S05.E01: Episode One

[ShadowFacts]

I rewatched last night, and there was a funny line Thomas had that I missed. When he's taking Jimmy to Lady Anstruther's bedroom, Jimmy says, "Maybe she just wants to talk." To which Thomas replied, "And maybe I'm the missing tsarevich." Ok, it's not haha funny, but I thought it was clever.

 

That was funny.  There were lots of funny lines in this episode and Thomas had a part in a few, and he can pull off the wit.  He said Lady A was showing bad taste in contacting Jimmy and Jimmy said it was actually good judgment, something along those lines.  Carson's asking them to tear themselves away from their smutty conversation has been mentioned upthread. Violet and Isobel's exchange about what men really want. I laughed pretty hard at Mrs. Patmore's observation to Daisy that all the best people have trouble with math. 

[Pallas]

I need to re-watch the episode to confirm or refute my immediate impression that in all but one scene, Isis was stuffed.  

[madam magpie]

If anyone obstructed justice, it was Mary and Mrs. Hughes.

 

Can someone remind me what happened? I forget. There was a train ticket that someone tore up, right? Supposedly the ticket said Bates went to London on the day Greene died, but then didn't he have another alibi saying he didn't go to London? Was there anything more against Bates, or did everyone just assume he was a killer? And do we really think he killed Vera? I thought she killed herself with rat poison and then set him up to go to jail.

[Crs97]

Same with the farm family, didn't the mother say something like, "Sometimes we almost forget she isn't ours?" I think they might love Marigold as we would love a niece who was staying, more than with the full commitment of parenthood.

I interpret it exactly the opposite way you did. I thought she was saying she already loves Marigold so much she forgets she didn't give birth to her. Considering she thinks the baby's mother has died, she has no indication that this baby is anything other than a permanent addition to their family. If Edith decides yet again to take Marigold away, then I will be fine with whatever further misery JF decides to heap on her.

Is anyone else waiting to see Michael's not-crazy wife show up? I always figured his "my wife is insane" was the Edwardian version of "she just doesn't understand me and we can't separate because of the children."

[dustoffmom]

Oh my gosh Crs97.....this never had even crossed my mind!

 

Is anyone else waiting to see Michael's not-crazy wife show up? I always figured his "my wife is insane" was the Edwardian version of "she just doesn't understand me and we can't separate because of the children."

 

My goodness but your mind works in evil ways!  LOL  Now wouldn't that be a game changer?  I seem to recall a season or two ago, whenever he first fessed up to Edith that we got some sort of flashback memory thing about his wife.....not knowing him and in the asylum.  Or did i dream that?  Regardless, I doubt your thought is true but have to admit that would sure be fun to watch.

[izabella]

Could Edith be somehow legally responsible for Michael's wife?  I remember he had Edith sign a document before he went off to Germany that gave her "authority over some of his affairs" but they never said if that was just for his business or if there was more.  And wouldn't his lawyers have been talking to Edith about his affairs since he disappeared years ago?

Edited January 7, 2015 by izabella

[ShadowFacts]

I always thought Michael could be interpreted as being a little shady.  His conveniently insane wife, his card sharp-defeating abilities, his having Edith sign papers which she didn't even read.  Maybe he was all on the up and up and loved Edith and tragically died, it's certainly possible, but maybe not. 

[Portia]

Sorry if someone posted this but from how she was describing her reading experience, I think Daisy might be dyslexic.

That crossed my mind, too. I believe my exact words were, "Oh, dear God, if we find out she's dyslexic I'm going to kill myself."

[helenamonster]

Can someone remind me what happened? I forget. There was a train ticket that someone tore up, right? Supposedly the ticket said Bates went to London on the day Greene died, but then didn't he have another alibi saying he didn't go to London? Was there anything more against Bates, or did everyone just assume he was a killer? And do we really think he killed Vera? I thought she killed herself with rat poison and then set him up to go to jail.

 

The day of Green's death, Bates was away from Downton all day. His cover story was that he went to York, but we never saw where he went.

 

When the family were up in London for Rose's season, Mrs. Hughes was collecting old articles of clothing to donate to refugees. Anna wanted to get rid of Bates's overcoat and take advantage of their time in London to go shopping with him and buy a new one. Mrs. Hughes checked the pockets of the coat and found a train ticket to London dated for the day of Green's death. Mrs. Hughes gave the ticket to Mary, who initially wanted to go to the police. But when Bates saved the family by finding the scandalous letter written by the Prince of Wales to a lady friend, Mary decided to honor his loyalty by burning the ticket. Anna was not made aware of any of this. Her only suspicion of Bates lies in the fact that he just so happened to be away from Downton the same day that Green died.

 

As for his wife, it is still canon that she committed suicide. But when one of the first things out of Anna's mouth immediately after she was raped was "I can't tell my husband because he'll the kill the man that did this," people started to speculate otherwise (though I think there were always people who thought he killed Vera from the start). The Vera plot is confusing; I've watched it a million times and still pick up on something new each time I go back. A couple things point to his innocence, one made obvious in the show and one that took some online research to figure out. The one made obvious in the show was that there was a sort of timing issue. Vera's friend (Mrs. Bartlett?) told Anna that she had seen Vera the night she died and that she'd had pastry crust under her fingers, meaning that she'd just baked the Death Pie. Bates had left Vera's well before nightfall, and unless he poisoned one of the pie ingredients before he left (which he didn't, as the police tested everything and the poison was only in the pie itself), he couldn't have done it. The aspect that wasn't as obvious was that Vera was showing signs of someone who'd been ingesting arsenic for quite some time: nervous, erratic behavior; discoloration of her nails; and fluorescent breath. Unless someone has personal experience with the side effects of arsenic, you wouldn't know to put those pieces together, and the show never really did it for us. Imo, Bates killing his wife at this point would be a retcon. But if they're determined to dismantle the character, that's one way to do it.

