The CBB :: View topic - Girls: Girls with Unloving Parents

through

[^/[^Print]\]

The CBB -> Formal Discussions

#1: Girls: Girls with Unloving Parents Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 10:17 am
—
There are a handful of girls in the series who are shown with neglectful or unloving parents or guardians: Grizel, whose parents force her to study music, Juliet, whose parents abandon her, the Richardsons, whose father dumps them on the Maynards and takes off, Betty Wynne-Davies, whose guardian ships her permanently to boarding school age age five, Annis Lovell, with her oh so lovely Aunt and Ted Grantley's mother who really wanted a boy instead.

Are any of these cases actually abusive, or just misunderstood? What do you think of the portrayal of the individual situations, and the way EBD resolves or doesn't resolve then.

Feel free to add other cases, but girls with loving but crackpot parents will be covered in a later discussion.

#2: Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester

Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 11:35 am
—
I think that the Richardsons' father, although he was an absolutely lousy father, was more neglectful/crackpot than uncaring: he was too wrapped up in his work to take care of his children.

It's funny how some people are presented as bad parents/guardians but others aren't - EBD seems to think that it's fine for Ted Humphries to leave a 6-year-old child behind whilst he goes off to Russia (and when Herr Anserl originally mentioned the school Ted didn't actually realise that Madge was an old friend - at that point he was expecting her to be a complete stranger), but is very critical of, for example, Betty's guardian. Some of them're people who've ended up taking care of other people's children when they didn't really want to, but that's no excuse for how nasty people like Annis's aunt were.

Ted's mother just seems like a spoilt brat who'd left her older children to nannies to look after and couldn't cope with a strong-willed girl like Ted. Juliet's parents are unspeakably bad - I'm trying to think of other examples of that sort of upper-crust ultra-caddishness/ill-treatment of relatives in books/films but my brain's gone blank Embarassed

.

The one that I really don't get is Grizel's dad. Why on earth didn't he tell his second wife that he'd got a daughter? Presumably he thought that it'd put her off marrying him, but they never seemed very happy together anyway. Maybe she had money and he was after it! And why was he so keen to force Grizel to do what he wanted, even after he died because of the terms of his will? Was he just a control freak, or did he think that being a PT teacher wasn't a suitable career, or what Confused

#3: Author: Lexi, Location: Liverpool

Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 11:51 am
—
I think in the case of Betty's guardian (is it Mr Irons?) it's definitely emotional abuse but totally unintentional. Being packed off to boarding school from the age of 5 and receiving no real love or warmth from any of the adult figures in her life clearly had a huge impact on her, however I really don't think that her guardian was aware of what he was doing to her. He was very conscientious about safeguarding her investments and ensuring that she got a good education but he doesn't seem to have realised that it takes more than that to bring up a child successfully! I think EBD uses the plot well to explain Betty's background and disposition as it still leaves her with the potential for redemption when she starts to receive some love and affection. It's useful to have a "bad girl" in the school but it's better if she can reform at some point so that she's not a hopeless case.

Mr and Mrs Cochrane are just utterly horrible. They're obviously strict parents but even so, I just don't understand their motivation for forcing Grizel into a career that she hates and then not allowing her to inherit until she's 35! Although it's not explicitly mentioned, I can imagine Grizel having rows a plenty with them over that. She'd definitely be the sort of person who'd make her point in an argument so Mr and Mrs Cochrane must have been made aware of what they doing to her, and just chose to continue with it.

#4: Author: Ray, Location: Bristol, England

Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 12:10 pm
—

Alison H wrote:

EBD seems to think that it's fine for Ted Humphries to leave a 6-year-old child behind whilst he goes off to Russia, but is very critical of, for example, Betty's guardian.

I think the key difference is that Ted is going off to do something dangerous/be somewhere dangerous (and Russia in the 1920s/30s was not exactly a great place to be!) and wants to make sure that his daughter is well looked after for that period. Betty's guardian just foists her off on the school because he doesn't want to deal with her. There's nothing in Highland Twins that suggests he was doing dangerous work or was moving around a great deal; he just simply doesn't want to even try to live with a child.

