Mary and Edith, Edith and Mary

[AndySmith]

The Pamuk case is ambiguous enough in that it wasn't...entirely consensual. Legal formality or not, Gregson was still married, in the eyes of the law. And the Church.

Edited February 23, 2016 by AndySmith

[Roseanna]

The Pamuk case is ambiguous enough in that it wasn't...entirely consensual.

 

Not to modern eyes, but it was to Fellowes and he made Mary say so to Cora and later to Matthew. And at least she chose not to scream. If she had, the whole matter could probably have been kept secret, but if Pamuk had lived, he could have boasted with his conquest. And of course Mary could have become pregnant. So she took a huge risk.  

 

Also, it was the matter that she wasn't a virgin that she wanted to confess to Matthew when he proposed but daren't do it.

[AndySmith]

Mary was a kid who didn't know better at the time, who was also probably scared and as we know, Mary likes to be in control. Admitting to her mother would mean she would be admitting to herself that she wasn't in control, and we know Mary does.

 

As one of the commentators puts it more eloquently than I can:

 

"By Mary’s knowledge and the etiquette of the time he didn’t “force” her, he didn’t beat her. But he coerced her and that is rape, even as he kisses her she is fully frightened, she wants to ring the bell and he threatens how odd it would look with him in her room– he outmaneuvers her."

[whateverdgaf]

What good does Gregson staying with his wife do? She didn't recognise him. She had no idea who he was. It wouldn't affect her in the least what he did after that. Should Gregson spend his life lonely and miserable for the sake of it? His suffering would do no good whatsoever. And should no married couple slit up ever then? Even if the marriage causes nothing but misery.

I would also like to point out Gregson died fighting with a bunch of Brownshirts. He died standing up against a group of murderous and anti-Semitic thugs.

Finally, after series 2 Edith made no decisions out of malice or out of a wish to cause harm. Mary continued to act out of malice. What gain could she get from outing Edith? She had nothing to lose, she did it simply to cause pain.

[TheGreenKnight]

I don't think that's a very objective list.

I don't think so either. I mean, for instance, Edith's letter about Pamuk was just as much about revenge as Mary nuking her relationship with Strallan was. Of course Mary's bad actions and kindnesses are weighed differently than Edith's. For instance, Edith does a great deal more for William than just nurse him on his deathbed; she drives to Mr. Mason's house to see what happened to him for Daisy, goes to Dr. Clarkson with Violet to persuade him to bring William to their hospital, then, when he refuses, transports William herself for the sake of Mr. Mason who is too poor to go wherever William was placed. Then she stays up with him over night for Mr. Mason's sake, so he can rest. She also helps Violet attempt to get Mr. Moseley a job with Lady Shackleton. And of course we forget how Mary dressed down Carson when he refused to come with her in season 2 (and then she dresses down Anna afterwards), not to mention her cruelty to both Carlisle and Lavinia in regards to Matthew. Or how she forces Anna to buy her contraception at the risk of her own reputation and then store it in her house (causing a fight between her and Mr. Bates). And let's not even go into the Drewes.

 

Personally, I don't see Edith as a saint by any means. I just think she's better than Mary--which is a very low bar to clear.

Edited February 23, 2016 by TheGreenKnight

[whateverdgaf]

Nursing William on his deathbed was a great act of kindness from Edith. She was sheltered and would not have been exposed to such a thing before. The fact is, a young man was dying right in front of her. He should of had his entire life ahead of him, and yet that was all being taken away from him. Not only that, he was surrounded by his loved ones who were cut up over his death. Throughout it all, it was Edith's job to be a calm, comforting presence. She had to stay strong and positive and hide the pain she wold have felt over William's death. Which she did. And she did it magnificently. At no point did she break down or decide she couldn't handle it. She dedicated herself to making sure William was as comfortable as possible. She would have had no gain from doing this, no reward. She barely knew William so she had no prior loyalty to him. Everything she did for him was out of pure selflessness. And this was something she filled her days with. She had to stay by his side for a long period of time, she couldn't escape or run off if things got too much for her. Watching William die and being there for him would have put her through a great deal of emotional strain, but she remained calm and strong throughout. Just as she did with the other soldiers. It was clear that they were all incredibly thankful for everything she did for them. Nursing the soldiers cannot be counted as one good deed as she helped so many of them. Finally, by volunteering to nurse William, it made things easier for him to be moved to Downton where his friends and family were. Looking after the soldiers and nursing William in particular was no paltry thing, it was a great act of kindness.

[photo fox]

I'm locking this thread until I have time to clean a bunch of things up.

 

These are fictional characters, y'all.

[photo fox]

I'm reopening this topic.  In order to keep it open, remember these basic guidelines:

 

• No demanding other people explain/justify their opinions.
• No passive-aggressive comments (e.g. "you need to watch it again")
• No dead horse beating.  State your case a couple of times and move on.

