Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Can someone explain to me why in the WORLD does Debbie Horsefield assumes that Valentines paternity is never resolved?


Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 389
Date: Jun 8 10:48 PM, 2017
RE: Can someone explain to me why in the WORLD does Debbie Horsefield assumes that Valentines paternity is never resolve
Permalink  
 


I think we have to accept that the man who wrote the books didn't like Elizabeth. He created the world and she just lived in it. Was he fair to her? No. Did she deserve all that she suffered? No.

Was she responsible for her own death? Yes. The quack who gave her the potion told her to inform the doctor who delivered her child that she had taken it. She didn't because she didn't have the courage to kick George out of the room so she could talk to the doctor privately. She died because of that. 



__________________


Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 284
Date: Jun 8 8:20 PM, 2017
Can someone explain to me why in the WORLD does Debbie Horsefield assumes that Valentines paternity is never resolved?
Permalink  
 


LJones41 wrote:

 I can speak only for myself, but the math doesn't add up. As I recall from counting the weeks between May 9th and Valentine's Day, it was 42 weeks, which is a month beyond 38 weeks, the human gestation period. Labor was supposedly brought on by Elizabeth's fall down four stone steps -- which may or may not have been done deliberately. If she wanted Valentine to be believed to be Ross' son rather than George's, she couldn't wait to let nature take its course. But why would she do that? Because she's a drama queen? Who knows? 

 

 

Elizabeth is now a drama queen?  What is it about many "POLDARK" fans that they have to take every opportunity possible to make a negative comment about Elizabeth?  Sometimes, it seems as if many fans regard her as some kind of threat to Ross and Demelza's relationship.  And the sad part is that the real threat may have been Ross and his inability to let go of the past.  I find that sad that "the woman" is still being blamed.

 

Roughly forty weeks had passed between the night of May 9 and Valentine's birth.  The cyle of childbirth usually occurs roughly around 40 weeks.  When measured from actual conception it is about 38 weeks.  Don't ask me to explain.  This is what I found out.



-- Edited by LJones41 on Thursday 8th of June 2017 05:53:40 PM


 I do not take every opportunity possible to make a 'negative' comment about Elizabeth. However I have noticed the many occasions she makes sure that Ross is still on the end of a rein that she can pull in any time she chooses to. She is portrayed as manipulative by WG and we know from first edition Demelza what her true opinion of Demelza is when she refers to her as a beggar girl when Demelza is already Ross' wife.

Then there is the letter she wrote to Ross informing him of her marriage to George. The wording is such that it is plain to see what her real motive is in writing such a letter. She know just how to control and manipulate Ross. Elizabeth is a character who is difficult to like or admire.

Then in Warleggan I think it is Elizabeth tells Ross of her mistake in marrying Francis. This is another example of her manipulation because she knows Ross well enough to be certain that this will unsettle him.

I could go on but will leave it there. For these reasons and more I find Elizabeth an unattractive character generally and specifically very selfish. I wonder why opinions other than your own apparently bother you. I try always to consider an argument which opposes my own view in case I have missed something.



-- Edited by Stella Poldark on Thursday 8th of June 2017 08:21:58 PM

__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 135
Date: Jun 8 5:53 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

 I can speak only for myself, but the math doesn't add up. As I recall from counting the weeks between May 9th and Valentine's Day, it was 42 weeks, which is a month beyond 38 weeks, the human gestation period. Labor was supposedly brought on by Elizabeth's fall down four stone steps -- which may or may not have been done deliberately. If she wanted Valentine to be believed to be Ross' son rather than George's, she couldn't wait to let nature take its course. But why would she do that? Because she's a drama queen? Who knows? 

 

 

Elizabeth is now a drama queen?  What is it about many "POLDARK" fans that they have to take every opportunity possible to make a negative comment about Elizabeth?  Sometimes, it seems as if many fans regard her as some kind of threat to Ross and Demelza's relationship.  And the sad part is that the real threat may have been Ross and his inability to let go of the past.  I find that sad that "the woman" is still being blamed.

 

Roughly forty weeks had passed between the night of May 9 and Valentine's birth.  The cyle of childbirth usually occurs roughly around 40 weeks.  When measured from actual conception it is about 38 weeks.  Don't ask me to explain.  This is what I found out.



-- Edited by LJones41 on Thursday 8th of June 2017 05:53:40 PM

__________________


Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 389
Date: Jun 2 10:39 AM, 2017
RE: Can someone explain to me why in the WORLD does Debbie Horsefield assumes that Valentines paternity is never resolve
Permalink  
 


LJones41 wrote:

Maybe Demelza would have been a better person to ask about treating rickets than Behenna -- she probably saw plenty of it in Illugan. But, of course, Elizabeth would never do that.

 

 

I wonder if Demelza would have given her the chance to ask by then.

 

 

No one seems to want to consider the possibility that Valentine might be Ross' son.  Why is that?



-- Edited by LJones41 on Thursday 1st of June 2017 10:05:35 PM



-- Edited by LJones41 on Thursday 1st of June 2017 10:06:14 PM


 I can speak only for myself, but the math doesn't add up. As I recall from counting the weeks between May 9th and Valentine's Day, it was 42 weeks, which is a month beyond 38 weeks, the human gestation period. Labor was supposedly brought on by Elizabeth's fall down four stone steps -- which may or may not have been done deliberately. If she wanted Valentine to be believed to be Ross' son rather than George's, she couldn't wait to let nature take its course. But why would she do that? Because she's a drama queen? Who knows? 



