to be pissed off about a Charles Dickens doco?

[bogeyface]

Derek Jacobi, who I very much admire, was waxing lyrical about CD and ended by saying that he was a man who cared about the weak and the abused, the poor and the desperate etc. Mentioned his first love and his last love.

What about his fecking wife?! He didnt care much about her did he? He dumped her for another woman (child?), took her children away from her, and even manipulated her own sister into living with him as unpaid governess while he conducted an affair with a girl of 18, he was 45.

What a fucking hero.

I recommend "Mrs Dickens Christmas" presented by the wonderful Sue Perkins for a less romanticised version of his life.

I agree, he behaved appallingly to his poor wife Catherine. Then sets himself up as this big upholder of morals in Victorian society.

Famous and creative men seem to get away with this, don't they, even now, although I am sure a woman would not.

I bought the Big Issue a couple of weeks ago, and there was an interview with Paul Weller. Always admired him, his music and politics, etc. Saw him perform back when he was in the Jam (showing my age now).

However I've now gone right off him, as I read the interview and realised he'd had serial relationships and dumped 3 lots of children (he has 7 altogether). He has twins with his new partner, aged 26 (he's 50-odd) and says he's "never been in love like this before"! Until the next time, I suppose ....

I agree Bogeyface.

But a 'wife' is just so pedestrian. 'Lover' and 'mistress' are so much more romantic and befitting of such a literary genius and social reformer.

YABU. If we examined every great historical figure's personal life there probably wouldn't be too many that stood up to scrutiny. Doesn't mean we should dismiss their achievements simply because they are fallible human beings. What's that line from the bible... 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'?

OP i saw the Sue Perkins documentary and you're right, he did treat his wife deplorably. However, in Victorian England, women did not get their children in a divorce settlement. It's perhaps less that he took her children away from her as was awarded the family when he decided to leave her for another woman. The same would have happened had any of our hypothetical upper middle class great grandfathers decided to leave their wives.

There was a whole complicated back story about him marrying a woman like his mother in order, subconsciously, to hurt her to show how betrayed he had been by his mother as a child, if I remember.

Charles Dickens is good for an easy teach of how daily life was.

The film versions of the books are used in my DD's, SN school to bring to life Victorian times.

I should think that a lot of conflict was caused by how life was thought to have been, compared to how it was behind closed doors. This was partly the fault of the times they lived in and the ridiculous return to 'morality', that was professed by those in charge and caused and made excuses for the problems that he wrote about.

Looking outwardly at fault, as he did at Victorian society, was easier than looking inwardly.

I have a friend who knows Paul Weller extremely well Nadia. He is not a very nice person by all accounts.

Oh really, squeakytoy? can you say anymore?

I realise that children were considered the property of the father (as was the wife come to that) so he would naturally assume ownership of them in a seperation. I know the details surrounding victorian life and values.

What pissed me off was the way that it was totally glossed over the documentary in order to paint him as this marvellous hero, ignoring anything that didnt fit that view of him. It was totally one sided and very annoying.

I agree,OP!