View Full Version : Were the Brady's rich??


nerrad
09-29-2004, 09:46 AM
Since I began watching that show over 30 years ago, I always wanted to know that. In my opinion, if they were, they sure didn't act it. Didn't own the fancy cars. And those clothes.

I was watching some of that marathon over the weekend and thought of this. They lived in a nice house, along with a housekeeper, a dog, and a forgotten cat. And get this. The father can afford to take a family of 9, Alice included, to the Grand Canyon, Hawaii, amusement parks, etc. And he TREATED. He paid for it all.:D That didn't hit me until the other day. He even bought the entire clan new bikes, and bought a boat. He was an architect, so he made plenty of cheddar.

Of course I was a kid back then and never wondered how they got all of that stuff, trips, etc. The dad paid for it all.

spunkygirl
09-29-2004, 11:05 AM
Mike was an architect, and architect's made pretty good money I'm sure.

And some of the trips the clients paid for like the trip to Hawaii and Cincinnati were paid for by I think Mike's clients :)

Vegas Girl
09-29-2004, 11:15 AM
Yes, either his boss or clients paid for the trips.

Unrealistic that they would pay for 9 to go though....

Brian Damage
09-29-2004, 11:15 AM
The Bradys had some cash. It was just stretched out a bit because of all those kids and the housekeeper. And lets put it this way, middle class families don't have a 24/7 live in maid.

nerrad
09-29-2004, 11:17 AM
I thought about that after I typed it. That the job probably paid for some of it. That makes more sense.

TV Guy
09-29-2004, 11:21 AM
"I hear their maid works for free!"

tdr
09-29-2004, 08:43 PM
It is conceivable that an architect, a widower with 3 children, would live in a nice suburban house with a fulltime housekeeper. But to keep the same situation when he marries a woman with 3 children of her own-- and there's no reason to think his income suddenly doubled-- don't think so. Sitcoms traditionally liked for the mother to be home all day, and to be there when the kids get home from school. Fine, but with a 6-kid family, either Carol should be working, and/or they shouldn't need a fulltime-- let alone a live-in-- housekeeper. But the comedy would not have been the same, or as good.

I have read that architects are not especially well-paid, and Mike did not appear to be a partner in his firm. And notice how they wraggle about phone bills and small expenses, but they go to great lengths to keep Alice there.

Vegas Girl
09-29-2004, 08:59 PM
I'm sure they loved Alice and got attached to her, but they could have just stayed friends and visited her.

Why couldn't Carol do the housework? The kids even did a lot. They always talked about having to do chores or making bets "to do the winner's chores for a week". Why did they need Alice?

gidgetgrape
09-29-2004, 09:02 PM
The kids weren't just given cash for what they wanted though. They would get jobs and if they were advanced money on their allowances Mike would make a point of telling them how much they would have to pay back each week.

rich2
10-07-2004, 09:35 PM
The average, median salary for an architect in the U.S. today is around $55,000. It ranges from around $35,000 to $90,000 depending on experience.

rich2
10-10-2004, 11:25 PM
One thing that made them seem rich to me was a scene in the Joe Namath episode. Bobby needs to meet Joe Namath for some reason and the parents are discussing the predicament. One of them say, "Well, let's think. We must know SOMEBODY that knows Joe Namath."

Krankenschwester
10-11-2004, 12:53 AM
I think it was crazy for Carol not to have worked. Especially in the decade the show was airing in! Women's Lib was in full force. For Mike to support a wife, six kids and Alice was really heroic on his salary. And don't judge the clothes they wore by how much dough they had. The clothes back then were just fuggin' butt ugly.

magellan333
10-18-2004, 05:49 PM
Maybe Mike's first wife had a huge life insurance policy that he made a lot of money off of, or Carol got money from her husband's passing (if that is what happened to him). A good life insurance policy could have easily paid off their home. Alice had her room, board and food paid for so maybe she really didn't make all the much dough. Mrs. Brady should have worked (even if it was pro-bono or volunteer work). I recall Mike saying about one of the trips that he was advised to take his family at the company's expense. Maybe some of the vehicles they owned were company cars?