Ray *who probably has more to say but can't think of it right now*

#5: Author: JayB, Location: SE England

Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 12:39 pm
—
Betty's guardian was probably someone like Prof Richardson, who should never have had responsibility for a child. If he was unmarried/worked long hours/had no settled home or lived in rooms, Betty probably was better off at school. The idea was presumably to give her some stability and continuity in her life. It's unfortunate that circumstances - Miss Browne giving up St Scholastika's, the war and all the moving the CS had to do - spoiled that.

Mr Irons should have paid more attention to Betty's emotional needs, but a) that's something which wasn't considered so much at the time and b) he probably had no idea how to deal with an adolescent girl anyway.

The one I find most difficult to understand is Mr Cochrane. In School At he's aware that his relationship with his daughter isn't all it should be, but far from setting about improving it, he just makes things worse as Grizel grows up. I think he must have been a weak man completely dominated by his wife.

#6: Author: Maeve, Location: Romania

Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 5:01 pm
—
Most of the really bad parents/guardians (Cochranes, Carricks, Annis' aunt, Ted's mother) do seem guilty of something at least akin to abuse, in contrast with say, Mr. and Mrs. Barrass or Katherine Gordon's Aunt Luce, who seem primarily guilty of being scatty.

All of the bad folk seem pretty samey. But I think Grizel's situation stands out because it is never resolved until way, way into the series -- at least, I imagine her getting married is supposed to represent a solution. With everyone else, the parents/guardians die (Carricks, Richardsons) or are replaced (Mr. Lovell comes back, the school takes over for Mrs. Grantly), but we see Grizel suffering the effects of her parents' actions well into adulthood -- not just in how her inheritance is kept from her but in how difficult her character is. It's pretty sad, really. Sad

#7: Author: Loryat,

Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 6:54 pm
—
What about Naomi Elton's aunt? I always got the impression that she was fairly unsympathetic to Naomi and viewed her as a bit of a burden more than anything else. (Probably contributing to Naomi's sense of bitterness).

#8: Author: RoseCloke, Location: In my pretty box-like room

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 12:59 pm
—
I think the number of girls with unloving/uncaring parents is amazing. I don't know whether that's usual in a boarding school (because if parents really want rid of a child, a boarding school is the perfect place) or whether it's just a plot device, but it's pretty depressing nonetheless.

I think Juliet's and Grizel's parents were the worst, although I couldn't help but think that if the Robin was really so beloved by her parents that her father would have done everything in his power to stay with her - surely the army wouldn't be that hard-hearted about a motherless six year old?

Juliet's case I think is definitely emotionally abusive - her parents treat her as if she's some sort of commodity, or luxury that they can pick up when it suits them and then absolve themselves of if they can't afford her.

Grizel I would say is more a mixture of misunderstanding and possible emotional abuse by her stepmother. Although 35 seems old to receive your inheritance, I have a feeling that when women first got the vote, and for a while afterwards, they had to be 35. I think it was only after WW2 that the age limit was lowered to 21, so her father, probably being at the very least Edwardian, would have probably viewed his daughter as financially uncapable until she turned 35. I don't think her stepmother has an excuse for her behaviour though.

#9: Author: Mel, Location: UP NORTH

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 1:20 pm
—
That's an interesting point about Robin's father. Was he in the army? What was he doing in Russia later? I know he was called Cpt Humphries which is rather a lowly rank for a middle-aged man.

#10: Author: RoseCloke, Location: In my pretty box-like room

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 1:25 pm
—
Embarassed

I'm not sure... off the top of my head I just assumed he was in Russia owing to a job in the army, but please someone correct me if I'm wrong!

Although if he were in Russia for business reasons then I'd be even more inclined to think he was a bad father - he manages to get a job later as Jem's secretary, so there must have been jobs available in the area that he could have done.

