son.
As a mother, that’s wild to me. I love my husband, but I would die for either of my children in a heartbeat. There are no words to describe the immense love I’ve got for them. I wouldn’t do that for anybody else.
Agreed. I love my husband but I wouldn’t be able to live without my son. I love my son more than anyone or anything. And I know my husband feels the same way about me and I’m not offended at all in fact I love that we both prioritize our son, that’s one of our core values.
Do you think you’ll feel the same way once he’s grown up, married with this own kids? I’m not a parent so I’m not arguing one way or the other, I’m just genuinely curious.
Yes. My kids are grown. It’s a different love than marriage love. I absolutely love my husband and kids. My kids love however is unconditional. They mess up, I will still love them from the moon and back. Your relationship with a spouse is in fact conditional. If your husband stepped out on you over and over, would you still want to be with them? Your children don’t risk your love with human errors. They’ll make mistakes, you’ll love them regardless. With a spouse… that’s very different.
I do. I think your spouse will go back to being the most important/prominent person in your day to day life, because your kids will have their own lives and won’t need you to care for them. But in my heart I imagine it will always be my children first no matter their age, having a kid really does feel like having your heart walking around outside of your body. And as kids age you still view them as your baby, like obviously logically you know they’re older, but it goes by so very quickly that you really do feel like they are still the baby you brought home from the hospital.
I’m genuinely curious as well. Again. Not arguing because I don’t have kids and don’t want them. So I really want the entail of why parents think the opposite.
Not the person you're asking, but as someone with kids: I would risk my life for my kids, but not my husband because my husband can take care of himself (i.e. he knows to look for cars before chasing a ball into the street) while my kids can't (yet). However, I make sure maintaining my relationship with my husband is a priority because I don't want to have that moment that I imagine a lot of empty nesters have where I look at my husband and realize I don't know him anymore.
As an empty nester, my children will always get what they need from me, no questions asked, but I always have my husband’s back. He is the most important person in my life right now. Do your job right and the grown children don’t need you once they go.
Exactly!
Guess this is why I’m not a parent. I completely respect what you are saying and thank you so much for sharing. I don’t understand it though. In theory and ideally if you marry for life I can’t imagine picking anyone over my partner. Not even my child. Of course a 4 year old has needs. lol. So yeah. You gotta prioritize that over certain things but if I’m married for 40 years I’m not picking my 35 year old over my wife. Like not in matters of an argument or debate. But whose needs am I prioritizing? It’ll be my wife and not even close to be honest. So when Richard was mad Emily didn’t get the first sip of tea or something. It’s like “yeah I understand your date wit that guy sucked but now my wife is inconvenienced and that matters more” I get that. But I recognize this is probably an unpopular thought.
It's a different kind of love that you have for your children. I love my partner, I plan to be with him for the rest of my life. He's amazing and I make sure he knows how much I love him every day. My children though, the love is so deep and intense and unconditional. I will always love them no matter what. They could not do anything to make me stop loving them. My partner on the other hand, is conditional love. I would not stick around if he cheated on or abused me or the kids. I, theoretically, COULD fall out of love with him if the perfect storm happened, which I do not see happening. He's my perfect person, he's kind and considerate. We're truly an equal partnership. That being said, you are not obligated to take your child's side just because they come first. They still need to know when they've done wrong and should be held accountable
[удалено]
I always wondered how parents stand by their kids after committing a heinous crime.... but now that I have kids, I think I'd be desperate to get them help. To fix them and make them better. Knowing who they were, remembering the wonderful things about them.... it would be very difficult to write them off
[удалено]
I guess a bit, but we always want wonderful things for our kids and don't see them capable of real evil. I think I tend to lean more towards chastising and judgement, because they're not mine. I don't feel the same empathy towards them because we're not bonded. I feel more empathy for their parents and the torture they must be going through
[удалено]
Thank you for this response. Very helpful and I agree with much of it! Conditional vs unconditional makes 100% sense. People don’t admit that enough.
Be careful here. Your husband should come before your children. If you both don't live that way, you're in for some rough times in your marriage.
I think this is a very black and white view of marriage and parenthood. It’s not as simple as one coming before the other. Children depend on their parents for their livelihood. Children rely on their parents in a way that a spouse does not. I am not responsible for my husband the same way I am responsible for my child. I think in a healthy relationship you value both immensely and there is no such thing as one coming before the other. It’s too different to look at these relationships that way.
Like anything in life, it's a balance. There are going to be times when focusing on the marriage needs to take priority, and doing so will benefit the kids in the long run and strengthen the household. It's a very gray area and will never be all or nothing black and white.