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 135
Date: Jun 1 10:04 PM, 2017
Can someone explain to me why in the WORLD does Debbie Horsefield assumes that Valentines paternity is never resolved?
Permalink  
 


Maybe Demelza would have been a better person to ask about treating rickets than Behenna -- she probably saw plenty of it in Illugan. But, of course, Elizabeth would never do that.

 

 

I wonder if Demelza would have given her the chance to ask by then.

 

 

No one seems to want to consider the possibility that Valentine might be Ross' son.  Why is that?



-- Edited by LJones41 on Thursday 1st of June 2017 10:05:35 PM



-- Edited by LJones41 on Thursday 1st of June 2017 10:06:14 PM

__________________


Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 389
Date: May 25 2:04 PM, 2017
RE: Can someone explain to me why in the WORLD does Debbie Horsefield assumes that Valentines paternity is never resolve
Permalink  
 


Mrs Gimlett wrote:

WG ... never links any of Vs features with being like Ross'.

 

There is one physical characteristic of Valentine's that WG made a point of mentioning practically every time he wrote about him, and that is his close-set eyes. Interestingly, only one other character, George's lawyer Mr Tankard, is said to have close-set eyes. Father No. 2? Just kidding.

One thing we have to remember about Winston Graham is he did not reread his previous books when starting a new one so there are myriad discrepancies. Indeed we have a section of this site devoted to them. Ross doesn't strike me as an art lover, but it is odd that he wouldn't remember a painting of his father at Trenwith and maybe even ask for it when Francis died. Unless he didn't consider it to be a very accurate likeness, that is.  

Rickets comes from a lack of vitamin D. Someone too worried about sunburn or suntan to make sure his/her child got sufficient sun exposure (20 minutes each day here in California) could be courting rickets, I suppose. Funny that the miner's daughter's babies were always parked in the sun. Maybe Demelza would have been a better person to ask about treating rickets than Behenna -- she probably saw plenty of it in Illugan. But, of course, Elizabeth would never do that.



__________________


Honorary Life Member. Forum Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 736
Date: May 2 10:13 AM, 2017
Can someone explain to me why in the WORLD does Debbie Horsefield assumes that Valentines paternity is never resolved?
Permalink  
 


Stella, first of all I will answer your post.

I do not think Elizabeth's reply to Anselm is evidence of anything.  She was in an unfamiliar place, doing something she wasn't altogether confident about and was somewhat tongue-tied in her replies.  Above all, she didn't want to reveal her identity. In consequence her answers to his questions were hesitant.  She, along with hundreds of other women of that time, probably hadn't much idea if her babies had been full term or not.  I imagine women realised they were pregnant, and vaguely worked out when the child might be born, and a couple of weeks either way was not of consequence.  That the Valentine pregnancy became important later was a completely different matter. 

As for the second point, WG said Valentine would become ever more like etc... is not the nub of the matter, in my view.  The first part of that paragraph is the evidence.  When WG says about the THREE different fathers. (your third point)  If you read that, there can be no doubt of what WG wants the reader to know.  Later in the books, it seems Valentine was not so much like Ross after all, indeed, on occasions, WG writes he has a likeness to his mother, which perhaps saved much gossip where Ross was concerned. From what he wrote, WG only tells us that Valentine was dark, tall and good looking in a narrow sort of way.  He never links any of Vs features with being like Ross'.

Now to Dark Mare's points.

When Ross is talking to someone (I forget who, but it could have been a Nanfan) he says that his mother is irrevocably gone, not even a miniature of her exists.  He cannot really remember her well. So I don't think the picture in the box bed room could have been Grace.   Likewise his father; no images existed.  I know that bit about GC telling Drake about the paintings - 'And this is my Great Uncle Joshua as a boy, with his favourite dog', but Ross knew Trenwith all his life and would have known about any portraits there.  I'm inclined to think the Drake/GC conversation was an anomaly. Perhaps he even meant a different ancestor, and Joshua was a typo.  In any case, even if there had been umpteen pictures of Joshua and Grace, they couldn't have proved who Valentine's father was.

I beg to differ with you over Behenna and the rickets affair, Dark Mare.

Behenna did diagnose rickets, which shocked both George and Elizabeth, as he had been so cossetted and prized.  However, even if Dwight had not been rotting in prison in France, he wouldn't have been called in because the Warleggans were in TRURO at the time, at the Great House. Behenna lived only a stone's throw from them and George believed in Behenna. He disliked Dwight, because he had chosen to be a Poldark man rather than a puppet of George.  As I said before, I think Elizabeth quietly asked around the servants about who cured rickets among the 'lower classes' and gradually worked on George; hence Pryce from Redruth was called in. Mine surgeons would not have operated in Truro town itself.



-- Edited by Mrs Gimlett on Tuesday 2nd of May 2017 10:16:08 AM

__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 188
Date: May 1 11:15 PM, 2017
RE: Can someone explain to me why in the WORLD does Debbie Horsefield assumes that Valentines paternity is never resolve
Permalink  
 


Dark Mare wrote:

Mrs. Gimlett,

So much in your post that I wanted to comment on that I had to divide it in two. I think you are right about Valentine. He and Ursula were neglected children. Their father either didn't know how to build a rapport with them or was too devastated by the loss of their mother to want to try. Demelza's father crawled into a gin bottle. Ross' father became the Don Juan of Cornwall. George threw himself into his work with renewed vigor. All three abandoned their children emotionally. 


