Diffy

I'm confused. Perhaps I misunderstand you. I don't see a problem with anyone expressing offense at excessive sexual innuendo spoiling an otherwise good show like Top Chef. Those who are beyond sick of complaints about sexist remarks and innuendo and are offended by those complaints - DON'T READ them! I'm not sure why growing the Hell up has anything to do with it. I hope Top Chef improves the show by taking those legitimate complaints to heart and changing for the better.

There is so much so very wrong about Matt. He is a controlling disaster and an ugly piece of work. I'm rather mind-boggled at the thought that anyone could defend him, but so it goes. Matt = narcissist = run like hell = Amy finally clued up = Caryn (or however she spells her name) = fodder for Matt (whether she knows it or not.) The kids know and distance themselves even though they probably love him. He is their Dad. He must have a few good points but it is very hard to see them.

I love this show and still like Trixie but I am getting really bored with the Turners. Perhaps I'm the only one. I also hope that the show fleshes* out Valerie, Barbara, and Christopher characters as I agree they are all rather one note. Perhaps with the departures of the Patsy, Delia and Sister Mary Cynthia actors they will have the time to do that. I agree they should have spent more time on Patsy's back story too. * To "flesh out" - to add details as opposed to "flush out" - to clean something out with a flow of liquid. Think toilets. :)

The original book that inspired the series is called "Jambusters: The Story of the Women's Institute in the Second World War" by Julie Summers. It has been republished as "Homefires" and is a straightforward history, as dcalley said. I enjoyed it and recommend it but none of the fictional characters are in that book. One of the writers of the TV series, Bonnier Zaffre, is turning the TV series into novels. The first novel is called "Keep the Home Fires Burning." It will be published in ebook form first (beginning in July) and then in paperback later this year. http://www.savehomefires.com/books

Yes, absolutely, and Gerald Durrell apologized to his family for that portrayal. He really needed to apologize to poor Margo, in my opinion. He absolutely skewered her! Nit-picking here: My Family and Other Animals (and the rest of the trilogy) are not novels so much as they are fictionalized autobiography. "True" experiences with some things omitted, some things exaggerated, some composite characters, and some things absolute fiction - to make a cohesive narrative that people will read. It's rather like Laura Ingalls Wilder and the Little House books. I'm watching this series, as I have other attempts at fictionalizing the Durrells for TV, because the original books were so mesmerizing and in many ways so ahead of their time. The books were so funny, so open-minded, and so avant guard for the 1950s and 1960s when they were written. They sent the message that you can be weird, eccentric, irresponsible - and friends with gays because they are good people too. I'm looking forward to what this TV series does with the material but I may well criticize it a lot.

The Durrells were upper middle class, not upper class, and famously eccentric. The father was an engineer in the Raj (think "Indian Summers" and Anglo Indian families who had lived there for several generations). He died in his early 40s and left a substantial amount of money. Louisa returned to England briefly and bought a house in Bournemouth. They were miserable there after living in India so they moved to Corfu until WWII broke out and they returned to the UK. This TV version is exaggerating the money situation and making other changes that mildly annoy readers of Gerald Durrell's fictionalized autobiographical writings and is also inconsistent with real life facts. The Durrell family was fascinating, and fascinatingly dysfunctional in many ways. The children were quite young and irresponsible when they lived in Corfu. They first moved there when Gerry was 10, Margo was 15, Leslie only 18. Larry, who was married in reality at the time, was about 23. He was already a published poet when they moved to Corfu and became a very famous novelist. I'm slightly irritated that this version is so obsessed with Louisa's sex life, and quite annoyed that it felt the need to make Sven the gay accordion player straight. I also think the latest episode should have been more accurate when it comes to Dr. Theodore Stephanides who was rather an amazing person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Stephanides

Josh Duggars's downfall merely drew the attention of fans of the Duggar TV show to well known problems with Gothard's organization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gothard Gothard is still trying to be an active teacher and pastor although he is in the throes of his own scandals that are far bigger and predate Josh Duggar's disgrace by a long time. http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/oak-brook-religious-group-sued-over-sex-harassment-allegations/ and http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2016/january/more-women-sue-bill-gothard-iblp-alleging-sexual-abuse.html

