shipperx

I think it's a tad more complicated than simply a reaction to Mary. And there was more than one source for the rumors of Mary and Paruk. It also got out below stairs with servants gossip ...which in no way justifies or ameliorates what Edith did. Just noting that Richard still stood the possibility of finding out via other established within the show routes. Nor would Richard have ever have been in the situation at all had Mary not hesitated with Matthew over the entailment issue. She would have had to have told Matthew the truth about Pamuk regardless and he accepted it when she did anyway. Richard only got into the situation once she became his social climbing marital prospec, which wouldn't have happened had Mary not delayed accepting matthew over the entailment. I can feel sorry for Mary's quandary but she had a hand in it. It cannot ALLLLL be laid at Edith's feet. In a more general way, though I wish to note there's a qualitative difference between denying there were mistakes and having compassion for mistakes that were made. It's possible to see and understand characters making bad decision and to not justify those decisions and yet to STILL have compassion for them and their mistakes, pointing to the context. Mary was reckless to sleep with Pamuk. I would however cringe and become indignant at any poster calling her a whore or slut over it. I had/have compassion about the sexist/misogynist societal dictates that would consider her 'ruined' ...because what a demeaning, repugnant judgement that without her hymen she was 'less worthy' than she had been before. If Matthew had refused her I would have thought 'what a dick! He doesn't love her and she deserves better'. And had she been pregnant and gone down Edith's path, I would have felt sorry for her and wanted things to turn out better for her. None of which means that I think Mary didn't make a mistake with Pamuk, just that I see the more broad context and could feel compassion and outrage over the societal strictures that would judge her 'damaged goods' Just as I felt for the grasping maid who slept with the soldier at Downton and who got pregnant and then had to turn to prostitution and was cornered into giving up her child to the jerk soldier's parents--who had oreviously refused to aid the child. The maid made many bad decisions but in the greater context was more sinned against than sinning, and I felt for her. Similarly, I can see Edith's mistakes-- many of them. They are there and need not be denied, but I can have compassion for them because I also acknowledge the context within which they are made. It's okay to feel compassion even when you recognize a character is making reckless, poor, or bad decisions.

No, 19 is old enough to know what she was doing. It was mean and vindictive and Mary had just cause to be pissed. Edith was being childish, jealous, and knew what she was doing it. Its deserving of censure. But juvenile behavior in a 19-20 year old is more forgivable in the age range of being a college co-ed than in a 30+ year old mother who has had a decade more of life experience including real losses, tragedies, and war which should go a ways toward adjusting perspective and priorities. Maturity isn't age. Its life experience, and there's been a great dealbof it imparted to both Mary and Edith since season 1.

Mary was 21 during the Pamuk incident. So, unless they're twins, Edith would have, at most, barely been 20. Given that Sybil was 17, I tend to guess that Edith was 19 simply to allow Cora a breather between births, but no hard age was given for Edith unlike Mary who was stated in one of the Downton tie-in books to have been 21 in season 1. And I side-eye the blaming Edith with the entirity 8 years of 'torment'. I grant Mary had reason to be pissed with Edith over the letter and it could have caused much trouble. Could have. But the scandal never metasized. It was quashed. Regardless, Mary still had grounds to be pissed. It didn't make Mary wholly reluctant to marry, though, she willingly.got engaged to Richard. As for Matthew, if the claim is that Mary first turned him down over not wanting to confess that she wasn't a virgin, well Edith had nothing to do with that. Mary slept with Pamuk, by her own account, of her own choice. Edith wrote a letter after the fact to create a scandal that never materialized. There was no scandal, just an absent virginity. The actual absence of virginity had nothing to do with Edith. If Mary was in 'torment' over her lack of virginity and her needing to tell a fiance, that was a problem of her own creation. Yes, Edith was bitchy about it and made snide judgements and attempted to cause a scandal. Mary has grounds to be pissed, but Edith didn't cause Mary to sleep with the guy, losing her virginity, or not to tell Matthew about it. And the impression was that Mary turned him down over the uncertainty of his.becoming an Earl at Rosamund's other well meaning but asshatted advice. Cora and Violet thought Mary turned him down over the issue of the Downton entail. Offended, Matthew became engaged to Lavinia and Mary to Richard and Edith had nothing to do with that either. Losing her virginity, not telling Matthew, holding off on accepting over the issue of the entailment, and becoming engaged to Richard were not based on Edith's letter but on Mary having had sex with a one night stand and her wish to have a certain financial security.

