The CBB
http://www.the-cbb.co.uk/

the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance
http://www.the-cbb.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7888

Author:  Cosimo's Jackal [ Thu May 20, 2010 7:36 am ]
Post subject:  the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

In Althea, Joey is talking about the expense of having a large family.

Quote:
“ It’s education that costs so much during the early years and the girls have cost us nothing there apart from extras like music and so on....'


I always assumed the triplets had an entirely free ride at the CS, barring uniform purchase etc, but music - by which I assume Joey means their individual instrument lessons for violin etc, rather than Plato's lessons - and any other 'extras' seem not to be covered. What extras other than individual music lessons are there at the CS, though? If you did a language other than Latin and the three CS languages, is that an 'extra', for instance? Or some of the specialisms in Special Sixth, when it exists? (Also, would the triplets have gone free to St Mildred's too...?)

From the same passage, do we imagine the legacy from 'Grannie Maynard' was a sizeable sum?

Quote:
The triplets and Steve have their own money that Grannie Maynard left them. The triplets come into theirs this November. Steve has his scholarship which covers his fees until he leaves school, when he’ll come into his share of the legacy. That’s four of them more or less provided for.


The way Joey talks about it here makes it sound quite considerable, if it will essentially 'provide for' her four eldest after they leave school - is the implication it will cover university fees and living expenses until they start to earn?

Author:  Alison H [ Thu May 20, 2010 7:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Assuming that the money had been wisely invested, the original sum which was left could have increased quite considerably between Jack's mum's death and the triplets turning 18. Most people in CS-land have considerable "private incomes", and that presumably just means interest/dividends without even touching any capital sums. It must've been a fair amount in the first place, though, as you say. Sorry for sounding like a boring accountant :lol: , but I assume that she left all her money to her grandchildren to avoid doubling up on inheritance tax by leaving it to Jack for him then to leave to them.

I suspect EBD conveniently overlooked this, but weren't most or all of Mollie Maynard's 7 kids older than the triplets and Steve? In that case, it must've been a huge legacy if 11 grandchildren gor a sizeable amount each :roll: .

I'd assume that extras just meant music lessons ... I wouldn't've thought you had to pay for language lessons, and I don't think there were any sports clubs apart from ordinary Games lessons and practice. Uniforms and sports kits etc must have cost plenty on their own, though.

Author:  JB [ Thu May 20, 2010 7:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

I would imagine that sports kit is an extra, including skis, etc. I'd not thought about lessons, apart from individual music tuition, as extras but we're told that Len has some one to one language lessons with Miss Denny and it would make sense for them to be an extra.

Granny Maynard dies before The Chalet Goes to It. It does make it difficult to explain why Steve has an inheritance but it's given as a reason why Joey couldn't stay at Pretty Maids after they have to leave Guernsey. So, if we assume she died shortly after the triplets were born, any inheritance would have been accruing interest for around 18 years by the time they go to university.

Author:  Cosimo's Jackal [ Thu May 20, 2010 7:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Alison H wrote:

I suspect EBD conveniently overlooked this, but weren't most or all of Mollie Maynard's 7 kids older than the triplets and Steve? In that case, it must've been a huge legacy if 11 grandchildren gor a sizeable amount each :roll:


Maybe she didn't leave Mollie's children a bean... :shock:

JB wrote:
I would imagine that sports kit is an extra, including skis, etc.


I can imagine it cost a colossal amount, but winter sports seem to be a compulsory part of the curriculum, though - we never hear of anyone not ski-ing, as if it's optional, do we? Unless those people who toboggan instead are people who couldn't afford skis or didn't want to learn? Assuming toboggans are cheaper, that is!

Author:  JB [ Thu May 20, 2010 8:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

I'm sure there's a mention of a new girl having to buy a hockey stick when the school's in England so i'd say that winter sports kit would have to be purchased by parents. Even though the lesson is compulsory, i'd imagine the costs would be down to parents in the same way that any uniform would be. Maybe that's another reason some people preferred to send their children to the Welsh branch.

Author:  JS [ Thu May 20, 2010 9:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Didn't Clem lend someone a hockey stick?

The girls needed their own instruments (I'm thinking of Jacynth getting Cherry's cello).

Felicity's ballet lessons were presumably an 'extra'?

And :shock: at the size of Grannie Maynard's fortune. She might have left it all to Jack's family because he was the boy, but then why leave it to triplet girls in that case?

Author:  Llywela [ Thu May 20, 2010 9:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

JS wrote:
Felicity's ballet lessons were presumably an 'extra'?

I would imagine so - but I've always wondered where they found a part-time ballet teacher halfway up the mountain like that! As a school, they never seem to be lacking in specialist teachers for random extra subjects.

Author:  Cosimo's Jackal [ Thu May 20, 2010 9:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Llywela wrote:
JS wrote:
Felicity's ballet lessons were presumably an 'extra'?

I would imagine so - but I've always wondered where they found a part-time ballet teacher halfway up the mountain like that! As a school, they never seem to be lacking in specialist teachers for random extra subjects.


That's a point - to come back to the point about Len's language lessons with Miss Denny, could they be counted as 'extras' in the way that Felicity's ballet lessons are, given that they were classes given by a full-time member of staff...?

I'm quite sure parents had to buy all sports kit and equipment, summer and winter, themselves, I was only quibbling about whether you could call skiing an 'extra', given that it seems to be a compulsory part of the curriculum, rather than something you can opt in or out of, so buying skis is much the same as buying the tunic and blazer. Of course maybe that's what Joey means when she talks about 'extras'...?

(Really, when you think of it, the CS really needs a part-time qualified ski-instructor in Switzerland - the mistresses are so overstretched with the entire school out on the slopes at once, that most beginners don't seem to ever actually get anyhting like a ski lesson, just an informal demo and being hauled around by some more experienced girls! And that's leaving aside at least two fairly serious ski/toboggan-related accidents which really came down to prefects being expected to supervise large numbers of girls.)

Author:  Mel [ Thu May 20, 2010 10:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

In one of the books (Triplets?) Jo says:
"The triplets and Steve cost us nothing, thanks to Grannie Maynard's legacy"
I cannot beilieve that the MBRs would be educated totally free. It would unfairly bump up the fees for the other girls. I would guess that the fees would come out of their considerable 'earnings' as shareholders. So their dividends would go up or down according to how many of their children were at the school. As legal adoptees would the Richardsons and Claire go free too? There were school toboggans that the girls could use and if the school was like mine there would be school hockey sticks for general use.

Author:  MJKB [ Thu May 20, 2010 12:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Coming from a family where you are expected to earn your own living after receiving a good third level education, the idea of private incomes are alien to me. I think this subject was mentioned before in a discussion on Beth Chester. The Chester family loses money and Dr.Chester's earnings as one of the leading medics on the Island doesn't come next to near keeping his family at good private schools.
The Maynards are indeed fortunate, not only to have their girls educated free but also to have sons with sufficient ability to earn scholarships to public school. It seems wrong to me, somehow, to give a scholarship to a child whose parents can afford to pay the fee. The child in question, Stephen, can also look forward to a considerable private income as well.

Author:  Alison H [ Thu May 20, 2010 12:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

It's alien to me too. To me, the idea of living off a private income is something associated with the gentry and aristocracy, who'd have incomes from rents from land and houses which they owned, or from investments, and even that's something I'd associate more with the pre First World War era than with the 1940s or 1950s. I can understand Mr Darcy in Pride and Prejudice living off his £10,000 a year from rents etc, but I would've thought that the sort of people who sent their daughters to the CS in the Swiss years - doctors, solicitors, etc - would have lived mainly off what they earned and that whatever they got from interest and dividends, whilst it might have been a fair amount if they saved up as much as possible and invested it sensibly, would have been fairly minor by comparison, whereas EBD makes it sound as if it's the other way round.

Kathie Ferrars, for example, inherited some money from her parents, and she talks about her dividends, which she presumably got either once or twice a year, being enough to cover the cost of some new clothes, but it sounds as if her job at the CS is going to provide her main source of income. That's how I'd've expected it to be for most of the CS people - main source of income from job, "private income" just a bit on top of that - but that's not how it seems.

Author:  Emma A [ Thu May 20, 2010 12:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

I've recently finished reading A Legacy by Sybille Bedford, set during the late 1800s and early 1900s, mostly in Germany. The Merz family are discussing how much to settle on their daughter who is about to get married, and it's suggested that "one million marks" at current interest rates of 3-4% would give the couple an annual income of 30-40,000 marks, which their very wealthy daughter-in-law says "won't even cover the cost of their clothes"! :shock: I've no idea what the mark would have been worth at the time, in today's money, but it does sound like a lot.

M M Kaye identifies Nick Tarrent, in her Death in the Andamans as having a generous private income, in addition to his salary as a naval officer. But that book, although published in the 1950s, is really set in the 1930s when Kaye visited the Andamans. I guess his income would have diminished considerably after the war.

Author:  Mel [ Thu May 20, 2010 2:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Cpt Humphries (isn't it naff to use such a junior rank in civvy street?)has no private income presumably, which is why, in EBD's world they were very poor and struggled, though why an educated ex Army officer couldn't earn enough for a wife and one child I don't know. EBD herself had what she probably called a 'tiny legacy' from her maternal grandfather who was canny with money, so that probably coloured her rather crazed notions.

Author:  Cosimo's Jackal [ Thu May 20, 2010 2:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

I think I have been thinking of the triplets' legacy as smaller than the rest of you have! I was wondering whether, when Joey said they were 'provided for', their legacies (with years of interest etc) would be enough to cover a few university fees and living expenses till they started to earn a living - I think I was assuming that the interest wouldn't cover all that, so they would have to dig into the capital, and probably decimate it... Perhaps I set my sights too low, and in fact they will retain a private income for life!

Author:  MJKB [ Thu May 20, 2010 2:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

I always get the impression that EBD wants us to see the CS pupils as, at the very least, upper middle class. Most of the men the girls eventually marry are pretty well healed, even Reg Entwhistle through the money his great aunt leaves him. Jem and Jack have private incomes and appear to come from landed families, and the impression given is that all of the doctors in the series have money of their own apart from what they earn. Perhaps she wanted to emphasis how noble these men are in dedicating their lives to healing the sick If they were doing it to earn a living, it would somehow be less noble.

