The Wardroom

[Mark Arbour]

And that maturity (if true) is, imo, a miracle which borders to implausibility.

 

17-yo guys were in those days not usually mature enough to be at the emotional level ready for fatherhood. It caused tensions. Please read how it was with king Louis XV of France and his eldest son, the dauphin.

 

In my opinion, George is still emotionally fairly boyish, and 'on prowl'. He would imo feel somewhat caught, were he to settle to take care of a kid or kids. However, fortunately for this, he will be a lot absent, being in ship. His visits to 'home' would probably feel just good to him, because that home is not tying him down. He would, in my prediction, behave a lot like a young uncle to his kids. Life would be playing and gaming with his kids, not the grave business of taking care as settled father. That, of course, puts his wife to the unenviable position of 'single' caregiver, the parent who IS present. By the way, the peripathetic lives of many husbands in earlier centuries - as well as polygyny (several wives each in separate hut with kids birthed by her) another custom of earlier centuries in many places - were things which made the father's role approximately as like this.

 

Of course, if you mean by 'make great father' that he will behave like a young uncle towards his kids, then....

It is unreasonable to compare 17 year old males of today to those of the late 18th century. It was not uncommon at all for a young man to be married by 17 and to have a family. Men married young, and died young too, unfortunately. And as for parenting, wealthy parents saw little of their children anyway, at least while they were infants. I think that Granger will do just fine as a father when the time comes.

 

Louis XV is one of my favorite French kings, if for no other reason than his insatiable libido. He is most certainly NOT a good example of emotional stability or development. It would have been tough indeed to fill his great-grandfather's (Louis XIV) shoes.

[Conner]

And that maturity (if true) is, imo, a miracle which borders to implausibility.

Enric, you're not paying attention. Look at the facts within the story. Granger is the son of an Earl and was raised and educated as the son of an Earl. Not only as he demonstrated competence as a military/navel officer, he has shown himself to be a fine leader of men. He has won "prize" money. He has killed in battle. He's comfortable in the presence of kings. He flirts well with the fairer sex. He has seduced a captain. He has himself a lover. He's intelligent and compassionate.

 

What story are you reading? :wacko:

[Enric]

Enric, you're not paying attention. Look at the facts within the story. Granger is the son of an Earl and was raised and educated as the son of an Earl. Not only as he demonstrated competence as a military/navel officer, he has shown himself to be a fine leader of men. He has won "prize" money. He has killed in battle. He's comfortable in the presence of kings. He flirts well with the fairer sex. He has seduced a captain. He has himself a lover. He's intelligent and compassionate.

 

What story are you reading? :wacko:

I am reading this story.

There is no need for you to get rude.

 

All the points you made (from inside the story), (none of them) do not mean that he necessarily were at an emotional level mature for fatherhood. And I do not say biologically, but emotionally.

 

Those points you pointed out, mean rather that he is a good guy for a boyish young man.

 

For example, many highly-noble teenagers were comfortable with kings - it just was about that they had known kings and royals throughout their young life.

 

For example, *some* 17-yo guys are good leaders of other men. That does not mean maturity for fatherhood - which involves kids, such as infants.

 

Some of your examples imo show that he is, rather, at an emotional level where he desires adventures, and does presumably not want to settle down.

 

----

 

There would be, imo, a serious credibility gap, were George presented TOO mature and 'psychologically middle-aged'. I haven't yet seen such a presentation, such a gap, in this story.

Imo it'd be a mistake to conflate features of too different agednesses to one character, as much as that character is the protagonist. Sometimes some authors would make their hero character to be 'everything'.

[DragonFire]

In this I have to agree with Conner. Granger has shown remarkable maturity beyond his years, and due to his upbringing and education, I feel he would make an excellent father. We all, despite our years, can act like kids sometimes, and I really don't see anything wrong with that. It certainly doesn't preclude people from being good parents.

Now, you were talking about him being emotionally boyish, and I find very little evidence in the story of late to support this theory. Yes he does flirt, and agreed he does go on the prowl sometimes. However, I fail to see how this would stop him being a good parent. One I feel, has very little to do with the other.

 

Now, onto the chapter!

 

Well, that was a shocker, I guessed there was a wedding coming up, but never expected it to be quite so soon. She seems like a formidable woman, and Granger would do well not to piss her off too often!

