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?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

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 was still learning darning and patching in needlework lessons in the 60s, but that may have been failure of syllabus to catch up with modern times. And a lot of my childhood wardrobe was handed down from cousins or family friends. There was a department store in my home town where you could get stockings invisibly mended. I'd agree that the handed-down, made-over party dresses don't sound particularly Dickensian.

No-one said it was "Dickensian". Someone mentioned it seemed a bit uneven that one child got a horse and others got hand-me-down party dresses, and I agreed. And even if the clothes were in good condition, Nicola in particular didn't like hers.

God knows I spent enough of my childhood wearing handmedowns. Of the new clothes I got: hmmm, a nice summer outfit instead of a confirmation dress when I was 12 (cos I said to my parents that I was quite happy to borrow a friend's and frankly, I didn't want another dress of that type), and I *think* I once got something new for school uniform for my first secondary school.

I was 14 before I started getting my own clothes and a lot of those were new school uniform (and even then, a *big* chunk of that originally belonged to a friend's daughter who'd attended the same school).

Had my parents divvied up a pony (and I think they seriously considered it at one point), my sisters would not have objected much, any more than I did when they got big pressies occasionally.

I am reminded of a discussion some while ago somewhere on lj (somebody's own journal I think) about this phenomenon of shabbiness and genteel poverty in UK children's lit. It's not just a question of there not being money, but of priorities and what it gets spent on (keeping up the family mansion etc). Clearly there is a version of it in which money may be spent on horses and their upkeep but not on clothes. In the years when I read a lot of pony books, the families in those all seemed to have handed-down clothes (and in one or two even picked up their riding clothes at jumble sales), and having new gear was even something of a no-no.

One also recalls somebody snarking at Miranda in The Attic Term for having new and expensive dresses, which suggests that other pupils at Kingscote are wearing hand-me-downs for their 'best' (or just rather plain, designed for hard wear, dresses). Consider the Change 'Ere furore. It's not just Nick and Lawrie who go into buying frenzy.

Actually, that reminds me of Sybil Ramkin in Guards, Guards (hope other people are also Pratchett fans, or this will fall flat!) - Vimes notes that rich people live in tatty tweeds because they don't feel the need to splash out on clothes to show off, and also the clothes they have are so good they'll last generations. That's hugely paraphrased, btw.

I'm definitely from a working class background, so perhaps the my feelings on this come from a sort of inbred "appearances must be kept up" type thing.

Not remotely genteel here, but I was in my mid 20s before I owned a pair of breeches that were bought just for me - previously all my jodhs and breeches had been handmedowns.

Even now, at 33, I feel rather naughty buying myself a new pair!

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 "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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

She sold a frivolous thing she wasn't using to buy herself a horse, when she likes to ride and is living in the country with stables, fodder, and labour available at essentially no cost. That seems a perfectly sensible expenditure, unless you wish to argue it's not sensible for her to ever spend any money on herself when she could save it for emergencies.

Buying Ginty a horse might not be the most sensible expenditure, but on the other hand... Ginty likes to ride and is good at riding: she'll make use of having a horse: it will mean Ginty gets out into fresh air and exercises, which is something I suspect she might not do otherwise, especially in the winter: and while you're right that in terms of strict age seniority it ought to have been Karen (thanks for correcting me), it's also possible that Karen was asked and said no, she wouldn't make use of a horse that much - of course, if she'd known she was going to be living at Trennels with a husband and ready-made family, she might have said something different.

She sold a frivolous thing she wasn't using to buy herself a horse, when she likes to ride and is living in the country with stables, fodder, and labour available at essentially no cost. That seems a perfectly sensible expenditure, unless you wish to argue it's not sensible for her to ever spend any money on herself when she could save it for emergencies.

That's a good point. And it's true that I don't get the feeling Mrs. Marlow spends a lot on herself, so maybe she was due for a treat.

I'm conflicted about it, to be honest. I think it's buying both at the same time that I object to, perhaps not logically. It's more of a visceral objection to the thought of one of her children being left out.

I'll offer a rough analogy - I went to a quite posh school on a scholarship, and by the time I turned seventeen, a lot of my friends already had cars. My parents, meanwhile, couldn't afford to pay for driving lessons. The childish part of me thought that if my Dad had given up smoking, he could have paid for driving lessons for me; while actually I knew that it wouldn't have been fair or reasonable to expect this. But if my brother had gotten a car, or driving lessons, while I were still told I couldn't have them, then the whole thing would have seemed a lot more unfair to me. Does that make sense?

I just feel bad for Lawrie in this situation, not so much because Ginty ended up with a horse and she didn't, but because everyone else ended up in a position where they could hunt/go riding easily. I think in my (admittedly much smaller) family, even if my mum had bought herself a horse, she probably would have let me ride it if I'd wanted to, during the holidays at least; as Rowan did for Peter. It's entirely possible that I was spoiled though! ;)

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