Lady Mary: Quite Contrary

[Roseanna]

Andorra, I can't give any favors that I don't give other writers. It's a general rule: intention doesn't mena anything, what matters is what *we* as readers and watchers see. Especially a script or a play isn't the thing - it's the play only when it's played and the film and or series only when it is shown.

Tetraneutron, in the end of S1 Mary had lost her chances to have rich and titled suitors (Violet and Cora thought so). The choice was only between Strallan, some Italian aristocrat (as Violet and Cora agreed) or Matthew and love even without title and position. Even Carlisle came later as well as Robert's suggestion to go to America.

[Andorra]

 

Andorra, I can't give any favors that I don't give other writers. It's a general rule: intention doesn't mena anything, what matters is what *we* as readers and watchers see.

 

I really couldn't watch Downton any more if I would apply that rule. It's so badly written, it would have been unbearable for me to watch for the last 3 years.

 

I watch it for the costumes, the great acting, the characters that I like, the settings and the high production value. I gave up any expectation on the writing after season 3. 

[shipperx]

There is a problem in relying on meta material though. The vast majority of viewers aren't reading Fellows thoughts in a book. I never even knew there was one. Most viewers are going solely by what's on screen (and there will be various interpretations on that). But, anyway if it's not on my he screen most viewers will know nothing of it which is why there's the axiom about showing not telling.

[Andorra]

Oh I know! I complain about it all the time. I'm just saying it is almost impossible to get any sense in his writing without the scriptbooks.

[ZoloftBlob]

There is a problem in relying on meta material though. The vast majority of viewers aren't reading Fellows thoughts in a book. I never even knew there was one. Most viewers are going solely by what's on screen (and there will be various interpretations on that). But, anyway if it's not on my he screen most viewers will know nothing of it which is why there's the axiom about showing not telling.

 

This. If your point doesn't come across on screen to where you have to provide meta commentary in the form of a book, interviews, podcasts (Battlestar Galactica was terrible in this respect)then you have some problems in your writing.

 

The Pamuk scene for example is problematic but I was frankly fine with it being a rape scene (not fine with rape, mind you) because that sort of thing happened and it showed how easy it was for even a woman of high position to get ruined by a man without any intent. I never saw her need to tell Matthew as her admission she was just hot to get fucked, I saw it as her feeling soiled and wanting to make sure Matthew knew exactly who she was, that if he found out after they married, that he'd feel tricked. That Julian Fellowes thinks "No means sneak into my room, threaten me, because I find that *hot*" has no bearing on my opinion because I never really got that in the scene he chose to write.

[Tetraneutron]

Andorra, I can't give any favors that I don't give other writers. It's a general rule: intention doesn't mena anything, what matters is what *we* as readers and watchers see. Especially a script or a play isn't the thing - it's the play only when it's played and the film and or series only when it is shown.

Tetraneutron, in the end of S1 Mary had lost her chances to have rich and titled suitors (Violet and Cora thought so). The choice was only between Strallan, some Italian aristocrat (as Violet and Cora agreed) or Matthew and love even without title and position. Even Carlisle came later as well as Robert's suggestion to go to America.

Did she? No one else knew about Pamuk, then. The only time Cora was seriously worried news would get out was when Mary dumped Richard and they thought he'd get revenge by leaking it. That's when Cora made the Hail Mary of suggesting Strallen and Robert made the Hail Mary suggestion Mary run away to America. And in season 2 we saw evelyn Napier as a suitor. 

 

So by the end of S1, Mary knew she still had a shot at landing a rich, titled man, but she had to act quickly because Pamuk was a sword of Damocles. It was part of the conflict, but not the main conflict (love with a country solicitor or ambition as a Lady Something). 

 

And I agree viewers should never have to rely on outside material to understand a show. But they didn't have to in this case. The point JF was making about Mary was really basic, and obvious onscreen. Mary is the Queen Bee. She's beautiful and smart (socially, not like Hawking-smart). She wants to continue to be Queen Bee. She wants to be the best hostess, the one who runs her social circle. She wants to be Regina George. She has power in her community and enjoys that. 

