Or perhaps viewers are considering Quentin's actions in historical context, when children were devalued and regularly exploited (e.g. farmed out to factories and workhouses) and women, especially female employees, were implicitly in the power of male superiors. I recently watched Gosford Park, which takes place in the early 1930s, and even in that setting, the maids were at the beck and call of master and guests alike.
I've been meaning to backtrack and reply to this but thought I'd end up with the post without end
![[easter_smiley]](http://www.dsboards.com/SMF/Smileys/classic/easter_smiley.gif "Smiley")
. Let me give it a try. I look at a lot of Quentin's antics in historical context, as a spoilt entitled brat of the gilded age. One example I use for comparison is the movie
Titanic, since it's been seen by so many people. Quentin in early 1897 is a LOT like the character Cal. He's rich, powerful and believes anything he does is right because the law doesnt apply to HIM. People are just things to be manipulated and owned for power. He considers his future wife to be his property and he doesn't care about HER; he cares that his property has been poached upon. Not to mention that he slaps his future wife around and considers himself totally within his rights to do so. He also tells her what she wants to eat and what she should think, which one could argue is worse in a lot of ways than what we see of Quentin.
Another example I think of, with the mention of Quentin barging into Beth's room, is a lovely British Series (contemporary with
Upstairs, Downstairs ) called
The Dutchess of Duke Street. The story is based on a real person, Rosa Cavendish, who rose from the cockney servant class to become a renowned cook and hotelier in Edwardian England.
One of the first episodes of the series is the young Louisa Trotter (the fictional version of Rosa Cavendish). She's a lower level servant at a stately home. The young rake of the family, a pleasant fellow named Charlie, just comes into her bedroom and assumes that she's willing to be accomodating. She's NOT and finally convinces him of this, and,being this is a basically decent guy, he backs off and leaves. (They become friends, and later more, further on in their lives.)
But, the assumption was there that the help was willing to accomodate the men of the household, and the threat was there that if they said no, they'd lose their jobs. And, there's also the nasty reality (used to great effect in at least one Anne Perry Victorian mystery) that no only meant no if the male in question chose to respect it as such. Since there were seldom consequences for the man, that all depended on his personal ethics. Again, comparing Quentin to that context, he's certainly a rake and a lecher (to quote Carl) yet his methods seem to stick to seduction and coersion, rather than physicaly forcing the unwilling.
Jeannie
