alexvillage

So, let's break this down a little. They are in GA, which can often be on a direct hurricane path. The hurricane is Aiden, meaning the first named storm of the season. The season starts in June, the first named storm would be in June, but let's expand that to August (even though each year named storms form earlier, some even in May). Why are all of them wearing sweaters in June - August, in Georgia? It is high summer. Also, they live in an Island, by the water, and have a basement? I don't think this is even possible. The writers don't even try, do they?

No. please, no. And did they have to make him a cop? Ugh! The writing is terrible, OMG! Luly and Evan act like they are teenagers, the shower scene had no chemistry and was poorly rehearsed, it was awkward. But what drives me bananas is how anything hospital on TV is so far removed from reality, it is not even possible to suspend disbelief. A random pregnant woman goes for an ultrasound and they run tests for ALL genetic disorders, including one that I have never heard of - I don't know everything but I have so many friends and acquaintances who have chronic illnesses and disorders, I never heard of that one - and immediately the doctor calls the patient - interrupting her sex encounter? Even if she is "related" to her best friends, that is completely absurd. Robin has no idea of who her children are, does she? and where is the baby? Couldn't they have added a sound effect of a cooing baby with the kids in the kitchen, just to pretend she exists?

Thanks for the detailed response. I should have been more specific, I 100% see the "new aristocracy" around the world, in the form of billionaires ( and the newly minted trillionaire, Bezos) and even in smaller scales as in white people employing and exploiting mostly black people as "maids". I am firmly in the "eat the rich" group. I am still curious about how the British see that in relation to their support (or lack of support) for the queen. Do they compartmentalize the current monarchy and their perks, while the rest of the current aristocracy (even if in title only, I really have no idea of how they live their lives) deserves to just cease to be a thing? Interesting perspective on the writer. I didn't know but it makes sense now why he whitewashed Tom's socialism. I had noticed some of the extrapolations in the show, like children out of wedlock being largely accepted into their circles, and a gay servant since homosexuality was outlawed in Britain until relatively recent, I believe. The way the "upstairs" and "downstairs" were so friendly also raised my eyebrows - the analogy in the US reviewed history is how many slaves were happy to be slaves and how so many white slaveowners were compassionate and gentle. Bah! But thanks for the information. I knew a little about the downsizing happening at that period, the new middle class emerging. I am still curious though, about the population's current feelings about the monarchic ways.

I broke my own rules to never do Amazon anything and signed up for a free trial of Prime to watch hit show, after watching Call the Midwife and needing some more British flavor. I am in the US, and I have a question for the Brits: When you watch period shows like this one, about aristocracy and titles, and hunting dogs, and - imo - empty values, do you watch with a "at least we got better", or "I wish it was still a little like this", or you are completely dispassionate about it? I ask because while I find it interesting from a "learning some 'history' via TV", I completely reject anything Monarchy, anything aristocracy, and I can't understand how it was even a thing that adults needed someone to help them get to bed. It is straight from feudalism, when you are born in a lower "cast" you better learn skills that keep you there. Butlers proud of being servants is completely foreign to me and even though there are similar situations everywhere, the pride on being servant, as far as I know, seems to be (or was) part of the British culture. I don't mean to start a discussion and I realize that some might have a very different opinion. I am honestly curious. I believe the show brings some "modernisms" in the script, maybe things that would not be so acceptable back then but that they write into the show anyway. But my impression is that the writers, willingly or not, seem to lean towards "aristocrats are not so bad" (I would never write Tom caving into living with the family and basically forgetting about his socialist passion)

I watched this on Netflix so I am late to the discussion but this show has always been aspirational, based on things that can happen in real life but with outcomes that are very unlikely, and the portrayal of what we (as a country) do, and how, very rosy and far from reality. So it was a Hollywood way of telling people that we can make things happen by getting involved. I enjoyed some (most?) of the show although it made me extremely mad to see how the politics were one-sided "we are always good". The ending was consistent with that vision. That was probably a glorification of public service. People who work in the White House, any government position, even the senior staff, don't make a lot of money, not enough to living on savings. That's one reason why we see them writing books, going on TV to be a talking head after they leave, or becoming lobbyists, which is forbidden in some cases but still happens, when they are hired as "consultants". That's when they make money.

Unless Scott had a will, the money goes to Robin. Spouses are the primary beneficiaries

It is strange and I don't think it was explained in the show. Maybe it got lost in the editing room.

Yes, that one was a better portrayal but in the US it would be still far from real because the place was shown as full of caring and loving people. Not sure how it was in the UK. At that time, things were more like where Sister Mary Cynthia was locked up, with people just wandering, many of them undressed and filthy, and some of those places were run by religious organizations. That's why I have mixed feelings. In one hand, they show disabled people and send a message of acceptance. OTOH they don't really show how terrible it was.

Cultures vary but my impression is that while one could be concerned about the ethnicity, it wouldn't be something so openly discussed. As I am not in the UK and don't know much about the interactions concerning race over there, it is totally possible that I am wrong. For what I know in the US it is something fairly new (as definitely not happening in the 60's) - concerns regarding making sure the child in included in their culture. So maybe in the UK a black woman coming from a colony would have been empowered enough to openly raise the issue. That's why I thought it would be a little unrealistic, not the observation itself, but the fact that there was no push back, or that it was dismissed as a silly concept.

I was going to mention Pops but after this perfect answer I cannot come up with anything better

I may be wrong because I am not in the UK but in earlier seasons it was mentioned that the government would have a nationalized health care system - something that we still don't have in the US, smh - so isn't it possible that the midwifes were a community, free service, therefore attached to the church, and the clinic something that started after the NHS was established?

I thought they would have a story there too, but I thought it would be Reggie seeing himself in that little girl.

Yes, I liked that too, although I think this wouldn't have been realistic in real life, at that time. I notice that the show takes positions that are, or should be, widely accepted now, but not a reality at the period they portray. It is the same with disabilities. I love how they have disabled people playing the disabled characters, and despite some pity porn and inso porn, they do show respect and acceptance. I don't know about the UK but at that time disability was considered some sort of curse, disabled people were shunned and hidden, institutions were dirty and unsanitary. Kennedy was the one who started the desegregation policies so in 1963 a young man with Down Syndrome would not be practicing "independence", a kid with Cerebral palsy would not get a second look from a nun in an attempt to inclusion. Maybe it was different in the UK, but I doubt it. The stigma was/is universal. I have mixed feelings. I like that they tell the stories and show disabled people. I hoped that they would be just a little more realistic and not romanticize it so much.

I just watched this episode. I think the idea is not that hospitals are bad, but the why births became a "medical" condition to be treated. Maybe simplistic, but really something to ponder. I came here to suggest - and I haven't read the whole thread yet, so maybe someone already did - a series of 3 episodes on Netflix (US) "the Birth Reborn". It is about the overuse of cesarean in Brazil, but also explains how births went from an intimate and special moment to a medical procedure. It is graphic, real births, but really well done.

Agreed. This show is somewhat infantilizing.