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]

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?

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Perhaps because for two children to share one pony, both of them regarding him as mine, is reasonable enough: but not for an elderly pony to be treated as the family bicycle, anyone can ride him who likes?

[oursin.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that would have been the deal with Buster, given that fairly few members of the family would be likely to want or be able to ride him. And there's a difference between something being X's, but they're expected to share occasionally, and its being common family property (though family attitudes to bikes seem a bit cavalier, so perhaps there are grounds for concern).