#11: Author: Lottie, Location: Humphrey's Corner

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 1:29 pm
—

RoseCloke wrote:

Grizel I would say is more a mixture of misunderstanding and possible emotional abuse by her stepmother. Although 35 seems old to receive your inheritance, I have a feeling that when women first got the vote, and for a while afterwards, they had to be 35. I think it was only after WW2 that the age limit was lowered to 21, so her father, probably being at the very least Edwardian, would have probably viewed his daughter as financially uncapable until she turned 35. I don't think her stepmother has an excuse for her behaviour though.

I think the inheritance at 35 was probably to do with discouragement of unwelcome suitors, who might be tempted to marry her for her money otherwise.

#12: Author: JayB, Location: SE England

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 1:53 pm
—
Women could vote at 21 from 1928. So if you take 1930 or 31 as the start date for the School, Madge was able to vote in the 1929 election. Jo would have voted first in the 1945 election.

The 'delayed inheritance' plot device is used by Nevil Shute in A Town Like Alice, which is set post 1945. There, IIRC, the elderly testator didn't think a young single woman was capable of managing a large sum of money. If she'd been married, he'd have left things differently. But in Grizel's case I see it as the stepmother wanting to hang on to as much of Mr Cochrane's money for as long as possible.

I always assumed Capt. Humphries had been demobbed from the army and was looking for work as a civilian. If he'd been abroad with the army for some time he might not have had any contacts to help him find work, and whether you set Jo Of in 1926 when it was published or 1930/31, jobs were hard to come by. He'd have had to take what he could get.

#13: Author: RoseCloke, Location: In my pretty box-like room

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 2:03 pm
—
I think Grizel explains (I think when the school is on the Island), that the money is held in trust until she's 35, although she can touch it with the permission of the lawyers and her stepmother. As such her stepmother wouldn't have been able to draw on the money for her own use, although I definitely agree that there was an element of spite in not letting Grizel have the money, when the lawyers had agreed she could. Maybe because she realised that she would never be able to touch the money herself.

Hmm... I see what you're saying JayB, but I still think he could have done more if she were that precious to him. Very Happy

Having said that, I've just remembered how frail the Robin was meant to be. Without having the books to hand, was the reason he picked the Tyrol because of the climate or just because there was a school in the area?

#14: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 3:33 pm
—
The Robin's frailty doesn't crop up until after Jo of - she's perfectly healthy there.

I think leaving a child with friends or family or at school was much more accepted in those days. He had to find work, and whether he stayed in Germany or went to Russia he would still have to hire somone to care for Robin - leaving her with friends at a boarding school while he was abroad would be seen as the responsible option. The fact that even after he returns to the Sonnalpe Madge and Jem seem to effectively stay Robin's parents is a bit odd though - you never see him interacting with Robin at all.

For Grizel, the money could be her father's attempt to control her career from beyond the grave. If she got the money directly when he died, she could still have been young enough to retrain, or move into a different career, like she eventually did.

I think I see Grizel's parents as worse than Juliet's in many ways. Juliet's parents wanted to be rid of her, but Grizel's were actively trying to make her miserable, and not just because they didn't understand her or weren't good with kids. I don't blame her stepmother for being annoyed and suddenly discovering a ten year old stepdaughter she was tricked into parenting, but her father seems to actively dislike her and they're both emotionally abusive.

The Richardsons - he was definitely neglectful, in a having the kids taken away by social services sort of way. I do wonder what would have happened if he had not met the Maynards. Would he have given them some money, told them to make their way back to England, and taken off? And after he dumps the kids on the Maynards, his children never see him again.

I wonder how common it was for the family solicitor to end up legally responsible for a child after the parent's death, as happened in Betty's case, and a few others, like Verity or Polly. Being a lawyer is hardly training for caring for anything other than the child's finances.

#15: Author: RoseCloke, Location: In my pretty box-like room

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 3:43 pm
—
That's just reminded me about Carola - I read it for the first time a few days ago and was amazed at how selfish her guardian was. I wouldn't call her abusive by any stretch of the imagination, and I can see that she probably thought all the travelling was good for broadening Carola's mind. However, the girl was obviously unhappy and desperately wanted some normalcy. It wouldn't have taken much to send a telegram to her parents asking if she could board at a well-respected school (as the CS was by then).

