DianeDobbler

I must disagree about the beauty of Wallis Simpson - for me she is more along the lines of a Diana Vreeland although not as extreme as Vreeland -- striking but not pretty or beautiful. Her facial features - eyes, nose, and particularly her mouth - were harsh. Yes, she had a long neck and was proportioned well for clothes - obviously. There was speculation for years that she was a man (unfounded from what I can read). I think Michelle Dockery is far more conventionally pretty - her features are a bit small, but she has classic bone structure - cheekbones, etc. If a person has a very defined jawline and cheekbones, they're going to be photogenic, which is not always the same as pretty. Dockery is pretty. Wallis was photogenic - strong chin. I've read about her for years. I rewatched Episode 8 and it appeared to me that Edith did all the work of the, at least purported, reconciliation between herself and her sister. The writing was SO plot-agenda'd - it was about getting Mary married to Henry (I actually wrote "to Tony" at first - they're so interchangeable), that it often felt as if Fellowes were USING Edith to get us interested in Mary/Tony. That said, Mary did disparage herself to Anna about what she'd done to her sister - but of course, to set up some "It's all about Henry, m'lady" dialogue - which turns out to be unfair to Edith's character. Mary did ask the others to leave when Edith showed up. I think this was the first time that Mary treated Edith with respect; I don't think it's ever been clear to her before that her sister has been out in the world far me than she has, and probably has a wider, less self-centered view of the world, one that is worth listening to. When Edith pointed out that Mary had spilled the beans about Marigold because she was unhappy, and would be nice now because she was happy, it was said without malice. But also sort of fell flat because of problematic writing. Mary's happy now? Okay, if you say so. Edith's drama was sort of dragged in as bait to get people to sit for Mary's marriage. That was the problem with the writing that is very clear, and it comes off as if Edith is shortchanged, which, of course, she was, but I think it played about as well as could be done, considering. Fellowes can't structure or pace for shit, and that problem was all over this episode, with the emphasis and timing in all the wrong places. I did think he did his best when he had Mary go to Edith's room after Bertie left, rather than have Edith come after Mary in anger, and when Edith said what she had to say while packing, clearly her well-chosen remarks to Mary secondary to getting out of there and back to her life in London. Finally, when Edith is with Mary before the ceremony, Mary asks what Edith thinks Matthew would have thought. I can't recall Mary having ever asked Edith's opinion before. Of course Edith reminds Mary that Matthew loved Mary and so, would be happy for her. Sure he would. As someone said, all that was missing from this episode was Mathew's zombie arm punching through the grave to clutch Mary while his disembodied voice croaked she should marry Henry. So, the structural problems were this - Mary destroys Edith's chance at happiness - at least destroys Edith's chance at telling Bertie herself. Edith is the woman who has had happiness snatched from her time after time. BUT in Fellowes universe, it was Mary whom everyone pitied, Mary who was seen as the person who ruined her life, while Edith got her butt out of town and back to London. Since she'd cleared the scene, everyone was free to focus on Mary, and of course, Mary was immediately regretful, so nobody could really tell her anything she didn't already know, freeing them all to talk to her about Henry, and sparing them from having to talk to EDITH, since Edith was conveniently out of there, and shown to be having a decent enough time of it in London laughing with her editor about Spratt. That's why it was a botch. In this episode, Edith's relationship is destroyed and Mary's relationship is consummated in marriage, but Mary is the one treated as the tragic figure if she didn't marry Henry, while, because Edith got out of Downton right away, she didn't steal the family's emotional focus. Meantime I think the audience was far more interested in Edith's prospects with Bertie than Mary's with Henry. Fellowes sort of tried to transfer the audience's interest in one to the other, thinking maybe we wouldn't notice. I agree with those who think this came off as if Mary WERE authentically a tragic figure who was hustled into this second marriage by her family and all of her associates, pretty much because they were tired of dealing with her and wanted her settled, so they INSISTED she was in love with him. I don't, though, think that's the actual story Fellowes was telling. He was telling a story that didn't interest many people, used someone else's love story to do it, and as the beats of that story would hit a peak, would then turn the subject to Mary and Henry. Edith was the plot armor for Mary/Henry. Looking ahead, and at that very awkward Edith, Mary, Tom, George photo with Henry lurking in the back, I wonder if part of Henry's "settling in" period is about thinking there's no role for him because Tom has that role, or because Tom is Mary's bff. To balance out that "adjustment" I anticipate hearing repeatedly that Mary and Henry have the greatest sex life on earth.

I do not believe people are saying Edith should have married Strallan, rather that the WAY the story was told was extremely poor and made her parents look like horrible people.

Very funny interview - a bit weird when one of the interviewers honestly seemed diverted by his having been in the series "Rome", and became oddly persistent about what it was like working with "the horses" at Highclere. "Lady, they're show biz horses! The guy brings them in, they do an hour in hair and make-up and then they do their scene!" and everybody telling that interviewer she'd gone off the rails a bit. Always enjoy Allen Leech's personality in general, and here it was fun listening to him snark on Lady Canarvon a bit, as well as on the character of Mary.

Feel free to pm me, Zoloftbob. Sorry I missed this question last week!

I was just looking at the last episode and it’s annoying as hell how Mary is protected from what she did to Edith. Robert finds out Mary dropped the bomb about Marigold, but Tom says “accident” although he knows it damn well wasn’t, and it’s on Robert to be suspicious about Mary’s intentions. Then it appears Cora, Robert and Rosemond are about to call Mary to account when boom – interrupted by Carson with news about Barrow, and after that Mary gets to hide behind George and a visit to the stricken butler. They just entirely skipped the real fallout, which is not from Edith, and not from Tom, but from her parents. I’m glad Edith pulled herself together as she always does, and got out of there. For the supposedly mopey sister, she gets on with things much faster than Mary. She’s learned to accept not getting what she wants, and it’s made her the opposite of mopey.

They accepted Edith wasn't going to marry by actively sabotaging a marriage to a man Edith very much wanted to marry, with whom she was happy, and with whom the show runner showed her being and feeling happy.

But that wasn't the story we saw, not from Edith's point of view. When she and Strallan were together in the car, they were HAPPY. Edith's face was happy and pleased. There was nothing of the grim determination to see this thing through come hell or high water. She was relaxed, Stallen was relaxed, she was pleased they were connecting. Think of some of the downstairs folks when they have to do something that sets their teeth on edge, but it's for the larger good. Anna, Daisy ... anyone. NONE of that with Edith. She was very compatible with Strallan. He was a good man, a kind man, he was not "boring" other than not being dramatic or young. He was well read. He was interested in things, as was Edith. Edith glowed on her wedding day. IOW, NOTHING was telling the audience that Robert and Cora would be bad parents if they let the marriage go forward. Instead it appeared as if they were projecting their own hideous, harmful concepts about Edith onto the marriage and then torpedo'd it without once considering who she was, her own wishes, and her own happiness. She had actually become a happy woman with Strallan. Her parents couldn't bear it. The worst writing EVER. If you're going to have Violet and Robert interfere that way, then you damn well better show that Edith is in trouble and headed for a life of misery in exchange for security. They never showed that. They showed a happy Edith who was happy and compatible with her fiance'. The irony of course, is, that as others have pointed out, it was MARY who was grimly carrying through with an engagement to an older man with whom she would have been miserable, because his situation in life would give her the position she thought she needed to have, and her parents didn't interfere. Furthermore, when she did call off the engagement, I believe (ready to be corrected) after Robert spoke to HER. He didn't go behind her back to speak to Richard without her knowing.

It always seemed to me that Edith was perfectly ready to be a full wife to Anthony Strallan and wasn't repelled by him at all. This was part of the story that never made sense to me. She seemed happy. We saw them enjoying each other's company. Edith was thriving. Meanwhile, her family, which had been willing to see Mary marry Strallan, suddenly interfered. It played like nothing so much as her family being repulsed at the idea that Edith would be married to a man of position and have her own estate. No, on paper it wasn't a great match for her emotionally. The problem is that Edith seemed very happy!

Fellowes is just perverse, in a very Matt Weiner-ish way, as I've said upthread. He used Tom a great deal this year - but of course, it was all vis a vis Mary. Still he got loads more material than Mary's new husband. I have to believe that is conscious. I hope there's a strong reaction to this episode AND the xmas special so maybe one day Fellowes will actually spill the beans as to why he didn't allow Tom to get a new love interest, and why he brought Rose on only to hustle her straight off the show the following season (I won't believe it was because of Cinderella - Lily James repeatedly said she hoped to return for S6). Why Mary's love interests were cast so poorly, and why she was hustled into this union with Tablot.

For what it's worth it was very clear to me at the time that Matthew's money went to Mary, it wasn't part of the entail, and that's why the will was significant. It liberated Mary from being a mere caretaker of her son's legacy. She had power in her own right. Furthermore, and as is customary, I take for granted that the daughters all have what Jane Austen would call "an independence." Not enough for them to purchase their own estate, but I remember Robert telling Sybil there would be no money if she married Tom (Sybil at one point mentioned "her" money) - which I actually don't think was within his power to deny. This seemed to indicate the conventional daughter's trust fund/portion. Edith has mentioned "her" money once, when making calculations about her future (can't recall if this was regarding Marigold), and of course, now she has the newspaper. In my previous reading of what was conventionally the daughters' share among the nobility/aristocracy at the time, it would be enough to have a lovely flat, get clothes from the shows, eat in nice restaurants, travel, and not have to work. I see no reason to assume the daughters of Downton don't have that, it would make them unique if they didn't, as that was how things were managed. Particularly as the money would have been marked out for them prior to any one of Robert's financial crises, and not affected by them. When I read about Diana, Princess of Wales, she had her own money as well, although not her own property, and although her brother inherited the family estate. Even though Diana's family, as well, had had to "streamline" even while she was a child (customary for these places to have terrible heat and awful plumbing, as too expensive to replace). P.S., I previously mentioned an article written by Charles Spencer, Diana's brother. In it he referenced a fellow "nobleman" who had a hell of a time after he inherited the title/estate, trying to sell off enough chattel and juggle the finances enough so that his sisters would have their trust funds, as the financial situation was such a mess, they didn't even have that. When I've read stories of show business in Europe (you know, the Noel Coward, Astaires (Adele), Oliviers, etc.) they were always socializing with the aristocracy - the sister of and the cousin of, and these relations of landholders always lived very nicely, even if a lot of them were extremely tight and freeloaded whenever they could. The lifestyle was as described - basically a life of leisure, but in a flat, or beautifully appointed small home, enough to sustain, in comfort, a single upper class individual (and perhaps a child or a parent), not anything on par with commanding an estate.

Edith really did/does have the most interesting arc. I think Bertie is a terrific partner for her, but, looking back, I have a bit of nostalgia for her relationship with Michael Gregson. Transplanted to Downton, he wouldn't set the room on fire, but the life he and Edith built together was really compelling. I absolutely loved the scene of them in the apartment, when he had her sign the power of attorney. The feeling and trust between them was lovely. When I look at her life now, it's apparent that it's a gift (that she earned) from Michael Gregson, who had the faith, love and trust in her that her family never did, and she's more than justified his feelings. She treats his memory with respect and is apparently a wonderful journalist/publisher/editor.

