shipperx

Unlike many in this forum, I like Regina redemption and root for her happy ending. I was also sad that Robin died and Regina lost her love interest. That said, I don't think the story has been about Hook and Emma stealing Reginas happy ending. Emma went 'Dark One' to give Regina a shot at her Happy e E ding. And Hook died because of the Dark One plot (and Rumple). This isnt a zero sum game. One character's 'happy end' doesn't preclude another's. And Regina has had several happy and heroic moments ( and hook and Emma have had multiple angst arcs in a row). Itll ok balance in the end . And I bet Regina eventually does get a happy ending as an ending. It actually isn't a contest.

It seems to me that this only proves that Belle is a dimwitted train wreck. In this episode she discovers that her husband murdered her ex and it honestly didn't bother her much. She also saw her husband be utterly contemptuous of the idea of remorse for murdering her ex and again she mostly doesn't care. Yet she couldn't forgive Gaston for being cruel to an ogre which--bad-- but in comparison to Rumple is...well...Rumple tortured Robin Hood and she got over that in a nano second, and she didn't blink at Rumple xhopping off (and keeping) Hooks hand, and Rumple murdering his wife (the first time), and his beating of the Sheriff of Nottingham, and his taking Hooks heart last year, and his killing the guy he sold her baby to, and, and, and endlessly and. And Gaston apparently did try to change and got murdered by Rumple for trying to help HER when she had been sold to the beast. So what exactly makes Rumple more forgivable than Gaston? Or it okay that Rumple has no problem deciding to murder Gaston again? And what on the frakking earth is the show doing claiming that Rumps is just being pragmatic when he decides it's okay to murder people to get what he wants? Rumps is a narcissistic siciopath and Belle his hypocritical enabler. Blech in both of them.

OMG, Belle is too stupid to live. Seriously. What part of her being tricked into killing the same guy twice results in her hugging Rumple? No sense whatsoever, either in the plot or in Belle's head. At this point I can't even pity her for being with an irredeemable monster. She's codependent with him. Bleh. (And OMG, how did she not manage any shock at his arranging to murder her ex? Bet she wouldn't care that he murdered HIS ex a second time either!)

I wasn't particularly perplexed by Edith's line of 'who do you think you're speaking to? Mama". Let's remember the haircut scene last season where Mary told the grieving Edith that Edith 'ruins everything' and Cora's response was... Well she did tell Edith not to be unfair. And yet I don't think it's about Cora favoritism. I think Cora is used to turning a blind eye to certain behaviors (such as the Mary attitude about Americans). I think that Cora sees herself as a devoted loving mother... And when the girls were growing up she probably left discipline to the Nanny. Cora very simply very rarely put her foot down. Mary probably interprets it as weakness. Edith probably views is as favoritism. It's not probably neither one or the other but a combination of Cora's coping mechanisms + the aristocratic child rearing mores if the time. B

I didn't take it as such. I took it as the author said she intended it --as an Austen Sense and Sensibilty comparison. In that book the sisters and their romances portray different sorts of romances (rewatched the Emma Thompson version recently, boy was Hugh Grant a boring drip in it.). Anyway, bookwise, both romances were intended to work (albeit with a bit of slight of hand). It wasn't just one sister triumphing by comparison (interpret triumph however you would like). Mary can and has had successful romance (see: Matthew), but this romance hasn't worked for many viewers, including some decided Mary partisans. It is not simply a case of people who don't much care for Mary being I unpersuaded. Some unabashed Mary fans have had problems with it, also. I personally think that part of the issue is that Talbot hasn't been developed very much as a character. But that's just my opinion. It's not inherently a problem to have a cool romantic lead (which is what Mary and Talbot appear to be intended as). It's that this romance didn't quite gel for many viewers --including many Mary fans. I was trying to think of a comparison and thought of Katherine Hepburn's 'ice goddess' in The Philadelphia Story, but when I thought of that I realized that parallel may have been what Fellowes was striving for with Blake and Gillingham ( pick who is Cary Grant and who is Jimmy Stewart). Honestly since Dockery was successful in the Mary Matthew romance I tend to think most of the hiccups are due to writing. I usually assume she's giving the performance she is intended to give.