 

Just how many Wilcox's are out there? I had to do a double take when I read that, because I thought he was Captain of the Barracuda, only to realise it was another Uncle! It seems this clan get everywhere. But Granger seemed to handle it with great maturity!!

 

It did make me smile when he explained to Travers that the missus would be the third wheel, but I surmise that the relationship just got a little more complicated with the recent addition.

[Enric]

It is unreasonable to compare 17 year old males of today to those of the late 18th century.

Not that unreasonable.

 

There are today 17-yo males who are very responsible.

And there are today 17-yo males who are fathers. [responsibility does not necessarily ensue in all cases of fatherhood]

 

It is not inappropriate to compare them with such 18th-c guys who were the same - and, btw, the number of such guys in 18th c was relatively small. For all I know, today there might even exist a few more of such than at a random moment of 18th c.

 

On the other hand, knowing for example the fact that nutrition was poorer in general in 18th c, in the 18th century even the biological maturing of teenager boys was *generally* somewhat slower/ at belated years compared with today's - that slower biological development impacting (= slowing) their some emotional development too. So, perhaps even a tad bigger portion of 18th c 17-yo males was emotionally immaturer than today...

 

All that said, I am fairly certain that a 17-yo boy (both 21st c and 18th c) will feel some trepidation if he becomes a father for the first time.

[Enric]

In this I have to agree with Conner. Granger has shown remarkable maturity beyond his years, and due to his upbringing and education, I feel he would make an excellent father.

Well,

 

it seems your feeling for an excellent father, would be one who is all the time away, in the navy, and quite wanting to do that and have adventures; and not ready to settle down to be present in his kids' life, on daily basis.

 

However, there's a difference between on one hand being 'young uncle towards kids', visiting sometimes; and on the other hand being father and stably present.

[Enric]

It was not uncommon at all for a young man to be married by 17 and to have a family. Men married young, and died young too, unfortunately.

In this, I feel you are telling about some periods of middle ages, not the 18th century.

 

The 18th-c marriage age was clearly higher, in general. The marriage age in western Europe experienced some profound change upwards some time before the 18th c.

 

and, for the most part, 'die young' was not that common for 18th-c adult males who were married. [dying in his 40s is not young in my view...]

[Enric]

Louis XV is one of my favorite French kings, if for no other reason than his insatiable libido. He is most certainly NOT a good example of emotional stability or development. It would have been tough indeed to fill his great-grandfather's (Louis XIV) shoes.

well, he had not even known properly Louis XIV (being all too young for such), so he would not fully have known what was to be filled - rather, his knowledge of that was *hearsay* which in itself may be a problem. Of course, he was a lousy ruler - but, his great-grandpa had also been a lousy one... so, after all, he filled those shoes..

[DragonFire]

Well,

 

it seems your feeling for an excellent father, would be one who is all the time away, in the navy, and quite wanting to do that and have adventures; and not ready to settle down to be present in his kids' life, on daily basis.

 

However, there's a difference between on one hand being 'young uncle towards kids', visiting sometimes; and on the other hand being father and stably present.

Are you saying then, that every father, or mother for that matter, that serves in the armed forces are somehow neglectful of their children? Or they are emotionally unable to cope with being a parent?

[Enric]

I think that Granger will do just fine as a father when the time comes.

Well,

perhaps for different reasons than usual.

 

I think he will ultimately feel it pretty fine, imo because he will not be obliged to settle down - instead he can continue his adventures in sea. It would, imo, be a strain for him, were he obliged to settle down to live with his wife - but that'd not happen, right.

 

Quite possibly, he would not have even a real bad anxiety over the thing. seeing that the customs of the era do not require him to live in the home.

 

The kid, since when old enough to have some understanding (= something like two or three), will probably love him and his visits. namely, in my experience, kids generally love the visits of their uncles.

 

In that sense, 'will do just fine'.

 

Of course, that is somewhat contrary to the requirements *our today era* sets for fatherhood.

[Enric]

Are you saying then, that every father, or mother for that matter, that serves in the armed forces are somehow neglectful of their children? Or they are emotionally unable to cope with being a parent?

If they serve long times away from home, yes, they are somewhat neglectful. In that situation, the kid does not receive the stability of parenting.

For example, it's pretty well known (established by research) that single-parent homes do not offer the same stability as two parents.