Oriole Adams
10-25-2004, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Krankenschwester
I think it was crazy for Carol not to have worked. Especially in the decade the show was airing in! Women's Lib was in full force. For Mike to support a wife, six kids and Alice was really heroic on his salary.

I grew up during the original run of "The Brady Bunch." Even in the early 1970s, it was still unusual to have a mom that worked outside of the home. Of all my friends at school, only one had a working mom (she was a nurse). So of course it was at her house that we all gathered for our illicit parties and stuff, since neither Mom nor Dad wouldn't be home until about 6:00. :lol:

TV Guy
10-25-2004, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by magellan333
Mrs. Brady should have worked (even if it was pro-bono or volunteer work).


Well, she did volunteer to work on the no-smoking committee with that cranky, uptight Mrs. Johnson. She was also a member of the PTA, and helped with Marcia's school play. She had some hobbies: sculpting (remember Mr. Brady's head?), writing (for "Today's Woman" magazine) and photography (in the UFO episode). In addition, she enjoyed making strawbery preserves, getting acting tips from her friend Myrna Carter, and talking on the phone with her friends Martha and Ellie. So I'd say she had a pretty full life.

Alicia Blair
10-30-2004, 07:35 AM
I never really thought about their financial status,just goes to show that its not really important.In my humble opinion,it seemed like they lived comfortably and i guess they had abit of money becuase all the brady kids minus greg and peter had braces.

MistyDoll
11-20-2004, 10:13 AM
Growing up, I thought the Brady House was a "mansion" and I wanted to live there!:) I bet now, that house would be worth alot more today, if they decided to sell it! If I had the money, I would definitely buy it!:)

rich2
11-20-2004, 11:50 AM
The house would have been fine if they had only had 2 children. But with 6? It was more like abuse. I'm surprised the kids didn't grow to resent Alice for having her own quarters.

It's as if they were FORCING their kids to make a life on their own. If any of them wanted more room than they had, fine. They would just need to make good grades, go to college and fend for themselves.

It was especially true for the older kids.

TV Guy
11-20-2004, 02:22 PM
Sharing a room with two siblings is "abuse"? It's lucky you weren't born 50 years ago, when bigger families were the norm. My grandmother had 10 siblings and my grandfather had 8. I don't think they got their own rooms, either, but they still had pretty fond childhood memories.

And the whole point of raising kids is helping them to become self-sufficient so they can go off on their own and make lives for themselves.

rich2
11-20-2004, 04:18 PM
My grandparents slept in the same bed with their siblings. But the difference was that they were poor. Mr Brady could have afforded a bigger house.

It's different if the kids know their parents are withholding from them.

TV Guy
11-20-2004, 04:52 PM
Withholding? Because they had to share rooms? With six college tuitions in front of him, it might not have made financial sense to buy a bigger house. He and Carol also had their retirement to think of. And don't forget, in "To Move or Not to Move", Mike chose not to sell the house and buy a bigger place because the kids didn't want to move. He and Carol were ready to go.

To imply that the Brady kids, who lived in a beautiful home with a maid, were abused in any way is just plain silly, if you ask me.

rich2
11-21-2004, 12:26 AM
I was being facetious when I said "abuse". It's just a sitcom.

As far as the house goes, it was really not that big. It looked big the way they shot it, but there was not much there. The entire 2nd floor consisted of 3 bedrooms. That's really small.

Plus, none of the kids had an opportunity for any privacy whatsoever. Where could they go if they just needed to get away from the madness for a few minutes? Not the bedroom. Not the den either, because it was near a major passage/entrance to the house. Everything was so open downstairs.

Look at the Waltons. They were poor but they had a huge amount of land they lived on.

falc04
12-04-2004, 09:21 AM
Well, they lived in the same neighborhood as the CEO of Prescott Toys, so they must have been reasonably well off....

Belair
12-13-2004, 09:19 PM
Was there a toilet in that house?

Vegas Girl
12-14-2004, 09:41 AM
Yeah, they flushed it....once.

Belair
12-21-2004, 01:49 PM
Wow :)