MovieChat Forums > Howards End (1993) Discussion > why paul was penniless ?

why paul was penniless ?

posted 14 years ago by ashkanpashakola
7 replies | jump to latest

charles said to aunt juley that paul has no money . why ? he was the eldest son of rich mr.wilcox . why he hadnt money ?

[–] randommovies2002 14 years ago

Charles was the eldest son, not Paul.

[–] bunnellius 8 years ago

The mistake is understandable on the op's part, as Charles introduces himself as "the younger Mr. Wilcox" to Aunt Juley near the beginning. However he meant in relation to his father, whereas Aunt Juley was asking between the two sons. This is followed up during the argument in the car, without either of them really understanding the source of the confusion.
(Because of this exchange) I had some false recollection of Charlie's being the "younger" as well while reading this thread, although he seemed like the elder in every other way to me. I couldn't sort out why until I actually rewatched the film.

[–] titus25 14 years ago

Paul (like Charles and Evie) was going to come into an inheritance once his father died, but until then, he had to at least try to earn a living on his own, as a way of proving himself. The Wilcoxes weren't aristocrats - Henry was a self-made man - and Henry expected his sons to work for their money as well.

[–] ashkanpashakola 14 years ago

ok thanks

[–] djsnafu23 13 years ago

Are the reasons of Paul's failed romance with Helen ever explained???

myspace.com/bankrupteuropeans

Coz lifes too short to listen to Madlib

[–] bunnellius 8 years ago

Simply that the Wilcox in him won out in the morning... It wasn't a very pragmatic relationship from that vantage. Although Helen wasn't entirely poor, she and Paul were of different types, unlike the other children's marital spouses who's background and personalities seemed to complement their natural cutthroat dispositions. Helen would have just been a source of conflict and impediment to Paul during his enterprises in Africa, and business must.
Also, the children all had the shallow congenital snobbery of being born into a nouveau-riche capitalist family. Ruth and Henry's individual snobberies were of a more nuanced kind, and thus more susceptible to the lure of the Schlegel in a longer-term fashion.

[–] MissGruntled 7 years ago

"Also, the children all had the shallow congenital snobbery of being born into a nouveau-riche capitalist family."

How aptly put! As the film progresses, and the extent of the Wilcox family's wealth and property holdings is slowly revealed, it seems all the more miserly that they chose not to honour Ruth's wish to give Margaret a (relatively) modest house that none of them actually wanted or cared about.