[Quilt Fairy]

Things still bother me about Gregson's disappearance. First and foremost, where the hell is the body? While I can - just - accept the storyline that he was beaten up and killed by brown-shirts, I find it hard to believe that a bunch of hooligans (and that's what many of them were in the early days) could make a body vanish on the spur of the moment. Germany was in chaos in the 20s, but there were police. Surely they could match up a body with the report of a missing Englishman. Second, he was an Englishman, a well-do-to newspaper owner. Why are the only people who care that he DISAPPEARED in Germany his lover and his lawyers?

 

And if anyone is interested in what Germany was like in the 20s, there is a fabulous book by the late Ariana Franklin called City of Shadows (a mystery about finding the Grand Duchess Anastasia) that I cannot recommend too highly: http://smile.amazon.com/City-Shadows-Ariana-Franklin-ebook/dp/B000GCFX54/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1420607627&sr=1-1&keywords=city+of+shadows

 

ETA: I read the Anna/Bates scene that he felt they weren't "doing it" enough. In fact, I wonder if the rape has left Anna so traumatized (along with the suspicion that Bates murdered Green) that she's been unable to have sexual relations with her husband at all.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Quilt Fairy

[SusanSunflower]

Yes, I thought the same -- additionally, I thought Anna's helpless "I don't know" type response to Mary's talking about sexual compatibility also suggested same.... which -- oh noes -- may be Uncle Julian is busy crafting some sexual healing for Anna and John. (shudder).

Edited January 7, 2015 by SusanSunflower

[saki]

I am pretty certain that all widows of Earls/Marquises/Dukes get the Dowager title, I don't think it has anything to do with whether or not their children have inherited.

 

As someone else said, I had always assumed that Bates had fertility issues given that neither Vera nor Anna have got pregnant over years with him.  It's likely that Anna is not that keen on sex right now, given the rape, but they have had quite some time together before that without a pregnancy.

[heebiejeebie]

saki there are far too many recorded instances of women bearing the Dowager courtesy in public and court accepted appearances who are relicts of a childless spouse.  So you can add absolute to your certainty.  The Herald of Arms, Debretts Burkes Ruvigny and Guy Stair Sainty all simply say it comes from the rights of being married.  There is and has never been a single recorded mention other than here that I can find that say the law and the Queen's Court only allow the title if there are descendents holding the title from which the courtesy is afforded.  None.  It does not exists.  Otherwise how embarrassing for the royals to address the Widow of the childless Duke of Northumberland as The Dowager Duchess of Northumberland.  Wouldn't they know?

 

Plus of course the common sense of the meaning of the word.  Coming from Dower and those rights.  Which were in good part aimed at being the one thing that protected a wife from heirs coming in and ousting her without a dime. 

 

 

ETA: I read the Anna/Bates scene that he felt they weren't "doing it" enough. In fact, I wonder if the rape has left Anna so traumatized (along with the suspicion that Bates murdered Green) that she's been unable to have sexual relations with her husband at all.

 

 

Being the world of Fellowes, its probably more that Anna doesn't feel worthy still having been soiled.  What with her rape being all about Bates don't cha know. 

[JudyObscure]

Is anyone else waiting to see Michael's not-crazy wife show up? I always figured his "my wife is insane" was the Edwardian version of "she just doesn't understand me and we can't separate because of the children."

Even I, Edith's greatest apologist, can get upset over that part.   Even if his wife is "insane," and the definition of that could be anything from severe catatonia to cranky during PMS,  it's still no excuse to just pretend she doesn't exist. Jane Eyre knew that and Mr.  Rochester was much more attractive than Gregson.

[Crs97]

Exactly, Judy!  I don't know how a guy who dumps his sick wife in an institution, starts dating another girl, and changes countries just to get a divorce can seem like a great catch to anyone!  Edith is no Jane Eyre, that's for sure.

[stopeslite]

Thanks for the hat info, Empressv! Makes a lot of sense. I still don't know how hatpins worked for some people, though; my hair is so fine and thin,

even a 9-inch long pin wouldn't gain any traction in my hair at all, so it wouldn't do any good. Incidentally, if hats were outdoor wear but women could wear them indoors, what were the rules?

 

That line from Edith about how it would be so much better for Drewe's wife to think she liked him rather than her knowing about Marigold made me so mad. Edith has always had a soft spot for not inconveniencing other people, especially those in lower classes, so it was completely out of character for her to be so cavalier with the possibility of wrecking Drewe's marriage as long as her secret is kept safe. What they haven't thought of is the possibility that it will be both - Mrs. Drewes will figure out Edith's the mother, but will think they were given the baby because Mr. Drewe is the father.That would be a fine kettle of fish.

 

Somebody mentioned it upthread, she went all hot for Pamuk immediately, and took a little longer to warm up to Matthew, then got pretty jazzed.  This Tony guy ain't in that league. The trip they're cooking up is just going to cause some trouble, or maybe stir up some info about Greene.

 

Oh goodness, can't you just see that scene? Right after, them in bed, Mary staring blank-faced at the ceiling and saying "Well, that was that, I guess I'll go on home now..." 

Edited January 7, 2015 by stopeslite

[Avaleigh]

That line from Edith about how it would be so much better for Drewe's wife to think she liked him rather than her knowing about Marigold made me so mad. Edith has always had a soft spot for not inconveniencing other people, especially those in lower classes, so it was completely out of character for her to be so cavalier with the possibility of wrecking Drewe's marriage as long as her secret is kept safe.

 

 

It certainly didn't seem out of character to me. Edith is the woman who was caught kissing a farmer by said farmer's wife and she could only bring herself to be concerned about her own hurt feelings rather than the fact that she'd betrayed a woman who'd previously been so nice to her. I also haven't been given the impression that Edith is especially courteous (ETA: meaning more courteous than the others--not saying she has a history of being obnoxious and rude) to working class people--she seems like she's pretty much like everybody else upstairs in this regard. She's usually polite but she has her moments just like the others in the family and to me this makes sense.

 

The fact that Edith doesn't think it's a bad thing for Mrs Drewe to be concerned about something potentially brewing between Edith and Mr Drewe says a lot about Edith's character and I think she can be surprisingly careless of other people's feelings at times. 