[SusanSunflower]

The idea of Mary being "ambitious" beyond saving Downton (for herself, of course) is new to me ... and I don't see any evidence that that idea extended beyond the pre-production character sketches ... if so, she should have been more involved -- for instance -- in the hospital, where she might have made a mark on the various notables for her selfless service, as Sybil and Edith and even Cora did -- rising to the occasion, no matter how reluctantly or by what turn of events (Cora's "need" to thwart Isobel's dominance, etc.)  

 

We are suddenly shown that Mary is an accomplished equestrian -- years after we last saw her on horseback ... If she had been an avid and competitive rider, that would have made her more interesting and possibly "ambitious" in mingling with the horsey / hunting set... but I would have expected both Mary and Cora to have more often seen entertaining "worthies" -- currying connections. See also -- "going to London" for the theater, opera and all the various places that the ambitious would wish to be seen ... and the parading of one's wardrobe and conspicuous consumption,  a la "Selfridge's" ...  I've never known how Mary or Cora spend their days ... no evidence of reading or needlework, no friends outside of family/in-laws ... 

 

Ambition usually does require other people over which one can triumph to some degree and some realm of affairs into which efforts are put -- even if it's just raising award winning roses ... If Mary were ambitious, one might think she'd have taken an interest in Isobel's "good works" at some point ... as it is, she seems to believe she will eventually inherit Violet's place in the world/community without having to earn it by actual good -- be they ever so traditional and symbolic -- deeds

Edited November 25, 2015 by SusanSunflower

[Roseanna]

Andorra said above that JF didn't want Mary to be too easy to get, so he let her protest.

I think this shows not only bad writing, but either that he undervalued the audience and/had bad values.

What would have been wrong if he had let Mary and Pamuk in such a situation (f.ex. a hunting lodge during heavy rain) where Mary had been "carried way" by the moment? Surely the audience would have thought any less about her.

As it was, JF made Mary passive while he claimed that she was active.

[Andorra]

I don't remember if it was here where we talked about the question wether Robert should break the entail in Mary's favor or not? Here's an interesting link that explains it:

http://pintsofhistory.com/2014/01/09/downton-abbey-revisited-what-mary-owns-and-baby-george-crawley/

 

So Mary only owns Matthew's part of the estate as long as Robert is alive. If Robert dies it will go to George along with the rest of the estate and title.

 

If George dies, the whole fortune and estate will go to his next male relative which could be the chimney sweep from Nowhereville.

 

And therefor: If George would die in WW2 already being the Earl of Grantham, Mary would lose EVERYTHING. Not only what George inherited from Robert, but everything she inherited from Matthew, too. 

 

Of course we can assume George will survive WW2, but since the law changed in 1925, I still think it would have been nice if the show had adressed the topic.

[Eolivet]

Thanks for this, Andorra -- for me, this is proof positive that Mary absolutely should have broken the entail for the good of her family.

 

I know it's a long shot, but I'm still hoping for some mention of this in the Christmas Special.

[Roseanna]

Thanks for this, Andorra -- for me, this is proof positive that Mary absolutely should have broken the entail for the good of her family.

 

I don't agree as has said earlier, the characters can't make decisions that are based on information we know but they don't. In 1925 Mary is quite confident that there will be no new war and George will grow up and in due course have children of his own.

 

One can't forget that it's entirely depends on Fellowes or fanfiction writers first get George in danger in WW2 but in the end save him. Why on earth would they beforehand decide not to use such a good plot? It could be heightened first with mother-son dispute (George wants to fight but Mary doesn't want to let him) and Mary's rivalry and jealousy with Edith (or alternative winning those feelings at last).

 

BTV, does somebody know what does "breaking the entail" actually means. Would Mary, Edith and Sybbie (as a heir of Sybil) inherit each a third of Robert's half? Would all Mary's children inherit equally which would mean that George would become an Earl but couldn't live in Downton Abbey? Could Robert or later Mary and George simply order who will inherit with a testament?   

[Andorra]

Breaking the entail simply means that Robert can decide himself to whom he'll leave the estate. As it is now, the estate goes to the heir of the title. 

 

If Robert would break the entail, he would certainly leave the estate to Mary, who would also leave it to George. It doesn't make sense to split the inheritance, because that would be the death of the family fortune. Usually the younger children got seperate fundings, which in Edith's and Sybil's case probably were very generous, too. With breaking the entail nothing would probablychange except that in case of George's death, the family would still own the estate and wouldn't lose everything´(including! Matthew's inheritance). If George dies without siring a male heir himself, they're out, because Mary's status as "owning half of the estate" is only during Robert's lifetime. With his death her part of the estate would go to George and with his death to the next heir, no matter if she's still alive or not. 

