The CBB :: View topic - Themes: Guardians

One thing I would say is that I am sure that the dreadful guardians - either casual (Carola's Aunt) or uncaring (Betty Wynne-Davies) are probably less realistic in that less frequently seen than EBD manages to find them.

unscrupulous guardians like Annis's cousin who was siphoning off Annis's money to use for herself,

I think that Madge deserves a gold star as a guardian. She was responsible for Joey, Juliet (legally) and Robin (de facto) when she was only 25 herself, single, and running a business at the same time.

Also, I know you'll probably disagree with me on this, but I like the way the Richardsons are introduced. To me it does seem natural and rather like old Joey - look at the way she helped Polly.

Also, I know you'll probably disagree with me on this, but I like the way the Richardsons are introduced. To me it does seem natural...

by the end books, apart from the triplets who we sort of follow ... it seems to be very much that a character is introduced for a book and then forgotten about. I don't know if that was a decision that EBD made, or whether her publishers encouraged her to make them that way so new readers would find it easier to get into.

The question, I think, is why EBD felt it necessary to introduce the Richardsons at all...I'm sure EBD could have dredged up an OG's or former mistress's daughter to fill Ruey's role.

One thing that interests me is that EBD seems to have a tendency of making all her 'good' parents into guardians either prior to or after their becoming parents in their own right.

Besides, Nigel, Janie – and Julian, too, for that matter – has something you and I haven’t got. I don’t quite know what it is, but it’s there. For one thing, however much she may be tied up with her own family, she always seems to be able to take in a dozen other folk at the same time. I can’t do that. To me, you and the children make up the world, and everyone else – even Mother and Dad and the rest – have to come after. [...] ’ Rosamund suddenly looked forlorn. ‘It isn’t awfully nice of me, but there it is.’

‘And there it always was’ her husband told her. ‘[...] It’s simply part of your make-up. You wouldn’t be you without it. Besides, come to that, I like our own little crowd best. [...] You and I, my dear, are clannish. Janie and Julian aren’t.

I don't know...these things probably happen less than they would in EBD's time, but I think quite a lot of people would feel guilty if they were expected to take in a ward and were conscious that they didn't love the ward as muuch as their own children. I'm not blaming anyone who has been in that situation, just saying that I think you would feel as if you had let down the child.

But how can you have the same feelings for them? After all, you have a whole history with your own children, from even before they are born, and those bonds just grow and grow. You might learn to love a ward, but they come with all sorts of background you know nothing of, and therefore you can't always understand their reactions. They have to learn to trust you just as much as you have to learn to trust them.

I suspect it would be different if you didn't have children of your own, as you would have nothing with which to compare your feelings.

The cases of very young children who live with guardians even though their parents are alive must have been interesting. Madge effectively played the part of Robin's mother, and there must have been some tensions when Ted came to live in Austria, especially as he and Robin lived in the same house as Madge. And Madge and Jem must sometimes have felt that they were in an awkward position regarding the Bettany children, and Sybil's attitude wouldn't have made things any easier.

I would certainly think that it would have been easier for the Maynards with Claire, to whom they were parents in all but the biological sense, than with the others. Erica and the Richardsons are all fairly good-natured, but I can imagine someone like Annis turning round to her aunt (cousin?), or even Jessica Wayne to her stepfather, and saying "You're not my mother/father so I don't have to do what you say".

But I suppose EBD couldn't possibly have shown Joey with a 'difficult' ward who didn't settle in immediately!

I wish she had done - it would have been interesting to see how Joey and Jack coped.

The bigger problem with the Bettany children seems to be Maeve and Maurice trying to fit in with their new siblings - it must have been so hard for them to change from being essentially only children to suddenly being the youngest of a lot of siblings, especially as Peggy and Rix, at least, but possibly also Bride too would be too old to be sisters/brother and must have felt more like young aunts/uncle.

EBD takes real pains to clearly state the Bettanys' ages in Bride Leads and I think this was a deliberate attempt to clear up the confusion! I always wonder if somebody mentioned it to her.

What I find fascinating is that she planned extra Bettany children in her notes and had a family tree* all drawn up. I wonder what made her change her mind?

* The NCC poetry collection by EBD

I agree it would be fascinating to see Joey dealing with a new ward who was resistant to the famous charm and insight, or, say, if Ruey (understandably, IMHO), decided that just because some chance-met people were helping her and the boys out, it was no reason why they should lecture her about her unprettified chalet, praying habits, hairbrushing etc...?

