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

[oursin.livejournal.com]

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.

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

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.

[clanwilliam.livejournal.com]

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!