Talk:Kennedy curse

}}

Curses vs. Stupid Behavior

???? Ginger Hair???? Why would this be a curse?

I can see why some of these, like cancer diagnoses or plane crashes can be categorized as curses, but I'm wondering why things like Joseph P. Kennedy II's jeep crash and Michael Skakel's murder conviction are listed as curses. Seems to me these are just run of the mill cases of wreckless behavior and people behaving with deliberate stupidity.24.60.184.196 01:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

And how does surviving the Chappaquiddick or being found "not guilty" of rape qualify one as "cursed"? - Nunh-huh 07:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC):

---Chappaquiddick is definitely a curse since Mary Jo was killed. Suffocated, not drowned, she took hours to die and would have lived if they'd simply have called to police right away.

It is referring to bad things happening to the family, not neccesairly things that were uncontrollable. 4.240.54.40 06:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is stupid behavior, not a curse. But the stupid behavior may result from the way Kennedys have been brought up, which seems to be that they think of themselves as supermen who can take risks normal people don't - like an inexperienced JFK Jnr flying to Martha's Vineyard on a hazy evening. A 'born-to-rule' belief would be their real curse. Elitism 07:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have also heard a theory that these events are due to greater risk-taking behaviour on the part of the Kennedys and, as such, this may be considered genetic. Unfortunately, I can't remember where I heard it ...

I'm particularly bemused to notice that the article cites the "curse" as related to the deaths of Jacqueline Kennedy's fetuses and newborn child. Has nobody else seen the pictures of her smoking like a chimney while carrying the child which died during JFK's presidency? That's a better explanation right there; not some "curse" dreamed up by bored reporters for tabloids. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget dad had VD. 86.182.38.156 (talk) 03:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC) [Interesting to know that your dad had VD. Thanks for sharing!]

I know this section has been unused for over a decade, but I think it's worth seriously rethinking whether or not it's appropriate to have someone raping another person as an example of a "family curse" on a page. That's not a curse, that is someone making the active decision to violate someone else. It's not an example of a tragically young death, it's someone raping someone else. Michael Kennedy's death is listed here as an example of the curse, but his affair with his kids' teenage babysitter (arguably also rape) isn't. Even just for the sake of consistency, I would strongly advocate for the section regarding this to just be removed, besides the fact that it's extremely disrespectful and makes someone raping someone else seem like a curse out of their control instead of an active decision to sexually assault and traumatize another human. I'd like to call attention to this if anyone else is willing to discuss it. --TariffedSparrow 06:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Your personal disgust with bad behavior is affecting your understanding of the purpose of the article. Michael Kennedy's inappropriate sexual behavior is not part of the "curse". His accidental death at a young age is the "curse". We don't remove something simply because of your personal opinion (or anyone's opinion) about the person's behavior. A number of members of the Kennedy family (including JFK) behaved inappropriately. We don't remove their entries because that behavior is not part of the "curse". Sundayclose (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm referring to William Kennedy, only bringing up Michael Kennedy because his behavior isn't mentioned here as an example of the curse and it feels like a double standard. Why is William Kennedy raping someone else on here at all??? That's the point I was trying to make and I apologize for the confusion. TariffedSparrow 06:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The William Kennedy you're referring to is actually William Kennedy Smith, son of Jean Kennedy Smith (sister to JFK & RFK) and Stephen Edward Smith. I also initially felt he was part of the curse, but only if you regard a propensity to make poor life choices as a curse. This article -mainly- focuses on events out of their control, and I say "mainly" because I argue that JFK Jr & Patrick Kennedy shouldn't be on this list as JFK Jr's death was the result of a poor life choice being that he wasn't rated for Instrument Flight Rules, only Visual Flight Rules, and Patrick Kennedy's DUI accident is also a poor life choice, not a "curse". There are others on the list that you could chalk up to poor life choices and not a curse. The solution would be to have a separate section for those persons. PhilMaglassup (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Why isn't Jackie's Death listed?

