DianeDobbler

I must say, I do see Edith wanting her cake and eating it too in some respects, but in others there's a flat out double standard, VERY poorly supported in the plot, that is employed simply to make Edith the butt monkey. For example, with Strallen, there was no reason for the family to disapprove of the marriage, especially when Robert, of all people, was already predicting Edith would be a lifelong spinster looking after her infirm parents in their old age. Nice one, daddy. But of course, when there's a man she wants to marry, with whom she's well-suited, everybody body blocks that because they're so so concerned he has a gimpy arm, which is apparently a big big obstacle to marriage. Somebody tell Jane Eyre. Then there's Robert saying that the paper only wanted Edith's views because of her title. Well DUH. That's the only reason anybody ever pays attention to YOU Robert, and I don't see you giving it all up out of embarrassment. A title, a name, status, credentials, a big resume - these are all calling cards that attract readers. Bonus that Edith is apparently a very good writer and a success. It just rankled that Robert, of all the oblivious idiots, who has to be saved every series from his own imbecility, the fortune-squanderer and daughter-killer, is turning up his nose because he guesses that his daughter was hired because of her title. I think he was really saying "Since you obviously have no talent whatsoever to add to your title." Of course the title was an incentive. And what's wrong with that. Robert's entire life is built on things like that. He didn't earn his way to an earldom.

Superpole, I think Fellowes just isn't interested. Doesn't want to spend time developing characters who are not his favorites. So, create Edna, and play that one note for an ENTIRE SERIES. Stretch it out, he doesn't have to write anything else for Tom. Create Bunting - ditto. Bunting just existed to state the same point in every single episode "Does Tom think he belongs at Downton." Not even DOES Tom belong at Downton, but "Does Tom THINK he belongs at Downton?" Each episode, his position was "I don't know." But, because Bunting was there, Tom had "something to do" every episode, which was to say "I don't know." Edith has something to do every episode - lurk around Marigold. This isn't storytelling. Not sure anymore Fellowes knows what it is. Oh God, I have never understood why they discouraged Anthony and Edith, and used Violet as the cudgel to persuade the audience as well. Anthony was good enough for Mary when Cora was foisting Mary on Anthony. The family doesn't even LIKE Edith and they acted as if because Strallen had a bum arm it was a bad match. Yes, because being married to a guy with a wonky arm, a gajillion dollars, tons of servants means he can't become a father and you're going to spend your married life emptying bedpans, cause that's how it works. And as if the Crowleys CARED. I really think after all these seasons they just need somebody to ignore and disparage, and if Edith were in her own household they'd have to find someone else. Strallen and Edith were probably the two best suited people I've ever seen on Downton.

Yep, Downton is not reality and they want the main characters to look good. Ergo, they're not going to turn their backs on Edith, after the initial puffing up and acting shocked. I'm calling it now. In the end Robert is going to feel guilty that he was dismissive about poor Edith hanging round the Drews til they got sick of her, and all along his child went through a pregnancy and childbirth without his support. Meanwhile, his sister and his mother - and his mother is all about appearances - stepped up. His child couldn't trust him to support her. I'm predicting that Robert's the one who puts the kibosh on sending Marigold away, that he makes one of his big declarations about standing up to social judgment, and if they're shunned, they're shunned, everybody dabs their eyes, and the upshot is nobody shuns anybody. It'll be like Thomas/Jimmy, where Robert pretty much killed Sybil and then they gave him an out (she would have died anyway!) and he turned out to be all chill with gay butlers. This season he's been oblivious about Edith and ignoring his wife. By the end he'll save the day for Edith and he'll do something heartfelt re Cora. Note: while the show has double standards and is unfair, Edith's daughter is the consequence of one time with the man she loved before he disappeared. Mary just spent a week banging a guy she no longer has any intention of marrying. Cora had a guy in his bathrobe propositioning her in her bedroom, thanks to her husband's disrespect and neglect. We found out Violet had committed adultery - with a FOREIGNER. Yes, Edith is "caught" the way the other too weren't caught, but I think we're set up for poor Edith suffering alone, with the emotional support of her female relatives who have all the wrong solutions. Robert's solution will be - Marigold stays with us! She's one of us! P.S. - wouldn't be surprised if we got a: "Yes, and this is my OTHER granddaughter, Marigold!" to someone of some standing, at a picnic, party, fair, cricket match. There's a brief pause, and then everybody outside Downton who even thought about side-eyeing Edith if for no reason other than they were bored, caves in and accepts. Count on Isobel running around talking about how it's 1924 and people have sex (responsibly! she'll be sure to include).

^Wasn't Bates carrying cases, pitching in with Anna, this past episode as well? The whole "scandal" deal with Downton is a pain in the butt. They kept holding Pamuck over Mary's head - when they remembered, which they didn't always. It was super important to get her married right away! Then she blew the Matthew deal and that kept her single for how many years? No - boy, she better get a move on cause that Pamuck thing could blow - not until Sir Richard. Then on the peak end of this two series, multi-year arc, she IS with Sir. Richard who takes care of the Pamuck story when Bates' wife starts making noises. By this point you'd think the entire family could just be all - give me a break, the guy never died in her bed. It's not a murder, the Turks aren't demanding an investigation, so it's just a potential social scandal rapidly receding into historical gossip. Where's the proof, besides Edith, and I bet the family could lean on her to say she lied. Anyway, so right before Matthew finally does propose a second time, the whole solution to Pamuck is - oh well, I'll just get on over to America ... maybe. And that will handle it. Additionally, all along it appeared the real concern was Robert finding out, but when he did, he had other priorities and was all sympathy. So with Edith, they can tell me all day long, every episode, that Edith is going to be ruined, and I won't believe it. Even if they play it in the script I won't believe it. She has money. She has assets. As you say, she needs to nut up. The whole plot can't pivot on Edith not facing what will probably be a nonexistent scandal because Fellowes won't write it anyway, but apparently it is. P.S. - I mentioned Passions, the soap opera. What felt like years of plot rested on the premise that Gwen and Ethan had to marry or his family would destroy anyone who prevented that marriage. The daughter of the housekeeper to Ethan's family was in love with Ethan, and the housekeeper told her that one every episode. That's a two-year obstacle! The gloom and doom. Comes the day the Gwen/Ethan deal goes on the rocks thanks to Theresa and not a single member of the groom's family can be bothered to show any interest. They're all up to their own shenanagins. The only person who took action was Gwen herself. That was not what we heard for two years - Gwen will go after you with a baseball bat! It was "his family will ruin us!" I don't mean to draw lines between Fellowes and this soap, but there are weird similarities between the free and easy way the supposed stakes in a story evaporate whenever it's convenient. It's happened enough on Downton that the "oh the scandal!" warnings are tedious.