 

George will break the entail anyway though, because he's the third in line. Usually the entails were made for three generations and since entails couldn't be renewed after 1925, George is the last heir due to the entail. 

[Roseanna]

After watching episodes anew I came to the conclusion that although sex was the reason Mary wanted the trial week, poor sex wasn't the reason she didn't accept his proposal.

 

Before, Blake said to Mary that Gillinghham wasn't as intelligent as Mary and while she could accept that in the 19th century, life had changed and that kind of man wasn't enough for her any more.

 

Now, we of course never saw the sex scenes, only what happened the last morning and how Mary's face dropped after Gillingham left her room. But I think we were given some clues: Mary said that she doesn't like a saucy joke Gillingham made and when he said he wanted to get to know her habits as he will from then live with them, she asked whether he wanted to live according to rules and traditions as she didn't. Actually we have seen that Mary do live according to them, but I suppose she wanted a man who did a bore because she could expect no surprises from him. Maybe Gillingham also was too sure that once they were bedded, they would self-evidently also wed, instead of continuing to court Mary. 

 

What Mary later said, confirms this. The sexual attraction had earlier dimmed her judgment, but once she had  experienced sex ("Elinor Glyn") with Gillingham, she saw clearly his other qualities and that they were wanting and they had nothing in common in the morning after.

 

As a romance, it had many weaknesses. Gillingham fell too easily and proposed too early and there was no obstacles. He also showed a weak character first becoming engaged with Mabel, then breaking the engagement.  And most of all it happened too early after Matthew's death for the audience to accept.      

Edited January 20, 2016 by Roseanna

[Eolivet]

the characters can't make decisions that are based on information we know but they don't. In 1925 Mary is quite confident that there will be no new war and George will grow up and in due course have children of his own.

 

But here is some information that Mary and Robert did know:

-They knew that the last three (including Matthew) heirs died under tragic circumstances

-They knew that once the first two died, they needed to find a distant male relative, so they knew it could happen again

 

I actually find it ludicrous that once Matthew died, Mary or Robert's train of thought was "Well, that's the third heir in 10 years who's died, but I'm sure nothing will happen to George because it's not like unspeakable tragedy has ever befallen a Downton heir before!"

 

Instead of "That's the third heir in 10 years who's died! What if, god forbid, something happens to George? Break the entail now, and let's make sure the estate stays in the family!"

 

That's completely independent of World War II. One cursory look at their family tree, and they should've seen this was the right thing to do.

 

(Now I hope George does die in WWII to teach them a lesson about tempting fate.)

[sark1624]

Thats is one of the problems with show, i dont like the character of Mary, i know that she is the protagonist, but at least in the first 3 season even withe her flaws she was "connected" with the world. After season 4 it was only "who Mary is going to chose", nothing dramatic, the death duties were resolved in 3 lines, the blessed pigs had 3 scenes, etc. They tried to fill those gaps with glamorous things: the fashion show, some dinners, the race, etc. 

 

Also many said that Mary is the "heir" of Violet, but the only thing that she share with her is making snarky comments, the problems is that the majority are directed to Edith and many of those are cruel. But we dont see Mary involved with anything else, if she is the heir of Violet, why she doesnt said a word about the hospital? why she doesnt have any opinion in politics? it was supposed that a grand lady must have an opinion on those things, Mary is never involved in anything in the village. Even Edith and Rose went to the local school to give the prices to the best students. 

 

In conclusion, Mary is too selfcentered in her and Downton, and is a rule that ladys of her type must have a more wide of seeing things, also in Downton itself nobody critized her, and worse she has two "allies" like Carson and Anna who flattered her 24/7. But she show little that her world is doom, for example when they opened the house and all there are talking how the common people view that way of life, or that houses like Downton are going to die (i think that Cora was not necesarily reffering to the estate but their way of life) she get upset and sad when she saw that she was the only deffending that, even Robert seemed to believe that drastic changes are inevitable. In a way its also sad seeing Violet, Carson and to some extent Mary fighting a lost cause. 

