Lady Mary: Quite Contrary

[Rhondinella]

I hated her in S1, started liking her in S2 and 3, then hated her again in S4.  So we'll see how it trends for next season, but I'm not terribly optimistic.  Without Dan Stevens' Matthew the character has no spark.

[Camera One]

On a complete aside, considering the writing being so repetative the last two seasons... am I the only one who wonders what season four and five would have looked like without cast leaving? Because for the life of me, I cant see what Mary would have had to do if she wasn't able to date...

I am guessing he would have had Mary and Matthew disagreeing over various aspects of running the estate, and maybe over parenting?  I too am curious what he would have written for them.

[ZoloftBlob]

It really is a good question , isn't it? (One I suspect Dan Steven's asked himself at the very least)

 

Conflict between Matthew and Robert over the running of the estate really should have been coming if only because Robert kept making dumbass decisions. But Mary, to give her some credit, has always been pretty devoted to her father.

 

On the other hand, Matthew as the perfect man was getting old... But the obvious methods of dirtying him up - his having an affair or engaging in some sleazy business practice also seem *really* out of character. Not impossible - I think he was always portrayed as naive enough to fall into a mess if he was willing to blind himself to someone's obvious character flaws....

 

Mary in contrast seems like she could stray in the right circumstances (pissed with Matthew over his disagreeing with Daddy for example, coupled with him being out of town and hanging with his mom or whatever) and *that* would have been devastating to both.... but that involves making Mary the bad guy...

 

Meanwhile I don't see any external issues that could cause conflict, other than maybe Matthew having some PTSD problems.

[Eolivet]

There's no way Mary would've had a son at this point if Matthew had lived. There would have been heir drama, plus drama over the running of the estate -- I suspect Mary would've taken Robert's side more than Matthew's, so it would be the clash of traditional vs. modern. You can see in the deleted scenes that ran on PBS season 3 up until episode 5 (when Dan Stevens gave his notice) that Mary and Matthew are much more at odds with each other about the estate and Matthew's inheritance. The lovey-dovey stuff doesn't start in season 3 until Fellowes knows Matthew is going to die.

 

I suspect Mary might've had a miscarriage or problems getting pregnant -- which they tried to play up until they had to make it go away with her "small operation."

[Avaleigh]

I agree that the first child would have been a girl. I think a boy would have come shortly after though and then there'd be an issue with Matthew possibly wanting more children and Mary feeling that two are more than enough. I can also see them having disagreements on how the children should be raised. I could see Matthew being keen on taking them traveling and Mary wanting to leave them behind. I could see a disagreement coming over where George should go to school. Maybe Robert went to Eton and Matthew Harrow or vice versa, something like that. Have them disagree over choosing a nanny. Have them deal with one of the children going through an illness and see what it says about each of their personalities. Have Mary more interested in having a social life again while Matthew wants to be at home more. Robert's death probably would have happened sooner if Dan had stayed so that we could see Mary and Matthew making the transition to Earl and Countess. 

[ZoloftBlob]

I suspect Mary might've had a miscarriage or problems getting pregnant -- which they tried to play up until they had to make it go away with her "small operation."

 

Yeah.. and whats interesting there is that I saw it suggested in a fanfic (which means I have no idea if this was medically accurate) that Mary's operation was essentially to remove some scarring that occured due to the sexual disease Pamuk gave her, that was preventing pregnancy.

 

Now, interesting question - Matthew has to produce an heir... If Mary can't have children, isn't that grounds for divorce?

 

I can't see them having *major* fights over raising children in that I think Mary would win by simply refusing to be a nanny, but producing the heir and Matthew wanting more than one or two are possible.

 

But those sorts of fights also paint Mary in a bad light, which Fellowes doesn't like to do.

[saki]

I agree with others that I think Mary's storylines if Matthew had lived would have been about producing the heir (infertility? difficult pregnancies/births?) and raising the children.  I slightly wish that we'd see some of the latter storylines playing out with Isobel - I am certain that Isobel didn't raise Matthew the way that Mary is raising George, it's a shame that we don't get any scenes of her with him.  I suspect that's probably mostly about preferring not to show Mary in a bad light.

 

Agreed also that they would have clashed much more over the running of the estate.  Up until fairly recently, Mary was not much of a modernist, she's had to change largely because they need someone (other than Tom) to argue with Robert about modernisation.

 

I also wonder whether another storyline might have been Matthew wanting to move out of Downton - it frankly never made much sense that they lived there in the first place, most couples in their situations would have lived in another property owned by the Earl nearby.

[Starchild]

But those sorts of fights also paint Mary in a bad light, which Fellowes doesn't like to do.

Ironic, that.

[ZoloftBlob]

Yes, ironic. I don't think Fellowes sees Mary as a bad person at all in how she treats people or how he's limited her character development and his own story telling ability by making her so hands off.

 

Point - I think its fair to say Stevens saw the handwriting on the wall for his character long before season two ended in that once Matthew marries Mary, he has nothing but a downward path storywise.... because Mary always wins. And that's unfortunate because I enjoyed watching him on the show but yeah, the best we've come up with for season four with Matthew is Matthew fighting with Mary and Robert over the estate and or fertility issues. And as weird as Dan seems in interviews, he also seems reasonably bright and probably put this together as well.

 

Which is a shame because if Mary was allowed to be the loser occasionally, I could see some compelling stories. I would have loved to have seen Dockery and Stevens play Mary and Matthew in the aftermath of Mary having an affair. Or, transpose the Bates rape storyline onto Mary and Matthew - That would have been stunning because Dockery could have played the hell out of that. Add in Mary suspiciously pregnant *after* and there's a huge storyline. Stevens could have played the hell out of it as well, because it would have let Matthew be a noble honor bound douche slowly and quietly filling with rage over his wife pulling away, and lying etc. It would have worked a hell of a lot better than Bates and Anna. I mean damn... imagine the baby being a boy but not resembling Matthew and there's no DNA testing......

 

But that would have involved unpleasantness for Mary, because Mary always has to win.

 

Editing because I realize I left this thought totally hanging due to the cough syrup I am taking - It would have involved unpleasantness for Mary and since Mary always has to win, and this sort of demanding storyline doesn't always bring all the players back to a happy place, there's no way we'd ever see "Mary raped by a houseguest and unable to tell Matthew because he might not understand due to Mary's previous known history of hopping into bed with houseguests" - even though it would have been a ton more compelling than the Bates thing. It hurts Mary, and Fellowes doesn't let Mary be hurt. Matthew never would have died if Stevens had continued with the show

Edited January 1, 2015 by ZoloftBlob

[Tetraneutron]

That's not quite it. A storyline like Mary being raped or not knowing who the father is likely never would have happened because the show is pathologically allergic to conflict, except for tragedy magnets Edith and Bates. And even for them, everything magically works out in the end. I mean, all the plots described in this thread could have been very interesting. I's have loved to see a situation where we don't know if Mary's son is really Matthew's. But it wouldn't happen because the Mary as written would never cheat on her husband, have an affair without using birth control, and no way is she getting raped. JF does not write plots you can't wrap up in a happy little bow where the benevolent aristocrats are perfect and wonderful.

 

The problem isn't that Mary can't lose. She has. Her reputation is almost ruined because of Pamuk, she's almost forced to marry Carlisle, she has to watch while Matthew almost marries someone else, she's told off in front of her whole family for being a selfish prick to debut a hairstyle while Edith's (as far as anyone knew) serious boyfriend was found dead. And she turned down Matthew and seriously regretted it. Sure, in the end it all works out for her but that's true of everyone. The difference is she doesn't act like a victim. She doesn't cry or apologize or act ashamed or lose her manners. And since that's the most salient fact of the character that would exist no matter what. And literally ANY plot would be more interesting than the dull interchangeable suitors. On the whole, I get why JF was so pissed off at Dan Stevens for leaving.