Awww. :( I felt so bad reading that - I've been there. I binged watched up until Matthew's death, and read about Sybil before I'd ever seen the show, so I was working backwards. I definitely noticed that for a character whose death was meant to be a shock to the viewer, Sybil was underwritten in the two complete series she appeared, and her romance with Tom was ridiculously underwritten. The "harem pants" scene definitely jumped out at me. She had no dialogue. It was just - appear in the pants, register it as "look at this modern woman" and out, no real story in it. In show publicity it's played as some major moment, but Sybil had no story and it wasn't a major moment. It was like a cameo. Fellowes succeeded in making Tom popular, but for me it's not due to Sybil's death. It's very shallow. They cut his hair, and started writing towards Allen Leech's sense of humor, or at least gave him lines that played on his natural rhythms. While he was married to Sybil I wasn't crazy about some of his lines, such as "Don't disappoint me." Or some of the yes means no stuff as far as her feelings. There wasn't a lot of warmth written. In fact, the one time I really liked Tom pre-Sybil's death was the few seconds he clearly was one of the few at Downton who could handle the telephone. Tom got better scenes with Matthew than with Sybil. So I guess this is working around as - you're right, they didn't write them as a romantic couple. Their elopement was all about the family reacting - the script didn't follow them. Their entire relationship was mostly about the family reacting, and Fellowes didn't appear to have much interest writing Tom with his wife. Even now that Tom is popular because, IMO, he looks better, is more personable, they allow his charm to show - he doesn't have his own story. I couldn't take Bunting either, but that wasn't a story. Edna was horrible and dragged on too long. If you're going to give me villainesses, or the "wrong" woman, don't make it drag on forever for God's sake, or if you do, cast better! I didn't know Fellowes pretended that Downton had 18 protogonists. I always thought he was open about it being "Mostly Mary at Downton". I probably just assumed he was open about it because ... look at the show. Now that it's brought up, I'm wondering why it had to be written that Sybil and Tom went to Ireland to live. As contrived as this show is, they could have wrangled his whole political side without writing them off to Ireland.

I loved Matthew and I'm okay with the way he died. I think it was just ripping the bandaid off. My experience was that the character was very very very popular, and we'd already seen a ton of bedside stories with him, and suffering. As written, it was full on happiness up until literally the last moment of the episode, and a couple of scenes letting us know what happened. The following series, six months had expired. I really didn't want to have to go through horrible pain with the character. A deathbed scenario might have gone overboard considering the family had just spent an episode at Sybil's deathbed. I viewed it as Fellowes recognizing that the character was really popular, squeezing all the happiness out of Mary and Matthew that he could up until the last seconds of the last episode the actor was available, Matthew goes out not knowing what hit him, presumably on one of the happiest days of his life, and because the series picks up six months later in Season 4, the audience is spared the agonizing scenes of the family learning what happened to him and reacting. If Matthew's death had occurred for legitimate dramatic/story reasons, versus the actor leaving, then maybe buffering the event for the audience would have been a cheat, but it wasn't the way the show itself chose to go, so I, personally, appreciated the buffering. I thought Fellowes handled it considerately. That said, I've no objection to Dan Stevens leaving the show and don't blame him. ITA that Mary needs that total package, but I wouldn't put it as a Charles Blake/Gillingham combo. I never saw the passion with Gillingham, and Charles Blake seems like an amusing relative. I don't mean to be all stereotypical, but there he is at a fashion show with Mabel. Then he gets the girls together and tells them his clever idea. Then he's amusingly particular about the food. Throw another fifteen years on him and he's Max Detweiler to Mary's Baroness Schraeder in The Sound of Music.

Her prospects depend upon how Edith and the family handle it, considering that the real life Countess of the place where Downton is filmed, was, during that era, herself an illegitimate child. Edith has money and an income, although Fellowes has forgotten it, she has power of attorney from Gregson over Gregson's affairs. Marigold is not the first illegitimate child of gentry in the world and plenty of them ended up marrying well, living well, and accepted into society. Is it stickier than the child of a lawful marriage, apparently, but it's not cut and dried. Nobody is saying parents of the era didn't love their children. But I have read a LOT and economics were so radically different back then, with no safety net, that it was not a child-centered society, children WERE sent off to service at age ten and under. Love had nothing to do with it - survival did. Although Downton is a fantasy, the reality is a girl in Marigold's position, without any outside advantage, is in extremely limited circumstances with extremely limited prospects, and that includes the sort of education she is liable to receive, which is unlikely to extend past grammar school, if she finishes, and nobody is going to be insisting on good grades. That was common at the time, and apparently worse in England than America. Kids from poor families worked. Because of limited opportunity, including limited educational opportunity, girls options were severely restricted. If Mrs. Drew is to be left to raise Marigold as her real mother, and Edith goes away, I'd love to know what future is envisioned for Marigold as a three year old "daughter" of a tenant farmer in 1924, as she grows up, although all the social stigma in the world doesn't change the reality that Edith is her mother, that the folks in the big house are her close relations, and it's better to deal with it than continue this stupid arrangement. It's as Edith said "I'm not Sybil, Sybil could pull this off." Well, she should get cracking and start practicing her best Sybil until she's good at it. Veering off to another topic - I sometimes try to predict how a storyline will turn based on the sets. Unless Tom marries in the final series, it's hard to envision him marrying anywhere outside the family, because then they have to contrive scenes for him - he can't just turn up in the halls or dining room. They have to have some estate manager story to get him in the picture. This show just doesn't build a lot of extra permanent sets that it uses regularly. Occasionally, yes. Get out of storage in every episode, no. It's Highclere and the grounds, and whatever one-off sets they're using for the particular episode or arc. The exceptions, which have always been the exceptions are Crawley House and the Dowager House. Matthew and Mary were only at Downton temporarily but you know if Stevens had stayed it would have stretched to forever. While Tom is Sybil's dad and the estate manager, it doesn't make a bunch of sense to me that he hasn't taken a cottage on the grounds for himself and his daughter, just to have a private life, but he has to be available in the halls. I do wonder, if Mary marries Charles Blake, how they get him to take up residence in Downton as well, but I'm sure Fellowes will think of something.