 

Otherwise how embarrassing for the royals to address the Widow of the childless Duke of Northumberland as The Dowager Duchess of Northumberland.  Wouldn't they know?

 

 

Yeah, I would think they would. I can't find any examples of this Dowager thing either. The closest I've come is the Duchess of Windsor. I don't think anybody referred to her as the Dowager Duchess after the death of the Duke but I don't know if that was a personal choice or because of the idea that a kid/stepkid/grandkid has to be in the mix or maybe some people did refer to her as the Dowager Duchess and I just didn't come upon any references for it.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Avaleigh

[helenamonster]

Things still bother me about Gregson's disappearance. First and foremost, where the hell is the body? While I can - just - accept the storyline that he was beaten up and killed by brown-shirts, I find it hard to believe that a bunch of hooligans (and that's what many of them were in the early days) could make a body vanish on the spur of the moment. Germany was in chaos in the 20s, but there were police. Surely they could match up a body with the report of a missing Englishman. Second, he was an Englishman, a well-do-to newspaper owner. Why are the only people who care that he DISAPPEARED in Germany his lover and his lawyers?

 

ETA: I read the Anna/Bates scene that he felt they weren't "doing it" enough. In fact, I wonder if the rape has left Anna so traumatized (along with the suspicion that Bates murdered Green) that she's been unable to have sexual relations with her husband at all.

 

The thing is though, we don't know whether or not Michael is dead. The last anyone heard of him was that he was set upon by "men in brown shirts." Personally, I don't think there's a body to be found. If they'd wanted to kill him off offscreen, they certainly could have. His body could have washed up somewhere or whatever. He'll be back. And at the worst possible moment to boot.

 

As for Anna, it would be so much easier to figure out what's going on in her head and her own feelings about the rape if she was allowed to have a POV that didn't involve her husband. But she's not, because who cares about a rape victim's feelings on her own attack when we could all sit around speculating whether or not Bates killed someone again? [/sarcasm] It's maddening, honestly, absolutely maddening. She hasn't said shit about the rape that didn't involve Bates. "Bates can't know because he'd kill Green. I feel soiled for Bates. I can't stand when Green comes to visit because he and Bates being in the same room terrifies me. Bates Bates Bates." Anna is allowed to exist outside of her relationship with Bates, Fellowes.

[peggy06]

It certainly didn't seem out of character to me. Edith is the woman who was caught kissing a farmer by said farmer's wife and she could only bring herself to be concerned about her own hurt feelings rather than the fact that she'd betrayed a woman who'd previously been so nice to her. I also haven't been given the impression that Edith is especially courteous (ETA: meaning more courteous than the others--not saying she has a history of being obnoxious and rude) to working class people--she seems like she's pretty much like everybody else upstairs in this regard. She's usually polite but she has her moments just like the others in the family and to me this makes sense.

 

The fact that Edith doesn't think it's a bad thing for Mrs Drewe to be concerned about something potentially brewing between Edith and Mr Drewe says a lot about Edith's character and I think she can be surprisingly careless of other people's feelings at times. 

 

 

Yeah, I would think they would. I can't find any examples of this Dowager thing either. The closest I've come is the Duchess of Windsor. I don't think anybody referred to her as the Dowager Duchess after the death of the Duke but I don't know if that was a personal choice or because of the idea that a kid/stepkid/grandkid has to be in the mix or maybe some people did refer to her as the Dowager Duchess and I just didn't come upon any references for it.

I always believed a peer's widow was still called "Countess," "Duchess," etc., until she had a successor. THEN she would take the style "Dowager Countess," etc. So Violet would have been Countess until Robert married Cora. Then Cora would be Countess, and Violet would be Dowager Countess. As for the Duchess of Windsor, there was never another one, so she had no need to give up the title of "Duchess."

Edited January 7, 2015 by peggy06

[Captain I0]

I can't believe there is anybody remotely defensive of Bunting in this episode. She wasn't simply "speaking her mind" or "giving her opinion" she was being deliberately offensive. While you might make the arugment that her first comment wasn't terrible rude, you have to take it in context.

 

Imagine this scenario...

 

You like a guy/girl romantically and have been talking, but have not been on any dates or anything. You are then invited to dinner at their family's house. How would you (or any remotely reasonable person) act at dinner? What kind of conversation would you engage in?

 

She was blantantly rude to the point of being completely unrealistic in her situation. Even if she completely disagreed with everything, someone with the bare minimum amount of social awareness would be nothing but polite. Perhaps she's supposed to have Asperger's.

[taanja]

First of all --- to those advocating a Mary/Tom relationship. Gross. Tom is Mary's dead sister's husband. That is practically incest.

 

Mary's story is the main story because not only is she the eldest ---she is the mother of the heir. The show is called Downton Abbey because it is about ---Downton Abbey. Besides Robert Grantham (the family's name is Grantham -- not Crawly -- that is Mary's married name and baby George's name) ---Mary will have an effect on the future of Downton Abbey more than anyone else. So who she marries or doesn't marry has major impact on all the other characters.

 

I continue to love Thomas. You rascal!  he reminds me of Harry Flashman.---

(Sir Harry Paget Flashman  is a fictional character created by George MacDonald Fraser (1925–2008), but based on the character "Flashman" in Tom Brown's School Days (1857), a semi-autobiographical work by Thomas Hughes (1822–1896). The character appears in a series of twelve books, collectively known as The Flashman Papers.

In Hughes' book, Flashman (a relatively minor character) is portrayed as a notorious bully at Rugby School who persecutes Tom Brown, and who is finally expelled for drunkenness. Fraser decided to write Flashman's memoirs, in which the school bully would be identified with an "illustrious Victorian soldier" experiencing many 19th-century wars and adventures and rising to high rank in the British Army, acclaimed as a great soldier, while remaining "a scoundrel, a liar, a cheat, a thief, a coward—and oh yes, a toady."[1] Fraser's Flashman is an antihero who often runs from danger in the novels. Nevertheless, through a combination of luck and cunning, he usually ends each volume acclaimed as a hero.

 

Anyway. Lady Edith has become unbearable for me to watch. I predict she will somehow adopt her own child. Oy vey!!!.

 

Rose is just Sybil 2.0. ---with blond hair. I wonder why she is still at Downton Abbey?

 

I didn't mind the mouthy school teacher. I think it's fun when someone from the "outside" calls the out the Grantham's for being prudish and uppity. That whole dinner party scene made me laugh.

 

So welcome back show!

 

Edited: I looked it up --the family name IS Crawley! My bad!

Edited January 7, 2015 by taanja

[Llywela]

Exactly, Judy!  I don't know how a guy who dumps his sick wife in an institution, starts dating another girl, and changes countries just to get a divorce can seem like a great catch to anyone!  Edith is no Jane Eyre, that's for sure.

I think it's impossible for us today, with our modern knowledge of psychiatry and the available drugs for coping with mental illness, to understand how devastating mental illness was even as little as a hundred years ago. Yes, there were instances when the accusation of 'insanity' was used to shut away troublesome females, but more often institutionalisation was the last resort of beleagured families who simply couldn't cope any more. It wasn't simply a case of 'dumping' a sick relative into an institution - it was more often an absolute necessity both to protect the household and the individual. If you read up on the subject, letters and diaries still exist chronicling the despair of some of those families, the pain of watching a loved one spiral out of control, becoming dangerous both to themselves and those around them with no hope of recovery. Hancox by Charlotte Moore offers some fantastic insight into the subject, first hand accounts of individuals within a family afflicted by the tendency toward mental illness. Things would be different today, because we are better able to diagnose and effectively treat mental illness, but the reality for people in the early 20th century and earlier was that try as they might they had absolutely no means of correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain, and lives (and families) were destroyed as a result.

 

So it could be that Mrs Gregson didn't have much wrong with her, but it is more likely that the woman Michael originally married simply vanished in a devastating haze of incurable insanity, as he said - as effectively lost to him as if she'd died, yet still living. Was he wrong to want to move on with his life? It can be argued either way, since he did make a lifelong commitment to her, but institutionalisation isn't the same as 'dumping'.

 

It is still sometimes necessary for people with mental illnesses to be institutionalised even today, for much the same reasons, just with better diagnosis and treatment, and slightly more hope of recovery.

 

First of all --- to those advocating a Mary/Tom relationship. Gross. Tom is Mary's dead sister's husband. That is practically incest.

 

It isn't incest. They have no blood relationship. There have been several instances in my family of people marrying the spouse of a dead sibling - it's a bit weird, yes, but there's nothing gross or incestual about it.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Llywela

[helenamonster]

Mary's story is the main story because not only is she the eldest ---she is the mother of the heir. The show is called Downton Abbey because it is about ---Downton Abbey. Besides Robert Grantham (the family's name is Grantham -- not Crawly -- that is Mary's married name and baby George's name) ---Mary will have an effect on the future of Downton Abbey more than anyone else. So who she marries or doesn't marry has major impact on all the other characters.

 

I don't think that's accurate. I'm not as well-versed in English peerage/aristocracy as a lot of people here seem to be (which has been really helpful; I always wondered what Cora's title would be if Donk died before Violet), so if someone wants to correct me please do, but I think the title is Grantham and the family name is Crawley. Mary was Lady Mary Crawley before she married Matthew, Sybil was Lady Sybil Crawley before Tom, and Edith is still Lady Edith Crawley. Just like Rose's parents are the Marquess and and Marchioness of Flintshire, and are called Lord and Lady Flintshire, but Rose is Lady Rose MacClare (or however it's spelled). The two heirs lost on the Titanic were called James and Patrick Crawley, etc...Matthew's last name was Crawley because he was an heir, and the Grantham title by law can only be passed through the male line. If George were to die before producing an heir, the next heir they found (assuming there was one) would have the last name of Crawley as well.

 

Another thing I've noticed on rewatch...they've added quite a few new sets, so I've been trying to predict how they'll all come into play (because last year they added the boot room, which we'd never seen before, and it ended up being the room where Anna was raped). Obviously they needed a house for the Drewes, but there's also that barn that Edith and Drewe met in. There's the school and Tom's office, the latter of which will definitely come into play because he's had this job since season three and this is the first time we've seen his office. There also looked to be another hallway in the downstairs area we haven't seen before. When Molesley was convincing Baxter to tell Cora her secret, they were standing near a downstairs staircase I don't remember seeing. Finally, there's the male servant's bathroom, which I kind of doubt they only bothered to build so that Molesley could attempt to dye his hair.

[Oosala]

 

S4 CS thread on TWoP

I keep seeing CS in this thread and I don't know what it stands for.  Can someone help?

 

And how AMAZING is it that our very own Sars has a Downton Abbey character named after her.  UN-believable.

 

I am so glad this show is back.  I gave a big cheer during the credits when I saw the dog's butt.  Yes, I'm 12.

 

Also, Donk! 

[Llywela]

Besides Robert Grantham (the family's name is Grantham -- not Crawly -- that is Mary's married name and baby George's name)

This isn't true. The family name is Crawley, not Grantham. Robert is the Earl of Grantham, but that isn't his family name. Mary kept the same surname upon her marriage because she and Matthew were both Crawleys.

[helenamonster]

I keep seeing CS in this thread and I don't know what it stands for.  Can someone help?

 

CS=Christmas Special. In the UK season, the first eight episodes air from September to November, with an extended (two hours, I guess? last year's seemed shorter than usual) special that airs on Christmas. For US viewers, the Christmas Special is basically just the season finale.

[Andorra]

I asked Alastair Bruce (Downton's historical adviser) on Twitter about the "Dowager" problem. Will tell you all if he answers me.

[Oosala]

Christmas Special!  Thanks helenamonster.