[ZoloftBlob]

On the whole, I get why JF was so pissed off at Dan Stevens for leaving.

 

I totally get it as well.... but I also totally get why Dan Stevens left, because there's nothing for Matthew to do but look pretty and be ineffectual, because nothing bad or character changing was ever going to happen to Mary. I think we're saying the same thing in different ways, because yes a lot of bad things *almost* happen to Mary but with the exception of Matthew dying (which never would have happened had Stevens signed a new contract) everything always turns up good for Mary. And that's why Mary seems to have regressed at times.

 

The difference is she doesn't act like a victim. She doesn't cry or apologize or act ashamed or lose her manners.

 

I agree with this characterization completely, that Mary is a strong woman who doesn't wallow in regrets is something I like about her very much. But that's also why its disappointing that she would never, in a season four and five with Matthew alive, ever deal with a problem bigger than arguing with Matthew over how the children would be raised. It's disappointing because Dockery and Stevens had the talent and spark working together to make a plot like "Mary was raped and now she's pregnant, and does she tell Matthew, or does she lie to him and what does Matthew do when he finds out that Lord Huffington is really the father of his son and heir?" work.

 

I think we agree that Fellowes was never going to write something meaty like that. And its a shame because I think Mary is the kind of character that would have made it sing.

[Camera One]

because there's nothing for Matthew to do but look pretty and be ineffectual, because nothing bad or character changing was ever going to happen to Mary.

 

Nothing character-changing happens to anyone, though.  Maybe in the short-term, but definitely not in the long-term.  I don't think the problem of playing Matthew is necessarily specific to being Mary's love interest.  Maybe he was just bored with playing a decent well-meaning character. and wanted to try his hand at playing psychos and taking limited-time roles on popcorn flicks.  Some of those roles weren't all that "meaty" either, but some actors enjoy "living" long-term as a character, while others don't.

[ZoloftBlob]

To be fair, he played a *damn* good psycho in The Guest. ;)

[saki]

I think it's a fair point that there are a number of characters who are teflon, it's definitely not just Mary.  Robert is definitely teflon, it doesn't matter how many times he loses all his money, he never actually loses Downton.

 

I'm not sure I agree that Mary never loses her manners, I think she's quite rude a lot of the time, it's just that the other characters don't react to it so as the viewer you tend not to think of it as rudeness.  For instance, it's fairly common for her to disagree with others in social situations quite vigorously but, when Miss Bunting did it about the memorial, that was greeted with gasps of horror.  I'm also not sure that not apologising or regretting or being ashamed are good qualities - I don't admire them, particularly, anyway.  I would like Mary more if she was capable of reflecting on the past, apologising to those she's hurt, and - yes - being ashamed of some of the nasty things she's said/done and mistakes she's made.

[ZoloftBlob]

Robert is definitely teflon, it doesn't matter how many times he loses all his money, he never actually loses Downton.

 

Of course not, and Mary will never lose Downton either because the show is called Downton Abbey, but I do agree Robert is Teflon. And I'd call Matthew a Teflon Martyr - with rare exception (his death heh) Matthew spent his life having agonizing terrible things happen to him, only to always have it work out in the end.

 

Mary isn't an admirable person for being bluntly rude and snobby, and I wouldn't want her as a friend in real life, but I do like that the character is at least willing to acknowledge that she is who she is... something of a bitch.

[Atlanta]

I don't get why men inexplicably fall at Mary's feet. She's not nice, not that more attractive than the nicer Edith who has more depth, and can't be the only peer's 'catch.' After all, Downton will go to baby George anyway. She's like the Marissa of "The OC." I was always puzzled why dudes would suddenly fall in love with her. She had no personality and Summer was the hotter of the ladies on that show.

[Pallas]

My guess is that Fellowes's  long-range plan for Mary involved her slowly winnowing herself away from Robert, and cleaving to her husband -- specifically on the matter of the management of the estate.  I think he may have imagined that storyline as Mary's second, equally necessary and salutary humbling: the other shoe to her nearly losing Matthew. In the end, had Mary eventually realized that the future favored Matthew's views, this would only abound to her happiness, and shore up her position as an able steward of Downton...but that transition would still have required her to grow.

[JudyObscure]

I'm not sure I agree that Mary never loses her manners, I think she's quite rude a lot of the time, it's just that the other characters don't react to it so as the viewer you tend not to think of it as rudeness.  For instance, it's fairly common for her to disagree with others in social situations quite vigorously but, when Miss Bunting did it about the memorial, that was greeted with gasps of horror.  I'm also not sure that not apologising or regretting or being ashamed are good qualities - I don't admire them, particularly, anyway.  I would like Mary more if she was capable of reflecting on the past, apologising to those she's hurt, and - yes - being ashamed of some of the nasty things she's said/done and mistakes she's made.

I agree with this. In fact I can't like Mary at all because to my eyes, she's not a strong woman but a self satisfied, arrogant woman with moments of needless cruelty. Mary doesn't whine when her husband dies but she does sit in her room for six months before deciding that her child might need her to get on with life. She doesn't act ashamed over things like turning down Matthew when she thinks her mother might give birth to a boy. Maybe she should have, just as she should have been ashamed of telling Sir Anthony that Edith was hiding from some man when he came to propose or ashamed of kissing Matthew while Lavinia was gravely ill. Decent people do feel guilt sometimes.

Everyone blamed Edith for "bringing shame on the family," after the Pamuk affair, but a letter to Pamuk's father would not have caused that. Edith was still a teen at the time and just wanted Mary to "get in trouble," throuh Pamuk's father coming to Downton and talking to Lord Grantham. Pamuk's father was the last person to spread gossip that would have shown his son to be the sort of cad who would sleep with the unmarried daughter of the house where he was a guest. The talk in town, which never amounted to much, was the result of servant gossip, not the letter. Mary, herself, embarrassed the family but Edith got the blame and the anger from their father.

When Downton began I thought Fellowes had Mary in mind as a sort of Scarlet O'Hara, so I waited for Mary to show some redeeming qualities. I thought she, like Scarlet, might prove brave in helping the sick soldiers in their makeshift hospital, but it was Sybil and Edith who did that. I thought she might eventually pay the price for putting Matthew off, by losing him to a more worthy "Miss Melanie," but that didn't happen, either. Instead we just have a grown woman still sniping at her sister, friendless and entitled and petty. Her voice alone makes me want to shake her. No one can be as bored as she always sounds.

[Avaleigh]

She doesn't act ashamed over things like turning down Matthew when she thinks her mother might give birth to a boy. Maybe she should have, just as she should have been ashamed of telling Sir Anthony that Edith was hiding from some man when he came to propose or ashamed of kissing Matthew while Lavinia was gravely ill. Decent people do feel guilt sometimes.

Mary didn't actually turn Matthew down. It was her delayed response and inability to commit that led to him dumping her. Mary is the one who asks him "So I've ruined everything?" One difference between Mary and Edith is that Mary is capable of examining her own behavior and taking responsibility for it. She did it with Matthew, she did it with Pamuk, over the mourning, running Downton, etc. It's also untrue about Mary not feeling any guilt over Lavinia--I thought it was obvious that she did. She and Matthew expressed it in different ways but I thought she showed care for Lavinia's feelings after the moment passed. We've also seen Mary feel guilt at other times when she feels like she's done something wrong so I think by your definition she still qualifies as a decent person. It's one of the first things we learn about Mary's character in season one in the episode with the Duke where she ends up apologizing to Bates and the Duke thinks that Mary is weird for not only admitting being in the wrong but also apologizing for it as it's something he personally would never have done and thinks is odd coming from a person from the upper class.