#16: Author: Loryat,

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 11:15 am
—
Carola's gaurdian is incredibly selfish (and, fortunately for the plot, too stupid to think of asking Carola's parents if they'd mind if Carola went to boarding school). While she can say the foreign travel is good for Carola, I think she's really just convincing herself of that she she can go on havign fun.

Personally I'm convinced that Robin's dad was a spy, which is why he was only a 'Captain'. In that capacity he could have been driven by patriotism, forced into it by his employers, etc. When he does take the job as Jem's secretary, IMO he's finished his tour of duty. Also, Jem gives him a job as they're friends and to help him be close to the Robin - would he have found it that easy to get a job elsewhere?

Speaking of neglectful parents, what about Corney's dad? I know he shows up every now and then to be incredibly generous, but doesn't it say somewhere that she spent most of her life at boarding school - even before the CS? Is he emotionally unavailable/a workaholic? And why is Corney more or less abandoned after the war at the school, while Mr Flower stays in Austria? Is he working with the resistance?

#17: Author: JustJen, Location: waiting for spring training

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 4:22 pm
—

Quote:

And why is Corney more or less abandoned after the war at the school, while Mr Flower stays in Austria? Is he working with the resistance?

It was safer for her to stay at the school during the war since crossing the Alantic was risky business.
As for Mr. Flowers being a spy; oh yes. What was he doing in France when the war started?

Quote:

Personally I'm convinced that Robin's dad was a spy,

So am I! I loved From Russia with love Does anyone remember who wrote it? I would love to see it back.

#18: Author: RoseCloke, Location: In my pretty box-like room

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 4:27 pm
—
Ian Fleming, I think Very Happy

#19: Author: Karry, Location: Stoke on Trent

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 5:24 pm
—
Rose, there was a drabble with the same name. All about Ted being a spy, which was why hehad to leave Robin.

#20: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 4:30 am
—

Loryat wrote:

Speaking of neglectful parents, what about Corney's dad? I know he shows up every now and then to be incredibly generous, but doesn't it say somewhere that she spent most of her life at boarding school - even before the CS? Is he emotionally unavailable/a workaholic? And why is Corney more or less abandoned after the war at the school, while Mr Flower stays in Austria? Is he working with the resistance?

He's in the UK at some point, because Corney is keeping house for him, and they both go back to the US after the war.

I think that's partly different times/different mores. A single father wouldn't have been expected to do hands on child care - he'd hire a nanny or governess for younger children, and send older ones off to school. Same with parents abroad - sending kids back to a good school or to stay with a relative was seen as more responsible, and a sacrifice you made for the sake of the kids. I imagine Mr Flower was a businessman who travelled a lot, and even if he had a wife at home his kids would still go to a good boarding school and he wouldn't see them much, nor would expect to. Travel was harder and more expensive, and phone calls the same.

I do think the idea of leaving your kid with a ditzy or elderly relative for ten years, coming home, being shocked at how they've turned out and setting out to reform them right away is rather harsh on the kid - like the Wintertons or Prunella.

#21: Author: Caroline, Location: Manchester

Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 4:28 pm
—

jennifer wrote:

Loryat wrote:

He's in the UK at some point, because Corney is keeping house for him, and they both go back to the US after the war.

Mr Flower sets up home for himself and Corney in Ireland during the war - I think we're told that in either Goes To It or Highland Twins (can't remember which!). I suspect that he was pretty much always on the move (yep - I vote for workaholic) when Corney was younger, and that's why the school became such a home to her. It was that or be looked after by a housekeeper...

For a lot of these girls, the Chalet School became the home they never had. I guess that goes some way to explain their love and loyalty for the school - it gives them the order and certainty and friendship that they didn't get from their unloving parents / lack of parents / otherwise unhappy home life. If they make good, they also get the respect and adoration of their peers and their juniors - another thing most of them probably don't get at home.

And the school did the same thing for Joey and Madge, too. Which I guess helps explain the ongoing ethos of taking in lame dogs and looking after other folks.

