Tweet MARION DAVIES FAMILY

......

... and quite a modest litle home for the woman who had been mistress of San Simeon and the Malibu beach house.

It almost looks like the set of of a 1950's TV show, the rose bushes and a white picket fence. "Marion Knows Best"? "Leave It To (No, I'm not going there).

It's not Marion's home. It's Arthur Lake's house around 1954.

So was she and Pilot?Hubby just visiting Arthur Lake and his wife, kids, and dog?

Thanks for posting this great shot.

Agnes - Arthur Lake's wife, the former Patricia Van Cleve, was Marion's daughter by William Randolph Hearst. She was born in Paris in 1923 and presented to the public as Marion's niece, but Marion's will revealed that Patricia was her daughter.

Had believed the relationship was still somewhat speculative, but the testimony of the will ends doubt. Patricia appears not to have inherited her mother's looks...but then if she had, seems rather unlikely Lake would have become her husband.

In the photos I've seen Patricia looked quite a bit like Hearst.

Coincidence (?): Arthur Lake was best known for the Blondie films, based on the comic strip distributed by the King Features Syndicate which was owned by — you guessed it — William Randolph Hearst.

Coincidence (?): Arthur Lake was best known for the Blondie films, based on the comic strip distributed by the King Features Syndicate which was owned by — you guessed it — William Randolph Hearst.

Thanks for posting this great shot.

Agnes - Arthur Lake's wife, the former Patricia Van Cleve, was Marion's daughter by William Randolph Hearst. She was born in Paris in 1923 and presented to the public as Marion's niece, but Marion's will revealed that Patricia was her daughter.

This is taking things a bit far. Van Cleve did receive half of Marion's estate, but I have seen it mentioned nowhere that she was declared openly to be Marion's daughter in the will (and given that a probated will can become publicly accessible, I strongly doubt it would have been mentioned). Hearst's will stated explicitly that he had only sons.

I have never been totally convinced but it's certainly possible.... Checking Marion's film schedule and the given date of Patricia's birth, it's really pretty hard to see where Marion could have squeezed in a pregnancy given that she was almost always before the cameras.

And even if Patricia (born 1923) was her daughter, there's nothing saying Hearst was the father. His 5 sons were born between 1904 and 1915.

In a way, I'd like to think Patricia was the daughter and that Marion had some sort of family of her own even if Patricia had to be presented as a niece.

I have never been totally convinced but it's certainly possible.... Checking Marion's film schedule and the given date of Patricia's birth, it's really pretty hard to see where Marion could have squeezed in a pregnancy given that she was almost always before the cameras.

You may be right

Arthur certainly appears to have put on some weight- but he'd been so skinny for years that a few additional pounds would make quite a difference.

The kid in the front is unmistakably his.

Thanks for posting this great shot.

Agnes - Arthur Lake's wife, the former Patricia Van Cleve, was Marion's daughter by William Randolph Hearst. She was born in Paris in 1923 and presented to the public as Marion's niece, but Marion's will revealed that Patricia was her daughter.

This is taking things a bit far. Van Cleve did receive half of Marion's estate, but I have seen it mentioned nowhere that she was declared openly to be Marion's daughter in the will (and given that a probated will can become publicly accessible, I strongly doubt it would have been mentioned). Hearst's will stated explicitly that he had only sons.

I can't remember if Fred Guiles quotes from Marion's will and if her estate was probated the will is certainly public record. David Nasaw dismisses this claim, too. Apparently so did George van Cleve, Pat's father. When his marriage to Rose Douras broke up, he kidnapped Pat and the two were gone for five years. When they were finally found he went to court and was awarded sole custody, because of Rose's alcoholism. If Hearst could fudge a birth certificate, as has been claimed, he could certainly have nipped a custody suit in the bud, if only by liberally applying cash and lawyers. Nasaw also quotes an interview Alice Marble gave describing Marion's discussion of her many abortions. Hearst wasn't that powerful, peeps.