 

Remember, this is a party.  It's supposed to be fun.  Nobody wants to hang out with rude and argumentative people.

[AndySmith]

Remember, this is a party

 

Hopefully Anna can pick out something stunning for me to wear ;)

[Artymouse]

Hopefully Anna can pick out something stunning for me to wear ;)

 

As soon as she chooses something "medium-smart" for me. 

[Constantinople]

There are a few reasons I tend to favor Edith

As Robert indicated, Mary did "very little" during the war. She sang at one concert, and was willing to push Matthew around in his wheelchair, but she did essentially nothing for the greater good or the greater war effort. In contrast, see whateverdgaf's description of Edith's work during the war

Edith also seems to have a curiosity about the outside world that Mary seems to lack. From Season 1, Episode 3

 

Cora, Countess of Grantham: Kemal Pamuk. He's a son of one of the sultan's ministers and he's here for the Albanian talks.

Lady Mary: What's that?

Lady Edith: To create an independent Albania. Don't you read the papers?

Lady Mary: I'm too busy living a life.

I don't think she's ever really changed.

For that matter, for all of Mary's going on about how unfair it is that she can't be the heir because she's a woman, she's blind to the unfairness of the first born getting everything (to say nothing of noble titles in general). From Season 1, Episode 2 when the sisters were discussing Matthew

 

Lady Sybil: Why are you so against him?

Lady Mary: Aside from the fact he's planning to steal our inheritance?

Lady Edith: Your inheritance. It makes no difference to Sybil and me. We won't inherit, whatever happens.

Once again, I don't think Lady Mary has ever changed on this either.

[skyways]

Both can be nasty and rude. Edith is snide, Mary can be quite callous. However Edith was allowed to grow more as a character while Mary's regression made me speechless. She had none at all and I would rather watch her as a fictional character. Why didn't Fellowes just keep her as she was during her Matthew days? She was just as interesting then.

[Roseanna]

while Mary's regression made me speechless. She had none at all and I would rather watch her as a fictional character. Why didn't Fellowes just keep her as she was during her Matthew days? She was just as interesting then.

 

Mary could hardly be the same as she was when Matthew lived. But Tom had much harder fate, living in the house of his in-laws who were socially superior and he had coped much better than Mary.

 

I don't hate Mary. I liked her a lot before, but as such as she is now I pity her (If she were a real person, that would annoy her most).

 

I hate what Fellowes made to her character. She should have had great challenges that would have given her chance to act and make decisions on essential things. If they had been "wrong", it wouldn't have mattered much, everybody makes mistakes. Instead, she had been given by Fellowes only petty things to deal with, which man to marry and how to save Rose from troubles.

 

No wonder she is bored. And bored people aren't interesting.    

Edited February 24, 2016 by Roseanna

[Roseanna]

- went to Carlisle and confessed Pamuk only to help Anna and Bates

 

Mary said herself to Anna before going to Carlisle that she was going to do it "to save my own neck", and that's just what happened.

 

Mrs Bates had heard the Pamuk story from Lady Flinsthire's servant (who knew that it from Thomas' letter). He had also revealed that a maid helped Lady Mary to carry the body (that information was maybe from the rumors due Edith's letter for how could Thomas know it). Mrs Bates blackmailed her husband that she would tell the story to the papers unless he left Downton and Anna. Which he did in order to protect Mary and Anna's reputation (if it were known that Anna had helped her mistress's "immoral deed" also she would have lost her good reputation).

 

But after Bates returned and his wife learned it, she said she would do what she had earlier threated. 

 

By going to Carlisle Mary made him buy Vera's story and prevent her sell it to other newspapers. Mary's deed was indeed brave but before of all sensible: she acted before Mrs Bates did. Although confessing no doubt was embarrassing and it could have cost her the engagement with Carlisle if he had reacted otherwise, it paid off for the story was not published. The price was that Carlisle could now hold Mary as a prisoner in the engagement, but Mary thought that she had to marry someone. 

 

But Mary did not have to make a decision between her own interest and that of Anna (​unlike with Lavinia). By saving her own reputation she also saved Anna's reputation.   

 

[sark1624]

I think that the rivalry ended in season 2 with the war and in season 3 with the marriage betwen Matthew and Mary, i said this because in that moment both Mary and Edith were trying to do their job: have a good marriage with some tittled man, nothing else. But the war changed Edith and Sybil, we all know how Sybil ended, but also changed Edith goals in life. The relation of Edith with Strallan it was the last attempt of return to the pre war values wich they were raised. 