But it's the triplets who are so tactless about that. Margot and Len tell her there's no reason for not prettifying the chalet and Len talks to her about praying and hair brushing.

I do find myself wondering what Joey would do with someone who simply refused her interventions - if, for instance, Ruey said, 'It's nice you took us in, though I've no idea why you did it. But no one asked me about it, and if it's all the same to you, I'll keep my own clothes and wear my hair the way I usually do. Plus, can I have a room to myself? Len is driving me nuts with all that night-time talk about God and hair-brushing.'

And there were problems between Francie and her stepfather, weren't there?

Author:	ChubbyMonkey [ Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Themes: Guardians
There are many guardians in the Chalet School, perhaps most notably Joey Maynard. What is the role of the guardian in the series? Do you think that EBD values guardians as (or more) highly than parents? What does EBD intend the role of guardians to be? Does EBD present guardians realistically? Does the portrayal of guardians change from the beginning of the series, when Madge adopts Juliet and the Robin, to the end where Joey adopts Marie-Claire? Is there an ideal guardian in the series - if so who and why? ETA: Idea by Sindhu.

Author:	JB [ Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
Where to start? There are some good and bad guardians in the books - Mr Irons (Betty Wynne Davis) and Annis Lovell's cousin/aunt. There are some who take their responsibilities more seriously than others - poor Carola Johnstone is in the care of a cousin who isn't prepared to alter her lifestyle to accommodate a child and has parents who have forgotten that she isn't the same small girl they left behind. Some people are guardians because the child's parents have died, others because the parent(s) work abroad. In the former, the guardian often seems to be someone the child doesn’t know well (or sometimes at all) and in the latter there often seems to be little communication between the parent and guardian. I think EBD makes links between good or bad parenting, whether by a blood parent or a guardian, and the child’s behaviour eg Betty is treated with sympathy because her guardian is seen as unsuitable, while the Maynards are clearly better “parents” than Professor Richardson. She sees a good guardian as someone who has the child’s best interests at heart eg Eustacia’s aunt and uncle send her to the Chalet School with good intentions and Polly Heriot’s guardian is well aware that he and his sister are not the best companions for a young girl. Does the portrayal change? In the Tyrol books, the Russells take in Robin, the Bettanys and the Venables. Later on, Joey does the same. Both families are shown (apart from Sybil’s perfectly understandable tantrums) as incorporating these children into a loving family. In the later books, we see fewer occasions where a child with a guardian is a central new girl. There’s Nina Rutherford but it’s much more common in the early books. Is it realistic? Some of the guardians seem inappropriate choices but people do shy away from thinking about what would happen in the event of their death. I assume that it would be more likely that a child would be orphaned then than now but also that it would be more likely to have extended family to care for such children without the legalities there would be now. I’m thinking of Polly Heriot here, whose elderly aunts would surely not be approved of as adoptive parents of a baby. Madge adopts Juliet because her parents abandon her and are then killed – and Julia is already in her care at this point. Robin is taken in at the request of her father and they are later the obvious people to adopt her. I find Joey’s adoption of both Erica and Marie Claire somewhat casual. Were there no lawyers involved? Guardians I particularly like are Ernst Howell (whose siblings are all fond of their step-sister) and Katharine Gordon's Aunt Luce who is scatty but probably good fun as a companion. I do also like the Lucy’s adoption of Nan Blakeney in the La Rochelle books after Rosamund Atherton’s feeble behaviour. Sorry about the essay - I got carried away.

Author:	Margaret [ Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
I think my favourite guardian, and one of the best, is Jaycynth Hardy's Auntie, though Kathie Ferrars' Aunt and Uncle run her a close second. It seems that if 'a day old baby is laid in her arms' Auntie is going to do a good job! On the more casual end, the Guides adopting Biddy wouldn't be considered suitable today, even though she actually lived with Madge. Were Guardians more likely when the CS was written than today? Well we did have a cousin staying with us. I would say, yes, passing children around was more likely, more usual, and there wasn't the checks to see that all was well when a child was staying with adults not their parents. I wouldn't say that EBD values Guardians more highly than parents, but is just writing about a time when they were likely, but quite often they do make the most useful props for a story-line! One thing I would say is that I am sure that the dreadful guardians - either casual (Carola's Aunt) or uncaring (Betty Wynne-Davies) are probably less realistic in that less frequently seen than EBD manages to find them.

