trennels | Fairness in the Marlow household

Entry tags:

Fairness in the Marlow household

I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the fair/unfair treatment of the Marlow young by their parents. I'm thinking specifically the treatment of Nicola by her parents/mother in Cricket Term. Is there anyway this could have been handled better? Should it actually have been Nicola who was going to have to leave? Should they have told her or dropped it on her in the summer holidays? Should they have removed all the girls, or perhaps just both twins?

For that matter, should Lawrie have been given the Prosser? (I know this wasn't her parents' decision, I'm just interested whether people think it was a good judgement call on the part of the staff.)

In a similar vein, what about the horse business in Peter's Room? Was it fair that their mother bought Ginty a horse for her birthday, and said no-one else was to ride it? Was it reasonable to buy herself one before ensuring the children all had equal access to a horse for hunting? In effect, she created a situation where one daughter was the only one in the family who was unable to go hunting (without hiring a horse), which seems harsh to me. But then, I'm from a small family where such unequality with gifts never happened - is this normal for a large family? Was Lawrie's reaction reasonable, or did other readers take it as just one more example of her throwing whiny tantrums?

These two occasions seemed to me to best illustrate Mrs. Marlow's failings as a mother (and also perhaps where the children got their selfishness) - I wondered if anyone else felt the same.

Can anyone else think of any other examples of this kind of thing? Or of fairer treatment?

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

I don't know. I don't see Lawrie having to hire a horse as a problem - I assume that the family funds pay for that. I think she just wanted one to have one and because Ginty did. It seems that the present was more generous than usual presents, but it was birthday and Christmas, and there's not much description of other presents, and perhaps on a farm it's not so big a deal anyway.

I never thought Mrs Marlow was that bad a parent. I think she's the kind of parent her children want her to be, mostly.

Interesting question...

First of all, I think Mrs Marlow has a pretty tough time, being left sole in charge of such a large family while her husband is at sea for so much of the time. And she tries hard in order not to flap too much, not to criticize one child in front of another, not to be hypocritical (for example when Karen announced her wedding plans...) Considering she can only have been in her early 40's, I feel she does pretty well !

Concerning the fee-paying situation, I suppose they could have looked around for another (slightly) cheaper school for all four girls. Taking just one out does, on the surface, look rather unfair - although Mrs Marlow's reasons for Nicola's 'it's you' letter seem totally reasonable. I must admit that having been in a similar situation myself, I did have one daughter in private school and one in public for a year - it just happened to be the most convenient way to do things when financial changes meant we couldn't keep them both at the private school.

For the Prosser, it does sound, to me, like the sort of thing a school would do - to find a rather 'cheeky' way to give the award twice to the same family. Kingscote must have done quite well out of the Marlows over the years, and that does tend to count. I was at boarding school with some very large families, where 5 or 6 girls had all gone through the school, and it became noticeable that 'solutions' were sometimes found for them that would not have been reached for others...

I must admit that I've always been rather shocked by Ginny and her amazing birthday/Christmas present, especially as it does not seem to compare with other things we have heard about (how much would two reworked party frocks cost, for example, compared to a horse ? And didn't Nicky's penknife have to last her until her 21st birthday ?)

However, I suppose we're not getting all the information here ... perhaps Ginny's been asking for a horse on a weekly basis since she was small ? Perhaps she was the only one to kick up a fuss when the girls stopped riding lessons at school because they could ride at home (if I remember that bit correctly) and was promised a horse to make up for it ?

Was it reasonable to buy herself one before ensuring the children all had equal access to a horse for hunting?

I feel passionate about this one. She sold her tiara to buy the horse; it was her particular property. Mothers do not always have to take care of the children first.

As to the horse, it's Ginty's birthday present; it is customary in my family that large birthday presents do not have to be shared. On the other hand, the other children could now reasonably expect horses for their birthdays...

Birthday AND Christmas present: perhaps this is finally years of guilt of making one present stretch to cover both coming home to roost?

Also, it's already been established that Nicola doesn't share Mr Buster: and while Rowan will share Prisca the latter doesn't appear to be a general family mount.

where one daughter was the only one in the family who was unable to go hunting (without hiring a horse)

2 family members, but the Major lends Rowan Hot Ginger, so she lets Peter ride Prisca, as I recall.

Oh yes, I forgot about Peter.

