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

As has been pointed out elsewhere, that would have been incredibly unfair to the horse.

And just because Ginty gets her horse doesn't mean Laurie won't get something as special at some point in the future.

But again, what you'd wear for a wedding or a christening is vastly different to what you'd wear to a Christmas party-cum-ball or a hunt ball. Also, winter parties tend to be evening affairs but summer parties that kids are invited to are more daytime affairs.

Completely different dress code - think of it as the different type of uniform Commander Marlow might wear to each occasion. There's a civilian female equivalent for each.

Lawrie seems (frankly) to have only wanted one because Ginty got one.

I'm not sure I agree with this, but I do agree that she didn't have the same burning desire that Ginty did.

Indeed - as [even-handed as] they could be. It was impossible to buy all the children horses.

But in this case, it would have meant neither of us got a horse, or that we shared one. I'm not suggesting they all should have gotten a horse, but certainly a horse (if not Catkin) could have been shared among a couple of them. It isn't cruel for a horse to have several riders as long as they are all decent with it, and it's looked after properly.

But then, Lawrie was frequently of the opinion that she doesn't get anything

If I add it up over the 18 years each of us spent as dependent children, my parents were probably fairly even-handed, though I doubt they were totting up and allowing for inflation and so forth.

Well, yes. I'm not saying she's right about it, just that in this case I can see where she's coming from. As

ajhalluk2 has pointed out below, Catkin is an enormous present and none of the rest of the kids have much of a chance of having an equivalent ever bought for them. It doesn't seem (from the evidence we have, and the knowledge Mrs. Marlow has when she makes the decision) that it will even out over 18 years or so.

But something (e.g. a little black dress sort of thing) could be worked at a number of occassions. And anyway, by that logic, they needed more clothes between them, not fewer.

Nevertheless, that's beside the point - the point originally being Lawrie can ride well (according to Nicola), and does treat her horses well, from what we see.

I don't think this would be "horribly unfair" to the horse, or at least no more unfair than the treatment horses get in decent riding stables - do you think that's "horribly unfair" too? The horse would still have the same stableman dealing with it at all times, and presumably he would ensure that it was treated well - in fact, doesn't he bring Ginty to task later in Peter's Room for not letting the horse cool down properly before bringing him home?

Certainly sharing Catkin between Lawrie and Ginty (since Peter can ride Rowan's horse and Nicola Mr. Buster) would be no worse than two sharing at The Idiot Boy.

Yeah, but proper party dresses? Low priority.

Yeah, but versatile attractive dresses? High priority. And a lot cheaper than a horse, I would think, based on the fact that Mrs. Marlow was quite prepared to go out and buy Ginty a new one when none of the other girls' cast-off would fit her.

IMO, that is.

Actually, big difference. A riding school horse has its own owner and in a lot of cases also has a "temporary" owner who makes things up to them - the mare I learned to ride properly on was in many ways my mare and not anyone else's, to the extent that people used to grumble at *me* when she played up! I never owned her, I never had her on loan, but I was the person she came to for comfort (and vice versa). But even then, the primary owner is still that - I had a memorable encounter closing up one stables one night where a pony ignored his goodnight carrot until the yard owner came over to give it to him himself.

I have loaned out my own horse, and I happily put my friends up on her back, but even when she hadn't seen me for a couple of months, *I* was still her human, not the person giving her food and shelter.

Horses pairbond. If they don't have another horse to pairbond with, they pairbond with humans. Sometimes they even do it when there's other horses around. I've both seen this and experienced it, and two owners for one horse is not a good thing.

I suspect the Idiot Boy has a less comfortable life than Catkin - and as I've said already, I haven't read the books that feature his handover to Lawrie.

For kids the age of the twins?

Still not a priority. Not compared with the older girls.

[T]wo owners for one horse is not a good thing.

Well, then we'll have to agree to disagree - I suspect a horse with a few riders would probably pair-bond to the stable guy and be perfectly happy, or to one in particular of the riders, but YMMV, obviously.

...the mare I learned to ride properly on was in many ways my mare and not anyone else's, to the extent that people used to grumble at *me* when she played up! I never owned her, I never had her on loan, but I was the person she came to for comfort (and vice versa). But even then, the primary owner is still that - I had a memorable encounter closing up one stables one night where a pony ignored his goodnight carrot until the yard owner came over to give it to him himself.

You're actually kind of proving my point here, if I've understood you right - "your" horse was obviously happy when he was with you, despite being "bonded" to his actual owner. So Catkin could easily have bonded more to Ginty than Lawrie but still have "belonged" to both of them and been happy being ridden by Lawrie.