Author:	JayB [ Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:53 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
The first guardian we hear of is Dick, Madge and Joey's, who got their affairs into a muddle and then died. He seems to have been a fairly remote character - we never hear of him having any say in Joey's upbringing, and none of the Bettanys seem to feel any regret at his death. But he can't have been all bad - it must be partly due to him that Madge and Dick grew up into decent, honest, hardworking people.

Author:	Nightwing [ Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
Margaret wrote: One thing I would say is that I am sure that the dreadful guardians - either casual (Carola's Aunt) or uncaring (Betty Wynne-Davies) are probably less realistic in that less frequently seen than EBD manages to find them. I can't agree - there's plenty of people out there who shouldn't have charge of children, whether it's their wards or biological kids! I think EBD did a pretty good job of showing how children react to having unsuitable guardians: Polly runs away, but she regrets it deeply since she does care about her guardian. Annis and Betty are both completely miserable and don't get any sympathy at home, so they don't expect to get any sympathy at school ether - to them there seems to be no way out of their situations.

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

Themes: Guardians http://www.the-cbb.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6213

Author:	Alison H [ Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:28 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
There's a very wide range of guardians, probably more so than there is of parents. We have lovely guardians like Jacynth's auntie and Kathie's auntie and uncle, scatty guardians like Aunt Luce, unscrupulous guardians like Annis's cousin who was siphoning off Annis's money to use for herself, well meaning but out of touch guardians like Polly Heriot's guardians, guardians who aren't unkind but put their own needs first, like Carola's cousin, and guardians who lead an unconventional lifestyle but whose charges are happy with them even so, like Lavender's auntie. I think that the reason there are so many guardians is just largely because they make for good plot devices: it's unlikely that a parent would be as out of touch with young people as Polly's guardian is, for example. I think that Madge deserves a gold star as a guardian. She was responsible for Joey, Juliet (legally) and Robin (de facto) when she was only 25 herself, single, and running a business at the same time.

Author:	Margaret [ Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:53 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
Alison H wrote: unscrupulous guardians like Annis's cousin who was siphoning off Annis's money to use for herself, I think that Madge deserves a gold star as a guardian. She was responsible for Joey, Juliet (legally) and Robin (de facto) when she was only 25 herself, single, and running a business at the same time. Wasn't it Carola's cousin who feathered her own nest with Carola's money? Or did they both do it? But I would agree with Madge needing a gold star - three children from such different backgrounds and different ages, and all before she was married. Also she was emotionally responsible for Grizel, though she could have shrugged that off, being the person she was she wouldn't have done that. A quick check later, no it was Annis's guardian who did the feathering ... I feel a complete re-read coming on!

Author:	Tor [ Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:17 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
One thing that interests me is that EBD seems to have a tendency of making all her 'good' parents into guardians either prior to or after their becoming parents in their own right. In the former case (guardian first i.e. Madge), this makes sense, obviously. They are simply showing their good parenting skills, and I think we can generally say that someone who happily takes on the role of guardian is predisposed to wanting to have a family, and will go on to do so if they are able. The second case interests me more: ok, a good parent has the skills to be a good guardian, but that doesn't mean they have to become one. In fact the majority of parents today would blanch at the possible negative impact on their own family. I think EBD might have had the ethos that guardianship was a duty that should not be shirked, and also saw parenting as a social rather than a biological relationship/obligation. The only 'good' parents that play any significant role in the stories that don't end up taking on other peoples children are Dick and Mollie, as far as I can see. Of course, taking responsibility for the children of erstwhile parents is the basis of all boarding school stories, I guess. The extension of the CS stories into the home-lives of many characters also makes the extension on the 'guardianship' mentality equally understandable. And it gives Joey's womb a bit of a rest!

Author:	Alison H [ Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
Just showing my advanced age here - I remember that when Home and Away first started the producers said that basing a soap around foster parents - Tom and Pippa, the original central characters - was great because it meant that they could just bring in new teenage characters whenever it suited them. I think that to some extent that happened with the Maynards, although, as has been said before, it would have made a lot more sense had Ruey been between the triplets and Felicity in age rather than becoming part of the same group of friends as the triplets. Some of the guardians are aunts/uncles or elder siblings of orphans or children whose parents were working in places considered to be unhealthy, and it's hard to think that someone in that position would refuse to act as guardian. Or else they just get dropped in it - Madge couldn't really have abandoned Juliet, especially in a foreign country, and Erica supposedly had no-one else. Joey and Jack going around collecting children at random, especially when they had such a big family already, never really adds up for me, though. How many people would just decide to volunteer to act as legal guardian to three children after meeting them on holiday and noticing that their dad seemed to be a bit absent-minded ?