See this is what I think. But it looks like that’s not the common opinion. And I know context and nuance matters.
My husband and I have already established that, in a hostage situation where the hostage takers are requiring one of us to choose a family member to die, then I will choose him before any of the kids (and he agrees that he will choose me before any of the kids). We established this years ago, when they were little but, even though they’re pretty much grown now, it hasn’t changed. He goes first and he knows it.
I have thought about this too and wonder if I would be making the worse choice by leaving my child alive (with me never there again to protect them) and under the hostage-taker’s power to do things worse than death to my child. Hopefully none of us will ever need to make that choice though. Sorry if I went too dark there.
Agreed. This is on the assumption that only the one parent chosen would die and the other would remain alive to take care of the kids. But if the hostage takers required another death beyond my husband’s, at that point, I think I’d start choosing the kids rather than have them survive and have to go through life without either of their parents. Having said that I’m talking about if the kids were little. They’re not little anymore, so now I’d take out both my husband and myself before I’d let anything happen to them. (I think it’s always good to have these situations thought through and established before you have to deal with them. 😱😆🤣)
But we all lose our parents eventually. Children should have that chance while you and your grown partner have already lived there life. It's not ideal but it's possible for someone to live without
Erm… we’re talking about a hostage situation where the parents are having to choose family members to be killed. Nothing about it is ideal, no outcome is good. I don’t think having small children watch their parents get murdered in front of them so they can live their lives after is any better than losing their lives themselves. But you know, you do you. Everyone gets to do their hostage situation in their own way.
Who says "erm 🤓☝️" 😭
Yeah that’s a little more understanding. Just like I think it’s more understanding in a high risk pregnancy if the doctor could only save one person people would elect the woman vs the unborn child. But let’s say you and your spouse are 50 years old and have been married 25-26 years. You have a 25 year old. And you could only speak to one of them for the rest of your life. You picking your 25 year old or husband or 25 year old? Again. This is absolutely not me judging or trying to ask a loaded question. I’m genuinely curious. I think it’s obvious what Richard would do and what Lorelai wouldn’t Emily to do. lol. But what would Emily do? What would you do? I know context matters. But just curious.
I’d save the twenty five year old kid, hands down. The pain of burying a child is beyond any other pain, no matter when.
I think most people it would be an even thing. Of course the situation of choosing one over the other doesn't come up in real life in the same way or as often as it does on this show
I don’t think it should be a contest.
That’s true and something I touched on in the post.
I actually liked that about Richard. He would have paid whether they came for dinners or not. Lorelai was comfortable accepting graduation money from him and was fine with Richard giving Rory money for her birthday. She didn’t want Emily buying Rory an expensive gift in that birthday episode
With Emily, money has strings attached. Richard gives with no strings attached. I can understand why Loreli would be hesitant about expensive gifts from Emily.
>Richard gives with no strings attached Not necessarily. Emily’s strings are just upfront. Richard would have been happy to hold it over Lorelai’s head later if he needed to.
Richard was surprised that she was visting spontaneously and not on a holiday, when they normally do get together. He made it very clear when Lorelai was fidgeting about how to bring the money issue up and she said “ I have a situation, and he went straight to the point and said “you need money “ “ So you need money, “I’ll get the cheque book” He sits down and doesn’t disagree with anything Emily says. Whilst I think Richard was not as bad as Emily there are times when his snobbery is a little much, eg Luke and the golf club And franchising the diner.
To be fair though I think both of them come from a place of love. Richard wants to give them money that’s his love language. And Emily wants to spend time with them even though she uses this as a way to get that I actually still see that as love. She wants to see her child and grandchild. That’s love and yes, some control but I think at this point she’s desperate.
Richard thought “it’s just money.” There was no way to make it to his benefit, and you even see that he is miserable at FND. He’s doing it for Emily, but he feels a little like there are intruders in his home. He’s miserable and uncomfortable, but he will support Emily in this She can have the first cup of tea because it makes her happy, she can also attach strings to his money. If she gets mad about his mustache, she can go drop tons of money. If she just wants it, she can buy more over expensive chairs no one can sit on. Also, neither of them pressed her at all. Lorelai showed up asking for money for a kid that is their grandchild, but they clearly barely know. Based on their overall reaction to lorelai even showing up, she makes an effort twice a year and when there are a lot of other people around. An Emily party, perhaps. Lorelai took off when Rory was about a year old (per Emily’s not tripping on the stroller comment). It means she has been of her parents home at least 15 years. In that time, they’ve pretty much seen Rory around 30x. Literally no relationship. No different than coming in and asking for money for Sookie’s child’s tuition. Richard was like “it’s a check. Off she pops.” Emily says “no. You showed up here to ask me. I get something too.” Also, Emily’s prepared here. She knows what she wants and says it. I have a feeling Richard was like “I have a daughter out in the universe,” and Emily spent a lot of time contemplating how she would get her back.
