DianeDobbler

Well, two of the people Mary was devoted to are dead, and the other two are in service, an extremely unequal relationship and Mary never does forget that (sending Anna to get her birth control, no matter how Anna later decided it was all right, she was initially uncomfortable). Thinking about post-Matthew casting. If I were a show runner I would actually do as Fellowes did. I most definitely would not settle on ONE actor and write him for two years in his own right. So much depends on chemistry. I know we all like or dislike individual actors and have opinions about what would have happened with the candidates if Fellowes had picked one, but I thought they were all weak beer, or whatever the expression is. IMO none of them looked right, they were all the same sort, they could have played each other's parts. That's more than writing. They were all pallid masculine versions of Mary. I do think that has to do with the casting, even though the writing was bad. I keep remembering how absolutely, terrifically horrid the writing was for Matthew when he was in the wheelchair (and then had to experience a tingling in his legs and I think use the word tingling), he had to walk into a room and join Mary in song, he had to mope about like an idiot over Lavinia guilt (none of this was wrong in itself, but as written, was cartoonish). Hugh Bonneville is no hearthrob, IMO, but he's a good actor, not cookie cutter, and manages to keep his ballast for all the nonsense with Robert. I think maybe a lot of the leading men in the right age group are working elsewhere and weren't available to do Downton, and Fellowes ended with a lot of journeymen who weren't really going to break out vis a vis Mary. t's actually difficult to find a truly legit classic male romantic lead - they got very lucky with Stevens. Conversely, he could have taken a shot with an unknown, and that way get all the qualities, only not fully fledged in the industry yet. But I guess he didn't go that route or never found that guy. You know when Richard E. Grant showed up as a quasi-suitor for Cora - all the men brought on for Mary, including Henry, remind me of him. I don't think all the writing in the world would have made me care. I believe Fellowes fished in the casting pond available to him, took his chances with guys that already had made some sort of splash in other shows, in hopes it would transfer, and then watched for chemistry and there was none. You don't need two years to find chemistry. You can watch a couple of scenes and know if it's clicking. Fellowes himself has done that with actors on the show, given them a contract when they started short term. I know some people believe Charles Blake deserved more of a shot, I do not. I think he got plenty in the pig/scrambled eggs scene; it was no more absurd than anything else on Downton. The more we saw of him, the less romantic chemistry he had with Mary, and the more brotherly the chemistry got - even more so than with Tom. They were amusing together, but in a sort of sassy best friend way. I guess now I think Fellowes realized there was no chemistry with Henry pretty early, but the end was nigh. So, Fellowes Cyrano'd Tom, and then swiftly switched the men out at the last minute. I guess that was one way to do it. Also, there was something about their faces. Handsome, but off. That can work on a lot of guys - the off part can give them interest. I can't help remembering most of these guys as googly eyed - literally, that's how they looked - big foreheads, big eyes, small jaws and chins. All very skinny. If they'd gained an ounce, any pretense at handsome would have flown - they were hanging onto their decent bone structure by the knuckles. And Charles Blake was distractingly short. It's mentioned upthread that Allen Leech was too stocky to be a romantic lead. Eh. I think he would have romanced Rose very plausibly, and stayed married to Sybil plausibly. I think the writing is pretty appalling, but they got the B team for post-Matthew suitors, and Dockery REALLY needs the A team to warm her up. She's SO dry. Carmichael can take somebody like Greggson, or Bertie, and warm them up, bring out their charm. One last thing (sorry for the length). Robert James Collier has said he wasn't supposed to be on more than an episode or two of Downton, but he gave it his all anyway, and look what happened. If you DO look at when we first see Thomas, he's simply one of the servants doing servant stuff as the camera swoops around, but even so, it's absolutely clear that there's more than meets the eye with that guy - you can see how practiced his routine is, and how his inner life is a whole other deal. The Mary suitors came on and performed exactly as they were - actors hired for a gig, phoning it in (sort of - I don't mean lazy about it, but it's a J-O-B and not much more), and then onto their next thing. That's another reason I wish Fellowes had found an unknown for whom Downton would have been a real break.

Honestly, as to the last couple of episodes, I have never seen more WTF since Mad Men had Betty get cancer in the penultimate episode, while Don is on the road, his daughter carrying the burden. Don had spent most of the season being Don, with an essential difference - he was showing up for his kids. He may have been wanting to go on the road, but when he did, his kids knew where he was and he knew the details of their lives. It set up for him to come back and step up after Betty's diagnosis, finally be a grown man and real father. Instead, in the finale, his growth was dismissed, and the writers were all, well yeah, Betty's diagnosis was a thing, and his kids forlorn situation was a thing (faced with the prospect of living with Betty's misery-guts brother and sister-in-law), but, well, there's this big finale with Don, an EST seminar and coke on the horizon, so we'll blow past that. If you read even the most astute reviewers of Mad Men, EVERYBODY read the penultimate episode as setting up Don and his kids. It had been earned. But pfffft. It wasn't really a story the showrunner was telling at all. He was filling time, preoccupied with the same existential stuff that had preoccupied him all along. Likewise, everything here set up for Mary, who truly had been softening this past season, even towards Edith, coming to learn that even those closest to her feared the damage she'd do to Edith if she learned about Marigold, and they ALL kept it from her, down to her personal maid. Turns out to be nothing but cheap misdirection. Perhaps there was a way to play it so that we really felt Mary's misery over Henry, so that we saw that it wasn't really the Mary she is today, but a momentary regression out of heartache. That would work. All that damage, and she didn't mean it. She really really didn't. But, the pain was not authentic (the Henry relationship satirizes itself and is well-satirized in that Robert James Collier/Michelle Dockery "Downton Wars" bit), and Mary's take down of Edith was done with calculated cruelty. WTF.

Tom's got a chin, though.

That photo is all kinds of ridiculous. Just a comment on the post-Matthew Mary mess Fellowes made of Downton, and how everybody else was sucked into it. I'm sure Matthew Goode must feel like quite the star in photos like that. :( I kind of agree with the comments upthread that Daniel Stevens and Allen Leech are similar sorts. They definitely contrasted with Mary. Each almost has an American sort of openness, humor and down to earth quality. A great sense of the ridiculous, and also an earnestness. It's odd I think of them as quasi-American, but I really mean as to a type, as actors. You could throw them into an American series without needing to give the American characters lines about them being British. All of her other suitors were quintessentially a particular sort of British in casting terms - ironic, a bit supercilious, weedy, a bit fey from time to time (I was looking in the thesaurus, and that fit - they all had/have manners and a demeanor that's a bit airy and otherworldly, whereas with both Matthew and Tom, you sort of get them in one). In a non-vain way, Leech and Stevens both have the sort of presence that holds the screen, whereas the others are a bit self-effacing.

Just for the moment supposing that Edith gets a happy ending, to me it IS a comment on the post-Matthew era that Edith's wedding would be the big, lavish, on-location Christmas Special wedding, as opposed to Mary's rush job, which was on par with Rose's rush job. If Mary mends fences, my guess is instead of going to Edith, she goes to BERTIE, and makes Edith's case to Bertie, with lines such as "She's really quite marvelous, although I'll deny it if you tell anyone." Or "Difficult as it is for me to admit, she's a remarkable woman." and then a few dry disparagements of herself, whereupon, as she exits Brancaster, Bertie says "You're a lot nicer than people think you are."

I can actually see this perfectly, except I see Molesley continuing on as a teacher because he loves it, but he's somehow naturally drawn into these detective cases. We've all seen the premise before, but with these two, it would be brilliant. I think Baxter has saved her wages and owns a piece of her own business, so looking in on that isn't full time for her, and she and her hubby can work together.

I agree, and would put money down on Edith's wedding. Edith's marriage, OTOH, I am not so sure. Were any special effects/explosive devices/rented ambulances, or say, evidence that Downton researched hereditary conditions that cause men to die abruptly before forty, often during the church recessional after having just said I do?