Tom is a curate. He's ordained in the Church of England but is an assistant to the vicar (or rector) of the church until he gets assigned his own church. The difference between a vicar and a rector is mostly historically based. It has to do with whether the Bishop or the local aristocrat had the ability to appoint them to the specific "living" (church) and isn't relevant to the function. Curates, rectors and vicars are all parish priests. A vicar would be addressed as Vicar, a rector as Rector, and a curate as Mr. as the norm. A very high church Anglican might refer to them all as Father but not often. They can all also be addressed as Reverend So-and-So. If you also watch Grantchester - Leonard is Sidney's curate. That may have been more than you wanted to know.

You nailed it, darn you! I will never again watch Downton Abbey without thinking of Truman. Elizabeth McGovern's mid-Atlantic accent doesn't bother me and is probably normal for anyone like Cora (or Elizabeth for that matter) who has spent many years in England. It's the strange way she delivers her lines and that coy head tilt that drive me up the wall. Hold your head straight, woman!

This really made me howl with laughter because my mind was wandering in a very similar direction. Thanks. In my fantasy ending there were a couple of differences: Mary was the victim of a dastardly plot by Tom and Henry. Those two have secretly been in love for months having met in Boston at some US car rally. Henry doesn't care about Mary's past peccadillos with Pamuk and Lord Boringham, or her bitchiness, because she's only a beard! Edith decided that she missed a bullet over Bertie. He came over as a complete Mama's boy in this episode and his mother sounds like the mother-in-law from hell. Edith takes Marigold and goes to live in London where her magazine becomes a huge success. Edith sends Marigold to a good school where she learns more than French, prejudice and dance steps. Marigold goes on to Oxford University and becomes a Member of Parliament. She ends up as Prime Minister instead of Margaret Thatcher. Edith goes back to writing wonderful articles and books (her writing was how she got involved with Gregson in the first place back in Season 2.) She becomes a member of the Bloomsbury Group. They are such swingers they don't care about her being an unwed mother, and Edith has a series of wonderful affairs with intelligent and creative men who appreciate her for who she is. She finally settles down with someone much nicer and with more backbone than Bertie.

Men wearing wedding rings only became popular in WWII and probably more so in the US than the UK. The men in my family never wore wedding rings until they began to get more popular in the 1980s. As to class - the Duke of Edinburgh does not wear a wedding ring. Prince Charles wears one following his marriage to Camilla but did not during his first marriage. Prince Willian chose not to wear one, and there was a lot of press about it at the time. Good for Edith for finally showing she has a spine and firing the editor. I want to her to marry Bertie Pelham and ride happily off into the sunset with him taking Marigold with her. I also want to have Mary get her comeuppance, but then I never liked Mary.

I'd call him a Pacifist or Conscientious Objector, or perhaps even a Peacenik, although I don't think that last term was coined until the mid-sixties. He was obviously a member of CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) or DAC (Direct Action Committee) because he referred to the Aldermaston Marches. I was so relieved that Sister Monica Joan didn't die in this Christmas Special. I was holding my breath because I apparently haven't recovered from the trauma of Downton Abbey killing off Matthew on Christmas day! I did find it a bit unlikely that she would have survived traveling the 50 odd miles from Poplar to the old family home in Berkshire a couple of miles from Aldermaston, however. She's obviously a seriously tough old lady. All in all a very good episode and I loved the Iris story.

Pasdetrois: America did not enter WWII until after Pearl Harbor and the first American troups did not arrive in the UK until January 1942. Trying to remember my history -- as far as I could tell, this is the summer of 1940 and the end of the "Phony War." Hitler invaded the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and then Belgium to scoot around the supposedly impregnable Maginot line and invade France. Sarah's RAF lodger talks about the inevitability of France falling at one point. He seems to have been psychic because it was a surprise to practically everyone else. Including Churchill! So the planes were probably heading for France and Dunkirk at the end of May,1940. The evacuation of the British Expeditionary Forces from Dunkirk took about a week with civilian volunteers sailing over in small boats to pick soldiers up from the beaches. The Germans had bombed the docks at Dunkirk so troop ships couldn't get close to land, and the RAF provided air cover. This was a huge deal for my mother's family, who lived on the south coast of England, because everyone who had a boat sailed over to France to help including a couple of her teenage brothers. They survived. Catching anachronisms: Those planes looked like Lancasters but they weren't used until 1942. The RAF used mostly Hurricanes and Spitfires in the Battle of Britain, and that started in July, 1940 I think. Also, I'm interested in the Spenser conscientious objector story line in this show because it adds dimension and COs did exist. I like that he is a sympathetic character but in 1939 a CO would either have been in prison or sent to do heavy labor somewhere. He wouldn't have been hanging around the village, romancing Clare, and doing his old post office job. I am so glad they sent Bob the abusive husband off as a war correspondent. That actor's excellent performance gave me the chills and I hope Bob never comes back. It looks as though they are writing out Francesca Annis too for the second series, and that does disappoint me. I'm looking forward to series 2 of Home Fires. I want to find out what happens to poor Alison and whether Pat comes into her own without Bob.

Oh, no! Mr. Sood is definitely headed for the gallows and he's one of my only three likable characters. Dr. Kamble and Adam being the others, although Aafrin's younger sister, whose name I forget, has her moments. Young Ian gets to be both somewhat heroic and unforgivably naïve. Is the cheating missionary getting a little annoyed with his loved one, whose name I also forget, because she took the responsibility for telling Adam his mother had died? How very insubordinate of her! Aafrin continues to mess around with the emotions of the lying Sita (who risked a lot of scandal by snogging a Parsi in a graveyard) and the not-widowed Miss Alice Whelan. As Alice supposedly left her husband because he was unfaithful to her, why is she snogging in the shrubbery with Aafrin? You'd think she'd want to avoid breaking up the relationships of others. The hussy! Aafrin, get over yourself. You are not all that attractive and you are really not a very nice person. And the soap opera continues. For books about the last days of the Raj, I haven't seen MM Kaye mentioned above, although I have seen Paul Scott and Forster references. I recommend her autobiographical trilogy: Sun in the Morning, Golden Afternoon, and Enchanted Evening. The last book goes up to the beginning of WWII. I read them a long time ago and my favorite was Sun in the Morning when she writes about growing up in Simla.

That scene was one of the few things I liked in this whole mess. Improbable and anachronistic but well written and played with dignity by the actor. Ralph has caused something of a diplomatic crisis by inviting Dr. Kamble the Dalit (Untouchable) to dinner with Hindus. He's trying to win the Dalits over to the British side and away from Gandhi's primarily Hindu Congress Party. It was a rookie mistake that the supposedly brilliant Ralph should not have made and his boss is angry with him. Under varna (caste) system, high caste Hindus cannot/will not eat with Dalits. The servants originally refuse to serve him. Alice saves face by demanding that he is given a meal by the servants, but Dr. Kamble knows that his eating will create mayhem and all the Hindus walking out, so he says he is not hungry. To the total surprise of everyone a Maharajah actually greets Dr. Kamble after the meal. Lord Willingham (Ralph's boss) jumps to the conclusion that this means that it wasn't a total disaster and the Maharajahs are OK with the presence of a Dalit. Dr. Kamble explains to Ralph later that this was just one exceptionally enlightened Maharajah and not representative of general attitudes at all. In theory, caste-based discrimination was ended by law in 1950. However the Dalits are still discriminated against today. I'm not sure whether I can watch the rest of this production. Some of the acting is really good and the costumes and scenery are lovely, but the only characters I like so far are little Adam, Mr. Sood and Dr. Kamble. The rest of the characters are either one dimensionally evil or annoyingly stupid. Alice is a twit and Aafrin is self-righteous fool. Yuck. Editing to add thoughts: Did anyone else get yet another incestuous vibe in the scene where Ralph and Alice were talking about having to shake hands to say goodbye in Frinton on Sea? I immediately thought that Auntie had picked up on some inappropriate touching. It does appear that Ralphie went to Chillingborough after all.;)

We are probably spending much more time thinking about Ralph's educational background than the writers ever did. :) I'm disappointed with Indian Summers so far, although it is supposed to get better. I think it is slap-dash and anachronistic and I'm beginning to lose patience with it. It doesn't make sense historically for Ralph not to have been educated in England, especially as he is supposed to be a high ranking official in the Indian Civil Service. Private secretary to the Viceroy? Socially, he's at the very top of the heap in a very class conscious society. He would have been sent back to England as a small child and gone to a top public school (in the British meaning of public school), so Eton or somewhere like that. Then university. Then he had to take the Civil Service exam, which I think was only administered in the UK in those days. Then back to India at 21 or 22 years old. So if he is 30 now than he wouldn't have seen his sister for about 9 years as she stayed in England and got married. Nine years is quite a long time. Didn't Ralph say in the first episode that he'd rather die than "go back" to England. That implies that he has been there. He must have really hated boarding school! Of course, it could just be sloppy attention to detail by the writers. It's just as unrealistic that Ralph would be on the short-list for the next Viceroy when he is only 30. If Ralphie isn't Adam's father then I'll eat my hat. That is the most predictable thing about this show at the moment. Perhaps the hold the vile Mrs Coffin has over him is that she knows all about it.

PBS's editing choices have always flummoxed me, but editing out "mixed blood" for an American audience seems really ridiculous and obscures the story line unacceptably. I thought Ralph asking Aafrin about marriage was very strange and uncomfortable. Almost like a twist on a life debt; you saved my life so now I'm going to make you responsible for all my actions going forward? Weird, but Ralph is rather weird.

Yes, he is going to be a military chaplain non-combatant status. He was traumatized by his own experiences in WWI and feels that he has to go given that. I don't think this link has been posted yet. http://lifeofwylie.com/2015/05/01/home-fires-interviews/ There is more information there about Home Fires and a link to a pdf file of Production Notes, including thumbnail sketches of the characters and their backgrounds and interviews with some of the cast. It is very long, somewhat repetitive, but interesting.

Very unusual indeed. Distinctly anachronistic. In that time, place, and definitely in that class, children were almost invariably sent back to England to be educated. They were sent very young - seven or eight or even younger. Actually, that was still true through the 60s and 70s in my experience. I missed why people assume Ralph was educated in India and not in England. In fact, the script this episode strongly implies that Ralph was indeed sent back to England to boarding school. There is an awkward conversation about boarding schools between Sarah and Alice over tea. Sarah wants Alice to tell Matthew that boarding school was wonderful because she is pushing to send him to one. Not verbatim: Alice says that she didn't like boarding school and missed her parents. Sarah then says something like: but at least you had your brother? Alice says: only in the holidays. That would make sense as they would have been sent to different boarding schools and lived with family or guardians in the school holidays.

Well, you have done a lot of work, and the results of your research are pretty much the same as mine. I've been looking into this stuff since about 2007. ;) Yes, AR Child Labor Laws do not have a Coogan-type protection for children working in entertainment. A couple of problems here: 1. You are asking for responses from lawyers only. I am not a lawyer. I'm just interested in laws pertaining to children in entertainment. 2. If I try to respond properly and with relevant details I will go way off topic into other non-Reality TV families to prove my points. I'd rather not do that. So, bottom line, unless a Duggar comes forward with a tell-all book: a) My research indicates that Reality TV contracts are confidential, closely guarded and rarely leaked - because of massive penalties for breaching the terms. b) We will never know the true terms of how the Duggars divide up the cash. Anyone who states that they "know" Jim Bob controls the lot is not speaking the truth. It is just a guess. c) That said, my own quite well researched but still semi- educated guess is that TLC (and other TV shows) does prefer to have families set up a Trust and/or an Inc. and cut a single check. The Duggar Family does have a Trust. Parents in states not covered by Coogan-type laws can do what they want with the money. Don't expect the minor children to get a cent. Also realize that their parents consent to film them. The minor children have no say in the matter. d) But (big BUT) after the minor child turns 18 they must consent themselves to filming. They may choose to channel their earnings into the family Trust or Inc. They may perhaps choose to set up a separate contract. e) Total speculation 1: the Duggar children sign their own contracts (independent of the Duggar Trust) with TLC somewhere between engagement and "leaving and cleaving." f) Total speculation 2: The Duggar engaged and married children also set up independent agreements with TLC approved tabloids like People. People Magazine does not pay for stories, per se. People pays a lot for exclusive photographs. Final comment: As People Magazine now seems thoroughly disenchanted with Josh Duggar, I wonder how that will affect any (totally speculative on my part) agreements it has with other members of the family. I hope all that stayed within the rules here!