Author:  Mel [ Thu May 20, 2010 4:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Yes, even with the teaching staff, they are rarely doing it for the money (except perhaps bad Miss Slater. The CS is 'home' or it is an adventure, or they have a vocation to teach or are passionate about their subject. If the sordid subject of money does crop up it's because some teacher has to support family or educate younger siblings.

Author:  Selena [ Thu May 20, 2010 9:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Mel wrote:
Cpt Humphries (isn't it naff to use such a junior rank in civvy street?)has no private income presumably, which is why, in EBD's world they were very poor and struggled, though why an educated ex Army officer couldn't earn enough for a wife and one child I don't know. EBD herself had what she probably called a 'tiny legacy' from her maternal grandfather who was canny with money, so that probably coloured her rather crazed notions.


I'm thinking that EBD's definition of "very poor" is probably rather different to mine.

Richenda does extra art. Herr Laubach would presumably get paid a salary for teaching class art lessons to the school and then earn extra money by tutoring anyone who wanted more lessons. Probably the same thing with Len's extra language lessons.

Author:  Lesley [ Thu May 20, 2010 9:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Mel wrote:
Cpt Humphries (isn't it naff to use such a junior rank in civvy street?)


Are we told that Ted Humphries is an Army Captain? If he's a Naval Captain that's far more respectable = Army Colonel. With only a few exceptions the Army does not allow retention of rank below Major now - I think some of the Guards regiments do allow Captain though - thinking Captain Mark Philips Princess Anne's first husband

Author:  Pado [ Thu May 20, 2010 9:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

I did a little googling on boarding school tuitions (focused but not exclusively on Switzerland) and found a variety of things that are charged as extra fees, including
application fee
horse boarding
music lessons
dry cleaning
uniform
extracurriculat activities
tutoring
pocket money
trips and excursions
meals
clubs and sport
haircuts
administration fee
"development fee for new students"
external examination fees
internet and telephone access in student's room
laundry
transportation

Most sites suggest that parents add 10-20% to their monthly cost estimate for extras.

Author:  Cel [ Thu May 20, 2010 9:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

MJKB wrote:
I always get the impression that EBD wants us to see the CS pupils as, at the very least, upper middle class. Most of the men the girls eventually marry are pretty well healed, even Reg Entwhistle through the money his great aunt leaves him. Jem and Jack have private incomes and appear to come from landed families, and the impression given is that all of the doctors in the series have money of their own apart from what they earn.


But then you have nice normal moments like where Joey says that her latest royalty cheque will pay for a trip home to England for someone's (Peggy's?) wedding, and offers to 'go shags' :D with Jack on the airfares. Which sounds much more like an ordinary middle-class family who don't have a whole lot of money to spare. And also suggests an unusual-for-the-time demarcation of income between a couple, I would think?

Author:  Alison H [ Thu May 20, 2010 10:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Yes, I like the idea that Joey has her own money :D .

Herr Laubach apparently hardly saved a penny between restarting at the CS during the war, after losing his savings when he fled Austria, and retiring in Trials - Joey and Hilda talk about finding him a house as if he's some sort of old family retainer - which says something very worrying about either his spending habits or the school's rates of pay :roll: . I'd love to know more about the staff's backgrounds in terms of how much they needed the money. Doesn't Mlle de Lachennais say somewhere that she had to get a job because her family were very poor, but mention somewhere else about her family's summer home? OK, that was probably an EBDism :lol: , but it'd be interesting to know which of them genuinely needed to support themselves and which of them chose to work and why.

I always wonder why Margot Venables got a job as school matron. Surely Jem could have supported his sister, and she can't have been very keen on the idea of only seeing Primula at weekends, so was it that her pride stopped her from wanting to rely on her brother?

Author:  JB [ Thu May 20, 2010 10:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Lesley wrote:
Are we told that Ted Humphries is an Army Captain? If he's a Naval Captain that's far more respectable = Army Colonel. With only a few exceptions the Army does not allow retention of rank below Major now - I think some of the Guards regiments do allow Captain though - thinking Captain Mark Philips Princess Anne's first husband


I'm pretty sure he was an Army Captain. Yep, this is from Jo Of:

Quote:
When he was in France – he was home on leave – he used to write at first. Then, when peace was signed, he was sent up the Rhine: he was in the army of occupation, you see.

Author:  Llywela [ Fri May 21, 2010 6:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Alison H wrote:
I always wonder why Margot Venables got a job as school matron. Surely Jem could have supported his sister, and she can't have been very keen on the idea of only seeing Primula at weekends, so was it that her pride stopped her from wanting to rely on her brother?

I've wondered that, too...and then I realise I've been thinking of her as a Verity-type only too willing to lean on other people for support if they were willing to allow it. But maybe instead she needed that sense of independence, of standing on her own two feet and taking care of herself, after all she had been through - maybe she couldn't stand the thought of being dependent.

Author:  ChubbyMonkey [ Fri May 21, 2010 9:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Cel wrote:
But then you have nice normal moments like where Joey says that her latest royalty cheque will pay for a trip home to England for someone's (Peggy's?) wedding, and offers to 'go shags' :D with Jack on the airfares.


Where was that quote mentioned recently on the board? Sorry, OT, but it's been driving me mad - I know it was, because the other day I offered to go shags with someone on a tub of ice-cream without thinking and then had a fun time explaining myself! :lol:

I think that the inheritance would have gone to Jack as the son, and Mollie's children wouldn't have received anything (if EBD had even remembered Mollie herself, let alone that she had children!) - presumably it was left to the triplets over any sons, because at the time she died only the triplets had been born, but it was also stipulated that the rest would go to any future child that Jack had, or be added to the triplets' sum?

Perhaps EBD knew how expensive it was to send someone to boarding school at the time, and had to give all her characters private income to justify the expense of Switzerland as well, without making them seem so upper class that they stopped appealing to the readers?

Author:  julieanne1811 [ Fri May 21, 2010 10:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Quote:
Pado wrote:
extracurricular activities
tutoring
trips and excursions
meals
clubs and sport
transportation


Gosh - this has made me think. How is 'extra-curricular' defined? As a working definition I would say it includes anything not directly related to learning the standard lessons at school - geography and so on. Although having written that I'm thinking then that there's a case for claiming that a walk forms part of games, geography (and perhaps with some history thrown in?). You could add science to it, too.

If all those ghastly walks up mountains are extra-curricular, perhaps the supervising Mistresses were paid extra to go on the walk? That would make the demand that they attended these activities less painful.

Tutoring - OK. We know that Miss Norman was being paid extra to teach Joyce and Co. When Jo worked at the School I suppose she would have been paid (so to say that she 'owes it' to the School to help out isn't as altruistic as it sounds initially!) - would she then have been paid extra to tutor Polly? And what about any of the girls who needed 'extra' lessons throughout the series - I'd never thought of it before, but I suppose that would have been billed to their parents?

Trips and excursions - lots and lots of these. If you add up everything, transport, staff, hotel/pension, food, admission to various places, I wonder how much it would cost? And who would have to work out the costings - I suppose Rosalie?

Meals - I had thought these would have been included in the general school fees. If 'extras', we can add the Saturday night entertainment catering to this list. WOuld the Staff have been paid, then, to attend Saturday night things? It would give someone the chance to say 'no, sorry. I don't feel like it this Saturday. I'd like some time alone.' ...

Clubs and sport - I would guess this covers paying staff to oversee clubs (so not so much at the CS, then!) and for equipment and so on.

Transportation - I wonder if parents might have wanted to get their girls to the school in the cheapest way possible? Flying would have been more costly than trains in those times, but I can imagine parents making their own arrangements. Unless, of course, the School got deals on bulk travel ...

Of course, CS land is like no other and in some way it's superfluous to apply real life to the School. But it makes for interesting comparisons ...

Author:  Alison H [ Fri May 21, 2010 10:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

I assume parents had to pay extra for the half term trips because some girls spent half term with friends and relatives so they couldn't really include the costs in the fees charged to everyone, and IME all schools have to charge for trips. I assume that if someone had said they really couldn't afford to pay the extra then the girls in question would've been left at school and some of the staff who weren't going on trips would've had to give up their holidays to look after them. Or else they'd've been farmed out to the Maynards.

Author:  Thursday Next [ Fri May 21, 2010 10:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Alison H wrote:
I assume that if someone had said they really couldn't afford to pay the extra then the girls in question would've been left at school and some of the staff who weren't going on trips would've had to give up their holidays to look after them. Or else they'd've been farmed out to the Maynards.


More likely the parents would be told that the school closed down for half term and that the parents would have to find somewhere for the children over the period. The cost to the parents of coming over to Switzerland to care for their children would probably be more than the cost of the trips. Richenda is not allowed to stay at school during half term as all the staff are away.

Author:  ChubbyMonkey [ Fri May 21, 2010 11:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Presumably the school would also have recommended some of the local accomm., such as pensions etc, that the parents might like to book their child into?

Author:  Alison H [ Fri May 21, 2010 12:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

That idea I like :D . If I'd been a naughty Middle, I'd've loved being left at one of the local pensions with a few friends. Would make a great drabble ...

Author:  Cosimo's Jackal [ Fri May 21, 2010 12:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

ChubbyMonkey wrote:
Presumably the school would also have recommended some of the local accomm., such as pensions etc, that the parents might like to book their child into?


I'm pretty sure they couldn't have left them there without adequate supervision, though...? (Though the idea of 'Middles Go Mad at the Pension' is a lovely one!)

It comes up a bit in Richenda, when we're clearly intended to see it as 'wrong' for Prof R to be punishing his daughter by not allowing her on the halfterm trip. But if these trips are indeed an expensive 'extra', there must have been the possibility of parents who could afford neither to pay for their daughter to go on them, nor to fly her back to the UK for a few days. Yet the CS authorities are thrown into consternation by Prof Richardson, and Richenda has to be billeted on the Maynards - as if this is the first time ever a girl had to be accommodated at halfterm (which is still termtime, when you think about it!)

Actually, reading Pado's list of what counts as an 'extra' is making me think quite differently about the organisation of some CS expeditions - if you are thinking as a parent paying through the nose for them! You might find yourself thinking about whether the CS shouldn't have acclimatised the girls gradually on that expedition in Theodora when a lot of them get altitude sickness and have to go back down, or wondering whether you would have to pay for the mountain rescue to retrieve Naomi, OOAO and co from the avalanche!

