Maybe it's just becaues the actors who portrayed Henry and Mary Crawford had good chemistry, but I was a little creeped out by their relationship. I can't put my finger on it, but something in the way they look at each other and talk to each other is gross to me, like it's incestuous or something.
shareI think the creepy element in this adaptation was more to do with the script/direction than the actors. There are lots of hints of unnatural relationships in this version (Sir Thomas seems too interested in his niece and Mr Price's hug for his returning daughter doesn't seem particularly paternal to me). There's so many things I find wrong with this adaptation, I just don't know where to start.
The people have appointed me. I am their leader. I must follow them.share
I also thought that there were a lot of incestuous type things going on in this film like the ones mentioned. I've never read the book, so don't really know if that was the case, but I would imagine not. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Fanny and Edward cousins? I guess it was ok for cousins to marry then, as Elizabeth Bennet was being pushed on Mr. Collins, a cousin of the Bennets, in Pride and Prejudice. In that case, I thought Elizabeth and Mr. Collins were very distant cousins, but aren't Fanny's and Edward's mothers sisters? So, that's a closer blood line. Just thought that was odd.
"George Bailey, I'll love you til the day I die."
The Crawford’s creeped you out I was more creeped out about the fact that Fanny and Edmond were first cousins Imagine their children
It's always been legal to marry your first cousin under British law. It only seems to be non-Brits who find this disturbing, it doesn't bother me at all.
The people have appointed me. I am their leader. I must follow them.share
Has anyone seen Junebug? The actors who play the Crawfords play husband and wife. When my sister and I first recognized them while watching the movie, it made it somehow creepy since we think of them as brother and sister. They do have good chemistry though, I agree with the OP.
shareIt's always been legal to marry your first cousin under British law. It only seems to be non-Brits who find this disturbing, it doesn't bother me at all.
First cousins marrying only creates problems if it is done repeatedly and over several generations. A one-off situation like Fanny and Edmund would not create any problems for their children, unless they both carried some kind of genetic marker for a disease (the way hemophilia was passed through Europe's royal families because they were almost all related, many carried the hemophilia gene, and then married their cousin who also had the gene--and of course the royal families intermarried quite a bit over the generations, which was another contributing factor).
I can't answer about the prevalence of cousin-marrying in Britain today, but in quite a few countries: including Canada, most of Europe and about half of the United States, there are no legal prohibitions against marrying one's cousin.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
Interesting. I beleive its illegal in most of the US period. I don't there is any law when it comes to second and third cousins.
shareIn 19 states and 1 territory there are no prohibitions to marrying your first cousin. Those are:
Alabama
Alaska
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina (although there is a prohibition against double cousins marrying)
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
In another 6 states, it's allowed under certain circumstances--which is usually that the couple is older than 55 years of age or one or both are infertile or undergo genetic testing:
Arizona
Illinois
Indiana
Maine
Utah
Wisconsin
And if a cousin couple got married in a state where it was legal, the other states where it was not would recognize such a marriage.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
I wonder how often it happens.
shareI think in the US, it's 1 in 1000 couples; and worldwide 20% of all marriages are first cousins.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
Yes. I know what you guys mean. I also saw things in the movie which seemed over the line.
Edmund's father(also Fanny's uncle) upon returning from a trip made a comment about how Fanny had a nice body. She was clearly uncomfortable. I know I would have been.
Very interesting post, with the various stats regarding 'cousins'marriages' and listing the States...question..as concerns North Carolina,you noted an exception to cousins being allowed to marry 'Except when they are " double cousins" ?.. Please explain what that term means, either OP or anyone, if you would? Thanks much !
sharePeople make jokes about first cousins marrying, especially in Kentucky and West Virginia. My great-grandparents were first cousins. When researching my genealogy, I found other first-cousin marriages in another line. I found it amusing and whenever I talk about my ancestors, I always mention my great-grandparents first. At that time it was very common and accepted. I think there is a law against it now, not sure. But as far as I have found there have been no problems with anyone's health or mental abilities among their descendants.