Good lord, that wikipedia article is a farrago of allegedlys.

Is this still a controversy? Surely by now, by examining the evidence, we should know for sure who her parents are.

I've read Marion's biography, and the moment Marion gets to the question of having kids, she switches to future subjunctive. I read that chapter many times, and it convinced me Marion had a daughter by Hearst.

I can't remember if Fred Guiles quotes from Marion's will and if her estate was probated the will is certainly public record. David Nasaw dismisses this claim, too. Apparently so did George van Cleve, Pat's father. When his marriage to Rose Douras broke up, he kidnapped Pat and the two were gone for five years. When they were finally found he went to court and was awarded sole custody, because of Rose's alcoholism. If Hearst could fudge a birth certificate, as has been claimed, he could certainly have nipped a custody suit in the bud, if only by liberally applying cash and lawyers. Nasaw also quotes an interview Alice Marble gave describing Marion's discussion of her many abortions. Hearst wasn't that powerful, peeps.
Good lord, that wikipedia article is a farrago of allegedlys.

I guess so

Is this still a controversy? Surely by now, by examining the evidence, we should know for sure who her parents are.

I've read Marion's biography, and the moment Marion gets to the question of having kids, she switches to future subjunctive. I read that chapter many times, and it convinced me Marion had a daughter by Hearst.

Say no more, Lokke. No stronger documentation (or more firm methodology) can be had. Thank you for settling this vexing issue.

Is this still a controversy? Surely by now, by examining the evidence, we should know for sure who her parents are.

I've read Marion's biography, and the moment Marion gets to the question of having kids, she switches to future subjunctive. I read that chapter many times, and it convinced me Marion had a daughter by Hearst.

Say no more, Lokke. No stronger documentation (or more firm methodology) can be had. Thank you for settling this vexing issue.

Fred, when I said examining the evidence, I didn't mean Davies' biography, I mean sources like where Davies was that year, but more importantly, DNA evidence. There should be some relatively simple ways to get that 99% confidence rating.

My reference to the bio was New Paragraph. I came into that chapter thinking she did not have a daughter by Hearst, and left the chapter convinced that she had. That is, she shifted in OJ-ese. 'If I only could of, or if I had done this'...most of the rest of the book is very clear prose until we get to this page. I was not convinced in a federal court kind of way, just convinced that it is the most likely scenario.

Exactly which bio are you referring to?

Fred, when I said examining the evidence, I didn't mean Davies' biography, I mean sources like where Davies was that year, but more importantly, DNA evidence. There should be some relatively simple ways to get that 99% confidence rating.

My reference to the bio was New Paragraph. I came into that chapter thinking she did not have a daughter by Hearst, and left the chapter convinced that she had. That is, she shifted in OJ-ese. 'If I only could of, or if I had done this'...most of the rest of the book is very clear prose until we get to this page. I was not convinced in a federal court kind of way, just convinced that it is the most likely scenario.

Are you talking about The Times We Had? That was a transcription of the tapes Marion recorded with her memoirs, so there are the usual spoken vs. written issues with the prose. Have you read David Nasaw's book on Hearst? It really is monumental, abundantly well-researched, and the narrative trots right along since Hearst was (unlike Spencer Tracy, apparently!) a very interesting man. Nasaw deals with this issue and quite a few others. Since he's a historian of journalism rather than of film he doesn't treat Hearst as The Great and Powerful Oz, either. Which thank heavens, because there is no evidence supporting that idea, or many of the other ideas we seem to cherish about Hearst.

In re: Steve's comment about Marion's will, I was surprised by it, a) because Steve is never wrong, and b) because Nasaw does not mention any such surprising reveal and he certainly would have. It's been dog's years since I read Guiles, so I don't remember what he had to say about it. But just for the heck of it I looked at the LA Times to see if anything was reported. Bingo.