It may be valid but I find it completely unrealistic. When I read about poor or farm households of the era with multiple kids, or ones that labored hard, they were getting their actual kids either out of the household young (pre-child labor laws) to make one less mouth to feed, or working the kids hard. It's not about vocabulary, it's about culture, and the culture was very different - it's not different words for the same thing. The "thing" wasn't even a thing. I'm not saying there wasn't emotional/psychological fallout, but the kid's psychological well-being wasn't in the lexicon for many many families, particularly poorer families. Furthermore, if Mr. Drew "knew" the second Edith asked him to care for the child, how the hell does his wife not know by now, unless he's married an idiot, in which case Mrs. Drew is unfit. In her current situation Marigold will be doing hard manual labor before her tenth birthday (that's how it is on the farm in 1924, and I should really say seventh birthday), and she'll be married to a man she doesn't love in her mid-teens to get off the farm, AND she'll have an entire family, a thriving, fairly loving family in much better circumstances who know nothing about her because the mom couldn't face the social stigma. That's a reality that can't be erased by simply letting her be raised by the Drews, who, btw, work and live on the Crowley property! Everybody up at the big house is this child's relative - her grandparents, cousins, aunts! If Edith stops visiting that doesn't become any less true. She's going to encounter them and be in complete ignorance of the connection and they her. It's untenable. Even if it weren't, and considering economic factors, and that Marigold is female, any edge she can get in life as far as education and advancement is worth it. Otherwise she's going to not just have the limited education of the farm girls of her day, she's going to have limited options, period. As a girl being raised on a farm that is attached to a Big House system, she's already in an environment that's dying. I don't think I've ever read, novel or history, where a poor, striving family decides a well-meaning would-be patroness isn't worth the annoyance of having her underfoot and decides she should keep away, particularly when it's her family's property they're farming. That would be a gift from heaven. The writing is beyond ridiculous.

The WRITING was half-baked from the start. The Drews aren't her parents, the set up was maybe okay, as the "story" has evolved it's bananas. Marigold's actual situation isn't like a contemporary times open adoption; it's like Harry Potter being raised by his aunt and uncle because his real parents were dead and it wasn't safe for him among his own kind. :) Back when soap operas were a thing - most of them are gone now - I used to get into a good number of them - only one at a time, but I formed sequential attachments. After watching those shows, I grew accustomed to moving a plot along because one character was too stupid to figure something out. There were other contrivances too numerous to mention, of course, and because it was a soap opera, one thing after another would happen - kidnappings, murders. IOW, most of these stories were plot-driven and character behavior had to accommodate the story. Okay, so this is the second time in five years I've been charged with murder. Or, this is my seventh marriage. Or whatever. Soap operas normalize extreme situations. BUT, only one soap opera - Passions - depended on utterly irrational behavior from its characters. Not until Downton did I see another. Out of nowhere, Daisy acting like Bunting was an established romantic interest of Tom's. We never saw it, nor was it implied. Why does Fellowes have characters reacting strongly to things we never saw on screen and never heard were happening on screen? Bricker going into Cora's room - sorry, no. Tony Gillingham refusing to take no for an answer and Mary not really knowing what to do next? Like it was some sort of norm and he's not extremely "off"? Seriously? Charles Blake and Mary treating it like an actual problem? Mrs. Drewe. The whole thing. That is unwatchable at this point. I'm keep reminding myself the actress is probably glad to be employed but her eyeballs must roll down the street every time she reads a script. In Season 2, it was mostly Matthew who was saddled with this kind of irrational ridiculousness. I love Dan Stevens and loved him as Matthew, and there were countless times I thought oooh boy. That's really ridiculous. Clearly, they made Matthew irrational at times to push the plot along. Some of it was pure soap, where things were compressed to make a point, and they pulled it off even though it was a stretch on paper, but a lot of it was irrational. Anyway, thankfully, my memory has clouded over about a lot of how they wrote him then, but I simply recall having a lot of "Mrs. Drew" type reactions to him in Season 2. For example, if they want Edith pushed to the brink, IMO, it might make sense if she was allowed to see Marigold as much as she wanted, and if the Drews were even - oh, take her up to the house. This is not a contemporary situation, many many aspects are different, and I could see the Drews believing there are many advantages to not just Marigold having a patroness, but the family overall benfitting (I imagine Marigold will be raised knowing she's fostered and has family somewhere). Marigold's future marriage prospects, for one, unless Mrs. Drew thinks a life of 24/7 labor would be just great for Marigold as well when there's a chance she could do better. Up at the house is where George and Sybil live. If there were more opportunities - and contrived and implausible if Fellowes' middle name - for Edith to be with Marigold while observing the family with Sybbie and George, that's plenty of emotional pressure/grief/stress to force a decision. A good fantasy or good soap works when the circumstances and situations are very dramatic but the reactions to it as believable as possible. Julian Fellowes works the other way - his stories depend upon irrational behavior, ungrounded in the rules of the plot, even the rules of melodrama.

The problem IMO is that on the Drewe side, the plot has escalated into completely unbelieveable hysteria. When Mr. Drewe told Edith that Mrs. Drew would give up the farm and move away if Edith kept coming around, it was oh please time to the millionth power. That's absolutely insane writing. Just about as insane as Edith, who has been googly and droopy and teary over Marigold, visiting her daily, bringing round her aunt, a great lady, and Mrs. Drew going "She just wants the child as a play thing for the entire house!" Right, because there aren't already two cute kids up there. What a ridiculous, unbelieveable way they're writing Mrs. Drew. A CARTOON would have Mrs. Drew already strongly suspect and be pretty damn sure that Edith was the mother, and feel confirmed when Aunt Rosemund came calling. If Mrs. Drew suspected Mr. Drew might be the daddy, that's another thing, depending on Mr. Drew's past behavior. But moving away from the farm? This single lady of childbearing age can't stay away from Marigold and brings another family member to meet her - Mrs. Drew doesn't clue in? She and her husband are married, and married for some years. The only conversations they have are hysterics and ultimatums? There's no point where Mrs. Drew might has said to Mr. Drew - what's your take on this lady? You know her better than I. Lonely? Crazy? Or is she the mother, as looks like from where I'm sitting. No. Because Fellowes has written this like a lunatic. I get the idea is to jeopardize Edith's position, talk about scandal and all that. The writing for Mrs. Drew is batsh*t, that's the problem. And taking present-day psychology out of it, I think that a woman like Mrs. Drew, who works her arse off and has other kids, could just as plausibly be presented as a person thrilled to pieces the lady of the house is so interested, and might even suggest her taking little Marigold up there from time to time, if it makes her happy and if she's not speaking out of turn. They don't have help, they're on a farm, Marigold isn't their daughter, and a child that age needs a lot of supervision. I just feel I've read so many books and stories of vaguely similar situations and how Fellowes is writing this makes zero sense with Mrs. Drew having nineteen conniptions about Lady Edith spending so much time with a kid they agreed to raise just to help out even though they're already pressed. I actually had the thought today that maybe they'll let Isobel marry Lord Merton, but then I'm thinking, nope, the budget isn't going to spring for a drafty old house for Isobel. She'll kindly turn him down, Violet will be all "are you sure" and be secretly thrilled, because the actual reason she doesn't want Isobel marrying is fear of losing Isobel.

Why do I feel there is no way Isobel will marry Lord Merton, because she and Violet are a double act, and Fellowes will never ever change that. A husband would alter the formula. Such a surprise the art dealer turned out to be inappropriate/creepy, because Fellowes always wants to have his cake and eat it too with Robert. I see the family set-up back in the day as less child-centered than it is today, and I think it's in the best interest of Marigold to be with her mother. I can't imagine growing up knowing your real mother is around and you couldn't live with her/she doesn't want you. I have this vague idea of novels doing this, as has been mentioned before - one child living apart from the family. On the other hand, it's terribly unfair to Marigold to grow up with cousins, aunts, grandparents, etc., none of whom know her nor she them, or for the whole thing to be kept from her. Edith needs to nut up and take her daughter. It's best for the child. Forget the social stigma. Particularly with the class system and economic situation being what it is, and particularly with what happens to the Big House system, Marigold's future life is going to be much better with her real mother, and besides, this is her real mother. It's not as if an adoption happened and the records sealed. It's a half-life situation and that's not good. I, too feel as if Charles Blake has suddenly transformed into the Gay Best Friend. I don't care but so much time wasted on this nonsense, and on non-problems (Tony won't take no for an answer!). Setting Rose up with a cute, eligible guy with just enough "wrong" to create an obstacle, and meantime show Mary/Tom confiding, makes me think the Tom/Mary option really is on the table. So frustrating. Makes me think Tom is going to be in limbo forever, and makes me look out over the horizon for the next charm-deficient, dull, unlovely, inappropriate place holder for him, until such time as Downton is about to end, and that's when they'll get together. So Thomas's entire story is the "mystery" of what he's doing? I'm so SO disappointed. So much more drama if we know what he's doing and our heart breaks over it, if he can't be talked round, if someone like Carson feels it might be a good idea, and others object. I feel as if this going to be "mystery, mystery, mystery, then he gets terribly sick and Baxter and Mrs. Hughes rally round and put a stop to it." ONE episode, maybe a scene and a half. I like Rosamund but dont' know why anyone listens to her about anything.

It's so irritating that they dragged Bunting out because they didn't write it. Nothing happened. They didn't interact. They just kept putting her in there, then clubbing us over the head with the idea, mostly from Robert, that this meant Tom would revert back to his own Bunting-ness. Not that they wrote that either. For EIGHT EPISODES it was, here's this socialist type woman in the vicinity of Tom. Oh noes, will Tom leave Downton? That was it. No development, no further insight into Tom, no events, no story whatsoever. I don't even like Bunting and didn't want a story - just saying - eight episodes of this. When Fellowes does this, it screams "I don't want to write for Tom, so here's a two series placeholder." I'm glad the ratings are apparently down. I'm surprised they remain as high as they do. I, also, eventually liked Gregson and Edith, mostly on the strength of their last scene together - the love scene where Marigold was conceived. It was just lovely, directed beautifully, and played beautifully, even though it was short. I thought it was very convincing that Gregson loved her. Now, although her life apparently continues at the paper, we only SEE her doing the same damn thing she's done throughout. Hang out at the house, and we hear Robert's contempt for her. Then hang out with some guy on a farm somewhere, while the wife looks uncomfortable. I don't think Fellowes even cares about Marigold. He's just half-assing some sort of triangle with the Drewes, and making everyone look stupid. There's no reason whatever Mr. Drewe wouldn't tell his wife where Marigold came from, and absolutely no reason his wife can't immediately know the deal, as anyone would. I wish Fellowes would actually write this show.

Didn't Robert actually do that when they were visiting the Shrimpies? (I'm blanking just like you on names). The marriage was so horrible, and Robert had a front row seat. I have this memory of him being extra affectionate/loving to Cora later on, so grateful he loved his wife and wasn't stuck in a nightmare like Mr. and Mrs. Shrimpie. Articulated it and everything. I could have dreamt this. :) I never really gave Cora much thought once the writers gave up trying to write her mean-ish compared to Robert (she used to say quasi chilly things about Bates and the servants, and was pretty acid about Mary and Pamuck, stuff like that). When Downton did heavy drama Cora/McGovern would come across as out of it, but over time I've learned to appreciate aspects of Elizabeth McGovern's acting, particularly such as scenes with Baxter, or dealing with servant stuff, and years after Mary/Pamuck when she finally lets Robert in on it. I also just loved her walk/conversation with the art dealer. I think the sometimes dismissive writing of Cora has come out of the dismissive attitude towards McGovern's acting. I certainly subscribed to that dismissive attitude, but just as I believe now there may be a little more ability there than I thought, it sort of dovetails with Cora not being appreciated/taken for granted, and it's working. I believe the story. Even though it's been going on for years with Cora not taken seriously, maybe because McGovern wasn't considered to have much to offer, now for Downton Abbey to be making the whole McGovern/Cora thing part of its "text", works. P.S. - oh boy, when you look back at Dan Stevens, "carrying his weight" is underplaying it. He invested a lot of energy, passion, and nuance into it. I had no idea people credited mostly Dockery. Stevens would make what he said mean something and tell something about what Matthew was thinking and feeling. I recently did check back, and was startled by his ability to bring his character and his dialogue to life, and lord knows, some of it was painful in S2 and S3. He may have been bored but compared to some of the acting now, including the new guys, he's all in.

^Well, I'm not feeling it with either of the guys or with Dockery - it's just too chemistry/charisma deficient for my personal taste. MMV, of course, and you have a good point about Mary just being blah these days. When I look back, as you do, saki, I knew instantly she was attracted to Pamuck. Sure, the script and direction clubbed us over the head :), AND I know Pamuck is controversial, but looking back, Dockery played it. Matthew was in the mix but I totally bought Mary was distracted by this hot Turkish guy, really giving him the once over and excited by his flirtations. She also had a lively dynamic with the Duke she didn't know was gay. She may have had all kinds of conflicts about marriage and Matthew, but she came across young and not as in control and above-it-all as she wanted to be.These cute guys could get her going. She didn't seem the least bit excited about her sex week with Gillingham. It was so clinical. That's kind of bizarre. Yeah, obviously it didn't do anything for her, but she didn't appear particularly into it even before. Yeah, she's not in her forties or fifties, she's 33ish. It's common for people who were happily married to want to remarry - almost more likely than people who were unhappy, is what I've read. I have no problem with that, don't need the pretense that she has to remarry for power and prestige. She doesn't need marriage for that. But, this set up was so bizarre. Three men appeared almost at the same time, all declaring themselves for her in one way or another. Then she set about deciding. How about "none"? and waiting for some guy who IS right. How about actually having a discreet affair with neither party looking at it as a preliminary to marriage vows? How about Mary showing that she has a pulse so we know why she wants to remarry without relying on what Fellowes tells us? Even when she says "I want to be as happy as I was in my first marriage." it's so robotic. Last time I felt anything from her was that lovely scene with Isobel and Tom, where each recalled their great loves. The fact that Tom loved Sybil and is struggling now doesn't prevent Allen Leach from having a pulse on screen. The fact that Isobel has lost her only child didn't make her a somnambulant wraith like Mary. I believe Tom loved Sybil/knows he'll remarry some day/is still a full-blooded human being living in the present. I believe Isobel felt the loss of her only child to her core, and it's her unselfishness, her interest in others, her beliefs and her generosity that have carried her through and kept her really engaged in life, still witty, still competitive, still kind. Mary, I don't know what with her.

I don't know what series each scene happened in, but I recall Matthew having scenes with his mother - extended scenes. With Edith. With Robert. Even that "I'm' a good sailor" scene with Violet. We saw him figure out why he should have a butler in his scenes with Mosley. He had scenes with Tom. He was a feature in group scenes, such as the time he announced in front of the dining room that Tom would be his best man. He ALSO had scenes with Mary. But there were tons of scenes with other people, all of it helping us to know him away from Mary, so we had some idea of this love interest guy. Matthew's storyline was about his love life, but Mary's storyline is about HER love life. We did learn about who Matthew was in his love life. His ideals. His politics, sort of. His background, that made the lovers real. That's why I say Blake and Gillingham are suits. They're sketched out, assigned labels, but not developed. And even if they were, not sure it matters, because not sure that either actor, in these roles, have the chemistry with Dockery, or the synergy with their roles, that would make more development worth anythiing. It's not always the writing. Sometimes it's about stuff that can't be written. Charisma. Chemistry. Not just with your fellow actors, but with your own role. That Matthew role got thankless many times along the way, but Stevens did have great chemistry with that role. I always fully believed he was a lawyer/heir/pragmatist/idealist/generous/sort-of-chaste-ish emotional funny guy who was always acutely aware when Mary was in the room and was thinking about her even when she wasn't there. I only know about Blake and GIllingham what the script tells me, and it's always "Okay, the script says that. That's the story here." If Gillingham were Matthew - and not saying it would matter, because I think he's just not exciting in the role no matter what the script - he'd have other relationships on the show, and share with them his thinking vis a vis the sex week with Mary, or why he's convinced she loves him despite her trying to dump him, or why there's something about her that makes him like her better than Mabel Lane Fox. All through Matthew's engagement with Lavinia, for example, we had his mother saying what she thought, we had the others interacting with Matthew, questioning his feelings. Gillingham would have a parent, a sibling, or a best friend, so we'd know the sort of guy he was, where he was coming from. Matthew's story was as a love interest, but I always felt I knew where the guy came from. Gillingham, who knows, same with Blake. Blake was a cookie cutter "ain't so sure I'm a fan of this aristo system" guy who was put through a one episode rom com paces with Mary, and he also turned out to be "what do you know - I'm a big heir/aristo myself!" Clearly he's meant to be smarter than Gillingham because he tells Mary she's brighter than Gillingham, and only a smarter guy would know that, AND he's tells Mary he doesn't curl up and die after being rejected, whereas in the same episode we see Gillingham getting ready to boil a bunny. It's tell and not show all over the place with these two guys. With Matthew, although a lot of his scenes were expository ("This is what I'm thinking about my storyline at this point in time), his scenes also showed his personality and his relationships.

