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]

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.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

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.

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

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! ;)

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

'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?

Well, unless you and your brother are twins, you would have reached the age of driving lessons/cars at different times. It is entirely possible - as happened in my family - that at the time one child was old enough for driving lessons, the parents could afford to pay for them: and two or three years later, the family income might be substantially reduced, and the parents couldn't afford to pay for driving lessons for the next child.

Now, a child would argue "That's not fair!" but an adult who just happened to be only just old enough to drive would recognise that, well, life isn't fair.

In a large family like the Marlows, it's simply not possible to give all the children lavish presents at the same time. They can't all have new party outfits at the same time. They can't all have horses at the same time. You seem to feel that if all can't none should: but as Elizabeth Bennet said (one child in another large family): "And to be kept back on such a motive! I think it would not be very likely to promote sisterly affection or delicacy of mind."

[clanwilliam.livejournal.com]

I dunno - the first "party" dress I ever owned that was mine and mine alone, I bought at university. Before that, it was always something one of my sisters had owned before me or a friend's child.

Admittedly, until I hit 14 or so, I had the huge advantage that I had effective twins three years ahead of me (11 months between them) which meant I got two "new" outfits instead of one, and another set of friends whose youngest was a year or so older than me and so I got her clothes, but trotting along to a party in a sister's castoff wasn't a huge thing for me.

By the time it could have been a huge thing, I was sharing a size with my mum and quite happily raiding her wardrobe (or sometimes she'd buy me an outfit for a wedding or something that wound up in her wardrobe!)

What hurt me much much more as a youngest was people ignoring me or expressing surprise at my very existence - something the Marlow twins don't seem to suffer from.

[oursin.livejournal.com]

Karen has presumably been kitted out for Oxford - some mention of this somewhere, I think. Even if she was getting a grant, I can imagine that there might be various family expenditure involved.

[clanwilliam.livejournal.com]

Actually, that does raise a point for me from my university days. I was the youngest so I was the only one on my parents' hands at that point.

I actually refused to benefit from my parents' relatively increased wealth as a result and actually yelled at my dad a couple of times for putting money in my bank account!

[oursin.livejournal.com]

it will mean Ginty gets out into fresh air and exercises

And healthy recreation for Ginty, after the still fairly recent Unity Logan morbid introspection period, may well be on her mother's mind.

[clanwilliam.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.

At that age? My family wouldn't have thought so either too. I recognised that situation instantly.

[clanwilliam.livejournal.com]

Er, no, I didn't. I took it for granted. When my parents did splurge on a new outfit for me, it was practically a family occasion (I didn't actually get to choose the one I'm thinking about but I believe a couple of sisters were involved in the choice and I wore it for two years until I outgrew it, I loved it so much).

I am from a largish family and grew up next door to what I regard as my own personal Trennels and we didn't get sniffy about that sort of thing. There clearly wasn't enough money to go around to provide everything for everyone, and my sisters certainly didn't gripe when I finally got my riding lessons - any more than I griped when they got stuff they wanted.

The nearest we got to griping about that sort of thing was when one sister managed to persuade my mother to buy her a strapless dress for her first ballgown because the elder ones hadn't been allowed one - and then they all borrowed it for their own purposes! But that was a gripe about different standards, not different treatment.

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

But at that age, would you have felt it was important, whatever your family thought? Would you really have just stoicly accepted it? I'm not saying I think Lawrie wasn't acting like a brat for whining about it, I'm saying I can see why she feels like that.

I think I need to clarify something as well. I didn't initially bring up the clothes thing, or combine it with the horse issue - someone else did that, though I agreed that there seemed to be a bit of inconsistancy there. My original point was that it seems unfair that Lawrie ends up being the only child without easy access to a horse at the holidays, and I was surprised her mother didn't do more to rectify it. I don't think hand-me-downs per se in such a large family are unreasonable, I just think that perhaps either the horse should have been a joint Christmas present to all the younger children, in which case none of them could have complained, or if not, the money could have perhaps been better spent elsewhere. I think this opinion is a result of coming from a smallish family where nevertheless money was tight - if we could all have something, either we'd share or the money would be spent on other things. Obviously, YMMV, etc.

God, sorry, clanwilliam, I've posted this a million times because I keep messing it up.

[clanwilliam.livejournal.com]

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.

[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.

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

That's true - I always try to buy my god-daughter something fancy for Christmas, because her parents aren't that well off so they spend money on necessities - and I know they appreciate getting such things as a gift.

But "best clothes" as oppsed to "party clothes" can be used for all sorts of things, if they're adaptable enough. Not that hand-me-downs can't also be used for this. I think I should have stuck to my original point about the girls having equal access to a pony rather than getting into the clothing thing, because it actually didn't register that much with me when I read the book!

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

But "best clothes" as oppsed to "party clothes" can be used for all sorts of things, if they're adaptable enough.

Not in their situation, they can't: Nicola and Lawrie are going to parties in the Christmas season or wearing "that dreggy uniform dress" at school. The same would have been true of Ann and to a certain extent of Ginty. Rowan may well need a "good" outfit to meet with bank managers, as Karen no doubt needs one when she's at Oxford, and no doubt they have what they need.

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

I was thinking of weddings, christenings, family get-togethers etc, and parties at Easter and summer, which are certainly possible. Hunt Balls, perhaps. The Marlows were in effect still newcomers to the county at their first Christmas at Trennels, so I'd expect their holiday social lives to improve gradually. Not that we've seen the Marlows at any of those, but they are still hypothetically something their parents would consider.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

And from the description of outfitting for the Merrick's party, the prospect of Kay getting a new dres is something looked forward to by her younger sisters as something they'll inherit/share.

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

And thank you for that. Reading this, I was starting to think I lived in a different universe, where I lived in hand-me-downs from my sister that were in turn handed down to my younger cousins (and at 29 I still receive with thanks cast-offs of my sister's) and my daughter (though, yes, she's still a baby) has owned about 5 items of new clothing in her life - most are handed down from my sister's son and most of those were not new to him. What on earth is wrong with that? And the more so for party clothes, which have no chance of being worn out before being outgrown. Apart from the fact that the Marlow books are (mostly and sort of) set at a time when wastefulness would have been far more frowned on than it is now, I actively like the idea of reading books where disposability is not a virtue.

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

What on earth is wrong with that?

I'm not suggesting that they chuck old clothes away (I'm sure there are plenty of people they could have been donated to), nor that hand-me-downs are bad things to have - I too had loads from my elder cousins. I just don't think it's unreasonable for the girls to want new, or to think that some of the money from the Last Ditch could have been spent on a nice gesture for all the girls - witness how happy the twins were the year after when they got new party dresses for Christmas. Was that a waste of money?

For God's sake, I'm not bagging on hand-me-downs - surely I've made that clear by now. Just saying I think it would have been nice for the girls to get something posh and new out of the financial "windfall".

[oursin.livejournal.com]

But they weren't new-new party dresses: they were Doris makeovers of old dresses of Mrs Marlowe's (probably a lot better than anything they'd be likely to have shopbought).