LA Times article dated 10/4/1961, Marion Davies' Estate Set at Over $8 Million, "A twenty page will made by Marion Davies in December 1959 and a codicil added in March 1960, were filed late Tuesday in Santa Monica Superior Court...Named as her principal heirs were Captain Horace G. Brown, Jr., her sister Rose Douras Adlon, a nephew, Charles Lederer, and a niece, Patricia Van Cleve Lake, wife of Arthur (Dagwood) Lake. Captain Brown was willed $500,000 in trust to provide a $3000 monthly income and the family home at 1011 N. Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, to live in for the rest of his life. In addition he was given a home and three acres of land in Palm Springs. The balance of the estate will be divided equally between Mrs. Adlon, Lederer, and Mrs. Lake...the late actress also ordered a trust fund from a business building set up for her three stepchildren, children of Captain Brown by his former marriage."

So yes, the will was probated, and yes, it is public record, and someone should go get it, but that someone is not going to be me. From this report Marion didn't favor Pat Lake over her other living relatives.

Fascinating.... thanks for posting this info. The Guiles book, on a quick skim, mentions Pat only in a custody battle between Rose and George Van Cleve. I'll look more later

Guiles mentions the ongoing battle between Rose and George Van Clevel and that Van Cleve "kidnaped" Pat apparently in 1924 since Marion was just starting production on Little Old New York, release January 1925. Guiles notes Pat was 7 years old although IMDb claims she was born in 1923!

So maybe using this new birth year of 1917, we get a better idea since Marion's first film was 1917 and was on the east coast. Pat married Arthur Lake (born 1905) in 1937 so the 1923 birth date is apparently hooey.

After the "kidnaping" it took Heart and Marion 5 years to find Pat.

On page 232 Guiles addresses the rumor of Pat's true parents and notes she was never close to Rose and she resembled Hearst.

The 1917 year makes sense of all of this. Guiles notes that while Pat was a girl with her father, Hearst and Marion (conveniently) were not able to find her. It also kept the kid out of the Hollywood spotlight. Pat was "recovered" in 1929 at age 12.

In the ensuing custody battle, they tried to buy off Van Cleve with a high-paying job for the return of Pat to Rose. Because of Rose's alcoholism, Van Cleve won custody anway.

Guiles notes that Pat often traveled openly with Marion in Europe (but not in the USA).

Guiles mentions the ongoing battle between Rose and George Van Clevel and that Van Cleve "kidnaped" Pat apparently in 1924 since Marion was just starting production on Little Old New York, release January 1925. Guiles notes Pat was 7 years old although IMDb claims she was born in 1923!

So maybe using this new birth year of 1917, we get a better idea since Marion's first film was 1917 and was on the east coast. Pat married Arthur Lake (born 1905) in 1937 so the 1923 birth date is apparently hooey.

After the "kidnaping" it took Heart and Marion 5 years to find Pat.

On page 232 Guiles addresses the rumor of Pat's true parents and notes she was never close to Rose and she resembled Hearst.

The 1917 year makes sense of all of this. Guiles notes that while Pat was a girl with her father, Hearst and Marion (conveniently) were not able to find her. It also kept the kid out of the Hollywood spotlight. Pat was "recovered" in 1929 at age 12.

In the ensuing custody battle, they tried to buy off Van Cleve with a high-paying job for the return of Pat to Rose. Because of Rose's alcoholism, Van Cleve won custody anway.

Guiles notes that Pat often traveled openly with Marion in Europe (but not in the USA).

Or we could actually search out a birth cert/notice for Pat rather than accepting secondary (or even tertiary, in the case of the imdb) sources. What records does Guiles cite this information to? The LA Times also had articles on the events in question which cast some doubt on this version of events and the timing. From those articles it all looks like your basic, every day custody related child stealing case. There were a lot of court actions, however--which means public records.

Gosh, I hope that traveling and staying with a beloved Aunt does not automatically call parentage into question, because as a child I often did that.