Author:	Josette [ Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:27 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
Madge - both on her own and, later, with Jem - does seem to take on an inordinate number of wards - Juliet, Robin, Biddy (although she seems to get forgotten a lot of the time); to a lesser extent the Lintons, Grizel and Stacie; and Dick/Mollie's and Margot's children. Yet it somehow all seems a lot more believable than the way Joey and Jack, as Alison H says, collect random youngsters! I suppose this is just another example of how the Tirol books are better generally than the (later) Swiss books - it springs much more organically from the plot: Grizel's bad relationship with her family and prior friendship with the Bettanys, for example; or taking on a brother or sister's children, which doesn't seem unreasonable.

Author:	ChubbyMonkey [ Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:03 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
In one sense, Joey always did seem to collect random children - she has Daisy, Primula and Robin living with her, although none of them are actually related to her in any way (possibly Daisy and Primula are, but only very vaguely by marriage), she seems to share a lot of children with old school friends who turn up and stay, the McDonald twins, Reg Entwhistle, to an extent. And it isn't just children, either - the Maynards do, in a manner of speaking, "adopt" Eustacia, and even though she has her own wing of the house there is, IMHO, an element of her being looked after there. And if it was done far more realistically in the earlier books - Joey and Robin growing close before she essentially adopts her etc - I don't think EBD is entirely at fault. Firstly, it must have been much more difficult to think of new ways to introduce new adoptees by the late stages of the book, and secondly there seems to be a feeling that the later books are far more stand-alone. While you can read some Tirol books without others, there is a huge sense of continuation through them all, but by the end books, apart from the triplets who we sort of follow but not completely in every book, it seems to be very much that a character is introduced for a book and then forgotten about. I don't know if that was a decision that EBD made, or whether her publishers encouraged her to make them that way so new readers would find it easier to get into. Also, I know you'll probably disagree with me on this, but I like the way the Richardsons are introduced. To me it does seem natural and rather like old Joey - look at the way she helped Polly. Joey always does seem to see children in trouble and just want to help however she can, and of course as an adult that will be different from how she would as a child.

Author:	Nightwing [ Sun Jun 21, 2009 10:20 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
ChubbyMonkey wrote: Also, I know you'll probably disagree with me on this, but I like the way the Richardsons are introduced. To me it does seem natural and rather like old Joey - look at the way she helped Polly. Actually, I agree totally! One of the lovely things about Joey is her "butting-in", and even though it verges on rudeness at times it is, at bottom, her desire to help those in need. In the case of the Richardsons I think her actions make perfect sense - three children who are not only motherless but essentially fatherless as well, and it is pretty natural for Jo to want to help them in any way she can. Plus, when her and Jack first offer to look after the Richardsons, they don't realise that Prof. Richardson is planning on leaving for good. Even Marie-Claire's adoption makes sense given Joey's history, it's just that thrown on top of Erica's storyline it becomes ridiculous.

Author:	JayB [ Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:05 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
Quote: Also, I know you'll probably disagree with me on this, but I like the way the Richardsons are introduced. To me it does seem natural... I think, as responsible, caring adults, Jo and Jack were left with no choice but to step in when they first encountered the Richardsons, with Roger being injured and Ruey being left with so much responsibility. Nowadays anyone finding children (Roddy was only eleven, I think?) and teenagers in that situation would be on the phone to Social Services. The question, I think, is why EBD felt it necessary to introduce the Richardsons at all. They don't play a huge role in any subsequent books - the Margot/Francie/Ruey triangle in the next book could have worked equally well with any random new girl who seemed to become chummy with Margot. I'm sure EBD could have dredged up an OG's or former mistress's daughter to fill Ruey's role. Quote: by the end books, apart from the triplets who we sort of follow ... it seems to be very much that a character is introduced for a book and then forgotten about. I don't know if that was a decision that EBD made, or whether her publishers encouraged her to make them that way so new readers would find it easier to get into. EJO does this quite a lot in the later Abbey books too. A new girl arrives, saves the ghastly Twinnies from drowning/burning/being buried alive, and is consequently 'adopted' by the Abbey folk, only to fade into the background subsequently. I think part of it is to give the reader a character she can identify with. The reader can put herself in the place of the new girl seeing her cubey for the first time, or being shown the Abbey for the first time, or meeting her favourite author, etc. It's also possibly why so many girls turn out to be related to established CS characters - the reader can put herself in the place of the new girl discovering she really does belong to the Inner Circle. (In fanfic this sort of character is often disparagingly referred to as a self insert or 'Mary Sue', but to do EBD justice her new girls, right up to the end, are usually well drawn, three dimensional characters, not just cardboard figures for the reader to latch on to.)