Author:  MJKB [ Fri May 21, 2010 12:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Cel wrote:
But then you have nice normal moments like where Joey says that her latest royalty cheque will pay for a trip home to England for someone's (Peggy's?) wedding, and offers to 'go shags' :D with Jack on the airfares. Which sounds much more like an ordinary middle-class family who don't have a whole lot of money to spare. And also suggests an unusual-for-the-time demarcation of income between a couple, I would think?


I love those moments too, they give me a really cosy feeling for some reason. But while I applaud the fact that Joey is in a position to contribute to the family income, it doesn't suffest to me that the Maynards ever have to struggle where money is concerned. They have 11 children, after all, and they run a huge household with plenty of help. To keep that type of lifestyle going today you would need to earn a banker's salary plus bonuses!
My brother has ten children, all of whom were/are being educated privately,( having said that however, it's important to note that private education in Ireland is no where near as expensive as the US or the UK), he is a university professor on an excellent salary which is heavily subsidised by consultancy fees, in fact, his consultancy generates more income than his salary. With all of that he and his wife struggle financially. My point is, the Maynards would have to be immensely wealthy to maintain all those children and the adoptees.

Author:  Sarah Carr [ Sat May 22, 2010 12:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

If you recall, Miss Norman is paid extra to give extra language lessons to the girls in "A Rebel" - though how much extra isn't stated, it's enough to help her family out.

Author:  Fiona Mc [ Sat May 22, 2010 2:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Mel wrote:
I cannot beilieve that the MBRs would be educated totally free. It would unfairly bump up the fees for the other girls. I would guess that the fees would come out of their considerable 'earnings' as shareholders. So their dividends would go up or down according to how many of their children were at the school. As legal adoptees would the Richardsons and Claire go free too? There were school toboggans that the girls could use and if the school was like mine there would be school hockey sticks for general use.


I could see how it happened though. Before the school became a limited company, Madge would be entirely in her right to allow some students to be free or at a reduced rate. It makes sense that the Russell girls were for nothing, they were Madge's daughters and if they had started before the school became a company, I could see them being allowed to continue. I know Dick thought the fees were a bit steep as he says that in School at the Chalet. I can't imagine Madge not sending Peggy or Bride to the school simply because Dick couldn't afford private schooling or if he did, could only afford it for the boys. It would be odd owning your own school and then sending your nieces to another school, especially when they lived with you.

I'm sure Margot didn't have to pay for her kids. If she wanted some independence and not be completely beholdened to her brother, Madge could have suggested she be Matron and her kids schooling would be covered regardless as it was with Mademoiselle and Simone and Renee. I could see why Margot would work then, she's providing for her girls future even if she won't be there.

And if Madge did that for Margot and Dick, how can she miss out on Joey. I could see this being discussed and left as is when the school was no longer owned by Madge but became a company as one of the conditions attached to it becoming a company.

Author:  sealpuppy [ Sat May 22, 2010 8:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

I'm always confused about pre-war costs. I'm sure I read somewhere that if you earned £5 a week you could afford to rent a nice house with a servant of some kind. (But I might be hallucinating about that. :? )
Re Grannie Maynard's legacy. It's possible that Mollie Maynard had money settled on her by her parents on her marriage, on the understanding that that was that. Perhaps the same amount could have been put in trust for Jack's family? However, what about the money Grandpa Maynard presumably left his family? There was the house, of course, but presumably some money too?

Author:  Caty [ Sun May 23, 2010 8:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

I had linked Joey's comments about 'the girls costing us nothing' at school to be linked to the fact that the school was a limited company with Jo and Jack being shareholders. And in that case, they used their profits to fund the girls' education.

I assumed Granny Maynard's inheritance to be fairly sizeable as Pretty Maids is always portrayed as pretty substantial. In those days inheritance usually went to the oldest male, particularly if there was a property involved. If a girl was unmarried there might have been some dowry, but as Mollie was married, it would have been up to het husband to provide for her. But as to why she left the money to Jack's children rather than Jack, I can only assume that she thought Jack was doing well enough for himself and that the money would be better left in trust for his children. Unless she died during the war and was worried her son wouldn't come back and this was she was able to look after his children?

Author:  Alison H [ Sun May 23, 2010 8:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Caty wrote:
But as to why she left the money to Jack's children rather than Jack, I can only assume that she thought Jack was doing well enough for himself and that the money would be better left in trust for his children. Unless she died during the war and was worried her son wouldn't come back and this was she was able to look after his children?


Apologies for being a boring accountant here :lol: . Inheritance tax in the UK is currently 40% on anything over £325,000. No idea what the rates and limits were in the 1940s, but the idea'd be the same - if you have a lot to leave, a lot of it goes in tax. So, if the children of a wealthy person are doing OK - Jack must've earned plenty at the San - it can make a lot of sense to leave the money to the grandchildren, because otherwise the family'll pay tax again when the child dies and the grandchildren inherit, and you effectively end up with 64% - 40% plus (40% x 60%) - of the grandparent's estate going to the tax authorities :shock: .

That's the boring explanation - I prefer the idea that Mrs Maynard senior was secretly a radical feminist and wanted to ensure that the triplets would be financially independent :wink: .

Author:  JB [ Sun May 23, 2010 8:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Perhaps all the Directors of the limited company were allowed to send their daughters to the school free of charge? Or perhaps that, in some way, offset their dividends? Having said that, would it be unusual for a school to be a profit-making enterprise in that way? A lot of schools today have charitable status. The decision to make the school a limited company could have been based on limiting liability rather than generating income. But, then again, we're told that some of the staff were shareholders so there must have been an element of income.

LOL at the thought that the decision to educate the MBR girls free of charge might have been made when Joey only had the triplets and imaginng the horror on the faces of the other shareholders each time she announced that she was "busy".

I don't think it's unreasonable that they should go the school and not pay fees, as the family capital was tied up in the school. Why shouldn't free education be a perk?

It's diffcult to make sense of Granny Mayard's legacy. Maybe she had some money of her own and decided that, as the bulk of the estate would go to Bob as the eldest son, she'd divide her money between the other children. We don't know that she didn't leave anything to Mollie's children.

Alison, you're never boring. I always appreciate your accountant take on things - and the radical feminist idea as well. How can we fit Steven into this theory?

Author:  MJKB [ Sun May 23, 2010 1:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

JB wrote:
LOL at the thought that the decision to educate the MBR girls free of charge might have been made when Joey only had the triplets and imaginng the horror on the faces of the other shareholders each time she announced that she was "busy".

Snap! I expect some of the other shareholders seethed with rage everytime another female MBR, especially M, was born. I too am indebted to Alison's accountant's take on this subject and I'm just wondering if the more MBRs there are the less dividends there are for the other shareholders.

Author:  JB [ Sun May 23, 2010 1:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

MJKB wrote:
I'm just wondering if the more MBRs there are the less dividends there are for the other shareholders.


Until Alison gets here with a real answer .... I think it would depend on how dividends were calculated. If there was a simple division of net profit based on how many shares you had, then the cost of educating the clan would affect the net profit and therefore the dividend.

However, you could work out the profit before educating the clan and then take the cost of educating the girls off each family member's share. Although, that would probably not fit with Joey's comment that the girls "cost them nothing".

Author:  ChubbyMonkey [ Sun May 23, 2010 2:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Unless the money was just left to Jack, but he was canny enough to put it to one side in a separate account or similar and only ever spend it on the trips/Steven?

Author:  Alison H [ Sun May 23, 2010 2:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Dividends would (unless there's more than one class of share) normally be £x per share. Not sure who the shareholders were: it was a limited company rather than a plc so I'd think the MBRs would've been the only shareholders, other than the staff whom we're told somewhere also had shares. So the poor staff would've been the ones who lost out!

Author:  Cosimo's Jackal [ Sun May 23, 2010 3:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Alison H wrote:
Dividends would (unless there's more than one class of share) normally be £x per share. Not sure who the shareholders were: it was a limited company rather than a plc so I'd think the MBRs would've been the only shareholders, other than the staff whom we're told somewhere also had shares. So the poor staff would've been the ones who lost out!


Now giggling at the idea of a distincty frosty staffroom reception of news of yet another female Maynard arrival! 'There go my dividends again! Can't someone stop her?'

Author:  MJKB [ Sun May 23, 2010 4:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Cosimo's Jackal wrote:
Now giggling at the idea of a distincty frosty staffroom reception of news of yet another female Maynard arrival! 'There go my dividends again! Can't someone stop her?'

Yes, indeed. They must have wanted to choke her when she 'misinforms' them about Felicity's birth. "Hurray! She's had a boy, I can go on holidays!"

Author:  Lesley [ Sun May 23, 2010 5:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

What about Mademoiselle? She was described as Madge's partner so therefore her family (Simone etc) must have inherited her shares and rights to send females to CS.

Author:  Llywela [ Sun May 23, 2010 6:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Lesley wrote:
What about Mademoiselle? She was described as Madge's partner so therefore her family (Simone etc) must have inherited her shares and rights to send females to CS.

Well, Simone does appear to simply write to the school to let them know when she is sending Tessa along, rather than applying the normal way - I forget which book this is in, though.

Author:  Alison H [ Sun May 23, 2010 7:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

The fact that Mlle was a partner in the school seems to be mysteriously forgotten about :? . There's never any mention of the Lecoutiers, who presumably inherited everything she left, being involved in making any decisions, or even in having a financial interest. It's possible that the Russells bought her out when she had to give up work, but I suspect EBD just forgot about it :roll: .

Author:  Miss Di [ Mon May 24, 2010 2:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Given that Mlle was getting a free education for her nieces rather than a salary was she a partner in the business sense of the word? There is no indication that she contributed to the schools initial set up costs is there?

Author:  Alison H [ Mon May 24, 2010 7:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

It's all pretty vague. We're told in one of the early books that the school was providing a small but steady income for its two owners, which suggests that Mlle was on a profit share rather than a salary but, as you say, there's never any suggestion that she put in any capital when the school was set up.

Author:  Cosimo's Jackal [ Mon May 24, 2010 8:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Alison H wrote:
The fact that Mlle was a partner in the school seems to be mysteriously forgotten about :? . There's never any mention of the Lecoutiers, who presumably inherited everything she left, being involved in making any decisions, or even in having a financial interest. It's possible that the Russells bought her out when she had to give up work, but I suspect EBD just forgot about it :roll: .


Yes, when it's announced that Mademoiselle will never return to the CS, the suggestion seems to be that Mademoiselle has nothing but her salary from the CS, which is now ended, and a free education for Renee Lecoutier (though that may actually be because of Simone becoming a CS mistress, rather than because of Mademoiselle...?) What troubles me particularly is that the assumption seems to be that she will be entirely dependent on Madge and Jem.

