One of the most pathetic sights I have seen recently was of a German couple and their dog on a French beach. The couple were middle-aged and wealthy. The woman wore diamonds on her ears and expensive labels on her arm. They had designer beach towels: Kenzo — for her, Hugo Boss — for him and Chanel — for the dog! They hired three loungers, one for him, one for her and yes, you guessed it, one for the dog. The dog was cute, she even had a ribbon tied round her neck which matched her towel and her beach bag. Well, of course she had her own beach bag and this was no ordinary dog! And the beach boys ran along to freshen her bowl of water and to move the parasol with the sun so that she could remain in the shade, after all it is not good for a dog to sit in the midday sun. The couple clearly doted on this dog. They even had a photo album of pictures of her in different places: This is Flocki on the famous steps in Cannes, this is Flocki in front of the casino in Montecarlo, this is Flocki in St Tropez... All their love and attention was focused on this small ball of an animal and I thought how sad, how very sad.
For a start, a dog should not be lying on a beach chair but running along on the sand and being a dog rather than being treated as a substitute for a child. For another, what a waste of love, devotion and funds when there is so much misery in this world, so many humans in need of love and attention, that they should choose to lay it all on a dog. Love your pets, yes, look after them, yes, but when animals take precedence over humans that is a sign of trouble, concrete testimony that we have failed as human beings to connect and love other human beings.
Which brings us to Leona Helmsley. The American millionairess died last week. In her will it was revealed that she left $12 million — the largest bequest — to her dog: Trouble. It was also revealed that she disinherited two of her grandchildren “for reasons which are known to them”. They got nothing, the dog got 12 million, what does this say about Mrs.Helmsley? Of course it may be that the grandchildren weren’t exactly the kindest of people, or that they behaved abominably toward their grandmother. That’s quite possible, but still, to cut them out completely?
Disinheriting your children or grandchildren is something I take issue with. You cannot deny blood. You cannot behave toward your kin as if they were strangers or worse still, staff on probation. You cannot make your attachment conditional on children’s behavior, just as they cannot return their genetic heritage to you; the genetic bond is unbreakable. More important, applying discretion to legacies is harmful to family relationships. All your children should inherit equally because they are all equally your children, and ditto for grandchildren. Favoring one over the other is a sure way to create jealousies and rivalries and to destroy families. Being fair and just is part of parental responsibility. And if you feel that some of your children need financial help more than others, there are ways of doing this in your lifetime that are constructive and sensible. That said, I can understand the desire to reward those who are good to you and punish those who are not, but still, favoritism is wrong on principle and once you start on that road you open yourself up to all kinds of trouble. It’s a slippery slope, if ever there was one.
And as for favoring your pet dog over your own children, is that not the saddest testimony to your dismal failure as a human being? No doubt “Trouble” was a source of joy in Leona Helmsley’s life, and no doubt she never betrayed or hurt her owner’s feelings but that is because she is a dog and not a thinking, talking human being. Human relationships are by definition demanding and complex. Human beings hurt each other and often do not behave impeccably. They err. Pet dogs by contrast can be relied on to be devoted and grateful, but how sad that this should matter more to Mrs.Helmsley than the richness of emotion and relation that comes from other human beings.