 

For that reason we must compare the Edith of season 1-3 with the Mary of that season, and also we must compare the Edith of season 4-6 with the Mary of the same season. Both women changed, basically for Matthew´s death Mary regressed to the first season, and for being jilted Edith searched another life by writting. Also their priorities changed, in season 5 Edith clearly was upset by Marigold and depressed, Mary was bussy with the suitors saga but we also saw that Mary was merely playing with those men. Buth also the conduct of the parent changed, both parents were worried about Mary being married and after that both were worried about her mourning Matthew, when both of them understood that Edith had a daughter with Gregson they started to pay more attention to her. Is very telling the scene when Edith came back with Marigold to the house and she and Cora asked Robert about adopting her but he is more worried about the dog and the dinner, i bet that if he knew about who was Marigold he would put more attention to the subjetc, and after a little time he alone discovered that Marigold was Edith´s daughter.

 

In this season we saw how Mary is not only jelaous because of Edith´s chance to outrank her, she is also jelaous because Edith´s is independent in London she has her OWN flat, her own business and she could do what she likes with them, Mary in the other hand is merely caretaker of Downton, she even said that she must work it to one day it could be handled to George in good conditions. Also for the first time she must shared her parents affections with Edith, if you noticed in the CS when they are shooting in Brancaster, there is a scene when Robert is embraced with Edith and both are laughing, Mary saw this and rolled his eyes. In this season she had the same reaction when his father praised her work with the magazine and finally all the family was glad about the chance of she becoming a marchioness. 

The problem with Mary is that her facade is be a "queen bee", she always must be the better, the prettiest, the most intelligent, etc, and the most close woman that she uses to compare herself is Edith, who in the other hand by her own faults had a lot of bad moments and for that reason a low self esteem. So basically we have a woman who believes herself as the queen bee and another who doesnt value herself enough, in the end is the perfect recipe for a bad relation. And for being a queen bee, Mary is not so strong, she always need all the family or Anna, Carson, in her side; Edith in the other hand is basically a trooper. 

[Avaleigh]

 

Cora, Countess of Grantham: Kemal Pamuk. He's a son of one of the sultan's ministers and he's here for the Albanian talks.

Lady Mary: What's that?

Lady Edith: To create an independent Albania. Don't you read the papers?

Lady Mary: I'm too busy living a life.

This scene came across in a very different way to me. I thought Edith sounded condescending when she asked Mary if she reads the papers. Mary asks a question and Edith replies in a snarky way. She's implying that Mary doesn't read newspapers because she didn't happen to know about this one thing.   

[Constantinople]

Cora, Countess of Grantham: Kemal Pamuk. He's a son of one of the sultan's ministers and he's here for the Albanian talks.

Lady Mary: What's that?

Lady Edith: To create an independent Albania. Don't you read the papers?

Lady Mary: I'm too busy living a life.

This scene came across in a very different way to me. I thought Edith sounded condescending when she asked Mary if she reads the papers. Mary asks a question and Edith replies in a snarky way. She's implying that Mary doesn't read newspapers because she didn't happen to know about this one thing.

Edith was definitely being snarky, but Mary was still remarkably ignorant to the point of being willfully ignorant of basic current events. The Balkan Wars and related issues such as Albanian independence were a BFD back then. It would be as if a modern day Mary didn't know about ISIS. So although Edith was being sarcastic, I think Mary probably didn't read the papers.

That's one reason why I never found Matthew's interest in Mary to be terribly credible, at least long-term. He actually enjoyed visiting the local churches to learn about their history. I think Mary would only agree to that at gunpoint.

[Roseanna]

Edith was definitely being snarky, but Mary was still remarkably ignorant to the point of being willfully ignorant of basic current events. The Balkan Wars and related issues such as Albanian independence were a BFD back then. It would be as if a modern day Mary didn't know about ISIS. So although Edith was being sarcastic, I think Mary probably didn't read the papers.

That's one reason why I never found Matthew's interest in Mary to be terribly credible, at least long-term. He actually enjoyed visiting the local churches to learn about their history. I think Mary would only agree to that at gunpoint.

 

The church architecture was a hobby, but Mary showed no interest towards modernization of agriculture when Strallan spoke of it in S1. Then suddenly in S4 we are supposed to believe that Mary knew all about Matthew's plans although we never saw him tell her (except asking for her support, that is not to support her father) and her interests during their marriage were decorating a separate drawing room (did we ever see when it was ready?) 

 

Instead, on the basis what we saw of Edith, she was somewhat interested in agriculture already in S1 and even more in S2, so she knew at least as much as Tom on the basis of his uncle's sheet farm. But she was never given a chance to use her abilities for Downton. I don't regret it as it opened her way to London, but it's another example of the family dynamics.  

[Artymouse]

Do we know the supposed age difference between Mary and Edith? Because I just realized that when Edith hired Laura, the new editor, she made a point of saying she and Laura were both born in 1896. If that's the case, then Edith is 16 when the series opens (possibly 15, depending on her birthday). And that makes Mary, I'm guessing, 18 or 19? And I guess it makes Sybil 14-ish, which really doesn't make much sense, but I digress.