Everyone blamed Edith for "bringing shame on the family," after the Pamuk affair, but a letter to Pamuk's father would not have caused that.

Edith wrote the letter to the Turkish embassy and Evelyn Napier confirmed that it was Edith's letter that got the gossip flowing so that it would be believed in legitimate circles because it was being confirmed by a member of the family. I don't feel like Edith should get a pass for this but of course she lucked out in a huge way in not having her parents or Sybil find out how reckless, selfish, and disloyal she can be.

Edith was still a teen at the time and just wanted Mary to "get in trouble," throuh Pamuk's father coming to Downton and talking to Lord Grantham. Pamuk's father was the last person to spread gossip that would have shown his son to be the sort of cad who would sleep with the unmarried daughter of the house where he was a guest. The talk in town, which never amounted to much, was the result of servant gossip, not the letter.

Edith was not a teenager when the above incident took place. She was 21 or 22. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Edith intended to have Pamuk's father to come to Downton--she says that she thought the Turkish Ambassador had the "right to know how his countryman died, in the arms of a slut." It was absolutely because of Edith writing the letter that the news spread around London. Evelyn confirms this and also wants Mary to know that he had nothing to do with such a vicious act. He also feels like Mary has the right to know who would do something like that to her and tells her that the information will be hard for her to hear. To me the incident can't really be downplayed. Edith was wrong and she lucked out that the rest of her family didn't find out about what she'd done.

The talk in town, which never amounted to much

This also is not really true. The Pamuk scandal was something that Mary had to deal with for years in large part because of Edith's thoughtlessness.

When Downton began I thought Fellowes had Mary in mind as a sort of Scarlet O'Hara, so I waited for Mary to show some redeeming qualities.

ZulaMay, Myrenae, and I as well as a few other posters have had the Scarlett O'Hara/Mary debate a few times here and at TWoP. I definitely think that Mary has shown many good and fine qualities over the years I just think that Mary hasn't been in the same extreme situations that Scarlett was in so that we see them respond to the challenges that they're given. Scarlett hated nursing and felt that she was forced to if she didn't want to be an outcast in society. She dropped nursing as soon as she could. Mary meanwhile did work at the hospital she just did the bare minimum--as Scarlett did in Atlanta. Scarlett wanted to be good at it like Melanie but admits to herself that it's all too disgusting for her and that there are other things she'd rather be doing. I have no doubt that Scarlett would have taken the Mary approach to nursing if that had been an option for her. It just wasn't really an option while she was living in Atlanta.

We see that when there's a situation where Mary is required to help out at Downton that she's willing to do that just as Scarlett was. I thought the pig scene made that clear.

I thought she might eventually pay the price for putting Matthew off, by losing him to a more worthy "Miss Melanie," but that didn't happen, either.

I didn't see Lavinia as being more worthy of Matthew than Mary. They're just very different people but I don't see what makes Lavinia a more worthy woman for Matthew than Mary is. Is this solely based on Mary and Matthew kissing each other while Lavinia was lying upstairs? That seems a bit harsh but that's just my opinion.

I also think that Mary did pay a price with Matthew in that they were kept apart for years because, as Mary admits, she "ruined" everything. I think it's basically a myth that is being perpetuated that Mary doesn't have bad things happen to her, or bad luck, or suffer consequences for her behavior or anything like that.

Instead we just have a grown woman still sniping at her sister, friendless and entitled and petty.

Does anyone on this show have friends? I've always commented that it's unfortunate that the budget doesn't seem to permit for many (any?) of the Crawleys to have friends apart from love interests and family members. Edited January 10, 2015 by Avaleigh

[saki]

I think some of this is about the actress.  To me, the scene where Mary says "So, I've ruined everything" doesn't come across to me as remorseful at all.  When I watched that scene, what I got from it was that she was trying to confirm where she stood with Matthew.  I find it really bizarre that she thinks it's even possible that someone she didn't want to agree to marry because there was a 50:50 chance that he might not be wealthy would still want her.  But it is also about the writing - at no point does she say anything approaching "I'm sorry" or "I made a mistake".  So, I don't really agree that she took responsibility there.  Or for Pamuk.

[ZoloftBlob]

Yeah, I know there's this running interpretation that Mary was dumped by Matthew and therefore she never said no and was *never given the chance* to say yes to his proposal..... but there's a flaw in that argument.

 

She could have said yes, right away. That's chance number one she turned down. I get why, despite the popular "pop the question" ideas we have, but it *was* an opportunity for Mary to say yes.

 

She asked him to let her think on it and she would answer him when she returned from London. That's opportunity number two that she had to say yes, and didn't.

 

She also could have said yes when he point blank asked her if she was willing to marry him regardless of whether he did or didn't inherit. And she didn't.

 

There was obviously a passage of some time between Matthew's initial proposal and the garden party where it all fell apart because Robert alludes to the fact that he thought it was all settled in the spring, and Matthew agrees but then notes how apparently no it wasn't.

 

Mary was given months to commit and refused. She had opportunities galore to agree to marry Matthew, and considering it was pretty much common knowledge she was debating saying yes because she was worried he wouldn't inherit, its hard to see it as a "Poor little Mary was never *given a chance* to say yes, that cad Matthew asked her to marry him and then threw a drama queen hissy when the poor child wouldn't immediately say yes".

 

I mean, god knows Matthew had his bitch moments, but really, is there any doubt that if she had said yes at any of these opportunities that he wouldn't have married her? Mary's refusal to make a decision is a decision all on its own. She had plenty of chances to say yes, and Matthew rescinded his proposal after giving her repeated opportunities to commit one way or another. I don't see how this gets construed as "Mary never had a chance to say yes".

[JudyObscure]

I thought she might eventually pay the price for putting Matthew off, by losing him to a more worthy "Miss Melanie," but that didn't happen, either.

I didn't see Lavinia as being more worthy of Matthew than Mary. They're just very different people but I don't see what makes Lavinia a more worthy woman for Matthew than Mary is. Is this solely based on Mary and Matthew kissing each other while Lavinia was lying upstairs? That seems a bit harsh but that's just my opinion.

I wasn't comparing Lavinia to Melanie at all. I was saying the show didn't provide us with a Melanie. I thought Scarlet was made more sympathetic by having Ashley choose someone else even when he knew he could have Scarlet. Not that Scarlet was ever a favorite character of mine, but things like her unrequited love for Ashley made her more tolerable to me.

However, now that you bring up the comparison; Yes, I think Lavinia seemed like a better person than Mary. Lavinia wouldn't allow Matthew to break off the engagement when it looked like he would never walk again and she was always kind to everyone around her. Mary, on the other hand, didn't seem to have such unconditional love for Matthew and her acts of kindness are few and far between.

[tapplum]

I don't think anyone's really arguing that Mary didn't have the opportunity to marry Matthew - she clearly did. On the other hand, it's also canon that she did not in fact choose to break things off with him, and that in the end it was Matthew who ended things. We can't know what Mary would have eventually decided if Matthew hadn't made that call - which of course he was entirely entitled to do. 

 

I'm perhaps alone in this, but I just don't think it speaks negatively of Mary that she wasn't prepared to marry lawyer!Matthew (as opposed to heir!Matthew). A marriage for a woman of her time and position wasn't just a relationship, it was also her career and her socioeconomic future. Mary's been raised for the "career" of being a titled society wife, a career she also seems to want, and I get the impression that she enjoys her social station and her wealth. Now obviously if she could have had a career/station independently of her husband, she should have married Matthew regardless, but that wasn't the case.