 

And, *some* of those parents who serve in the armed forces, certainly could (and are) emotionally unable to cope with being a parent. [To show this incorrect, you'd need to give proof that every parent ever in any armed forces, always was at that time *able* to cope with being a parent - a task which will be objectively impossible.]

[Conner]

I am reading this story.

There is no need for you to get rude.

 

All the points you made (from inside the story), (none of them) do not mean that he necessarily were at an emotional level mature for fatherhood. And I do not say biologically, but emotionally.

 

Those points you pointed out, mean rather that he is a good guy for a boyish young man.

You haven't seen rude yet, buddy. We're getting there, though. :2hands:

 

We're talking about Granger's potential of being a good father. You dismiss my arguments from the story out of hand. You do not provide any counter argument based on the story to support your position. You engage in generalities only.

 

You seem to sum Granger up based solely on his sexual activities. This seems to be a problem for you.

 

Tell me, how would you classify Sir Evelyn's behaviour in bedding Granger?

[Enric]

You seem to sum Granger up based solely on his sexual activities.

Then your perception is wrong.

 

Did you notice that I was mentioning, a few times actually, a daily presence at home, with the kid.

I fail to see what that has to do with sexual activities. At home, steadily a daily presence in the kids' life, he could still have sexual activities.

 

Kids who have at home, steadily, two parents of the same gender daily present in their lives, appear to have a stabler environment, than kids who live with *single parent*. Well, this line was just an hypothetical mention only to show that parents can have sex life.

[Enric]

Tell me, how would you classify Sir Evelyn's behaviour in bedding Granger?

dunno. what has it to do with raising kids of either of them ? I even think that George did not have kids at that time...

[Mark Arbour]

Not that unreasonable.

 

There are today 17-yo males who are very responsible.

And there are today 17-yo males who are fathers. [responsibility does not necessarily ensue in all cases of fatherhood]

 

It is not inappropriate to compare them with such 18th-c guys who were the same - and, btw, the number of such guys in 18th c was relatively small. For all I know, today there might even exist a few more of such than at a random moment of 18th c.

 

On the other hand, knowing for example the fact that nutrition was poorer in general in 18th c, in the 18th century even the biological maturing of teenager boys was *generally* somewhat slower/ at belated years compared with today's - that slower biological development impacting (= slowing) their some emotional development too. So, perhaps even a tad bigger portion of 18th c 17-yo males was emotionally immaturer than today...

 

All that said, I am fairly certain that a 17-yo boy (both 21st c and 18th c) will feel some trepidation if he becomes a father for the first time.

Physical and emotional maturity are not necessarily linked. Children in the 18th century were expected to take on responsibilities (become apprentices, etc.) at ages that we would consider child labor now. They had no choice but to grow up quickly...emotionally that is. I think you are looking at social mores of that era through the glasses of the 21st century, so we will have to agree to disagree.

 

Your last statement, though, is most egregiously wrong. Granger's marriage is not about love, it's about politics and dynastic connections. His marriage to Caroline allies their two families, and the only way to truly seal that was through having a baby. Both of them would be incredibly anxious to have a child, and would not view it with any trepidation. I can see your point if you're talking about the lower classes, especially the urban/industrial workers, but at this point, the Industrial Revolution was just developing in Britain, and those kinds of social issues were not at the front and center of the public mind.

[Enric]

All that said, I am fairly certain that a 17-yo boy (both 21st c and 18th c) will feel some trepidation if he becomes a father for the first time.

 

Your last statement, though, is most egregiously wrong. Granger's marriage is not about love, it's about politics and dynastic connections. His marriage to Caroline allies their two families, and the only way to truly seal that was through having a baby. Both of them would be incredibly anxious to have a child, and would not view it with any trepidation.

I disagree.

There's not easily any 17-yo boy who won't feel some trepidation when becoming a father for the first time at that age. I certainly would not think George Granger -who is presented as v. responsible and so forth- were to go onwards in that without any feeling of some fearfulness and of potential inadequacy. Responsible people by their nature are such. Also, there's objective reasons for the young father to be a bit fearful, in addition to emotions about the fatherhood itself. Such as, would Caroline survive the childbirth (it was not that safe in those days).

[Hoskins]

All that said, I am fairly certain that a 17-yo boy (both 21st c and 18th c) will feel some trepidation if he becomes a father for the first time.