 

I'd always thought they were all a year or two older than that. But thinking of it that way puts a slightly different spin on their relationship in those days. Teenage girls are notoriously snarky, and teenage sisters even more so. I can't remember the timeline of when the Pamuk incident happened, but I'm thinking 1913-ish since they would have been in mourning for most of 1912. In that case, it makes more sense to me that a 17-year-old Edith would write a spiteful letter to the Turkish ambassador, than if she were 20 or 21. I did a lot of stupid and impulsive things at 17 that (I hope) I would've done differently in my 20s. 

 

Granted, they're now 30-something women who should have figured out a better way to relate after all these years, but I can also see how it's easy to get stuck in a behavior pattern, especially where family is concerned.

[Roseanna]

Do we know the supposed age difference between Mary and Edith? Because I just realized that when Edith hired Laura, the new editor, she made a point of saying she and Laura were both born in 1896. If that's the case, then Edith is 16 when the series opens (possibly 15, depending on her birthday). And that makes Mary, I'm guessing, 18 or 19? And I guess it makes Sybil 14-ish, which really doesn't make much sense, but I digress.

 

I'd always thought they were all a year or two older than that. But thinking of it that way puts a slightly different spin on their relationship in those days. Teenage girls are notoriously snarky, and teenage sisters even more so. I can't remember the timeline of when the Pamuk incident happened, but I'm thinking 1913-ish since they would have been in mourning for most of 1912. In that case, it makes more sense to me that a 17-year-old Edith would write a spiteful letter to the Turkish ambassador, than if she were 20 or 21. I did a lot of stupid and impulsive things at 17 that (I hope) I would've done differently in my 20s. 

 

No, Edith said that she was born 1892 which makes her 20 years old in 1912 when the show opened. Mary is a year older. They have both had their "season" in London (presented at the court and had their debutante ball as we saw later with Rose). That means they are of marriageable age, unlike Sybil who had her season only in 1914.

 

It's quite true that Mary and Edith behave rather like teenagers today which is no wonder for they have been sheltered their whole life.

[Artymouse]

Thanks Roseanna, I guess I misremembered. Probably because I recently watched one of the Anthony Strallan episodes, when he mentioned something that happened in 1896 and said that Edith probably wasn't around then, and she said, "Well, I was, I just wasn't walking very well." So I meshed the two years in my memory. That (corrected) timeline makes much more sense to me.

 

But I do still think the two are locked into old behavior patterns, which probably would be less volatile if they didn't live in the same house as 30-something women. 

[Roseanna]

Because there was so much about Mary in Edith-thread, I decided to continue here.

There are a curious similarity that many of the things are seen the sister's fault, are originally one's own fault.

If we take Mary, her reputation wouldn't have endangered and there wouldn't be any rumors among servants if she hadn't slept with Pamuk (although it was only his death in her bed caused Daisy to see how his body was carried by Mary, Anna and Cora and thus Edith's infamous letter).  

And Mary missed at least three times to marry Matthew on her own: first, when they met, she looked down at him because he was a middle-class layer (yes, she also happened to hear that he believed that the Crawleys wanted him to marry one of their daughters - which was true enough but she always wanted to do just the opposite), second, she couldn't let Edith to "win" her even with Strallan even when she wasn't interested in him at all but was just going to become interested in Matthew), and third, after he proposed because she couldn't accept but must ponder for months if she could become a middle-class lawyer's wife (in case Cora's baby was a son) and/or if she dared to tell Matthew that she was no virgin (the latter she should have told even if there was no rumours because it proved what kind of man he really was). 

In the same way, after being humilated by Mary two times in the same day, Edith couldn't help boasting about Strallan's interest to Mary and after she "won", Edith got so angry that she wrote the letter which seemd to be the only way to revenge on Mary. But Strallan sobered swiftly and was going to propose Edith but was prevented by Mary who learned of the letter.

And if Edith hadn't slept with Gregson, she wouldn't have given birth to a child outside wedlock (I don't criticize her for it but Gregson for not using preventives). If she had got an abortion, there would be no child (I don't mean that she should have done it). If she had left Marigold in Switzerland, nobody would have known about her (but she would have to lie to Bertie or an other suitor). Finally, if she had in time told Bertie that she was Marigold's mother, Mary couldn't have done her ugly trick.

Now, I don't want to reduce Edith and Mary's wrongdoings, but only say that in the last analysis they both, much more than the sister, caused their own misfortunes.

But what would have happen without these misfortunes? There would be only the first season and that a very dull one.

[Roseanna]

The essential difference between Mary and Edith is the motive. 

