Victorians! discussion
Archived Group Reads 2014
>
No Name 2014 Scene 4; Feb 15
date
newest »
newest »
SarahC wrote: "In contrast, Magdalen has purposefully taken the fake name to relieve Noel of his money."There's an interesting philosophical-legal point in there. She was hiding who she was, certainly, but she was still the same person he married. If not telling a potential spouse all the truth about yourself is fraud, then almost every marriage is fraudulent to some degree. I don't actually recall that she ever outright lied to him, that he ever asked whether she was Magdalen Vanstone and she flatly denied it. So I think it's an arguable case that she was deceptive, but not fraudulent, and if men and women weren't allowed to be at least a bit deceptive in seeking marital partners, the human race would long since have gone extinct.
SarahC wrote: "Norah may still be using the name due to lack of any other to use -- unless it would be Blake (mother's maiden name?)"If you have no name you're legally entitled to, isn't it fair to conclude that you're free to pick any name you want to? After all, people have to call you something, and you have as much, and as little, right to one name as to another.
After all, for Magdalen to have called herself Magdalen Vanstone would have been illegal, we're told. So maybe it was only responsible of her to pick a name that wasn't suggesting that she was somebody she wasn't.
It's all very interesting, and I actually don't think Collins does the question justice. Having told us that Magdalen and Norah aren't entitled to call themselves Vanstone, he should have gone on to have one of the lawyers (or one consulted by Wragge) tell them what they WERE expected to do about their names.
Everyman wrote: "SarahC wrote: "In contrast, Magdalen has purposefully taken the fake name to relieve Noel of his money."There's an interesting philosophical-legal point in there. She was hiding who she was, cer..."
You make some good points, Everyman. And I know the truth is seldom all told between couples making the best impression before deciding to marry. However, I think Magdalen operates an a higher level of that.
Everyman wrote: "SarahC wrote: "Norah may still be using the name due to lack of any other to use -- unless it would be Blake (mother's maiden name?)"If you have no name you're legally entitled to, isn't it fair ..."
Yes, maybe Collins should have written more in particular about the legalities of the name...and if this really happened in life --what would a person typically do? And certainly, for women, that would have affected their future prospects of marriage -- because every darn blemish in their lives seemed to.
Also commenting on your point of the identity of Magdalen -- it IS a concept to ponder that Noel did indeed marry the person he married, regardless of her name. Which makes me further think about how little he knew her. He was only marrying her looks and charm really, even if she hadn't been hiding her identity.
SarahC wrote: "Also commenting on your point of the identity of Magdalen -- it IS a concept to ponder that Noel did indeed marry the person he married, regardless of her name. Which makes me further think about h..."I totally agree with you SarahC. Noel was smitten and for a while he was not under the "spell" of Mrs. Lecount, whom we know would have discouraged him but, he was being 'directed' by Wraggle whose motives were to get him to fall for Magdalin.
I tried to add up the days, Noel only knew Magdalen for about 2 weeks before marrying her. Fast!
I little incredible even for sensationalist literature!
Teresa wrote: "I tried to add up the days, Noel only knew Magdalen for about 2 weeks before marrying her. Fast!"Ah, but as we know from South Pacific, it only takes one look across a crowded promenade!
I think the Between the Scenes following 4 was very well-crafted for its type. I enjoyed that section as much or more as the whole Scene 4 before it. It was a very good telling of the "all heck breaking loose" of the marriage event. And I just found it refreshing that George Bartram displayed a different attitude toward the Andrew Vanstone situation. Not everyone in the family called the shots the same apparently.
Teresa wrote: "I tried to add up the days, Noel only knew Magdalen for about 2 weeks before marrying her. Fast!"Is it really that short? For some reason in my mind I elongated it to a couple of months of meeting each other on walks and meandering about.
It is interesting that Collins doesn't really show any of the dialogue or flirtations that Magdalen uses to catch him (nowadays she could make her fortune on one of those American courses teaching women how to catch a rich man!), I wonder because it would be too difficult within the time frame to invent believable means for her to catch his heart, without showing her as being an outrageous tease which would have made her irredeemable to Victorian readers?
It also means that we don't know how far her lies are extending in terms of the legal issues of names that is being discussed on this thread, although marrying someone you detest under a false identity seems about as far as it can go to me.
nope, nope, it was incredibly short. maybe you just felt it that way because Scene 4 was the most dragged out chapter in the book :Dit didn't seem to me that Magdalen even did too much catching. for someone like Noel Vanstone, it was enough that she didn't scoff at him and run off, and actually talked to him.
I think he was just showing off how really stupid Noel was.
it was also weird to me how she could marry without any papers at all. But I guess they didn't have passports back then, not so much, maybe..? Things must have worked a whole lot more differently than these days.
SarahC wrote: "It also means that we don't know how far her lies are extending in terms of the legal issues of names that is being discussed on this thread, although marrying someone you detest under a false identity seems about as far as it can go to me. "
The morality of the will is interesting. When Magdalen's dad is left his brother's share of the will, he is going to restore it to his brother, but doesn't because of his brother's attitude. And there is no provision in his own will to give anything back to his brother's side of the family, it all goes to his daughter's and wife.
For Andrew Vanstone it is clearcut because he believes God has intervened to restore him his rightful inheritance.
Noel isn't interested in morals, he's inherited it from his father, therefore it is his.