Author:	Tor [ Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:39 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
Quote: The question, I think, is why EBD felt it necessary to introduce the Richardsons at all...I'm sure EBD could have dredged up an OG's or former mistress's daughter to fill Ruey's role. Yes, this is what interests me with the whole guardianship motif in the CS. We already have a boarding school setting into which it is very easy to introduce new-girls, of any age, as the plot requires. Alison makes the parallel with Pippa's foster brood in Home and Away, but that is necessary so that we can have a pastoral and domestic setting for the new characters within the soap opera. In a school story, we have that already. A core part of school stories is making the school into a surrogate family. By maintaining Joey as the main character and 'spirit of the school', and making Freudesheim effectively an extension of the school, I wonder if EBD found herself forced by the school-story medium to also make the Maynard's take on the surrogate family mode....? We've discussed elsewhere the blurring of line between family and institution at Freudesheim. I wonder if it all relates to the same issue, and if the seeds for this were sown (but in the reverse way, if you like), by the homely, big family environment of the Tirol days.

Author:	Sunglass [ Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:15 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
Tor wrote: One thing that interests me is that EBD seems to have a tendency of making all her 'good' parents into guardians either prior to or after their becoming parents in their own right. Yes, that strikes me too. The bit at the start of Janie Steps In, where Rosamund Atherton is reproaching herself for not being able to love Nan Blakeney as though she were her own child, is interesting for that. It seems to suggest that not being ready and willing to take in passing children/relatives' orphaned offspring and feel about them as strongly as about your own offspring (and Nan has only been with them for seven months or so) is a bit small-minded and 'clannish': Quote: Besides, Nigel, Janie – and Julian, too, for that matter – has something you and I haven’t got. I don’t quite know what it is, but it’s there. For one thing, however much she may be tied up with her own family, she always seems to be able to take in a dozen other folk at the same time. I can’t do that. To me, you and the children make up the world, and everyone else – even Mother and Dad and the rest – have to come after. [...] ’ Rosamund suddenly looked forlorn. ‘It isn’t awfully nice of me, but there it is.’ ‘And there it always was’ her husband told her. ‘[...] It’s simply part of your make-up. You wouldn’t be you without it. Besides, come to that, I like our own little crowd best. [...] You and I, my dear, are clannish. Janie and Julian aren’t. I think most people today would find Rosamund's position - caring more for her husband and children than for anyone else - perfectly ordinary, rather than 'clannish' or something to be apologised for, and would recognise that, say, people who regularly foster, have the more unusual abilities - that everyone can't do what foster carers do. (And also that you don't necessarily develop a strong bond with a new person brought into the family circle within a few months, as Nan has, or that you have to feel for him/her something equivalent to what you feel for your own children?) I found myself wondering about Joey - if Joey were asked what precisely her feelings towards her wards were, or were compared to her feeling for her biological children, what would she say? I would have seen Joey as much more of a realist - I doubt she'd be beating herself up over not feeling some kind of strong loving bond with, say, Ruey Richardson after seven months of being her guardian, having taken on the Richardsons because their dad is a nut, and out of a desire to give them some stability...?

Author:	Loryat [ Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
I don't know...these things probably happen less than they would in EBD's time, but I think quite a lot of people would feel guilty if they were expected to take in a ward and were conscious that they didn't love the ward as muuch as their own children. I'm not blaming anyone who has been in that situation, just saying that I think you would feel as if you had let down the child.

Author:	MaryR [ Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
Loryat wrote: I don't know...these things probably happen less than they would in EBD's time, but I think quite a lot of people would feel guilty if they were expected to take in a ward and were conscious that they didn't love the ward as muuch as their own children. I'm not blaming anyone who has been in that situation, just saying that I think you would feel as if you had let down the child. But how can you have the same feelings for them? After all, you have a whole history with your own children, from even before they are born, and those bonds just grow and grow. You might learn to love a ward, but they come with all sorts of background you know nothing of, and therefore you can't always understand their reactions. They have to learn to trust you just as much as you have to learn to trust them. I suspect it would be different if you didn't have children of your own, as you would have nothing with which to compare your feelings.