Edith simply wants to be loved, valued, and respected as equal and at least seen and treated as a human being. And as often happens, once she stops to wait for these things, she finally gets all of them and more from her parents - but never from Mary.

Mary always wants to be the best which means somebody, i.e. Edith, must be the worst. She first tries to deny her own faults and fears and projects them at Edith. She demands others to tietoe around her when Matthew is dead, but but when Gregson's death is confirmed, she can't give Edith even as much empathy she gives Robert when Isis is sick.  After doubting that Edith can't fire her editor and Edith proves that she can even edit her magazine, she refuses to congratulate her but continues to belittle her. Even worse, she is unable to see her and she wishes that she would simply disappear (the "joke" to Tom that she would murder Edith).     

[slf]

Neither Mary or Edith is at fault for sleeping with a man and neither is responsible for what the other chose to do. Edith is fully at fault for the Pamuk letter, not Mary. Mary is at fault for Bertie finding out about Marigold, not Edith.

Quote

Edith simply wants to be loved, valued, and respected as equal and at least seen and treated as a human being. And as often happens, once she stops to wait for these things, she finally gets all of them and more from her parents - but never from Mary.

I think Edith very much wanted to best Mary, not simply be her equal. That's why she decided to make getting Strallan's attention into a competition. I think Edith's life only improved when she stopped waiting for things to just happen to her and started going out and pursuing a life.

Quote

Mary always wants to be the best which means somebody, i.e. Edith, must be the worst.

Sybil was the best loved daughter and that not only never bothered Mary, she seemed to love Sybil just as much as her parents did. I fully believe that is the reason she took to Tom so well, not just because he was a good person- but because he loved Sybil as much as she did. I think Mary's treatment of Edith was due specifically to her relationship with Edith.

Edited February 6, 2019 by slf

[Roseanna]

5 hours ago, slf said:

Sybil was the best loved daughter and that not only never bothered Mary, she seemed to love Sybil just as much as her parents did. I fully believe that is the reason she took to Tom so well, not just because he was a good person- but because he loved Sybil as much as she did. I think Mary's treatment of Edith was due specifically to her relationship with Edith.

I don't think Cora and Robert loved Sybil more than Mary - they, or at least Cora, loved her in an different way. To her mother Sybil was "my baby" who never gave her a moment's worry until she decided to marry a chauffer whereas Cora worried about Mary's future and did most for her in S1.  

No doubt Mary loved Sybil but that love was never really tested - would it have lasted if, f.ex., Matthew had preferred Sybil? There was a curious incident whose meaning was unclear: after Matthew had saved Sybil from the crowd, Mary said to Matthew that Sybil was falling for him. It could be a friendly warning for Matthew that, as Sybil was so young, he shouldn't treat Sybil in such a way which Sybil would interpret  as courting and thus save her from breaking her heart. But it could be also a jealous woman's way to stop Matthew to become interested in her younger sister who thus could eventually become the next Countess. 

[Roseanna]

5 hours ago, slf said:

Neither Mary or Edith is at fault for sleeping with a man and neither is responsible for what the other chose to do. Edith is fully at fault for the Pamuk letter, not Mary. Mary is at fault for Bertie finding out about Marigold, not Edith.

In our modern eyes there is of course nothing wrong to have sex before marriage but at that time it caused problems to a woman. Edith's letter ruined Mary's reputation in London (Matthew never learned it) but weakened her chances to marry a titled husband, However, even if nobody had known of it, Mary either had had to decide whether to fake virginity in her wedding night - or dare to tell the truth before marriage and take the risk that she would abandoned. 

As for Edith, she had a child outside wedlock whom she wanted to bring with her. As a marchioness she would become a public figure. Ambitous journalists would hunt just for that kind secrets that would make a scandal that would hurt also Bertie and Marigold. Edith had a duty either to refuse Bertie's offer without telling him the true reason or to tell him and let him decide if he wanted to take the risk. But she thought only how happy she would become.  

[JudyObscure]

5 hours ago, slf said:

Neither Mary or Edith is at fault for sleeping with a man and neither is responsible for what the other chose to do. Edith is fully at fault for the Pamuk letter, not Mary. Mary is at fault for Bertie finding out about Marigold, not Edith.

 

If Mary is not at fault for sleeping with Pamuk, then where's the harm in Edith's letter stating that Pamuk died in Mary's bed?  If Edith is not at fault for sleeping with a man, then where's the harm in Mary telling Bertie about Marigold?  You're trying to have it both ways.  You're mixing contemporary attitudes  about premarital sex with attitudes a hundred years ago.