People on the outside, like George, believe Magdalen and Norah should have something, but I assume do not get too involved as they do not want to damage the friendship with the Vanstones.
With slightly different issues, the world of contemporary celebrity gossip mirrors the same will problems, I think I remember fights over Marlon Brando and Barry White's wills, and Heath Ledger hadn't changed his will since having a child but I believe his parents gave all the money to the mother of his child. So it is still a relevant moral quandary although I assume the legality of will has changed a lot over the last hundred and so years.
There is a show on TV that focuses on family fights about wills. An entire TV series.
Teresa wrote: "There is a show on TV that focuses on family fights about wills. An entire TV series."From my practice, I bet I had some that would make any audience cringe.
Everyman wrote: "Teresa wrote: "There is a show on TV that focuses on family fights about wills. An entire TV series."From my practice, I bet I had some that would make any audience cringe."
Would you have advised a modern day Magdalen to contest her husband's will, Everyman?
well, there have been known cases where burglars sue the home owners for injury while committing burglary, and they actually get money for that, so.. you know.
Clari wrote: "Would you have advised a modern day Magdalen to contest her husband's will, Everyman? "Absolutely, at least in my state, where you cannot disinherit a wife.
Clari wrote: "Would you have advised a modern day Magdalen to contest her husband's will, Everyman? "Yes absolutely! Even then I am surprised that Wragge, who seemed to be quite knowledgeable did not encourage her to do so.
Irene wrote: "Clari wrote: "Would you have advised a modern day Magdalen to contest her husband's will, Everyman? "Yes absolutely! Even then I am surprised that Wragge, who seemed to be quite knowledgeabe marriage.
They agreed that he would exit once he arranged for Noel to leave his friend Bertam's place to met Magdalin for the wedding. He also said that he would not have gone through with the marriage.
It really makes you wonder -- so many stories of maybe unfair or un-rightful inheritance, wills -- a tv series about such. Apart from the extreme case that our novel here discusses -- just in the course of fairly average proceedings of our everyday society -- Do you think "inheritance" causes a reaction in people -- similar to other forms of obtaining money or property -- like "winning" something? I don't intend to be unfair, I do believe that, as a standard, family members should inherit what should be their heritage or what was intended by someone for them to have. However, are there a lot of people who step in and say "What about me, what do I get?" Is that fair expectation? And if it is even slightly unfair expectation, does it grow to a kind of "not being able to see the forest for the trees" kind of thing? What I mean is, do you wind up trading the legacy of a connected, potentially good relationship with family for a load of stuff, money, or property that does not really gain you that much?
SarahC wrote: "It really makes you wonder -- so many stories of maybe unfair or un-rightful inheritance, wills -- a tv series about such. Apart from the extreme case that our novel here discusses -- just in the ..."In the novel the different sides of the family are at least estranged from each other to begin with, the cases where families come to bitter blows over rights to money are in a way more tragic. I guess a lot of people lose their kindness when they think of what a change in financial circumstances will do for them. Although in the book, Noel doesn't want to spend money, I got the sense he just liked the idea/ social security of having a big bank balance.
SarahC wrote: "It really makes you wonder -- so many stories of maybe unfair or un-rightful inheritance, "Of course, one has to ask what the definition of "fair" is. Is it fair for Warren Buffett to not leave me anything in his will, that other people get it just because they have different genes than I have? I don't think so!
And is fair judged by the standards of the day, or by our standards of today, or by the standards of 500 years from now which I can virtually guarantee will be different from ours today?
Clari wrote: "the cases where families come to bitter blows over rights to money are in a way more tragic. "One of the first things my wills and trusts professor in law school told us was "never think you know a person until you have divided an inheritance with them." And boy, is that true. The fights I have seen between previously loving siblings over who gets the family silver, the dining room table, the cradle that all three children were rocked in -- and if the books are to be divided equally among three siblings, who gets which books? If my sister never read a word of Wordsworth in her life and never will but thinks the book is pretty and would look nice on her bookshelves, should she get it instead of me who would read it and love it for it's inside, not just its outside?
I don't know whether any of you have ever divided an estate, particularly one where the will leaves the personal property "to be divided equally among all my children," but if you haven't, count your blessings and hope to Heaven you never have to.
Everyman wrote: "Clari wrote: "the cases where families come to bitter blows over rights to money are in a way more tragic. "One of the first things my wills and trusts professor in law school told us was "never ..."
Thank you Everyman. Good advice that I don't have to pay by the hour to obtain. You are indeed very kind. Yes, inheritance seem to bring out the worst in people. Such a pity!
I have no idea how Victorian law would work. Nowadays it's a lot simpler, isn't it? What is on your birth certificate is legal (unless you go through the official process of changing it) no matter what your parents get up to. Norah was presumably christened Vanstone and it is what everyone would socially and legally know her as. Whereas Magdalen is inventing an identity, or rather accepting the one Mr Wragge gives her. If Noel had randomly changed his will to leave all his money to Miss Bygraves, I'm assuming it could be easily disputed by anyone who knows Magdalen that Miss Bygraves doesn't actually exist.
I did wonder like you whether it is significant that Norah who accepts the change in fortune, wants to leave her family home immediately, settles down to be a governess etc. does not take the step of reverting to her mother's maiden name which is the one officially that belongs to her.