Poor Simone.

Indeed. She probably could have been an interesting character, if they had worked her from a different angle. The possibilities were certainly there.

What I find especially frightening is that Nathan was the only child for a decade at least and more likely 11 or 12 years, and in all that time, she apparantly still didn't create an emotional bond with him.

It's scary. I wonder if it was just the circumstances occupying too much of her time - between playing superhero and dealing with a husband who is mentally ill and apparently difficult on top of that would have been pretty exhausting. I don't think that she is unable to develop affection, since she obviously has it for Peter, but there should be something there, too, since she regards feelings as weakness.

Of course, being more loving with Peter could simply mean that she had given up saving the world actively by then, and it was already too late to built up something with Nathan. And who knows when they came up with that freaky plan.

And yes, that must have been some awesome nannies indeed - or maybe he had halfway normal grandparents.

I think one reason for the shrug off is the misinterpretation of Angela's political support of Nathan (organizing the brunch, and in the later episodes the entire you-are-the-leader-of-destiny stick) as maternal affection or even favoritism.

Possible. There is of course the stereotype of the rich lady who is outwardly cold and all about manners and yet secretly loving - Emily Gilmore comes to mind, and that is where the nice old biddy part comes in, probably. But as you say, we saw quite a large amount of manipulation in the pilot (never mind a slap! For telling her that he feels a connection!) and even in Episode 2 a lot of her conversation with Peter seemed manipulative - not to mention that telling one of your children "you are my favourite" is more dysfunctional than sweet. Of course, judging from Nathan's words in Six Months Ago, the Petrellis seemed to be pretty open about these kinds of things, anyway.