Granted I know Greek Orthodox not Russian Orthodox (because to become a godparent for my niece I had to 'convert') but they're loosely related within the Orthodox Church. In 1980s they still wouldn't allow divorce within the church (they'd turn a blind eye to divorces *outside* the church, but thats not within the church.) One assumes the marriage of the Russian prince and princess would be within the church, so while a civil divorce would be possible it would never have been acknowledged by their religion with his being allowed to remarry (not that I could see Violet agreeing to convert in the first place and, much like needing to convert to be a god parent, they require conversion to marry as well.)

Truly no one at Downtown is being shunned at Downton. Her grandparents have accepted Marigold and all the servants depend on the Crawleys for their jobs. If school is uncomfortable, when she's older the Swiss boarding school option still exists as does her grandmother in New York, and by the time she's 18 it will be WWII and there are bigger things to being concerned about than being born on the wrong side of an aristocrat's blanket. Marigold will have a doting mum, will be heir to a newspaper, and have a grandparent and first cousin who are/ will be peers. There have been children who have thrived through greater adversity than that.

I wouldn't think that the Prince could get a divorce. He'd almost certainly be Russian Orthodox, not Anglican, and I don't think that they granted or recognized divorce.

Robert loves Edith and wouldn't consciously hurt her, but that's not at all the same as never treating her unfairly. He sat at a breakfast table and said no one would want her opinions except that she had his name. He laughed at the 'destined to take care of us' inevitable spinster hood and he sabotaged her chance at marriage. Now, I attribute none of this to malice. Nor do I take any of it to mean that he doesn't love her. But it doesn't take ill intent to be 'unfair' and it doesn't take an absence of love to allow biases to influence your actions. Robert loves Edith but he's got blind spots and flaws that have led him to say and do things that have harmed Edith's self esteem and influenced a family dynamic that has caused problems for both Edith and Mary. I just don't think he does it with ill intent nor is he conscious of it. He means well but sometimes he's a donk. I also think Violet and Rosamund 'meant well' but what it also amounted to was enforcing societal dictate (that is inherently sexist) to pressure Edith into giving up her child by telling her what was 'acceptable' to do. But I cannot think.it was 'best' for Marigold to be shipped to boarding school to prevent scandal. Nor was it to Edith's mental or emotional well being. It was about what conformed to the strictures of what would be 'accepted' when if that had been in a vacuum, removed from those slutshaming societal forces, Edith never would have given up the child in the first place. That's the point of comparisons to the present in the arguments. With out the pressures of scandal and shunning, etc. Edith's entire situation would be different. A large part of what created the whole 'give up/take back the baby' debacle were the forces of conformity working to convince Edith that she had no real options, that the only 'right' choice was to give yhe baby away. And, with good hearts, Violet and Rosamund were acting as agents of society urging conformity. Honestly to whose actual good was the option of Marigold being sent to boarding school? Certainly not Marigolds nor Edith's.

I don't know, the general contempt seems genuine (and gratuitous) to me, though with less unpff this episode than usual and thus a tad softer than her norm. I tend to think of a line from 'The Lion in Winter' where John says to his brothers that they 'wouldn't piss on me if I was on fire'.

I've had the feeling all along that much if not all of the motivation for Kuragin's determined pursuit of Violet is the return to the lifestyle to which he's accustomed. If he were to snag Violet, he'd be back to aristocratic circles, servants, dinner parties and a nicely appointed dower house. And he'd probably pinch housemaids bottoms. If Violet were the type who hated to live alone or was needy of male attention, maybe the cost/benefit analysis would add up. As things stand though, she doesn't need this crap. It's not like he would bring all that much life improvement to her. It's flattering to have him say he wants her, but it's not something to truly consider in the long term.

Andorra, if that's unpopular, I'll unpopular right along with you. I find Moseley quite endearing.

