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

[ex-ajhalluk585.livejournal.com]

I think my difficulty with Catkin - whom we know cost somewhere under eighty-seven pounds fifteen shillings and eightpence, though how much less is open to doubt, likewise the purchasing power of eighty-seven pounds fifteen shillings and eightpence in either 1948 or 1959 (depending on whether the Legatts held to their original selling price between End of Term and Peter's Room) - is not the not lending him around bit (it strikes me as quite clear that none of the younger children with the possible exception of Lawrie is remotely capable of riding him) but that given he represents a fair percentage of the Last Ditch, and the Last Ditch is by definition a one-off, that there is no possibility of any of the other children having a present remotely equal to him in lavishness.

That, actually, always has bothered me; it does look like favoritism because it's a whopping expenditure which - so far as one can tell- simply can't be replicated for any of the other children, and I do wonder why. And I do wonder if in some respects it's because Mrs Marlow is seeing something in Ginty which she recognises in herself; the pretty party girl with all the dance dresses who stays up all night to dance and is off to the Hunt looking fabulous the next day on an hour and a half's sleep (and, better than Pam ever managed, Madame Orly actually approves of Ginty!). No-one suggests, for example, that Nicola ought to have a dinghy, or Ann a grand-piano or even a superior upright.

I think Mrs Marlow was quite right to buy Chocbar for herself, but I do wonder why Ginty gets this big splashy present which is out of line with anything we ever hear of any of the other children getting - or of its being possible for them to get.

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

You've articulated perfectly what my thoughts on this, better than I've been doing - thanks for that.

As I've said elsewhere in these comments, it's that both horses were bought at the same time with the Last Ditch that makes me uncomfortable. If Mrs. Marlow had sold her own tiara to buy herself a horse, that wouldn't bother me a bit. Or if she'd sold it to buy two horses for the children, say one for Ginty, and one for the twins to share, or for Lawrie and Peter, since Nicola has more-or-less permanent usage of Mr. Buster, that wouldn't have made me turn a hair. It's just that it's such a huge one-off thing that none of the others get a share in. It picks Ginty out from the others.

I also wonder if Karen felt a pang about the tiara - as the eldest daughter, she may well have expected to inherit such a valuable piece of family jewellery. Obviously this is purely specualtion; there's no textual evidence for this.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Obviously this is purely specualtion; there's no textual evidence for this.

Indeed, what textual evidence there is, is against this. The "Last Ditch" is plainly regarded as a family joke, certainly among the older members of the family who understand how limited its value is.

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

I think jewellery which sold for possibly £200 (to afford two horses, the less valuable of which cost roughly £90) in the 1950s wasn't exactly limited in value. If you consider what the average weekly wage was at that time (between £5 and £10, depending on whether we're talking late forties - End of Term - or late fifties - Peter's Room), the Last Ditch was worth at least 20 times that. Hardly peanuts. Even if the younger children had exaggerrated its potential worth or usefulness in a crisis.

[(Anonymous)]

I'd assume Chocbar could easily have cost as much as double Catkin; remember Helena Merrick who is not short of a bob or so was "coveting her madly all last season" suggesting that either Pam Marlow snapped her up the instant she was on the market or that even Helena baulked at the asking price.

Also, considering Antiques Roadshow and the like, I can't see even a horribly unfashionable diamond tiara going for less than £10-15,000 these days, can you?

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Depends how you figure it. At GDP, £250 in 1950 would be the equivalent of £16 000 today - but GDP doesn't necessarily represent the equivalent of what it would buy.

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

No, what it would buy is half a house. Which by most people's standards isn't a small sum of money.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

I think jewellery which sold for possibly £200 (to afford two horses, the less valuable of which cost roughly £90) in the 1950s wasn't exactly limited in value.

To a child in the 1950s, £200-£250 might look like unlimited wealth. (See Nicola's reaction to her Windfall.) To an adult, however, it's plainly not. Depending which indicator of value you use (see Current Value of Old Money (http://eh.net/hmit/)) £250 in 1950 is probably (relative purchasing power) £5,270 in 2005. Think about how £5000 of "your own money" would look to a teenager: then think about how that would look to an adult. It's half what it would cost to buy a new car, or - before house prices went up - enough to put down a deposit on a small house or flat. (Wouldn't be now, where I live.) It's a nice little sum, but it's not, except from a child's point of view, unlimited wealth.

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

Yes, but you could actually buy a decent terraced house, in a decent area, for around £500 in 1950ish, not just "put a deposit on a small house or flat" - my grandparents actually did - so that's worth a hell of a lot more in real terms then than £5,000 is now. You can't really compare the buying power now with the buying power then. And it's a lot to spend on just one child.

And I never said it was "unlimited wealth". I said "a valuable piece of jewellery". I don't see how you can possibly claim a tiara that could have bought half a house in 1950 isn't "valuable". I believe I've said the younger ones probably exaggerrated the value, but that doesn't mean it was "limited in value", i.e. worth little. It just means it couldn't have been used to solve any financial crisis of any magnitude.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

And I never said it was "unlimited wealth". I said "a valuable piece of
jewellery".