On one hand I think it's fair enough - it was her tiara, and why shouldn't she spend the proceeds from selling it on herself? But on the other hand, it seems like she's spending money on something pretty frivolous when some of her children don't even get new best clothes (I'm not objecting to hand-me-downs in general, or for school uniform cast-offs, but it seems a bit harsh to me that the twins have to have rewokred party clothes). Perhaps I should have reworded that to say Was it reasonable to spend so much on herself when some of her children are going without some things?

I came from a home where one of us never got a substantially larger present than the ohter, so maybe that's why that seemed so unfair to me.

But on the other hand, it seems like she's spending money on something pretty frivolous when some of her children don't even get new best clothes

Yeah, and god forbid she should do anything nice for herself before making sure all of her children had new party outfits.

Was it reasonable to spend so much on herself when some of her children are going without some things?

Yes. Especially when your example is "party clothes". It's absurd to suppose that a woman is unreasonable to buy something for herself rather than buy party clothes for her children.

Furthermore, Pam Marlow lives at Trennels, all year round. She and Rowan are the two who will actually get most out of having horses to ride, and therefore the two who really do actually deserve to have their own horses.

Ginty's getting a horse was an unusually lavish present, but it's clear that (a) she's the younger Marlow who rides best (b) this would tend to make up for years and years of getting one birthday/Christmas present.

Perhaps saying Mrs Marlow is a bad mother is a bit strong, but I don't know. I don't think she's a particularly good mother, but I guess she's just trying to do her best. I still feel that it was unfair to all the others to single Ginty out to such an extent, as I definitely got the impression that it was an unusually big present. I don't generally have much sympathy with Lawrie, but this was one occasion I felt for her, especially since all the tohers seemed to be a bit cavalier about her distress as well.

I'm still not sure about the school fees thing - it seems unfair to pick one, but I'm not sure how they could have done it otherwise, and Mrs Marlow's reasons are pretty logical. I think the worst thing is that in effect Lawrie is being "rewarded" for being a brat, and Nicola "punished" for being the better behaved twin.

Three. You forgot about Ann. As Rowan points out to Lawrie, (paraphrased) "Ann rides quite well; she might well want a horse, she's just not whining about it."

I don't necessarily mean Mrs. Marlow was a bad parent - just pointing out some of of what I consider to be mistakes. And I'm sure they wouldn't want her any other way.

I think perhaps the "one big random present" thing is more normal in large families, and you're right, we don't know if the others have had similar large presents at other times. But I do think hiring a horse was a bit of an issue, in that obviously a pretty talented rider (I think we're told Lawrie is quite good) couldn't stay the course of the hunt because the hired hirse she is one goes "lame".

Note in particular that party clothes are quickly outgrown, while a horse lasts for years. Handmedown clothes are taken for granted in most children's books before, say, 1970.

Clothes are a great deal less expensive than they used to be; cloth is cheap, while labor is expensive. As recently as the 1950s cloth was so expensive that women were taught elaborate darning and remaking techniques to make sure that a fabric's useful life was as long as possible. Mrs. Marlow's old dresses are a very valuable resource to the family.

I don't think she's a particularly good mother

I think she's an excellent mother. The horses pother is really not a good example of it.

The letter to Nicola, on the other hand, is arguable; I think it's an example of how she is a good mother - she's clear about what's happening, she explains why Nicola will have to be the one to leave, and I think she breaks it to Nicola the right way: she could have come to visit and told her face-to-face, but then everyone would have known something was up, and it's obvious Nicola is a much more a private person - I think it's reasonable that Mrs Marlow knew a clear, honest letter was the best way to tell Nicola something as shattering as that.

The only argument on the other side is that you could argue that a good mother always treats all of her children exactly alike, and if they couldn't afford all the girls at Kingcote, none of them should be there. That's a point, except that while disagreeing in principle with private education, I agree with Mrs Marlow that it would have been unreasonable to move Ginty or Ann just as they were studying for exams: and personally, I think it would have done Lawrie a lot of good to be separated from Nicola during term-time. ;-)

She said that about Karen, not Ann. I didn't forget Ann - Lawrie points out she doesn't like horses, she's scared of them and doesn't want to ride. I think it's pretty obvious that Karen doesn't want to ride especially either, at least at that point in time, or she too would have hired a horse.

And Peter did end up hunting, even if it were only because Rowen lent him the horse. So it's still only one member who ends up hiring a horse.

It's absurd to suppose that a woman is unreasonable to buy something for herself rather than buy party clothes for her children.

I think "absurd" is a bit strong.