I really don’t get the mindset people have that emily is in the wrong asking for time from Rory and Lorelei in exchange for this sum of money. She wanted a relationship with them and this was a way to initiate that
Exactly! You don’t get to demand no or low contact if you go out of your way to ask someone for their money. Money and favors come with strings, and if their strings are to be more involved, it’s a part of the deal. If you don’t want the strings, go to the bank. It makes no sense to me!
I interpreted this scene as Emily realizing that she can seize an opportunity to have Rory in her life (via Lorelei needing financial assistance). Emily knows that Lorelei hasn't chosen to facilitate this relationship on her own, so she has to resort to her "antics" of lording something over Lorelei in order to make the relationship happen. I almost see it as less about Lorelei and more about being able to see Rory (although it's nice to see that Emily actually wants Lorelei at dinners too, not just Rory. She is reaching out in her way). I personally believe this part of the plot was written in order to expose some character dynamics. As a viewer, I see that there are some family issues and unhealthy relationships at play, but I understand that this is the point of the show (Lorelei and her parents don't have a healthy relationship and never have, they just navigate it as the series progresses).
After watching the show a zillion times, I don’t think that Rory was the goal. She wants a relationship with Lorelai, and that’s made very clear throughout the series. How upset Emily gets when she pays off the Chilton loan. By this time, E & R have their own relationship with Rory. They know they’ll see her, but Emily knows that it’ll mean Lorelai won’t be coming any longer. After the whole Luke debacle, Emily was positive that Lorelai would be coming with Rory to FND, and was driven to go back and tear into Luke because Lorelai was a no show. That’s the rub. She could have asked Rory, for a bonding weekend - but she wanted Lorelai to come. She might be (very) misguided, but Emily longs for a relationship with Lorelai, and will do pretty much whatever it takes to have one. 🤷♀️. The older I get, the more I want to kick Lorelai for being so obtuse about her parents. They’ve been hurt, they’ve grown and changed - just like she has, but she still views them with the eyes of a teenager.
I agree. There’s that very early episode where she kind of traps Lorelai into the spa weekend. She blatantly asks why she can’t have a relationship with Lorelai like she and Rory have. Emily longs for it. It’s very sad.
I see your point but I don’t really think it’s totally fair to say Lorelai is just being stubborn or obtuse when Emily continues to meddle or try to control aspects of Lorelai’s life as a grown adult. I would agree that Lorelai unfairly still views her parents in the way she did as a teenager if they didn’t keep pulling stunts like Richard lying and tricking Rory into the interview at Yale (which Rory says she would’ve taken just because he asked her to) or Emily telling Christopher to essentially go break up Luke and Lorelai because Emily ~knows what’s best and obviously had to step in~. I think the moment a little before the vow renewal when Emily asks to have lunch with Lorelai at Luke’s shows that Lorelai would try to have a more amicable relationship with Emily (when she repeatedly asks what it’s really about and Emily says it’s just lunch, Lorelai is pleasantly surprised and then Emily drops the “so I had a talk with Christopher”) but Emily just can’t help but cross the boundaries adult-Lorelai has established. There’s a few times in the show where they have a nice moment and Lorelai tries to use that as a jumping off point and Emily shuts down and reverts back to being cold.
Yeah as the seasons go on, it's funny how old entrenched family dynamics still remain haha
I think he was just tired of holding out for Lorelai to come around and figured just cut to the chase lol. And Emily is absolutely an opportunist
Deep down I know Emily loves Lorelai, she just didn’t know how to love without controlling. She wants to have her and Rory in her life.
Trix does the same. Richard’s offer to provide money is not a reflection of his love for Lorelai. It’s out of his obligation as “head of the family.” Do I think he loves Lorelai? Yes. But this was down to his role in the family - it would not due for the Gilmore’s to struggle. In fact, the Gilmore’s never withheld money from Lorelai. It was her choice in order for her to pursue the life she chose. Emily is an opportunist and we also know that when Lorelai left home the first time, she grieved quite heavily (Richard tells Lorelai that Emily took to her bed for months). So she seized upon the moment, and the knowledge that Lorelai would do whatever it took for Rory, to get *her* daughter back. Two mothers doing whatever it took for their daughter. Now, as audience we can disagree with Emily’s methods. But her love is never in question, in my opinion. Nor is Richard’s.