Just stating what's in Guiles' biography of Davies. Not going to argue over it or seek out court records. Pat's birth year is given as 1923 on many sources, but yes they could all be feeding off one another. Being logical, if 1923 were correct, Van Cleve would have been kidnaping a baby about a year old? Seems unlikely.

Nasaw mentions the kidnaping briefly and does not state the age of the child. He also states there is no real evidence that Pat was Marion's daughter.

Just stating what's in Guiles' biography of Davies. Not going to argue over it or seek out court records. Pat's birth year is given as 1923 on many sources, but yes they could all be feeding off one another. Being logical, if 1923 were correct, Van Cleve would have been kidnaping a baby about a year old? Seems unlikely.

Nasaw cites Guiles for this story, as I said it's been dog's years since I read Guiles and I don't remember what he used for sources. The Times articles state that Van Cleve took Pat to...umm...I think it was New York or New Jersey and put her into school there, and her age was given as...umm...six or seven, I think. There was quite a bit of back and forth, but the period in question was not five years, it was more like one year, and the last article I found indicated shared custody, but of course that might not be the real final outcome of the events in question.

Not being quibbleaceous and this is not germane, but (COUGH) my own father ran off with me. I was one month old. I did not see my mother again until I was 24. It happens.

As to Marion's reflectiveness about children in 'The Times We Had' - let's strip away all the conspiracies and concentrate on what we know for sure. She was never able to marry Hearst and legitimise their relationship, and was never able to have her own children. For many women, both those things would be sad enough to contemplate in and of themselves.

It really pays to check back on sources, as Frederica has done. For example, E. J. Fleming's 'The Fixers' (not the most trustworthy source in the first place) attributes to Marion a second secret daughter named Mary Grace, and names Hedda Hopper as the one who blew the whistle on her.

I consulted the article in question to find that Hopper does nothing more than note that the girl was the orphaned daughter of Marion's cook, and that she agreed to pay for the girl's education and her recuperation after a serious car accident. There is no trace of the innuendo Fleming adds to the scene, such as the fact that Mary Grace was cute, blonde and 'looked suspiciously like Marion' - which seemed to be all you needed to qualify as a secret Davies-Hearst love child.

Well other than Guiles (not all that reliable, I admit), the Lake marriage is otherwise listed as 1942 (not 1937) and Patricia born somewhere between 1920 and 1923 outside Paris (not 1917 as suggested by Guiles). The birth certificate of Rose's dead baby was altered to appear as Pat's so there's really no archival evidence of her birth.

Curiouser and curiouser.....

Well other than Guiles (not all that reliable, I admit), the Lake marriage is otherwise listed as 1942 (not 1937) and Patricia born somewhere between 1920 and 1923 outside Paris (not 1917 as suggested by Guiles). The birth certificate of Rose's dead baby was altered to appear as Pat's so there's really no archival evidence of her birth.

Curiouser and curiouser.....

(Goggle) How do we know that the birth cert was altered? Is there a name/date/place/cert # for this birth cert? Again, not being quibbleaceous, but I'm beginning to go nose down on the scent. Which I'd really rather not do, but what the hell.

And in the "I found it on the internet so it must be true" category, someone has entered a family tree onto ancestry for Marion Davies, showing her husbands as Charles Spencer Chaplin and William Randolph Hearst. IT'S MILLER TIME!!

And as we all know, you can trust EVERYTHING you find on the internet, such great historians you know.

My last post disappeared.....

Anyway..... far too many loose ends, red herrings, rumors, and incorrect information to ever really know. As I said a while back, I'd like to think Pat was Marion's daughter, but short of DNA testing, it can never be proved, and that's ok.

Apparently the real source of the rumor is from the Lake son, who reported what Pat said on her death bed in 1993. Rumor begets rumor.

As for the resemblance between Pat and Hearst??? I sure don't see it but maybe others do.....