 

Today a woman from a higher class would likely be perfectly prepared to marry a a man from a lower class if they fell in love. But if it meant she couldn't keep her job or her house, but would have to switch to his job and his house, things might very well be different. It's not strange that these considerations should impact her decision.

 

This is of course very YMMV, but personally I like Mary better for not being prepared to give up the station she desired for love, that she wanted it all. It's a nice change of pace to get a female lead who doesn't necessarily prioritise romantic love over other considerations, even if she wants and enjoys it.

[Tetraneutron]

That's the point of the character. It's exactly like in Pride and Prejudice (which JF was, let's just say inspired by, quite heavily). The protagonist wants everything. Security and happiness. Money and love. Her family's estate and a good marriage. What's wrong with that? Wanting it all and refusing to compromise is what every hero or heroine of every story does. It's what makes characters interesting. It's not as though she was being unduly selfish. She wasn't gold-digging in the conventional sense, looking for shopping trips to Paris. She was doing it as much for the code and life her father wanted as much as anything else. She wanted to run the estate and keep it self-sustaining and care for the tenants and do all that noblesse oblige stuff.

 

She was, in her own way, rebelling against a system everyone today would see as incredibly unfair. And it's not like not marrying Matthew would doom her family to poverty.

 

I don't get why everyone's so willing to condemn Mary for refusing to settle and be grateful like a good little girl, just for security and her family. She should panic and cling to the nearest life raft like a trapped animal. Or like Edith. Why shouldn't she have big dreams and the self-confidence to go after them?

[ZoloftBlob]

I'm perhaps alone in this, but I just don't think it speaks negatively of Mary that she wasn't prepared to marry lawyer!Matthew (as opposed to heir!Matthew). A marriage for a woman of her time and position wasn't just a relationship, it was also her career and her socioeconomic future.

 

Sure, but rather than point blank tell Matthew that (and there's some implication that before Cora's miracle baby announcement, her family interpreted her having already agreed to marry Matthew) she just let him dangle and figure out on his own that if he didn't inherit, he wasn't good enough for her. That's actually pretty insulting, particularly in context - Matthew wasn't Tom Branson, hero of the lower classes, he was upper middle class with family ties to the peerage. So its hard to see Mary as the victim here, when she was given plenty of time to make her decision and didn't. It just speaks to the streak of doormat running down Matthew's back that he ever went back to her.

[tapplum]

So its hard to see Mary as the victim here, when she was given plenty of time to make her decision and didn't. It just speaks to the streak of doormat running down Matthew's back that he ever went back to her.

 

I agree, Mary is hardly a victim in the breakup situation. Like every other woman on the show, she's the victim of a sexist society, and more specifically of the entail, so one could argue a victim of the circumstances that produced both the relationship (she would hardly have married, or even met, Matthew if she had inherited herself) and the breakup (if she could have had her own career...), but that's on a much more abstract level. With regard to Matthew and the breakup, Mary made her bed and she had to lay in it. Frankly the smart thing for her to do would have been to follow Violet's advice and just string Matthew along to perhaps dump him later if Cora gave birth to a boy.

 

On the other hand, I don't believe that getting back together with her makes Matthew a doormat. If he'd wanted a meek wife who didn't scheme and fight to get everything she wanted, who put him ahead of everything else, he should never have proposed to Mary in the first place. If anything I think it speaks well of him that he still loved her.

[Avaleigh]

A few things--

I definitely don't think that Matthew was a cad for dumping Mary. As you said, there are multiple times when she could have just said yes.

That being said, when Mary says to Matthew "You can't be sure I was going to refuse you." and Matthew acknowledges this, that's why I got the impression that Matthew dumped her before she'd decided one way or the other. Her conversations with Rosamund and Violet both indicate that she was leaning towards thinking that they could work because she thinks they get on well together and makes a comment indicating that she thinks Matthew could do well on his own even without the title and estate.

I also don't think her hesitation was entirely about money as has been suggested. It's been said many times by Fellowes and others that Mary also wants a position. She wants to be a chatelaine, she sees that as an ideal occupation, and she's been raised into thinking that this is what she should strive for.

While I agree that she waited too long I don't think it was mistake for her to take some extended time to think about it rather than having her jump in only to realize they'd both made an epic mistake that would be messy to go back on.

I also find it interesting that Edith's family is often *entirely* blamed for Edith not finding a husband but the influence of Rosamund, Violet, and Cora wrt Mary is considered to be irrelevant by some even when other characters acknowledge the influence.

As far as taking responsibility for Pamuk--I definitely think she did take responsibility there at multiple points. She took responsibility when she explained the situation to Cora, she did so with Carlisle, she was upfront about it all with Matthew, etc.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Avaleigh

[ElizaD]

The career Mary wanted was being a titled lady and if Matthew had lived I expect they would have learned to run Downton as partners but still with a largely traditional division of responsibilities and interests. Now she has to take Matthew's role until George grows up. Whoever Mary's next husband is, he'll probably be a helper but not have an equal investment in living at and running Downton. So Mary taking Robert's place as the Earl (in charge, if not in name), rather than Cora's as the Countess like she expected, would be the kind of happy ending Fellowes wants for her, adjusted for Dan Stevens' decision to leave the show. I think emphasizing that and increasing the amount of work she does in the final season would be a good way to show logical character growth and maturity.

 

As far as taking responsibility for Pamuk--I definitely think she did take responsibility there at multiple points. She took responsibility when she explained the situation to Cora, she did so with Carlisle, she was upfront about it all with Matthew, etc.

 

IMO, Mary took more responsibility than she should have. Since the official word seems to be that Mary wanted it I guess that's the interpretation we have to accept, but like the Thomas/Jimmy and Tom/Edna stories that are being discussed in the episode 1 thread, I think the writing of Mary/Pamuk showed a kind of tone deafness. Mary's later lines play it as a woman who gave in to lust and the show could well have done that by making Pamuk more like Gillingham with his scandalous suggestion. Instead they had Pamuk use Thomas to make his way to Mary's room, tell her she'd be ruined if he was discovered there, and ignore her until she gave in. It was extremely questionable behavior; on a different, less nice show, Mary/Pamuk, Thomas/Jimmy and Tom/Edna could all have been used to address how violent male/female stranger rape isn't the only form of abuse. To me it was one of Downton's poorest storylines (at least the downstairs love quadrangle was only dull) and I'm glad that Pamuk hasn't risen from his grave recently.

[saki]

Taking this over from the Edith thread

I'm afraid we're straying terribly far off topic here (poor Edith, ignored even in her own discussion thread! ;p) but all the same. The entrail existing of course isn't Robert's responsibility, and there was really very little he could do about it. So Mary losing out on what should have been her inheritance ("should" in the sense that it would have been except for gender discrimination) is no fault of Robert's. And if his reaction had been to tell her "okay, so the situation is you won't get to inherit, there's nothing I can do and we need to deal with it - but I'm aware this is screwed up and I'm on your side and I'll still fight for you", then fair play to him. What he actually said was that he wasn't on her side and he wouldn't fight for her - I got the impression Mary's issue wasn't just about not getting Downton, but also (primarily?) about not getting her father's support.

I don't usually consider Robert an ogre at all, but you do not tell your child that you won't try to help her because she's just not important enough to you to merit the effort.And I can't help feeling that the Patric situation was different, because he was (a) at least part of the family, which makes it I imagine somewhat less ranking, and (b) more importantly, with him, because of the engagement, Mary had the option of staying on as countess of Grantham. That choice was taken from her when Matthew replaced him (well, for a while XD).