[ZoloftBlob]

I actually find it ludicrous that once Matthew died, Mary or Robert's train of thought was "Well, that's the third heir in 10 years who's died, but I'm sure nothing will happen to George because it's not like unspeakable tragedy has ever befallen a Downton heir before!"

 

Oh come now. :)

 

Robert, who married for money as his way of solving a financial issue, wo lost all that money in poor investments, who had the unmitigated gall to argue with the guy who dared suggest the estate actually make money rather than coast on the fumes of a completely unexpected inheritance (You'd think Matthew and Reggie Swire were married, for heaven's sake) actually having a thought beyond "oooh cookies" when it comes to the future of the estate?

 

Or Mary who's major contribution so far has been to wear expensive dresses and take credit for the work Mr. Drewe did?

 

I'm just saying, its completely in character for both Robert and Mary to ignore looming problems.

[Roseanna]

Or Mary who's major contribution so far has been to wear expensive dresses and take credit for the work Mr. Drewe did?

 

Mary is now an agent (the job Tom held formerly).

 

But if Edith's sudden ability to edit a magazine is doubted, the same applies them: Tom could manage the great estate because his uncle had a farm and tended sheep, and Mary simply learned from Tom.    

[SusanSunflower]

I agree and it's also interesting that while we have seen Mary being mentored in running the estate that is Downton, she has shown little interest or concern with regard to running the household, i.e. Cora's role(s) wrt to the community and the household -- where George will be raised to eventually also assume the mantel of (glorious aristocratic) responsibility. 

I'm surprised that Mary isn't outspoken wrt maintaining "standard" and sufficient domestic staff to maintain appearances for George who, in a few years' time, will be off to boarding school, with school chums to invite home (i.e. keeping up with George's peers' parents whomever they may be) ...  

They worry about a superfluous "underbutler" but are quite able and willing to host fox hunts ... Are Mr. Drewe's pigs and piglets somehow extra-special that their contribution to Downton's economy is actually meaningful? and meaningful enough to offset the muck and smell they produce? 

[Eolivet]

Or Mary who's major contribution so far has been to wear expensive dresses and take credit for the work Mr. Drewe did?

 

I take your point about Robert, but until she married Matthew, Mary was exceedingly practical and pragmatic. She was going to marry Patrick if nothing better came along, she was going to marry Carlisle in order to protect herself from scandal, she was ready to go to America to protect herself and family from scandal.

 

Then she married Matthew and suddenly it was "Fancy dinner parties will save Downton!" and "I'll act totally cagey about my reproductive surgery and totally shocked when Matthew figures it out!" and her greatest hit, "I'll dance all night while heavily pregnant and...why am I going into early labor now?"

 

Too bad season 1 and 2 Mary's pragmatism died when Matthew did. She even said so herself right before

she married Henry (lamenting to Granny to find her "someone suitable" like a Duke. She knew Henry was not a practical choice.)

 

I find it even odder that Fellowes never revisited the entail after Matthew died either -- but probably figured the show wasn't going to last long enough to see if George lived long enough to inherit, and decided The Never-Ending Adventures of Spratt and Denker was much more important.

[ZoloftBlob]

Mary is now an agent (the job Tom held formerly).

 

Mary becomes the estate agent in 1925, months after Tom leaves. I am genuinely curious what duties of the estate agent she actually performs... I recall Tom killing bunnies, for example. I have assumed Mary is the estate agent in the same way that Robert runs the estate - they do the social activities and leave the actual chores to underlings. (I mean really, what does Robert do with his time?)

 

I'm not attempting to bag on Mary, btw. It's just she's the estate agent as long as it doesn't interfere with her social life.

Edited January 21, 2016 by ZoloftBlob

[Roseanna]

Mary becomes the estate agent in 1925, months after Tom leaves. I am genuinely curious what duties of the estate agent she actually performs... I recall Tom killing bunnies, for example. I have assumed Mary is the estate agent in the same way that Robert runs the estate - they do the social activities and leave the actual chores to underlings. (I mean really, what does Robert do with his time?)

 

We have seen Robert, Tom and Mary making decisions: to take the tenants' farms which is more economical versus to leave one to Mr Drewe, to build cheap but ugly houses or build fewer but beautiful houses, to start tending pigs, in S6 Mary had new ideas about grain trading.

