Fairness in the Marlow household

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

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?

Comments

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

You've articulated perfectly what my thoughts on this, better than I've been doing - thanks for that.

As I've said elsewhere in these comments, it's that both horses were bought at the same time with the Last Ditch that makes me uncomfortable. If Mrs. Marlow had sold her own tiara to buy herself a horse, that wouldn't bother me a bit. Or if she'd sold it to buy two horses for the children, say one for Ginty, and one for the twins to share, or for Lawrie and Peter, since Nicola has more-or-less permanent usage of Mr. Buster, that wouldn't have made me turn a hair. It's just that it's such a huge one-off thing that none of the others get a share in. It picks Ginty out from the others.

I also wonder if Karen felt a pang about the tiara - as the eldest daughter, she may well have expected to inherit such a valuable piece of family jewellery. Obviously this is purely specualtion; there's no textual evidence for this.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

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.

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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?

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Depends how you figure it. At GDP, £250 in 1950 would be the equivalent of £16 000 today - but GDP doesn't necessarily represent the equivalent of what it would buy.

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

No, what it would buy is half a house. Which by most people's standards isn't a small sum of money.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

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.

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

Yes, but you could actually buy a decent terraced house, in a decent area, for around £500 in 1950ish, not just "put a deposit on a small house or flat" - my grandparents actually did - so that's worth a hell of a lot more in real terms then than £5,000 is now. You can't really compare the buying power now with the buying power then. And it's a lot to spend on just one child.

And I never said it was "unlimited wealth". I said "a valuable piece of jewellery". I don't see how you can possibly claim a tiara that could have bought half a house in 1950 isn't "valuable". I believe I've said the younger ones probably exaggerrated the value, but that doesn't mean it was "limited in value", i.e. worth little. It just means it couldn't have been used to solve any financial crisis of any magnitude.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

And I never said it was "unlimited wealth". I said "a valuable piece of
jewellery".

What you said was "It wasn't exactly limited in value" - and that is precisely what it was: limited. It was a one-off bonus that could be spent any number of ways. You seem to have come round to the idea that Mrs Marlow spent it sensibly when she bought a horse for herself, rather than being a bad selfish mother - which was the idea that I truly objected to: the idea that a woman is a "bad mother" if she ever spends anything on herself that she doesn't absolutely need when her children are going without things that they want but don't need - which was your starting position - is really rather anti-woman and anti-mother, and generally objectionable. Mrs Marlow bought herself Chocbar, and it was a sensible and right purchase, and you accept that: good.

That there is something skewed about Ginty getting such an expensive present is something I've come round to, having read so many well-reasoned points about it on this thread. But arguing from that to "Mrs Marlow's a bad mother" is something else again.

[ex-ajhalluk585.livejournal.com]

Oh, for crying out loud! I don't think it is a reasonable interpretation of the original essay to characterise it as "anti-woman" or "anti-mother". The question was not, "are mothers bad?" but "is Pam Marlow a bad mother?"

Actually, I think compared to Helena Merrick or Mrs West or Madame Orly (and absolutely one hundred percent as compared to Mrs Frewen) she's a shining example of motherhood (and that in relation to the Prosser she treats Nick as an adult, and, at least if Jan Scott's analysis is correct, allows Nick, by giving her access to relevant information, an opportunity to play a part in shaping her own destiny).

But I think that "Is Pam Marlow a bad mother?" is an invitation to debate, not a statement which is in and of itself objectionable.

If you want to debate motherhood in the Marlow books, there are much worse examples than Pam Marlow to consider, in my view, and I'm posting a separate essay on the topic above.

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

But arguing from that to "Mrs Marlow's a bad mother" is something else again.

Ah, but I never actually said she was a bad mother. I said I saw it as a mistake she'd made, and later, that I didn't think she was a particularly good mother. From that, you've inferred I think she's a bad mother.

ou seem to have come round to the idea that Mrs Marlow spent it sensibly when she bought a horse for herself, rather than being a bad selfish mother - which was the idea that I truly objected to: the idea that a woman is a "bad mother" if she ever spends anything on herself that she doesn't absolutely need when her children are going without things that they want but don't need - which was your starting position - is really rather anti-woman and anti-mother, and generally objectionable.