Of course,if I were in Matthew's position, set to inherit an estate/fortune only because the otherwise rightful heir was being discriminated against, I would personally feel that I was stealing someone else's inheritance. Now, depending on a lot of factors, I might very well still claim the prize, but that's because I'm not a particularly morally upstanding person, and I would certainly remain aware that the only right thing to do would be to give it back, since it was never rightfully mine. The law is the law, but then again a law that implements gender discrimination is arguably not only unjust but in itself illegal (well, nowadays, that is). So I reckon I'm probably coming at this from a slightly different angle.

 

I really don't agree that Mary was hard done by in season 1 with the entail business.  Nor do I think she was in any way "the rightful heir".  The way that the aristocracy works is that the title and estate goes through the male line.  They all knew that.  Mary had known that for her entire life.  They stood absolutely no chance of changing that.

 

Cora's money didn't have to be tied up with the estate - they chose to do that when they assumed that they'd have had a son.  But, even if they'd been able to get that back in some way, the norm would be for the mother's money to be split equally between the daughters.  It was really not standard at the time for the eldest daughter to be given something extra.

 

I get that, with modern eyes, we view this as tremendously sexist.  But I think, if we're going to do that, we shouldn't pick and choose - the modern way is to split your money between all your children, not discriminating on the basis of gender but also not discriminating on the basis of age.  I.e. Why should Matthew feel like he had to give the money to Mary?  Why not to Mary, Edith and Sybil?

 

 

That's the point of the character. It's exactly like in Pride and Prejudice (which JF was, let's just say inspired by, quite heavily). The protagonist wants everything. Security and happiness. Money and love. Her family's estate and a good marriage. What's wrong with that? Wanting it all and refusing to compromise is what every hero or heroine of every story does. It's what makes characters interesting. It's not as though she was being unduly selfish. She wasn't gold-digging in the conventional sense, looking for shopping trips to Paris. She was doing it as much for the code and life her father wanted as much as anything else. She wanted to run the estate and keep it self-sustaining and care for the tenants and do all that noblesse oblige stuff.

 

I guess, basically, I don't find it easy to root for someone who wouldn't agree to marry the person who we are led to believe is the love of their life because of money.  I think it is straightforward gold-digging.  Until very recently, Mary showed absolutely no interest in running the estate, caring for the tenants and noblesse oblige.  Honestly, I see no evidence that Mary's desire to marry whoever was inheriting Downton (unless, obviously, that was her little brother!) was about anything other than a desire to wear nice dresses and be very important.  

 

That is brought out, for me, by the storyline with her American grandmother and Robert losing the money - Mary wants to save Downton, she wants to show her grandmother what Downton means and why her grandmother should invest in it.  What does Mary do?  Does she show her grandmother how many people rely on Downton for their livelihood?  Does she show her how Downton supports and cares for its tenants and their wellbeing?  No... she throws a fancy dinner.  Because that's what Downton means to her.

 

Of course, of late, Mary has taken an interest in pig farming and all sorts.  But none of that was a factor in her not wanting to marry country-lawyer!Matthew.  I don't think it's similar at all to Pride and Prejudice - I can't imagine Elizabeth Bennett being told that Darcy had lost his money and deciding against marrying him.

[JudyObscure]

I'm curious as to why people feel Mary deserved to inherit Downton and that Lord Grantham should have tried harder to break the entail. A will is not bound by federal laws of "fairness," the way a business or government institution is. If the original owner of Downton wanted to set up his estate to go to the church, or the terrier rescue society, or the hardest working child in the local orphanage, then that would have been his right.

I also don't think, as has been suggested, that Matthew should have felt guilt bound to pass his inheritance to Mary out of some sort of idea of gender fairness. If he had done that, then would Mary be expected to divide her inheritance with Edith as a stand against sibling-placement discrimination?

I think the reason Lord G was unwilling to try to break the entail for Mary was, (1) he knew he didn't have a legal leg to stand on and, (2) he knew that he, himself, had inherited through pure accident of birth and was grateful for that. Possibly (3) Is Lady Rosamund, by any chance, his older sister?

These entails were often originally written into the deed by the monarch who bestowed the castle as a gift for loyalty or bravery in battle, etc. It was desirable to have the estate pass from first born son to first born son to keep it undivided and to ensure that the last name remained the same.

Mary was never taught to expect to inherit Downton any more than Sybil or Edith was, so it's not as though she faced a crushing disappointment. She doesn't deserve Downton anymore than they do or Carson does, probably less.

ETA: Cross posted with Saki, who I agree with 100%!

Edited January 11, 2015 by JudyObscure

[Tetraneutron]

 

Mary was never taught to expect to inherit Downton any more than Sybil or Edith was, so it's not as though she faced a crushing disappointment. She doesn't deserve Downton anymore than they do or Carson does, probably less.

I wouldn't say that. As soon as it became clear Robert and Cora weren't going to have a boy, Mary was made aware she would be expected to marry Patrick, so the estate would stay in Robert's direct line and it would continue on as he had imagined it. That was her job and her responsibility to her family. Then when Patrick, she was immediately expected to marry Matthew, assuming he wasn't outright horrible. She would keep the estate and the title for Robert's direct descendants.

 

And I don't think the fact that Mary was more interested in parties instead of pig farming makes her shallow or a gold digger. Robert's the same way and we see that he considers it his life's goal to preserve the estate and the way of life. Being interested in pig farming would make her like Sybil, someone considered out of place in that world. She was, by everything she had been taught and be the standards of everyone in her community, being a responsible chatelaine. The fact that the system and the culture is silly (something Martha understood) doesn't take away from the fact that Mary was doing what she was supposed to. She really saw all this as being the caretaker for the estate unto generations, just like Robert did.

[ZoloftBlob]

I wouldn't say that. As soon as it became clear Robert and Cora weren't going to have a boy, Mary was made aware she would be expected to marry Patrick, so the estate would stay in Robert's direct line and it would continue on as he had imagined it. That was her job and her responsibility to her family. Then when Patrick, she was immediately expected to marry Matthew, assuming he wasn't outright horrible. She would keep the estate and the title for Robert's direct descendants.

 

Ah, but see, if Mary was aware of that, then there would have been no "Papa, why aren't you protesting and breaking the entail for me?" from Mary - she was expected to marry  Patrick - although it's implied this probably wouldn't have happened, and when Patrick died, instead of protesting the entail, she should have known and understood that in order to keep the estate, her role would be to entice the new heir into marrying her.

 

That's absolutely not what we saw on screen. Mary was quite clear that she wanted the entail broken so she could inherit. Her intent was for Matthew to be disinherited and she made it very clear that she was not going to find Matthew acceptable as a possible husband because he was middle class and "could barely hold a knife correctly". She was upset that Robert wouldn't fight the entail even though there was no valid argument that could be made - there was nothing terribly wrong with Matthew and there were no other potential male heirs. It's honestly a point of stupid writing in my opinion, there's no way Mary could have grown up expecting to inherit because this was a time where daughters didn't inherit.

[tapplum]

I really don't agree that Mary was hard done by in season 1 with the entail business.  Nor do I think she was in any way "the rightful heir".  The way that the aristocracy works is that the title and estate goes through the male line.  They all knew that.  Mary had known that for her entire life.  They stood absolutely no chance of changing that.

 

Cora's money didn't have to be tied up with the estate - they chose to do that when they assumed that they'd have had a son.  But, even if they'd been able to get that back in some way, the norm would be for the mother's money to be split equally between the daughters.  It was really not standard at the time for the eldest daughter to be given something extra.

 

I get that, with modern eyes, we view this as tremendously sexist.  But I think, if we're going to do that, we shouldn't pick and choose - the modern way is to split your money between all your children, not discriminating on the basis of gender but also not discriminating on the basis of age.  I.e. Why should Matthew feel like he had to give the money to Mary?  Why not to Mary, Edith and Sybil?