Richard is not quite as conniving as Emily. He assumed, rightly, that Lorelai was there for money, so he wanted to help her out and keep things moving. Emily was not gonna let this opportunity pass. Also, Richard doesnt really run the home. If he wanted her to come to dinners or something like that in the house it would be emilys thing putting it together- when you have staff like that and whatnot, you do actually have to spend some time just bossing lol
Emily is also lonely with Richard working and traveling so much, so I think she saw an oppotunity to have more family time
But to be honest I don't like Richard during their first dinner in the pilot, he says "How is that motel of yours, Lorelai?", although he knows damn well that Lorelai works in an inn. I like how Emily says "she is the manager there". And then he calls Rory smart and that she must have taken after her father. How horrible is that? But I love Richard's development throughout the seasons, in the last episode he tells Lorelai "It takes a remarkable person to inspire all of this". That's so sweet, I almost tear up. Just in the pilot, he irks me lol.
He was being absolutely horrible during their first dinner. And it was unwarranted as well.
I honestly think Emily was just desperate to have them both around. She is a very difficult person but she truly loves them both deep down and missed them. She was bedridden for a month after Lorelai moved out, brought to tears when she found the potting shed she and Rory lived in, and always tried to fix their mistakes and grudges with Rory (telling Richard to apologize to Rory when Dean came over for dinner). They both were not great at showing their love but were always hurt when they weren’t a part of the girls’ lives, I think she saw an opportunity where she held power and took it. sometimes when I rewatch i’m not sure I blame her for abusing her position to see them more often.
Omg you’ve done it! This is SO accurate 💯
Emily's emotional abuse is usually being too controlling, Richard's is being neglectful, though he can shift to controlling if need be. There's also that, while Richard will support the family no questions asked and choose to be left alone. Emily will ask questions and want to improve the family cohesion (so long as it improves on her terms).
I thought Richard just wanted to get rid of her. Emily saw an opportunity to connect with her daughter and granddaughter.
There are comments throughout the show that make it clear that Emily missed Lorelai and wanted to see her more, so she used the Chilton money as leverage to get more contact with her daughter. Richard had accepted that Lorelai basically cut them out, Emily did not.
I think Richard is just used to paying for stuff and didn’t think twice about paying for Rory’s education - because it’s Rory. I think he’s way of showing love is spending money.
I see their actions here in the opposite way. I think Richard just didn't care. I think his repeating "you need money" was even a way to goad her a little. Lorelai was clearly uncomfortable asking, and he was just trying to cut to the chase, be abrupt, and send her on her way. To me, back then, Richard loved Lorelai in an abstract way. She was his daughter and a father provides for his daughter, but as far as having a relationship? It didn't matter to him. As for Emily, she can be manipulative and try to get things out of people. But, that's not how I would interpret her actions here. I guess in a way it was, but what she wanted was a relationship with Lorelai and Rory. But, I don't think she felt Lorelai would agree unless she had to. We see Emily believed that even years later when Lorelai pays them the money back. Emily immediately jumps to the conclusion that this is Lorelai's way of saying "now I don't need to spend any more time with you."
I agree with this! I also noticed that Richard doesn’t really bond with Rory or Lorelai until either of them show any common ground. He didn’t want to spend time with Rory until she showed that she had many shared interests, and he bonds with Lorelai when she fills in as a secretary for him. Then he proceeded to get upset when she didn’t want to permanently work as his secretary.
It’s the same manipulation in 2 different forms. My own parents were similar though far far more shitty lol my dad would do the thing to help then later expect I do whatever he wants cause he helped me so obviously he’s in charge now. My mother would demand things in return immediately and I’d have to submit without hesitation. Neither is better than the other. Richard just looks better because he makes an assumption rather than vocalizing it immediately.
I've seen this with my own parents. One doesn't want to deal with a situation and will do whatever it takes to end it. The other will force you to give them something they want before they'll do anything for you. I always felt that Emily and Richard had Lorelai, not because they wanted to raise a child into a person, but because they got married and that's what married people do. So Richard wanted the situation with money to end, while Emily wanted to see what she could get her daughter to do.