Author:	Nightwing [ Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:41 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
MaryR wrote: But how can you have the same feelings for them? After all, you have a whole history with your own children, from even before they are born, and those bonds just grow and grow. You might learn to love a ward, but they come with all sorts of background you know nothing of, and therefore you can't always understand their reactions. They have to learn to trust you just as much as you have to learn to trust them. I suspect it would be different if you didn't have children of your own, as you would have nothing with which to compare your feelings. It sounds a little like you're arguing that parents are able to love their biological children more than adopted children, and I disagree. But I do think there's a distinction between 'child' (either biological or adopted) and 'ward'. Taking Jo as the example, she's not trying to become the parent of the Richardsons or Erica. They call her 'aunt' and I think that's what the relationship is - she's an adult who cares about them and has parental duties, but she isn't going to come close replacing their bio parents, nor is she trying to. But Jack and Jo will undoubtedly be parents in every sense but biologically to Marie-Claire.

Author:	Alison H [ Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:39 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
I would certainly think that it would have been easier for the Maynards with Claire, to whom they were parents in all but the biological sense, than with the others. Erica and the Richardsons are all fairly good-natured, but I can imagine someone like Annis turning round to her aunt (cousin?), or even Jessica Wayne to her stepfather, and saying "You're not my mother/father so I don't have to do what you say". The cases of very young children who live with guardians even though their parents are alive must have been interesting. Madge effectively played the part of Robin's mother, and there must have been some tensions when Ted came to live in Austria, especially as he and Robin lived in the same house as Madge. And Madge and Jem must sometimes have felt that they were in an awkward position regarding the Bettany children, and Sybil's attitude wouldn't have made things any easier.

Author:	Fiona Mc [ Fri Jun 26, 2009 12:48 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
Alison H wrote: The cases of very young children who live with guardians even though their parents are alive must have been interesting. Madge effectively played the part of Robin's mother, and there must have been some tensions when Ted came to live in Austria, especially as he and Robin lived in the same house as Madge. And Madge and Jem must sometimes have felt that they were in an awkward position regarding the Bettany children, and Sybil's attitude wouldn't have made things any easier. I think with Robin it would have been easier for Madge because there was no mother to share/compete with and from the sounds of it Ted effectively left the parenting to Madge-he would never go against what she said and in Eustacia Robin did try to go around Madge by approaching her father. I wonder if Ted stood back because it was too hard to watch his daughter being mothered by someone other than his wife, but could also appreciate the love Madge so obviously gave her. Madge and Jem were effectively parents to the Bettany children and I'm sure Madge would have found it hard to return them to their own parents after having them for so long, but I could see them loving them as their own in part because they did have them since they were babies/toddlers. I also tend to see Sybil's attitude stem from Rix's bossiness and Sybil resenting Rix thinking he could boss her around and that was the only way she could retaliate and hit him where it hurt. The only time we read it in Exile was when Rix was being obnoxious to Sybil and wouldn't let them join the game because she was too little. I'm sure that played a part though as she got older I'm sure she started resenting having to share her parents with anyone including her own siblings. I think it's easier to love a child as your own, the younger the child is when you first start caring for the child. I think it takes longer when the child is older. I could see Joey being closer to Ruey than the boys simply because she would see her more often living next door to the school and being there when her father went into space. I think she would love them as favourite nieces or nephews

Author:	ChubbyMonkey [ Fri Jun 26, 2009 7:30 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
Madge had a difficult job, I think, knowing that most of the children would go back to their respective parents one day, but wanting to care for them until then. However, I think that with Joey she has learnt to assume the role of elder-sister-cum-parent and this is the way in which she treats a lot of her wards; Robin, at least once she has grown up and Jo is married, seems to be "mothered" in a sense far more by Joey, her sister. The bigger problem with the Bettany children seems to be Maeve and Maurice trying to fit in with their new siblings - it must have been so hard for them to change from being essentially only children to suddenly being the youngest of a lot of siblings, especially as Peggy and Rix, at least, but possibly also Bride too would be too old to be sisters/brother and must have felt more like young aunts/uncle. I feel that Madge did a far better job of separating her roles than Joey; she manages to make her children feel as if they are the most important thing to her (I assume from the way EBD writes, though Sybil's insistence that she "belongs" all of the time could actually be a sign that she feels the complete opposite) while still not neglecting the other children who rely on her; of course there will be problems, and it is arguable that this may not be best for her biological children, but given the circumstances she is in I think she copes admirably - far better than Joey who does seem to neglect her own family to an extent.