[stopeslite]

Oh yeah - Tom had quite the posh office, didn't he? I guess I always assumed that he would work in an office in the Big House; never thought about him being in one of the outbuildings. Nice that he has a place to get away. 

[Pallas]

The Dowager Debates.  The source for my earlier post was the following:  "A dowager peeress is the mother, stepmother, or grandmother of the reigning peer, and the widow of a preceding one.  In no other case is she a dowager."  -- Titles and Forms of Address:  A Guide to Their Correct Use. London:  A. & C. Black Ltd., Third Edition, 1932, page 33.  Adam and Charles Black Ltd. were publishers of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the British Who's Who.  Black's Titles and Forms of Address is still in print and now in its 22nd edition.  

 

However!   Another copy of the text I found online -- the 9th edition, published in 1955 -- amended the usage as follows, on page 40:  "A dowager peeress is the earliest surviving widow of a previous titleholder, irrespective of her relationship to the existing holder.  She may thus be mother, grandmother, aunt, great-aunt, etc."  On the same page the text goes on to note, "In Scotland the title of Dowager is applied only where the peeress is mother or grandmother of the reigning peer; it is carefully retained in Scottish families, since it emphasizes that the widow become ancestress of an heir." 

 

So it seems likely that in this instance Black's (founded in Edinburgh, though based in London by 1932) originally misapplied Scottish custom to the English peerage, or, that the English peerage revised their own custom sometime in the second quarter of the 20th century.  Perhaps we can agree that if Violet were to survive Robert, and no matter who succeeded him, she would extend herself to ascertain that the right forms were obeyed.  At least insofar as they permitted her to go on calling herself whatever she liked.

[LaChavalina]

The thing is though, we don't know whether or not Michael is dead. The last anyone heard of him was that he was set upon by "men in brown shirts." Personally, I don't think there's a body to be found. If they'd wanted to kill him off offscreen, they certainly could have. His body could have washed up somewhere or whatever. He'll be back. And at the worst possible moment to boot.

 

I've been hoping to myself that JF doesn't plan to do an "English Patient" storyline with him. I would absolutely scream.

[CeeBeeGee]

The Dowager Debates.  The source for my earlier post was the following:  "A dowager peeress is the mother, stepmother, or grandmother of the reigning peer, and the widow of a preceding one.  In no other case is she a dowager."  

 

I guess Henry VIII didn't get the memo, since after he abandoned Catherine of Aragon the word went out she was no longer to be addressed as Queen but rather Dowager Princess of Wales (according to him Henry and Catherine's marriage was invalid--only her previous marriage, to his brother, Arthur Prince of Wales, was).  As we all know (!) Arthur and Catherine produced no heir.

[Constantinople]

She was blatantly rude to the point of being completely unrealistic in her situation. Even if she completely disagreed with everything, someone with the bare minimum amount of social awareness would be nothing but polite. Perhaps she's supposed to have Asperger's.

JF certainly isn't above cliche, but I think the simpler explanation is that in JF's world, any character that doesn't prostrate herself before the British class system, and the idea of a hereditary aristocracy in general, will be uncouth, rude, venal, middle-class, foreign or some combination thereof.

[lottiedottie]

I've been hoping to myself that JF doesn't plan to do an "English Patient" storyline with him. I would absolutely scream.

I never bothered to see the English Patient...so what would it mean if he did an English Patient storyline?

[CleoCaesar]

So Edith is just supposed to walk away from a baby she wants but can't keep due to the dictates of a society that basically sees and treats them both as nothing? But it's only the Drewes and the unknown Swiss couple who are deserving of empathy...because...? Edith has basically had her child stolen from her by custom. She didn't give her baby up because she didn't want her; she had little choice. Not only for her own reputation, but for that of her bastard daughter, who would have been shunned and mistreated.

 

This is exactly the reason why I am and will always be Team Edith. The girl gets shat on by her family her whole life, left at the altar, her boyfriend dies, and now she has to give up her baby because...reasons? I get that social mores of the 1920s frowned on single mothers, to put it very lightly. But Edith's family is loaded. She has options. But no one is letting her exercise those options and instead are ripping her child away from her. So fuck it, I hope she manages to take back Marigold and raise her at Downton, whatever the cost to anyone else.

[helenamonster]

I don't see how anyone is ripping her child away from her. Edith made her choice. She told Rosamund she couldn't have lived her life as an outcast ("Sybil could have, but I couldn't.") She knew she had to give Marigold up if she wanted to maintain her position in society, which she did. I also think a part of her is terrified of disappointing her parents and bringing shame upon the family, and I wish that angle would be explored a little more because it could certainly help her get more sympathy from me.

 

Neither the Schroeders nor the Drewes snatched Marigold away when Edith wasn't looking. Edith willingly gave her up (and then took her back and gave her up again). Hot Farmer Drewe is trying to work with Edith so that she can see Marigold and not raise his wife's (valid, tbh) suspicions about their relationship. I think where they really messed up was by not telling Mrs. Drewe the full story from the jump. She seems like a reasonable woman who would have kept the secret. Anyway, the thing is, I can't see how Drewe is at fault. Edith called on him to help her with this; he didn't jump in where he wasn't wanted. Her situation sucks, and it's not fair, and if it had happened today she would have had a lot more options. But I just can't get on board with her solution.

[taanja]

 

This isn't true. The family name is Crawley, not Grantham. Robert is the Earl of Grantham, but that isn't his family name. Mary kept the same surname upon her marriage because she and Matthew were both Crawleys

 

Yeah. I realized I was wrong and edited my original post. My bad! I had forgotten that Mary Crawley stayed Mary Crawley after marriage. HaHa!! I don't remember the relationship but Matthew must have been a cousin...??

 

Anyway --- love the supposition that Michael? (Edith's baby's daddy) isn't dead and that his wife isn't really insane but that he used that as an excuse to seduce the unsuspecting virgin. He is SO going to show up at the most inconvenient time possible. Awkward!