Because people DIE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.32.224.70 (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2008

She died of cancer in her mid-60s. What part of that is a curse? --Crunch (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that any early, untimely death as a result of forces beyond their control would qualify as being part of the "curse", including Jackie's death from cancer with no causation such as smoking. There are people listed here that simply made poor life choices that have nothing to do with a curse, unless the propensity of Kennedys making poor life choices is part of the curse. JFK Jr, Patrick Kennedy, Maeve McKean, Mary Kennedy, David Kennedy all were victims of their own poor life choices. They should have a separate section. PhilMaglassup (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The millions of people who have died without a clear cause are not afflicted with a curse, especially if they are 60 or older. They're just unlucky. Jackie's life made her notable, not her death. Sundayclose (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

And by the way, Jackie DID smoke, including while pregnant: , , . Sundayclose (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Well; because she wasn't part of the U.S. government assassinations!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.71.95.14 (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Removal of Kennedy Disabilities Subsection

I propose deleting the "Kennedy disabilities" subsection under "Chronology." It is grotesquely ableist to suggest someone is "cursed" because of either an inborn or acquired disability.

Regarding Rosemary Kennedy specifically, if she were disabled in some way prior to her lobotomy, again, it is not appropriate to frame that as the result of a "curse." Further, the lobotomy, itself, and its debilitating side effects were not some unforeseeable piece of bad luck. Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. had Rosemary (who was an adult at the time) lobotomized without her consent or consultation for no reason other than she wasn't compliant enough for his liking and was an embarrassment to him. It's also disgusting how the paragraph about her seems to paint Joseph in a soft light, claiming that lobotomies were seen as a "promising treatment" and that he was merely trying to "cure" or "treat" her. There is absolutely no excuse for the way he violated her basic human rights, not in 1941 and not now. There's also no excuse for how the other members of Rosemary's family kept their distance from her for decades following the lobotomy and then pretended establishing a bunch of savioristic non-profits made up for what Joseph did or excused their own complicity.

As for the rest of the subsection, Joseph shouldn't be portrayed as "cursed" for having a stroke at age 73 and becoming partially paralyzed and aphasic, nor should Edward M. Kennedy, Jr. be portrayed as "cursed" for developing cancer and having to undergo a leg amputation at a young age.

To be quite frank, I agree with many of the comments left on this talk page over the past decade plus that the "Kennedy curse" is utter nonsense that frames the reckless behavior of a bunch of entitled socialites and politicians as nothing more than bad luck. The Kennedys should own their horrible life choices (including those that ended in the premature deaths or serious injuries of themselves or others), and mainstream journalistic and literary sources should stop playing into the propagandistic notion that they're a bunch of angels who continuously experience tragedy through no fault of their own. That being said, if the general consensus is that the "Kennedy curse" is noteworthy enough to include on Wikipedia, at the very least, the "Kennedy disabilities" subsection under "Chronology" needs to go. Disabled people should never be framed as "cursed" for being born with or acquiring a disability, and that includes disabled members of the Kennedy family. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I removed the "disabilities" header, but as far as something being a "curse", none of the events is an actual curse. They're very unfortunate events, and needlessly being lobotomized (with all its consequences) is unfortunate. But if we retitle the article "Unfortunate Kennedy events" it misses the entire point of the article. Sundayclose (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that's reasonable.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Purpose of this list

Does this article list Kennedy deaths in general, or events interpreted as being part of the "Kennedy curse"? To me, it seems to be the former. Few of the citations for the list actually link the death to the curse. This just seems to be conjecture based on the opinions of editors. ~2025-43987-89 (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

No. It says right there on top, "NOTE: Deaths due to natural causes or advanced age generally are not acceptable and likely will be removed." I've just removed Ms. Schlossberg, for example -- the source included said nothing about any "Kennedy curse". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:07, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Curses are not real, so no Kennedy has ever died from a curse, and if we require a source that the death is from a curse, that eliminates the entire article. I think it's sufficient to include unusual, non-natural deaths. It's not just "conjecture" by Wikipedia editors to present the concept of a curse because it has been mentioned in sources and even by members of the Kennedy family. It's a notable topic. It's not the only article about a "curse". For example, Curse of Tippecanoe. Sundayclose (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying though. Obviously curses aren't real and it would be impossible to determine if a death is "from a curse". My point is that the source should link it to the curse. For example, Chappaquiddick is linked to the curse on account of Ted Kennedy himself remarking on the curse. And I'd imagine there are plenty non-tabloid reliable sources that discuss the supposed "curse" that mention specific deaths. ~2025-43857-95 (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to add in light of recent events that I think that needing the deaths to be of "non-natural causes" is too high of a standard. Personally I would argue Tatiana Schlossberg's death is even more qualifying than some of the other deaths on the list (eg. overdose). It is notable that Schlossberg was diagnosed and died at such an early onset (Acute myeloid leukemia typical onset is 65-70 years). It's also something that could be considered less of "her fault" and rather something that is just... well, cursed. Framl (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