 

 

I guess, basically, I don't find it easy to root for someone who wouldn't agree to marry the person who we are led to believe is the love of their life because of money.  I think it is straightforward gold-digging.  Until very recently, Mary showed absolutely no interest in running the estate, caring for the tenants and noblesse oblige.  Honestly, I see no evidence that Mary's desire to marry whoever was inheriting Downton (unless, obviously, that was her little brother!) was about anything other than a desire to wear nice dresses and be very important.  

 

That is brought out, for me, by the storyline with her American grandmother and Robert losing the money - Mary wants to save Downton, she wants to show her grandmother what Downton means and why her grandmother should invest in it.  What does Mary do?  Does she show her grandmother how many people rely on Downton for their livelihood?  Does she show her how Downton supports and cares for its tenants and their wellbeing?  No... she throws a fancy dinner.  Because that's what Downton means to her.

 

To be perfectly honest, as I mentioned upthread, I do find it tricky to try to apply strictly ”period values”. Partly because while obviously I have a general idea of the mores of the time, I’m not knowledgeable enough to make confident judgement calls on how “the early 1900s Everyman” would judge the specific situations. Partly because it’s my understanding that the show is more liberal than would be strictly realistic, and the characterisation clearly informed by current values, which muddies the waters.

 

Whether Mary was hard done by is a matter of comparison. On the one hand, obviously she lives an incredibly privileged life and has many more opportunities than the vast majority, entail or no. On the other hand, I definitely sympathise with how “[her] life makes [her] angry” by trapping her in a holding pattern, stuck waiting for a husband to get her life started. The entail business was clearly an emotional ordeal for her, which I also tend to sympathise with (as did, if memory serves, most of the characters), even though I agree that she should have had a more realistic understanding of the situation. Since she can be pretty pragmatic otherwise, it speaks of her being rather spoilt, unable to imagine things not ultimately going her way (on the other hand, Cora and Violet should also have known better, and Mary was quite young at the time).

 

While still obviously unfair, the idea of certain inheritances going to the eldest, rather than all, children, is somewhat easier to stomach for the simple reason that there are certain properties that cannot be divided or shared, i.e. titles. The gender discrimination, on the other hand, is just that – unwarranted discrimination. No doubt I’m influenced by being accustomed to a judicial system that makes it legally impossible to disinherit one’s children, and which stipulates that (theoretically) discriminatory laws are unconstitutional and therefore void – as well as by being more invested in Mary as a character.

 

The episode where she’s trying to impress American Granny does not paint Mary in a flattering light, though IMO that was in large part due to her subpar execution of the scheme. On the other hand, in principle I like her better for enjoying her status, her wealth, for wanting a certain kind of life and aiming to get it, for not wanting to settle. Prioritising Matthew/romantic love over her other ambitions would clearly have made her more palatable to many viewers – to me, it would have made her far less interesting. On the other hand, I always preferred Becky Sharp to Eliza Bennet, so… YMMV.

[JudyObscure]

No doubt I’m influenced by being accustomed to a judicial system that makes it legally impossible to disinherit one’s children,

That's very surprising to me, what country are you from? In the United States it happens all the time. My father divided his estate between two of us, completely leaving out his third child, who hadn't spoken to him in years. It would have been fine with me if he had spent it all on his much younger lady friend. I can't imagine the law deciding how someone should spend, or leave, the money they have earned and saved.

[saki]

For me, this is not about disliking Mary for putting ambition before love - I don't generally dislike female characters for that, though I realise many do.  It's about disliking Mary for being so shallow as to put living in a nice house, being important and having lots of money ahead of love.  

 

I don't see any evidence at all to support the idea that the reason why she wanted to stay at Downton was about preserving the estate for future generations or looking after tenant farmers or anything of the sort.  On the contrary, I think there's a fair amount of evidence to suggest that it's not about that - she is advocating, in season 1, getting rid of the entail when its entire purpose is to preserve the estate for future generations and to keep the historic link between title and estate, and (as I've said earlier in the thread so won't repeat too much) what she presents her grandmother with to justify further investment into Downton.  Being a "responsible chatelaine" was about more than nice dinners and pretty dresses but I see absolutely no evidence that Mary understood that.  I don't find that kind of shallowness attractive or interesting.

 

(Separately, I love Becky Sharp and, actually, kind of dislike Elizabeth Bennet!) 

[Avaleigh]

The way that the aristocracy works is that the title and estate goes through the male line.  They all knew that.  Mary had known that for her entire life.  They stood absolutely no chance of changing that.

 

 

This isn't true, strictly speaking. They could have petitioned the Crown to have the title pass to Mary and then on to her eldest son. This has come up before in several threads before and there are examples of real life women and women who would have been contemporaries of Mary's who ended up inheriting a title because they didn't have any brothers and they wanted to keep the title and estate within the main line of the family. This was done for Irene Curzon who became Lady Ravensdale upon the death of her father who was Marquess of Kedleston. (Ravensdale was one of George Curzon's subsidiary titles.) George Curzon had three daughters with his rich American wife and the three Curzon girls had plenty of cousins but their father wanted the title to pass down directly and since he didn't have any sons even after marrying a second time, he ended up getting permission from the Crown to have his eldest daughter inherit with the view that the title would pass to her eldest son. (The title ultimately ended up passing to Irene's nephew because she never had any children of her own.)

 

Anyway it's not true to say that they stood no chance in changing anything and it's not true that Mary had completely unrealistic expectations about it all.

 

And a situation like this doesn't translate into let's split it three ways and give all of the girls the title and a share. If they'd been given permission by the Crown then that would have helped Mary because that's the way the system works. 

 

An eldest daughter in a family like the Crawleys would have certain privileges anyway according to the written and unwritten rules of society. In addition to things like forms of address and place at the table, the eldest daughter would often be the one to inherit say a piece of jewelry that her mother brought into the family upon her marriage, the eldest daughter's dowry was often larger than those of her younger sisters (sometimes admittedly this had to do with a decline in the family finances by the time the younger girls were coming out) and she would often have the most expensive debut because it was thought that the debut of the eldest daughter would set the tone for that of the younger girls. 

 

That is brought out, for me, by the storyline with her American grandmother and Robert losing the money - Mary wants to save Downton, she wants to show her grandmother what Downton means and why her grandmother should invest in it.  What does Mary do?  Does she show her grandmother how many people rely on Downton for their livelihood?  Does she show her how Downton supports and cares for its tenants and their wellbeing?  No... she throws a fancy dinner.  Because that's what Downton means to her.

 

 

I didn't get this impression at all. I thought Mary thought that this was the sort of thing that would impress Martha. I thought it was all about her having an (incorrect) impression that "vulgar" Martha would be won over by display and bling. I think she thought that Martha would respond to the superficial side of things because she has a superficial impression of Martha.

 

The Martha who was supposedly socially ambitious and wanted to have her daughter marry a title--that woman seems to have changed over the years and there's a reason why other people thought that she might want to have a transatlantic marriage of her own one day. I can see why Mary and others would have this impression of Martha since they don't seem to see her very often and it was because of Martha's desire to have a hire place in society that she had her daughter have a debut in London so that Cora could go the Buccaneer route in finding a husband. Cora talks about how they weren't in the top social circle in America and this was something that her mother wanted to change. It sounded very reminiscent of Jennie Churchill's mother Clara. 

 

I think we've seen from Mary's actions and behavior over the years that Downton means a lot more to her than dressing up for dinner every evening. Mary has more depth than that in my opinion and I feel like the show has gone out of its way to show those qualities of Mary's.