 

[meep.meep]

 

Yeah, I would think they would. I can't find any examples of this Dowager thing either. The closest I've come is the Duchess of Windsor. I don't think anybody referred to her as the Dowager Duchess after the death of the Duke but I don't know if that was a personal choice or because of the idea that a kid/stepkid/grandkid has to be in the mix or maybe some people did refer to her as the Dowager Duchess and I just didn't come upon any references for it.

If anyone had dared call that woman Dowager, she would have gotten her revenge!

 

I think that the term is only used when there is someone else with the same title, in order to eliminate confusion.  On Downton, Cora is the current Countess of Grantham, so Violet is referred to as the Dowager Countess.  Violet is still Countess, but this way everyone knows who you are talking about.  With the Duchess of Windsor, no one else became Duke of Windsor after her husband's death, so there was no new Duchess and she could continue on being referred to as the Duchess of Windsor with no confusion.

[ShadowFacts]

I don't see Edith's whole situation as totally black or white.  I can neither condemn nor get behind her actions.  She was in a very tough spot in an unforgiving time.  She recognized that she was not Sybil and couldn't handle the scandal.  She also came within minutes of an abortion and couldn't do that.  It would have been better if she had either gone off to America and posed as a widow with her grandmother's help, or given up Marigold completely and irrevocably.  But since she did not, she's messing it up for everyone, the baby included.  And therein is the soapy drama of Downton Abbey, which I'm sure will get soapier when things blow up somehow at the Drewe's and/or Michael returns. 

 

As to the English Patient, I vaguely remember that it involved a man burned badly in World War II who initally at least could not remember who he was and others assumed he was an English soldier, and there were romantic entanglements.  What I remember most about it was the first time I saw Naveen Andrews. 

[CleoCaesar]

Edith should have sucked it up and walked away.

 

It's a matter of giving up your own child...

[madam magpie]

I don't see how anyone is ripping her child away from her. Edith made her choice. She told Rosamund she couldn't have lived her life as an outcast ("Sybil could have, but I couldn't.") She knew she had to give Marigold up if she wanted to maintain her position in society, which she did. I also think a part of her is terrified of disappointing her parents and bringing shame upon the family, and I wish that angle would be explored a little more because it could certainly help her get more sympathy from me.

Neither the Schroeders nor the Drewes snatched Marigold away when Edith wasn't looking. Edith willingly gave her up (and then took her back and gave her up again). Hot Farmer Drewe is trying to work with Edith so that she can see Marigold and not raise his wife's (valid, tbh) suspicions about their relationship. I think where they really messed up was by not telling Mrs. Drewe the full story from the jump. She seems like a reasonable woman who would have kept the secret. Anyway, the thing is, I can't see how Drewe is at fault. Edith called on him to help her with this; he didn't jump in where he wasn't wanted. Her situation sucks, and it's not fair, and if it had happened today she would have had a lot more options. But I just can't get on board with her solution.

Edith's choices were extraordinarily limited. Basically what her detractors are saying is that she should have either been ballsy enough to fly in the face of the social mores and requirements of the time or tough/hardened enough to give up a baby she wanted and walk away for good. That's easy armchair judging, but neither is especially realistic. Edith isn't ballsy like Sybil; she said so herself. She's also not tough and hardened. Edith maybe SHOULD have done a hundred different things, also easy to judge from a 21st-century perspective. But what she and most women actually could do was limited. She had sex out of wedlock (gasp), got pregnant (double gasp,) and then had to choose from a bunch of shitty options. No one has to empathize with how awful that kind of situation must have been for women back then, but I definitely do, even when the decisions someone makes inadvertently hurt someone else. Yeah, that sucks, but it happens in life. Edith is doing the best she can and suffering tremendously for being separated from her child.

I also find it fascinating how mad people are about how Anna's rape is being portrayed. It was 1924. Anna probably felt horrible shame and DID think she was soiled and at fault. To have her or her husband behave like enlightened modern people would be bizarre and anachronistic. Mrs. Hughes's reaction was borderline enough and only really believable because of the person Mrs. Hughes has been established to be: progressive, a little subversive, and very compassionate. The entire point of that story, besides tossing in a soapy plot, was to show how that kind of crime and the women who suffered it were viewed in that time. It was awful. Thank god we've evolved. But Anna's rape, unfortunately, was about 50 years too early for her to benefit from that evolution.

Edited January 8, 2015 by madam magpie

[Avaleigh]

This is exactly the reason why I am and will always be Team Edith. The girl gets shat on by her family her whole life, left at the altar, her boyfriend dies, and now she has to give up her baby because...reasons? I get that social mores of the 1920s frowned on single mothers, to put it very lightly. But Edith's family is loaded. She has options. But no one is letting her exercise those options and instead are ripping her child away from her. So fuck it, I hope she manages to take back Marigold and raise her at Downton, whatever the cost to anyone else.

 

 

I'm going to respond to this in Edith's thread.

http://forums.previously.tv/topic/1371-lady-edith-sex-and-the-single-girl/#entry315193

[ZoloftBlob]

But no one is letting her exercise those options and instead are ripping her child away from her. So fuck it, I hope she manages to take back Marigold and raise her at Downton, whatever the cost to anyone else.

 

Well, in fairness, the most significant players, Edith's parents, are the ones Edith refuses to tell. Cora is well... limited in some respects, but when the chips are down, and there's a dead Turk in her theoretically virgin daughter's bed, Cora get things done, and done *discreetly*. And Robert, aka Lord Huffy, would huff and puff, and welcome Edith back into the family. So its hard to see Edith as someone without options. I mean, if nothing else, Isobel Crawley is down the road and she seems pretty open minded....

[helenamonster]

Edith's choices were extraordinarily limited. Basically what her detractors are saying is that she should have either been ballsy enough to fly in the face of the social mores and requirements of the time or tough/hardened enough to give up a baby she wanted and walk away for good. That's easy armchair judging, but neither is especially realistic. Edith isn't ballsy like Sybil; she said so herself. She's also not tough and hardened. Edith maybe SHOULD have done a hundred different things, also easy to judge from a 21st-century perspective. But what she and most women actually could do was limited. She had sex out of wedlock (gasp), got pregnant (double gasp,) and then had to choose from a bunch of shitty options. No one has to empathize with how awful that kind of situation must have been for women back then, but I definitely do, even when the decisions someone makes inadvertently hurt someone else. Yeah, that sucks, but it happens in life. Edith is doing the best she can and suffering tremendously for being separated from her child.