IP~2025-43857-95: I understand your point, but I doubt that there are many reliable sources that mention the curse in regard to specific events. That would eliminate most of the article, so there would be no point in having the article. So the real issue is: should we have an article on this topic, or on any curse? If we should, then it can't be so restrictive that it requires a source that specifically states that someone has linked a tragic event to a curse. If that is the criterion, then the article would be reduced to the very few items that meet that criterion. And I'm not sure that article would survive. My personal preference is to maintain the current criteria that allow only tragic events that don't include deaths from natural causes. Sundayclose (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Framl: No, if we open the floodgates to every death from natural causes the article would be endless trivia, which is discouraged on Wikipedia. Every death can be considered tragic, but deaths from natural causes are far more common than deaths or other tragedies from events like overdoses, assassinations, plane crashes, etc. We have to draw the line somewhere. I think the article is manageable as it is without constant debates on this talk page about whether someone's death from a natural cause shuold be included. Look at the history of this article. Many examples from natural deaths have been added and removed (or suggested here), such as Jackie Kennedy's death from natural causes. Sundayclose (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Tatiana Schlossberg's illness and death qualifies as cursed

As I mentioned before, I believe Tatiana Schlossberg's death should be considered as part of the curse because of the unusual early onset of her Acute myeloid leukemia. She was diagnosed and died at the age of 35, when the usual onset for that illness is 65-70. If it helps, here is a Daily Mail article that mentions the curse: Framl (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I disagree for the reasons stated above. Sundayclose (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say that every natural death should be added. The death of Schlossberg is not only tragic, but it is unusual. The circumstances are not common. It feels to me that the qualifier for the list shouldn't be just be a hardline "natural or non-natural". That doesn't feel like it gets at the heart of what falls under a "curse".

Basically what I'm saying is that the circumstances of her death are "cursed", albeit natural. Framl (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Your "feels" aren't relevant. Is her death being cited in a reliable source as related to something called the "Kennedy curse"? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:50, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Newsweek, under High-profile deaths in the Kennedy family, links several deaths, including Schlossberg's, to the curse rumor. Framl (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Newsweek isn't a reliable source since 2013. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:55, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh apologies. Then in that case I see where you both are coming from. Thanks! Framl (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

The Daily Beast connected her death to the curse. While the New York Post is not a reliable source, USA Today reported on the fact that the Post made the same connection. Schlossberg’s announcement of her diagnosis does not mention the curse by name but seems to do so obliquely: “ When I was diagnosed with leukemia, my first thought was that this couldn’t be happening to me, to my family” ... “Now I have added a new tragedy to [my mother’s] life, to our family’s life, and there’s nothing I can do to stop it.” Take those as you will. -Reschultzed (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

In addition to the sourcing mentioned just above, Britannica includes news of Tatiana's diagnosis and death in an article about the alleged curse. The hidden editorial note at the top of the Chronology section of this article says not to include deaths "at a non-unusual age". Tatiana died at 35, which is not "usual". I would support inclusion of her death in this article. The wording about "natural causes" may need to be revised. DonFB (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added Schlossberg's death back in as well as reworded the note. -Reschultzed (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Who actually qualifies as part of the curse

In my opinion, several individuals currently included on this list are too distantly removed from the core Kennedy family such as in-laws or stepchildren. While their deaths are undoubtedly tragic or unusual, this article should not serve as a catalog for every single person loosely associated with the family who met an untimely end. ​Furthermore, none of the entries for these specific individuals include reliable sources explicitly connecting their deaths to the concept of the "Kennedy curse." To maintain the encyclopedic integrity of this list, we should remove entries that lack verifiable sourcing linking them directly to the subject matter.Journey896 (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2026 (UTC)