Cora would never have permitted it, and the rest of them would have clubbed Robert over the head with Sybil Sr.'s memory. All I'm saying with this is I don't believe it was meant to inform story at all, not even subtextually, even if technically a man in Robert's position could have made it hard for a man in Tom's. Not a slam dunk, though. I do think it's silly for Tom to have stuck around Downton. All I can think is the family member of his that we met (the drunk brother) wasn't much, he was valued at Downton both for his abilities and for himself, and he connected the family with the love of his life. And, I guess I'm contradicting myself here, BUT, it might be gratifying for him, who was considered this upstart reaching above his place, to be in a situation of respect with the family, and actually guiding and teaching them about stuff. Fellowes is just a mess. I recall his justification for suitor season was Mary needed to marry again in order to enjoy the importance she wanted to have in society. No, really she didn't. Thanks to Matthew's will, she was worth a bloody fortune. She could be like Elizabeth I of England, enjoy the pursuit, but refuse to choose. Her son was the Earl apparent. She had no need, not in terms of position. Matthew really was the all-in-one jackpot for Mary, although I don't think there would have been much of Mary teaching George how to be an Earl like his father. As Matthew said to Lavinia once, Robert and Cora are quite young and Matthew and Lavinia will have been well on themselves before they took the title. Mary would likely be Cora's age or above before she got to be Countess (if Matthew had lived) - in her fifites. Even as it is now, and ulcer aside, Robert could well last another thirty years or more. A bit OT, but I think the better ending for Mary would have been to not pair her off, but signify somehow that she likely would pair off some day. She's a good-looking woman, very rich, the odds are in her favor, even if she didn't remarry by the end of the series. It might have been interesting to have Edith married (unlike Mary, if Edith weren't married by series end, the audience could assume that was it for the rest of her life), and everyone settled, but Mary sort of in flux exactly as she was at the start. The audience would know something could happen with Mary at any time after the series ended.The rushed marriage to Henry just leaves a couple of options. One being, pretend she IS madly in love, that whatever adjustments come up will be fixed and oh boy, will they be happy, and isn't he sexy. The audience won't buy that IMO and will come away with the protest-too-much feeling that augers an unsatisfactory long term match. OR the show acknowledges that this is not likely to go long. Wait, I guess the third option is, Mary realizes she's not truly in love with Henry, but has made her peace with it. I'm betting on the first option.

I honestly don't know if Robert would have been able to keep Sybbie from Tom. Robert wouldn't want the bad publicity, and unless he was going to use mob-like, strong-arm tactics, which are not Robert, I don't think he would have or could have done it. Tom was a strong man. Anyway, I don't count that as a factor - we haven't been shown it was in Robert's character or an influence on Tom. Interesting about Sybil and Matthew. That might support the point that Mary was nice to Sybil because Sybil didn't share Mary's playground - and the second it appeared Sybil MIGHT, Mary put an immediate stop to it. Mary hasn't enough to do. That's her problem in a nutshell. She has to make up things. Edith had the incentive to go out and make her life. She would always be an also-ran at Downton. Sybil was naturally interested in the world and proactively involved herself. Mary has an almost terminal ennui. She needs an interest to fall in her lap. Rose's affairs, when Rose was at Downton. Or Matthew tooling around in a wheelchair. She's no good at generating meaningful enterprises for herself really.

I'm actually okay with Matthew going off in the Xmas special. If I want to enjoy it, I have the entire episode and then just don't watch the end. Much better than only getting partway through and then the whole thing goes to hell. I liked it, all things considered. Stevens appears to have told Fellowes he was leaving in good time ... but still not enough? Before S3, but after things had been cast? I don't know; I think Fellowes had blinders on. Sybil/Matthew dying in the same crash - horrid idea. I also imagine really difficult for the cast to pull off - both Mary and Tom having to react - unless with both it was an ending shot of the Sybil/Matthew crash and we picked up months later. I do remember very few of the cast members covering themselves in glory while Sybil lay dying - everybody had to hover about the bed, Stevens gripping a post, while it went on forever and ever. Very enervating. I think Elizabeth McGovern was a bit put out that she was one of the last actresses offered Cora. Cora being an American woman living in the U.K., and McGovern being the same, and the right age, she thought she should have been one of the obvious first actresses called. When I read that, I wanted to say, yeah but you suck, Elizabeth. I'd have called Gillian Anderson first too! And probably a slate of others before contacting your reps. At the end of the day she was good casting, not least because she looks like the mother of those particular girls, particularly Mary's mother. Blue eyes not withstanding. Height, dark hair, and extreme thinness and attenuated limbs.

