MovieChat Forums > Belle (2014) Discussion > Why didn't Belle's father take her with ...

Why didn't Belle's father take her with him?

posted 10 years ago by ninjacatprincess
8 replies | jump to latest

I understand the ship was filled with males but wouldn't Belle have been safe as the daughter of the ship's captain or whatever her father's title was? I mean, if you touch the boss' daughter then you'll get the ax right?

Yes, race was a factor but this entire movie was about how a mixed race child grew up among wealth and privilege so I wonder why Belle's father simply didn't take her with him - and perhaps make her spend most of her time in the cabin studying...or perhaps with a female tutor or something on board.

[–] magiciangirl2 10 years ago

You can't take your child aboard a military ship. There's a reason why sailors routinely leave their wives and children behind when they go out to sea. You can't do your job successfully if your attention is focused on your family instead of the mission.

Second, too dangerous. Because you know, military ship.

[–] Ivor_Bucket 10 years ago

The film was based on true events, and says so in the opening credits. The real Dido was the illegitimate daughter of Captain (later Admiral) Sir John Lindsey and an African slave called Belle whom Captain Lindsay released from a Spanish slave ship. It is a matter of historical record that Captain Lindsey placed Dido with Lord and Lady Mansfield at Kenwood House, where she grew up to be a much loved member of the Mansfield family. Which circumstance led to the historically true situation of the Lord Chief Justice of England simultaneously being the adoptive father of a mixed race child and ruling on several cases involving slavery - not just the Zong case portrayed in the film.

In the context of the 18th century, that is all quite extraordinary and unique. Which is why the film makers made the film they did, exploring the ambiguous nature of Dido's position in aristocratic society. Had they written a script where Sir John Lindsey kept his daughter with him on his ship, they might have created an interesting story, but it would not have been based on historical events, and would not have honoured the unique life of a real person.

[–] gorye 10 years ago

You stressed the film based on true events - Dido's being a member of the Lord Chief Justice family - which is true; and exploring Dido's position in aristocratic society - which hardly can be stated as true. All the story of Dido as a member of high society shown in the film is plainly fictional. In reality nothing confirms it. She was looking after dairy and though with more intellectual tasks entrusted, hardly she ever acted outside the Kenwood House. Her position might be called unique only because of Lord Chief Justice famous cases. It was much talked no doubt. But it doesn't mean Dido was considered then as a member of high society. Her fate confirmed this. She was rather married off by a new Lord Mansfield, after her guard Lord Chief Justice died. She was kind of thirty already and got a little money, which might entice only a manservant.

So, in supposing film about her adventurous life on some military ship, the degree of authenticity would be just the same.
Actually, not trying to mislead the audience, it would be a fair play.

[–] Poetist 10 years ago

You stressed the film based on true events - Dido's being a member of the Lord Chief Justice family - which is true; and exploring Dido's position in aristocratic society - which hardly can be stated as true. All the story of Dido as a member of high society shown in the film is plainly fictional. In reality nothing confirms it. She was looking after dairy and though with more intellectual tasks entrusted, hardly she ever acted outside the Kenwood House.

I don't have a horse in this race, but. .

It's true that she "explored" aristocratic society. She didn't dine at the fancy dinners with guests, but she did appear for tea/drinks after the dinner. No black person could just pop in and socialize in that manner, because they were too busy serving their master.

You mentioned she looked after the dairy and chickens. Well, that is what a lady of the house was supposed to do back then. (Catch an episode of Downton Abbey. The lady watches over pigs).

Another thing, she was educated and writing business correspondences. That task was not reserved for women, let alone a black one.

I think what best describes Belle's situation is how she said it, there is no place to put her. She was just in that in between stage. She lived in the manor, educated in the manor, but then there were situations that restricted her. I was just hoping, whomever she found to marry her, he would treat her right. It appears as if she married a Frenchman, who was very religious.

It is sad that she died so young, leaving young children.

[–] gorye 10 years ago

A bit puzzled how to respond. It seems you mix film and reality. No one knows exactly Dido's situation. And about her husband even who he was. More likely a manservant of French origin, but that's all.

Nothing confirms that Lord Mansfield though cared for her very much, was going to settle her as a married woman.

And, don't lecture pls. Everyone knows about lady's liking chicken run now. It's funny grounging one's point on TV films. It's nice for wealthy women to find a fancy job, but Dido were paid for hers.

[–] metronit 10 years ago

The painting is real and highly unusual. That speaks volumes.

[–] purplish-1 10 years ago

The movie made me look further into the story. When the governor of Massachusetts visited, he wrote that “a Black came in after dinner and sat with the ladies and later walked arm in arm with one."

I highly doubt that the "ladies" would walk arm and arm with the milkmaid. Belle's place in the family was ambiguous and the film captured that beautifully.

To answer the original question - it's a military ship. No women allowed back then. Just look at what happened to The Bounty.

[–] kingg-2 9 years ago

The Bounty wasn't a military ship either.

Your point is correct though. Dido did have her own money, not rich but compared to many women at the time, she was probably what we would call independently wealthy. In addition to the money from her father, she received a small inheritance from her great-aunt and a bigger one from Lord Mansfield. She was also paid a decent sum of money while living at the mansion. It is a fact that she did do secretarial work for Lord Mansfield, which was very strange for woman to do back then. She then left the estate, married Devinier, had a few kids, and then died at 43.

She was never apparently thought of or treated as domestic servant. Using a historical currency converter, her combined inheritances (500 + 100 +500) would be worth 117,000 pounds today. Not too bad. Mansfield left her with 100 pounds a year as an annuity, which would be over 10,500 pounds a year today. Not rich, but wealthier than most. Her husband wasn't a lawyer or son of a vicar but a French butler. Not too bad of a job, running the household in a rich estate. With that and her money, they were most likely pretty comfortable. Her income was probably double or triple his annually.

Of course, there are a few different ways to look at what 1,100 pounds in 1790 would be equal to today.

If you want to compare the value of a £1,100 Income or Wealth, in 1790 there are three choices. In 2014 the relative:

historic standard of living value of that income or wealth is £117,400.00. This is based on the increase in RPI in the pound from that time

economic status value of that income or wealth is £2,155,000.00 measures the "social pecking order". Basically, the value of that amount of money based on imcome index of per-capita GDP between the two time periods. Belle was very wealthy, in actual money, compared to most people today.

economic power value of that income or wealth is £9,602,000.00 this is the share of GDP. Back in the 18th century, GDP was far, far lower than today, so this isn't a great measuring stick. In money, Belle was way above average, but money wasn't the primary measure of wealth back then. Land, properties, etc were.