I haven't really tracked all the hate Fellowes supposedly has for Dan Stevens, but I wonder if the uber Mary-centricity of post-Matthew Downton was Fellowes trying to prove that Mary/Matthew's success had been more Dockery than Stevens. He never really wrote another guy in his own right. Long arcs for other "upstairs" leads went down the toilet. All of Rose's romances were never meant to be long term, unlike Sybil's, for example, and when she did meet Mr. Right they rushed it through and her off the show. It wasn't a real story. And we all know what happened to Greggson. The show was always a lot Mary-centric, but there were longer term stories that were explored, and that disappeared once Stevens left. Respectfully disagree, that doesn't describe Edith in either of her relationships (Bertie and Greggson) - nor with Stallan either, once they were actually courting. Nor does it describe how she is at her newspaper, with her colleagues there. In her relationships with Michael Greggson and with Bertie, they were engaged with the world. Conversation was easy. I don't recall her bursting into tears or being unhappy in those relationships, nor a sour face all the time. Mary, OTOH, is absolutely glacially stone-faced much of the time, and the occasions when she actually did have passionate engagement such as you describe, I can count on one hand. Edith has had to fight for attention from her family, absolutely true, although this season she appeared to have given that up, which, naturally, made her family more interested. But, apart from Stallan, which was ... 12 years ago ... she was pursued by her two major beaus, and she was the one who was cautious. ETA: Really good point. What Mary did, with calculation and venom, ignoring even her bff Tom, was prompted by a wounded ego. There's nothing to tell a suitor she wouldn't do that to him. Of course, Talbot wasn't there to see it, but Talbot has his own poisonous attributes - he's a stalkery creep.

I was also wondering what Mary had on offer really. Edith appears to be more genuinely warm and natural in ways that would extend to her intimate life. Edith has genuine sense of humor, and because of her work, a fairly wide frame of reference and understanding of what goes on in the world. Sybil did too, differently - Sybil understood changing times and politics, but in her own way Edith is plugged in. Her life isn't her own aristocratic set and then the serving class, as the case with Mary. She works alongside career types, such as her editor - a whole different part of the population. Mary's big adventure was sending her personal maid off to purchase birth control (to the maid's initial great discomfort) and then lodging in a hotel with a suitor for a few days. Edith is much more competent about getting around and doing for herself, even as a woman of means. I guess my point is, what the HELL would Mary and a husband discuss except Mary? Every conversation is almost always about Mary.When Bertie told Edith that Michael's apartment was the most sophisticated space he'd ever been in, Edith knew what he meant and you knew she'd learned some of Michael's taste, why it worked. I think a man would be bored unto death with Mary.

Chelsie? Actually when I was pasting it, I thought'd you'd written "Carlisle" and I had an "I never thought Carlisle was handsome or even a good actor!" comment ready to second your motion. Oh well, doing it anyway. Remind me who Chelsie is? Yeah, I can do her rhythms and how she'll emphasize the last word in a sentence in my sleep. The one thing she does well, which I find odd, is putting her foot down. Anger and enough is enough. In my observation, sort of feeble actors, as feeble as I find Elizabeth McGovern, overdue the anger when called upon. Can barely have a plausible ordinary conversation but just go OTT when it's time for anger. I've read it's because anger is an easily accessible emotion (on the other side of the coin, but similarly, the type of fear that a rape storyline calls for in an actress is often something they can hit out of the park even if their acting isn't terribly good otherwise). Anyway. McGovern's anger as Cora was always convincing. When the character said she'd had it, I believed she'd had it. Maggie Smith can act, and Elizabeth McGovern can hardly act, but when Cora tells the Dowager something's final, Maggie Smith seems to very easily believe it. *I* think it's because McGovern always plays it as if she IS ready to get past whatever the issue is, and is just not having it with her opponent. She's always focused on the situation as opposed to the person, and that makes it believable. She's not trying to win a scene, as a lot of actors try to do. She, her OWN character, is just expressing how it is for HER, and that seems to impact those opposite.