Roseanna, I truly believe Fellowes thinks Tom becoming an estate manager is a logical extension of his maturing as a man, of him getting to believe the aristocrats aren't such a bad lot, and because an estate manager is making things work economically, in a sort of transactional way that works for both sides. It's full of b.s. but It's about what I'd expect of Fellowes' understanding of what socialists actually believe. He probably thinks this is a mellower version of the same Tom. Ultimately, Tom's political beliefs fell victim to Fellowes' worldview that everything is personal. The principal reason we were given for Tom "mellowing" was he had gotten to know the Crawleys, and they "weren't so bad." It makes no sense that, ergo, the SYSTEM of which they were a part, or their place in the hierarchy, was likewise not bad, but that's how Fellowes writes things. The folks are a good sort, therefore the system isn't that terrible. Just ridiculous reasoning. While I could see Mary having some jealousy of Edith once Edith began to "make lemonade" out of her life, principally by establishing a fulfilling life, which includes financial independence and professional success away from Downton, Mary was pretty beastly to Edith even when Mary had the upper hand and Edith had none. Edith would have taken cousin Patrick "like a shot" but Mary felt her presumed betrothal to Patrick as a burden. Edith didn't have anything that Mary could possibly want. Maybe one reason Mary liked Sybil better was Sybil had very little interest in any of the things that were important to Mary. Edith did have that interest, but was denied ever getting near them, and was eager to be made happy by affiliations (such as with Patrick or with Stallan) that would have made Mary miserable. I never understood why Mary was so vicious about Gregson, when Gregson was courting Edith. She doesn't want Edith to have an aristocratic marriage, and she didn't want Edith to marry outside the nobility, to a journalist and self-made man either. It appeared she wanted Edith to disappear, the end. As others have said, she insists on characterizing Edith (as a mope) in a way that has really just not been true of Edith. Robert still trends that way, although he's grown up about it and has improved (his "couldn't make her dolls do what she wanted" was a throwback to his rooted views of Edith).

Fellowes does remind me a bit (or a lot) of Matthew Weiner, Mad Men's showrunner. It's much more about falling in love with a particular character than telling a story. If a writer is that way, IMO it's important to justify the favoritism. There's different kinds of favoritism anyway, there's the favoritism of giving a particular character most of the attention. That one is the nature of most drama. And there's the favoritism of a double standard. Both Mad Men and Downton suffer from a double standard. If I understand Character A is the star, then whatever the star does can't be okay just because the star does it. The previously mentioned Jane Austen knew the rules. Emma didn't get away with her cruelty to Mrs. Bates although she's a charming girl and the focus of the novel. Downton is rife with examples of "this is okay because Mary." Fine, but please don't have some other character's story running on a parallel track and behave as if they must be held to higher standards than Mary. The other character doesn't need the same TIME devoted to them, but some sort of internal value system has to be applied other than "It's okay cause she's the star." Oh, the OTHER thing I hate, and again, Jane Austen knew better than to use this one, is when the star character harms someone in some way, and gets redemption by doing something nice for someone ELSE. This is unsatisfactory because it does absolutely nothing for the original person who was harmed. It's out of balance and the lens is much much too narrow, but I've seen this sort of writing. Fellowes has fallen into this with Mary a LOT. Although I think Mary's "bridge building" in the CS means she's going to be the star of Bertie and Edith's wedding, at least she's directing her energies where they ought to be focused, as opposed to spending the CS rescuing Anna from drowning or something. Since I've compared Weiner and Fellowes, I wonder if there's something in the make-up of particularly egocentric show runners that makes them susceptible to "The star is always right." scripting. Wouldn't be surprised.

