- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 11,947
- Reaction score
- 80,485
I'm not sure if I agree with your assessment of the Sherman personalities. Agreed, that BS was a unique individual; socially inept, a distant father whose relationship with his children was based on high expectations because they had his genes, a shark in the business world but a dud in the social world, a person who lived vicariously through colorful characters who he financially supported in flawed enterprises. He was quixotic, a billionaire who drove cars until they were ready for the junk yard. Who would have dressed like a homeless person if it wasn't for HS. He was a bit of a misogynist, too, imo, removing his daughters as trustees of his estate and keeping only JS, his son-in-law BK, JK and AG. Eight years later, JK fired and now deceased and as of days ago, JS is trying to have BK and AG removed. Talk about a monopoly.
As for Honey, I think she was made to feel less than because of her failed pregnancies which made her feel less emotionally attached to her children born by surrogacy. Even though HS had the highest value as one of Canada's biggest philanthropic leaders, she was probably the equivalent of a 50s housewife who was given a budget but had no money of her own. Granted that budget may have been in the millions but it was never hers alone. I mean real money, not earmarked for charity or Sherman business and family related expenses.
They fought. A lot. Their children verified that. But something changed in the last years of their lives and it makes me wonder what that was. The kids said they were more mellow, more given to holding hands, less arguing and more laughing. MS spoke of HS and a will. The famous will that never surfaced and the lawyer who never offered one up. How many lawyers worked for the Shermans? Do all lawyers really abide by the lawyer/client confidentiality agreement? What would make a lawyer renege on that agreement?
I have my number one suspect, who unsurprisingly is the number one suspect of a lot of people but there are other individuals in close proximity to the family who depended on the Shermans to provide them a lifestyle they seemed incapable of providing for themselves even when given the financial assistance to create their own business opportunities. I don't like to call them parasitic but the reality is when close family members are extremely wealthy you might receive their generosity because you're thankful for the gift but if the giver thinks the gift is seen by the recipients as a right it may be taken away. Then what? When you can no longer live the life to which you have become accustomed to?
Very interesting description of BS, thank you.
The kids do have his genes, so certain traits could have been inherited, too, btw.
I wouldn’t call anyone “parasitic”. Simply, the bar is too high. To achieve, one has to move to a place where “Barry Sherman” or “Apotex” was not heard of, and start on one’s own.
One more consideration: I think Barry was the only provider in the family, but given how busy he was, for him being generous to his children equaled loving them. Perhaps it was love, since he had no time to express it otherwise. Money = “care”, right? Or, “for some people, money is the only love language they know”. The opposite could also be true: this is how the kids were used to view him.
If suddenly, there is no more money or worse, a request comes to return it, it might be viewed as “witholding love”, and given the history, I can imagine how someone could feel angry.
About my suspect: “for Barry, the kid Nr. 1 was the Apotex. His time, his talent, his heritage. So it did not come from the Apotex. The rest of the relationships represented a finance-laced drama, so, somewhere there”.