The common factor: all three were widowed early in their marriages and left with children to raise. I'm not excusing any of them, but they were probably products of their times, when fathers weren't meant to do much with the children. Certainly both George and Joshua were devastated by their grief - we don't know whether Tom Carne was a loving husband who turned to drink after his wife's death (probably unlikely as Demelza remembers beatings while her mother was alive).



__________________


Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 389
Date: May 1 9:00 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Mrs. Gimlett,

So much in your post that I wanted to comment on that I had to divide it in two. I think you are right about Valentine. He and Ursula were neglected children. Their father either didn't know how to build a rapport with them or was too devastated by the loss of their mother to want to try. Demelza's father crawled into a gin bottle. Ross' father became the Don Juan of Cornwall. George threw himself into his work with renewed vigor. All three abandoned their children emotionally. 



__________________


Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 389
Date: May 1 8:41 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Mrs. Gimlett

As I remember that statement that there were no portraits of Joshua and Grace, it was referring to there being none at Nampara. Until then, I had assumed Grace was the subject of this portrait mentioned in "Ross Poldark":

 In the dark corner beside the bed was a portrait, but she had not looked at it while the Fat Lady was in the room, and since the Fat Lady had left, she had not dared to move out of the circle of the candlelight.

When I read Geoffrey Charles' identifications of the paintings he was showing Drake, I thought it odd that Ross hadn't asked for the Joshua portrait after Francis died. Then I realized it had to be valuable, presumably because of the artist who made it, because it had survived George's cull. That would explain why it was still at Trenwith. At the time Ross lacked the money to buy it, and knowing Elizabeth's reduced circumstance, he would not have asked her to give it to him.

So, maybe there had been existing portraits of Grace and Joshua that WG forgot about in the ensuing years or maybe the portrait in Joshua's room was of his father or mother, not his wife.

As for Valentine's failed treatment by Dr. Behenna and the other doctor, I chalk that up to Dwight's absence. If Dwight had been in residence, he would have been called in on an emergency basis because he was the nearest physician who wasn't Dr. Choake. (Behenna was hours away in Truro.) He practiced among the poor so he would have spotted rickets right away. He likely would have recommended the same treatment Dr. Pryce did and written Behenna telling him what he had found and what he had prescribed. He then would have handed the patient back to Behenna, but offered to handle any followup care that was impractical for Behenna to do because of the distance. 

 



__________________


Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 284
Date: May 1 7:15 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Mrs Gimlett wrote:

Dark Mare wrote:

 

-- A portrait of Joshua Poldark as a youth survived the curating cull of the Trenwith and Poldark family portraits that George undertook shortly after moving into Trenwith. It hung not that far from the best of the remaining works during George's tenure. George had to know who the boy in the picture was because even Geoffrey Charles did -- he pointed it out to Drake when he gave him a tour of the house. Did George leave it in place to be able to consult it from time to time as Valentine grew up?

 

Yes, a portrait is mentioned at one point, but later it was said that no images survived of either Joshua or Grace.  In any case, Valentine couldn't have resembled Joshua much because if a picture was hanging in the hall at Trenwith, someone would have remarked on it if only in passing. 

-- Valentine's bout with rickets and the Warleggan family's dismay at the chance of ending up with a deformed crown prince, described in "The Black Moon," starting at Page 268. I find those pages to be some of the most significant WG wrote. They lay bare the true character of both George and Elizabeth. (How stupid is it to have a society doctor like Behenna out to treat a disease associated with poverty? He and the next doctor they brought in had no first-hand experience with rickets, but that didn't keep them from torturing the baby in failing attempts to cure him. Not until the third doctor did they find one with actual experience, and he cured it quickly. This all happened when Elizabeth and George were on good terms, and Valentine was their treasure. Is it possible that George would have turned on the boy even if his parentage had never been questioned and he was clearly a Warleggan in face and form? I think so because the boy's deformed leg had to be a daily reminder to George of his  first failure as a parent. He let his year-old child suffer and even come near death for two weeks because he was too busy matchmaking for Morwenna to think about the competence of the men he was allowing to treat his supposed pride and joy. Reading those pages about what was done to Valentine is enough to make you cringe. Was Valentine destined to become another loss George would willingly cut if he proved a disappointment? I think yes. 

As for engaging Behenna, well of course they would call in the best and most expensive physician in the area.  Don't forget, not that much was known about medicine  and someone of Behenna's calibre would have confidently assured George that the child would be better in no time.  There would have been no cause to doubt him, even though the treatment seems to us unorthodox.  George did not come up against ill-health much in his life and would have been loathe to call in anyone else, but eventually did so at Elizabeth's suggestion.  I suspect Elizabeth mentioned something to Polly Odgers, who would have much more experience of such ailments, through her contact with villagers, and perhaps she suggested the mine surgeon. But Elizabeth had to tread carefully with George and choose her time in suggesting another doctor.

I suspect Morwenna has Elizabeth's failure to help her own son promptly to thank for the referral to Dwight. Elizabeth had failed one young person who had been placed in her care. She wasn't going to fail another.




