Holly’s answer to “Is Aunt Agatha actually Daniel's mother?” > Likes and Comments
6 likes · Like
While I agree completely with you Holly that most people would love their niece/nephew or any child they brought up as their own and the idea that you could or would not love someone that deeply unless they were your own biological child is preposterous, I think Susan has a point that Agatha's fiance's death and her long visits to the country, coupled with a few lines here and there make me wonder if Daniel was her son.
Ignorance of social mores, you say, engendered the question. Well, how about Daniel's child born to Celeste, who of course is not Daniel's child. That child would be as much as bastard as Daniel, in your description.
But I do not think Daniel was Agatha's child.
This line at the end made me wonder. It seems to give the idea that it’s possible. (Hugh and Agatha are nearing Daniel’s grave as Beatrice watches from afar.)
“It’s always the mothers,” said the gardener. Beatrice opened her mouth to correct him, but it was suddenly as clear to her as the blue sky above that of course he spoke the truth.
'“It’s always the mothers,” said the gardener. Beatrice opened her mouth to correct him, but it was suddenly as clear to her as the blue sky above that of course he spoke the truth.'
Surrogate mothers still function as mothers.
It's not enough to indicate that Agatha gave birth to Daniel, and if Beatrice thinks it is, she doesn't understand her own era.
What nonsense.
Mores or not, you're missing human nature and the clues in the book that point to human nature which are posted in this thread that point to personal experience beyond social constructs. If Daniel is her son, he was raised by her sister and brother-in-law exactly because he would have been a bastard and Agatha would have suffered. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen all the time. If you think sex is contained by social mores I highly recommend you spend some time exploring a more accurate history. I mean the book itself is full of marginalized peoples trying to live their lives as they see fit. Including a brief mention of Oscar Wilde being jailed for homosexuality 20 yrs earlier. I suppose you also are 100 % sure Daniel and Cragmore didn't have a sexual relationship strictly because it was socially unacceptable and a crime?
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Cath
(new)
Aug 21, 2017 11:03AM
While I agree completely with you Holly that most people would love their niece/nephew or any child they brought up as their own and the idea that you could or would not love someone that deeply unless they were your own biological child is preposterous, I think Susan has a point that Agatha's fiance's death and her long visits to the country, coupled with a few lines here and there make me wonder if Daniel was her son.
reply
|
flag
Ignorance of social mores, you say, engendered the question. Well, how about Daniel's child born to Celeste, who of course is not Daniel's child. That child would be as much as bastard as Daniel, in your description. But I do not think Daniel was Agatha's child.
This line at the end made me wonder. It seems to give the idea that it’s possible. (Hugh and Agatha are nearing Daniel’s grave as Beatrice watches from afar.)“It’s always the mothers,” said the gardener. Beatrice opened her mouth to correct him, but it was suddenly as clear to her as the blue sky above that of course he spoke the truth.
'“It’s always the mothers,” said the gardener. Beatrice opened her mouth to correct him, but it was suddenly as clear to her as the blue sky above that of course he spoke the truth.'Surrogate mothers still function as mothers.
It's not enough to indicate that Agatha gave birth to Daniel, and if Beatrice thinks it is, she doesn't understand her own era.
What nonsense.
Mores or not, you're missing human nature and the clues in the book that point to human nature which are posted in this thread that point to personal experience beyond social constructs. If Daniel is her son, he was raised by her sister and brother-in-law exactly because he would have been a bastard and Agatha would have suffered. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen all the time. If you think sex is contained by social mores I highly recommend you spend some time exploring a more accurate history. I mean the book itself is full of marginalized peoples trying to live their lives as they see fit. Including a brief mention of Oscar Wilde being jailed for homosexuality 20 yrs earlier. I suppose you also are 100 % sure Daniel and Cragmore didn't have a sexual relationship strictly because it was socially unacceptable and a crime?