Quote:
'But, Hilda, what will Mademoiselle do? We all know here that she has nothing but what she earns. And then, she has helped her cousins, the Lecoutiers.'
'We needn't trouble about that, said Miss Annersley. 'The Russells will see that she does not want. And as for the Lecoutiers, Simone will, in two years' time, have finished her course at the Sorbonne, and come here to teach. Renee's education is secured here, of course; and when she is sixteen, she is to go to the Paris Conservatoire for training. Her music is very good. And then Mrs Russell suggests that Monsieur and Madame Lecoutier should take one of those large, chalets they are building on the Sonnalpe and let rooms to visitors. They would be near Mademoiselle - and Simone, when she returns. And there is much need for pensions up there, as you know.'
'That's like Madame,' said Miss Edwards thoughtfully. 'Yes; that would certainly seem to solve all difficulties so far as Mademoiselle and the Lecoutiers are concerned-‘


Also, don't the Lecoutier parents have ties or jobs of their own wherever it is they have lived until now? Do we ever know why it is they are so poor that Mademoiselle has apparently had to help them financially for years? (In the CS world poverty is usually explained (illness, bad investments like the Bettanys or embezzlement like the Chesters etc) - but I don't remember this coming up with the Lecoutiers...?

I know they would want to see Mademoiselle, but it just seems odd that the Lecoutier parents are helpless and rootless to the extent that Madge - do they even know Madge, come to think of it? - has to be the one to come up with a plan to allow them an income...? Don't they have a home and ties of their own in France that might preclude moving permamently to a remote bit of Austria, even for the sake of an invalid cousin of whom they are very fond, and to whom they owe a lot...?

Author:  Mel [ Mon May 24, 2010 10:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

I think EBD liked to think of the Russells now being mega-rich and responsible for everyone's well-being and the Lecoutiers are just part of their now global empire. Not at all believable or particularly desirable. What is wrong with living off your income? Also there was very little - a couple of hundred pounds? - put into the Chalet enterprise so how come Mdle got nothing?

Author:  sealpuppy [ Mon May 24, 2010 12:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

I think I always understood that Mademoiselle's contribution was to be part chaperone for Madge and as a teacher; did she actually put any money into the enterprise? Her keep and Simone's tuition/board were part of the deal and presumably a salary once the school was up and running.

Grannie Maynard's legacy only makes sense if she died - at latest - when she knew Jo was pregnant with Stephen, otherwise it would have been more sensible to leave the money between Jack's children (names/number unspecified). Just an EBDism, I expect.

Author:  JB [ Mon May 24, 2010 12:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

I can't imagine Madmoiselle having much capital to put into the CS. Presumably, she only had what she earned as a governess and if she was helping out her family too, it wouldn't leave much spare.

Author:  Cosimo's Jackal [ Mon May 24, 2010 12:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Mel wrote:
I think EBD liked to think of the Russells now being mega-rich and responsible for everyone's well-being and the Lecoutiers are just part of their now global empire.


:lol: :lol:

I think that's true - though it's usually the fact that people who get permanently 'adopted' by the school, like Herr Laubach and Frau Mieders, have no other family and lost everything in the war, so there's a reason why they fall back on the CS as 'family'.

But Mademoiselle has close family ties with the Lecoutiers, so it would seem odd for Madge and Jem to be making decisions about her care, unless the Lecoutiers are depicted as too poor to be able to have any input, or to be able to care for their relative, so that's what EBD does. It's a bit like when Joey is the one organising Simone's wedding, despite the fact she has a sister and parents - because EBD carefully sends the Lecoutier parents out of the picture - aren't they in Scotland, or something...?

I think it's true that Mademoiselle is part-chaperone in the inception of the CS, to make it 'respectable' - and her decision to go with Madge to the Tiernsee is presented as an emotional, rather than a practical one.

Quote:
Mademoiselle will be thankful to get away from England too.’
‘You’re sure it’s all right about her coming?’
‘Yes. I spoke to her a week ago, and she said if you consented, she would come. She’s not too happy at the Withers’, and she’s not really tied to them at all, She loves us—has done ever since I sat on Jean Withers for being rude to her!—and she adores Jo. I’m not mad keen on making a fortune. So long as we can keep ourselves, and save a little for the chicken in case of accidents, I shall be quite happy.’


I think this makes her seem rather victim-like and helpless - living unhappily with a family whose daughter is rude to her, and rather lower on the social scale than the Bettanys whom she 'loves'. But the fact is that Madge couldn't have done it without her for a second! A respectable older woman was absolutely necessary for the enterprise - a 24 year old with a young dependent couldn't have done it alone - and that's leaving out her teaching experience, the fact that she's able to go ahead with Dick to set things up - and the fact she seems to do the housekeeping before a Matron is hired.

Even if she had no money to invest in set-up, the CS would not have existed at all without her! I think that's why it feels sad to me that she's presented as just as much a dependent later on in the series as she was at the beginning - especailly when it's fairly clear she never planned or wanted to be a headmistress - when Madge has done so well.

Author:  Alison H [ Mon May 24, 2010 2:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Just thinking about it, didn't she endow a scholarship? She must've had a fair bit of money to leave, because it was still in existence years later.

Author:  JB [ Mon May 24, 2010 2:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Alison H wrote:
Just thinking about it, didn't she endow a scholarship? She must've had a fair bit of money to leave, because it was still in existence years later.


I'd forgotten that. Doesn't it pay for University education? It's mentioned in Island, then again in Feud (when I thought it was odd that someone from St Hilda's could apply).

Author:  MJKB [ Mon May 24, 2010 3:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Alison H wrote:
Just thinking about it, didn't she endow a scholarship? She must've had a fair bit of money to leave, because it was still in existence years later.


I always thought that the Terese Lapattre Scholarshipwas in honour of her services to the School rather than one she endowed. I love Mdle and I too feel a bit sad that she is represented at the end as something of a victim.
Cosimo's Jackal wrote:
But the fact is that Madge couldn't have done it without her for a second! A respectable older woman was absolutely necessary for the enterprise - a 24 year old with a young dependent couldn't have done it alone - and that's leaving out her teaching experience, the fact that she's able to go ahead with Dick to set things up - and the fact she seems to do the housekeeping before a Matron is hired.

That's an excellent point and restores Mdle's central role in the enterprise. In the first two books, I always liked the affectionate relationship between the two women, one middle aged and plain, the other young and pretty. I admire EBD for not coming up with a convenient English born teacher to take over the headship as many GO writers of the day might have done.

Author:  Llywela [ Mon May 24, 2010 3:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

I also think the Therese Lepattre Scholarship was set up in her name and memory, rather than being personally endowed by her. Although it is a shame she ends up as such a victim, reliant on the generosity of her friends and colleagues, I don't think she invested in the school financially - it is perfectly possible and legal for two individuals to go into business together and be equal partners in that business while only one makes a financial investment; the second partner has a different contribution to make.

Author:  JB [ Mon May 24, 2010 3:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Llywela wrote:
I don't think she invested in the school financially - it is perfectly possible and legal for two individuals to go into business together and be equal partners in that business while only one makes a financial investment; the second partner has a different contribution to make.


Very true - and if she weren't an equity partner, that could explain why her ill health and loss of salary would have been such a blow to the Lecoutiers.

Author:  Caroline [ Tue May 25, 2010 9:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Alison H wrote:
Caty wrote:
But as to why she left the money to Jack's children rather than Jack, I can only assume that she thought Jack was doing well enough for himself and that the money would be better left in trust for his children. Unless she died during the war and was worried her son wouldn't come back and this was she was able to look after his children?


Apologies for being a boring accountant here :lol: . Inheritance tax in the UK is currently 40% on anything over £325,000. No idea what the rates and limits were in the 1940s, but the idea'd be the same - if you have a lot to leave, a lot of it goes in tax. So, if the children of a wealthy person are doing OK - Jack must've earned plenty at the San - it can make a lot of sense to leave the money to the grandchildren, because otherwise the family'll pay tax again when the child dies and the grandchildren inherit, and you effectively end up with 64% - 40% plus (40% x 60%) - of the grandparent's estate going to the tax authorities :shock: .

That's the boring explanation - I prefer the idea that Mrs Maynard senior was secretly a radical feminist and wanted to ensure that the triplets would be financially independent :wink: .


Have to say, I always assumed the bulk of the Maynard money went to Jack and Mollie, and that the grandchildren living at the time of the will (presumably this would have included some of Mollie's children) got specific bequests / amounts of money. I don't think it ever says that the Triplets and Stephen got all the cash - just that they were left some money in the will...

But then, I had interpreted the whole Granny Maynard's money thing as being "enough to see them through university and perhaps a deposit on a first flat" rather than "enough to set them up for life / ongoing private income"...

Author:  MJKB [ Tue May 25, 2010 2:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Caroline wrote:
But then, I had interpreted the whole Granny Maynard's money thing as being "enough to see them through university and perhaps a deposit on a first flat" rather than "enough to set them up for life / ongoing private income"...


Boy if that's the case, Joey knew what side her bread was buttered when she married Jack. :P The children mentioned in the will would be in the same position as Lady Diana Spenser was when she came into her majority. How the other half live!

Author:  Alison H [ Tue May 25, 2010 2:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Sir Murtagh O'Hara graciously "allows" Juliet and Donal enough to live on until Donal can manage to eke out a living as ... er, a barrister :roll: .

Although both Joey and Madge marry very well financially, and presumably Dick did too - one minute he couldn't afford to suppoert Madge and Joey on his salary and the next he could afford to support a wife and kids, so either Mollie had a lot of money or her dad wangled it so that Dick suddenly got a big promotion :lol: - I don't particularly get the impression that the next generation did. The Wintertons don't seem to be in the same league as the Russells or the Maynards financially, Bride and her husband have a long engagement whilst they're saving up and Reg isn't wealthy by CS standards. We aren't told much about Sybil and Josette's husbands except that Josette's is a lawyer and Sybil's is a sailor whose dad is a doctor, are we?

Author:  ChubbyMonkey [ Tue May 25, 2010 3:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Alison H wrote:
Sir Murtagh O'Hara graciously "allows" Juliet and Donal enough to live on until Donal can manage to eke out a living as ... er, a barrister :roll: .


I wish that someone would allow me that chance! Being able to become a barrister is so expensive, which is half the reason that it's typically the preserve of the richer classes. I can understand why Donal would need support behind him, for the first few years at least!

