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

[jonquil.livejournal.com]

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...

[oursin.livejournal.com]

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.

[clanwilliam.livejournal.com]

But Buster isn't Nicola's - he's a loan to her. Personally, as a horseowner, I'd feel a lot more miffed at someone's family regarding my mare as a free for all without asking my consent when she was on loan to only one member - and I'd feel the same if I were the loanee.

[oursin.livejournal.com]

Yes, but she initially raises the question of sharing with at least Lawrie and Peter (presumably Ginty and upwards in the family would be too big), and Patrick vetoes the suggestion.

[clanwilliam.livejournal.com]

But that's my point - Patrick has made the bounds clear on borrowing Buster, and Nicola respects those. It's nothing to do with the rest of the family. He's on loan to Nicola and no-one else. I can think of at least one family I knew growing up where I'd have happily lent my mare to one member on the absolute proviso that other members did not get use of her at all.

[oursin.livejournal.com]

Yes, but her instinct is to assume that if he's 'hers' she ought to share with her siblings (the arrangement is a compromise between gift and loan, it seems to me, without going back and looking at the text). Patrick says 'he's yours' but provides a formula ('say I'm funny about it' or something of the kind?) so that she can deal with assumptions within the family.

[coughingbear]

Yes - I think she reflects that Patrick as an only child is lucky not to have to deal with those kind of assumptions.

Of course, Patrick makes the point that it's no fun for Buster to belong to more than one person; this may be part of the point with Catkin too. He's not a bicycle to be handed around as required.

[oursin.livejournal.com]

But I don't think Patrick at all gets the way things are in a large family - or indeed any family with more than one child, and that there are these pressures. And on the 'bicycle being handed round' thing, in Run Away Home Ann refuses what Nicola assumes to be a mere polite form request for use of her bike (though as we discussed on an earlier thread, even if she didn't have religio-ethical problems with the intended use, the fate of her bike in The Thuggery Affair might be sufficient reason for her to be a bit nervous about letting anyone else use it).

[clanwilliam.livejournal.com]

It's interesting that - if I'd had a pony to share, my siblings would never have assumed it was their right to ride it. They might have requested a ride under my supervision at some point, but not assumed that they could share it.

It's a rather cavalier attitude from Nicola towards Buster, really, isn't it?

[oursin.livejournal.com]

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?

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

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.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

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.

[jonquil.livejournal.com]

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.

[oursin.livejournal.com]

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.

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

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.

[clanwilliam.livejournal.com]

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.

[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!

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

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.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

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.

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

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).

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

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.

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

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.

[jonquil.livejournal.com]

> 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 just parties. What's "unreasonable" about that?

Speaking as a mother myself, I'm more inclined to spend on everyday clothes than on party clothes. Indeed, when my children were younger, I always bought their party clothes at the second-hand store (or had them bought by a doting grandmother). The children simply didn't wear them often enough to make them cost-effective. Note that the Trennels children seem to need evening clothes only in the Christmas season, which means that they get, at most, one year's wear per child unless they're handed down.

Most of my daughter's elaborate dresses were passed on to cousins undamaged, and much appreciated. One coat made it into three different sets of Christmas pictures.