Interesting though these points are, it still doesn't suggest that anyone actually knew who Valentine's  father was. When the reader does know (The Angry Tide), and Valentine is eventually brought more to the fore and shown as an eccentric, dark character, you can see he relishes the confrontations with George.  And George, for all his promises to Elizabeth on her deathbed, still wonders sometimes about his 'son', and is increasingly exasperated by his behaviour. But still he cannot be certain and neither can any other of the characters.  What George failed to realise is that you cannot buy affection. Had he accepted Valentine at face value, life could have been much less fraught for them both.  But he was a difficult man to live with and even Ursula became rebellious and wouldn't conform to his ideas.  Sarah and Rachel, of course we do not know how they turned out, but with Harriet their mother, it is likely she would have been their biggest influence. 

In the end the reader has the irony of knowing that George never fathered a son which was his fervent wish.

Sorry, have gone slightly off-topic.


 Mrs G -  Would you clarify please that the evidence for Valentine being Ross's son is all three of the following? That Elizabeth's told Dr Anselm that both her children were full term. Can we believe this?  "Valentine would grow ever more like the man who had just left the house."  and finally "Though Elizabeth had been constitutionally strong enough, perhaps some exhaustion in the ancient Chynoweth strain was to be the cause of this virtual obliteration of her personal appearance in any of her children and the dominance of the three fathers."


 



__________________


Honorary Life Member. Forum Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 736
Date: May 1 1:16 PM, 2017
Can someone explain to me why in the WORLD does Debbie Horsefield assumes that Valentines paternity is never resolved?
Permalink  
 



Dark Mare wrote:

 

-- A portrait of Joshua Poldark as a youth survived the curating cull of the Trenwith and Poldark family portraits that George undertook shortly after moving into Trenwith. It hung not that far from the best of the remaining works during George's tenure. George had to know who the boy in the picture was because even Geoffrey Charles did -- he pointed it out to Drake when he gave him a tour of the house. Did George leave it in place to be able to consult it from time to time as Valentine grew up?

 

Yes, a portrait is mentioned at one point, but later it was said that no images survived of either Joshua or Grace.  In any case, Valentine couldn't have resembled Joshua much because if a picture was hanging in the hall at Trenwith, someone would have remarked on it if only in passing. 

-- Valentine's bout with rickets and the Warleggan family's dismay at the chance of ending up with a deformed crown prince, described in "The Black Moon," starting at Page 268. I find those pages to be some of the most significant WG wrote. They lay bare the true character of both George and Elizabeth. (How stupid is it to have a society doctor like Behenna out to treat a disease associated with poverty? He and the next doctor they brought in had no first-hand experience with rickets, but that didn't keep them from torturing the baby in failing attempts to cure him. Not until the third doctor did they find one with actual experience, and he cured it quickly. This all happened when Elizabeth and George were on good terms, and Valentine was their treasure. Is it possible that George would have turned on the boy even if his parentage had never been questioned and he was clearly a Warleggan in face and form? I think so because the boy's deformed leg had to be a daily reminder to George of his  first failure as a parent. He let his year-old child suffer and even come near death for two weeks because he was too busy matchmaking for Morwenna to think about the competence of the men he was allowing to treat his supposed pride and joy. Reading those pages about what was done to Valentine is enough to make you cringe. Was Valentine destined to become another loss George would willingly cut if he proved a disappointment? I think yes. 

As for engaging Behenna, well of course they would call in the best and most expensive physician in the area.  Don't forget, not that much was known about medicine  and someone of Behenna's calibre would have confidently assured George that the child would be better in no time.  There would have been no cause to doubt him, even though the treatment seems to us unorthodox.  George did not come up against ill-health much in his life and would have been loathe to call in anyone else, but eventually did so at Elizabeth's suggestion.  I suspect Elizabeth mentioned something to Polly Odgers, who would have much more experience of such ailments, through her contact with villagers, and perhaps she suggested the mine surgeon. But Elizabeth had to tread carefully with George and choose her time in suggesting another doctor.

I suspect Morwenna has Elizabeth's failure to help her own son promptly to thank for the referral to Dwight. Elizabeth had failed one young person who had been placed in her care. She wasn't going to fail another.




Interesting though these points are, it still doesn't suggest that anyone actually knew who Valentine's  father was. When the reader does know (The Angry Tide), and Valentine is eventually brought more to the fore and shown as an eccentric, dark character, you can see he relishes the confrontations with George.  And George, for all his promises to Elizabeth on her deathbed, still wonders sometimes about his 'son', and is increasingly exasperated by his behaviour. But still he cannot be certain and neither can any other of the characters.  What George failed to realise is that you cannot buy affection. Had he accepted Valentine at face value, life could have been much less fraught for them both.  But he was a difficult man to live with and even Ursula became rebellious and wouldn't conform to his ideas.  Sarah and Rachel, of course we do not know how they turned out, but with Harriet their mother, it is likely she would have been their biggest influence. 

In the end the reader has the irony of knowing that George never fathered a son which was his fervent wish.

Sorry, have gone slightly off-topic.


 



-- Edited by Mrs Gimlett on Monday 1st of May 2017 01:17:17 PM

__________________


Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 284
Date: May 1 11:21 AM, 2017
RE: Can someone explain to me why in the WORLD does Debbie Horsefield assumes that Valentines paternity is never resolve
Permalink  
 


Fijane wrote -

However, the moment of truth comes earlier, when Elizabeth visits Dr Anselm:

"...Were there any complications at the birth of your other children?"