Author:  Cosimo's Jackal [ Tue May 25, 2010 3:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Alison H wrote:
Although both Joey and Madge marry very well financially, and presumably Dick did too - one minute he couldn't afford to suppoert Madge and Joey on his salary and the next he could afford to support a wife and kids, so either Mollie had a lot of money or her dad wangled it so that Dick suddenly got a big promotion :lol: - I don't particularly get the impression that the next generation did.


I think I figured that the later prosperity was definitely Mollie-related anyway, whether it was Mollie's money, or that her father bumped Dick way up the career ladder when they got engaged, so that the heiress wasn't just engaged to some guy who planted fruit trees for her dad!

That's an interesting point about what and when the next MBR generation will inherit from their parents! It's hard to imagine Jem handing over control of the San till the last possible moment (probably on his deathbed, and only grudgingly!), and EBD does like to minimise the wealth of all the MBR clan - plus, she always seems suspicious of the effects of wealth on people like Zephyr Burthill, so I can't imagine the MBR parents handing out lavish allowances or early inheritances too easily. Also, there are so many MBR children still to be reared after the ones most focused on by EBD that their parents would need to husband their resources.

I wonder what EBD would make of some of today's rich people who say they aren't leaving any money to their children, because they want them to make their own way...? Would she see it as terrifically sensible, or eccentric?

Author:  Caroline [ Tue May 25, 2010 3:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

MJKB wrote:
Caroline wrote:
But then, I had interpreted the whole Granny Maynard's money thing as being "enough to see them through university and perhaps a deposit on a first flat" rather than "enough to set them up for life / ongoing private income"...


Boy if that's the case, Joey knew what side her bread was buttered when she married Jack. :P The children mentioned in the will would be in the same position as Lady Diana Spenser was when she came into her majority. How the other half live!


Not sure about that - I think Bob Maynard was still alive when Jack and Joey married? He's killed in action, isn't he? Presumably if Bob had lived, he would have inherited the house and the bulk of the money, and Jack would have been a mere younger son. It's only later, after Bob and Rolf have both died, that Jack becomes the main man / principal beneficiary....

I guess I'm imagining that the Triplets and Stephen might have received something in the region of £500 to £1000 each from the estate? Assuming £1K in 1950 would be equiv to about £25K today - I'd say that could be enough to pay your way through Uni and something left over to start you off in the world of work? So, a nice bequest but not any kind of extravagent wealth.

Author:  JB [ Tue May 25, 2010 4:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Caroline wrote:
Not sure about that - I think Bob Maynard was still alive when Jack and Joey married? He's killed in action, isn't he? Presumably if Bob had lived, he would have inherited the house and the bulk of the money, and Jack would have been a mere younger son. It's only later, after Bob and Rolf have both died, that Jack becomes the main man / principal beneficiary.....


Rolf would have been dead when Joey and Jack married - we're told in Goes To It that he died when Joey was at school. Bob died in Jo to the Rescue, so Joey wouldn't have any expectation of Jack inheriting Pretty Maids in the short term, although I guess he would have been heir apparent.

Author:  MJKB [ Tue May 25, 2010 8:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Cosimo's Jackal wrote:
I wonder what EBD would make of some of today's rich people who say they aren't leaving any money to their children, because they want them to make their own way...? Would she see it as terrifically sensible, or eccentric?

I think it's mostly people like Bill Gates, obscenely rich corporate megabillionaires who are doing that. I have my doubts that the aristocracy or landed will be lashing our their generations old dosh on global philantripic projects.

Author:  Fiona Mc [ Wed May 26, 2010 2:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

The Maynards can't have been hugely wealthy; Joey does say in one of the books that Jack says having more children will be financially harder and it is said by either Joey or Hilda that Len has offered to help out financially when she's through her course and is finally earning. Eleven children is a lot especially when half of them are in private schooling with fees. So I can't see Jack and Joey having much to leave their children when they die.

Author:  MJKB [ Wed May 26, 2010 9:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Fiona Mc wrote:
The Maynards can't have been hugely wealthy; Joey does say in one of the books that Jack says having more children will be financially harder and it is said by either Joey or Hilda that Len has offered to help out financially when she's through her course and is finally earning. Eleven children is a lot especially when half of them are in private schooling with fees. So I can't see Jack and Joey having much to leave their children when they die.


I'm alway amused when a major character in the CS pleads poverty, particularly Joey. One minute she's talking having to 'count their pennies' and the next minute she and Jack are putting on an extension to a house that had once housed an entire school! I think her idea of poverty and mine are very, very different.

Author:  Thursday Next [ Wed May 26, 2010 9:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

MJKB wrote:

I'm alway amused when a major character in the CS pleads poverty, particularly Joey. One minute she's talking having to 'count their pennies' and the next minute she and Jack are putting on an extension to a house that had once housed an entire school! I think her idea of poverty and mine are very, very different.


I think that is true of most people. I used to hear my sister and brother-in-law, his sister and husband, and my brother and sister in law almost having arguments between them to decide who was the poorest. All three families were in very well paid professions and all owned large very pricey homes and all three paid for private education for their children.

Author:  Caty [ Wed May 26, 2010 10:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

The Maynards may be putting the kids through school but Jack is the head of the San, Joey a very successful author and they own a share in a very successful school and at least 2 houses. Even with lots of kids to educate, I would say they are quite well off.

Author:  Cosimo's Jackal [ Wed May 26, 2010 11:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Fiona Mc wrote:
The Maynards can't have been hugely wealthy; Joey does say in one of the books that Jack says having more children will be financially harder and it is said by either Joey or Hilda that Len has offered to help out financially when she's through her course and is finally earning.


I realise EBD hasn't really thought this through, and is coming from a position of total inexperience personally, but I do find it a bit abhorrent that Jack and Joey would consider adding still further to their already large family if they aren't able to afford it without their over-responsible eldest daughter having to help out financially! That strikes me as pretty irresponsible - especially given their relative wealth!

MJKB wrote:
Cosimo's Jackal wrote:
I wonder what EBD would make of some of today's rich people who say they aren't leaving any money to their children, because they want them to make their own way...? Would she see it as terrifically sensible, or eccentric?

I think it's mostly people like Bill Gates, obscenely rich corporate megabillionaires who are doing that. I have my doubts that the aristocracy or landed will be lashing our their generations old dosh on global philantripic projects.


Nigella Lawson was actually the person who came to mind as having said it at some point, and while she's wealthy, she's not in the Bill Gates league! I was just thinking of it in relation to the acquisition of weath by the Bakers (who blow it all quickly without providing for the education of Joan's younger sister) or the Burthills' money (mega-sense of entitlement) - and the things EBD clearly thinks about the importance of a work ethic, or how schoolgirls work better with the goal of form prizes etc. Yet there are also a lot of CS girls whose families are wealthy enough for them never to work if they don't want to - and she never suggests they are any less motivated at school, even though they are never going to need to pass exams etc...

I also get interested in the way in which money in the form of pocket money etc is passed around the Maynards, especially as seen at Sales and on expeditions - pocket money is almost always immediately spent on tacky-sounding little souvenirs for their parents! I always find it weird that someone as old as Margot, in Wins the Trick, sees something at the Sale she thinks Joey would like, but then says she'll need to ask her mother for the money, because she's 'shortish'!

But then it occurs to me that no one in the CS ever has a holiday job during their schooldays, do they?

Author:  JS [ Wed May 26, 2010 12:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Quote:
But then it occurs to me that no one in the CS ever has a holiday job during their schooldays, do they?



If Len and co were paid for all the babysitting they seem to do, then they'd be rolling in cash....

Author:  JB [ Wed May 26, 2010 1:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

JS wrote:
Quote:
But then it occurs to me that no one in the CS ever has a holiday job during their schooldays, do they?



If Len and co were paid for all the babysitting they seem to do, then they'd be rolling in cash....


And it'd explain why Joey and Jack were short of money. :twisted:

Author:  MJKB [ Wed May 26, 2010 9:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Cosimo's Jackal wrote:
but then says she'll need to ask her mother for the money, because she's 'shortish'!


What I can't for the life of me figure out is why Len has to go out to buy toothpaste in Future. We're definitely given the impression too that she uses her own money to buy it. I'm the least organsied housekeeper in the world but even I tend to have one or two in store. Are the girls so strictly trained in the evils of "neither a borrower nor a lender be.." that they daren't ask their nearest and dearest for a smidgeen of toothpaste? And is Joey the type of housekeeper who does a big shop once a month or a fortnight and if anyone runs out of something in the meantime, well tough, they have to wait until the next shop.

Author:  Thursday Next [ Wed May 26, 2010 9:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

MJKB wrote:
What I can't for the life of me figure out is why Len has to go out to buy toothpaste in Future. We're definitely given the impression too that she uses her own money to buy it. I'm the least organsied housekeeper in the world but even I tend to have one or two in store. Are the girls so strictly trained in the evils of "neither a borrower nor a lender be.." that they daren't ask their nearest and dearest for a smidgeen of toothpaste? And is Joey the type of housekeeper who does a big shop once a month or a fortnight and if anyone runs out of something in the meantime, well tough, they have to wait until the next shop.


Perhaps she felt she should replace it herself because she wasted a whole tube rather than used it up?

I don't understand though why they each needed their own tube of toothpaste as they were all one family. One tube to a bathroom should have been sufficient.

Author:  Liane [ Wed May 26, 2010 10:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Would they have used tubes though? I always picture it as a tin of tooth powder, into which you would dip your brush. If that's so then you would have a hygene issue with sharing.

Author:  Abi [ Wed May 26, 2010 10:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

I'm not sure about that particular occasion, but they certainly did use tubes - in Barbara (I think - one of the early Swiss books, anyway) Matron stands on someone's dropped tube of toothpaste and bursts it.

Author:  Thursday Next [ Wed May 26, 2010 10:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

It was a tube in Joey and Co as Len stepped on it.

Author:  JellySheep [ Thu May 27, 2010 9:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

I'm pretty sure there's an instance of this in Tom. It seems to be a recurring phenomenon, which is a bit odd - I've never encountered such a thing happening in RL.

Author:  MJKB [ Thu May 27, 2010 11:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Getting back to the Maynard's relative wealth, EBD seems to approve highly of parents teaching children the value of money. Personally, I think she goes a bit too far sometimes, especially where Len's toothpaste is concerned, but in general, it's no bad thing for children to learn from an early age to respect money and to appreciate the work that goes into earning it. Joey and Jack are undoubtedly, by modern standards anyway, exceptionally strict on their children about such things as borrowing from others and taking care of their equipment.