 

I disagree.

There's not easily any 17-yo boy who won't feel some trepidation when becoming a father for the first time at that age. I certainly would not think George Granger -who is presented as v. responsible and so forth- were to go onwards in that without any feeling of some fearfulness and of potential inadequacy. Responsible people by their nature are such. Also, there's objective reasons for the young father to be a bit fearful, in addition to emotions about the fatherhood itself. Such as, would Caroline survive the childbirth (it was not that safe in those days).

I'm pretty sure Granger has the emotional depth to be fearful about having his first kid, however, he's a blueblood as is his wife, they have a lot of money and are influential, and I'm quite sure Caroline would have the best care possible during her pregnancy and afterward.

 

After childbirth, there would be nannies, and other caregivers, mentors and instructors on the estate. It was not uncommon for upper crust parents - especially those in the peerage and above - to take a very standoffish role in raising their children, who spent the vast majority of their time in the company of their nannies and teachers. In fact, the children would have an audience with their parents at some point during the day, but adult concerns were usually more pressing than the emotional needs of the children.

It would be very surprising if a gentrified naval officer such as Granger expected there to be any other way to raise children - it was how he would have been raised, after all. Consider the prologue to The Gunroom - the relationship between George and his father is very defined and George's path is very carefully plotted to fit the Earl's plans, not George's, even though his sense of duty and obligation means he'll do what's necessary to further the family's goals.

 

In the middle and lower classes, children were much more important and families were much closer, but the upper classes were all about the political connections and proper upbringing than they were about familial love and tenderness.

 

I think it's really easy to see this story through the lens of our times and judge the characters by the the childrearing practices we know, and not through the times as they were lived by the real people in them. This is made a little more difficult by Mark's writing style, which tends to modern grammar and structure, thankfully - along with brevity and good editing - sailing off on a tangent to discuss how George and Caroline raise the little ones probably won't further the story much.

 

Just my two shillings, guvnor. Sorry if I came off as a bit technical here, now, be so kind as to pass the lard.

[Mark Arbour]

I'm pretty sure Granger has the emotional depth to be fearful about having his first kid, however, he's a blueblood as is his wife, they have a lot of money and are influential, and I'm quite sure Caroline would have the best care possible during her pregnancy and afterward.

 

After childbirth, there would be nannies, and other caregivers, mentors and instructors on the estate. It was not uncommon for upper crust parents - especially those in the peerage and above - to take a very standoffish role in raising their children, who spent the vast majority of their time in the company of their nannies and teachers. In fact, the children would have an audience with their parents at some point during the day, but adult concerns were usually more pressing than the emotional needs of the children.

It would be very surprising if a gentrified naval officer such as Granger expected there to be any other way to raise children - it was how he would have been raised, after all. Consider the prologue to The Gunroom - the relationship between George and his father is very defined and George's path is very carefully plotted to fit the Earl's plans, not George's, even though his sense of duty and obligation means he'll do what's necessary to further the family's goals.

 

In the middle and lower classes, children were much more important and families were much closer, but the upper classes were all about the political connections and proper upbringing than they were about familial love and tenderness.

 

I think it's really easy to see this story through the lens of our times and judge the characters by the the childrearing practices we know, and not through the times as they were lived by the real people in them. This is made a little more difficult by Mark's writing style, which tends to modern grammar and structure, thankfully - along with brevity and good editing - sailing off on a tangent to discuss how George and Caroline raise the little ones probably won't further the story much.

 

Just my two shillings, guvnor. Sorry if I came off as a bit technical here, now, be so kind as to pass the lard.

 

Very well put.

[DragonFire]

If they serve long times away from home, yes, they are somewhat neglectful. In that situation, the kid does not receive the stability of parenting.

For example, it's pretty well known (established by research) that single-parent homes do not offer the same stability as two parents.

 

And, *some* of those parents who serve in the armed forces, certainly could (and are) emotionally unable to cope with being a parent. [To show this incorrect, you'd need to give proof that every parent ever in any armed forces, always was at that time *able* to cope with being a parent - a task which will be objectively impossible.]

Just because a parent is off serving their country doesn't necessarily mean that they are neglectful, or providing an unstable home; and yes I am talking from personal experience here. My dad was in the air force for a good many years. Did I feel neglected or loved any less when he was away? Of course not. I always knew that when he got home that it would be our special time together, and trust me he ALWAYS made time. I was sad when he was away, that's only natural, but neglected, never.