Rose's reception dress was lovely. Loved. And this is the most animated her fiancé has been. He actually looked quite cute and not like a Mary suitor clone for once. Rose's father was sweet and her mother vile (and stupid). All in all, a nice diversion. I totally ship Mosely and Baxter. For all of Moseleys flaws he has a good heart. I do not want Tom to go! He serves a purpose in humanizing Crawleys. While I don't think Thomas was being intentionally predatory, he definitely was attracted to the temporary footman. They really need to find someone gay for him. He needs to get laid. I simply don't get Mary's thing for gratuitously insulting Edith. What is the point? I understand not being close. I get it. But Mary cracks out with totally needless, unprovoked insults at utterly random intervals. Why? Makes no sense to me and isnt nearly as 'witty' or 'amusing' as she thinks. I'm torn though on the scene with Mary and Carson. On the one hand, I do enjoy his blind loyalty to her. It's a well established thing and a believable aspect of him. Plus, I enjoy glimpses of human Mary. She's there somewhere under the priviledge and sang froid. On the other hand, I rolled my eyes a little at the writing where at the very first moment that she experiences discomfort, someone arrives to tell her she is, of course, the grandest, most awe some thing on earth. Honestly, while Carson thinks she's at least twice as good as Gilliham, I don't know that I believe that... Not that Gilliham is awesome. He dumped his fiancé to sex up Mary. On the other hand, Mary was all for it until she decided to toss the fish back in the pond. The difference seems to be that Gilliham actually had greater affection for and more honorable intentions toward Mary than she did for him. But no harm no foul as its's a blessing for them to part ways. But Mary didn't come off looking twice as good as Gilliham. They came off roughly as equals. (Still not sure why Mabel Lane took him back. I hope groveling was involved). Oh and I got Mary Tom vibes. Hope they don't go that route. Like the friendship. Don't want a romance there. Good episode for Donk. I thought his gesture for Mrs Patmore was very sweet. I'm glad he and Cora reconciled and his little smile when Cora laid the smack down on the bitchy lady talking about their acceptance of the Sinderbys by Cora pointing out that her father was Jewish. And I thought his comments about Marigold were subtly done, especially for him. Plus, his playing shoots and ladders with Sybbie. Sweet. I like his character because on the one hand he can be such an oblivious head up his ass Donk. But deep down, for all his flaws, he actually does care... Not that he doesn't deserve the occasional shaking.

I think it's far more simple and oblivious than that. She knew the accusation that she was flirting with Mr. Drewe was false so she dismissed it. It's a lack of seeing things from someone else's'so point of view, so it absolutely is entitlement...but I don't know that it's specifically classist. A lot of people have difficulty seeing situations from another's point of view. Fan forums are full of them. In Edith's head it was simple. It wasn't true. therefore not relevant even though from Mrs Drewe's POV it was abslutely relevant. (Mrs. Drewe is also guilty of this sin. See the explanations of her going to Cora for (theories abound) be it concern that Edith is a dilletante (after discovering that Edith is bio mom and thus her interest in marigold explained) or (alternate theory) she went to Cora in hopes that Cora would be horrified of possible scandal and (mrs Drewe would hope) Cora pressure Edith to return to the prior status quo) or embarrassing Edith before Rosamund, an action which would only exacerbate tensions with their landlord because that's the way public embarrassing backlash works, and thus unlikely to help mrs drew's own situation in the long term even without knowing the truth, to ripping up a birth certificate in the face of a bio mom). People easily blind themselves to how things look through the other person's eyes. We usually feature as hero or heroine within our own view of what's going on. It's empathy that is the challenging bit. In general I tend to lean on the old axiom to not attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by obliviousness. Btw Mary could care less. If she had no feeling she would not stop Edith on her way out the door to demand she give her opinion then call her a buzzkill, or make denigrating comments regarding Edith --sometimes for no real reason-- or to strike back to 'even a score' by lying to Strallen. If Mary truly 'could not care less' there would be less biting snark... Which isn't to say she cares much either. Just that there must be something there, otherwise there would be more silence and fewer put-downs. (Plus, given Mary snagging two other women's fiancés, why is she being acquitted of the 'need to triumph over the competition?' If one is of the bent to do so, a similar case could be made for her, and it even might explain the 'could care less' quirk, because the 'caring' isn't affection).