I'd have especially loved it if he were recruited as an accent coach for Hwood stars new to talkies. He could plum up his tones a bit, still be completely off, and nobody would know as long as it sounded British-ish. They'd be enraptured by his English expressions too.

Hmmm- Edith/Bertie/Mary play out as Vesper describes, with Bertie quite cheerful and almost offhand about starting titled lives - perhaps with an equally offhand remark that this isn't his accustomed breakfast conversation but perhaps at the mere level of ladyship things have become coarsened for some people. This is probably cheating, but all things considered Tom should have ended with Rose - I think Lily James and Allen Leech would have played wonderfully together so I'll retcon three seasons and have that happen. They each encourage the "revolutionary" side of each other and earn their livings while maintaining warm relations with family. Thomas has another opportunity to go to the United States, he takes it, where his background as butler to a British lord (Americans don't bother with distinctions like "under-butler"), his looks, and his British accent make him a highly paid status symbol, competed for and in-demand. He ends up butler to someone nouveau riche (very riche indeed) in Hollywood and makes connections in the film business, branching out somehow (design, working for one of the studios, etc.), with his employer his most enthusiastic patron. Needless to say Hollywood is a much more congenial atmosphere for him socially as well. Baxter and Mosley marry and have a late in life daughter who ends up going to, and graduating from, university. Carson dies, in short order Mrs. Carson, nee Hughes, meets a lovely chap at Mrs. Patmore's B&B; Mrs. Patmore keeps company with Mr. Mason and things take their natural course. Mary marries whomever, remains at Downton, all the kiddies save George are gone to their own establishments with their respective parents and stepparents. Despite Robert's ulcer scare, he and Cora are still under sixty, and in relatively robust health, so each couple feels like third wheels around the other. Since Mary's husband begins to feel bored and useless hanging round the estate, which is well-managed without him, he spends more and more time on the racing circuit, a circuit where Mary feels rather useless, so she spends most of her time at Downton or attending fashion shows, and before long the two find they've got separate lives, and only quarrel over what needs to be done for appearances.

I agree with Decca. IMO it's a double standard. Mary rubs salt in Edith's wounds with her morning tea, but God forbid Edith return the favor. Mary is vile to Edith every day as a matter of course. I can't remember a time Mary has done for Edith even the small things Edith has done for her, such as telling Mary about Matthew, such as being concerned after the crash at Henry's race day. Edit is simply not granted the same license Mary is granted vis a vis Edith. If Mary isn't ruining Edith's life with what she says no matter high ill-timed or mean spirited, she gets a pass. If Edith does the same to Mary, it's a green light to ruin Edith's life.

Not to mention Tom's appalled "Mary, don't." Everybody at that table save Bertie knew Mary knew what she was doing. Deliberately cruel. And let's say Bertie HAD known. Who the HELL icily makes that breakfast conversation? "So Bertie, so marvellous you're taking my sister on. Not everyone would accept a bastard child." She was vicious. Obviously I have to greatly amend my ideas about where the series was headed. Fellowes knew Goode and Dockery had no chemistry, or suspected it, having seen the same signs when he threw the previous three at her. So, he used Tom as a sort of sincere Cyrano go between. It's so perverse. Also, I totally agree Fellowes sees no reason to show us why any man would immediately fall in love with Mary.So it's true that Tom's story was sacrified because Fellowes needed him for Mary; just not in the way some of us suspected. He was a Henry stand-in, because he had rapport with Mary and Goode did not. Hell, he had rapport with Goode and Dockery did not. Goode utterly failed in the sex appeal, "strong male" department as well, so the bits about him being as strong as Mary seemed a spin on him being a horrible, scary creep. There was no actual strength there. Dockery HAS become unbelievably thin, despite having always been slender. I look at her face from the scene when she first met Matthew and it's absolutely round compared to now. Even granted she was younger then, in subsequent seasons when she was absolutely wraithlike her face is still also fuller compared to now.

Mary and Tom come across to me as if Mary is the star of the show, and so must have the happy ending, which includes love and a love interest of whom the audience approves. For whatever reason, and of the four actors brought in to try, none clicked. Yet the ending must happen - Mary must have a love interest in whom the audience is invested (as a character in his own right, even if not as her consort most specifically). If there's laziness, it's in the concept of Mary and the ending Fellowes is determined she have. I think Brary is the whole reason Rose never did anything - she was brought on when Mary was looking for a suitor, and she had to wait til Mary was set, and Mary never was set. That said, it's not as if Fellowes is forcing two magnets together with Tom and Mary. The actors/characters have a definite rapport and ease. The history is there without having to force it, they're able to relate to each other as the people they are versus the personas they're assigned on the show. Each has individual appeal apart from their utility in a plot - something none of the suitors managed. Brary is really not lazy, but the only way Fellowes can complete his (non-Matthew) arc for Mary. Recently looked at a Matthew/Mary montage and truly, there just has been nobody ever who brings out in Mary what Matthew brought out in Mary. A real joyousness, energy, vulnerability, accessibilty - basically fully dimensional and SO much more energy and urgency, whether happy or sad. Not forgetting what a crapload the writing was for Matthew for a good deal of Season 2 and all of Season 3. There was just so much believable emotion, so much convincing investment in Matthew by the other characters. Edith. When I watch a show, if, in my opinion, something doesn't work, I don't take it on its own terms. It's a failure, IMO, and I kick it out of the canon, and don't factor it in when I evaluate a character. So, the Drews. That never worked, IMO. First off, casting. I think they needed to have cast Mrs. Drew a hell of a lot more strongly, and given her a hell of a lot more motive for loving Marigold than simply telling us. The reality of those times was infant mortality was high, farming life was incredibly hard work, and Mrs. Drew already had a hard slog of it, already had a busy, hectic day, already was a mom to active children. Her husband comes in and announces they're taking care of this girl, and Downton did nothing, not with the actress playing Mrs. Drew, and not with the writing, to make me believe she'd formed this possessive attachment to her. Realistically, she'd have been a bit of a burden. We didn't see anything of the ways Marigold might have won Mrs. Drew's heart. As far as I'm concerned, Edith gets a complete pass and the Drews matter about as much as the eternal Mr. Green one of the Bates' might have kicked under a bus. Re-set and move on, that's how I feel about that one. For the first half of Downton, Edith received appalling treatment from her family. They were oblivious to her accomplishments, such as her nursing, and absolutely couldn't believe she could be attractive to ANY man, nor could they believe anybody believed in her talent. Her father openly believed she was offered a writing post because of her name only. Can't be writing talent AND the title was good advertising. Basically, Robert constantly believed that nobody could give two figs about Edith in her own right, because he didn't. I thought what the family did - undermining her marriage to Stallan, was criminal. IF Fellowes had written and directed that relationship as Edith forcing herself to take on an older man, trying against her instincts to appreciate his company because she was that desperate for an independent situation of her own, then fine. Instead we saw a very natural affinity between Stallan and Edith, and a real happiness in Edith as a bride, and her family being utterly unbelievable and ridiculous in their rationale for undermining the union. Who EVER believed they undermined it for Edith's sake? They never gave two shits about Edith. Stallan was extremely rich - the whinging on about how she'd end up a nurse for him and how they had to save her - the man had tons of money, all of his faculties, and three fully working limbs. That came off as just pure meanness - they couldn't BEAR the idea she'd be married to a man of position - almost as if they sought to save HIM from her. Then their pure insensitivity about Gregson. The family looked with suspicion upon anyone who showed an interest in Edith. The family had such contempt for Edith, that their default attitude was everyone else must have immediate contempt for her as well, so if someone showed interest in Edith, clearly Edith must be set straight. Honey, nobody would be interested in you for YOU. Mary would be vicious to Edith - about her grief, about EVERYTHING, and not corrected. Edith also had to hear stuff from her mother about how she lacked Mary's advantages (IOW, not pretty). Sure, that was overheard, not intended for Edith's ears, but we know Edith got the message loud and clear over and over. Then, when Mary said Edith lacked ANY advantages, Cora didn't correct her. Boy, that certainly cultivates trust in one's parents. I think the family got a shock when Edith began establishing her own life. I think it's no coincidence that an aunt was the one who first had to reach out to help Edith when Edith was pregnant. It's also difficult not to believe that for Edith's grandmother, Violet, Edith being pregnant actually made her see Edith as valuable - oh look, a man cared enough to become intimate with her, the care the man had for Edith validated by the fact that he left her his power of attorney and his property as well. Also, simply Violet had a realization that energy might actually have to be expended upon Edith, otherwise instead of just lying at home like a doormat, she might stir things up and tarnish the family name. When Edith made it more than clear she was ready to manage on her own, suddenly the family - meaning Violet and Cora (not Rosamond, the best of the lot where Edith is concerned) swoop in. It read so much like the old thing of playing hard to get versus taking someone for granted. As soon as Edith was hard to get - and the family noticed that ridiculously belatedly, long after Gregson was dead - suddenly she was of interest. So much ego in that family. In fact, I kind of believe that when she inherited authority and property from Gregson, THAT was when her family began to realize she couldn't be the whipping post. They still failed to respect her grief. The pregnancy was the turning point that made the family begin to respect Edith, but it should never have come to that.