I think Mary bet on the wrong horse in attaching herself to Downton as her career. It's odd, because when she went away for sex week with Gillingham, she told Anna that, unlike the past, going forward it would be impossible for husband and wife to live separate lives, even married couples among the nobility would live in closer quarters and enforced intimacy, and so Mary needed to trial run that intimacy before marriage. Even if we suppose Mary's future includes Highclere-like estate operations, everything is going to be much more constricted than the world in which she was brought up. The scale at home will be much-reduced, the house much less populated. The scale of influence in the village will be reduced. At some point, her husband will give up motor-racing, and probably by young middle-age, and how will they occupy themselves? She's just not going to have the position her father had, and nor will George, rich though they'll be. I've been reading about the commingling of society, show business and nobility in the U.K. just a short time forward from Downton's current era, and it does feel like something of a bleak existence (with a real danger of alcoholism, particularly during winters) unless Mary dedicates herself to continual entertainment or becomes very involved in a cause. She's actually lucky her parents are likely to live on quite a long time, probably until George is at least her age now, if Violet's age is anything to go by, because her parents will help keep the house lively. There's a real prospect of three couples hanging about the place, none with a real occupation. An very aged Robert/Cora, Mary/Henry, and George/Spouse. I just can't see Mary and Henry being happy mostly by themselves in each other's company, and sadly for Mary, it's not as if she can have her sister over to relieve the tedium. Mary is Mary. I've said before that a lot of the time I just toss stuff that I don't think works. If it does work, I hold it as canon, if it's stupid, it's thrown away. About half of Mary's bile towards Edith I throw away, particularly the haircut/Gregson episode. I considered Fellowes to be tone deaf in that scene, and the actors semi-appalled and doing their bit with facial expressions to show it (particularly Bonneville), but the show runner was oblivious to just how horrible it was, and there was no follow up. I think prior to that season Dockery said something about how horrid Mary is to her sister - that was a fault of Mary's, and Dockery seemed a bit appalled, although I didn't know then what she was talking about. I also agree that Mary's best self was exhibited when Matthew was engaged to Lavinia, the dance while Lavinia was upstairs hacking her lungs out notwithstanding. Greater, to me, than Mary's vicious behavior to her sister is how everybody else stands by, not assenting, precisely, but just as if Mary is only using bad FORM. You know, they all agree, everybody knows, that Edith actually having a beau to grieve for is tedious, that they all find anything to do with Edith's emotional life dead boring and even a little repulsive, but how embarrassing that Mary isn't more discreet about it. That's how the Gregson/haircut episode seemed to me. Only after Edith had her daughter did Robert and Violet change. I totally believe that happened because the audience was revolted about Edith's story vis a vis Mary's extremely silly stories in S4, and Fellowes had to take an adjustment. It's everybody standing by discomfited as if Mary had just said something everybody was thinking but were too civilized to say that is the worst of it. How Mary is continually enabled. That's really the injury Edith has received, more than from Mary herself. Mary's saying what the family is thinking, and the family sort of finds Edith a waste of space. That's only changed in this past season. I don't think Edith is letting Marigold be raised by servants. The night Robert's ulcer broke, Edith went into the children, and Mary did not. George's legacy/future calls to mind an entertaining article by Charles Spencer (Diana's brother). He's a pretty prolific writer (not to say exploiter of a recently closed traveling museum called "Diana - a Celebration"). I imagine he's the age of a future son of George's. He talked about how sometimes the estates are stripped of valuable chattel by one wife or other (as Althorp had been picked over by his father's widow), how some of the chattel is valuable loan collateral or their sale can raise capital, and also references how the Pacific Palisades in California are a popular stomping ground for U.K. nobility to seek wealthy American widows.

