Why were Mary's Parents so uninterested in her? Why Have a child if you don't want to look after that child? I don't understand Mary's parents at all..
history is a battle fought by a great evil,struggling to crush a small kernel of human kindness
The methods of birth control/family planning available to women in that era were not nearly as reliable as what we have today. It could very well be that they did not want a child, but it happened anyway. And they were wealthy, so they could afford to have servants just take care of her for them. Pretty awful, but it happened.
"Why is it that every time I need to get somewhere I get waylaid by jackassery?"
Good answer, I didn't think about the lack of birth control in those days.
history is a battle fought by a great evil,struggling to crush a small kernel of human kindness
Mary's mother was apparently involved in her daughter when she was very little. Mary has a memory/flash back of her mother, encouraging the toddler to walk to her thru some very big leaves. But then the mother runs away - presumably because her sister (Colin's mom) has had her accident on the swing, and Mary is left alone, crying.
It was always my belief that Mary was thereafter a reminder, to the mom, of the death of her pregnant sister... and she was still "running away" from that. It doesn't explain Mary's father's attitude. But in those days, fathers were very seldom involved in the upbringing of their young daughters. Or maybe his sister-in-law's death was a bad memory for him, too.
I like your theory. I loved the book, but it didn't go into any detail on Mary's parents.I would have liked more of an explanation on Mary's parents and why they were they so neglectful to her. In the movie, it seems to be hinted that they were just very selfish people. It was tragic how Mary so desperately wanted love... The end scene where she tells her Uncle :`The garden wasn't wanted`, you realize how much her parents damaged her...because she knew she also wasn't wanted.
history is a battle fought by a great evil,struggling to crush a small kernel of human kindness
When I was younger, I often wondered the same. Now that I'm older, I have a feeling that Mary's father wanted a son and heir and then they had Mary. Its possible that there were complications surrounding Mary's birth or Mary's mother had a hard time getting pregnant with Mary in the first place and simply couldn't have anymore children. I think the father blamed the mother and there was distance between them which caused resentment and distance between them and their only child. My other theory is that Mary's mother was not well prepared for the business of giving birth and afterwards was traumatized and refused to bear any more children which caused a rift in the marriage and resentment and bad memories in Mary's mother. There is nothing in the book or any movies that I've ever seen that supports these theories. They are just ideas that I have. :)
Don't be ridiculous! Jack would never die without telling me!
Didn't look like there was any rift in the film. "You didn't have to follow me!" "Oh, but I wanted to!"
shareMary has a memory/flash back of her mother, encouraging the toddler to walk to her thru some very big leaves. But then the mother runs away - presumably because her sister (Colin's mom) has had her accident on the swing, and Mary is left alone, crying.
I thought the accident on the swing that killed Colin's mom was just a rumor, that she did not die that way.
shareNo, it wasn't a rumor. In the musical, this is how Ben explains Lily's (Colin's mother's) death.
"She was sittin' right here, on that branch. And it broke and that started her laborin' with you, only the fall had hurt her back. Still she clung onto life till you were born and then she put you in her father's arms and died."
The musical followed the book with this one, so I think it's safe to assume that the film did too because even though the specifics are a little different (ex. her sitting on a swing instead of directly on the branch), it's still pretty much the same thing - the impact ended up weakening her to the point where she couldn't survive childbirth.
im sorry but condoms have existed for thousands of years. in the form of sheeps skins etc. if they didn't want a child they could have easily used one
shareI didn't say birth control didn't exist, I said it wasn't as reliable as what we have now. Even today's condoms are only about 97% effective, and lambskin ones are significantly less effective.
Most people used the rhythm method rather than messy, inconvenient condoms, and that method is exactly as reliable today as it was then: not very.
"Why is it that every time I need to get somewhere I get waylaid by jackassery?"
actually todays condoms are less effective at birth control.
the sheepskin condoms had a 98% protection rate against pregnancy.
the only thing they did not protect you from was STDs
''only 97%''
i've got feelings too, ya know - inbetweeners
http://melanoidnation.org/white-man-warns-all-black
This answer shows SUCH little understanding of the time in which we are speaking, I don't know where to begin, but I will say that condoms were not used by most, definitely not by the aristocracy, and definitely not by married couples.
Secondly, they had children because that is what was EXPECTED of all couples at the time, and especially the aristocracy, to pass on family wealth.
Thirdly, it did not matter if women did not want children back then. It was expected of them when they married.
This answer shows SUCH little understanding of the time in which we are speaking, I don't know where to begin, but I will say that condoms were not used by most, definitely not by the aristocracy, and definitely not by married couples.
Secondly, they had children because that is what was EXPECTED of all couples at the time, and especially the aristocracy, to pass on family wealth.
Thirdly, it did not matter if women did not want children back then. It was expected of them when they married.
Something I don't think many have mentioned is that it was just a different culture in that time period. People did things differently. What they thought was good or bad was different than what you and I, today, in a different culture might think is good or bad.
shareIt was common place in those days for wealthy parents to have very little to do with their children, servants would even breastfeed babies. They would be left with a nanny/governess and only see their parents for perhaps an hour a day. They would play, learn and eat their meals separately in the nursery, and when old enough they'd be packed off to boarding school. I always just assumed that Mary's parents fit into this pattern.
shareGood point. No convoluted psychological theories are needed here. They had a baby, gave her to an ayha, and wrote her off; that's the British tradition, by and large.
A big Thank You to wonderful Princess Diana for showing them a better way. And to Kate Middleton and Diana's dear son. Congratulations to their soon to be larger family!
British parents in India may well have given him or "her to an ayha", but they did not write them off. There was no such British tradition.
Princess Diana had nothing to do with the ending of such traditions, for there was no such tradition. In any case Diana employed a nanny, just as the Queen did, and many parents do today.
I agree with you. In downtown abbey, Mary hardly spends time with her son. The baby is always with the nanny in the playroom or somewhere else. And those were the 1920s wealthy family.
shareThe answer lies in the first page of the book. Mary's father worked for the English government and was busy a lot. He also battled illness frequently like Mary did, so he had little time for a child.
Mary's mother "had not wanted a little girl at all" (no idea if she wanted a son instead or just didn't want any children). She was described as a great beauty "who cared only to go to parties and amuse herself with gay people." Basically, she had a child because that was the "correct" thing to do, but her main focus was on being some sort of socialite. Indeed, the reason she did not leave her home to escape the spread of cholera was because she had wanted to attend some dinner party. 😔
By then, it was too late.
Young people need to understand that "gay people" does not mean what it now means. Until recent times, "gay" had a very different meaning. So in other words if you see a news story from when Marilyn Monroe (the Playboy centerfold) was alive saying she was going to a gay party, that does not mean what it now means.
shareIf I think about it, there are many things about this movie that don't make sense. I think I am not going to try to analyze it, and I am someone that has posted many inconsistencies in other movies and shows. I do it for the show Scorpion but I think I won't do that with this movie.
Every movie has inconsistencies and other flaws.
If I think about it, there are many things about this movie that don't make sense. I think I am not going to try to analyze it, and I am someone that has posted many inconsistencies in other movies and shows. I do it for the show Scorpion but I think I won't do that with this movie.
Every movie has inconsistencies and other flaws.