"No."

"And they were both full term?"

She hesitated. "...Yes."

This admission gives the reader (but none of the characters) the answer they were looking for.

and -

It has just occurred to me, though, in relation to the other quote by Elizabeth to Dr Anselm, that maybe she still didn't know, but wanted to give the answer that would ensure that the Doctor gave her the medicine she wanted. Did she tell him what she thought he wanted to hear?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have wondered if Elizabeth was telling Dr Anselm the truth so have felt unable to reply on this as evidence but WG included it for a reason. Elizabeth will not have wanted Dr Anselm to suspect anything untoward or anything that might have caused him to deny her what she was asking for.



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 188
Date: Apr 30 11:19 PM, 2017
Can someone explain to me why in the WORLD does Debbie Horsefield assumes that Valentines paternity is never resolved?
Permalink  
 


Stella Poldark wrote:
Fijane wrote:

In that quote, we are hearing George's voice, not necessarily the author's, which implies that George still believes Agatha's poisonous whispering. But it is not establishing a fact by the author.

 

However, the moment of truth comes earlier, when Elizabeth visits Dr Anselm:

"...Were there any complications at the birth of your other children?"

"No."

"And they were both full term?"

She hesitated. "...Yes."

This admission gives the reader (but none of the characters) the answer they were looking for.

 

I think it is important that Debbie Horsfield keep Valentine's paternity a mystery from the characters for the same amount of time it is kept from them in the books. Whether she chooses the same for the viewer - I don't know. It certainly seems to me that keeping it a mystery enhances the drama, which would be desirable from a ratings point of view.


Fijane - I cannot see anything to indicate that these are George's thoughts. I have always taken them to be information from WG although I would prefer to believe that they are just George's thoughts. It is possible, taking into account George's character and his determination never to be taken as a fool but how can you be certain?

I agree that Debbie H would be well advised to keep Valentine's paternity a mystery but at what point would you say the books leave no doubt?


 For a full two pages before this, we are listening to George's thoughts. He thinks about the cursed ill-luck of losing E just when his mind had been set at rest, the curse of the old Poldark home, how devastated that she has left him, about the disgusting way she had died. The full paragraph says:

"He thought of all this, standing staring down at the child which was all Elizabeth had left him. He was no philosopher and no seer, but had he been both he might have wondered at the fact that his fair-haired, frailly beautiful wife had now borne three children and that none of them would come to resemble her at all. Though Elizabeth had been consitutionally strong enough, perhaps some exhaustion in the ancient Chynoweth strain was to be the cause of this virtual obliteration of her personal appearance in any of her children, and the dominance of the three fathers. Geoffrey Charles was already..."

I thought this whole section (Chapter 15, Section 4) is George's thoughts put down on paper.

It has just occurred to me, though, in relation to the other quote by Elizabeth to Dr Anselm, that maybe she still didn't know, but wanted to give the answer that would ensure that the Doctor gave her the medicine she wanted. Did she tell him what she thought he wanted to hear?



-- Edited by Fijane on Sunday 30th of April 2017 11:20:33 PM

__________________


Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 284
Date: Apr 30 8:33 PM, 2017
RE: Can someone explain to me why in the WORLD does Debbie Horsefield assumes that Valentines paternity is never resolve
Permalink  
 


Dark Mare wrote:

 I think the uncertainty about Valentine stems from Winston Graham not rereading his past works before embarking on each new one -- a fact that has been cited here on multiple occasions. Yes, the parentage of Valentine is a key plot point by the time you get to "The Twisted Sword," but it wasn't when he wrote "Warleggan," which was supposed to be the final book of a quartet. "The Angry Tide" was another stopping point that turned out not to be. If he deliberately didn't go back to reread his work, he was free to misremember or to ignore what went before, rather the way we all do in our own lives. Clearly, he did not consider himself bound by what he had written before so why should we rely on it? 

There were signposts along the way that were later ignored, including:

-- A portrait of Joshua Poldark as a youth survived the curating cull of the Trenwith and Poldark family portraits that George undertook shortly after moving into Trenwith. It hung not that far from the best of the remaining works during George's tenure. George had to know who the boy in the picture was because even Geoffrey Charles did -- he pointed it out to Drake when he gave him a tour of the house. Did George leave it in place to be able to consult it from time to time as Valentine grew up?

-- Valentine's bout with rickets and the Warleggan family's dismay at the chance of ending up with a deformed crown prince, described in "The Black Moon," starting at Page 268. I find those pages to be some of the most significant WG wrote. They lay bare the true character of both George and Elizabeth. (How stupid is it to have a society doctor like Behenna out to treat a disease associated with poverty? He and the next doctor they brought in had no first-hand experience with rickets, but that didn't keep them from torturing the baby in failing attempts to cure him. Not until the third doctor did they find one with actual experience, and he cured it quickly. This all happened when Elizabeth and George were on good terms, and Valentine was their treasure. Is it possible that George would have turned on the boy even if his parentage had never been questioned and he was clearly a Warleggan in face and form? I think so because the boy's deformed leg had to be a daily reminder to George of his  first failure as a parent. He let his year-old child suffer and even come near death for two weeks because he was too busy matchmaking for Morwenna to think about the competence of the men he was allowing to treat his supposed pride and joy. Reading those pages about what was done to Valentine is enough to make you cringe. Was Valentine destined to become another loss George would willingly cut if he proved a disappointment? I think yes. 