That bugs me as well. The haircut episode vis a vis Gregson's death was all, well, it's Mary, she's the boss of us. I also HATE writing strategems such as having Robert out of the room when Mary lowers the boom about Marigold, very conveniently he's excused from taking her to task. The momentum from this season was rubbished, rubbished in a fake, forced way, just to set up redemption for the CS. The rubbishing wasn't even remotely believable or motivated, as Fellowes WELL knew. He knows Dockery's capabilities and limitations at this point, and one thing she can't do is pretend to be passionately disappointed about a dude with whom she has no chemistry whatsoever, even if he's nowhere around and she doesn't have to deal with her lack of rapport with the actor. And setting her aside, We're not going to believe it, because it wasn't there. It came across as undiluted cruelty and spite as the driving force, not disappointment in Henry. The only people I can really recall telling Mary to get off was Cora in Series 1 - don't know what it is about Elizabeth McGovern who is not a very good actress, but there's something about her that when her character is angry or not having it, I 100% believe everybody shuts it down and obeys. And Matthew was the other one. When he was angry, it was always more in sorrow than in anger, but it was real. P.S., while Emma was more than a bit up herself, she did have a warm heart, because when taken to task by Knightley, not only was she mortified to be brought up short because it was Knightley, she also felt what she'd done. She was also only twenty. Imagine if Emma had cut Mrs. Bates like that when she was 33-35. She'd be Mary Musgrove or Elizabeth Musgrove then. Well, to my credit, I like to tell myself, I read Atlas Shrugged when I was quite young - a tween I think, and not only was it a chore to get through, my response was "What kind of bullshit is this?" I can't remember what prompted me to try reading it. I wasn't really aware or Rand's place in the culture.

I kind of think the CS will skirt over Mary's marriage, at least as far as really showing husband and wife interacting. I expect Mary will be a busy bee using her formidable froideur to bring Bertie's mother into line where Edith and Marigold are concerned, and she'll generally be the heroine of the piece, as she was when she spoke to Rose's jazz singer boyfriend. I think the show will do its best to make the point that Mary is happy in her marriage, once the obligatory "adjustment" drama is past, but the show won't go to Matthew/Mary type lengths lest the lack of chemistry belie the point they're making. Really curious what on earth there is for Tom to do in the CS, save dance with Edith's editor at Edith and Bertie's wedding, maybe.

That being the case, it certainly does look as if he wasn't happy with his Downton experience.

Well, MMV on looks or talent, granted. Maybe Goode isn't part of the promotion because Fellowes didn't want to tip that Mary married him? After all, those Tom scenes may have kept fans engaged. Or maybe Goode was disappointed the role - the leading lady's love interest - was a big nothing? I don't know if it's customary with actor contracts in a British production, but in the U.S. part of the contract with featured and up contract players includes promotion. If Goode didn't promote, likely it's because he wasn't required/wanted.

You know, I'm sure American television has a type (I don't watch that much of it anymore), and via seeing 4 examples of what's on offer for Mary on Downton Abbey, PLUS one guy who was rumored to be cast but it turned out he wasn't (the actor was a bit of a Gillingham lookalike), AND via watching BBC's "Episodes" , it appears to me that among the toiling actors in the 30-40ish crowd in the U.K., Stevens was an outlier and the Matthew Goode type is a popular type. Weedy, goggle-eyed, a bit deficient about the chin and jaw. Steven Mangan of Episodes fits right in, BUT, nobody is trying to claim he's dashing and loaded with sex appeal (a la Robert's "sex appeal" remark about Henry). Mangan's Sean character is smart, funny, good-natured and self-effacing MOST of the time, but with his back to the wall and enough pressure or justification, he can be hilarious and quite strong. It's appealing enough to not only keep his wife in love with him, but to plausibly attract the leading lady of the show for which he writes (she's not obsessed with him, but they did hook up). Yes, Fellowes didn't want Mary/Matthew redux (which, I agree, was a mistake), but he also cast these guys and then insisted on writing them as if they were saturated in sexual energy and the last word in dashing. They just weren't. Maybe write them in their actual wheelhouse (as he did the guy who played Bertie) and then their actual appeal could have surfaced, and things would have been better. I DON'T think more time for any of those men would have helped in the least if Fellowes had persisted in writing them as sexually charged hearthrobs who created automatic sexual tension with Mary.