Author:  julieanne1811 [ Thu May 27, 2010 12:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Caty wrote:
Even with lots of kids to educate, I would say they are quite well off.


I would have thought that the number of children a given CS family has is a good indication of their wealth. Less a case of 'we have lots of children so we are poor' and more a case of 'we are waelthy so we can afford to have lots of children'?

Author:  Cosimo's Jackal [ Thu May 27, 2010 1:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

MJKB wrote:
Getting back to the Maynard's relative wealth, EBD seems to approve highly of parents teaching children the value of money. Personally, I think she goes a bit too far sometimes, especially where Len's toothpaste is concerned, but in general, it's no bad thing for children to learn from an early age to respect money and to appreciate the work that goes into earning it. Joey and Jack are undoubtedly, by modern standards anyway, exceptionally strict on their children about such things as borrowing from others and taking care of their equipment.


You know, one thing I've always wondered is exactly how expensive is the extremely expensive clock everyone is so horrified Emerence buys Margot as a leaving present...?

She knows before it is given to her that her parents will object to it on grounds of cost, and Con's first reaction is that she can't possibly let Emerence give her something like that, and 'What would Mamma say if she knew?' Even wealthy Emerence baulks slightly at the price, and it takes up virtually all the 'noble sum' she was given by her father to buy leaving for all her friends, while the price of the clock, rather than Margot's behaviour seems to be the deciding factor in Mary-Lou not dealing with the whole thing herself, and Mary-Lou says she doesn't think for a moment Margot will be allowed to keep it, as it's too valuable.

So - transferring the scenario to today and to a major currency for the sake of ease, though I know that introduces its own problems - around how much do people imagine Emerence spent on this famous Swiss clock? Several hundred pounds?

(I have to say it always sounds a bit tacky to me - all rhinestone chips and Alpine posies in brightly-coloured enamel! But then EBD seems to like Alpine souvenir kitsch, with all those St Bernard-shaped bookends, and wooden bears!)

Author:  MJKB [ Thu May 27, 2010 2:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Cosimo's Jackal wrote:
(I have to say it always sounds a bit tacky to me - all rhinestone chips and Alpine posies in brightly-coloured enamel! But then EBD seems to like Alpine souvenir kitsch, with all those St Bernard-shaped bookends, and wooden bears!)


Yes, I always thought it sound very tacky too, but then I'm not convinced that EBD had a very strong aesthetic sense where jewelry and clothes are concerned. Was it in Adriennethat she describes the yellow nylon 'frock' with all the embellishments? Ghastly, at any age or any period. I like the sound of most of the houses and their furnishings, however, and that description of the Mensche's sitting room in Jo ofis, to use her own expression, charming. I also love the description of Madge's drawingroom in Gay,with its coloured china in cabinets and chintzy fabrics.
Re the price of the clock in today's currency, I reckon about £200?

Author:  JS [ Thu May 27, 2010 5:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

A quick google and here are some with rhinestones:


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 0257916541

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 0257916541

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 0427342954

And here's a vv expensive enamel one
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 0427342954

Author:  MJKB [ Thu May 27, 2010 6:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Oh dear! I'm not surprised that Jack refused to speak to her for weeks.

Author:  Alison H [ Thu May 27, 2010 6:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

I went to Zermatt on a day trip from Italy last year and I saw a shop selling clocks so, thinking of Emerence :D , I went in to have a look. The only people who were buying anything were Russian and Japanese tourists: I got out of the shop as fast as I could because I was terrified of breaking something! The only things I bought that day were a few postcards, a drink, an ice cream and a small bar of Swiss chocolate - Zermatt is a seriously expensive place :D - but you could definitely spend a fortune on a clock if you had the money and the inclination to do so.

Author:  JS [ Thu May 27, 2010 6:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Quote:
Oh dear! I'm not surprised that Jack refused to speak to her for weeks.



'Honestly Margot, if you must let that rich friend of yours buy you a gift, why couldn't it be something a little less like a cracker-filler. I'm ashamed that a daughter of mine should have such poor taste.' So saying, Jack stalked out of the room and went to watch The Antiques Road Show.

Author:  Mia [ Thu May 27, 2010 7:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

We used to have our own tubes of toothpaste when I lived at home because we liked different types and had different bathrooms... My dad's preferred type tasted like germoline, eugh.

Author:  Liz K [ Thu May 27, 2010 7:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Mia wrote:
My dad's preferred type tasted like germoline, eugh.



Eeeeewwwww!!!!!

Author:  andydaly [ Thu May 27, 2010 7:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

http://www.antique-horology.org/gallery ... sp?id=5616

I found this one for a mere three and a half thousand euro, Swiss, from around 1900 - way too early, but it might be something like the clock Emerence bought. It's not to my taste personally, but not the won-it-at-the-amusements monstrosity I'd pictured...so that'd be - what - about three thousand pounds?

Is the Germolene tasting toothpaste Euthymol? It was foul, tasted like the smell of Deep Heat.

Author:  Cel [ Thu May 27, 2010 8:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Oh, I love Euthymol! Yum.

Those clocks are, without exception, hideous...

Author:  Mel [ Thu May 27, 2010 8:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

That blue/white/flowery one is just as I imagined it.

Author:  MJKB [ Fri May 28, 2010 12:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

andydaly wrote:
I found this one for a mere three and a half thousand euro, Swiss, from around 1900 -


I like that :D , but I don't think I'd pay £3,500 for it, especially if I were 18 years old . If I'd been Margot, and very, very bold, I'd have dissuaded Emerence from buying me something as mundane as a clock.

Author:  Caty [ Sun May 30, 2010 8:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

MJKB wrote:
What I can't for the life of me figure out is why Len has to go out to buy toothpaste in Future. We're definitely given the impression too that she uses her own money to buy it.


That one always seemed pretty obvious to me, actually. The kids woudl all have their own supplies at school and presumably brought their wash bags with them, which they would continue to use ar home. They couldn't all leave their stuff in the bathroom - there just wouln't be room. There's no way Joey could be expected to keep extra supplies for everyone so it makes sense that everyone looks after their own like they do at school anyway.

Author:  Fiona Mc [ Sun May 30, 2010 8:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Caty wrote:
MJKB wrote:
What I can't for the life of me figure out is why Len has to go out to buy toothpaste in Future. We're definitely given the impression too that she uses her own money to buy it.


That one always seemed pretty obvious to me, actually. The kids woudl all have their own supplies at school and presumably brought their wash bags with them, which they would continue to use ar home. They couldn't all leave their stuff in the bathroom - there just wouln't be room. There's no way Joey could be expected to keep extra supplies for everyone so it makes sense that everyone looks after their own like they do at school anyway.


To me it never made any sense as I'm from an even larger family and all toothbrushes and toothpaste etc was all kept in the bathroom and we all used the same one, but then Dad wasn't a doctor so they didn't have the money to buy everyone their own toothpaste etc. I can understand if everyone has their own toothpaste etc why there wouldn't be room but, to me it's strange why they couldn't share the same toothpaste and Len had to buy her own.

Author:  Caty [ Sun May 30, 2010 8:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

But were you all boarders at school for most of the year? I probably didn't explain myself very clearly, but the kids spend most of the year being responsible for their own stuff at school, so continue to do so at home.

If they lived at home all the time, I expect things woud be different, but they don't. I know when I go home to my parents, I have a washbag with all my stuff in it.

Author:  Cosimo's Jackal [ Sun May 30, 2010 9:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

I agree the toothpaste thing is weird, but I've always assumed EBD simply forgot that Freudesheim, despite its large numbers, isn't actually a school where the girls have to rush off from their cubicles with washing things! We're told the triplets have their own bathroom, I think - and Jack definitely lists at least five or six bathrooms on the bedroom floors when he's enumerating the various Freudesheim rooms to Joey when they move in - so it's not as if they're sharing a single bathroom with the entire family, and having to haul washing things back and forth to their bedrooms because there's no room to leave them there.

I just don't think EBD was thinking of Freudesheim as an ordinary family house where shared tubes of toothpaste would be kept in bathrooms for everyone to use! The episode seemed to rely very much on an assumption that Len is 'not allowed' to use someone else's toothpaste, as if she was still at school and under the 'no borrowing' rules! Plus I can't honestly imagine Joey wanting a situation where all her numerous boarding-school-age children would galumph back and forth between bedrooms and bathrooms with toothpaste and brushes etc every time they wanted to clean their teeth, just because that's what they're used to st school...?

Author:  julieanne1811 [ Sun May 30, 2010 9:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Cosimo's Jackal wrote:
I just don't think EBD was thinking of Freudesheim as an ordinary family house where shared tubes of toothpaste would be kept in bathrooms for everyone to use!


This is true! A normal household would have toothpaste in the bathroom as a matter of course. Unless Joey really did run it like a boarding school and all inhabitants of Freudsheim, herself and Jack included, routinely carried their own toothpaste backwards and forwards to and from the bathrrom ...

Author:  MJKB [ Sun May 30, 2010 1:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

I was friendly with a girl at school whose household ran like clockwork. I was invited to dinner one evening, and it is no exaggeration to say that the food on our respective plates was distributed so evenly that we all had equal amounts of peas! When I politely asked to help wash up after dinner, her mother opened the cupboard under the sink and brought forth half a brillo pad to scrub the pan! She explained to me that she had to keep the cupboard locked because her cleaner was very extravagant with the cleaning products. They were an extremely comfortably off family.
Re the toothpaste and boarding school routine, I was at boarding school with two of my older sisters when I was nine. I had to look after my own soap, toothpaste etc. At nine I wasn't too concerned about cleanliness - I must have been a bit of a Joan Baker about such things, and whenever my sisters ran out of soap or toothpaste they were sure to find me with ample supplies, barely touched. I was the despair of the nun who was responsible for what we called 'dressing room' on a Saturday.

Author:  Mia [ Sun May 30, 2010 1:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

I don't like having toothpaste lying around in the bathroom tbh! I don't think it's very hygienic to share with lots of people - touching the tube to something people have had in their mouths, euw. It's OK as I live on my own so can be as OCD as I like but I keep my teeth things in the bathroom cabinet rather than on the sink where people wash their hands over them... The thought of having toothbrushes out where lavatories are flushed etc is vile. I thoroughly approve of the Freudesheim way.