A Dr Who Doomsday comparison isn't a particularly bad thing for this Once situation. It's been a while but, as I remember it, it was basically that Rose and the Doctor wound up in different dimensions. (In Who plot it was Rose's exit from the show, but she wound up with the alternate 'human' Doctor). Here I would think just do setup it's that Emma and Hook are 'in different dimensions' parallel. (Though in Doomsday they made it look like Rose could never show up again, she did in fact appear again at a later date). At any rate better Doomday's Rose scenario than what happened to Who's Donna (which I will never forgive) which was to have her memory permanently erased.

I tend to think of it a bit as the last temptation of Edith. Here she is, the woman of perpetually doomed romances and there's this guy who loves her and wants her. And it's the fairytale ending. She knows the truth will jeopardize that. She understands the need to tell the truth but she's seduced by 'just one moment more' then another 'just one moment more' then another. She procrastinates too long. And Mary steals the march and blows it up in the worst possible way. Spitefully. Edith is aware that it was her own fear and cowardice that she hadn't told Bertie, thus leaving the window of opportunity open for Mary's bitchery. Edith admits her fault to Bertie. She knows she was wrong and understands his position when he says he can't trust her. She does get that and accepts the blame for that. And none of that exonerates Mary. Yes, betweenEdith and Bertie, Edith made the (humanly) weak choice. He deserved to know and she dragged her feet to the point that even she is fuzzy about when she might have found the courage to come clean. That's all Edith's responsibility. But Mary deliberately blew things up in an arch and cruel manner out of pure maliciousness. THAT is Mary's character fault. She didn't 'cost' Edith Bertie. She did, however, intentionally harm her sister over breakfast. So Mary is responsible for her intent because that was Mary's choice and it was petty, vindictive, and cruel. And then she tried to play innocent (even though no one was buying). Edith admits her fault in regards to Bertie. She doesn't try to defend her actions. She accepted her part of this. But Mary tried to play innocent when everyone but the butler knows she's a bully where Edith is concerned, and, yes, she was deliberately out to harm Edith's relationship. That malice of intent is on Mary alone. Edith is responsible for her relationship with Bertie, but Mary is responsible for her own malice.

This relates to one of the things that makes the Mary/Talbot relationship seem so very plot mechanics as opposed to a love story. I was utterly baffled when Mary summoned Talbot to Downton to tell him she was okay to marry him now ... And he came. Why? Oh I know the explanation is that it's Downton Abbey and she is the star and this is the star location. But character-wise it just doesn't work and makes Talbot a chess piece rather than a character. If it were character he would have a POV. From his POV he fell for someone who hates his career, fears it, and also looks down on him for his lack of title and station. She breaks up with him over the phone the day his friend died. Then when he reaches out to her, she makes a lot of noise about titles and station, tells him she doesn't want him and tells him that he should leave. So a few days later she summons him to travel to her house. And he goes. What? Why should he be the one traveling to her summons? Why is she required to make no gesture and make no effort to regain a relationship? It's as lazy as expecting Edith to offer the olive branch rather than Mary making any effort of her own to heal the breach. One of the problems with Mary inside the story and in the meta is privilege. Her station has privilege. That's a given. And she's well aware of her station (see: many of her words this episode). Then she has privilege within the family dynamic. Most detrimentally as far as the writing goes is the privilege bestowed by Fellowes favorite. Because of this, the scene of Robert, Cora, and Rosamund chastising her is interrupted by something else, and everyone is ultimately about HER happy endin (however we the audience feels about the pairing. In the writing it's meant to be 'big love'). It's why Talbot arrives when summoned and is instantly on board with a wedding despite her behavior and despite to entirety of her 'winning him back' was summoning him to her turf. Same with Edith. Mary may have realized she crossed the line, but then she did nothing. The olive branch was offered by Edith coming to HER and Edith saying pax, and Edith wishing Mary happiness and reassuring Mary. Very, very little is ever required of Mary. Her parents can't voice much criticism, Livia conveniently dies to pave the way for Mary. Discarded suitors promptly arrive when beckoned and are happy to be friends (or to insta marry her) whatever her behavior without her ever making much effort to win their good will and Edith arrives to wish Mary love and happiness in the same episode where Mary quite spitefully resented and plotted against Edith's love and happiness. Mary isn't required to make much actual effort, and this is a problem in writing. If Fellowes wanted me to care about the Mary/Talbot romance he should have given Talvot a POV. And any reasonable POV after Mary's behavior would have entailed her actually doing more to win a happy ending than summoning him be phone call and him complying and wanting to insta marry her. He has virtually no character development in this scenario at all.