I suspect Morwenna has Elizabeth's failure to help her own son promptly to thank for the referral to Dwight. Elizabeth had failed one young person who had been placed in her care. She wasn't going to fail another.



-- Edited by Dark Mare on Sunday 30th of April 2017 07:16:16 PM


 This is very well thought through Dark Mare. As you have obviously learned and I have not, it is important to identify and remember the contradictions in WG's writing. Taking breaks from the Poldark novels without re-reading the previous books was not a good idea though it provides challenges for the reader. Although I like the challenges WG has provided in leaving many uncertainties, there are times when I would like to be able to be certain of something. Although Valentine's parentage could perhaps not have been known even by Elizabeth, I would have liked the matter to have been talked about and put to bed by the end of The Twisted Sword. Perhaps then 'Bella' could have ended a little more conclusively.



__________________


Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 389
Date: Apr 30 7:04 PM, 2017
Can someone explain to me why in the WORLD does Debbie Horsefield assumes that Valentines paternity is never resolved?
Permalink  
 


 I think the uncertainty about Valentine stems from Winston Graham not rereading his past works before embarking on each new one -- a fact that has been cited here on multiple occasions. Yes, the parentage of Valentine is a key plot point by the time you get to "The Twisted Sword," but it wasn't when he wrote "Warleggan," which was supposed to be the final book of a quartet. "The Angry Tide" was another stopping point that turned out not to be. If he deliberately didn't go back to reread his work, he was free to misremember or to ignore what went before, rather the way we all do in our own lives. Clearly, he did not consider himself bound by what he had written before so why should we rely on it? 

There were signposts along the way that were later ignored, including:

-- A portrait of Joshua Poldark as a youth survived the curating cull of the Trenwith and Poldark family portraits that George undertook shortly after moving into Trenwith. It hung not that far from the best of the remaining works during George's tenure. George had to know who the boy in the picture was because even Geoffrey Charles did -- he pointed it out to Drake when he gave him a tour of the house. Did George leave it in place to be able to consult it from time to time as Valentine grew up?

-- Valentine's bout with rickets and the Warleggan family's dismay at the chance of ending up with a deformed crown prince, described in "The Black Moon," starting at Page 268. I find those pages to be some of the most significant WG wrote. They lay bare the true character of both George and Elizabeth. (How stupid is it to have a society doctor like Behenna out to treat a disease associated with poverty? He and the next doctor they brought in had no first-hand experience with rickets, but that didn't keep them from torturing the baby in failing attempts to cure him. Not until the third doctor did they find one with actual experience, and he cured it quickly. This all happened when Elizabeth and George were on good terms, and Valentine was their treasure. Is it possible that George would have turned on the boy even if his parentage had never been questioned and he was clearly a Warleggan in face and form? I think so because the boy's deformed leg had to be a daily reminder to George of his  first failure as a parent. He let his year-old child suffer and even come near death for two weeks because he was too busy matchmaking for Morwenna to think about the competence of the men he was allowing to treat his supposed pride and joy. Reading those pages about what was done to Valentine is enough to make you cringe. Was Valentine destined to become another loss George would willingly cut if he proved a disappointment? I think yes. 

I suspect Morwenna has Elizabeth's failure to help her own son promptly to thank for the referral to Dwight. Elizabeth had failed one young person who had been placed in her care. She wasn't going to fail another.



-- Edited by Dark Mare on Sunday 30th of April 2017 07:16:16 PM

__________________


Administration

Status: Offline
Posts: 1611
Date: Apr 30 2:28 PM, 2017
RE: Can someone explain to me why in the WORLD does Debbie Horsefield assumes that Valentines paternity is never resolve
Permalink  
 


Yes good to hear from you again Mrs. G, sound analysis too reminding me what I'd similarly felt last time I read the books as well.

Hope the Oz wildlife were better behaved this time....biggrin



__________________

"Perfection is a full stop .... Ever the climbing but never the attaining Of the mountain top." W.G.

 

 



Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 284
Date: Apr 30 10:35 AM, 2017
Can someone explain to me why in the WORLD does Debbie Horsefield assumes that Valentines paternity is never resolved?
Permalink  
 


Mrs Gimlett wrote:

Hello Everyone, back again!

Such a lot has changed in a few weeks.  For a start, there is strange moisture falling from the sky - que?

From my memory of the books, I cannot recall that any character actually KNOWS who Valentine's father is.  The reader, as is said below, does know it is Ross, but no-one in the books can say for certain.  Elizabeth may not even have known.  She only delayed marrying George for a month so she may not have had any suspicion even on the day of the wedding.  George must have felt very smug when she became pregnant so quickly.

Valentine couldn't have looked very much like Ross or the locals would soon have picked up on it.  He was nothing like George, but by the time he was adult, few would remember what Elizabeth's family was like.  True there was gossip, but no hard facts. None of the Poldark children questioned Valentine's looks.  The only one who did was Verity, and she didn't say it was his looks, more his personality, and even then she compared him with Joshua, afterwards dismissing it all as foolishness.