Author:  julieanne1811 [ Sun May 30, 2010 2:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Yes - I live alone too, so the wider problem isn't an issue. I have heard that toothbrushes should be placed 6 feet away from the loo to avoid microscopic contamination when the loo is flushed ... not nice to think of, really. My bathroom is very small and it would mean keeping the toothbrush in the adjacent corner, in the corner of the shower. Not practical, really ...

Author:  ChubbyMonkey [ Sun May 30, 2010 7:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

My toothbrush would have to sit in the main room, in that case, and that's, to be quite frank, filthy! At least I make an effort to keep the bathroom clean :oops: I used to be very funny about my toothbrush/paste - at first, I shared with mum, dad/stepdad (dependant on age obviously, not both at the same time!) and brother, but I went through a really OCD stage where I refused to even go near the bathroom unless absolutely necessary. Around that time, I insisted on having my own toothpaste and would clean my teeth in my room. I'm better now, but I still have all my own supplies - now probably as much about me living away at university most of the time, so by myself!

Bizarrely, despite not even wanting to share toothpaste with someone most of the time, I find that doesn't apply to SLOC. When one of us stays at the other's house, we go even further and just share toothbrushes - I don't know if it's because we'll be kissing anyway, but it just doesn't bother me at all. Gross, I know, but there you have it!

Perhaps Len was of the same ilk? I can imagine how being at the CS with all its routine and emphasis on cleanliness could well lead one to develop OCD, especially if one was introduced to it pretty much from birth. So it's more about her not wanting to borrow from anyone so that she doesn't have to use their toothpaste, than about the 'no borrowing' rule etc.

Author:  Alison H [ Sun May 30, 2010 8:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Sadly, I think that poor Len was probably so institutionalised/brainwashed by CS rules that she felt that she had to abide by them at home and on holiday as well! I can't really imagine that Jo or Jack would've made a huge fuss if Len'd asked Con or Margot if she could use a bit of their toothpaste, but I get the impression that the school rules were so firmly entrenched in her head that she felt that she had to go out and get another tube :roll: .

Author:  Lyanne [ Sun May 30, 2010 10:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Cosimo's Jackal wrote:
I agree the toothpaste thing is weird, but I've always assumed EBD simply forgot that Freudesheim, despite its large numbers, isn't actually a school where the girls have to rush off from their cubicles with washing things! We're told the triplets have their own bathroom, I think - and Jack definitely lists at least five or six bathrooms on the bedroom floors when he's enumerating the various Freudesheim rooms to Joey when they move in - so it's not as if they're sharing a single bathroom with the entire family, and having to haul washing things back and forth to their bedrooms because there's no room to leave them there.

I just don't think EBD was thinking of Freudesheim as an ordinary family house where shared tubes of toothpaste would be kept in bathrooms for everyone to use! The episode seemed to rely very much on an assumption that Len is 'not allowed' to use someone else's toothpaste, as if she was still at school and under the 'no borrowing' rules! Plus I can't honestly imagine Joey wanting a situation where all her numerous boarding-school-age children would galumph back and forth between bedrooms and bathrooms with toothpaste and brushes etc every time they wanted to clean their teeth, just because that's what they're used to st school...?


I can imagine Jo running her household very much like the school though - she spent most of her formative years there, and much more time than a usual boarding school pupil would.

Author:  MJKB [ Mon May 31, 2010 12:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Alison H wrote:
Sadly, I think that poor Len was probably so institutionalised/brainwashed by CS rules that she felt that she had to abide by them at home and on holiday as well! I can't really imagine that Jo or Jack would've made a huge fuss if Len'd asked Con or Margot if she could use a bit of their toothpaste, but I get the impression that the school rules were so firmly entrenched in her head that she felt that she had to go out and get another tube :roll: .


I find it remarkable that she is prepared to clean her teeth in salt rather than barrow toothpaste in a household of plenty. I ahv eto say taht one of the reasons I clean my teeth first thing in the morning is to get rid of morning breath. However good salt is for cleaning teeth, it certainly won't get rid of that.

Author:  Lyanne [ Mon May 31, 2010 10:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

On reading the paperback of Exploits this morning, I found this reference to toothpaste. It's half term on the Sonnalpe and Elsie and Evadne are discussing whether the snow will clear by the morrow:

Quote:
... Simone, who had come to their room to borrow some toothpaste, as her own had given out and Joey had very little left...

Author:  MJKB [ Mon May 31, 2010 11:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

[quote="Lyanne"]Quote:
... Simone, who had come to their room to borrow some toothpaste, as her own had given out and Joey had very little left...[/quote
Well that makes sense. Len having to use salt instead of toothpaste and having to make a special trip to top up doesn't.

Author:  RoseCloke [ Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Just a quick note to add to those figuring out Granny Maynard's money - surely the triplets would only need to pay for accommodation and 'extras' like gowns and college fees? I don't think they had tuition fees before 1997 (unless Oxbridge was a special case?).

All four of grandparents died and left me a little money before I was eleven and that, supplemented with all my pocket money, birthday cheques for twenty years and most of my wages since I was fifteen, have been enough to pay for this MA with a little left over. Since the money sat for a similar period to the triplets', it accrued quite a lot. I don't see that Granny Maynard needs to have left them a vast sum if, as my parents did, Joey and Jack 'topped up' occasionally with any cheques or made the girls bank any extras. They could also have put all the money together, which would have earned a lot more interest (did they have special accounts for children then? I know my parents swapped my money into my younger sister's name to take advantage of such a deal).

They also perhaps wouldn't have had the same expenses as we did at undergraduate level - would they have had the same opportunities to spend their money on eating out/clubbing/gigs? Concerts and theatre would have been cheap (special student deals/performances) and the only massive expenditure I can see would be coffee or afternoon tea, which is surely much less than club entry plus drinks? Also, there's the option I took, which is to live as frugally as possible! :D

Author:  Emma A [ Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

RoseCloke wrote:
Just a quick note to add to those figuring out Granny Maynard's money - surely the triplets would only need to pay for accommodation and 'extras' like gowns and college fees? I don't think they had tuition fees before 1997 (unless Oxbridge was a special case?).

I was at university in the early 1990s where fees were all paid by one's Local Education Authority, and grants for living expenses (accommodation, food, travel, etc.) were still available, depending on one's financial circumstances. Since Len and the others lived in Switzerland, I wonder if they might have been classed as overseas students - unless Jack still paid UK income tax (which I doubt, given that he was permanently stationed in Switzerland) - not actually having an LEA.

Author:  RoseCloke [ Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Emma A wrote:
I wonder if they might have been classed as overseas students - unless Jack still paid UK income tax (which I doubt, given that he was permanently stationed in Switzerland) - not actually having an LEA.


*smacks forehead*

You're right, I completely forgot that aspect of it! Some of my friends with British passports who lived abroad (in the EU) don't qualify for certain types of assistance and have to pay EU (although not full international) fees.

Author:  Mel [ Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

I can't see Jack and Joey applying for an LEA grant even if they still lived in Armishire - that is for poor people and would be considered charity! When I was a student in the 1960s I knew a girl whose father paid her fees " Daddy didn't want to have to fill in forms and divulge his income."

Author:  RoseCloke [ Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Mel wrote:
When I was a student in the 1960s I knew a girl whose father paid her fees " Daddy didn't want to have to fill in forms and divulge his income."


It still happens now - a good friend got into an almighty row with her mother who was refusing to divulge her income and yet wouldn't pay anything to my friend. In the end she managed to declare herself independent as she'd mostly lived with her SLOC for a few years. But then you get the other end of the spectrum: a girl in my class who claimed she was living with her 'single' mother (a nurse), when said mother had a wealthy SLOC and the girl's father was a top gynaecologist with a massive 'farm' (mostly just land) in Wales and the stepmother was equally well-paid. Since I greatly relied on bursaries and scholarships (and she swanned off to New York on shopping trips) I felt a little like this :evil: :evil:

I did find it shocking in the CS when obviously wealthy girls competed with less well-off girls for scholarships. I can't remember the specifics, but didn't someone (possibly Jacynth?) go in for the Therese Lepattre/Margot Venables at the same time as someone from a much more secure background? It doesn't seem in keeping with the emphasis on being understanding and charitable.

Author:  judithR [ Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Mel wrote:
I can't see Jack and Joey applying for an LEA grant even if they still lived in Armishire - that is for poor people and would be considered charity! When I was a student in the 1960s I knew a girl whose father paid her fees " Daddy didn't want to have to fill in forms and divulge his income."


Wouldn't the triplets (born 1939) have been at university in pre mandatory grant times? There were state & LEA scholarships but the "grant system" appeared during my time (1960 -67) at secondary school. I'm not sure when.

In the late 60s the assessment was on previous year's income. This meant that my mother had to continue in full-time work while I & my brother (2 years younger) were at university as they absorb the drop in income if she went part time.

Author:  ChubbyMonkey [ Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Don't get me started on people who screw the system :twisted: My flatmate's father was a partner in a solicitor's office, and sold it (with enough for him to live on and work from home) so that he could declare no income and get her full grant. While I'm assessed on what my step-father earns even though he doesn't put a penny towards any of it and I don't ever seem to have nearly enough! (Might help if I wasn't stubbornly insisting on being independant instead of going back to Devon to live rent free, but there you go!)

I can imagine Joey and Jack not wanting the 'charity' of the state, but might the triplets not have qualified for a lot given how many other children were reliant on the Maynards financially when they went?

Author:  RoseCloke [ Wed Jun 02, 2010 6:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

ChubbyMonkey wrote:
I can imagine Joey and Jack not wanting the 'charity' of the state, but might the triplets not have qualified for a lot given how many other children were reliant on the Maynards financially when they went?


I've studied a little bit of twentieth century social history and I think, although I'm not absolutely certain, that making allowances for extra children in regard to subsidiary items such as tertiary education is a new option (scrambling to avoid saying 'thing' here :D). Although my parents have no experience of higher education, my mother works for the DWP (dealing with a lot of benefits) and she was surprised that her earnings were scaled down to reflect my younger sister staying at home, which makes me suspect eleven children wouldn't have had an impact on the trips' entitlements.

Author:  Emma A [ Wed Jun 02, 2010 6:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

I think Judith's suggesting that the triplets (or their family) would have had to pay for everything, even if they were classed as home students, since they would have started at Oxford prior to the introduction of grants. It's always possible that they could have won a scholarship (as Bill does in The Gates of Bannerdale: he couldn't possibly have afforded to go to Oxford without), but there wouldn't have been many on offer to them at Oxford due to the low number of women's colleges then.