I also find it fascinating how mad people are about how Anna's rape is being portrayed. It was 1924. Anna probably felt horrible shame and DID think she was soiled and at fault. To have her or her husband behave like enlightened modern people would be bizarre and anachronistic. Mrs. Hughes's reaction was borderline enough and only really believable because of the person Mrs. Hughes has been established to be: progressive, a little subversive, and very compassionate. The entire point of that story, besides tossing in a soapy plot, was to show how that kind of crime and the women who suffered it were viewed in that time. It was awful. Thank god we've evolved. But Anna's rape, unfortunately, was about 50 years too early for her to benefit from that evolution.

 

I do empathize with Edith and I do agree that her options are limited. But life is full of impossible choices. Many women today are forced to give up children, either by the law or their own conscience, because they can't afford to take care of them or because they can't provide a safe environment for them or a billion other reasons. In Edith's case, it's society. Society says she can either keep the baby and be shunned or give up the baby and maintain her position. So she chooses to give up the baby because she's not as resilient as Sybil. Fine. It sucks, but fine. It's probably what's best for Marigold. The Drewes are a respectable family, and as far as anyone knows or cares, she's legitimate. But by forcing her way into the Drewe's lives, not giving a fuck that she might be disrupting their marriage or way of life, Edith is dragging innocent people down with her. And at the end of the day, it's not what's best for her child, imo, or for her. Edith never allowed herself time for a clean break when she gave Marigold to the Schroeders or the Drewes. She would have struggled with it for awhile and grieved for the loss of her daughter like people grieve for someone who's died, and then she would have been able to pick herself up and move on, knowing that her daughter was safe and happy with a good family that would care for her. By continuing to visit the Drewes and having to hand Marigold back to Mrs. Drewe at the end of each little session, she's only making things harder on herself. She's never going to be able to fully let go because she won't allow herself the opportunity. It's a big mess, honestly, and while I don't fault her for getting into the situation in the first place, I do fault her for creating this clusterfuck after the fact.

 

My issue with the rape story isn't that it's not being told from a modern perspective. I didn't expect Anna to go to the police or anything like that. My issue is that in making sure that other people have a point of view (Mrs. Hughes, Bates, Mary), Fellowes seems to have forgotten Anna's perspective and let her get lost in the shuffle of her own rape story. There was still a way to tell the story in a historically accurate fashion without making it about whether or not Bates killed someone again. The story really isn't about Anna anymore which is just dumb.

[CleoCaesar]

The story really isn't about Anna anymore which is just dumb.

 

I don't think it ever was. Annoyingly so. Back in the TWoP days there seemed to be a consensus about how badly the rape storyline was handled, and how it prioritized a male perspective on an issue that, well, probably shouldn't have been. To quote one unfailingly snarky, self-promoting TWoP poster (myself):

 

We got to see the most important thing of all - how a raped woman's husband feels about the whole thing. His pain at being neglected, his shock, his scheming, his brooding, his potential revenge. And Mr. Fellowes was kind enough to show us that Anna is reacting less to being horrifically violated than she is to what her psycho husband's reaction will be. When she hears that Greene is back at Downton, she's not afraid of being raped again, or that he will rape someone else, or even reliving her trauma. No, she's afraid of what her husband will do to Greene. And now she is all perky again. Thank you, Mr. Fellowes, for a season of My Wife Was Raped: A Husband's Journey.

[LaChavalina]

I never bothered to see the English Patient...so what would it mean if he did an English Patient storyline?

i.e., some variation on "he's still alive and he still loves Edith but he's incapacitated and/or lost his memory and that's why we haven't seen him for two or three years."

[madam magpie]

My issue with the rape story isn't that it's not being told from a modern perspective. I didn't expect Anna to go to the police or anything like that. My issue is that in making sure that other people have a point of view (Mrs. Hughes, Bates, Mary), Fellowes seems to have forgotten Anna's perspective and let her get lost in the shuffle of her own rape story. There was still a way to tell the story in a historically accurate fashion without making it about whether or not Bates killed someone again. The story really isn't about Anna anymore which is just dumb.

 

It wouldn't have been about Anna at the time either. I guess I just don't feel any confusion over how Anna feels about the whole thing: she was scared, angry, worried, and ashamed initially. She didn't want anyone to know, didn't want to go to the police, only told Mary reluctantly (did she even tell Mary at all? I forget how Mary found out, but have a memory of a vague, uncomfortable conversation) and absolutely didn't want Bates to know. And now she's tried to bury it and move on it with her life. To me, that seems exactly how it would have gone. I don't know more about how Mary, Bates, and Mrs. Hughes feel than Anna does; the show just hasn't made Anna's rape the obvious focus of her story. It's had a very subtle effect on her character, but she's definitely changed. She's more reserved, not so happy, more fearful--Joanne Froggatt is playing that perfectly--and I feel like that's exactly how someone like Anna would have behaved in the wake of something like that. What do you want her to do? Cry all the time? She has to work. Go to therapy? There was none. Talk to Mary or Bates about how she feels? That would be totally inappropriate given the time period. Anna's living with it. That's all she can really do given when and where she lives and the fact that she's a woman.

 

As for Edith, well...I guess it's a good thing so many internet posters are better people than she is or I would be. I think Edith has been virtually ruined emotionally, and once again, given when and where she lives and the fact that she's a woman, she's just living with it the best she knows how. Sometimes that failing in people hurts others. Life sucks like that, but everyone just has to live it. Edith clearly loves her daughter and wants to be with her and care for her and do the best she can by her. The fact that she can't walk away from her isn't strange or evil or mean; it's normal for a woman forced to give up a baby she wants, regardless of why she had to do it. Plus, it's absolutely not all about Edith and her position. Some of it is, certainly, and the question of how someone finds the courage to give up EVERYTHING she knows for one "mistake." But for Marigold, growing up the bastard child of a second-born daughter would have been lousy. That kid would have been scorned and shunned her entire life. She's probably better off with the Drewes. Edith knows that intellectually; she just can't relinquish the emotional tie to her child. I can't even fully imagine having to do something like that, much less negatively judge someone who doesn't make all the perfect decisions in that situation.