"Julian Fellows wrote in one of his first scriptbooks though, that Mary has ambition. She doesn't want just "do her duty", but she wants to be woman of high rank in society and in a position of power. And the only way to achieve it is through marriage." That's really not true. He's given her a TON of money, and she's the mother of the heir to Downton. It wasn't common for women to have their own power in those days, but there were women who did have high rank in society and power outside of a husband, and the women who did have that sort of power had a huge amount of money that was under their own control (Mary's position) and ... well, the huge amount of money was really all that mattered. The fact that she's the mother of the heir is just cake. The only way for her to achieve it is NOT through marriage. It's, as always, through money. It's her own money. It's not an entail. Not a trust or dowry. So that's just not true, no matter how much Fellowes says it is. I didn't need details about Shrimpie's divorce. Last time we saw them, it was the most miserable marriage on the planet. They just did a stint together in India where, based on his wife's attitude going in, things did not improve. It's not the sort of situation that needs details, IMO. He's miserable, he decided to divorce. Not as common as today, but not unheard of. "Heck, the audience knew Matthew for longer than Mary was married to him. So, I don't see the need to keep her mourning his memory while her romantic life passes her by. Either Charles Blake or some new mystery suitor could make her quite happy -- as she said herself "As happy with my second husband as I was with my first." I don't think anybody disagrees but it has to be on screen, not just on paper. I don't think the antipathy towards Bunting is about Sybil, and I don't think the MEH about Mary's love life is about Matthew. It's ONLY about Matthew to the extent people observe that Dan Stevens as Matthew had real chemistry with Mary, enough to carry two series, and tons of chemistry with the other characters. The complete package and that is why it worked. It didn't work just because the idea of Mary having a love interest is so exciting all by itself, no matter who it is. These new guys are just suits. Generic. Nice looking, smart enough, plausible, fine. Don't mind if she does, but can we move things along? Not must see TV. It's NOT that they're not Matthew. If Matthew had never existed, they'd both be complete okay, fine, marry one of them, just get on with it, I'm bored and want a change.

If it's revealed Gregson is dead, Julian Fellowes might have to write a love interest for Edith, and are we sure he's got the time? Mary has fashion shows, teas, walks in the park, room service, dinners with rejected suitors, and dressing downs from Violet AND Violet's butler, and there's only so much time in an hour an episode.

If only they could cast the man properly, it might have been better for Mary to be all, I was married and very happily, I have a son, he'll inherit the whole pile, I've plenty of money, I'm done. Remember when she said Rosamund was lucky because she had tons of money, was on her own, and could do what she liked? Mary could have bought something on her own and lived there. Then along comes some man and will Mary stick to her decision to remain single? Right now they ARE playing it as a societal need, which it's not, and on top of it, the vibe between Mary and her suitors is lukewarm.

During the Mary/Matthew storyline, Dockery used her eyes differently. Maybe it's just a matter of the actors only being able to do so much with just "acting" if they're unable to make a strong connection with their scene partner. This can be a challenge even if the actors are married to each other or whatever - sometimes it just doesn't work. In any event, Dockery's eyes had real energy where it was important in Series 1 and Series 2. From the moment she walked in after having overheard Matthew snarking about "pushing in." She was always very composed, and didn't have the most mobile face, but you could tell by her eyes that she was alive inside. Actually, I put it down to Dockery understanding the stakes for Mary and so she could throw herself in. Even when Mary rejected or disliked Matthew, everybody including the actors knew the story being told, so strong choices could be made. Even side stories, such as her scene in the hall the morning after she broke with Sir Richard, had an impact because the story was important, even though he was a mere rejectee. At this moment, her story is so "maybe, maybe not" it's hard to make a convincing choice. Does Mary really really REALLY care about remarrying, let alone making sure her second marriage is as happy as her first? I'm not feeling the urgency. I didn't quite understand the "let's hop into bed to make sure" story with Gillingham. She didn't hop into bed to "make sure" with Matthew. Pretty obvious that was unnecessary. Hell, she knew she was attracted to Pamuck. Maybe the story needs some real stakes of some kind to make her need to remarry more than just important on paper. Something to dramatize it. Actually, I'm not sure why she NEEDS to remarry. Dockery does well with extremely strong drives underneath, masked by the character's reserved nature and BELIEF in being reserved. When the strong drives aren't present, we just have a woman who doesn't appear terribly invested, who is going through the motions, and there's not a lot of personal attributes to make it fun, and she doesn't seem to mind much about anything, so why should we? It would be nice if the story of Edith and her daughter were simultaneously being told with a story about her being courted by somebody she really liked, whom we the audience liked with her. THAT would be a conflict. Edith in love, a man in love with her, but who doesn't know about Marigold. Perhaps says things to her such as "Darling, when we're married we'll have our own children." THAT would be conflict. But God forbid. Instead we get Mrs. Drew who, instead of thinking, hell yeah, the lady of the house might give this kid some great advantages! is all "too disturbing for the child" as if it's contemporary times. Which isn't even the real problem with the story. The real problem is there being no place to hide a diaphragm in all of Downton Abbey is more believable than Mrs. Drew not knowing damn well Edith must be Marigold's real mommy.

Ah - forgot about that - good point. Remembering that I binged watched, I never got into Tom/Sybil all that much. I thought it was underwritten and, while Tom was fine, I don't think Allen Leech's own personality came though as much in the early stages as it does now. He also had that bad hair style. :) I always thought it would have been more helpful if they'd written more scenes of Tom/Sybil just enjoying each other, versus so much of the "they're likeminded" stuff. The "we like to be together" stuff was rare (a little bit came out with the Gwen stuff). Now, however, I love Tom. It helped that as they wrote him a bit more, it turned out Allen Leech had good chemistry with the major characters. I think his scenes with Isobel also helped me become a Tom fan. After that, it became extremely frustrating that he had a story with - UGH - Edna and now - blech, Bunting. I don't mind hating characters, but I want a love to hate, not a - this is an unattractive, uninteresting, unappealing character who bores me as a viewer. In the spirit of mentioning things I liked: Mrs. Patmore/Daisy. In the past, this didn't sit too well with me. I'd feel that Fellowes was overly fond of this pseudo-mother/daughter bond and held Daisy back because of it. Now they are more peers, while still having the mother/daughter bond, and I loved the stuff they said under their breath to each other while in front of the dining table, Mrs. Patmore assuring and explaining that she had no problem at all with Daisy's studies and there was no disturbance below because of it, all both to the table and sotto voce to Daisy. Very cute and sweet. Bates: Based on the scene in the bedroom, I don't think Bates killed Green. Fellowes isn't subtle, and that read to me as Anna saying everything with subtext about Green, and Bates having nothing to hide and taking the conversation on face value. In the past I really really couldn't take Bates. Not angry Bates, not martyr Bates. I DID enjoy the Bates who pitched in and saved Thomas's job, who got Lord Grantham up to speed on what happened with Jimmy, and with O'Brian's machinations. This is not because he was being "nice", but because the material had a bit of natural humor in it, and required that Bates behave in a reasonable and intelligent manner. I found that when he's written this way, the actor is actually enjoyable. He's just not good/appealing at the melodrama, angry, martyr stuff - in fact I just want to kill him. So Bates walks in where Anna's working, pitches in, and is all normal and intelligent and genuine, and I was - OMG, PHEW. It's going to be one of those huge misunderstandings! The Mary stuff I dislike just echoes everybody else. With the characters I like, so many big moments in their lives are written in shorthand; barely get breathing room, if any. Mary? Every teensy blip and warp in her life gets an arc. The damn fashion show. A whole dinner with Blake to talk about things that would be told for other characters in maybe two seconds in an entrance hall. My "eh" about the fashion show goes like this - I think Mary is overrated as a fashion plate, on and off camera. She's got quite a severe face. She's thin, but very small boned, it appears. Even when dressed to the nines, and while she's faultlessly dressed, I seldom get that bowled over impression - like, let me take THIS vision in. Edith can actually have that impact. Maybe she has stronger shoulders or more curves or something, but a few times when she had her relationship with Gregson, she really wore those clothes like a knockout.