Both Mary and Edith knew it was considered scandalous at that time for an unmarried woman to sleep with a man.  They both did it anyway and suffered the consequences.  Yes, the tattling on each other was bad, but they both took a big risk when they slept with a man.  They risked their own reputations as well as the futures of any children that might result from the act.  I think they were both reckless and selfish for those choices.  At that time the rate of babies born out of wedlock was very low, less than 5% compared to about 50% today.  Considering there was no reliable birth control at that time, then young women having premarital sex must have been rare.  If Tom is to be believed, ("We had lots of Marigolds') then it was more common in the lower classes, probably bringing the number of aristocratic young women having premarital sex and becoming single mothers down to around one in a hundred.

[slf]

31 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

If Mary is not at fault for sleeping with Pamuk, then where's the harm in Edith's letter stating that Pamuk died in Mary's bed?  If Edith is not at fault for sleeping with a man, then where's the harm in Mary telling Bertie about Marigold?  You're trying to have it both ways.  You're mixing contemporary attitudes  about premarital sex with attitudes a hundred years ago.

I'm not trying to have it both ways, actually. Just because the deeply misogynistic era they lived in considered them both to be immoral for choosing to have pre-marital sex doesn't mean I or the audience have to. Choosing to expose your sibling (and by extension the rest of your family), or anyone, to public ridicule, and permanently damaging their reputation (with many more possible consequences) because you got mad at them is pretty shitty no matter the time period.

Edited February 6, 2019 by slf

[Roseanna]

9 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

If Mary is not at fault for sleeping with Pamuk, then where's the harm in Edith's letter stating that Pamuk died in Mary's bed?  If Edith is not at fault for sleeping with a man, then where's the harm in Mary telling Bertie about Marigold?  You're trying to have it both ways.  You're mixing contemporary attitudes  about premarital sex with attitudes a hundred years ago.

Both Mary and Edith knew it was considered scandalous at that time for an unmarried woman to sleep with a man.  They both did it anyway and suffered the consequences.  Yes, the tattling on each other was bad, but they both took a big risk when they slept with a man.  They risked their own reputations as well as the futures of any children that might result from the act.  I think they were both reckless and selfish for those choices.  At that time the rate of babies born out of wedlock was very low, less than 5% compared to about 50% today.  Considering there was no reliable birth control at that time, then young women having premarital sex must have been rare.  If Tom is to be believed, ("We had lots of Marigolds') then it was more common in the lower classes, probably bringing the number of aristocratic young women having premarital sex and becoming single mothers down to around one in a hundred.

 

9 hours ago, slf said:

I'm not trying to have it both ways, actually. Just because the deeply misogynistic era they lived in considered them both to be immoral for choosing to have pre-marital sex doesn't mean I or the audience have to. Choosing to expose your sibling (and by extension the rest of your family), or anyone, to public ridicule, and permanently damaging their reputation (with many more possible consequences) because you got mad at them is pretty shitty no matter the time period.

I don't think that one can totally abandon the morality of the age in one matter and accept in another matter. First, Mary and Edith were brought up to regard sex outside as a sin and the ruin of their reputation and chances to marry well. If we just abandon that because we think differently, why wouldn't we also dismiss also their aim to "marry well" - that's a trivial life, therefore the ruined reputation didn't mean anything, they could go abroad and have a much better life. 

Especially Mary was presented as cold as ice and calculating only how to get the most profitable marriage, but by sleeping with Pamuk, a man she had just met, she showed that she had passion and could act recklessly, putting all her future chances in risk. What if she had become pregnant? What if Pamuk had lived and boasted of his conquest?

 As for Edith, the letter was of course malicious but she hardly "got mad on pretty shit" but for Mary destroying her only chance to marry (Strallan) and all (as she thought) that Mary had caused her in her whole life (for of course their feud hadn't begun in the first episode).

One must also remember that Edith was an inexperienced girl to whom sleeping with a man, a virtual stranger, seemed, well, whoring, especially as she didn't know that Pamuk had come to Mary's room uninvited and threatened her. She earnestly thought that Mary was "damaged goods" but presented herself as "pure" and virtuous.   

[slf]

On 2/7/2019 at 1:55 AM, Roseanna said:

I don't think that one can totally abandon the morality of the age in one matter and accept in another matter. First, Mary and Edith were brought up to regard sex outside as a sin and the ruin of their reputation and chances to marry well. If we just abandon that because we think differently, why wouldn't we also dismiss also their aim to "marry well"

I'm not ignoring when the mores of their time might have been their motivation (tho that only ever seems to be invoked in defense of Edith), I'm choosing not to hold them to the misogynistic standard that society did. There's a difference between saying "ultimately Mary and Edith are both responsible for their choice to betray their sister's secret" and dismissing their aim to marry well. One was motivated by personal vendetta the other was a survival tactic. Not at all the same.

"Pretty shitty" is another way of saying "very shitty".

