Why it’s not just Jude Law who’s been a bit of a Burke
Published 04/08/2009 | 08:48
Actor Jude Law is a man with a — how shall we put it? — ‘chequered’ personal life. His dazzlingly fashionable marriage to Sadie Frost was embroiled up in a ‘wife-swapping’ scandal with their friends, Danny Goffey and Pearl Lowe.
Then another fashionable |hook-up with Sienna Miller |buckled when he bedded his |children’s nanny.
Now, it seems, Jude (36) has ditched the relationship angle entirely. This time he has been accused of getting fling-ette, Samantha Burke, model and part-time nanny (oh dear) pregnant, although is reportedly demanding a DNA test just to make sure.
The only thing missing from Jude Law is the villain’s whiskers and the Victorian cape.
And just like any Victorian melodrama, enter the outraged father and grandmother of Law’s latest pure innocent victim.
According to Ms Burke’s gran, Delores, her son Denis has called Law “to read him the riot act”.
She goes on: “To say this family is mad at that man is an understatement. He has behaved as less than a gentleman.
“Samantha is a lovely girl but she is only 24 years old. At that age, you think you are a grown-up but you are still very young. He is old enough to know better... he is a man who I believe took advantage of a young, innocent and silly girl.”
Silly yes, but an innocent 24-year-old? Now call me a cynic but there aren’t too many 24-year-olds that innocent — especially models living in that renowned backwater New York city.
As the old cliche has it, it takes two to tango, Denis and Delores. Or rather to do the horizontal cha cha. And since the fling only lasted two weeks, neither Law nor Burke wasted much time in hitting the sack. If Law has behaved as less than a gentleman, Burke, it would appear, has been less than a shy maiden.
Apparently, Mr Burke has extracted a promise from Law to do his duty as regards financial maintenance of the child.
But there is no suggestion that Samantha and Jude are going to set up house, to use that curiously old-fashioned phrase. So no prospect of marriage, or that the baby, reportedly a little girl already named Sophia, will grow up in a home where both parents are together.
Clearly Delores Burke is a woman keen on traditional values, but what’s odd is that nowhere in her interview is any aspersion cast upon Samantha.
Yet let’s look at the facts. Jude Law is probably one of the modern world’s most famous lotharios.
The fact that he may be a bit tacky is neither here nor there.
And yet Samantha Burke willingly went into a sexual relationship with this man, all the while eschewing any sensible precautions, both emotional and in terms of birth control.
One doesn’t like to be crude, but Ms Burke must have known that she wasn’t on the Pill, and she must have known that Law was not taking precautions himself.
So the idea of a baby must have crossed their minds? But maybe it didn’t. Just as ‘Law’ has become a byword for ‘selfish’, for Samantha it was all me, me, me too.
Samantha may be unlucky in ‘love’ but she should be on her knees thanking the good Lord that she had the great fortune to be unlucky enough to bed a movie star who can pay for the upkeep of their unborn child.
Others aren’t quite so lucky. Yet they, too, in their own unreported ways are just as selfish as Law and Burke. Are we so caught up in self- gratification that we have lost sight of the basic facts of biology: man plus woman plus bed equals potential babies.
It’s all very well to be calling in grandparents and parents to metaphorically slap Jude Law about a bit. But Ms Burke doesn’t emerge from this story with any real credit either.
In this age of equality it isn’t just enough to point to the bounder and boo him off the stage. Sometimes you have to take responsibility for your own actions.
Something both Law and Burke failed to do when they bumped into each other in New York.