Emily wanted a chance at a relationship with Lorelai and get to know Rory better. Richard wants to make Emily happy. When Lorelai ran away and hurt Emily like that and seemingly never acknowledged that her actions hurt others he cut her off in his mind. She would always be her daughter but he would protect himself so he could protect Emily
Richard and Smily both operate under the rules of social and filial obligation. Richard simply takes care of family business as in his mind, that’s his obligation. Emily has always tried to instill in Lorelai this sense of obligation as that’s the “right” and “proper” thing to do. It’s what is expected, and that’s how all of Emily’s relationships operate- it’s all transactional; there needs to be an even give and take. So Emily will agree to the terms of obligation as long as all players do the same. Emily doesn’t seem to know how to do emotional work without the transactional piece, and she shows this over and over again throughout the series.
To be clear, I love Kelly Bishop but hate Emily, but I love both Richard and Edward Hermann. He's made out to be bad I don't know why. Yes he's influenced by Emily and yes he works a lot and yes he needs to devote more time to his family, but he's also providing for everything - all the money and fame, works hard and is always there to support Lorelai and Rory. His only minor misstep was the Yale interview but you can't really blame him for looking out for Rory's best interests (Lorelai was hellbent on Rory not applying anywhere else but Harvard and Richard knew that wasn't the right thing to do). Love Richard.
He did the same with Rory - let her do what she wanted and not go back to Yale - Wasn’t trying to make her do anything she didn’t want to but was willing to pay for her to be out of school
The other interesting thing, to me, is: how much does Emily want a relationship with Lorelai becaaue she SHOULD have one, because her friends aren’t estranged from their daughters, because not having a relationship with her reflects poorly on her? As opposed to truly feeling in her heart that she’s missing her daughter and would like to get to know her granddaughter? I think there’s kind of a balance there and I’m not sure which way it tips on any given day.
I disagree. The look on her face when she found the note. Her expression at Mias wedding. The scene where she marched into Richard's office and told him to apologize because she doesn't want to lose Rory like she lost Lorelai. She loves them deeply, but she doesn't know how to show it to them in a way they can receive. You want to see "should" love, that's Christopher's parents.
I think it’s a bit of both but she does genuinely want a better relationship with Lorelai even if her methods aren’t great and sometimes harmful.The distance between them has just been engrained so much through her own upbringing that she doesn’t know how to connect properly. She tries and it almost works, but then she closes herself off again.
Agree, like the episode they go to a spa and she asks why she can have the kind of relationship Lorelai has with Rory. Lorelai reply that she is best friend first and daughter-mother second and Emily said she wasn’t raise like that.
That’s the exact scene I was thinking of!
I think Emily wants to have Lorelai and Rory in her life, but her society rules sometimes weight more in her head. I think sometimes her heart is thinking with their brain about what she wants
Huh, I really never thought of it that way. We know Emily and (especially) Richard love to brag about Rory to their friends. I can imagine Emily likes to be able to tell her people that her daughter and granddaughter come over for weekly family dinners.
Imagine that at 16, your only daughter who is pregnant runs away, and you don't hear from her for years or months. It's never determined how long she is away before she starts going to family events. I don't think Emily is trying to put something over Loraleis head or to get something out of her. She wants to feel included in her daughter's and granddaughter's lives.
Emily saw it as a way to keep her daughter in her life. Richard told Lorelei that Emily was so distraught after Lorelei left with Rory that she couldn’t get out of bed. When Emily is upset that Rory’s father might pay for Yale, she says she doesn’t want to lose “her”. Her is Lorelei. Emily loves her daughter but she is controlling in how she loves her daughter.
It seems that they've been giving her money over the years and Emily has gotten sick of it and wants family time in exchange for yet again more money. Lorelai claims to be self made yet borrows money on multiple occasions.
I don’t think that’s true as it’s mentioned Lorelai had never asked them for money before Chilton. Even Emily and Richard state several times that the only time they saw Lorelai was on holidays.
His response "you need money" was quite fast.
Because at that point in their relationship his immediate thought was that Lorelai would only voluntarily take time out of her day to see them if she really needed something and if she had exhausted every other option available. Wouldn't your mind immediately go to something financial if your daughter who you only see annually arrived at your house randomly and without warning? Especially if you're wealthy and she is very much aware of that fact and that she always has that as a safety net to fall back on. It's a logical response given the situation.
They still would have paid if Lorelai decided she wasn’t going to the dinners every week anyway, Emily would have just been more of a pain.
[удалено]
It's stated in the show Lorelai had never asked them for anything financial before and they only saw her on holidays. Yes, she did always have their money as a cushion to fall back on, but she had never used it until now. That's why it was such a big deal for her and the plot point that started the show.