I've expressed this before, but my point of view continues to be that Rose was brought on to be the eventual love interest for Tom, but due to the hierarchy of the show, Rose/Tom was never going to be launched until it was determined which of Mary's suitors was the winner and that story was underway. But as it happened they ALL bombed, and bombed thoroughly. I think that was when Fellowes was like - well, Brary it is! And married Rose off posthaste. Meantime, Tom gets absolutely nothing to do because in Fellowes' Mary-centric game plan, he only exists to be Mary's happy ending, and Fellowes doesn't want to tip his hand. So he misdirects (Tom goes to America) and basically sidelines Tom til Mary's own misdirected beats are all played. Tom isn't anything in his own right, really. The only person who exists in their own right, really, for Fellowes, is Mary. As to Tom's youthful dreams coming to nothing, I speculate that Fellowes thinks Tom evolving from a socialist chauffeur to a guy bent on modernizing Downton is a logical progression (although it really isn't) and Tom's modernism is consistent with his socialism. Which it's not, but I sort of see how Fellowes thinks it is. A Tom who evolves to buy into the whole "Lord of the Manor and dependants/in-service" sorts might appear to be a betrayal of his character to Fellowes. A Tom who moves Downton to a more "fair", transactional, reality-based model might seem to Fellowes to suit his character. Not saying I believe it, but I think Fellowes does. The problem, IMO, is the utter Mary-centricity of the show when it comes to love stories. Unless she's set, nothing can happen for other people. By other people I mean the few who are classic leads, which is really Mary, Tom and Edith (and, previously, Rose). Rose was simply rushed off stage via a marriage. Edith idled in park a long time. Tom was treading water with a woman the audience actively disliked. All while Fellowes was sorting through Mary's options.

I feel that Downton IS Mary's true passion and her calling, and that's why she'll end up with Tom, who has become indispensable, and whom she trusts more than anyone else in her life. She's at ease and herself with him. I don't know if it's going in that direction; I just can't imagine not. I, also, thought Tom entering the scene after Mary got off the phone with Henry was electric.