shareI don't know how often marriage between cousins took place in the UK back then or how often it taks place now. As I understand it, these marriages were discouraged by the community/family if there were hereditary illnesses or mental health problems in the family, but no prohibitions were applied if a couple married in spite of these problems. It's not something I'd ever consider, if only because I don't much care for my male cousins
The people have appointed me. I am their leader. I must follow them.share
Maybe it's not so common now, but this was in the 1800s. It was much more common for first cousins to get married in that time, and it was seen as quite socially acceptable.
share[deleted]
They were fifth cousins though, pretty distantly related despite the same last name.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
Couples who have children when they are over 40 are more likely to have birth defects than first cousins.
shareIt has been proven that almost all of our Presidential candidates going back 200 years are inter-related. And this includes the British monarchy. I guess this is not frowned upon by the elite. It is probably the reason most of them are quite nutty in the head. LOL
shareBritish royalty were always marrying their first cousins and look what happened there - we ended up with Prince Charles!! LOL
Cats rule, dogs drool!
British royalty were always marrying their first cousins and look what happened there - we ended up with Prince Charles!! LOL
I think he's the one who couldn't masticate!! (caused us hilarity at school)
Cats rule, dogs drool!
[deleted]
Is WIlliam Walter Elliot Sir Walter's nephew? I don't think it says that in the book...?
share[deleted]
Since he's descended from the male line, it's likely William Walter is the son of a younger brother of Sir Walter, or of a male Elliot cousin.
Imo, he must be the son of a male Elliot cousin because of the way Sir Walter contrives to make his acquaintance during one of his London trips with Elizabeth (mentioned in an early chapter). If he were the son of a younger brother, I wonder if Sir Walter would have had to go to such lengths to contrive an introduction?
Sir Walter feels put out that Mr. Elliot does not seek his approval on his choice of wife. If Mr. Elliot had been the son of a deceased younger brother of Sir Walter, I think it probable that after his own father's death, he would have been on better terms with his father's brother (especially if he had been underage at the time of his father's death).
Elizabeth has thought of Mr. Elliot as her father's heir for a long time -- since before the London trip when they make each other's acquaintance. So it seems that Mr. Elliot's father must have been deceased for a long time.
Cheers.
"It's always been legal to marry your first cousin under British law. It only seems to be non-Brits who find this disturbing, it doesn't bother me at all."
In the British film Four Weddings and a Funeral, near the end of the film, the sort of geeky friend (I think Tom) meets a girl he is instantly attracted to and it is obvious that she is attracted to him too. She mentions that they are cousins, and the moment is suddenly awkward. Then she says, "second cousins" and they both smile and then we all know that the relationship might be more appropriate. So my question is, why would they put this part in a British comedy if marrying a first cousin was not disturbing to the English?
Yes, it was one of the many creepy little things that were included in this adaptation.
But really a story in which close relatives marry is the pinnacle of creepiness. They needed Deliverance style banjos to end this story.
Did you read the novel? While Jane Austen was of her time, she was also a brilliant writer of characters. If you read the book you wouldn't have to ask. Gosh that sounds smug and I don't mean to be. I'm only giving my opinion. I would never hurt anyone's feelings.
After first reading Jane Austen's novels while in my youth, forty years ago, I recall with ease that the characters of Henry and Mary gave me the shivers without understanding why; at thirteen I was naive about many human relationships. I recall going to my brother for an explanation (he was well-read at seventeen and recommended Jane Austen to me), and he did his best.
I read "Mansfield Park" again in my twenties and then understood the relationship between the Campbells. While I found their behavior reprehensible, I also understood the British social structure of that time; I quietly admired their deceitful audacity.
In my twenty-something opinion, which I still hold today, their behavior rang as clearly as a wedding church bell compared to the evil nature of the foundation upon which the entire sick sham of the Bertram estate as shown by the charcoal depictions that Tom drew while in Antigua. The Bertram family chose to be blindly supported by slavery, OR at least the eldest of the Bertram males knew, as the estate was passed down the generations.
"...question is why you won't come with me." "I don't have a passport." "What are you, American?"