I do not think Ross was ever in possession of little Georgie.  He helped Selina out of George's clutches and was anxious he shouldn't interfere in his upbringing, but it was done because Ross thought he was Georgie's grandfather and he felt guilty about the past.  His aim was to get Selina away to be independent.  In that, by the end of Bella P, he was successful, once again at financial cost to him and his family.

If the new TV series veers too far off books, I shall not be watching.  DH must realise, for she must have read all 12 books, that Demelza becomes, with Ross, the central figure anyway, without any manipulation with the storylines.  She is never a meek, stay in the parlour wife - Ross wouldn't want her to be - and since The Black Moon deals with the couple being very close again, in my view, Demelza should be portrayed as per the book, not as the shrewish scold of series 2.

 

 

 

 


 Welcome back Mrs G! smile  - I have missed your knowledgeable and informative input. Your post makes complete sense.



-- Edited by Stella Poldark on Sunday 30th of April 2017 10:47:51 AM

__________________


Honorary Life Member. Forum Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 736
Date: Apr 30 10:23 AM, 2017
RE: Can someone explain to me why in the WORLD does Debbie Horsefield assumes that Valentines paternity is never resolve
Permalink  
 


Hello Everyone, back again!

Such a lot has changed in a few weeks.  For a start, there is strange moisture falling from the sky - que?

From my memory of the books, I cannot recall that any character actually KNOWS who Valentine's father is.  The reader, as is said below, does know it is Ross, but no-one in the books can say for certain.  Elizabeth may not even have known.  She only delayed marrying George for a month so she may not have had any suspicion even on the day of the wedding.  George must have felt very smug when she became pregnant so quickly.

Valentine couldn't have looked very much like Ross or the locals would soon have picked up on it.  He was nothing like George, but by the time he was adult, few would remember what Elizabeth's family was like.  True there was gossip, but no hard facts. None of the Poldark children questioned Valentine's looks.  The only one who did was Verity, and she didn't say it was his looks, more his personality, and even then she compared him with Joshua, afterwards dismissing it all as foolishness.

I do not think Ross was ever in possession of little Georgie.  He helped Selina out of George's clutches and was anxious he shouldn't interfere in his upbringing, but it was done because Ross thought he was Georgie's grandfather and he felt guilty about the past.  His aim was to get Selina away to be independent.  In that, by the end of Bella P, he was successful, once again at financial cost to him and his family.

If the new TV series veers too far off books, I shall not be watching.  DH must realise, for she must have read all 12 books, that Demelza becomes, with Ross, the central figure anyway, without any manipulation with the storylines.  She is never a meek, stay in the parlour wife - Ross wouldn't want her to be - and since The Black Moon deals with the couple being very close again, in my view, Demelza should be portrayed as per the book, not as the shrewish scold of series 2.

 

 

 

 



__________________


Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 284
Date: Apr 29 12:34 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Fijane wrote:

In that quote, we are hearing George's voice, not necessarily the author's, which implies that George still believes Agatha's poisonous whispering. But it is not establishing a fact by the author.

 

However, the moment of truth comes earlier, when Elizabeth visits Dr Anselm:

"...Were there any complications at the birth of your other children?"

"No."

"And they were both full term?"

She hesitated. "...Yes."

This admission gives the reader (but none of the characters) the answer they were looking for.

 

I think it is important that Debbie Horsfield keep Valentine's paternity a mystery from the characters for the same amount of time it is kept from them in the books. Whether she chooses the same for the viewer - I don't know. It certainly seems to me that keeping it a mystery enhances the drama, which would be desirable from a ratings point of view.


Fijane - I cannot see anything to indicate that these are George's thoughts. I have always taken them to be information from WG although I would prefer to believe that they are just George's thoughts. It is possible, taking into account George's character and his determination never to be taken as a fool but how can you be certain?

I agree that Debbie H would be well advised to keep Valentine's paternity a mystery but at what point would you say the books leave no doubt?



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 188
Date: Apr 29 3:08 AM, 2017
Permalink  
 

In that quote, we are hearing George's voice, not necessarily the author's, which implies that George still believes Agatha's poisonous whispering. But it is not establishing a fact by the author.

 

However, the moment of truth comes earlier, when Elizabeth visits Dr Anselm:

"...Were there any complications at the birth of your other children?"

"No."

"And they were both full term?"

She hesitated. "...Yes."

This admission gives the reader (but none of the characters) the answer they were looking for.

 

I think it is important that Debbie Horsfield keep Valentine's paternity a mystery from the characters for the same amount of time it is kept from them in the books. Whether she chooses the same for the viewer - I don't know. It certainly seems to me that keeping it a mystery enhances the drama, which would be desirable from a ratings point of view.



__________________


Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 284
Date: Apr 25 12:52 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

faith101 wrote:

Per the Angry Tide there is NO AMBIGUITY:

"Though Elizabeth had been constitutionally strong enough, perhaps some exhaustion in the ancient Chynoweth strain was to be the cause of this virtual obliteration of her personal appearance in any of her children, and the dominance of the three fathers. Geoffrey Charles was already like Francis. Valentine would grow ever more like the man who had just left the house. And little Ursula would become sturdy and strong and thick-necked and as determined as a blacksmith."

Graham, Winston. The Angry Tide: A Novel of Cornwall 1798-1799 (Poldark Book 7) (p. 602). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.



-- Edited by faith101 on Tuesday 25th of April 2017 02:24:29 AM



-- Edited by faith101 on Tuesday 25th of April 2017 02:26:35 AM


 Ah yes, I had forgotten that.  You are right.