I think it's good insight that perhaps newer actors mimic Dockery's performance and end up thwarting anything happening, but I also believe none of them were authentic romantic leading men. Maybe in a particular program they'd fit the role, but they're not "And, for the romantic lead, we have Obvious Romantic Lead Actor." Dan Stevens is definitely that. I felt Mary and Matthew had immediate chemistry - that moment when she swoops into the Crowley parlor just as Matthew wondered which daughter they'd push off on him still plays like gangbusters on both their sides. His immediate interest, her immediate fiery (in the eyes) umbrage and resentment, versus a cool assessment/contempt. While I never thought Tom/Sybil had particular chemistry, Allen Leech made more of an impression than the guys who succeeded him and Stevens. Leech has wonderful chemistry with his CHARACTER. He plays intelligence and great smart humor beautifully. I don't think he plays anger all that well, and so the angry socialist stuff didn't always come off well. However, a passing scene where he was one of the few downstairs people who was able to manage the telephone with natural aplomb and common sense sort of made him seem a cut above, more worldly than the others in service were portrayed at the time (save for Bates). I just think the actors they've introduced are a bit generic, save for the guy playing Bertie. It's funny, I mentioned in another comment that when you look at the lives of the wealthy, aristocratic, nobility, upper class of the first half of the last century, it's not uncommon to run across someone who married their sibling's widow or widower. Was just reading about Anne Morrow Lindbergh. After her sister Elizabeth died in the mid-1930s, Elizabeth's widower, Aubrey, married Elizabeth and Anne's youngest sister, Connie. There was nothing sordid in it, the marriage to Elizabeth had been happy, Aubrey was close to the family, and Connie and Elizabeth were both activists of a sort in education, each more extroverted than Anne, and very progressive, which gave them much in common with Aubrey. Both the short marriage to Elizabeth and the long one to Connie appeared to have been happy.

Carson/Mrs. Hughes always struck me as the sort of older couple about which a show runner is more cozily self-congratulatory than actually responding to what the audience likes. I don't find Carson's insensitivity and lack of consideration out of character, precisely, it's simply that there really is no sign the two of them care for each other. Maybe not unpopular, but I recall when Downton started I was leery of Mrs. Patmore, I was all for Daisy's bettering herself, and felt that Mrs. Patmore's then-unacknowledged attachment to Daisy might hold Daisy back. And also Mrs. Patmore's somewhat dog in the mangery ways in general. Now that we're at the end, I adore Mrs. Patmore and think Daisy can take a flying leap.

I agree that Mary looked shocked/stunned in the scene where Edith is telling her off, and I have speculation as to why. Last season, Mary's continued shots at Edith were often vicious - I thought overstated (in the script) and over directed (I have faith in Dockery that she doesn't put more acid on a line to Carmichael than she's told the scene requires). This season, Mary has, very occasionally, is my impression, said some things, but very half-heartedly. And so my theory is -Edith may still be hearing them the same way, and not be picking up that Mary's tone has become a bit more respectful. Mary said to Edith "Aren't you a good enough reason" for Bertie to go to the race. Her tone was genuine - sort of "Why wouldn't you be a good enough reason -he obviously likes you a great deal." I imagine it will come out that after all these years, Edith still hears that sort of thing from Mary as catty and superior, with a subtext of "You obviously AREN'T a good enough reason." I think simultaneously, Edith is very sensitive and wary about Marigold and about what Mary's judgment might be. Mary was awfully catty and insensitive when Michael disappeared, and I suspect from EDITH's point of view, if Mary found out about Marigold, Edith would be in for insensitive remarks about how Edith was abandoned with an illegitimate child and her family had to rescue her. I think that will NOT be Mary's attitude, not even close, but Edith thinks it would be. I suspect Edith's anger at Mary in the preview has something to do with a misunderstanding or anticipated misunderstanding/assumption about Mary and Marigold, will finally get the antipathy between the sisters out in the open at a time when both are grown-up enough to make some sort of amends/develop greater respect. Mary says things she doesn't mean, or so she says, and I think a great deal of what she said to Edith was habit, but Edith took it to heart, and has built up this sense over the years that Mary has contempt for her, even after Mary has evolved out of her catty side (which she has, quite a bit, and not just as regards Edith). Phew. Also wanted to note how much weight Maggie Smith has lost. It appears to me to be a healthy weight loss. I remember noticing in the middle of Downton's run that Maggie Smith had become pretty stout, and that may have impacted how she moves (lots of sitting). She uses a cane (or Violet does), but she's a lot more streamlined, and just seems more comfortable moving, and more comfortable in her costumes.