I would think Edith is the owner not the managing editor. Because she was given ownership doesn't mean that she is running the day to day reporting, editing, or management. Murdoch does not show up every morning at Fox News Channel to speak to the AM host imbeciles. He has Roger Ailes sending out the memos. If he were hands on he wouldn't have gotten out of the UK wiretapping scandal by pointing lower down the totem pole to take the fall. Even in the 1920s Randolf Hurst wasn't doing all the day to day management. He had to have time to bang Marian Davies at San Simeon. The owner is not always nor even usually managing editor. If old enough. think of the old Newspaper show Lou Grant and remember Lou and that other guy ran the paper while Mrs Pinchon owned the place, or more contemporary think of The Newsroom and Jane Fonda's character versus Sam Waterston's. Edith can be as hands on --or not -- as she wants to be.

Question: until Gregson left Edith the newspaper did she have the financial independence to dare all of society and strike out on her own? The threat of being disowned was real (albeit since they want us to like them, unlikely they'd actually do that to Robert) I cannot remember, did he cut Sybil off financially when she married Tom? I know he didn't see her for a year and he threatened to disown her before backing down. But the question remains. As a single woman, her finances are at her father's behest because at that time she might be an adult but she was still a family dependent as that was the social and legal status of women. As it was things were being financed through the widowed Rosamund and Violet, who made it clear what the 'solution' should be. It's all well and good to demand that Edith defy society and risk her place in the family, but was she in a financial place to do so before Gregson left her with financial means? If she had dared the truth and Robert had even a Sybil level partial hissyfit, how would she have managed all of the particulars? She would be either desperate or begging family to pay her way, in which case she's back to being dependent on what they thing the solution should be. It isn't 2015. Defiance of family and society carried a bigger weight pre feminism.

Honestly though, why would anyone care enough to 'figure it out'. Edith's own family barely cared enough to figure it out. Edith is hardly a social butterfly or an important figure in society. As to the village I assume they'll end up much like Anna and Mrs Hughes. They know good and darn well what's going on better than Edith's family. But it's all put to rest within the family and they've papered over the naughty bits with a fig leaf cover story. Yes, there will be whispers and winks, but the Crawley family basically owns the village, no one (save Mrs Drewe) is going to go to the trouble of openly calling it out. Too much risk for too little reward. It'll be something whispered behind people's hands occasionally but it's not like it effects any of them. The title aristocratic crowd is far more likely to say anything out in the open. The Larry and Daryl Merton's of the world would be mean... But it's not like spinster Edith was on their radar much to begin with. To quote BtVS most would be 'paralyzed by not caring very much'. It'll most like reside in the open secret territory where people will wink and nudge and gossip but if the family doesn't shame and censure her, it'll become old news because it truly affects very few people. What could work story wise is to finally give Edith a suitor. Sooner or later she'd have to out herself and Marigold to him and depending on who he is that could have various forms of fall out. Additionally Mary needs something at stake in her own plot. The primary problem with Mary and her suitors is there is nothing at stake. She has everything she wants and even stuff she doesn't want. Someone mentioned the problem of a titled suitor with an estate of his own. That might not be a bad idea. Present her with an obstacle. She could fall for someone whose priority is not Downton. Then she would have something to angst about. Downton and George's future versus finally falling in love again. Obstacles: fiction needs them.

Again, I think the story has left out too many scenes and is written simplistically. The truth is that Mrs Drewe is a farm wife with four relatively small children and there was no reason to think she was actively seeking to adopt. Then her husband tells her that a heretofore unknown friend is leaving them a less than year old child. I think its generous to take in the baby into her home and heart, but I think casting it as all cuddles and giggles and soft baby smells is unrealistic. There would have been harried, rushed days when nerves frayed and frustration rose and small siblings with occasional resentments of the baby requiring attention alrewdy split between four. I'm not saying that it wasn't a very fine home or an unhappy situation or that it couldnt work because history is full of large fsmilies. But I do think it's naive to think a hardworking turn of the century mother with four children of her own would be without moments of ambivalence, doubt, and frustration at the introduction of a young child she didn't seek who needs a great deal of attention. It's human. I am NOT saying she didn't love or cherish Marigold or that she would be happy to lose the child she took care for most of a year. Clearly that is not the case. I just think we've been shown the situation in a simplistic outline fashion devoid of much nuance. There were scenes that would have allowed us greater insight into these people (all of them) that we were not given, leaving us to fill in too many vague unknowns with projection and supposition.