[Roseanna]

17 hours ago, slf said:

I'm not ignoring when the mores of their time might have been their motivation (tho that only ever seems to be invoked in defense of Edith), I'm choosing not to hold them to the misogynistic standard that society did. There's a difference between saying "ultimately Mary and Edith are both responsible for their choice to betray their sister's secret" and dismissing their aim to marry well. One was motivated by personal vendetta the other was a survival tactic. Not at all the same.

"Pretty shitty" is another way of saying "very shitty".

Wouldn't the word "vendetta" in itself include the thought that there was something to revenge? It's true that Edith's revenge was far too much compared with Mary's deed, but that's just what happends in the sagas of Iceland. One party does something, the other party revenges it, and so begins the escalation that reaches to others. In Njall's saga, somebody finally refuses to continue the chain of revenge.

Responsiblity is indeed the crux of the matter. You have stressed on Edith's habit to provoke Mary which always lead to her own defeat. But Mary was equally responsible for her habit to let herself to be provoked.

A person who is really sure that she is "superior" than the other doesn't always have a need to prove it, rather she is amused and let the other have her small "victory" as she knows that isn't real. And really a decent person doesn't be nice only towards those whom she likes and/or who deserve it, but treats all with basic decency, simply because they are human.

As for "marrying well" as a survival tactic, that requires that we accept the class system or at least Mary's basic belief that she was entitled to get all good things of the British aristocracy simply because of accident of her birth.       

Edited February 10, 2019 by Roseanna
The connection was cut off too early

[slf]

11 hours ago, Roseanna said:

It's true that Edith's revenge was far too much compared with Mary's deed, but that's just what happends in the sagas of Iceland. One party does something, the other party revenges it, and so begins the escalation that reaches to others. In Njall's saga, somebody finally refuses to continue the chain of revenge.

What do the Norse sagas have to do with anything? A lot of things happened in them.

11 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Responsiblity is indeed the crux of the matter. You have stressed on Edith's habit to provoke Mary which always lead to her own defeat. But Mary was equally responsible for her habit to let herself to be provoked.

Yeah, Mary should have just straight up ignored her sister. But that failing isn't equal to Edith's and I'm not gonna hold it against someone that they respond in kind when someone's being intentionally rude or mocking toward them.

11 hours ago, Roseanna said:

As for "marrying well" as a survival tactic, that requires that we accept the class system or at least Mary's basic belief that she was entitled to get all good things of the British aristocracy simply because of accident of her birth.       

No, it requires that we understand that these women lived in a deeply patriarchal and misogynistic society that devalued women and their abilities. Marrying well was a survival tactic for virtually all women, everywhere in the world, in their time. 

[Roseanna]

14 hours ago, slf said:

What do the Norse sagas have to do with anything? A lot of things happened in them.

Yeah, Mary should have just straight up ignored her sister. But that failing isn't equal to Edith's and I'm not gonna hold it against someone that they respond in kind when someone's being intentionally rude or mocking toward them.

Norse sagas show best how revenge begins, how it escalates and how it can stopped.

"Responding in kind" is the worst tactic one can chose because that only makes the situation worse. Why would anyone deliberately want to have a bad relationship with a family member?

In the relationships it's reasonable not to look at the behaviour but the motive behind it. Why the wife always nags? Was it because the husband didn't listen to her when she asked something for the first, second and third time?   

Even more, it's not only about the relationship but even more about the person one wants to be. Every time Mary "responds in kind", she becomes nastier and nastier. Finally she is nasty towards her mother and father for no reason at all. 

Because Mary never learned to contain her nastiness, she can't do in the morning table.        

[slf]

12 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Norse sagas show best how revenge begins, how it escalates and how it can stopped.

Okay.

12 hours ago, Roseanna said:

"Responding in kind" is the worst tactic one can chose because that only makes the situation worse. Why would anyone deliberately want to have a bad relationship with a family member?

It's weird that every time the discussion turns to Mary and Edith's fights it always comes down to what Mary could have done better.

As for your last question, I think that's better asked of Edith.

12 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Even more, it's not only about the relationship but even more about the person one wants to be.

LOL, Mary wanted to be the kind of person who didn't have to deal with Edith's constant rudeness and whining.

[Roseanna]

5 hours ago, slf said:

It's weird that every time the discussion turns to Mary and Edith's fights it always comes down to what Mary could have done better.

As for your last question, I think that's better asked of Edith.

LOL, Mary wanted to be the kind of person who didn't have to deal with Edith's constant rudeness and whining.

 Well, later Edith did just that. When Matthew was missing, she was kind to Mary. When Sybil died, she asked Mary if they could get better to together. When Gregson was missing, she asked her mother if she was bad because she had her bad thoughts, and Cora answered that one is bad only if one does bad. And finally she first attacked Mary straightway and silencetr her and then showed her kindness by coming to her wedding.