Author:	JayB [ Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:36 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
Quote: I would certainly think that it would have been easier for the Maynards with Claire, to whom they were parents in all but the biological sense, than with the others. Erica and the Richardsons are all fairly good-natured, but I can imagine someone like Annis turning round to her aunt (cousin?), or even Jessica Wayne to her stepfather, and saying "You're not my mother/father so I don't have to do what you say". As I think someone else said, with an older ward, you don't have the shared history - they don't know the family jokes, can't join in the 'do you remember', don't know who all the people are whose names keep cropping up in conversation. It would be especially hard for a ward in the Maynard family, where all of those things are so much a part of every day life. But I suppose EBD couldn't possibly have shown Joey with a 'difficult' ward who didn't settle in immediately! There are instances, aren't there, when the joining of two families, or a new ward joining an existing family, doesn't work well, at least at first? Mrs Trevanion (Eustacia's aunt) is presented as a sympathetic character, but in the end she did put her own family first. Mrs Wayne/ Sefton over-compensated, so that her own daughter felt neglected. And there were problems between Francie and her stepfather, weren't there? Then on the other hand there was the successful Trelawney/Carey joining of families, and the close relationship of Flavia and her stepfather. But again I suppose the key is that in none of those cases did the girl remember the parent who was being 'replaced'.

Author:	Alison H [ Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:44 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
JayB wrote: But I suppose EBD couldn't possibly have shown Joey with a 'difficult' ward who didn't settle in immediately! I wish she had done - it would have been interesting to see how Joey and Jack coped. Sybil's early attitude towards the Bettanys, Jessica's resentment of Rosamund, the Trevanion boys' problems with Eustacia and (in the non-CS books) Monica's quarrels with her cousins and Lorna's jealousy of her stepsisters are dealt with quite well IMO.

Author:	JayB [ Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:21 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
Alison H wrote: I wish she had done - it would have been interesting to see how Joey and Jack coped. Drabble? Given Jo's attitude to Sybil (admittedly when Jo herself was much younger and hadn't yet developed all her famed insight) she might not have coped well with friction between the new ward and her own family.

Author:	Fiona Mc [ Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:44 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
I don't think she would have been too accepting. Doesn't it say in Future that would have been bad trouble for Melanie over her behaviour and that Joey would have no problem sending her home if she didn't sort out her issues with Ruey. And this was a girl she had invited despite her daughters reluctance and desire for time with their mother

Author:	Lesley [ Sat Jun 27, 2009 7:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
ChubbyMonkey wrote: The bigger problem with the Bettany children seems to be Maeve and Maurice trying to fit in with their new siblings - it must have been so hard for them to change from being essentially only children to suddenly being the youngest of a lot of siblings, especially as Peggy and Rix, at least, but possibly also Bride too would be too old to be sisters/brother and must have felt more like young aunts/uncle. Peggy and Rix were only about five or six years older than Maeve/Maurice weren't they? Mollie and Dick Bettany had their first six children very quickly and with two sets of twins four pregnancies in that time was feasible.

Author:	Alison H [ Sat Jun 27, 2009 7:53 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
Maeve and Maurice's age varies, IIRC . By the time they come home from India, they're around the same age as Josette. Josette was originally 5 years younger than Sybil (although by the mid-Swiss books she was only 3 years younger than Sybil, before reverting to the original age gap when she got engaged at 18 and Sybil at 23 at around the same time ), who was 2 years younger than David, who was 2 or 3 years younger than Peggy and Rix and close in age to Bride. That would make Maeve and Maurice 9 or 10 years younger than Peggy and Rix, but they were originally older than Josette, and sometimes Josette isn't that much younger than Sybil. Scratches head.

Author:	Lesley [ Sat Jun 27, 2009 8:02 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
I don't think the age gap is that great - in Peggy of the Chalet School, Peggy herself is 16 - she says so near the beginning when speaking with Polly and Lala Winterton, then, later in the same book there is reference to ten year old Maeve.

