"Set in 1970 with references to women's feminist conference and Sally Alexander. In a typical example of Endeavour in-referencing Sally Alexander was John Thaw's first wife according to Twitter. "
"It's even weirder than that. Abigail Thaw, daughter of John Thaw and Sally Alexander, plays Dorothea Frazil. In the episode, Sally Alexander is played by Abigail Thaw's daughter, Molly."
That's amazing!!!
I LOVE "Endeavour"! I was binge-watching old episodes recently and was so impressed with one episode that I bothered to check who the Director was, the first time I have given that a second thought for any TV programme - Shaun Davies! He Directed from Series 6 and you can really see the difference from the earlier series'.
I could connect the characters (personalities) of Endeavour and Morse in the earlier series but it got harder with the later ones and I wonder if they just decided to stop trying?
"I've been re-watching older Morses recently too. I hadn't recalled how poor his attitude to women was - really quite angry and entitled when his advances are rebuffed. Other aspects of his interactions are so comical compared with how they seemed in 1990. It's not far off, "I'm sorry to have to tell you your husband has been murdered; but would you care to join me for dinner?"
Same here BiarritzCrackers! The first type of interactions just washed over me when "Morse" was first screened - the family reaction was always a piss-takey, "Poor old Morse, knocked-back again, never get's a legover!" Watching them again recently, the cumulative effect was of a creepy predator.
On the occasions when an indecently-recently bereaved widow takes him up on an offer it is just as shocking, "Hang on, one more shovel of earth on this coffin and . . . done . . . where are we off to? Opera?"
With "Endeavour", I love the "kitchen-sink/period drama" of the Thursday family.
The "family finances" aspect that hasn't been touched on yet was the common practice in working class homes of the "man of the house" handing over his unopened wage packet to his wife, who would give him back the "pocket money" that she determined he needed to get by.
I am personally aware of this practice persisting into the early years of this century. One thing that tolled its death knell was employers insisting on paying into bank accounts rather than issuing cash wage packets.
There is little scope for the hourly-paid to secretly hold back earnings when everyone knows the rates of pay. The middle-class taboo back then about discussing money ("so common!") coupled with secrecy about salaried pay rates made it easier for Salary-Man to control the purse strings.
It was a great source of pride that a man could afford to "keep" his wife and wives who did not need to work were as varied as those who did or who chose to work anyway.
A "kept" wife might be unhappily shackled to her husband due to being financially dependent on him. Another might enjoy the freedom to do pretty much what she liked with her time.
A "working wife" might be exhausted by "keeping house" on top of one or more jobs. Another might be glad of the chance to spend time outside the confines of four walls and have some money to call her own.
Whatever the circumstances, Child Benefit paid directly to the mother recognised that mothers were generally more reliable as parents than fathers. For too many women, their only financial independence or even ability to put food on the table for themselves relied on pennies squirrelled away here and there from Child Benefit.
My mother at one point in her life went hungry so her children could eat and saved pennies from Child Benefit for our shoes. (If my father had got his hands on that money it would have been drunk and gambled away. Thankfully, he had enough self-control to pay rent and utilities bills but reluctantly handed over any money at all for "housekeeping".)
I am too young (not many times I get the chance to say that!) to remember when Child Benefit was introduced. Given that wives and children had not so long before that been legally the property of their husbands and fathers, I wonder if it seemed revolutionary at the time? (Apologies if my history is "off" there - I stand to be corrected!)
The blanket, institutional oppression of women seems unfathomable now (inability to open bank accounts, take out hire-purchase agreements, etc. on their own say-so; being required to leave jobs on marriage; etc.). Is all of that "within living memory"? (Again, history is not my strong suit!)