You are referring to the California Child Actor's Bill here, often called the Coogan Law. There is no Federal Law protecting child performers and setting aside percentages of their earnings for future use by the child. Each State has its own child labor laws but provisions protecting children working in entertainment vary widely. The California Coogan Law has been copied by a few other states (New York and Pennsylvania, for example) but in most states children working in entertainment have very few protections and no money is set aside for them. See www.minorcon.org for further information.

I thought this episode was much stronger than the last one even though they are still bashing us over the head with the moral story of the week. I loved that Sister Monica Joan was finally given a success story, and there was some fantastic acting by wonderful Judy Parfitt. I am also glad Trixie broke off the engagement to that horribly wet curate. I do wish they hadn't given her an alcohol problem as the reason though. She is too good for that curate. Thank you to the people who reminded me of "Shoulder to Shoulder." I loved that series and the Suffragettes' March of the Women anthem (Bread and Roses was the Lawrence, MA textile workers strike). By the way, I just checked and it looks as if the whole S to S series is on Youtube if anyone is interested.

Oh, thank you so much for saying this! I fault Julian Fellows for bad writing on this one, but I think both he and Laura Carmichael must be wondering at the reaction to this storyline. 21st century opinion imposed on early 20th century attitudes and realities. I think Laura is doing a good job in portraying "the Girls That Went Away." The UK had no formal adoption law until 1926 and that was enacted mostly to protect born out of wedlock children who were being neglected, abused and even killed by "foster carers" and "adopters" in droves. Unwanted illegitimate children were plentiful and there was a huge stigma against them. See baby farms. Mrs. Drewe behaved utterly strangely for the time and place. 1. If she had wanted to "adopt" a baby girl she could have walked down the road to the nearest orphanage and come home with one. 2. When Mr. Drewe told her that baby Marigold needed a home she would have immediately suspected that he meant an illegitimate child. She would have complained that taking in another child would strain resources for her other children and was there child support involved. There was. 3. When Edith came sniffing around Marigold she would have put 2 and 2 together fast. Unless she is utterly stupid. She would have played that connection for everything it was worth. For Marigold, if she loved her, and for her other children. 4. She would never, ever, have been so rude to Lady Edith. That hostility would not have played well with the aristocracy. Edith may be a wet noodle but her husband is a tenant farmer who owes Lord Grantham big time. 5. After Edith took Marigold she might have been upset because her foster child (who she may indeed have loved) had been removed. However, her visit to Cora would have been a blackmail opportunity. As for Edith, looking at the realities of 1924 and how Fellowes should have written this and missed on several counts: 1. She was pressured by scandal, society and Rosamund to abort the baby that she wanted. She didn't. 2. She loved Marigold enough to nurture her for several weeks before being pressured to give her to a Swiss couple. 3. She was legitimately worried about the Swiss people being a baby farm so wanted Marigold closer so she could protect her. 4. She cut a deal with Mr. Drewe, for money, that the Drewes would care for Marigold, keep her identity confidential, and allow her access. 5. Mrs. Drewe broke the contract and cut her off from Marigold. Edith, not Mrs. Drewe, is the victim and should be the heroine here.