I think the reason people found Mary and Three Suitors overkill was because of how it was presented. Wasn't there a series finale shot of Mary with three men, while the other women looked on and smiled? It's how it was played, not who they are on paper. It's a relatively small cast, Mary and those three guys in various formations took up a lot of airtime and a ton of the screen, and so for me and I imagine others, it was overkill and also dull. I have concluded Michelle Dockery just doesn't click with very many leading men. I compare her to Laura Carmichael, who even clicked with MARY's leading men, as well as her own. And the actress who played Mabel had immediate chemistry with the actor playing Gillingham, this despite all the material used to showcase Mary and Gillingham. It's fine for me that Tony is a race car driver; the fact that his buddy died at the race was OTT for me.

I'm another who was never all that on board with Sybil. I don't believe the actress was all that great. I actually didn't find her terribly convincing in her love for Tom. The acting was a bit one note, but it was mostly the love for Tom part where I felt she fell short. Unpopular or not, felt Charles Blake and Mary had no romantic chemistry, he emerged best as sassy best friend, he was far too short, and ... that's about it. Unless he finds himself in a project where the role suits him to a tee, I don't find him leading man-ish. Another thing - it really seems to me as if ladies maids are utter anachronisms at this point, and the entire "getting you dressed routine" seems ridiculous in 1920something. Going from my P.G. Wodehouse, Jeeves was the valet of Bertie Wooster, but was more a man about the house. He kept Bertie's "things" pressed and at the ready, but was also a major domo/butler and at times a footman (bringing in tea and so forth). The era is about the same as Downton Abbey's. I just don't believe a maid standing there literally dressing, undressing, and handling accessories in the 1920s, when clothes were far less complicated than they were a decade prior. I think at this point we'd see the maid's job as more generalist, sort of a personal assistant, maid, and not this LITERALLY dressing and undressing stuff.

Just her ambitions! June opened an art gallery and displayed beautiful modern works. I so want that life for Edith. Oh - I am a huge sympathizer of June's. I just meant that she got the short end all the way through that book, most of all from the author. Fine, her fiance' carries on with someone else's wife, but then her own father ends up preferring the wife as well, and being more sympathetic to her. It was for no reason and it was TOO MUCH. I am so glad Fellowes isn't doling that out to Edith - for awhile I thought that might be her fate. I, too, adore Edith's beau. I really think it goes to the reality that Laura Carmichael appears to easily establish chemistry with whatever male (and most of her co-workers, really) crosses her path, and when chemistry happens, the guy of course seems more appealing. I'm not quite sure if the meh-ness of Mary's beaus is because they're unappealing, although none have the leading man charisma of Daniel Stephens. However, when Lord Gillingham interacted with Mabel, he became more watchable, so it really is a lot about chemistry. Have pretty much always loved Thomas. Doesn't mean I excuse or condone the bad things he's done/did. Everybody on Downton has done stuff I deplore.

I hope Thomas finds a partner and is happy. The show is set when it's set. However, plenty of gay people managed to partner up while other people looked the other way. Everything from Boston marriages to a couple of old bachelors pooling resources to make ends meet. While there were laws against homosexuality, people were people, and plenty of people were willing to leave other people alone, as long as the lip service was paid to the proprieties. A couple of gay people could be partnered as long as they observed a socially acceptable facade. It doesn't mean other people were fooled.

! June Forsyte - Ack! It's not so much that I loved June, but how I hated Irene. It's some consolation that Galsworthy had to go on endless pages when Forsyte saga was republished, trying to temper the readers' sympathy for Soames and detestation of Irene. Irene can go jump off a bridge. I do think Fellowes has saved Edith from a June Forsyte fate - fingers crossed, anyway.