Edited January 9, 2015 by madam magpie

[helenamonster]

It wouldn't have been about Anna at the time either. I guess I just don't feel any confusion over how Anna feels about the whole thing: she was scared, angry, worried, and ashamed initially. She didn't want anyone to know, didn't want to go to the police, only told Mary reluctantly (did she even tell Mary at all? I forget how Mary found out, but have a memory of a vague, uncomfortable conversation) and absolutely didn't want Bates to know. And now she's tried to bury it and move on it with her life. To me, that seems exactly how it would have gone. I don't know more about how Mary, Bates, and Mrs. Hughes feel than Anna does; the show just hasn't made Anna's rape the obvious focus of her story. It's had a very subtle effect on her character, but she's definitely changed. She's more reserved, not so happy, more fearful--Joanne Froggatt is playing that perfectly--and I feel like that's exactly how someone like Anna would have behaved in the wake of something like that. What do you want her to do? Cry all the time? She has to work. Go to therapy? There was none. Talk to Mary or Bates about how she feels? That would be totally inappropriate given the time period. Anna's living with it. That's all she can really do given when and where she lives and the fact that she's a woman.

 

I feel like we're having two different conversations here, and I apologize if I'm not being more clear. I understand that, as a rape victim, Anna would have been a marginalized/silenced/ignored demographic in the 1920s. She couldn't be open about what happened because there was no societal imperative to make sure she was properly taken care of. So yes, I understand she couldn't take time off work, there was no rape crisis center, etc. But that doesn't mean that she can't be the main character in her own story. This whole thing reminds me of a discussion I had in a class last semester. We'd been assigned to watch The Godfather (trust me, the class got much less awesome after that) and we talked about a lot of things with it but one part of the discussion was about the roles that women play in the film. The class was mostly female and some of us brought up how pretty much all the women were one-dimensional and didn't exist outside their relationships to male characters, and my professor made some comment about how the mob is/was a male-centric institution, and the female characters wouldn't have added anything interesting on their own because they didn't get to participate in most of the action. And I just remember rolling my eyes at what a massive crock of bullshit that was. I would watch the hell out of a movie that featured the mothers/sisters/daughters/wives of mob guys as the main characters, all the things they heard, their worries over what would happen to their sons/brothers/fathers/husbands, how the mob life affected their relationships with one another, etc. It would still be dependent on male action but there's no reason women couldn't be the main characters of that kind of story. And here, we have Anna. She's marginalized, yes, and her outlets for expressing her grief over her trauma are limited. But that doesn't mean she and her feelings couldn't drive this story. And imo, they haven't. She hasn't expressed any feelings about the rape that didn't somehow relate to Bates and how the whole thing might make him feel or what he might do. CleoCaesar made a great point (and I remember that post from TWoP lol), and reminded me of the moment when I threw my hands up at this whole thing: when Tony was coming back to visit and Anna was forced to tell Mary that Green was the rapist, and then proceeded to say that she was terrified whenever he and Bates were in the same room because of what Bates might do when he found out. Not "I'm terrified of being in the same room as my rapist" or anything like that. No. It was about Bates and his feelings and his actions.

 

I do agree with you that we've definitely seen Anna change with this whole thing. The last few episodes of season three are almost painful to watch now, knowing she'll probably never be that happy and carefree again. But I put that change squarely on Joanne Froggatt's shoulders. She knows Anna inside and out. Imo, Fellowes did not write out the proper beats to the story and I feel like she's just filling in the holes on her own.

 

But I think my other problem is that Anna hasn't been given back her control over her own life. Green took away her ability to consent. Mrs. Hughes told Bates and Mary about the rape without Anna's permission or foreknowledge (though to be fair, she felt backed into a corner both times). And even though I love the scene where Mrs. Hughes confronts Green (it had shades of "Not my daughter, you bitch!" from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows), I hate that she's the one that got to do it and not Anna. And now Green's dead and Bates might have done it and Anna didn't get any say or control over that either. All these things are happening to and around her and she's been reduced to the victim we only see in the first five minutes of a particularly convoluted Law and Order: SVU episode.

[madam magpie]

I think that's applying a modern perspective to this story, though. Someone in Anna's position would likely care very much about the effect of the rape on her husband. The entire thought process was different back then. Anna talking to Mary about how she feels about the rape or being scared of the rapist is a modern approach; caring about how it will affect her husband is a 1920s approach. I have no trouble believing that Anna driving her own story in this time and place means she buried what happened to her and cares what her husband will think or do as a result of it. A regular woman with a non-murdering husband would probably care about his position, reputation, etc. Anna of soapy Downton cares that her husband may be driven to murder. Anna probably couldn't even vote in 1924 (unless she owned property). Control over her own life? Anna is a house maid in rural 1920s England. Agency isn't something she has much of. The subtle shift in behavior is all anyone would see as the result of this event. The only way we could see what Anna truly thinks and feels is if we were able to crawl inside her head, but she's never narrated this story so we can't. We see her only from the outside, and what we're seeing is exactly how a woman in her position would be behave.

All that said, what I wanted most throughout that story was for Anna to tell Mary. I wanted Mary's bitch claws to come out as we know they can and for her to do something. Anna has no power at all, but Mary has some. Personally, I'd have preferred Mary be the one who took Greene out, and she did try, but Bates is this show's maybe-murderer, not Mary, so...OK.

Edited January 9, 2015 by madam magpie

[purplemonkey]

CleoCaeser, that twop post was a classic in my house last year. Major props, it was and still is greatness.