Archibald Cunningham's Father
Is Montrose Cunningham's Father?
shareThat's the implication I got. Otherwise, why would he bother to remove the locket bearing Archie's mother's portrait?
share
MovieChat Forums > Rob Roy (1995) Discussion > Archibald Cunningham's Father
I think the possibility is left open to be interpreted out of it.
shareWhen I was working on the film, we were definitely told that the implication was that Archibald Cunningham was the illegitimate son of the Marquis Of Montrose, explaining why it was to him that the upstart young man was sent, in order that he be knocked into shape.
Remember the scene where Cunningham is in the bedroom with Betty, the maid. When she asks him about his father, he comes up with two possible candidates, one being a Spanish diplomat - who's name his mother hazarded a guess as being 'Ferdinando' - and the other, 'a young buck, who raised her skirts', at a dance. This so-called 'young buck' was the young Montrose.
In the finished cut of the film, the director decided to leave the matter slightly ambiguous. Indeed, The Marquis Of Montrose himself may have wished it so, to avoid any social embarrassment… : )
I got this impression after the duel while the Marquis was retrieving the necklace. Not sure why that triggered it, but I'm inclined to agree.
shareOops! I forgot the third candidate for Cunninghams patronage - The Earl Of Rutland
share"The Earl of Rutland. Now, there's a name for a whore master."
I loved Archibald's response when he told Betty about the young buck lifting his mother's skirts. Betty asked, "He ravished her?" to which Archibald replied, "I would put it no higher than surprised." Haaaa!
I would definitely say that, while it's ambiguous, all signs definitely point to Montrose being Archie's Babydaddy.
Now - I think, given the decided lack of DNA testing available back then, and the fact that Archie's mom was - according to what little we learn about her from the dialogue - definitely not 'chaste', that it should have been as unknown to the characters as it was to audience: None of them could really be sure, so how could we?
Exactly right, and good point. Which also reminds me of the ambiguity we are left with concerning the paternity of Mary's unborn wee bairn. Is it Archibald's child or Rob Roy's? We'll never know for sure.
shareI think the point is that he's so honorable it wouldn't matter. He's going to love it no matter what, and he placed his anger on the appropriate target when he stated that the child shouldn't be the one to suffer. I would have like to see what happened with his clan though. Was there anyone left of them? Were they no longer a cohesive unit? ...did I miss something? Probably a topic for a different thread.
shareWho knows if he really is the father, but Montrose certainly seems to think so. This is why Archibald is sent up to live with him, to let his father take care of some of his craziness. When they are in the garden painting that portrait, you see Archibald and Montrose together on the painting, a pretty typical way of recognizing your bastard in those times (or so someone said on this board).
shareI agree. It's hinted throughout the film that Montrose does feel some paternal duty towards Cunningham which is undoubtedly how Archie's mom was able to foist her troublemaking son upon him.
Also, the clear look of distress on Montrose's face as he watches Archie die indicates that he viewed this man as more than just his "champion."
Hah! It sounds like you're right, but I didn't make the connection at all. I figured he took the locket because it was gold & he'd just lost a bet.
share