a Sherlock question

[castiron]

Question to British Sherlock fans: Assuming the characters aren't fiction in the Sherlockverse, is it plausible that Sherlock and Mycroft could be grandsons of Charles and Lady Mary (née Wimsey) Parker? Or are the class markers all wrong for grandnephews of a Duke?

(Given that I've read speculation on original canon's Holmes being related to Peter Wimsey, I can't resist speculating on the same for the new version.)

Comments

[legionseagle]

It's not absolutely impossible if it comes down that line because they're both pegged as upper-middle to me. I think if you push them closer to the aristocracy (ie, with titled parents) you run into difficulties like why does Sherlock need to share a flat to make ends meet and why did Mycroft opt for the civil service, but there's clearly some family money and status (though not necessarily loads of it) viz the clothes etc (and fashion experts tell me Mycroft's may be more understated, but they're about three times as expensive as Sherlock's, and there's no way he's doing that on a civil service salary) as well as the accents and, most importantly, the "fuck you" attitude of mind which both of them share.

If I were doing it myself I'd be inclined to take the line through Charles and Mary's daughter, not their son, because that gets them less visibly connected to the family even more quickly, because of the (outworn, but relevant to someone born in the 1930s) convention of a woman taking her husband's status and a son taking his father's - it gives you more flexibility with the close relatives.

Apologies for idiocy, of course it has to go through the female line if its grandparents because of surnames.

[legionseagle]

Incidentally, in Murder Must Advertise, first published in 1933, "small Peter" (the elder of the two children) gives Peter a crucial clue. He's producing complete sentences, has an interest in aeroplanes and speed-boats and at a guess is aged about three or four. Inferentially, therefore, the marriage must have taken place some five years previously, and we know it didn't take place before Harriet's trial in Strong Poison because the announcement of the Lady Mary/Parker engagement is the shock revelation at the end of that book. From the dates given at Harriet's trial, therefore, this can't be earlier than 1933 or 1934 - ie contemporary or slightly ahead of the publication date. You've still got a slight problem if the Holmes' boys mother is Mary Lucasta (born say 1931) because you've got to hypothesis her giving birth to Sherlock when aged about 45, but it's not outside the realms of possibility and might, in fact, account for the marked differences of character and temperament between the two siblings. If you wanted to make life simpler for yourself you could also hypothesise a later-born Parker daughter - I don't know if the Wimsey Papers give any guidance on this.

[castiron]

Thanks! Yes, I was thinking a younger daughter would work. (I don't know if Harriet c. 1936 is from the Wimsey Papers or is a Paton Walsh invention, but a daughter that age wouldn't be too old to be Sherlock's mother, if c. 1975 for his birth is canon-consistent.)

[nineveh_uk]

Randomly Wimseying... the third Parker child is mentioned in a Sayers MS, sex not noted, so not totally a JPW invention. There's nothing in the Wimsey papers, but they are awful so I ignore them.

[castiron]

Thanks! I've got at least a little canon to run with, then.