As to social stigmas around illegitimacy, etc., and without trivializing everything, I honestly believe that in the end, it all depends upon the attitudes of the family that has the so-called "stigma", as well as the assets/standing of the family/person in the position of the "fallen" man or woman. I recall at one point Edith saying she wasn't Sybil, she couldn't pull this off. I believe that made sense. I think Sybil COULD have pulled it off, and via a combination of looks, social standing, charm, genuineness and attitude, might not have seen her prospects dim at all, at least not among anyone with whom she'd care to be linked. The current Countess occupying the real Highclere wrote a bio of the Countess who was actually countess during the Downton Abbey era. This was the illegitimate daughter of a bachelor Rothschild. Instead of hiding her away, as was the custom of the era, he pretty much doted on her and showered her with advantages, showcasing her exactly as if she were the daughter of a lawful marriage. He was filthy rich, and it just so happens that if you're filthy rich, and your daughter, legit or illegit, is the apple of your eye, people suck it up and follow suit. His daughter became Countess, and in short order was considered to have an impeccable pedigree. When you look back at that era (stretching for a number of decades) $$$ went a long way to trumping convention. It was the era when the landed gentry and the nobles were feeling the financial pinch, and if an infusion of cash meant hooking up with some gorgeous, filthy rich heiress whose mummy wasn't married to daddy, then that's what happened. Edith's position is she appears to have a trust of some sort from her granddad, and earns money as a columnist. I guess to assess her position, one has to figure what she wants out of life. If she wants to find a substitute Gregson, I think there are plenty of men of the world who would understand her position and it wouldn't deter them. If it's "OMG, can't be a blight on the family!" I get it, but it's a country seat, and if managed with the right attitude, they could get past this. I guess it would help if Edith had way much more money, but that would also probably help Sybbie too. ZulaMay, as to Tom/Mary, I agree that if we're discussing what's in character, they don't suit. It wouldn't happen. I was speculating as to Fellowes' priorities, and I see Mary as his number one. Not only does she warrant the number one story, whether the audience cares or not, but the audience must be made to feel the same. They can't go "enough of her - let's see more of Tom!" If they do, then Tom's gonna go on ice, and, if push comes to shove, hook up with Mary. Mary/Matthew were very popular. If you like Tony, if you like Blake (I switched, and now prefer Blake to Tony), it's not the same as CARING. I really don't care about either. Fellowes wants us to care (about Mary's love life). Good luck, Fellowes. The writing may follow the acting, but only to a point. I think his hierarchy is pretty fixed. My big interests in this show (during a binge watch long after it began), were Mary/Matthew, and then Thomas's storyline. I was very gripped by the story when he was nearly driven out of Downton. Since Matthew's death, I continue to care about Thomas and want a real S3 type story for him, and I care a lot about Tom (and Rose, as, IMO, the presumptive Tom love interest). I'm beyond frustrated that we're still meant to care about Mary's love life. We all know it's a soap opera. If they cast somebody who had powerful chemistry with her, it would only enhance the story. Sob, Matthew, and now this guy, and how will they go forward, blah blah blah. That would be great. It's not like I'm keeping a candle in the window for Matthew. As it happens, her new love interests are perfectly fine but not worth tuning in on a Sunday for (and neither is she, as she is now).So I'm frustrated that stories I believe are untold and have so much potential (Thomas, Rose and (I hope) Tom), go in circles for TWO SEASONS until we tell Julian - oh yes, I'll stay home Sunday to watch Mary realize she prefers Charles Blake to Tony after all!

"We could have a nice, slow romantic storyline for Tom for at least half of series 4 already. Or if not series 4 then at least it should have started by now! But now we have Sarah Bunting staying until Episode 5 and no young woman is announced in the cast who could fit the description of "future love interest for Tom Branson". THAT is what is annoying and makes fans even more mad at Sarah Bunting. Not only is she awful, she is stalling things for Tom." Right there with you. The show has done nothing with Rose that didn't immediately blare "barking up wrong tree!" and Tom's stories are with women with grating personalities. I don't think Sarah is so bad as far as what she's done and said, but I agree her looks, her voice, her dress, her height - everything reads all wrong and plays all wrong. It all signals this isn't for real, and yet, seeing that, it drags on eight episodes! I still suspect this has something to do with Mary. I was recently watching some interviews and I believe Robert James-Collier said Fellowes writes as you act, and starts using what you put out there. If Fellowes isn't seeing Matthew-level interest in Mary's current love life, no matter what he does, I wouldn't put it past him to keep everyone else in a holding pattern, because she's his lead and he's not going to alter that vision simply because Matthew's gone (and also, perhaps, to not validate the importance of Dan Stevens). If that means in the final series that he pushes her and Tom together, so be it. Otherwise I simply see no excuse for Tom treading water - or Rose treading water, nor am I particularly interested in a sudden insta-love interest for Rose that turns out to be a blind alley, which is what I think we're going to get with the Atticus guy. They ought to have set up her and Tom as having a strong, close bond that perhaps neither recognized as romantic, and THEN introduced Atticus as the catalyst for Tom to realize and also Rose. Back to Mrs. Drew - my primary issue is it's ridiculous she doesn't realize Edith is the mother. Her husband gave her some scenario about the mother. Here comes the thirtysomething, single lady of the house constantly at the door, constantly wanting to see Marigold. Mrs. Drew's husband and Edith at times appear conspiratorial. So what is is, Mrs. Drew? Somebody ELSE is Marigold's mom, and the Lady Edith has, separately, developed a crush on your irresistable husband. Or maybe Edith is actually the mom? It's absolutely batsh*t they have Mrs. Drew not getting it. Adding - further signaling that Miss Bunting is an endlessly pointlessly extended stalling device and nothing more - we constantly hear she's Tom's friend but never see the friendship. I don't WANT to see it, but it makes the whole thing an even bigger waste of time. "Let's invite Tom's buddy, Sarah Bunting." What? How are they buddies? She teaches downstairs and she and Tom never seem to chat unless Rose or Isobel or someone includes her at dinner. Even Tom at times looks like she's not his friend but he's too polite to say so. The allusion last week to America or Miss Bunting made absolutely no sense because not for a single second has he looked as if he's remotely considering her as a romantic choice. I know what's coming up and it's still stupid. I guess I'm just completely frustrated at all the time spent on Mary. I don't need to see Mary at a fashion show. I think her stuff could have been crammed in in "asides" like other people's are, in less than five minutes. Two seconds with an incredulous Tony. Dinner with Blake was unnecessary - the re-meeting could have also happened in two seconds. Other "Upstairs" people's story potential, people with more story to tell at this stage, IMO, get short shrift so Fellowes can pretend a burning interest in Mary's next marriage.