I don't think they said Gregson left everything to Edith. I think they said he left her the newspaper. I'm not 100% positive bit that was the impression. Regardless even if he left Edith the bulk of it there's no reason to believe there isn't a trust for the wife. Since we've been told she's incompetent and institutionalized her finances would most likely be controlled by a trust and a lawyer or executor.

Mary's haircut doesn't strike me as flattering. It gives her a fivehead. And I wonder what the point is in emphasizing Mary's severity. Is it set up for future plot? I'm not talking of her utter disdain for Edith as that's totally normal at this point. I'm talking about the way they are having dialog pointing out negative traits. We have one of the suitor twins pointing out that she doesn't actually want Tony but she doesn't want him to not want HER either. Then there's the so wrong headed it's amusing moment where Mary completely misunderstands Isobel. Isobel never in the history of ever looked to Violet as a pattern card to follow. She and Violet have been friends because they secretly enjoy the back and forwarth, they know how not to push it too far, and they enjoy sitting on the sidelines making commentary. Isobel doesn't have an iota of subservient worship in her re the Dowager. If she did... The two of them wouldn't be friends. The alternative universeness of Mary's thought process here actually reminded me of her wacky plan to get further support from her disrespected American grandmother by thinking to show how essential they are by throwing a dinner party. Um, Mary, American Grandma lives in Newport. Conspicuous consumption isn't going to be a new concept for her. And they have the Dowager point out Mary's disinclination for compassion. That's a little on the nose piece of dialog saying the severity is deliberate. Coupled with a severe hair cut to style it up and I'm wondering whether upcoming love interest number whatever is planned to 'humanize' Mary again the way that Matthew did. They know they are painting her severe and brittle. ( a little genuine humor and not just snark would go a long way) Re: Mrs Drewe, I agree with Nilyank that she was probably there to tattle to get Edith shamed by the family... But it's a total guess because as usual we don't get the scenes. We never do. We basically get to make up our own story because they don't show us. For instance, I'm not sure where Mrs Drewe's reputation as a saintly Madonna comes from. We are given no scenes of her and the children on her own or of the family life, just her shewing Edith away. Rewatching last week, I still can't shake the feeling about mrs Drewe's macro complaint about Edith as Bored dilletante Being an inversion of Mrs Drewe's specific complaints about Edith being there too often or Mrs Drewe's reaction to Edith babysitting by flying into near hysterics and searching the premises as though Edith had run off with her. Contrary to her words, she was fearful of Edith being too attached and there too often. I still can't help thinking that deep down somewhere Mrs Drewe knew Marigold was Edith's biological child and that MRs Drewe was being defensive and possessive because of it. (And I still rather gasped at her shredding the birth certificate. I understand her anger and desperation but it disturbed me to see her angrily shred an important --and likely cherished-- document. ) But... I make no claims that there's any text supporting any of this. No one has to buy the theory. I think the whole thing is written so sparely as to be a near Rorschach pattern. We see more what we bring to it than has actually been shown. We've never seen Mrs Drewe acting on her own rather than serving as an obstacle to story, therefore I hesitate to assign her selfless Madonna saintliness or overly possessive paranoia. We were never given enough information about her to draw informed conclusions about her as an individual or much if any clue to her motivations. I don't begrudge Mrs Drewe anger and bitterness, and if she went to Cora to make trouble... Well, I can understand that. Conversely, if I take a moment to stand in Edith's shoes, I can see why she does not have a positive impression of Mrs Drewe. The whole point of landing Marigold at Yew Tree Farm was so that Edith could see Marigold, but from the very first Mrs Drewe has been suspicious and defensive, accusing Edith of being a dilletante or resenting Edith's every arrival, often barring the door when Edith wanted to see Marigold most painfully after Edith learned Marigold's father had died ( not that Drewe knew it but that was Edith's emotional state) . There's never been a single scene where Mrs Drewe has been pleasant to Edith and this despite the fact that Edith's family went above the call of duty to allow the Drewe's the chance to assume Mr. Drewe's father's farm despite the Drewe's debt, Edith giving Mr Drewe support money for Marigold, and Edith offering yet more--this time public-- support as Marigold's benefactor, and yet never has there been a scene where Mrs Drewe was less than openly resentful. Now, as a viewer, I do understand and sympathize with Mrs Drewe's feelings. If I were Edith, however, Mrs Drewe would appear very offputting and rude... Because that is the only attitude Mrs Drewe has shown her. Ever. Annnnyway.... Loved Tom's scenes with both Sybbie and Robert. And his calling out Merton's asshole sons. Would have liked to have seen the scene with Cora and Mrs Drewe. Enjoyed Mosely and Baxter, and the Bates really could do with listening to Baxter for a moment. It want their best look. And as a dog lover, I totally understood Ribert's reactions even though As a TV viewer I may have laughed at his immediate 'maybe we should cancel the dinner' in the wake of it not being an option over the Gregson death announcement or Edith going MIA. I mean, I totally get it. If it were my dog dying, I'd be an emotional wreck and wouldn't have the dinner either. I get it. But the juxtaposition amused me. Poor Isis. I want puppies! Overall I thought this one of the better episodes of the season. It seemed a bit more balanced with airtime for a variety of characters.

