Antonia Forest fans

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.

From:

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.

From:

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! ;)

From:

'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."

From:

You seem to feel that if all can't none should

I do actually think that; it's the way I was raised. Or at least, one should be bought for all to share, in the case of something like a horse. I don't think one having while another does not is that likely to promote sisterly affection either. And isn't Elizabeth talking about a younger sister being allowed to "come out" before an elder sister is married? If so, it's hardly the same thing as one child being given a horse.

And while the driving lessoons thing might fall down because of my brother not being my twin, I think your comparison also falls down, as Lawrie isn't proetesting that a sister got a horse when she was her age, she was protesting her getting one when there was no prospect of her getting one at that time or later.

From:

as Lawrie isn't proetesting that a sister got a horse when she was her age, she was protesting her getting one when there was no prospect of her getting one at that time or later.

And in fact, she eventually did get a horse - shares in The Idiot Boy with Peter. Given the stables at Trennels and the fact that a horse once bought was, in their circumstances, really not costly to keep, if Lawrie had thought about it sensibly, she'd have known that while no one could promise she'd definitely have a horse of her own at any definite point in time, she would, if she really wanted a horse, be able to get one at some point when a suitable one became available at a price they could afford. What would have been wrong would have been making false promises of "You'll have one for your next birthday" or "by next Christmas" when nothing like that could have been definitely promised.

I do actually think that; it's the way I was raised

Ah well. I was raised to believe that as my brother and sister and I were all different people wanting different things, we wouldn't all get the same things. That my sister got ballet lessons and I didn't, or I got riding lessons and my sister didn't, or my brother got driving lessons and I didn't: we weren't clones of each other, and we were different ages, and we got different things at different times. My mum figured that we had to learn earlier rather than later that just because your sibling gets something doesn't mean you must automatically get something the same or of equal value at the same time - because life's not like that.

From:

Yes, that's true, she did get The Idiot Boy, though of course she couldn't have known that at the time. And I'm pretty sure it wasn't a gift - didn't Nicola and Peter buy him, and then Nicola and Lawrie do swops? I don't think it would have hurt to say, "You'll get one eventually", though of course Lawrie would have then mithered and mithered to know when, and if she never had got one, would have remembered ever after that she'd been promised one.

As for the way I was raised - I certainly wasn't ever taught that me and my brother were clones, or even that we had the same needs or desires. And we well knew the world wasn't a fair place to be - but my parents both thought they should be as even-handed with us as they could be. It is possible to teach your children that "life isn't like that" while still ensuring they get as equal attention and opportunities as you can provide. As it happens, I ended up at private school, and my brother didn't, because I passed the entrance exam well enough to get a scholarship, but he failed it - this was an object lesson to both of us that what happens to you in life isn't all completely "fair" or "even", even if your parents do try give you equal birthday presents.

Also, as you mention - you got riding lessons, your sister got ballet lessons, your brother got driving lessons - in the examples you've given you did all get something. Lawrie was obviously of the opinion that she doesn't get anything. Giny gets a horse, and Lawrie wants one too - not really a case of "wanting different things".

From:

Also, as you mention - you got riding lessons, your sister got ballet lessons, your brother got driving lessons - in the examples you've given you did all get something.

Yes, but none of us all got something at the same time. If I add it up over the 18 years each of us spent as dependent children, my parents were probably fairly even-handed, though I doubt they were totting up and allowing for inflation and so forth. If you picked any one incident, no doubt it would have looked differently.

but my parents both thought they should be as even-handed with us as they could be.

Indeed - as they could be. It was impossible to buy all the children horses. Ginty obviously really wanted one: Lawrie seems (frankly) to have only wanted one because Ginty got one. Why deprive Ginty because Lawrie was going to stomp round going "it's not fair"?

Lawrie was obviously of the opinion that she doesn't get anything.

Yes. But then, Lawrie was frequently of the opinion that she doesn't get anything - a state of mind frequently found in youngest children of large families. (My sister had it to a certain extent, though not to the degree Lawrie does: I figure it's a defense mechanism the youngest child develops to avoid getting overlooked.)

(no subject)

From:

carmine-rose.livejournal.com - Date: 2005-08-30 10:25 pm (UTC) - Expand

From:

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.

From:

jen-c-w.livejournal.com

oooh I don't know - in Autumn Term no one seems to be able to tell one from the other, they're just more of "those Marlow girls", admittedly partially because they fail to go into the a form.

From:

Yeah, but at least people knew they existed! *g*

The way my family is structured, I got *very* used to people expressing surprise at my mere existence when I was in my late teens! (Oh, and only three years between me and the next eldest!)

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.

From:

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!

From:

Which probably makes me incredibly weird or summat.

From:

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.

From:

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.

(deleted comment)

From:

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.

From:

But also, there's a difference between not caring and not complaining, as Rowan points out to Lawrie. Did you actually not care? I'm not saying I don't believe you, it's a genuine question.

From:

I cared - but not much. I'd rather have had other stuff than the clothes, and didn't, for example, envy the friends who had much cooler clothes. The only girl I really envied clotheswise was the one whose mother allowed her to wear jeans to our (non-uniform) primary school - but that was an issue of standards. I certainly owned jeans (including a memorable pair of gloriously comfortable flared ones that originally belonged to a male cousin and my mother was *mortified* that I insisted on wearing them).

I was very much brought up with an idea that clothes didn't matter that much as a child, and it definitely had an impact on me.

From:

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.

From:

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.

From:

I don't think this would be "horribly unfair" to the horse, or at least no more unfair than the treatment horses get in decent riding stables - do you think that's "horribly unfair" too? The horse would still have the same stableman dealing with it at all times, and presumably he would ensure that it was treated well - in fact, doesn't he bring Ginty to task later in Peter's Room for not letting the horse cool down properly before bringing him home?

Certainly sharing Catkin between Lawrie and Ginty (since Peter can ride Rowan's horse and Nicola Mr. Buster) would be no worse than two sharing at The Idiot Boy.

From:

Actually, big difference. A riding school horse has its own owner and in a lot of cases also has a "temporary" owner who makes things up to them - the mare I learned to ride properly on was in many ways my mare and not anyone else's, to the extent that people used to grumble at *me* when she played up! I never owned her, I never had her on loan, but I was the person she came to for comfort (and vice versa). But even then, the primary owner is still that - I had a memorable encounter closing up one stables one night where a pony ignored his goodnight carrot until the yard owner came over to give it to him himself.

I have loaned out my own horse, and I happily put my friends up on her back, but even when she hadn't seen me for a couple of months, *I* was still her human, not the person giving her food and shelter.

Horses pairbond. If they don't have another horse to pairbond with, they pairbond with humans. Sometimes they even do it when there's other horses around. I've both seen this and experienced it, and two owners for one horse is not a good thing.

I suspect the Idiot Boy has a less comfortable life than Catkin - and as I've said already, I haven't read the books that feature his handover to Lawrie.

From: