.. not meaning to go off on a tangent of course but I think its important to recognise that whilst some problems such as slum poverty dogged on, the Georgian and Victorian periods were very different. However I agree that there were different expectations at the time.
I believe every era has its progress and its vices. Today we have many developments but at least the Victorians didn't have to contend with gutter tv like Big Brother and Jeremy Kyle which in my view are anything but progressive.
.... but in contrast to the Georgian period much improved. The abolition of public executions, frown on bloodsports and the active policing of international slavery were a contrast to the days when those things were advocated. The Victorian period also saw the creation of modern policing and 'more' humane treatment of the mentally unstable. Georgian London was a cruel city of vice with small pockets of philanthropy. Victorian London was still tough but there was a different societal mentality.
Neville was acting, as lower-class, for his job. Kind of ironic that Holmes did the same thing. He wouldnt have the least compunction in doing the same as neville, dressing up as a lower class. Holmes is a gentleman, too. The only difference was that neville was doing it for the money, holmes is doing to catch criminals. odd parallel there . . .
Yes, the parallel is there. If I recall correctly, Holmes had been thinking of recruiting the beggar as an informant. Who knows? Maybe a deal was struck. In exchange for being allowed to keep up his beggar persona and retain the profits, he passes on information--comings and goings, things he overhears in the underworld-to Holmes and the police.
Yeah, sparrowgirl...good observation. The only difference was that Holmes was a bachelor; he had no one's reputation to protect or to hurt emotionally by doing it.
I thought this was the stupidest story until the line, "I entered a beggar and every night emerged as a gentleman." A middle class man who made a gentleman's salary as a beggar. Poetic irony, that.
Begging was illegal in the London of that time. Boone was arrested quite often, but the fine was of course nothting to him in comparison to his earnings :-)
He had to give up his double-life because if his wife and family found out, he would be ruined. This is 1890s England, not modern day. Back then, personal and family honour meant a LOT. If you did something to disgrace yourself, you tainted the reputation of your entire family. St. C. had built a reputation as a wealthy gentleman with a good family. If anyone found out about his double-life, he'd never be able to show his face in polite society ever again. His family would be devastated.
Very true. And by our 21st Century standards, it didn't take much to create a public scandal. That's why a rogue such as Milverton the blackmailer could thrive. Even the suggestion of disgrace was enough to blast a man's or woman's reputation.
People today don't understand it. Think of it in Victorian terms: You're a wealthy, respected person. If it's discovered you live a double-life, people will think you're sneaky, you can't be trusted, your wife will think you're seeing other women, people won't do business with you because they think you won't tell the truth...Your entire world would collapse and your honour and integrity, and that of your family, would disappear overnight. It was a very delicate balance.
You're right. People today don't understand how different Victorian culture was from our own. That's why the era's fascinating.
A good example is that photo in"A Scandal in Bohemia." By our standards, perfectly innocent. The prince could say it was a souvenir for his American guest, Irene.
But to his bride's family, it would be nothing innocent. The fact she 'gasp!' has her arm around him is bad, and worse that he's actually in a photo with her, would call his character into question.
In the words of His Majesty: "Precisely so!" That's why people like Milverton became millionaires, because people would pay him fortunes not to reveal their secrets. It's also why people fought duels. You had to be incredibly careful if you were a Somebody back in the VIctorian period.
I think you're quite mistaken in imagining such a great difference between our time and the Victorian age concerning scandals. A person stealing charity funds to-day would be exactly as banned from 'politically correct society' as this man swindling as a beggar would be from nice Victorian society. We're not really as different as we like to think - and actually possibly somewhat more morally condemning to-day. Character murders happen daily in the papers.
I honestly don't think so. These days we don't have duels to settle arguments like that. It's always been my opinion that Victorian and indeed, Georgian and Edwardian manners and ettiquette were a lot stricter than what we have today. What was acceptable back then may not be acceptable now. What was considered a huge offence in the 1880s would probably be brushed off today.
Actually by the early Victorian period, duels in Britain were frowned upon and would result in imprisonment. With respect I think you're mistaken in comparing Georgian society with Victorian society because the two periods were very different in many ways. The young Victoria and Albert were instrumental in influencing national morality which is why contrary to popular believe, there were a number of positive social developments in the Victorian era. Of course problems still existed..
He wasn't really begging, after all he was adverising and selling Shakespeare and as a clergy man, preaching from the Bible! In today's proffession it could be classed the same as a broadcaster presenting Shakespeare's work on radio or a Christian priest preaching from his parish!
Inspector Bradstreet is a much better policeman than LeStrade.
tdelamont 2 months ago
yummy
kasiditauable 2 months ago
Damn. i just read the story twice. Let that be a lesson: Always check youtube first! Hamlet baby, here i come!
Dave0fcleveland 5 months ago
however improbable
antero15051984 8 months ago
I wish I had never seen that scene with the sponge. It's going to be stuck in my head forever.
Chikin1ninjas 1 year ago
Super WAAAAY Awesome
hushai05 1 year ago 2
This is one of my favorite Sherlock Holmes cases.
Fujiarmu 1 year ago 4
Thanks for this. Another excellent episode.
Offshoreorganbuilder 1 year ago
.. not meaning to go off on a tangent of course but I think its important to recognise that whilst some problems such as slum poverty dogged on, the Georgian and Victorian periods were very different. However I agree that there were different expectations at the time.
I believe every era has its progress and its vices. Today we have many developments but at least the Victorians didn't have to contend with gutter tv like Big Brother and Jeremy Kyle which in my view are anything but progressive.
WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 1 year ago 6
.... but in contrast to the Georgian period much improved. The abolition of public executions, frown on bloodsports and the active policing of international slavery were a contrast to the days when those things were advocated. The Victorian period also saw the creation of modern policing and 'more' humane treatment of the mentally unstable. Georgian London was a cruel city of vice with small pockets of philanthropy. Victorian London was still tough but there was a different societal mentality.
WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch Sherlock Holmes online on
NewFreeMoviesOnline(.)com
Enjoy!
moviesfunnyg 2 years ago
Not a surprise this plot but nevertheless most enjoyable to watch. And a great quality pots as well.
Thank you for sharing.
KarinB65 2 years ago
Neville was acting, as lower-class, for his job. Kind of ironic that Holmes did the same thing. He wouldnt have the least compunction in doing the same as neville, dressing up as a lower class. Holmes is a gentleman, too. The only difference was that neville was doing it for the money, holmes is doing to catch criminals. odd parallel there . . .
sparrowgirl25 2 years ago
Yes, the parallel is there. If I recall correctly, Holmes had been thinking of recruiting the beggar as an informant. Who knows? Maybe a deal was struck. In exchange for being allowed to keep up his beggar persona and retain the profits, he passes on information--comings and goings, things he overhears in the underworld-to Holmes and the police.
TheKulu42 2 years ago
Yeah, sparrowgirl...good observation. The only difference was that Holmes was a bachelor; he had no one's reputation to protect or to hurt emotionally by doing it.
traccan 2 years ago
I have *always* loved the last line: "Farewell, sweet Boone; a flight of angels sing thee to thy rest." Wonderful. Touching.
tango2romeo 2 years ago
"Good night, sweet prince, and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest".
From "Hamlet".
Shangas 2 years ago
This man who plays St. Clare is a rather handsome gent.
tango2romeo 2 years ago
I thought this was the stupidest story until the line, "I entered a beggar and every night emerged as a gentleman." A middle class man who made a gentleman's salary as a beggar. Poetic irony, that.
Theta101 2 years ago
Thanx for uploading.....one of the best!
Azreal93 2 years ago
It's a really nice adaptation!!! One of my favs, thnx for uploading!!!
TAfan2 2 years ago
I love that look Holmes give at 3:21 after Neville vows to never lead a double life again XD He's like "are you surreee?" :)
One of the Ingenuous and peculiar plots I must say.
JTeamjesters 2 years ago 24
I don't understand why he was forced to give up his double life.
jamesaugusta 2 years ago
must probably because he was making a lot of money witout paying taxes
jibaraverde 2 years ago 5
Begging was illegal in the London of that time. Boone was arrested quite often, but the fine was of course nothting to him in comparison to his earnings :-)
pikewerfer 2 years ago
He had to give up his double-life because if his wife and family found out, he would be ruined. This is 1890s England, not modern day. Back then, personal and family honour meant a LOT. If you did something to disgrace yourself, you tainted the reputation of your entire family. St. C. had built a reputation as a wealthy gentleman with a good family. If anyone found out about his double-life, he'd never be able to show his face in polite society ever again. His family would be devastated.
Shangas 2 years ago
Very true. And by our 21st Century standards, it didn't take much to create a public scandal. That's why a rogue such as Milverton the blackmailer could thrive. Even the suggestion of disgrace was enough to blast a man's or woman's reputation.
TheKulu42 2 years ago
People today don't understand it. Think of it in Victorian terms: You're a wealthy, respected person. If it's discovered you live a double-life, people will think you're sneaky, you can't be trusted, your wife will think you're seeing other women, people won't do business with you because they think you won't tell the truth...Your entire world would collapse and your honour and integrity, and that of your family, would disappear overnight. It was a very delicate balance.
Shangas 2 years ago 4
You're right. People today don't understand how different Victorian culture was from our own. That's why the era's fascinating.
A good example is that photo in"A Scandal in Bohemia." By our standards, perfectly innocent. The prince could say it was a souvenir for his American guest, Irene.
But to his bride's family, it would be nothing innocent. The fact she 'gasp!' has her arm around him is bad, and worse that he's actually in a photo with her, would call his character into question.
TheKulu42 2 years ago
In the words of His Majesty: "Precisely so!" That's why people like Milverton became millionaires, because people would pay him fortunes not to reveal their secrets. It's also why people fought duels. You had to be incredibly careful if you were a Somebody back in the VIctorian period.
Shangas 2 years ago
Comment removed
ZolotayaKoshka 2 years ago
@ Shangas:
I think you're quite mistaken in imagining such a great difference between our time and the Victorian age concerning scandals. A person stealing charity funds to-day would be exactly as banned from 'politically correct society' as this man swindling as a beggar would be from nice Victorian society. We're not really as different as we like to think - and actually possibly somewhat more morally condemning to-day. Character murders happen daily in the papers.
ZolotayaKoshka 2 years ago
I honestly don't think so. These days we don't have duels to settle arguments like that. It's always been my opinion that Victorian and indeed, Georgian and Edwardian manners and ettiquette were a lot stricter than what we have today. What was acceptable back then may not be acceptable now. What was considered a huge offence in the 1880s would probably be brushed off today.
Shangas 2 years ago
@Shangas
Actually by the early Victorian period, duels in Britain were frowned upon and would result in imprisonment. With respect I think you're mistaken in comparing Georgian society with Victorian society because the two periods were very different in many ways. The young Victoria and Albert were instrumental in influencing national morality which is why contrary to popular believe, there were a number of positive social developments in the Victorian era. Of course problems still existed..
WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 1 year ago
Duels were not only frowned upon, but they were actually illegal. And yes, perhaps comparing the two periods is a bit of a stretch.
Shangas 1 year ago
One of the weirder little tales courtesy of 221 B.
mxylpx 2 years ago 4
heh. poetic chap :-P
ShawDAMAN 2 years ago
brilliant !
smartanu18 2 years ago 2
Love it
KudouShinichiConan 2 years ago 3
I love the "EEAGH!"
GodsWildfire 2 years ago 15
He wasn't really begging, after all he was adverising and selling Shakespeare and as a clergy man, preaching from the Bible! In today's proffession it could be classed the same as a broadcaster presenting Shakespeare's work on radio or a Christian priest preaching from his parish!
hafsa26 2 years ago 5
He was a harmless parasite, money sponging TV-"preachers", wolves-in-sheeps'-clothing, are not. They suck their victims dry if they can.
12rosebud12 2 years ago
Comment removed
hafsa26 2 years ago
great show, thank you so much for uploading!!!
imaeh1 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wife is far more forgiving than I would have been. Then again, make him crawl would also be quite joyful as well.
kaisenji 3 years ago
What because he gave her such a splendid life? And was tormented by shame from the means he used to give it to her?
Humanimalist 2 years ago 8