So you're saying it is high priority for the older girls? But even Ann got a hand-me-down. And Rowan borrowed one of her mother's dresses. Neither of them got new.

Actually, missed a bit. Blossom's owner was away and he didn't care for her - he'd passed her on to the stables. In turn, she *hadn't* bonded with anyone at the stables, and did to a limited extent with me - but only a very limited one and not a real bond at all.

From the family's point of view, yes, certainly the older girls are a higher priority. They're the ones expected to have a social life that may include parties - the "children" are not.

There was still a certain level of age distinction in how the girls found dresses - Ginty showing up in a horror was a far more distressing prospect than Nicola doing so.

And for that era and that culture? As long as Nicola was decently and appropriately dressed, it wasn't expected that she should actually *like* the outfit or that it would suit her. Think bridesmaids - especially attitudes towards younger ones - for the attitude that prevails here.

Obviously this is purely specualtion; there's no textual evidence for this.

Indeed, what textual evidence there is, is against this. The "Last Ditch" is plainly regarded as a family joke, certainly among the older members of the family who understand how limited its value is.

So... are you saying this was a happy horse or not? That it was content to be "your" horse (though not in fact really bonded to anyone), but lent out sometimes to others and go months without seeing you, or that this was bad for the horse? I'm just trying to relate this to Catkin's potential happiness as a horse ridden by several owners.

Maybe we should just stop discussing this. I just don't think it reasonable that one child out of eight be given such a disproportionately large one-off present, and you don't think it's unreasonable. I doubt we'll persuade each other! : )

I think jewellery which sold for possibly £200 (to afford two horses, the less valuable of which cost roughly £90) in the 1950s wasn't exactly limited in value. If you consider what the average weekly wage was at that time (between £5 and £10, depending on whether we're talking late forties - End of Term - or late fifties - Peter's Room), the Last Ditch was worth at least 20 times that. Hardly peanuts. Even if the younger children had exaggerrated its potential worth or usefulness in a crisis.

Exactly. If a daughter isn't yet eligible for marriage (or nearly so), all that matters is that she be decent. You invest in clothes only when you're preparing her for matrimony.

Were they preparing Ginty for matrimony? She's a little young. Or even Karen?

I think in both cases when they got new clothes, it was actually more a case of necessity, rather than that they were being displayed on the marriage market. Mrs. Marlow's distress the following Easter shows she didn't really consider Karen ready to marry.

I'd assume Chocbar could easily have cost as much as double Catkin; remember Helena Merrick who is not short of a bob or so was "coveting her madly all last season" suggesting that either Pam Marlow snapped her up the instant she was on the market or that even Helena baulked at the asking price.

Also, considering Antiques Roadshow and the like, I can't see even a horribly unfashionable diamond tiara going for less than £10-15,000 these days, can you?

sorry, earlier anon comment was me, not logged in.

But Patrick seems to be suggesting that she should never even very occasionally let the others ride Buster. And a thought which occurred to me late yesterday evening: but what about the sale of The Idiot Boy into joint ownership? Why is that not a problem in the same way?

as the eldest daughter, she may well have expected to inherit such a valuable piece of family jewellery

Or would it be the trophy of any future wife of Giles?

I think jewellery which sold for possibly £200 (to afford two horses, the less valuable of which cost roughly £90) in the 1950s wasn't exactly limited in value.

To a child in the 1950s, £200-£250 might look like unlimited wealth. (See Nicola's reaction to her Windfall.) To an adult, however, it's plainly not. Depending which indicator of value you use (see Current Value of Old Money (http://eh.net/hmit/)) £250 in 1950 is probably (relative purchasing power) £5,270 in 2005. Think about how £5000 of "your own money" would look to a teenager: then think about how that would look to an adult. It's half what it would cost to buy a new car, or - before house prices went up - enough to put down a deposit on a small house or flat. (Wouldn't be now, where I live.) It's a nice little sum, but it's not, except from a child's point of view, unlimited wealth.

the whole thing boils down to a question of justice or equality. Ginty always seems to drift - the half term off (ok there's reasons behind it, but you get the impression that Nick or Ro would have managed to drag themselves back), right at the beginning Lal says about Ginty being in an A even though she's not clever at all, she's really good at diving, yet always mucks it up, and she has generally useless friends - the redoutable Monica aside. So, perhaps it's a case of Mrs M feels that if gin has something she really gets into, it will work its way into all of her life, rather than just leaving her as pretty and somewhat vacant which is how some - Mrs Merrick for example - but not AF I hasten to add - seem to see her. Personally I've always loved Ginty, so was fairly happy about it all, but that's a "proper" reason for it.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 4 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

imo