#22: Author: KB, Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 11:27 pm
—

Caroline wrote:

Actually, it's in Lavender:

Quote:

‘It isn’t Corney, is it?’ asked Robin doubtfully, naming a well-beloved former head-girl, who had left in the summer after the outbreak of war and had gone to join her father in Ireland where he had set up his home.

As for the housekeeper, Corney basically says as much in New CS:

Quote:

‘I’m going to Die Rosen,’ explained Evadne. ‘They’re away till October, and the house is shut up with just Suzette in charge. I don’t want to see Susie all that much, so I’m going to Madame.'

The workaholic idea makes a lot of sense!

#23: Author: Dawn, Location: Leeds, West Yorks

Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 5:33 pm
—
I don't know if people are aware that Elinor had a half brother (her dad's first marriage ended when his wife died leaving a small boy) and he appears to have been treated pretty badly. Helen McClelland raises the issue in her biography of EBD Behind the Chalet School

Pages 8/9
Charles Arnold was barely five at the time of his father's second marriage; and it would surely have been natural for him to have come and lived for at least part of the time with Charles and Nelly [EBD's mother], once they had settled down at Winchester Street after their wedding. By this juncture his grandparents had all died, he had no other close relatives, and there was ample room at 52 Winchester Street. Instead, it appears that he was condemmed to continue a pathetic kind of wandering passage between lodgings, being left for the most part in the care of various landladies. And at no point does he seem even to have visited the Winchester Street household.
....There is documentary evidence for his birth, as well as for the fact that he was still living in 1911, at the age of twenty-three...... but what became of him in the mean time is unknown. Oddest of all - among those who supplied information about Elinor's early life, including some who appeared to have known her and the family reasonably well, not one person could recall ever hearing a word of Charles Arnold's existence.
Elinor herself may not have known of it in her youth, for much was concealed from children in those days. But later she did learn about this vanished half-brother and it is tempting to sepculate about a passage in one of her books School at the Chalet......
and she then goes on to discuss the implications of Mrs Cochrane not knowing about Grizel until they returned from honeymoon

What with the mystery about her half-brother, a father who was thought by all their acquaintances to have died (he had left when EBD was 3, ended up living with another woman who also had a son with him - and who apparently took in his first son for a while) and then being encouraged not to talk about her beloved full brother's death, it's a bit of a miracle that she wrote about anyone who was in any way "well balanced"!

#24: Author: Karry, Location: Stoke on Trent

Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 7:58 pm
—
Family relationships are difficult! my eldest sister is my half sister (step - according to EBD - sometimes), and I have recently discovered since MY mother's death that Mum had destroyed documents relating to her mother, and also personal items had disappeared after mum's marriage to Dad. My sister is devastated at the eradication of her mother's existance in our families life. Our father must agreed to this misting of the family history! So I can empathise with the problems EBD must have gone through with step and half siblings and related familes!

#25: Author: Cath V-P, Location: Newcastle NSW

Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 12:38 am
—
At that point, for a woman to lose a husband by anything other than death was also to lose any social standing whatsoever. And Nelly Dyer couldn't afford to lose her lower middle-class status, so the only way to retain it was to maintain complete silence on her spouse's departure and allow it to be thought that he had died. And that meant that her children had to conceal the fact that their father was still alive. Growing up in a house where secrets like that predominated must have had an effect on EBD.

#26: Author: Loryat,

Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 3:10 pm
—
I was reading Three Go the other day and was really struck by the relationship Adrian Barras has with his children. While I'm not suggesting her is an unloving parent, and of course the fact that it weas a different era has to be taken into consideration...it seems to me that he is very violent with Tony. We're talking would go to jail if it were nowadays type violence, IMO.

#27: Author: Holly,

Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 6:38 pm
—

Quote:

I don't think it was all that unusual to stagger somebody's inheritance, especially if they were female. Didn't Grizel get part of her inheritance upfront? I believe that it was not uncommon in the early part of the century for women only to inherit the spirit of their inheritance - basically, that they'd get the income it earned but they wouldn't ever be able to touch the capital.

As well as that, Grizel and her father seemed to be at odds over what her career choice should be. Perhaps he was afraid that if she had access to her inheritance, she would leave teaching music in favour of gym.