I finally sat and properly watched this episode without interruption and my reaction is that I felt Fellowes went overboard trying to demonstrate that Bunting was all wrong for Tom, while validating her sentiments. Ergo the poor woman was made to just not stop flogging a dead horse at the dinner table "You don't know her name" and even after Daisy and Mrs. Patmore were summoned to the table (which was dreadful of Robert to do) STILL wouldn't drop it, and on no evidence. Yes, Robert is part of a system she dislikes, but she doesn't know him personally, so why is she telling him about his motives, his mindset and his manner in specific personal interactions? That's when Fellowes himself beats a dead horse. "You're not supposed to want her with him!" Trust me, all of this wasn't required to make that point. So Bunting personally got to look like an ass, while later on Daisy and Mrs. Patmore got to validate the sentiments. On top of it all, Robert's rage was a classic Robert displacement - he wanted the art dealer gone. I don't like Bunting, but I think if a fellow aristocrat had been as contrary, it would have been tolerated better. Blake's better than Tony, but IMO if Mary's love life is to be the center of the show, her love interest needs to rise to the level of Matthew. Otherwise, don't center the show around it, and give other stories more time. Fellowes isn't subtle, so I was actually somewhat encouraged by the Bates stuff. Fingers crossed, Bates is actually not guilty of killing Green (would he have referred so easily to his bad end if he was?) and Anna is barking up the wrong tree. Understandably, but still. Love Baxter. Love that last episode they established she knows Thomas's entire family - that justifies her interest in what's happening to him, and her concern, despite Thomas's attitude. Tony's attitude was gross - why didn't Mary put him in his place? I hate that stuff. Edith's story continues to annoy - for God's sake Mrs. Drew. It's completely unbelievable Mrs. Drew doesn't know Edith's the mother, and completely unbelievable Mr. Drew chose not to tell her. Whyever not? I did think it pretty cruel and harsh for the missing Mr. Gregson to be discussed with Granny tellng Edith it's time to drop it, only to sic her personal equivalent of Scotland Yard onto the search for her ex-lover's missing spouse. Rosamund certainly didn't miss a beat when she realized Edith's kid is with the Drews. I'd also add - I simply don't believe that every eligible thirty to fortysomething aristocrat in the vicinity and beyond possess movie star looks and would only pursue the thirtysomething widow Crawley, oblivious to her sister and her cousin. Edith apparently only attracts the elderly, infirm, or those who should know better but are awed by her station in life. Rose attracts nobody but, as we've seen to date, a middle-aged adulterer and a jazz singer who didn't appear to be in love with her, and who understood her infatuation with him had something to do with rebellion.

Eolivit - apparently the spoiler you have was only a rumor - Lily James has expressed her enthusiasm/desire to return for S6. I'm tired of one note played out across an entire series. That's been the deal the past two series. When I look back to series 1, we saw Matthew and Mary's relationship develop. If Tom and Lily are going to be a thing, what is it, keep it in Fellowes back pocket, don't even suggest it until it's suddenly sprung on us? Dear God, what happened to telling a story on this show, and I don't just mean Tom/Lily (if that becomes a story). There's just no stories. I know having a bastard child was no walk in the park, but people managed to get married despite back in those days. There are other people to marry besides someone from an old family. There's always self-made people, successful people in the professions, and besides, people move on. There's a bit of awkward, but then adjustments are made. Sybil married a chauffeur, everybody had a cow, then they dressed the guy up, searched to see if there were any "respectable" Bransons about that they could hint he might be connected with, and that's how it rolls. Pretty soon it's like having a "colorful" ancestor - no big deal. There's conventions to be observed with Edith and her child, discretion, etc., but it's not a prospects killer. It's funny, the writing can really influence you. I was watching S1, and this gorgeous looking woman walked the upstairs corridor - low and behold it was Edith! Mary was about to confront her about writing to the Turkish ambassador. She's got a smashing figure, gorgeous eyes, gorgeous skin. I believe the important thing in scenarios such as indiscretions, illegimate children, etc., is to show somehow you observe/respect the conventions, that is if one wants to still participate and not be a pain in the neck. For example, once everybody calmed down about Tom, they wanted him to dress properly and know how things were done.

I, too, think "Choose Your Own Path" was advertising code, written so the target market would get it, but sail past everyone else. I was just reading about aversion therapy, and it involved drugs to make you nauseous - poor Thomas (I really do like him despite everything). It also sort of evokes, for me, the adult education program known as Chautauqua that flourished in the U.S. (or at least the eastern part of it in some quarters) in the late 1800s, early 20th century, although maybe by 1924 it was past its peak. Lectures, programs, all the new ideas and new ways of thinking, new psychological theories, etc.