Well, I won't disagree Tom was ill-used, and the fans of Tom ill-used. I wonder though, if Fellowes had the birds-eye view enough to realize fans would be logical about the way they noticed how Mary and Tom were paired together in such a husband-and-wife, team way, and suspect we were headed towards a union. Or if Fellowes simply thought he was using a camera trick, a chemistry-dodging trick. I've seen chemistry dodges in other films (not just the example I've used of Persuasion) where the romantic leads hardly ever interact but the story is structured and the camera is used to sort of distract you from that fact. OTOH, Tom and Mary had a lot of long tracking shots, so who knows. Maybe he did know he was tricking us. Anyway, it's shallow, but since looks have been discussed here, this image of Henry and Mary: Michelle Dockery is ridiculously fine-boned, but this guy has a smaller head than she does. And unimpressively shaped - look at how the lower part of the face shrinks. He's got bird-head. Puny shoulders, puny chest, actually a rather long neck which adds to the bird-like effect. I am sure that with artfully mussed hair and contemporary clothes he'd look far more appealing with that lanky build, but here, he looks dreadful. I was truly amazed that Mary seemed to think Henry was hot stuff compared to Bertie. Whatever happened to the days when Matthew would be eyeing her with interest but then in would blow someone like the Turk? Where were actors like that when it was time for widow Mary to look round again?

Agreed. I think Tom is better looking than Henry. Henry just looks so generic to me. I didn't mind Fat Matthew either. Although I'm indifferent to absolutely all of the actors who've pursued Mary (save Stevens as Matthew), I agree with others who've mentioned that Mary is definitely not a one size fits all character where you can bring in a plausible guy and it will work (Laura Carmichael is that - she has that gentle quality that sort of brings the guy out). She really does need the humor, the sweetness, the classic masculinity. That said, when I look at the picture again, and forget about Henry photo-bombing, the posing is absolutely bizarre, with little George between Tom and Mary. Surely little George could have been positioned so it didn't look like the family of Tom/Mary/George posing with Tom's in-laws, while the poltergeist of Mary's second husband looms spookily in the background as if he's just apparated from the pond.

ITA about "Kiss Me Kate" being out of Fellowes' wheelhouse, also agree that a Matthew type was what Mary needed - in the casting, not simply the scenarios (a Leech, a Stevens). But I also think "Kiss Me Kate" was out of the wheelhouse of the guys they cast as Mary's suitors. Agreed except for "could have worked" would substitute "May as well have been one of them as Henry." because as you say, there was no difference. Don't think any of them worked. I believe the idea, if it had worked, was that Gillingham would be the stalking horse and Blake "the one", and if it turned out she clicked better with Gillingham, then Blake would play spolier a la the Turk or Sir. Richard. But they were all sort of meh, and I think at the time Fellowes was still ambitious to do better. But Matthew Goode really wasn't any better, there was no time to get yet another one, and I guess Fellowes absolutely wasn't going to do Tom, so there you go. It was all sorts of clear Fellowes knew the chemistry wasn't there - that was what was really going on with so much Tom/Mary material. To keep us watching. Not necessarily to trick "shippers", but simply Allen Leech is popular, and I believe people were a whole lot more likely to keep watching Season 6 if it didn't involve endless scenes of Mary with Interchangeable Suitor No. 5 (or whatever # he was). So I guess that's the big difference between Gillingham and Blake. The suitors got a LOT of screen time and the audience was bored senseless, I believe. A bit too late to use strategems on one of them, so Fellowes just grabs a fourth guy (or a third, depending if we count Napier) and this time tells the story without even using him. It reminds me a bit of a cultishly popular version of "Persuasion" starring Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root. A year or so before, they'd co-starred in "The Man Who Cried", displaying no chemistry whatsoever, according to most fans whose comments I've read. Many fans of "Persuasion" think there's terrific chemistry, but if you actually watch, through 90% of the movie they're not even in the same shot. He enters, we see only him (not over her shoulder as is the usual). She reacts - it's tight on her, filmed separately, he could be in his trailer for all we know. The camera did all the work and then it was stitched together. In Downton, Tom did all the work. :)