Mary, however, chose to the tactics that made the made situation worse. Even Macchiavelli says that if you want to crush your enemy, you must do it completely, otherwise he would revenge, if given the chance. Which is indeed what happened in S1.

But later Mary couldn't stand Edith being genuinely sad for a very real reason when Gregson was missing and dead, but she couldn't stand Edith being successful and happy, either. Both strongly points out that Mary saw Edith as her shadow to whom she projected her negative sides and fears. Plus, as Mary saw herself superior in all, she couldn't admit Edith as equal with her, still less superior.  

It seems that Mary couldn't even stand Edith simply existing, f.ex. when Edith said that she had in a restaurant with Gregson, and Mary said that she made everything gloomy and Edith said that actually it was happy memory.

Well, if simply Edith's existence was such a burden to Mary, the best tactics would be to help her to marry Bertie. But she did just the opposite. And falling low, she lied to Tom.    

[Roseanna]

On ‎2‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 12:00 AM, slf said:

Marrying well was a survival tactic for virtually all women, everywhere in the world, in their time. 

Already in Jane Austen's novels, although it was stupid to marry without money, it was inmoral to marry without love.

Anyway, it was Edith who was willing to marry any suitable man (Strallan) whereas Mary didn't after the first episode.

Although Mary no doubt was a success with men, she was 21 years old which mean that she had had two or three seasons but the best offer she had got was her cousin, the heir, who evidently did so mostly out of duty. Mary said that she had married him if "nothing better" had come. That "better" was the duke who was going to propose only after he believed that Mary was a heiress which she, as an intelligent person, must have known. So far, Mary had regarded the marriage solely on material terms.

But that changes already in the second episode. She dismisses Matthew because of his bourgeois background and hurt by his chance remark she happened to hear (even if or because it was true) although he would be as good a match as her cousin and it's evident that she could easily charm him.

Next, she dismisses Napier with whom she had changed letters and who she knows comes to Dowton to propose her - and she does that on a whim as she likes to flirt with Pamuk, the result being that Napier declines to propose because she haven't even care to pretend to be interested in him, unlike with the duke.

Thus, before the scandal, Mary has two chances to marry well, but she declines them because she she doesn't any more aim to marry well on only materialistic reasons.

She begins to be interested in Matthew when he shows his honesty and empathy, but finally loses him because of her fears and insecurity.

That leads in S2 a long process of purification where Mary is at her best, even treating Lavinia with unselbfish kindness (minus the kiss of course). After daring to be honest with Matthew about her past she knows that he loves her as she is, not some ideal image. 

Whereas Matthew was Mary's lover, husband and best friend, Henry's only benefit seems to be his sex appeal to Mary (albeit not to me). She never even reveals him her fears about his racing.

And unlike with Matthew, there is any evidence that Henry has seen Mary's other, softer side as Anna claims to Bates.            

Edited February 12, 2019 by Roseanna
saving happened too early by accident

[slf]

11 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Already in Jane Austen's novels, although it was stupid to marry without money, it was inmoral to marry without love.

Anyway, it was Edith who was willing to marry any suitable man (Strallan) whereas Mary didn't after the first episode.

We aren't talking Austen novels, we're talking the standards of early 20th century England, which weren't especially forgiving of women.

What does Mary's motivations have to do with anything? You brought up marrying well being a trivial consideration if I don't hold the women to the sexist standard of their day to which I pointed out that marrying well was a survival tactic. Not everything is about defending or bashing Mary. You have talked yourself in circles, I'm afraid.

Edited February 12, 2019 by slf

[Roseanna]

7 hours ago, slf said:

We aren't talking Austen novels, we're talking the standards of early 20th century England, which weren't especially forgiving of women.

What does Mary's motivations have to do with anything? You brought up marrying well being a trivial consideration if I don't hold the women to the sexist standard of their day to which I pointed out that marrying well was a survival tactic. Not everything is about defending or bashing Mary. You have talked yourself in circles, I'm afraid.

In Jane Austen's time marriage was the only option for the upper and upper middle-class women, but in the time of the show it wasn't as women could study and work, even live alone. 

Mary's motivations had elemental to do with her choices and options. Before the scandal she had two chances to marry well, but refused to marry only for materialistic motives (as with her cousin and the duke).

On the other hand, her dealings with Matthew and Napier show also that Mary suffered of hubris as if there was an endless supply of titled men from she could  choose and spend so much time she wanted in choosing a husband.  

Both characteristic aren't about defending or bashing Mary but understanding her character which was indeed fascinatingly complex in S1. If she had simply been an offer of others and general misogony, there would have been no need to the long purification process in S2 where she was in her best.

[Athena]

MOD NOTE:

Please take a break from this discussion. This dead horse has been beaten for years. If you have stated your opinion more than a couple times on it lately, it's time to step away. Thank you.