I think you're reading entirely too much into my question as to whether it were reasonable for her to spend so much on herself or on only one of the children, while leaving one child without. I think I've made it clear what my position is - that it isn't that she spent the money on herself, but that she spent it on herself and at the same time included one out of her eight children in that, while excluding the rest. I haven't "accepted" anything - I've clarified my position while admitting I didn't put it very clearly to start with. I could have just edited my original post. Even at the beginning of this debate, I was saying I could see both sides of the argument, which is more than you did. I also didn't bring the clothes into it, someone else did, and I have said I don't really mind the hand-me-down aspect of the clothing. And I never said she was selfish. I never said she was a bad mother. You put those words into my mouth, in your responses. What I did was question whether it was reasonable, and state I didn't think it was sensible. I still don't think it was sensible, compared to holding on to the Last Ditch in case of a financial emergency, such as subsidence, vet's fees, a new roof, or I don't know, school fees. Her right and prerogative, and reasonable, yes. Sensible? No. Really, I think you're being overly defensive and reading stuff in my original post which wasn't there.

By "not exactly limited in value", I of course didn't mean it was of "limitless value" - nothing is. I meant it wasn't cheap. I was replying to your post in which you said it was of "limited value". I interpreted "limited value" in your post to mean "worth not very much", and therefore I think it's pretty obvious that I was replying to that, and that what I meant by "not exactly limited in value" was that it had a largish financial value - I think most people would say something that could be sold to raise funds sufficient to buy half a house has a largish financial value.

I actually think it's "objectionable" that you've jumped down my throat about this, while not really commenting on other people's post where they've shared my concerns.

[ex-ajhalluk585.livejournal.com]

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

[oursin.livejournal.com]

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?

[ex-ajhalluk585.livejournal.com]

You mean, like the farm that Rowan's put all that back-breaking work and her life prospects into?

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

Similarly, I seem to remember Peter being a bit put out at one point at the realisation that he won't inherit an interest in the farm. Am I remembering this right?

[ex-ajhalluk585.livejournal.com]

I think it's associated with that slightly creepy conversation Giles has in Run Away Home about the wrong sort of women for naval officers to get mixed up with. I end up biting my lips every time I read that bit, before recalling that Giles is canonically a whopping idiot quite a lot of the time, at least on shore, and he's only about 22 anyway.

[owl]

Is Giles' age compared to Kay's (considering the closeness in age of all the others) compatible with whatever rank he's got by the end of the books? I remember thinking that he seemed a lot younger in Run Away Home when I finally got to see him for an extended period.

I didn't think the conversation was creepy as such, just a bit ruthlessly pragmatic. A little Roan-ish, even. If the Navy is as vital to him as it seems to be, a potential Mrs Giles needs to be able to cope with that. I'd like it more if he'd considered the possibility that no-one would, and had taken that option into account.

[ex-ajhalluk585.livejournal.com]

Rowan gives up school at 16 (Falconer's Lure). She drives up to school when she is in fact too young to do so (End of Term). Ready Made Family occurs the following Easter, the Cricket Term the following Summer, Attic Term the Autum after that, and Run Away Home that Christmas. At best Rowan is (barely) eighteen at the time of Run Away Home. Kay goes up to Oxford (eighteen) at the start of End of Term. She marries Edwin the following Easter (nineteen). By the next autumn (Run Away Home) she may (or may not) be twenty. If Giles is 22 it's the most he can be, and his rank is sub-lieutenant.

[oursin.livejournal.com]

Primogeniture - the foundation of the nation: except, of course, there is no longer an Empire for Peter to go out to to make his own life (or indeed, his sisters).

[jonquil.livejournal.com]

Yes, but in the old system Rowan would be groomed to marry some other farmer; instead, she's sacrificing all her own interests to a farm that Giles will take over when he comes back from sea. I loathe the idea of her dwindling into a maiden aunt.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Look on the bright side... :-) ...maybe Giles drowns and Peter converts to Catholicism and becomes a monk, joining with his father in cutting off the entail, so that Trennels can be willed to Rowan?

Not serious, no. But I cannot see Rowan "dwindling", whatever happens.

[oursin.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily: there are plenty of historical examples of women who were expected to stay at home and keep the place running (even if it might be in some rather more ladylike way like looking after the dairy side of things) rather than getting married - the 'designated daughter at home' syndrome, though in Rowan's case (and probably a lot of the historical ones) she is far from being the downtrodden drudge this implies - in many cases it probably was an ideology of family duty (cf Ethel May in Yonge's The Daisy Chain) rather than lack of alternatives.

[owl]

Rowan ought to be getting a large salary. They'd have had to pay that to a famr manager who wasn't related to them. I think that's a bigger issue than Ginty's nag.

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

I never thought about her wages before, except I guess to assume she wasn't being paid, but was just living at home and doing the job. And still getting necessities bought for her by the family like say, Karen, who was at uni, would get stuff bought for her as and when it was required.

Hmmm, interesting.

[(Anonymous)]

I see the point about the one-off thing, but the older children are all beginning to leave scholl and make their own way - so there will be more momey to go round among the youngers for presents, won't there?