[tapplum]

That's very surprising to me, what country are you from? In the United States it happens all the time. My father divided his estate between two of us, completely leaving out his third child, who hadn't spoken to him in years. It would have been fine with me if he had spent it all on his much younger lady friend. I can't imagine the law deciding how someone should spend, or leave, the money they have earned and saved.

Things are done a bit differently here in Sweden, in that children are always entitled to a minimum of half of what they'd inherit if there had been no will (their "laglott"). That is to say, if person A has two kids, B and C, then if there is no will, B and C would each get half of A's estate. If there *is* a will, according to which A leaves his entire estate to D, then B and C will each get a quarter of the estate - half of what they would have got if there'd been no will, and D will get the remaining half.

 

Of course it can be argued either way, since one has to weigh the parent's right to allocate their property against the child's right to be financially protected, so it's not surprising that different countries have different laws.

[ZoloftBlob]

. This has come up before in several threads before and there are examples of real life women and women who would have been contemporaries of Mary's who ended up inheriting a title because they didn't have any brothers and they wanted to keep the title and estate within the main line of the family. This was done for Irene Curzon who became Lady Ravensdale upon the death of her father who was Marquess of Kedleston. (Ravensdale was one of George Curzon's subsidiary titles.) George Curzon had three daughters with his rich American wife and the three Curzon girls had plenty of cousins but their father wanted the title to pass down directly and since he didn't have any sons even after marrying a second time, he ended up getting permission from the Crown to have his eldest daughter inherit with the view that the title would pass to her eldest son. (The title ultimately ended up passing to Irene's nephew because she never had any children of her own.)

 

But this is also cited as something extremely difficult to accomplish. I mean, at one point, they even had Matthew going along with the plan to break the entail and even he couldn't find a reason for the Crown to pass him over (admittedly we don't know how hard Matthew looked into it but it's always been implied he was the honest sort) For every family that accomplished this, there were likely 20 families who were turned down - I mean, if it was easy, history would say so, and history backs the reality that the entail couldn't be broken and Mary couldn't inherit.

[Avaleigh]

I guess, basically, I don't find it easy to root for someone who wouldn't agree to marry the person who we are led to believe is the love of their life because of money.  I think it is straightforward gold-digging.

 

 

I don't think that Mary is a gold digger. If it were as simple for her as wanting to marry for cash and a big house she could have married Carlisle and she wouldn't even have blinked about it. Mary saw that having a house and money would not have made life with Carlisle tolerable so I feel like the show has shown us that it isn't all about money for Mary and that love and compatibility are important factors for her.

 

With Matthew she didn't want to get it wrong but the key thing I think that people who dislike Mary gloss over is that she says she thinks that she can see herself being happy with Matthew even without Downton and a title. She thinks it could be worth it anyway. It's just that she's been trained all her life to think that she should want and aim for a certain thing so when Rosamund tells Mary to get real and ask herself if she really thinks she can be happy being "the wife of a country solicitor" it makes Mary pause again. 

 

ETA:

 

But this is also cited as something extremely difficult to accomplish.

 

 

I think the point is that Robert didn't try to go this route to see if they could make it happen. 

Edited January 11, 2015 by Avaleigh

[tapplum]

I don't think that Mary is a gold digger. If it were as simple for her as wanting to marry for cash and a big house she could have married Carlisle and she wouldn't even have blinked about it. Mary saw that having a house and money would not have made life with Carlisle tolerable so I feel like the show has shown us that it isn't all about money for Mary and that love and compatibility are important factors for her.

 

...

 

I think the point is that Robert didn't try to go this route to see if they could make it happen. 

Very much agreed that if Mary was prepared to settle for only money/status, she could have married Carlise, or later Blake or Gillingham - much like, if she was prepared to settle for only love, she could have married Matthew in S1. It seems very clear indeed that she isn't prepared to settle for less than having both. Which IMO is awesome.

 

Though tbh, I would also have very much enjoyed her marrying for money/station, and then having a more business partner/dominance game type relationship with her husband. I don't see anything wrong with her goal being wealth/influence/social status (I don't think that that is in fact canon, since the show has been very clear about her also wanting love and to preserve Downton in a rather noblesse oblige fashion, but I wouldn't have thought less of her if it were), and there's also nothing wrong with her marrying to achieve it - after all, what other path would be open to her?

 

And completely yes, that is exactly the point. Robert being Robert, he would doubtless have failed, but he could have damn well *tried*

[ZoloftBlob]

I don't think that Mary is a gold digger.

 

Well, I don't think she's a straight up gold digger - that she came around to Matthew is a point in her favor, but that she hesitated over marrying him if he wasn't inheriting even though his not inheriting hardly meant he'd be begging for scraps at the workhouse is a point in favor of her being into it for the money. I mean, he wasn't going to be straight up poor by any means. No, she wouldn't get to be Countess of Downton but if her mother had a boy that lived, Downton was forever out of her grasp. So her issue then becomes that the guy she loves just isn't bringing enough status and money to the table to suit her - she was "settling* for middle class Matthew and it comes off a bit gold diggery.

 

I think the point is that Robert didn't try to go this route to see if they could make it happen.

 

He checked with his lawyer to see if anything could be done. It's implied he sought the advise of more than just his immediate lawyer. He saw the futility in it, and also wasn't entirely comfortable screwing over his father's intent. How far was he supposed to go, considering he thought it would fail and at worst, it would set the new heir against the family by openly trying to disinherit him?

Edited January 11, 2015 by ZoloftBlob

[ShadowFacts]

 

With Matthew she didn't want to get it wrong but the key thing I think that people who dislike Mary gloss over is that she says she thinks that she can see herself being happy with Matthew even without Downton and a title. She thinks it could be worth it anyway. It's just that she's been trained all her life to think that she should want and aim for a certain thing so when Rosamund tells Mary to get real and ask herself if she really thinks she can be happy being "the wife of a country solicitor" it makes Mary pause again.

 

I'm not a huge Mary fan, but I think this is key as well.  I have always thought part of Mary's disagreeable-ish persona stems from the fact that she is treated as a commodity of sorts.  How does that affect a person? 

[HoodlumSheep]

Mary's my favorite character, flaws and all. I like how she's pretty cold-hearted, but also seems to be a genuinely good person to those she feels close to like Matthew, Sybil, and Tom. She can be a tad bit cruel sometimes though. I liked her best in Season 2 though.

[tapplum]

He checked with his lawyer to see if anything could be done. It's implied he sought the advise of more than just his immediate lawyer. He saw the futility in it, and also wasn't entirely comfortable screwing over his father's intent. How far was he supposed to go, considering he thought it would fail and at worst, it would set the new heir against the family by openly trying to disinherit him?

If the very sensible points you bring up (the risk of a longdrawn, fruitless venture that makes the new earl an enemy) was in fact what motivated Robert (rather than, as I interpreted it, respect for his father's intent/the 'integrity of the estate') then I wish he'd have had an adult conversation with Mary (and for that matter the other girls) about it. They're the ones most affected, he should have laid out the facts and let them be in on the decision.

 

Now of course I realise that that is hardly likely to be, so to speak, historically probable behaviour on his part - but then on the other hand I always did find it somehow historically improbable that he would, after a minimum of huffing and puffing, be fine with his daughters having premarital sex,

giving birth to a bastard child and bringing this child to the house

, eloping with servants, as well as his servants stealing and committing homosexual assault....

Edited January 11, 2015 by tapplum

[ZoloftBlob]

If the very sensible points you bring up (the risk of a longdrawn, fruitless venture that makes the new earl an enemy) was in fact what motivated Robert (rather than, as I interpreted it, respect for his father's intent/the 'integrity of the estate') then I wish he'd have had an adult conversation with Mary (and for that matter the other girls) about it. They're the ones most affected, he should have laid out the facts and let them be in on the decision.