Author:	ChubbyMonkey [ Sat Jun 27, 2009 8:13 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
I think that physical ages (whatever they be!) may not have been as important as experiences. Peggy had lived through a lot of moving around, looking after younger children, and was Head Girl once she met M&M. M&M are portrayed, IMHO, as being rather young and, to a certain extent, spoiled, probably unused to sibling authority and slightly in awe of the young lady who greets them. It would be difficult for any siblings with that age gap to really connect because they would be at such different stages (my brother is six and a half years younger than me, and I don't even understand half the things he says ) and the lack of shared experiences would probably further the gap. Sorry if I'm still not phrasing that very well

Author:	JB [ Sat Jun 27, 2009 8:50 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
The Bettany children had different experiences in terms of family life before Dick and Mollie came back to England. I haven't checked but in Tom Tackles, I think Peggy is 13 or 14 and the younger twins are 8. Maeve and Maurice were, effectively, only children until the time they arrived in England and met their four older siblings whom they'd never seen before. The others were used to living as part of a large family and the dynamics of the older children having some responsibility for the younger ones. Peggy, in particular, is shown as responsible and quite motherly with the other children in the Russell nursery. Maeve and Maurice had to learn to share their parents, as well as living with older siblings, who were also living with their own parents for the first time they could remember. And they'd moved to another country - post-war Britain must have been a shock to children used to India.

Author:	Sunglass [ Sat Jun 27, 2009 9:03 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
I kind of feel for Maeve and Maurice, as I'm no Perfect Peggy fan - if she pulls off a permanent version of that 'Silvery Ladylike Slightly Shocked at Other People's Bad Behaviour' thing she does to Polly and Lala Winterton when she first meets them, then I can't imagine a more difficult unknown elder sister to encounter. Even leaving aside whether M and M are spoiled, or whether, hidden deep within Perfectly Prim Peggy, there isn't an (entirely understandable) grain of resentment that two of her siblings have actually grown up with her parents... Anyway, the poor twins - having a variable age must have been exhausting! I agree it would be fascinating to see Joey dealing with a new ward who was resistant to the famous charm and insight, or, say, if Ruey (understandably, IMHO), decided that just because some chance-met people were helping her and the boys out, it was no reason why they should lecture her about her unprettified chalet, praying habits, hairbrushing etc...?

Author:	Mia [ Sat Jun 27, 2009 7:04 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
EBD takes real pains to clearly state the Bettanys' ages in Bride Leads and I think this was a deliberate attempt to clear up the confusion! I always wonder if somebody mentioned it to her. What I find fascinating is that she planned extra Bettany children in her notes and had a family tree* all drawn up. I wonder what made her change her mind? * The NCC poetry collection by EBD

Author:	Alison H [ Sat Jun 27, 2009 9:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
Mia wrote: EBD takes real pains to clearly state the Bettanys' ages in Bride Leads and I think this was a deliberate attempt to clear up the confusion! I always wonder if somebody mentioned it to her. What I find fascinating is that she planned extra Bettany children in her notes and had a family tree* all drawn up. I wonder what made her change her mind? * The NCC poetry collection by EBD If Mollie had carried on having babies at the same rate, rather than having a big gap between "Second Twins" and Daphne, Joey would have had to have had so many to keep ahead of her that she'd've had no time for "butting in" to everyone else's business .

Author:	Fiona Mc [ Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:18 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Themes: Guardians
Sunglass wrote: I agree it would be fascinating to see Joey dealing with a new ward who was resistant to the famous charm and insight, or, say, if Ruey (understandably, IMHO), decided that just because some chance-met people were helping her and the boys out, it was no reason why they should lecture her about her unprettified chalet, praying habits, hairbrushing etc...? But it's the triplets who are so tactless about that. Margot and Len tell her there's no reason for not prettifying the chalet and Len talks to her about praying and hair brushing. Joey doesn't say anything at all, thinking she'd accept criticism better from her own peers. The only thing she does do is insist the three R's move in with them especially with Roger hurt and buys Ruey clothes. Roger backs Joey up when Ruey protests about it. And I do think buying her some more clothes is a nice thing to do as I'm sure Ruey would have felt self concious about her own clothes as they were meant to be pretty grubby. I do think Joey was pretty tactful in regards to how she handled the three R's. She pretty much treats Roger like an adult and doesn't insist on changing Ruey too much. She is also the biggest support for Ruey when her father flies off to space, so it would be pretty hard to be nasty to someone who has been so nice to you. Mind you I would love to see a difficult ward for Joey to handle