__________________


Fan

Status: Offline
Posts: 26
Date: Apr 25 2:23 AM, 2017
Can someone explain to me why in the WORLD does Debbie Horsefield assumes that Valentines paternity is never resolved?
Permalink  
 


Per the Angry Tide there is NO AMBIGUITY:

"Though Elizabeth had been constitutionally strong enough, perhaps some exhaustion in the ancient Chynoweth strain was to be the cause of this virtual obliteration of her personal appearance in any of her children, and the dominance of the three fathers. Geoffrey Charles was already like Francis. Valentine would grow ever more like the man who had just left the house. And little Ursula would become sturdy and strong and thick-necked and as determined as a blacksmith."

Graham, Winston. The Angry Tide: A Novel of Cornwall 1798-1799 (Poldark Book 7) (p. 602). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.



-- Edited by faith101 on Tuesday 25th of April 2017 02:24:29 AM



-- Edited by faith101 on Tuesday 25th of April 2017 02:26:35 AM

__________________

 

 



Fan

Status: Offline
Posts: 26
Date: Apr 25 2:21 AM, 2017
RE: Can someone explain to me why in the WORLD does Debbie Horsefield assumes that Valentines paternity is never resolve
Permalink  
 


Stella Poldark wrote:
LJones41 wrote:

I thought it was commented upon as far back as "The Angry Tide".


 Before The Angry Tide, Ross and Elizabeth talked about it in the churchyard in The Four Swans, but I recall that, apart from a physical likeness between Ross and Valentine, it was never established as a fact that Valentine was Ross' son. There was no DNA testing so it could never be stated as fact. In The Black Moon Aunt Agatha planted the idea of Valentine not being George's child after George told her he was cancelling her birthday party.



-- Edited by Stella Poldark on Monday 24th of April 2017 06:44:05 PM


 Why would anyone have a DNA test on a fictional character from the 1700's? It was established as a fact from book 7 through 12. 



__________________

 

 



Fan

Status: Offline
Posts: 26
Date: Apr 25 2:17 AM, 2017
Permalink  
 

SusanneMcCarthy wrote:

I think it remains fairly ambiguous in the books until book 12, and even then isn't quite definite. DH is probably playing up the ambiguity for people who watch the series but don't read the books - dramatic tension and all that.

But I think you're wrong about who has the grandchild by the end - haven't read book 12 for a while, but don't remember it that way. 


 I'm quite certain Ross declared that he was taking his grandchild; quite certain.



__________________

 

 



Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 284
Date: Apr 24 5:19 PM, 2017
Can someone explain to me why in the WORLD does Debbie Horsefield assumes that Valentines paternity is never resolved?
Permalink  
 


LJones41 wrote:

I thought it was commented upon as far back as "The Angry Tide".


 Before The Angry Tide, Ross and Elizabeth talked about it in the churchyard in The Four Swans, but I recall that, apart from a physical likeness between Ross and Valentine, it was never established as a fact that Valentine was Ross' son. There was no DNA testing so it could never be stated as fact. In The Black Moon Aunt Agatha planted the idea of Valentine not being George's child after George told her he was cancelling her birthday party.



-- Edited by Stella Poldark on Monday 24th of April 2017 06:44:05 PM

__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 135
Date: Apr 24 3:48 PM, 2017
RE: Can someone explain to me why in the WORLD does Debbie Horsefield assumes that Valentines paternity is never resolve
Permalink  
 


I thought it was commented upon as far back as "The Angry Tide".



__________________


Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 284
Date: Apr 24 2:15 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

SusanneMcCarthy wrote:

I think it remains fairly ambiguous in the books until book 12, and even then isn't quite definite. DH is probably playing up the ambiguity for people who watch the series but don't read the books - dramatic tension and all that.

But I think you're wrong about who has the grandchild by the end - haven't read book 12 for a while, but don't remember it that way. 


 I have re-read Bella recently and I do not recall anything about Ross having Valentine's son.



__________________


Initiate

Status: Offline
Posts: 97
Date: Apr 24 11:14 AM, 2017
Permalink  
 

I think it remains fairly ambiguous in the books until book 12, and even then isn't quite definite. DH is probably playing up the ambiguity for people who watch the series but don't read the books - dramatic tension and all that.

But I think you're wrong about who has the grandchild by the end - haven't read book 12 for a while, but don't remember it that way. 



__________________


Fan

Status: Offline
Posts: 26
Date: Apr 24 9:38 AM, 2017
Can someone explain to me why in the WORLD does Debbie Horsefield assumes that Valentines paternity is never resolved?
Permalink  
 


nodisbelief Her interviews are causing me more reasons to be concerned. Strike one for me before Season 3 even premiers is the increase in role for Demelza as if her role really did take a back seat. I absolutely did not signup to see the Demelza Poldark show guest starring Ross, Elizabeth, etc. Maybe it is just my Memphis, TN nerves talking, but that was very discouraging. Strike 2 is the recent interview I read in Express that Valentines paternity is ambiguous? Is she for real? Did she stop reading before book 6 and said "screw it" to book twelve? 

Am I losing my mind or isn't it explicitly clear by book 12 if the drift was not caught in book 7 that 

Spoiler
is the father and is now in possession of his grandchild by him?

 



__________________

 

 

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.