Consider Downton Abbey for an example; Robert Crawley inherited the house and fortune from his father while his mother, while comfortable, was just the Dowager Countess.
True. TBF, that legacy also included an actual hereditary title of nobility in the form of an earldom, which is automatically assumed by the heir immediately* upon the death of the current title holder. You can’t just suspend the inheritance of the title during the widow’s lifetime, and AFAICT the entailed estates pretty much have to go with the title.
A commoner like Henry Higgins’ father probably would have had a lot more legal leeway in how he chose to leave his estate. But I think it still would have been considered quite unusual, and possibly even scandalous, in that period for a wealthy man to leave all his property to his wife and nothing to his adult son. That qualifies as “disinheriting”, I think.
Even when a wealthy parent died leaving only minor children, their inheritance was typically left in trust for them until they attained their majority, not for the entire lifetime of their surviving parent. It was considered important to make proper provision for one’s widow, but giving her a life-interest in one’s entire property (much less complete ownership of it) would have been seen as very unfair to the children.
(I mean, that’s one reason it was traditionally considered shitty luck to become a widow, even in quite prosperous social circles, right? You downsized from being the reigning lady of the estate to living on whatever provisions your husband’s estate provided for your widowhood, while your son’s wife took over your former role. That meant not only a status downgrade but effectively a pay cut, for almost any (non-childless) wife.)
* Or maybe the transfer happens after the funeral of the deceased title holder? not quite sure
Just a note: the very end of the 1938 film is almost exactly the same as the musical, just not with the song “I’ve grown accustomed to her face” and its little rant. So the musical isn’t to blame for the “happy” ending. https://youtu.be/arc3cIiKDYo?si=_1G1B3c8dgr-Tb6Y&t=5657
The whole thing is at Project Gutenberg. The Project Gutenberg eBook of Pygmalion, by George Bernard Shaw
It’s not just insecurity. It’s a very real social barrier, and Eliza comes to him precisely for that reason: “I want to be a lady in a flower shop stead of selling at the corner of Tottenham Court Road. But they won’t take me unless I can talk more genteel. He said he could teach me. Well, here I am ready to pay him.” My guess is he charges the wealthy according to their wealth, and they don’t consider it preying.
That’s absolutely true for Eliza - I’m thinking of a hypothetical “Mr. Smith” who would sound perfectly fine to Lord and Lady Snobbington. Higgins tells Smith “Well, you’re certainly disguishing your Oop North background very well. But of course a knowledgeable philogist and dialectian can tell.” And shortly thereafter Smith is taking lessons (Karparthy does similarly but more crudely - without the lessons)
Recall that in The King’s Speech Bertie paid speech therapist Lionel Logue for each session (although the actual paying was done by Elizabeth, as the King would never carry money.) I can’t recall whether it was a token payment, or Logue’s regular fee, but it was clear that payment for such services was perfectly normal.
One thing about My Fair Lady has always irritated me - When I’m On The Street Where You Live. He’s supposed to be English - he would be IN the street, not on it.
Are you English? I am, and I wouldn’t. Curious. There may well be some, but I’m not aware of a British dialect in which you’d say “I’m in Ladbroke Grove” rather than “I’m on Ladbroke Grove” (at least in most usual contexts, such as giving directions). Likewise, “The nearest bookshop is on Oxford Street”.
ETA: I think there’s an exception: “I’m in Berkeley Square” feels more natural to me than “I’m on Berkeley Square.”. But I think that’s specific to ‘square’, presumably because it’s two-dimensional, whereas roads are generally (in directional terms) one-dimensional.
You make the erroneous assumption that men cannot live without sex.
I was only listing some of the possibilities for what the term “a confirmed bachelor” means, not all of them. Note that I was only talking about a man as well-off as Higgins. It could mean a man who was asexual. It could mean a man who never found a woman he was drawn to both physically and intellectually, so he gave up on any kind of sex except perhaps masturbation. It could mean a man as well-off as Higgins who eventually met a woman of a lower social class who he was drawn to both physically and intellectually. He then chose to marry her, despite disapproval from other members of his own social class. It could mean various other things.
You miss my point. It is possible for a man to live out his entire life as a virgin. In those Victorian times, a man as well-off as Higgins had a staff to look after his ordinary (non-sexual) needs, so if he was uninterested in the physical aspect of sex, there was no need for him to change - indeed, he would probably be very reluctant to change his lifestyle to accommodate a partner.
Nitpick: The story is meant to be set in the 1900s, so it’s Edwardian, not Victorian.
I wonder why people stopped using the name of the monarch to refer to the times after that. I’m half inclined to start referring to modern-day Britian as “Carolingian”.
I imagine that no one could resolve the problem with Lizzie 2.
Elizabethan is taken by Lizzie 1.
Assuming a minor hijack can be forgiven 50+ posts in, I think it firstly depends somewhat on the length of the reign in question. The first monarch this is usually applied to is Elizabeth I and the Elizabethan era. Then there’s a gap of 100+ years until we get to “Georgian”, which is unusual in that it spans 4 consecutive monarchs quite logically, over a period of 116 years. Then soon after we have “Victorian”, which again was notably long (64 years). I guess “Edwardian” was a natural follow-up to that despite being only 9 years. It was then probably a bit too soon/confusing to have another “Georgian” period, and then “Elizabethan”, while certainly long enough, again was already taken.
I quite like “Carolingian” but I don’t think it will catch on, these conventions have probably had their time and his reign is unlikely to be long or notable enough to justify reviving them. I have occasionally seen references to “the second Elizabethan age” but any use of “Carolingian” is likely to be tongue in cheek.
Wasn’t there a Jacobean era in the middle there?
Yes, I remember King Jacob fondly.
James VI of Scotland succeeded Liz I, of course, but referring to him as “Jacob” for nomenclature purposes opens up all sorts of possibilities, such as calling this “the Charlian” period. Or considering how short it’s likely to be, The Charlian Interregnum.
I believe it’s from the Latin form of the name - James = Jacobus, as Charles = Carolus.
It is. I’m suggesting we work in the other direction, referring to King Charles as “Charlie” for nomenclature reasons.
Yes fair point, and I see now that it was followed by the “Caroline era”, which was followed (after the interregnum) by the “Carolean” era of Charles II. But it seems to have stopped after that, though we do have “Queen Anne furniture” and “Queen Anne architecture”. Nevertheless, ‘Carolingian’ is a nice follow up to “Caroline” and “Carolean”, I feel.
In that case, I’ll see your offer and raise you referring to this time in British history as the Chuckian Era.
I mentioned the term “asexual” which means uninterested in the physical aspect of sex.