Am trying to remember now what Sayers mentions in Gaudy Night about LEA students...

Author:  Cosimo's Jackal [ Wed Jun 02, 2010 6:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

RoseCloke wrote:

I did find it shocking in the CS when obviously wealthy girls competed with less well-off girls for scholarships. I can't remember the specifics, but didn't someone (possibly Jacynth?) go in for the Therese Lepattre/Margot Venables at the same time as someone from a much more secure background? It doesn't seem in keeping with the emphasis on being understanding and charitable.


I can't remember either, but I think you're right that someone who has no chance of a further education is in for some scholarship against people who could pay for themselves...? Not that I'm ever that sure how CS scholarships are awarded, anyway - a competitive exam with the scholarship going to the best mark, or an essay about what you want to do at university? Or means-tested? (And some scholarships seem to get awarded quite arbitrarily, like Audrey Everett getting Joey's scholarship out of the blue, with no previous CS connection - the Everetts aren't well off, so perhaps that was primarily a financial decision, as well as to do with her father being at the San? - or Robin writing to Joey to ask her to give it to Adrienne.)

On the issue of grants and the triplets, surely (even if some form of grants did exist) they couldn't have applied unless they had been residents of the UK for a significant period before making the application, even if they held British passports...? Unless we suspect Jack and Joey of falsely claiming to be still living at Plas Gwyn while really living on the Platz, or something equally fraudulent!

Author:  RoseCloke [ Wed Jun 02, 2010 6:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Cosimo's Jackal wrote:
I can't remember either, but I think you're right that someone who has no chance of a further education is in for some scholarship against people who could pay for themselves...?


I think it was two off-hand remarks in one or two consecutive books. I believe it was when the whole CS was in England. It's something along the lines of a new/poor CS girl determining to make someone proud/buck her ideas up and go for one scholarship. Then, later on, one of the school grandees mentions that she's also going for this scholarship as part of a general discussion about post-school life. It just struck a chord with me because my parents have always been very insistent about not taking state/other help unless you desperately need it (my mother's job coming into the foreground again :D). I don't think it's intentional on EBD's part to pit them against each other, but it did make me pause, especially as she never mentions how disappointed some girls might be who don't get it.

Author:  Mel [ Wed Jun 02, 2010 6:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

The triplets went to Oxford in 'real' time 1969/70 which would have been consistent with mandatory grants, but as has been said, they wouldn't be eligible because of not being resident in the UK. In The Gates of Bannermere Bill does get a scholarship but only £100 which wouldn't cover much even in the 1950s. Holiday work would have made up the difference, but was frowned on at the time. Can you imagine the triplets getting holday jobs in a hotel in Interlaken?

Author:  RoseCloke [ Wed Jun 02, 2010 6:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Mel wrote:
Can you imagine the triplets getting holday jobs in a hotel in Interlaken?


Slightly OT, but would it have been acceptable to do more 'genteel' work, such as accompany an elderly person in the alps or whilst in Oxford carry out some translation work for other students?

Author:  Alison H [ Wed Jun 02, 2010 7:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Maybe it would've been OK if it was work linked to their future career plans and so they could say that it was to improve their chances of getting jobs rather than for anything as vulgar as to make money?

The scholarship system at the CS is bizarre, especially in Changes when Tom and Nita are both just offered scholarships off pat so that they can afford to go to the new finishing school. The scholarships just seem to appear and disappear at random!

Enid Sothern says that she's not going to look for a job when she leaves school because her dad can afford to support her and says that it'd be wrong to take a job which could otherwise go to someone who needed the money, which sounds odd now but wouldn't have done at the time, but only a few years later we see Jacynth trying for the Therese Lepattre scholarship against people whose families could presumably afford to pay the uni fees themselves.

When I was at in the early-mid '90s, tuition fees were paid for everyone but grants were means-tested on your parents' income.

Author:  sealpuppy [ Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Just been rereading The Chinese Shawl, by Patricia Wentworth - a Miss Silver mystery. It's January 1941 and the heroine has a house that she inherited but lets to a cousin. The house is pretty stately (incl a ruined priory and lots of land/farms, etc). The rent is £300 pa and is described as 'generous'. With that rent plus a small income she has £400 pa but on that, cannot possibly afford the upkeep on the Priory. The cousin who leases it offers a 'generous' £12,000 purchase price.

So there are some fairly contemporary prices to work from.
I suppose Jack wouldn't have been likely to get anything like £12k for PRetty Maids after the war, what with the very high taxation on such properties at that time, etc, and general austerity all round. Wonder if he did try to sell the place and only gave it to the nation as a last resort?

Author:  JB [ Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

sealpuppy wrote:
I suppose Jack wouldn't have been likely to get anything like £12k for PRetty Maids after the war, what with the very high taxation on such properties at that time, etc, and general austerity all round. Wonder if he did try to sell the place and only gave it to the nation as a last resort?


Well, several years did pass between him inheriting the property and making that decision .....

Author:  Cosimo's Jackal [ Thu Jun 03, 2010 9:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

RoseCloke wrote:
Mel wrote:
Can you imagine the triplets getting holday jobs in a hotel in Interlaken?


Slightly OT, but would it have been acceptable to do more 'genteel' work, such as accompany an elderly person in the alps or whilst in Oxford carry out some translation work for other students?


I actually find it very hard to imagine! OK, we see CS girls taking on all kinds of responsibility during their schooldays - being prefects, supervising, organising events etc - but I have real difficulty imagining the triplets, even in their later school years, simply being mentally old enough to function in the working world - whether it's a chambermaid job or a companion situation or lifeguarding or an archaeology dig - or, indeed, in the world outside of Freudesheim and the CS!

For one thing, they simply don't need the money, and even if Joey and Jack decided it was character-building or something, I could see the triplets dealing badly with being teased by more rough-and-ready workmates (for MaMAH and PaPAH, or continually quoting their mother as an authority), or getting flustered by workplace authorities either giving conflicting messages, or operating off a value-system that doesn't agree with the CS/Freudesheim. Or being placed in authority over workmates who can't be threatened with a Head's report for disobedience!

Author:  MJKB [ Thu Jun 03, 2010 3:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Cosimo's Jackal wrote:
For one thing, they simply don't need the money, and even if Joey and Jack decided it was character-building or something, I could see the triplets dealing badly with being teased by more rough-and-ready workmates (for MaMAH and PaPAH, or continually quoting their mother as an authority), or getting flustered by workplace authorities either giving conflicting messages, or operating off a value-system that doesn't agree with the CS/Freudesheim. Or being placed in authority over workmates who can't be threatened with a Head's report for disobedience!

By about 16, Margot, at least, had dispensed with the 'mammah' business, and the other two stop a little later. Girls from more upper class backgrounds worked in quite menial jobs in Lady Diana''s time, which I know is considerably later. But they usually work for 'mummie's' friends as a stop gap measure until they marry. Perhaps the Maynard girls did babysitting for the OGs on the Platz for a few bob.

Author:  sealpuppy [ Thu Jun 03, 2010 3:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

MJKB wrote:
Perhaps the Maynard girls did babysitting for the OGs on the Platz for a few bob.


I shouldn't think their mother would be having any of that! It might mean that she would end up having to pay someone else to babysit!

I had a holiday job in 1962, working in a factory on a conveyor belt. I was fairly useless, not being dextrous or quick, but I was willing, and my 15 year old supervisor very sweetly took me under her wing and refused to let anyone be bitchy to me. I think she thought I was a bit lacking and was certainly an object of pity: 'What? Nineteen and not even engaged?'
I can imagine the Maynards managing quite well, once they got the hang of it, as long as they weren't snobbish, and as long as it was clear they were trying their best!

Author:  Cosimo's Jackal [ Thu Jun 03, 2010 3:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

MJKB wrote:
By about 16, Margot, at least, had dispensed with the 'mammah' business.


I think Margot would handle it the best out of the three of them, definitely. That 'surface' sophistication EBD is so suspicious of seems to me to be a promising sign of someone who may not be entirely 100% invested in giving the CS authorities what they want to see in their girls. (On the other hand, her appalling temper might get her fired on day one.)

I just think the other two wouldn't get - in the unlikely event, say, that they were taken on as chambermaids in a hotel - that 'Pappa and Mamma are poppets of parents!' and a tendency to go on endlessly about either the CS or being one of eleven children on the assumption their hearer is fascinated, is not necessarily the way to get on with workmates who might be from very different backgrounds.

ETA - the above sounds rather harsh. All I mean, really, is that the triplets, even responsible, mature Len, have never ever really been off home turf - home, school and even the Canadian trip all involved family being there, underpinning the same values, habits and norms as always, in a fairly black and white world where everything is familiar. Len is the ultimate perfect CS sheepdog, helpful and pleasant to new girls - but she's never been in the situation of being a total newbie in a strange environment, where she needs to learn, makes mistakes, and have allowances made (or not) for her alien ways. Her job has always been noticing Ros's bad grammar and wondering whether she should correct it, or inducting Ruey into hair-brushing and night prayers, not the other way round.


I can imagine a highly comic scene where some fellow chambermaid tries to show her the hotel way of making a bed, and Len absolutely unable to grasp there is another way to Matey's 'patent' method of mattress humping etc... :D

Author:  sealpuppy [ Thu Jun 03, 2010 4:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

Actually Margot might get on very well, away from the constant expectation that her temper would get the better of her. I can see her being a summer tour guide quite successfully!

Slightly (and rather disgustingly) off topic: On the subject of chambermaiding - the same summer I was being an incompetent factory worker, a friend was discovering just what duties fell to the lot of a chambermaid in the days before en suite bathrooms! She lasted about a day, then got a job in a beach cafe instead. :shock:

Author:  MJKB [ Fri Jun 04, 2010 1:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the triplets, 'extras' and the Maynard inheritance

sealpuppy wrote:
Slightly (and rather disgustingly) off topic: On the subject of chambermaiding - the same summer I was being an incompetent factory worker, a friend was discovering just what duties fell to the lot of a chambermaid in the days before en suite bathrooms! She lasted about a day, then got a job in a beach cafe instead. :shock:


Oh dear! It took me a second or two to work out what you meant there.
Margot would probably adapt best, followed by Con. Len would be truly miserable finding out that it isn't necessarily the case of the CS way or the wrong way.

All times are UTC + 1 hour
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/