As fathers go, Grizel's father won't be winning any prizes any time soon, but I don't think that he was the worst by a long shot. He did, at least, make some efforts towards establishing a relationship with his daughter and I don't think that he pushed her into music because he wanted her to be unhappy; maybe music teacher was a shade more respectable than gym teacher.

Juliet's parents were awful.

As far as Ted Humphries is concerned, while I understand that he had to travel to Russia for work reasons but I think that his method of finding a home for his daughter during his time away wasn't the best; he doesn't even know Madge's name and he's going to hand his daughter over to her? At the time the Robin was enrolled, she was a good two years younger than the next student in age, she was going to an English school but didn't speak the language very well and he had no way of knowing what, if any, arrangements would be made during the school holidays. It turned out well but it could easily have not.

#28: Author: Katherine, Location: London, UK

Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:50 pm
—

Holly wrote:

When I was a child my friend's parent wrote a will and said that she couldn't have the money until she was 30 as they didn't trust her before then! I can see that Mr Cochrane might have though she would settle down by then. My real gripe is his refusal to let Grizel have the life that would make her happy. It was her life, not his.

#29: Author: Holly,

Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 10:12 pm
—

Katherine wrote:

That probably wouldn't have been all that unusual, given the time it was set and written. Grizel's father seemed to be quite well to do, so the idea of his daughter working at all may not have sat well with him in the first place. Even nowadays if a parent thinks that their child is choosing unwisely when it comes to their career, they will intervene.

#30: Author: KB, Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 5:55 am
—

Katherine wrote:

When I was a child my friend's parent wrote a will and said that she couldn't have the money until she was 30 as they didn't trust her before then!

My grandmother was going to leave 1/3 of her estate to my cousin instead of his mother (to avoid my step uncle getting his greasy mitts on it) and specified that he wasn't to be able to touch a dollar until he was 35. She then wrote him out altogether, although that is still up for debate... *lol*

#31: Author: JayB, Location: SE England

Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 10:01 am
—
In A Town Like Alice, the old great uncle leaves Jean's inheritance in trust for her until she's 30 or 35, can't recall which.

There is some logic to it in that a very young woman in sole control of a large amount of money might be a target for fortune hunters, especially if she has no close family to look after her interests - and Grizel doesn't seem to have any uncles or other relatives apart from her stepmother.

The real villain seems to be the stepmother for refusing to release any of the capital even when Grizel is no longer very young and not extravagant and has a good reason for wanting the money.

As to Captain Humphries leaving the Robin with strangers - that wasn't unheard of. In fiction there's Sara Crewe in A Little Princess. In real life, Rudyard Kipling and his sister were left in what turned out to be very unsatisfactory circumstances - I'm not sure it was even a proper school, just a woman who had a few children as boarders.

#32: Author: Kate, Location: Ireland

Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 11:06 am
—
It was quite normal for boys at least to be sent to boarding school at seven or thereabouts (and I'm sure they still are). Roald Dahl was seven, wasn't he? And Stephen Fry was too. But from their accounts, they were more grown up at seven than today's seven-year-olds would be, unlike the Robin.

#33: Author: Mrs Redboots, Location: London, UK

Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 1:47 pm
—

JayB wrote:

As to Captain Humphries leaving the Robin with strangers - that wasn't unheard of. In fiction there's Sara Crewe in A Little Princess. In real life, Rudyard Kipling and his sister were left in what turned out to be very unsatisfactory circumstances - I'm not sure it was even a proper school, just a woman who had a few children as boarders.

A lot of women did that - my great-grandfather's sister did, with one of her other sisters. At least, we assume that's what she did, from the entry in a 19th-century census, where it is she, her sister, a couple of maids, and three or four small boys all born in India living in the house. Ten years later, she was living in Winchester and running a school for Estonian nurses, one of whom was adopted into the family (one of my great-grandfather's siblings married an Estonian man).

I have to admit, I do hope my ancestor treated the children better than poor Kipling was treated!

The CBB -> Formal Discussions

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1