As for stability, I'm sick and tired of people telling me that I came from an unstable home, just because my dad was away abroad for long stints of time. Nothing could be further from the truth. Trust me I'm not just having a pop at you, but why do people have to judge on what some research paper tells them, and not on real facts and real people; after all, not everyone

[Mark Arbour]

Just because a parent is off serving their country doesn't necessarily mean that they are neglectful, or providing an unstable home; and yes I am talking from personal experience here. My dad was in the air force for a good many years. Did I feel neglected or loved any less when he was away? Of course not. I always knew that when he got home that it would be our special time together, and trust me he ALWAYS made time. I was sad when he was away, that's only natural, but neglected, never.

As for stability, I'm sick and tired of people telling me that I came from an unstable home, just because my dad was away abroad for long stints of time. Nothing could be further from the truth. Trust me I'm not just having a pop at you, but why do people have to judge on what some research paper tells them, and not on real facts and real people; after all, not everyone

[Enric]

As for your second point, I feel that could be said for just about any walk of life, not just the armed forces. Just because someone can have kids, doesn't necessarily make them emotionally able to cope. Unfortunately I think we see enough of that every day to know that it's true.

I think that was your point.

 

as I recall, it was you who posed that, in form of a question. Practically a straw man. I answered that very question. Which answer does not make the *premise* posed in your question, as my any point in this discussion. Right ?

[Enric]

Just because a parent is off serving their country doesn't necessarily mean that they are neglectful, or providing an unstable home; and yes I am talking from personal experience here. My dad was in the air force for a good many years. Did I feel neglected or loved any less when he was away? Of course not. I always knew that when he got home that it would be our special time together, and trust me he ALWAYS made time. I was sad when he was away, that's only natural, but neglected, never.

As for stability, I'm sick and tired of people telling me that I came from an unstable home, just because my dad was away abroad for long stints of time. Nothing could be further from the truth. Trust me I'm not just having a pop at you, but why do people have to judge on what some research paper tells them, and not on real facts and real people; after all, not everyone's the same.

It is really quite insulting when people put you in a box and label you, just because that's what somebody else conceives as the norm!

Intriguing experiences. However, not good an argument, trying to rebut a common observation of likelihoods by subjective view of a single example.

 

I would not want to insult you, by personifying this point in research to you claiming that you necessarily had an unstable home.

[DragonFire]

Are you saying then, that every father, or mother for that matter, that serves in the armed forces are somehow neglectful of their children? Or they are emotionally unable to cope with being a parent?

This was my original question. You answered. I agreed. I merely wanted clarification that you weren't damning the entire armed forces, which you seemed to be hinting at in your previous post.

 

Intriguing experiences. However, not good an argument, trying to rebut a common observation of likelihoods by subjective view of a single example.

Do you honestly believe that my situation was inimitable? That I was the only kid in the armed forces who also had a stable home? What I gave was a personal view of how I viewed my life growing up, but I can certainly give plenty of other examples that I observed over the years.

 

Can I just remind you of what you wrote: "If they serve long times away from home, yes, they are somewhat neglectful. In that situation, the kid does not receive the stability of parenting" Now this to me reads as if you're implying ALL kids in the armed forces, who have one parent away, have some sort of stability problem at home.

 

I gave you one instance, which in itself bucks the trend. As I said I can give others, but how many would be required to crack that subjective view? Even if I gave a thousand, or even a hundred thousand, people would look at the research, shrug their shoulders and dismiss it. Perceptions, I believe, are very hard to break.

 

Trust me I'm not saying that every family in the armed forces was like mine, because that's simply not true. All I'm saying is, that stability is a reality for a lot of families who were in my situation, which in itself proves that it can be done.

[sat8997]

You haven't seen rude yet, buddy. We're getting there, though. :2hands:

Take my word for it...Conner's very good at rude.

 

And what's all this about a baby? We're having a baby? How come I don't know we're having a baby?

[DragonFire]

Take my word for it...Conner's very good at rude.

 

And what's all this about a baby? We're having a baby? How come I don't know we're having a baby?

I thought he would have at least told you.....how many months you gone??

 

I think the discussion got away from the story a little bit. Hopefully we can get back to it pretty soon!