They didn't. Which in its own way is more damning. Each independently drew the same conclusion that if Mary knew the truth she would use the information to hurt Edith. One person thinking she'd behave badly can be dismissed as simply bias. But when everyone thinks so, it's a tell.

Where exactly is an unmarried young woman in 1914 supposed to go? Really, is her breathing while still in the same room supposed to be some sort of offense?On a slightly different topic, I've always disagreed with the assumption that things were supposedly fine or acceptable between them until the show started. That's not the way that screenwriting is supposed to work. When you are introduced to characters in screen writing the idea is to introduce them by showing what is situation normal for the characters. So were introduced to Downton with Mary not really giving a rip about her dead fiancé while her parents immediately start in on who will marry Mary. Edith is described (by her parents and in front of her) as not having 'taken' during the social season (i.e. She failed to impress anyone--admirer or her parents). She's the dowdy sister who crushed on the dead guy, not that the dead guy apparently ever noticed. Mary is introduced and described by their parents as the social superior, the catch, and as the center of familial attention and Edith told she has no particular advantages or attractions to speak of. This is simply their 'normal'. The thing that shakes up is that with Patrick dead, Mary is no longer guaranteed next countess because suddenly Matthew is the new heir. Screen writing 101-- situation normal then introduce a new catalyst for plot. So the sibling pecking order and behaviors predate episode one, then Patrick, Pamuk, and Matthew situations shake things up.

I did a double-take when served beans and sausage for breakfast at a B&B in Stratford Upon Avon in the late '80s.

[quote name="Andorra" post="1932827" { The only "deeper" conversation between Sybil and Edith, that we see, is in season 2, when Sybil tells her she is much nicer than before the war. To me that is telling. The main thing that tells me is that Mary is the primary protagonist of the show and it comes with a hefty dose of protagonist privilege. She gets to participate in more storylines. We see her get a haircut or going to a pointless fashion show when we don't even get to see Sybil and Tom's wedding or Edith being told of Michael's death. We have the who gets Mary's hand sweepstakes for two years but Tom doesn't actually get a love interest. Mary gets more airtime period. It doesn't surprise me in the least when she gets more oppportunity to interact with other characters when it is not directly related to her own story while nearly everyone else is confined and defined by their own storyline alone or as part of Mary's foil/sidekick. That's just the way protagonist privilege works. Mary is Fellowes favorite toy in the toy box.

By the time Marigold comes of age it will be WWII and their whole worlds will have changed, so it's difficult to say.

Martha had money. She lives in Newport, home is jaw droppingly huge mansions. It was just that she's a widow and it was tied into her son's inheritance. Cora got her dowry. Everything else would go to the son after the widow died.

Re: the 'drab' coat (that wasn't drab). Am I the only one who laughed and thought 'of course it did' when it was a perfect color match for the hat and harmonized with the dress? I did feel for Baxter having been unilaterally volunteered to alter a coat at 10pm the night before a wedding, though. Re: tv shows and simplifying professions, Edith editing a magazine on the fly couldn't be any more egregious than How I Met Your Mother's Ted designing a sky scraper on his own, without even an intern to help, and without structural, mechanical, plumbing and civil engineers....on a drafting table in his living room! Same with architecture. You don't get thanks, time off, or overtime for working late, even until the wee hours. You do it. That is all. It's a deadline and you do whatever it takes. Nights, weekends, etc. That's just some industries' cultures.