I was referring to Cora's Jewish connection being brought up within the context of Atticus and the Sinderby's. When Atticus had to admit to a Jewish heritage in front of Rose you saw an expression if relief on his face when Rose didn't even react. Given the mindset of many in that time and place, it is perhaps a concern on Atticus and his family just how accepted they might be. Bringing up Cora's background in that context would then be somewhat reassuring to Atticus that his pursuit of Rose will be accepted by the Crawleys. And I thought the Bates thing was weird because Anna's reaction superficially seemed to confirm that she actually was avoiding pregnancy because she thought he was a murderer, which wasn't the case and which Anna never clarified such that her husband believed her. He's left thinking she pulled an Erica Kane circa 1972 with her using birth control behind his back when husband thought they were trying to have a baby. Weird to leave it that way.

. Which was a weird set of scenes. I couldn't figure out what in the heck he was rummaging around for at first. Then When he confronted Anna with the contraception her response made it sound like she actually had worried about him being a murderer, and he never did believe her explanation. •sigh•. I remember when I enjoyed those two but now the pairing makes me sad. I do enjoy the Mosely and Baxter relationship these days though. And I wonder whether the Rose Atticus Sinderby situation will ever bring up the topic of Cora's rather Jewish sounding maiden name.

It's kind of pointless to wonder about Marigold's marital prospects since by the time she's twenty its more likely she'll be worrying about being killed in an air raid, most of the boys.in her age range run the risk of dying in any number of horrific ways be it evacuating Dunkirk or invading France. And Downton will either be sheltering soldiers or housing displaced orphans escaping the blitz. She could end up falling for an American soldier and moving to Ohio for all we could guess. At any rate it will be an entirely different world by then.

Edith has made stupid mistakes. All characters do, but is it really impossible to understand why she gravitated to Gregson? The show started with her mother and father saying she had shone far less than either of her sisters during their coming out Seasons. She had a crush on the man who everyone agreed was destined to marry Mary even though it was clear when he drowned on the Titanic that Mary couldn't have given less of a shit about him. But that was the way of Edwardian society. Mary is the eldest, she marrys first and it would be preferable that she marry Downton's heir so everything would be neat and tidy. It was unremarkable, but there you go. It was the way the world worked. Suck it up and accept the dictates of society. We also have her parents having the actually vocalized attitude that then 19 (20 at most) year old Edith is destined to still be living with them in their old age (i.e. 'who would want her/ destined to be a spinster') Her only suitor, who her parents initially chat up as a prospect for Mary, dumps her before the war, returns wounded from the war, and publicly dumps her at the altar, partly because of reasons that dont make all that much sense and are not entirely clear to her way of thinking, the same man her parents chatted up for Mary but who i now 'not a good marriage prospect for Edith.' So Edith gets the public humiliation of being dumped in the church on her wedding day. She writes a letter to the editor about women's right to vote and actually receives a reply from the editor. In contrast to her father saying to a room full of people that no one could truly be interested in her opinions, this guy encourages her to write, says she good at it, he thinks she has thoughts worth putting down, and he appears to like her. Hell, he appears to like to talk to her, and who else ever says that? He takes her out to nice restaurants and pays attention to her. He tells her she is sweet and lovely. He follows her to Scotland and tries to meet her family, withstanding her father's somewhat rude behavior. And despite said rude behavior, he rescues her father's pride. Then, when she sends him away because it would be 'wrong' to be with him even though his wife is institutionalized and has been for years, in contrast to the guy who dumped her at the altar for nebulous reasons, this guy continues to want her through resistance and adversity. He's even willing to go so far as to brave scandal and to go to another country to get a divorce to be with her, the universally acknowledged 'least attractive' 'least appealing' 'dreary' Crawley sister, the one her parents think destined to be a spinster, the one dumped at the altar so that the world knows 'he doesn't want her' (whatever the objective facts about it, that's what it had to feel like to her). And here is this guy looking at the 'plain' sister saying he loves her, that she's lovely, that she has opinions worth being listened to, that he desires her and wants to marry her and is willing to go through adversity to do so.... nope, nothing seductive or appealing about that. Nothing that might make a woman forget society and her scruples one evening by a fireside. Look, I'm not painting Gregson as a romance novel hero. He was dull and not superattractive. AHe was in a thorny situation with his marriage and at the very least should have used a damned French letter or newfangled rubberized condom! But I can see why he'd look great to Edith. We don't have to think she was smart or wise... or justified... or right to think that the loss of her virginity and her pregnancy fell firmly in the range of ordinary human folly.

