Why did Charles have to leave his parents?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Citizen Kane
WarrenPeace — 3 years ago(April 25, 2022 03:55 PM)
This is something I don't get or have a hard time understanding with all that legal and financial mumbo jumbo Mr. Thatcher is talking about.
What exactly is it that makes Mr. Thatcher entitled to take Charley away from his parents like that?
What gives Thatch the right to do that?
"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall -
MissMargoChanning — 3 years ago(April 25, 2022 04:30 PM)
His mother had come into some money. She wanted Charles to be educated, and have a chance at a better life away from his shiftless father, who would only squander away the money. She had her lawyer, Mr. Thatcher, take Charles away in hopes that he would make something of himself one day.
You asked a pretty question; I've given you the ugly answer.
Fasten Your Seatbelts….
It's Going To Be A Bumpy Night! -
WarrenPeace — 3 years ago(April 25, 2022 04:37 PM)
OK thanx.
That makes sense.
So even if she had not come into the money, could she still have sent Charles away or did Thatch meet her because of the money and that was her opportunity to give Charles a better life?
Someone else in another thread suggested that Mr. Kane would have beat or abused the boy.
Was that a motivation as well for sending him away?
"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall -
MissMargoChanning — 3 years ago(April 25, 2022 04:42 PM)
Are you messing with me Warren? Use emojis! I can't tell if you are serious, or really that dense.
So even if she had not come into the money, could she still have sent Charles away or did Thatch meet her because of the money and that was her opportunity to give Charles a better life?
If she didn't have the money, how could she afford to hire a lawyer?
she could not have sent him away…
Someone else in another thread suggested that Mr. Kane would have beat or abused the boy.
Was that a motivation as well for sending him away?
Yes Warren. I think you've finally got it.
You asked a pretty question; I've given you the ugly answer.
Fasten Your Seatbelts….
It's Going To Be A Bumpy Night! -
WarrenPeace — 3 years ago(April 25, 2022 04:55 PM)
I have a much deeper appreciation for those who answer movie questions without being snarky and judgmental.
Something still just ain't clicking right for me with this connection.
So the lawyer just happens to have room and board for the kid?
What does he get out of the deal?
Must be more than a one time payment.
And child abuse at that time was the norm and not frowned upon as it is today, I believe.
So I don't see how getting him away from an abusive father was the key motivator.
"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall -
MissMargoChanning — 3 years ago(April 25, 2022 05:06 PM)
Something still just ain't clicking right for me with this connection.
So the lawyer just happens to have room and board for the kid?
What does he get out of the deal?
Must be more than a one time payment.
And child abuse at that time was the norm and not frowned upon as it is today, I believe.
So I don't see how getting him away from an abusive father was the key motivator.
You asked a pretty question; I've given you the ugly answer.
Fasten Your Seatbelts….
It's Going To Be A Bumpy Night! -
WarrenPeace — 3 years ago(April 25, 2022 05:16 PM)
I hope someone cool like Preachy Caleb comes in and gives his take on it that perhaps will make sense of it all that I can understand and is fine with engaging in questions and conversations about it until it becomes as clear as day to me with the motivations and legalities from that scene.
"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall -
MissMargoChanning — 3 years ago(April 25, 2022 05:29 PM)
Re: Why did Charles have to leave his parents?
by WarrenPeace
» April 25, 2022 05:16 PM
Member since October 19, 2021
I hope someone cool like Preachy Caleb comes in and gives his take on it that perhaps will make sense of it all that I can understand and is fine with engaging in questions and conversations about it until it becomes as clear as day to me with the motivations and legalities from that scene.
@Preachy Caleb
Warrwen Rang. Apparently, he has trouble tagging posters as weel as quoting them.
You asked a pretty question; I've given you the ugly answer.
Fasten Your Seatbelts….
It's Going To Be A Bumpy Night! -
HarvSoul — 1 month ago(January 31, 2026 03:24 AM)
You’ve actually hit on the very core of the tragedy! The "right" Thatcher had to take Charley was entirely granted to him by Charles’s own mother, Mary Kane, who used her new-found wealth as a legal lever to "save" her son.
Here is how the "legal mumbo jumbo" worked in practice:
The Power of Ownership: The gold mine (the Colorado Lode) didn't belong to the family; it belonged specifically to Mary Kane. She had received the deed years earlier from a boarder who couldn't pay his bill. Because the wealth was hers alone, she held all the bargaining power.
Irrevocable Guardianship: Mary didn't just hire a lawyer; she signed a legal document that appointed Thatcher as Charles’s irrevocable guardian. In the eyes of the law, Thatcher became the person responsible for Charles’s "health, education, maintenance, and support" until he turned 25.
The "Protective" Trust: Mary established a trust fund managed by Thatcher's bank. By making the bank the trustee of the fortune, she ensured that Charles’s father, Jim Kane, could never touch the money—but the "catch" was that Charles had to move to the East Coast to be raised in "moneyed circles".
A "Payment" for the Father: To get the "shiftless" Jim to sign away his parental rights, the agreement included an annuity—essentially a guaranteed salary for the rest of his life. Jim protested ("I don't hold with signing my boy away"), but ultimately, he took the financial settlement.
The mystery of that scene is why Mary looks so grim and determined. Many viewers believe she wasn't just seeking a "better life" for Charles, but was actively protecting him from his father, who is hinted to be abusive or violent.