 

The problem with houses is interesting as Mary showed again that to her the economical values were most (or even only) important. It was Robert who wanted to preserve the environment of Downton. Mary wants only preserve the way of life of the Crawleys and doesn't care a bit about the people who according to Robert love their village just as it is (although we don't if it is true).

[Lady Grump]

Thanks to Amazon Prime -- and serious binge watching skills -- it dawned on me today that Lady Mary = Fallon Carrington. COMPLETE with the mirror relationship between Fallon / Anders; Mary / Carson.

[amensisterfriend]

I'm rewatching (yet again!) and am finding myself surprised all over again by just how much I preferred Early Seasons Mary to Later Seasons Mary. (It's weird, but in some ways they really do feel like different characters to me!)

 

I can very easily understand why many never enjoyed her---even at her comparatively most likeable (which for me is undoubtedly Season 2), she's still often arrogant, elitist and so frosty that one often needs to find a heavier winter coat just to comfortably view her scenes. ;) But the acting/writing etc. of those first few seasons sold me on the fact that Mary was also capable of real kindness, generosity, loyalty and even love...not to mention some amusingly insightful snark :) And back then I at least vaguely understood why her character was speaking and behaving as she did even when I disagreed with it.  Over the last few seasons of the show, Mary was not only far less likable to me, but less comprehensible and a lot less intriguingly layered. She had a few isolated moments where I liked her again, but far more often than not she was reduced to a certain 'type'---and not one that I particularly like. In my more generous moments, I see some of those changes as deliberate---once she was no longer what the show called "Matthew's Mary", happier and subconsciously rising to his rather rosy expectations of her, it makes sense that she'd be a colder and harder character. Sometimes, though, I think they just didn't write her nearly as compellingly as they should have, which given how major a character she is really did cast a pall on the overall show. 

[skyways]

Your whole post could have been written by me.  I wrote somewhere else that if the character Mary was drifting, the whole show is drifting.

[AndySmith]

I still love Mary, if only for the awesome eye rolls she still keeps giving.

[Roseanna]

I'm rewatching (yet again!) and am finding myself surprised all over again by just how much I preferred Early Seasons Mary to Later Seasons Mary. (It's weird, but in some ways they really do feel like different characters to me!)

 

I can very easily understand why many never enjoyed her---even at her comparatively most likeable (which for me is undoubtedly Season 2), she's still often arrogant, elitist and so frosty that one often needs to find a heavier winter coat just to comfortably view her scenes. ;) But the acting/writing etc. of those first few seasons sold me on the fact that Mary was also capable of real kindness, generosity, loyalty and even love...not to mention some amusingly insightful snark :) And back then I at least vaguely understood why her character was speaking and behaving as she did even when I disagreed with it.  Over the last few seasons of the show, Mary was not only far less likable to me, but less comprehensible and a lot less intriguingly layered. She had a few isolated moments where I liked her again, but far more often than not she was reduced to a certain 'type'---and not one that I particularly like. In my more generous moments, I see some of those changes as deliberate---once she was no longer what the show called "Matthew's Mary", happier and subconsciously rising to his rather rosy expectations of her, it makes sense that she'd be a colder and harder character. Sometimes, though, I think they just didn't write her nearly as compellingly as they should have, which given how major a character she is really did cast a pall on the overall show. 

 

The interesting thing is that Mary was the most softest and unselfish in S2 when she had "lost" Matthew (as she believed) "for good". Or unselfish at least towards Matthew and Lavinia as her only general input for the war effort was to sing a song. In any case, her scenes with both are genuinely beautiful.

 

However, I was a little amused how prudish Fellowes is. He shows that Mary loved Matthew so much that she was even willing to help him to vomit. But the most embarrassing thing to many young girls even during the WW2 was when they were first told to use a "duck" (I am not sure the same term is used in English), that is to help a man to urinate when he was unable to move from his bed. And both Matthew and William are rather peaceful patients, no horrible  screaming after "mama" when there weren't enough pain killers. 