 

See, I always thought this was somewhat implied, that Robert discussed with the family that the entail couldn't be broken, and that fighting the entail was fruitless and the various women in his life just weren't accepting it.

 

And yes, Robert's improbable liberalism makes me laugh at times.

Edited January 11, 2015 by ZoloftBlob

[Avaleigh]

So her issue then becomes that the guy she loves just isn't bringing enough status and money to the table to suit her - she was "settling* for middle class Matthew and it comes off a bit gold diggery.

 

 

I get the impression that Mary thinks that a middle class existence would be boring but if she married a guy who is in line for having a title and estate then she'd be kept busy with everything that comes with aristocratic country life. She feels like if she has an estate and house to help run that she has a purpose and an occupation. I think Mary and Rosamund (and Violet really) envision middle class life in the country as quiet and boring without the perks and distractions of life on an estate and living in a house like Downton. There'd be less traveling, fewer house party invitations, fewer trips to London, not as much hunting/shooting/fishing, probably a lot of quiet dinners at home--that sort of life is great for some people but I think Mary wanted more and I can't dislike her for something like that.

 

I think some people see Mary as this completely mercenary woman because of the way she encouraged Matthew to accept the money Reggie Swire left him when for me, I thought it was clear by Mary's actions that she was concerned about how the loss of Downton would effect everyone living there most especially her father. She wasn't only thinking about herself and her own comfort. It's not like Mary wanted Matthew to take the money and run so that it could just be for the two of them and their eventual family enjoying the inheritance. By having Matthew take the money, she was saving everyone's way of life who lives in the house in addition to the homes of Violet and Isobel which are all part of the estate. Some people want to boil it down to Mary not being able to stomach living in a smaller house but I think that's a gross oversimplification of what was going on overall. 

 

Regarding Robert--

I agree with you Tapplum. Considering how recent it was that Robert had an epic freakout over Ethel working for Isobel

I think it should have at least taken an episode for him to completely come around.

 

I'm going to take the rest of my comments to Edith's thread.

 

the various women in his life just weren't accepting it.

 

 

I think they weren't accepting it because they knew that there were probably other options that hadn't been explored. Once the idea of Mary and Matthew became more of a thing Cora and Violet both thought that a match between them would solve the problem so trying to cut Matthew out of the equation became less of a focus especially once it became apparent to the family (by episode 3 of season 1 if not earlier) that Matthew was indeed interested in Mary. 

Edited January 11, 2015 by Avaleigh

[heebiejeebie]

I'm trying to think of a single instance in real life that would parallel Robert breaking the entail to leave the estate to Mary.  The entail was wrapped with the title.  Apart from Fellowes odd understanding of certain aristocratic principles despite his adoration of the class, it seemed that even after Matthew there were male Crawleys descended as potential heirs from the original Earl or his successors.  I thought there was mention of someone coming after Matthew if George had not survived  Regardless the only times I have heard of entails being broken was when the estates were tied to a title that had no male heirs at all   What I thought was odd, even with the irrational notion that Cora's fortune was tied to the estate (I'm still not sure how much of a Gordian legal knot that would entail tying let alone why on earth they would ever want to do such; particularly her family which essentially gave Robert call control of her money -- in a day when divorce and financial foolishness was getting its head among the upper class), was Fellowes selling the notion that in the beginning, it seemed to me that is not just losing Downton Mary faced but all the daughters would be so helpless and deprived of everything.  Not to poke a bear, but Cora would have been entitled to a third of the estate if she succeeded Robert  Revenue wise, not property.  But also Robert is what number Earl?  Titles have been able to forge fortunes (and of course lost them) using the property that is part of the entail but still very well able to give revenue from such endeavors to their heirs.  It was well known how bank breaking it could be to inherit a title and entailed property only to find the last holder left every last cent to his daughters.

 

Not until Robert loses his fortune does it seem Mary wants anything in regards to Downton except maintaining the status quo.  Her status quo.  With her title and estate holding husband simply taking over for her father in regards to her.  Being the living crown jewel of the Earldom of Grantham and the estate of Downton Abbey   And not until Matthew dies and Robert tries to do even more damage to his legacy does Mary actually see Downton as a responsibility.   Does she realize that Downton has to be given as much if not more than she takes.  Had Matthew not died with the Dan deciding to leave, I think Mary would the same self-involved twit.  The funny thing is several times I have seen the actress acknowledge that and say outright that Mary Crawley is not admirable for the most part  Fellowes on the other hand seems to come up with justifications and mitigates her actions in a way that still makes me believe that overall he thinks Mary Crawley is aspirational.  For me, despite the limitations gender placed on such an individual, Mary is pretty irksome at her best and loathsome at her most.  Edith has had her share. Both have gone after the other in a way that make me wonder if Sybil was a foundling. 

[tapplum]

See, I always thought this was somewhat implied, that Robert discussed with the family that the entail couldn't be broken, and that fighting the entail was fruitless and the various women in his life just weren't accepting it.

 

I guess I pretty much just assumed he hadn't, mainly because I've yet to see Robert have what I'd consider a sensible, truly adult conversation with anyone. He tends to want to gloss over the problems, "don't worry your pretty little head, it's nothing, I'll take care of it". And when he did speak to Mary and Cora about the entail, it was in terms of "it's impossible" and "I couldn't do that to the estate", rather than simply and objectively laying it out that this is where we stand, this is what the lawyers say - these are the facts and these are the arguments, these are our options, these are the risks, etc. He was never prepared to enter into a discussion and truly consider their point of view - and really it shouldn't have been his decision, since he's the only one guaranteed not to be affected by it.

 

Again, modern sentiments, but then Robert is often laughably modern.

[Tetraneutron]

 

I think some people see Mary as this completely mercenary woman because of the way she encouraged Matthew to accept the money Reggie Swire left him when for me, I thought it was clear by Mary's actions that she was concerned about how the loss of Downton would effect everyone living there most especially her father. She wasn't only thinking about herself and her own comfort. It's not like Mary wanted Matthew to take the money and run so that it could just be for the two of them and their eventual family enjoying the inheritance. By having Matthew take the money, she was saving everyone's way of life who lives in the house in addition to the homes of Violet and Isobel which are all part of the estate. Some people want to boil it down to Mary not being able to stomach living in a smaller house but I think that's a gross oversimplification of what was going on overall.

Yup. The best way I can describe it was, Mary's family has owned a business for generations. Her business partner comes by an unexpected windfall and wants to leave the money to charity, because it's the right thing to do. Mary wants to invest the money back into the business.

 

Mary was trying to prevent Downton from becoming like Highclere Castle. We saw with Rose's parents what happens when you don't manage an estate properly and Mary was trying to avoid that. Having her family shunted about from place to place forced to rely on other people. Having people look down on you. By being the firstborn (and later, the mother of the heir) she's doing her job as she knows it to be.

 

It's not even about the fancy dresses and house parties. She has a title and is pretty - chances are she'd get those if she wanted no matter what. At no point during the show, did she not have ample opportunity to marry money or marry status. Whatever happens to Downton, she herself will be saved the indignity of having to dress herself.

[Avaleigh]

It's not even about the fancy dresses and house parties. She has a title and is pretty - chances are she'd get those if she wanted no matter what.

 

 

Exactly. We saw the house that Carlisle bought--it was huge and impressive and he bought the land around it as well. Mary could have had pretty dresses, fancy dress dinners, and house parties to her heart's content. So yeah, based on what I saw from the show I didn't see Mary as encouraging Matthew to save Downton purely for her own selfish desires. There was a much bigger picture and a lot more at stake and ultimately I think Matthew was able to understand that.