Neither Mrs nor Mr Drewe were involved in that nor were they living at Downton at that time. The backstory for the Drewes began last season. Mr. Drewe's father died unable to pay the rent on the farm and Drewe's mother was being turned out. Mr. Drewe came home from wherever he'd been living that wasn't Downtown and begged the Crawleys for the chance to take over his father's farm and Robert gave Mr. Drewe the chance to take it over as a lesson to Mary and Tom about noblesse oblige. Part of the reason Mr. Drewe agreed to Edith's request was that he felt that he owed the Crawleys for giving him and his wife a chance to take over his dad's farm when his father had died behind in the rent and on the verge of being evicted. While I agree it's a lame ass Jane Eyre backstory that causes an audience to wait for another shoe to drop, it's long, long passed time for any shoe to have dropped. At this point, Occam's Razor applies (among competing hypotheses the one with the fewest assumptions applies). If Gregson had been lying then a even a quasi-competent not entirely crazy wife would have lodged some sort stink at being labled crazy, her husband moving to Germany to seek a divorce claiming her mental incomptence (because no fault divorces did not exist then. It would have required afadavits concerning her compromised state), his leaving another woman his power of attorney while he was gone (for about two years so far. A wife could have protested that, especially after he disappeared), her husband being missing for two years, and his leaving another woman his newspaper when he died. As TV viewers it makes sense why we would be suspicious, but the utter lack of any opposing evidence or total lack of any fallout or spousal backlash indicating that he was lying or even exaggerating means thst we pretty much have to accept it really was exactly as he stated. We have nothing in story contesting anything he said and no reason for the show to suddenly manufacture anything at this late date with Gregson dead.

I always remember Violet's summary of the situation (paraphrased) "if she turns him down when he might be poor, he may not want her when he might become rich."

St. Sybil was 17. Mary is about 30. Still I don't begrudge her the hair cut or the fabulous dress. It is somewhat juvenile (though Anna called it 'cruel' which seemed a bit much) to want to show up Mabel Lane after she stole her fiancé, sexed him up, and then tossed him back like a trout she decided was too small. And in an effort to make Gillingham and Blake 'see what they're missing' when Gillingham asked her to marry him and she spurned him and is actively directing him back to his ex. Plus add in Blake who lost the Marystakes to Gillingham who is getting the heave ho. It's all a bit Regina George 12th grade antics for a 30 year old woman. As to the scene twirling the haircut. No, she didn't consciously go out to hurt Edith. Edith didn't factor. Mary's plan was to look fabulous for the aforementioned Marystakes. That said, Edith's meltdown coming on the heels of 'very bad news' revealed that Edith was having a very bad, terrible, awful, no good day -- whether anyone else felt that way or not--and if Edith tearfully wants walk off, for God's sake let her. Lectures on what dreary buzzkill Edith happens to be don't have to pop out of ones mouth the moment one thinks it. It's okay to save the snark for amother day and let her slink off and cry on her own. There's no need to escalate.