 

Somebody said elsewhere that Mary came to Carlisle to ask his help with Mrs Bates in order to help Anna and Bates. Well, she said to Anna that she did so "to save her own neck". Maybe it was both motives: she prevented  Mrs Bates from blackmailing Bates and secured that Carlisle could prevent other papers to publish the scandal. Still, it took much courage to take the initiative and tell all to Carlisle, but most of all it took sense to see that although it was a huge risk, it was the only way to "win" (as much as one could win in the circumstances). 

 

Before all, one must really respect that Mary didn't in any way to lessen her own responsibility: she had been a fool and now she must pay the consequences. That makes her cold comment about Ethel's illegitimate child at least understandable although it also shows that her empathy is always reserved only to those few she likes (the only exception was William in S1).               

[caligirl50]

 

 

That's true, but I learned, that I can't enjoy the show without taking Julian Fellows intention as the truth instead of taking what he shows as the truth. There're just too many storylines that don't make any sense. For example the Pamuk story. I still think it was written in a problematic way and de facto as rape. Mary didn't invite him to her room, she rebuffed him earlier when he tried to kiss her, she repeatedly told him to leave and said "no" until she practically was pressed onto the matress.

I know though, that Julian Fellows meant it as seduction. He didn't want Mary to be too easy to get, so he let her protest. I may cringe at the "a woman who says no really means yes"  picture he paints here, but if I don't accept the incident as seduction, Mary's whole behavior afterwards doesn't fit. She calls him her "lover", she tells Cora he didn't "force" her, she calls it "lust" when she confesses it to Matthew.

So I have just resigned to accept Fellows' view of it, because otherwise it doesn't work and this is the case for many storylines, the latest being the Henry/Mary romance. I hate it and I thought it completely unconvincing and badly written, but I accept that Julian Fellows sees it as totally romantic and a HEA. He never showed it on screen, but his intention is clear IMO.

The same can be said for his characters. We never really see on screen that Mary is so much more proactive than Edith, but that's what Julian Fellows says about them. Mary is the active one who gets things done, Edith is the one who is passive and does what she is told. I can see the latter more than the first, because where do we really see Mary taking active steps for her future?

 

Love this....

[caligirl50]

 

As a romance, it had many weaknesses. Gillingham fell too easily and proposed too early and there was no obstacles. He also showed a weak character first becoming engaged with Mabel, then breaking the engagement.  And most of all it happened too early after Matthew's death for the audience to accept.

 

There was an obstacle.  Mary wasn’t ready to marry, emotionally.

[AndySmith]

I know though, that Julian Fellows meant it as seduction. He didn't want Mary to be too easy to get, so he let her protest. I may cringe at the "a woman who says no really means yes"  picture he paints here, but if I don't accept the incident as seduction, Mary's whole behavior afterwards doesn't fit. She calls him her "lover", she tells Cora he didn't "force" her, she calls it "lust" when she confesses it to Matthew.

 

The only way I can rationalize it is, Mary likes to be in control (or think that she is), and admitting that Pamuk forced himself on her would mean she would have to admit a loss of control to others, but also to herself. Or something.

Edited February 28, 2016 by AndySmith

[caligirl50]

I’m posting a lot.

I think it also interesting that the show never discussed how Downton supplied food to the surrounding areas.  Mary’s storyline could have been SO MUCH MORE interesting if the estate’s production was discussed (enough with the repair shop...since season 4 we have been hearing about the repair shop - what is a repair shop????).

In those days, those estates supplied grain, dairy, flowers, fruit and sometimes meat to the nearby towns and villages, depending on what the estate produced.  

[slf]

Mary could really be an asshole but I like that the show doesn't soften her over the years. It makes her that much more complex: loyal, very caring toward friends, family (she likes), servants and acquaintances, hilarious, at turns coldly pragmatic or romantic, intelligent, but still: asshole. I am eternally grateful the show didn't have becoming a wife or mother radically change her personality, either.

The only romantic relationship she had that rang true was with Matthew (and even they had their moments). All the men that followed were pushy, arrogant, idiots.

Edited February 25, 2018 by slf

[Crs97]

I thought it was pretty interesting that her aloofness (for lack of a better word) was mentioned at the beginning and end of the series as being a complete facade:

In the pilot, Sybil mentions that she knows Mary is much more upset about Patrick’s death than she is saying  or showing.

In the final season, Violet mentions that Mary is the only person she knows who wants to appear unfeeling when she really isn’t.