What you said was "It wasn't exactly limited in value" - and that is precisely what it was: limited. It was a one-off bonus that could be spent any number of ways. You seem to have come round to the idea that Mrs Marlow spent it sensibly when she bought a horse for herself, rather than being a bad selfish mother - which was the idea that I truly objected to: the idea that a woman is a "bad mother" if she ever spends anything on herself that she doesn't absolutely need when her children are going without things that they want but don't need - which was your starting position - is really rather anti-woman and anti-mother, and generally objectionable. Mrs Marlow bought herself Chocbar, and it was a sensible and right purchase, and you accept that: good.

That there is something skewed about Ginty getting such an expensive present is something I've come round to, having read so many well-reasoned points about it on this thread. But arguing from that to "Mrs Marlow's a bad mother" is something else again.

[ex-ajhalluk585.livejournal.com]

sorry, earlier anon comment was me, not logged in.

[oursin.livejournal.com]

as the eldest daughter, she may well have expected to inherit such a valuable piece of family jewellery

Or would it be the trophy of any future wife of Giles?

[ex-ajhalluk585.livejournal.com]

You mean, like the farm that Rowan's put all that back-breaking work and her life prospects into?

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

Similarly, I seem to remember Peter being a bit put out at one point at the realisation that he won't inherit an interest in the farm. Am I remembering this right?

[ex-ajhalluk585.livejournal.com]

I think it's associated with that slightly creepy conversation Giles has in Run Away Home about the wrong sort of women for naval officers to get mixed up with. I end up biting my lips every time I read that bit, before recalling that Giles is canonically a whopping idiot quite a lot of the time, at least on shore, and he's only about 22 anyway.

[oursin.livejournal.com]

Primogeniture - the foundation of the nation: except, of course, there is no longer an Empire for Peter to go out to to make his own life (or indeed, his sisters).

[jonquil.livejournal.com]

Yes, but in the old system Rowan would be groomed to marry some other farmer; instead, she's sacrificing all her own interests to a farm that Giles will take over when he comes back from sea. I loathe the idea of her dwindling into a maiden aunt.

[owl]

Rowan ought to be getting a large salary. They'd have had to pay that to a famr manager who wasn't related to them. I think that's a bigger issue than Ginty's nag.

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

I never thought about her wages before, except I guess to assume she wasn't being paid, but was just living at home and doing the job. And still getting necessities bought for her by the family like say, Karen, who was at uni, would get stuff bought for her as and when it was required.

Hmmm, interesting.

[(Anonymous)]

I see the point about the one-off thing, but the older children are all beginning to leave scholl and make their own way - so there will be more momey to go round among the youngers for presents, won't there?

[coughingbear]

This makes lots of sense. Also, I think I suggested this further up one of the threads, but I wondered if it is in part because Mrs Marlow still worries about Ginty after the Traitor stuff and being trapped after a bomb, and thinks it will help her.

Just had an additional thought, could it also be that she can't resist buying Catkin as well as Chocbar, and Ginty's the only child he will suit? She's very encouraging when Lawrie and Peter first discuss having the Idiot Boy, so perhaps she's just desperate for horses after all those years of Hampstead.

[ex-ajhalluk585.livejournal.com]

In a sense, one of the most encouraging ideas is of Catkin as camouflage for Chocbar, I agree.

[owl]

Ginty does cause a lot of her own problems, however. And Peter is probably at least as badly damaged as she is by the events in Traitor.

BTW, does anyone else find it odd that the Marlows go from Swallows-and-Amazon types in Traitor, with Commander Marlow owning a boat (as opposed to commanding a destroyer :D), and then in Peter's Room it's all horse-and-hound, and the parents even got engaged at a Hunt Ball.

[coughingbear]

I do wonder what happened to their boat, though quite possibly it was something they had while their father was stationed in the UK and he sold it/passed it on to another officer when he was promoted and sent overseas, since there was no one to look after it. Thinking about Ransome, in We Didn't Mean to Go to Sea the children are told they'll probably have access to various boats that belong to the Navy/naval officers, so it may have been similar for the Marlows, and only 'theirs' temporarily.

The combination of country gentry types and Navy doesn't seem odd to me, though it's interesting that of the holiday books Traitor is very much about the sea and the RN, then they become much more countryside until Run Away Home which switches back again.

[owl]

Yes, I suppose that the boat must have been got rid off, otherwise it would have been heard of again in Run Away Home at least.

Well, maybe 'odd' was the wrong word. of the holiday books Traitor is very much about the sea and the RN, then they become much more countryside until Run Away Home which switches back again. Yes, that's exactly what I meant. In FL there's a bit more boats with the Regatta or whatever it was. Possibly they were doing more boat stuff in the summer holidays between CT and AT that we never see.