I think it's clear that the younger Marlows often have to go without nice things; it's not like they wanted a dozen gowns each and she was limiting them to 10. I think one set of new best clothes is a reasonable thing for each child to have. Plus, the tiara was known as "The Last Ditch" - something always invoked in case of financial crisis - perhaps if it hadn't been sold to buy a horse, it could have been used to pay Nicola's school fees a term later. But obviously, YMMV. Also, it's made clear that Lawrie is also a good rider, and I'm sure being a twin, has had to share presents for years and years too.

I think the worst thing is that in effect Lawrie is being "rewarded" for being a brat, and Nicola "punished" for being the better behaved twin.

it's awkward isn't it? I think Jan says that about Lal being rewarded for being a brat, but in that situation...whilst it's horrendously unfair, in terms of end results Lal would raise merry hell for all the family if she were moved, and probably be disastarous at wherever she went - just look at the fuss she made about being in the remove initially - whereas, as the letter says, Nick'll just buckle down and get on with it.
It's hard, but in larger families there's normally one child that's expected to be successful and no trouble. (sighs with feeling)

I think "absurd" is a bit strong.

You think it's a bit strong to describe as "absurd" the idea that it's unreasonable for a woman with children to spend money on herself when her children don't all have brand-new party outfits? Well, we disagree. I think that's absurd.

I think one set of new best clothes is a reasonable thing for each child to have.

Why do you think it's "reasonable"? What's "reasonable" about this?

Plus, the tiara was known as "The Last Ditch" - something always invoked in case of financial crisis - perhaps if it hadn't been sold to buy a horse, it could have been used to pay Nicola's school fees a term later.

I strongly doubt it - given what a horse costs (or even two horses) and what fees at a private school cost, selling "The Last Ditch" might have paid Nicola's school fees for a term, but not more than that.

Also, it's made clear that Lawrie is also a good rider, and I'm sure being a twin, has had to share presents for years and years too.

And Ann is also a good rider. *shrug* Given that the Marlows couldn't possibly have afforded to buy all their children horses all at once, one child had to be the first to get one, and it was Ginty. In strict age seniority, it's possible it ought to have been Ann.

She said that about Karen, not Ann.

No, she didn't. Go look it up.

Ann isn't a good rider - she's scared of horses. In strict age seniority, it should have been Karen.

Obviously our definition of "reasonable" varies. I'm not saying all the children should all have new clothes always. That's obviously not reasonable. But I don't think it's unreasonable for each one to have one nice set; and one best set can be used for lots of things other than pjust parties. What's "unreasonable" about that? But on the other hand, as jonquil pointed out, clothes were a lot more expensive then.

And perhaps one term's fees would have been enough for something else to come up. If the Last Ditch was invoked against financial disasters, it presumably was worth quite a bit (though perhaps not as much as the choldren had thought).

I already did, before I posted.

"...So are Kay and Ann horseless carriages too."
"Ann wouldn't want one. Horses scare her stiff."
"Kay rides quite decently," Rowen pointed out. "She may want a dear dobbin very much for all you know..."

P. 50, Faber Fanfare edition, 1978.

Yes, I definitely agree that Lawrie would benefit more from the independance instilled by boarding school. And Ginty for that matter, as well as the fact that she's doing exams. Plus Ann would offer to go, and that wouldn't be good either. It's just hard on Nicola to be the mature, fuss-free twin!

But I don't think it's unreasonable for each one to have one nice set; and one best set can be used for lots of things other than pjust parties. What's "unreasonable" about that?

And it's clear that a good deal of trouble is gone to make sure that when there is a party in the offing, all children who are going to it do have nice clothes to wear. So your argument on that point falls down, unless you're sticking to the idea that to be "nice" means "brand new, never before worn by any other sister".

And perhaps one term's fees would have been enough for something else to come up.

And perhaps not. Also, you know, it wasn't a question then of "Horses or school fees". The school fees were raised later.

Ah, I take it back. Sorry. My recollection of the passage was distinctly of Rowan saying of Ann that she rides quite decently, but evidently my memory confuzzled the two. (They're my least favourite Marlow sisters, um.) Egg on my face: serves me right.

Well, Nicola ends up with Ginty's white net with frills, and while it fits, Nicola herself neither likes it nor thinks it suits her. But that obviously isn't especially important.

No, it wasn't a question of the fees or a horse, but it was a question of emergency savings/funds or a horse. I'm not saying it wasn't Mrs. Marlow's to do with as she wished; just that I don't think it was a sensible expenditure. I'm not even sayiong she should have been sensible, for that matter.

It's ok - I had to look it up, or I wouldn't have remembered either! :)

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 1 of 8

Fairness in the Marlow household

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject