S05.E04: Episode Four

[Andorra]

Really? I love how she delivers her lines and this series especially! I love the accent and the arrogant way she drawls. Perfect!

[saki]

I agree about MD's delivery.  It was always restrained but now it is robotic.  She is robotic in general:  she barely moves her body or facial muscles and even her eyebrow action is not what it once was.  What's up with that?  Mary has always seemed perpetually bored but even more so now, and that makes her boring.  Her one-liners are not as funny as Violet's and the monotone delivery doesn't help.

 

I think it started after Matthew died - I think she was trying to show how devastated Mary was and it was ok then.  I am tired of it now, though.

[DianeDobbler]

But I think JF DOES care about Mary getting that title and money/status she always coveted.  If she doesn't remarry she'll always just be Lady Mary, and if she marries Tom she'll be nobody.

 

Ah - forgot about that - good point.

 

Remembering that I binged watched, I never got into Tom/Sybil all that much. I thought it was underwritten and, while Tom was fine, I don't think Allen Leech's own personality came though as much in the early stages as it does now. He also had that bad hair style. :)

 

 I always thought it would have been more helpful if they'd written more scenes of Tom/Sybil just enjoying each other, versus so much of the "they're likeminded" stuff. The "we like to be together" stuff was rare (a little bit came out with the Gwen stuff).

 

 Now, however, I love Tom. It helped that as they wrote him a bit more, it turned out Allen Leech had good chemistry with the major characters. I think his scenes with Isobel also helped me become a Tom fan. After that, it became extremely frustrating that he had a story with - UGH - Edna and now - blech, Bunting. I don't mind hating characters, but I want a love to hate, not a - this is an unattractive, uninteresting, unappealing character who bores me as a viewer.

 

In the spirit of mentioning things I liked:

 

Mrs. Patmore/Daisy. In the past, this didn't sit too well with me. I'd feel that Fellowes was overly fond of this pseudo-mother/daughter bond and held Daisy back because of it. Now they are more peers, while still having the mother/daughter bond, and I loved the stuff they said under their breath to each other while in front of the dining table, Mrs. Patmore assuring and explaining that she had no problem at all with Daisy's studies and there was no disturbance below because of it, all both to the table and sotto voce to Daisy. Very cute and sweet.

 

Bates: Based on the scene in the bedroom, I don't think Bates killed Green. Fellowes isn't subtle, and that read to me as Anna saying everything with subtext about Green, and Bates having nothing to hide and taking the conversation on face value. In the past I really really couldn't take Bates. Not angry Bates, not martyr Bates. I DID enjoy the Bates who pitched in and saved Thomas's job, who got Lord Grantham up to speed on what happened with Jimmy, and with O'Brian's machinations. This is not because he was being "nice", but because the material had a bit of natural humor in it, and required that Bates behave in a reasonable and intelligent manner. I found that when he's written this way, the actor is actually enjoyable. He's just not good/appealing at the melodrama, angry, martyr stuff - in fact I just want to kill him. So Bates walks in where Anna's working, pitches in, and is all normal and intelligent and genuine, and I was - OMG, PHEW. It's going to be one of those huge misunderstandings!

 

The Mary stuff I dislike just echoes everybody else. With the characters I like, so many big moments in their lives are written in shorthand; barely get breathing room, if any. Mary? Every teensy blip and warp in her life gets an arc. The damn fashion show. A whole dinner with Blake to talk about things that would be told for other characters in maybe two seconds in an entrance hall. My "eh" about the fashion show goes like this - I think Mary is overrated as a fashion plate, on and off camera. She's got quite a severe face. She's thin, but very small boned, it appears. Even when dressed to the nines, and while she's faultlessly dressed, I seldom get that bowled over impression - like, let me take THIS vision in. Edith can actually have that impact. Maybe she has stronger shoulders or more curves or something, but a few times when she had her relationship with Gregson, she really wore those clothes like a knockout.

[ZulaMay]

Edith's clothes were fabulous last season and she looked great.  Now she's in drab outfits most of the time, at least during the day.  Can't have her outshining Mary, can we?  But I think Rose has the best clothes and looks best in them.  Doesn't hurt that she smiles and looks animated and joyful a lot of the time.

 

I do think MD dresses very well off camera.  I usually love her choices.  That said I agree she has a severe face, or at least one lacking in softness.   I think it's her eyes:  they're small and sharp.  Some of the commenters on the Guardian Blog call her "Harshface" or "Lady Glary."  I think that's more about Mary's personality than anything.  I do think she's too skinny, especially her arms.  That makes her work well as a model for the clothes because she's like a hanger, but I prefer women with a bit of shape and at least an ounce of body fat.

Edited October 15, 2014 by ZulaMay

[DianeDobbler]

During the Mary/Matthew storyline, Dockery used her eyes differently. Maybe it's just a matter of the actors only being able to do so much with just "acting" if they're unable to make a strong connection with their scene partner. This can be a challenge even if the actors are married to each other or whatever - sometimes it just doesn't work. In any event, Dockery's eyes had real energy where it was important in Series 1 and Series 2. From the moment she walked in after having overheard Matthew snarking about "pushing in." She was always very composed, and didn't have the most mobile face, but you could tell by her eyes that she was alive inside. Actually, I put it down to Dockery understanding the stakes for Mary and so she could throw herself in. Even when Mary rejected or disliked Matthew, everybody including the actors knew the story being told, so strong choices could be made. Even side stories, such as her scene in the hall the morning after she broke with Sir Richard, had an impact because the story was important, even though he was a mere rejectee.

 

At this moment, her story is so "maybe, maybe not" it's hard to make a convincing choice. Does Mary really really REALLY care about remarrying, let alone making sure her second marriage is as happy as her first? I'm not feeling the urgency. I didn't quite understand the "let's hop into bed to make sure" story with Gillingham. She didn't hop into bed to "make sure" with Matthew. Pretty obvious that was unnecessary. Hell, she knew she was attracted to Pamuck.

 

 Maybe the story needs some real stakes of some kind to make her need to remarry more than just important on  paper. Something to dramatize it. Actually, I'm not sure why she NEEDS to remarry. Dockery does well with extremely strong drives underneath, masked by the character's reserved nature and BELIEF in being reserved. When the strong drives aren't present, we just have a woman who doesn't appear terribly invested, who is going through the motions, and there's not a lot of personal attributes to make it fun, and she doesn't seem to mind much about anything, so why should we?

 

It would be nice if the story of Edith and her daughter were simultaneously being told with a story about her being courted by somebody she really liked, whom we the audience liked with her. THAT would be a conflict. Edith in love, a man in love with her, but who doesn't know about Marigold. Perhaps says things to her such as "Darling, when we're married we'll have our own children." THAT would be conflict. But God forbid. Instead we get Mrs. Drew who, instead of thinking, hell yeah, the lady of the house might give this kid some great advantages! is all "too disturbing for the child" as if it's contemporary times. Which isn't even the real problem with the story. The real problem is there being no place to hide a diaphragm in all of Downton Abbey is more believable than Mrs. Drew not knowing damn well Edith must be Marigold's real mommy.

[Avaleigh]

Edith got to wear better clothes than Mary for most of last season so I don't think the fashion choices are about making sure that Edith never outshines Mary. When Edith was happy with Gregson it showed in her wardrobe. She was really making an effort to be alluring. Now she's depressed so I think her current wardrobe choices are a reflection of how she's feeling.

I thought the episode was okay. Between the overkill with Sarah Bunting and the tiresome stuff with regard to Green's death I found myself wanting to ffwd at various points.

Edith's story basically feels like it has been played the same way in each episode this season. I really hope it moves forward on Sunday. I was happy to see Rosamund though and enjoyed the fashion scene since we've never had anything like that on this show before. I thought it was a fun period detail rather than being about Mary specifically. The scene was mainly about bringing Rosamund up to speed on how Edith is doing (not that Mary knows why Rosamund is really asking) so I disagree that this was an example of us getting an unnecessary scene simply because Mary is one of JF's favorite characters to write.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Avaleigh

[ZoloftBlob]

Maybe the story needs some real stakes of some kind to make her need to remarry more than just important on  paper. Something to dramatize it. Actually, I'm not sure why she NEEDS to remarry.

 

She doesn't need to remarry, and there lies the real problem. There's no need for her to have a husband at this point. She's part owner of the estate, her son will inherit from her father, and she's done her womanly duty, and married well. From a societal standpoint, she could stay a widow for the rest of her life and no one would judge her harshly at all. Considering how in love she and Matthew were supposed to be, it's actually a bit scandalous that she was out of mourning so quickly. (I accept the plot problems it would have caused but its a realism point) .

 

 

[DianeDobbler]

If only they could cast the man properly, it might have been better for Mary to be all, I was married and very happily, I have a son, he'll inherit the whole pile, I've plenty of money, I'm done. Remember when she said Rosamund was lucky because she had tons of money, was on her own, and could do what she liked? Mary could have bought something on her own and lived there. Then along comes some man and will Mary stick to her decision to remain single?

 

Right now they ARE playing it as a societal need, which it's not, and on top of it, the vibe between Mary and her suitors is lukewarm.

[ZoloftBlob]

Remember when she said Rosamund was lucky because she had tons of money, was on her own, and could do what she liked? Mary could have bought something on her own and lived there. Then along comes some man and will Mary stick to her decision to remain single?

 

Exactly. She's even on record saying this, and that she was unhappy that her role in life was to marry and her life wouldn't start until she did. Now she's genuinely free - I think she would prefer Matthew be alive and be with her, but instead, she's got the next best thing - her own life back. It's a shame they're not exploring the angle that maybe, Mary could be happy without a man on her arm.

[ZulaMay]

She doesn't need to remarry, and there lies the real problem. There's no need for her to have a husband at this point. She's part owner of the estate, her son will inherit from her father, and she's done her womanly duty, and married well. From a societal standpoint, she could stay a widow for the rest of her life and no one would judge her harshly at all. Considering how in love she and Matthew were supposed to be, it's actually a bit scandalous that she was out of mourning so quickly. (I accept the plot problems it would have caused but its a realism point) .

Before S4 started MD said something that made it clear they were choosing to ignore this fact.  She said that Mary had no choice but to remarry, it defined a woman's social position, etc.  Of course then she said "or maybe she doesn't," so of course I thought she might end up single after all. But at this point they have spent so much time on her romantic life (and her family certainly seems to want her to remarry) that I don't know if they'll just drop it all and leave her single. And she has said she wants to remarry, has talked about having more children, etc.

 

Avaleigh, I realize the fashion show was partly just to give us some eye candy/period detail but it is an example of Mary getting a variety of scenes whereas Edith does not.  For example, we have seen Mary out on estate business several times but not once have we seen Edith working on an article or at the newspaper office.  Surely if they can set up that fashion show they can set up an office scene for her?  We even saw Tom's office.  Instead the only thing Edith has done is visit the Drewes.

 

We've seen Rose with the refugees, we saw Sybil at the hospital.  We saw Cora at the museum with Bricker.  Edith is apparently still working on her column but do we see it?  No.  And not because it doesn't have to do with the estate which is "what the show is about."  The show isn't about refugees or museums or fashion shows either but we do see those.  So IMO Edith's repetitive scenes are a disservice to her character.  Her child is not the only thing in her life but based on what we've seen you'd think it was.

 

Oh, she did go to the school to watch Rose give out prizes but she was just sort of there.  That was Rose's scene, not Edith's.

Edited October 15, 2014 by ZulaMay

[ZoloftBlob]

Before S4 started MD said something that made it clear they were choosing to ignore this fact.  She said that Mary had no choice but to remarry, it defined a woman's social position, etc.  Of course then she said "or maybe she doesn't," so of course I thought she might end up single after all. But at this point they have spent so much time on her romantic life (and her family certainly seems to want her to remarry) that I don't know if they'll just drop it all and leave her single. And she has said she wants to remarry, has talked about having more children, etc.

 

Thats unfortunate because it kind of ignores Mary's character - she loved Matthew but but I think she would have been perfectly content on her own.... and it also ignores a certain historical perspective - Her social position as Matthew's wife was assured. It could never get better, but neither could it be taken from her. I don't mind the lack of mourning period because I accept the reality of the show's writing/situation... but speaking as someone who doesn't seek out the actor's interviews - one reason I have had disconnects about Mary's leap back into dating is that historically it really isn't necessary. She's done her duty. She might never be Countess of Grantham since Matthew died, but she will always be a married woman and shine in comparison to the singles around her. When the historical perspective is added to the fact that her actual character was actually unhappy at the idea that she had to marry or else be forever nothing.... it makes her sudden leap into husband hunting in season four and five look strange and out of character.

[Andorra]

Julian Fellows wrote in one of his first scriptbooks though, that Mary has ambition. She doesn't want just "do her duty", but she wants to be woman of high rank in society and in a position of power.

And the only way to achieve it is through marriage.

 

So yes, her position as the mother of Downton's heir is secured, but I think she also wants a title and  a position in society. I think Julian Fellows will stick to his old plan: Mary will get a titled husband, there will be a cross-class couple (Rose/Tom?) and Edith will probably end up unmarried.

[Featherhat]

Remember when she said Rosamund was lucky because she had tons of money, was on her own, and could do what she liked? Mary could have bought something on her own and lived there. Then along comes some man and will Mary stick to her decision to remain single?

 

And her mother warned her that one day she might come to regret those words. And she isn't like Rosamund who lives in London on her own without kids and can have a "merry widow" social life, she probably couldn't even if she left George with a Nanny and lived away from Downton. I don't think she actually wants to be away from Downton and doesn't really have the temperament be a Rosamund or a de facto Dowager trying to be a power player on behalf of her never-Earl husband and infant son at her age, which is probably looking like that for at least another half of her life at only 30-ish. I think the fact that she doesn't need to marry again and might not want to is definitely something that's been ignored and I definitely think they could have been moving for her to take a larger role in the estate this season (again) or being less "let the games begin" and more "can you offer me something I don't/haven't already had that isn't a pale imitation?"

 

It's all awkward because the attract between all of them is lukewarm, Mary doesn't really have a need and these young men don't need to be hanging around for a 30 something in Yorkshire who won't make them owner of a massive gothic pile to make up her mind over them.

 

I do agree with Andorra that she wants a place in society still, even if it isn't on the terms it once might have been and that either means waiting and becoming pseudo regent for her son (or Chatelain in her own right from her father with the understanding that it will go down to the next Earl eventually when the entail law is ended) or marrying well. But again the interactions are so lukewarm its difficult to know why everyone is going through the motions.

 

The "test drive" story was strange, I took that as the opportunity to show that Mary was a 30 something widow who can do this discreetly without too much censure, this was the 20s not 1912, to show through her conversation with Violet that this wasn't a weekend of "couldn't help ourselves" but "trying to get there" and it didn't work.

 

 

 

Instead we get Mrs. Drew who, instead of thinking, hell yeah, the lady of the house might give this kid some great advantages! is all "too disturbing for the child" as if it's contemporary times. Which isn't even the real problem with the story. The real problem is there being no place to hide a diaphragm in all of Downton Abbey is more believable than Mrs. Drew not knowing damn well Edith must be Marigold's real mommy.

 

Thing is though, Edith isn't offering Marigold or her other siblings an education or a dowry or a good placement when they need it in exchange for an awkward tea 4 times a year, she's there all the time apparently, so I can believe a woman in the 20s would think that, especially compared to the more anachronistic stuff. It's like those old novels where a relative agrees to pay for *one* child to live with them or be educated and how that ripped families apart. Now, yes it should be completely obvious that Edith is the mother and if I were Mrs Drewe I'd think my husband was trying to hide a child of an affair with Lady Edith with me.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Featherhat

[romantic idiot]

Drewe's is also the guy Edith had kissed way back when, is it? Maybe Mrs. D still remembers. And I'd probably cut Edith off because she is treating one child preferentially which will harm the family dynamics. Maybe theres some jealousy in there as well, not just of Drewes's and Marigold's affections, but also because her children weren't good enough for Edith's patronage.

 

 

Thats unfortunate because it kind of ignores Mary's character - she loved Matthew but but I think she would have been perfectly content on her own.... and it also ignores a certain historical perspective - Her social position as Matthew's wife was assured. It could never get better, but neither could it be taken from her. I don't mind the lack of mourning period because I accept the reality of the show's writing/situation... but speaking as someone who doesn't seek out the actor's interviews - one reason I have had disconnects about Mary's leap back into dating is that historically it really isn't necessary. She's done her duty. She might never be Countess of Grantham since Matthew died, but she will always be a married woman and shine in comparison to the singles around her. When the historical perspective is added to the fact that her actual character was actually unhappy at the idea that she had to marry or else be forever nothing.... it makes her sudden leap into husband hunting in season four and five look strange and out of character.

 

Again, my memory might be failing me, but I think Mary made that statement before she married Matthew? Since then she's had a very happy marriage. I can imagine her wanting to recapture that happiness again. And Mary's always been pragmatic, so she's pragmatically decided against carrying a torch for Matthew for the rest of her life?

[ZoloftBlob]

Again, my memory might be failing me, but I think Mary made that statement before she married Matthew? Since then she's had a very happy marriage. I can imagine her wanting to recapture that happiness again. And Mary's always been pragmatic, so she's pragmatically decided against carrying a torch for Matthew for the rest of her life?

 

It was before she married, that statement... and I don't think she can't decide to stop carrying a torch for Matthew, but my point is that there is no social pressure for her to do so. This was not a world where a widow was expected to turn around and press the reset button as soon as it was allowed and it's odd to me that, based on her earlier characterization, that she's now just husband seeking for power and gain. I mean, is it about being happy? Or gaining position? And realistically, if it's about position, she's just not that hot of a ticket to men at this point.  

[ZulaMay]

Drewe's is also the guy Edith had kissed way back when, is it? Maybe Mrs. D still remembers. And I'd probably cut Edith off because she is treating one child preferentially which will harm the family dynamics. Maybe theres some jealousy in there as well, not just of Drewes's and Marigold's affections, but also because her children weren't good enough for Edith's patronage.

 

 

 

No, that was a completely different farmer.  If that was the farmer Edith kissed than Mrs. Drewe would never have let her near the place.

 

It was not unusual at that time one kid to have a benefactor or patron in a wealthy or more privileged relative or neighbor.  Especially if that kid was an adopted orphan, a foundling. The Drewe children know that Marigold is adopted and it would not seem strange to them if a third party took an interest in her that was not extended to them.  They're old enough not to be confused.  My three siblings all had different godparents to me, and some of us got more money a Christmas than others.  It really wasn't a big deal.

 

I don't think Mrs. Drewe is jealous that Edith is not extending her patronage to the other kids.  It has nothing to do with them.  She seems bothered that Edith is visiting the house and interfering with Marigold, period.  And she feels threatened by her because (a) she thinks Edith wants to take Marigold away and has the power to and (b) thinks she and her husband might be soft on each other.  She thinks her husband is taking Edith's side.  She just doesn't want another woman around.

 

Now, her reaction is understandable but to be fair Mr. Drewe is also taking Marigold's side.  It is advantageous for the kid to have Edith take an interest and maybe help her financially in the future.   It's hurts Margie's pride I imagine, and I get why.  But she's not being entirely selfless here, and neither is Edith.  It's kind of like a divorce situation, where the ex has a new GF who is spending time with the kids.  It's a messy emotional situation and everyone has something important at stake. IMO no one is right or wrong.

Edited October 16, 2014 by ZulaMay

[Camera One]

I don't think Mrs. Drewe is jealous that Edith is not extending her patronage to the other kids.  She seems bothered that Edith is visiting the house and interfering wither kid/s, period.  And she feels threatened by her because (a) she thinks Edith wants to take Marigold away and has the power to and (b) thinks she and her husband might be soft on each other.  She thinks her husband is taking Edith's side.

 

I think it's more (b), since we have seen no evidence that she is interfering with the kids' schedule or disrupting Marigold.  I presume Edith is visiting during the day when Marigold would have been playing anyway.  Whereas we have seen Mrs. Drewe comment to her husband about Edith having a crush.  I don't feel like I have seen any particularly warm feelings between Mrs. Drewe and Marigold in the brief scenes we have seen.  We haven't seen her face glow with joy while holding her.  If that was what they were going for, it needs to be more clear.  It is a bad situation all around and on paper, I would feel badly for Mrs. Drewe but I just haven't seen any onscreen reasons to emotionally feel affected by the situation from Mrs. Drewe's perspective.

[vesperholly]

The way that MD somehow manages to make her line delivery more monotone and slow every week.  She plays Mary like she's recovering from a stroke.

Yes, what is that all about? I've been rewatching S1 and she's so much more snappy and curt with her lines. I can see why she had men falling at her feet. Now, as the widowed mother of the heir who's pushing 30 amidst a man shortage, it makes little sense. What's next, the Duke of Crowborough is going to come sniffing around, interested 10 years later now that her son is the heir?

[ZulaMay]

She's over 30.  She was 21 in 1912.  So now she's 33 or 34.

[Eolivet]

Mary was also only married to Matthew for 18 months (March 1920-September 1921). She loved him dearly, and she certainly knew him longer than that, but it was an 18 month marriage and she's 33. If she were 43 or 53, I could see making the argument that she had a great first marriage, years of happiness and has left Downton secure with an heir so that now she doesn't have to marry again. But I think if she doesn't marry again, that's just sad. To have maybe 40 years of her life remaining and decide "Nope, 18 months was all I need, I'm good." To say nothing of how she may want her child to have a father figure (especially if he's going to inherit an estate).

 

Heck, the audience knew Matthew for longer than Mary was married to him. So, I don't see the need to keep her mourning his memory while her romantic life passes her by. Either Charles Blake or some new mystery suitor could make her quite happy -- as she said herself "As happy with my second husband as I was with my first."

[Athena]

The Lord Merton proposal was so sweet. I knew he had it in him. Actually, Isobel has had two major suitors now. She's got more going on that most of the ladies on this show. I hope she says yes, but that means Violet would lose her wingwoman. 

 

Not surprised Gillingham was a jerk. He is cling factor five. Blake looks better and better.

 

I'm so bored with poor sap Edith. 

 

Kudos to Allen Leech because his charisma is the only thing that makes this Sarah Bunting plot not completely abhorrent. I almost believed Tom when he said he liked her because she spoke her mind. Ugh. Go away. 

 

Cora feels more and more neglected by Robert. I like that the show is addressing it now. She's not the most clever, but at least they are developing her character.

 

Rose doesn't interest me that much.

[ZoloftBlob]

Heck, the audience knew Matthew for longer than Mary was married to him. So, I don't see the need to keep her mourning his memory while her romantic life passes her by. Either Charles Blake or some new mystery suitor could make her quite happy -- as she said herself "As happy with my second husband as I was with my first."

 

To be fair, Mary knew Matthew a lot longer than what she was married to him so her happy memories don't have to be confined to the 18 months they were married but to the eight or nine years that they danced around each other. (and also really, watching seasons one thru three, I think Mary and Matthew were usually at their best when they were fighting)

 

And frankly, it would perfectly fine to see Mary with someone who made her happy.... she just doesn't seem to be that happy with either Tony or Charles, and there doesn't seem to be any real interest on her part to justify dangling two men around for years.

 

I am open to seeing her more with Blake... those two do sparkle a lot more than she did with Tony.

Edited October 16, 2014 by ZoloftBlob

[Avaleigh]

I liked the proposal scene too and really hope Isobel says yes. Merton seems like he'd appreciate her a bit more than Clarkson would.

Also, if Isobel becomes Lady Merton, she wouldn't likely go on living at Crawley house. I can see Tom living there over the Agent house--I'm sure it's nicer. I don't think he'd have too hard a time trying to persuade a posh girl to live there.

I would definitely prefer a scene where some of the family discuss a column that Edith has written so that we can have a better idea of what she writes about and maybe get her opinion on some current event. The baby stuff is more frustrating than interesting right now.

I thought the scene between Shrimpie and Rose was sweet. I would have liked a few more details about what the final straw was with regard to them finally deciding that divorce would be the best option. Rose's mother seemed like she cared about the rules of society so it can't have been pretty whatever happened.

I hope Cora gets to have her affair.

[DianeDobbler]

"Julian Fellows wrote in one of his first scriptbooks though, that Mary has ambition. She doesn't want just "do her duty", but she wants to be woman of high rank in society and in a position of power. And the only way to achieve it is through marriage."

 

That's really not true. He's given her a TON of money, and she's the mother of the heir to Downton. It wasn't common for women to have their own power in those days, but there were women who did have high rank in society and power outside of a husband, and the women who did have that sort of power had a huge amount of money that was under their own control (Mary's position) and ... well, the huge amount of money was really all that mattered. The fact that she's the mother of the heir is just cake. The only way for her to achieve it is NOT through marriage. It's, as always, through money. It's her own money. It's not an entail. Not a trust or dowry. So that's just not true, no matter how much Fellowes says it is. 

 

I didn't need details about Shrimpie's divorce. Last time we saw them, it was the most miserable marriage on the planet. They just did a stint together in India where, based on his wife's attitude going in, things did not improve. It's not the sort of situation that needs details, IMO. He's miserable, he decided to divorce. Not as common as today, but not unheard of.

 

"Heck, the audience knew Matthew for longer than Mary was married to him. So, I don't see the need to keep her mourning his memory while her romantic life passes her by. Either Charles Blake or some new mystery suitor could make her quite happy -- as she said herself "As happy with my second husband as I was with my first."

 

I don't think anybody disagrees but it has to be on screen, not just on paper. I don't think the antipathy towards Bunting is about Sybil, and I don't think the MEH about Mary's love life is about Matthew. It's ONLY about Matthew to the extent people observe that Dan Stevens as Matthew had real chemistry with Mary, enough to carry two series, and tons of chemistry with the other characters. The complete package and that is why it worked. It didn't work just because the idea of Mary having a love interest is so exciting all by itself, no matter who it is. These new guys are just suits. Generic. Nice looking, smart enough, plausible, fine. Don't mind if she does, but can we move things along? Not must see TV.

 

It's NOT that they're not Matthew. If Matthew had never existed, they'd both be complete okay, fine, marry one of them, just get on with it, I'm bored and want a change.

Edited October 17, 2014 by DianeDobbler

[ZoloftBlob]

I don't think anybody disagrees but it has to be on screen, not just on paper. I don't think the antipathy towards Bunting is about Sybil, and I don't think the MEH about Mary's love life is about Matthew. It's ONLY about Matthew to the extent people observe that Dan Stevens as Matthew had real chemistry with Mary, enough to carry two series, and tons of chemistry with the other characters. The complete package and that is why it worked. It didn't work just because the idea of Mary having a love interest is so exciting all by itself, no matter who it is. These new guys are just suits. Generic. Nice looking, smart enough, plausible, fine. Don't mind if she does, but can we move things along? Not must see TV.

 

You're saying this much better than I am.

 

We don't have Blake or Gillingham in any plotline where their sole purpose is to be Mary's interest. Have Blake or Tony had scenes without Mary in the room? If not, then there's the problem. If they don't exist when Mary isn't present then they are just her toys that she can pick up and drop at will and its not compelling.

[Eolivet]

We don't have Blake or Gillingham in any plotline where their sole purpose is to be Mary's interest.

 

Post-season 1, you could say the same about Matthew. The guy went to war, and managed to make it all about his love life (Mary! Lavinia! The toy dog!). Even his war injury was directly related to his love life/Mary/his not-Mary love interest. In season 3, I expected to see Matthew practicing law again. Nope. He became completely about Downton. He got married and practically never shared a scene with his mother again. He went from a character in his own right to a complete appendage of Mary (except when his job was to disagree with her, for conflict and drama). He gave up his job, his relationship with his own family, everything except I guess his principles for the sole purpose of being Mary's husband, for the advancement of Mary's family's estate (that would be his and Mary's in 40 years if he was lucky, which he wasn't).

 

Don't get me wrong -- I don't mind or care that Matthew was molded to basically serve Mary's storyline, as she is the female lead, but I think Matthew is being remembered with rose-colored glasses. After season 1, he's basically the same as Blake or Gillingham: everything he did revolved around Mary in some way, shape or form.

 

After years and years of other dramas creating superficial female characters -- wives and girlfriends for strong male characters much in the same way, it's refreshing to see the shoe on the other foot. But I don't think Matthew was all that developed, outside of Mary. We just knew him longer.

[ZoloftBlob]

I actually agree - and suspect that's why Dan Stevens left the show but... we did have season one, didn't we?

 

Believe me - one of the running gags I have with writing Downton Abbey fanfiction is that Matthew is mostly friendless and without any family beyond his mother and lived a surprisingly lonely and sad life all by himself and his mother, but at the end of the day, he did have some scenes with members of the Crawley family who aren't named Mary. Blake and Tony haven't, and its a problem on a show where we expect the cast to interact.

[DianeDobbler]

I don't know what series each scene happened in, but I recall Matthew having scenes with his mother - extended scenes. With Edith. With Robert. Even that "I'm' a good sailor" scene with Violet. We saw him figure out why he should have a butler in his scenes with Mosley. He had scenes with Tom. He was a feature in group scenes, such as the time he announced in front of the dining room that Tom would be his best man. He ALSO had scenes with Mary. But there were tons of scenes with other people, all of it helping us to know him away from Mary, so we had some idea of this love interest guy.

 

Matthew's storyline was about his love life, but Mary's storyline is about HER love life. We did learn about who Matthew was in his love life. His ideals. His politics, sort of. His background, that made the lovers real. That's why I say Blake and Gillingham are suits. They're sketched out, assigned labels, but not developed. And even if they were, not sure it matters, because not sure that either actor, in these roles, have the chemistry with Dockery, or the synergy with their roles, that would make more development worth anythiing. It's not always the writing. Sometimes it's about stuff that can't be written. Charisma. Chemistry. Not just with your fellow actors, but with your own role. That Matthew role got thankless many times along the way, but Stevens did have great chemistry with that role. I always fully believed he was a lawyer/heir/pragmatist/idealist/generous/sort-of-chaste-ish emotional funny guy who was always acutely aware when Mary was in the room and was thinking about her even when she wasn't there.

 

I only know about Blake and GIllingham what the script tells me, and it's always "Okay, the script says that. That's the story here."

 

If Gillingham were Matthew - and not saying it would matter, because I think he's just not exciting in the role no matter what the script - he'd have other relationships on the show, and share with them his thinking vis a vis the sex week with Mary, or why he's convinced she loves him despite her trying to dump him, or why there's something about her that makes him like her better than Mabel Lane Fox. All through Matthew's engagement with Lavinia, for example, we had his mother saying what she thought, we had the others interacting with Matthew, questioning his feelings.

 

Gillingham would have a parent, a sibling, or a best friend, so we'd know the sort of guy he was, where he was coming from. Matthew's story was as a love interest, but I always felt I knew where the guy came from. Gillingham, who knows, same with Blake. Blake was a cookie cutter "ain't so sure I'm a fan of this aristo system" guy who was put through a one episode rom com paces with Mary, and he also turned out to be "what do you know - I'm a big heir/aristo myself!" Clearly he's meant to be smarter than Gillingham because he tells Mary she's brighter than Gillingham, and only a smarter guy would know that, AND he's tells Mary he doesn't curl up and die after being rejected, whereas in the same episode we see Gillingham getting ready to boil a bunny. It's tell and not show all over the place with these two guys. With Matthew, although a lot of his scenes were expository ("This is what I'm thinking about my storyline at this point in time), his scenes also showed his personality and his relationships.

Edited October 17, 2014 by DianeDobbler

[saki]

I think both Gillingham and Blake come across as in love with Mary.  No idea why, mind, but they do.  Gillingham especially really sells that he's sexually attracted to her.  The issue is more, IMO, that MD is playing Mary as such an icicle.  I watched a couple of youtube videos with clips from earlier seasons and Mary is so different - there's a lot more playfulness and lightness about her.  It's natural that, after Matthew's death, she would be a bit different but she barely cracks a smile these days.  It makes the relationships come across as very one sided and, in Gillingham's case, kind of creepy.

[DianeDobbler]

^Well, I'm not feeling it with either of the guys or with Dockery - it's just too chemistry/charisma deficient for my personal taste. MMV, of course, and you have a good point about Mary just being blah these days. When I look back, as you do, saki, I knew instantly she was attracted to Pamuck. Sure, the script and direction clubbed us over the head :), AND I know Pamuck is controversial, but looking back, Dockery played it. Matthew was in the mix but I totally bought Mary was distracted by this hot Turkish guy, really giving him the once over and excited by his flirtations. She also had a lively dynamic with the Duke she didn't know was gay. She may have had all kinds of conflicts about marriage and Matthew, but she came across young and not as in control and above-it-all as she wanted to be.These cute guys could get her going.

 

She didn't seem the least bit excited about her sex week with Gillingham. It was so clinical. That's kind of bizarre. Yeah, obviously it didn't do anything for her, but she didn't appear particularly into it even before.

 

Yeah, she's not in her forties or fifties, she's 33ish. It's common for people who were happily married to want to remarry - almost more likely than people who were unhappy, is what I've read. I have no problem with that, don't need the pretense that she has to remarry for power and prestige. She doesn't need marriage for that. But, this set up was so bizarre. Three men appeared almost at the same time, all declaring themselves for her in one way or another. Then she set about deciding. How about "none"? and waiting for some guy who IS right. How about actually having a discreet affair with neither party looking at it as a preliminary to marriage vows? How about Mary showing that she has a pulse so we know why she wants to remarry without relying on what Fellowes tells us? Even when she says "I want to be as happy as I was in my first marriage." it's so robotic. Last time I felt anything from her was that lovely scene with Isobel and Tom, where each recalled their great loves. The fact that Tom loved Sybil and is struggling now doesn't prevent Allen Leach from having a pulse on screen. The fact that Isobel has lost her only child didn't make her a somnambulant wraith like Mary. I believe Tom loved Sybil/knows he'll remarry some day/is still a full-blooded human being living in the present. I believe Isobel felt the loss of her only child to her core, and it's her unselfishness, her interest in others, her beliefs and her generosity that have carried her through and kept her really engaged in life, still witty, still competitive, still kind. Mary, I don't know what with her.

[saki]

It would just be nice to see Mary have some enthusiasm for anything at all - her baby, the estate, even a nice dress...  

 

It feels like we get quite a lot of Sybbie but very little of George - have we seen Isobel interact with him at all this season?

[ZoloftBlob]

Have we actually seen Mary hold George beyond his being born? ;)

 

Not exactly suffering from tied apron strings, now is he?

[saki]

I feel like we once saw Mary pick him up..  I can't remember in which episode.  I doubt he recognises her, to be honest.  Which is in character for Mary but I don't think Isobel would be so distant with her grandson.

[Avaleigh]

I didn't need details about Shrimpie's divorce. Last time we saw them, it was the most miserable marriage on the planet. They just did a stint together in India where, based on his wife's attitude going in, things did not improve. It's not the sort of situation that needs details, IMO. He's miserable, he decided to divorce. Not as common as today, but not unheard of.

 

It isn't that I find their decision to be unbelievable. I agree that it was obvious that they couldn't stand each other and were only putting up with each other out of obligation. I'm just curious as to what finally happened to give them the push and courage of going through a divorce since they were both resistant to the idea for years. Shrimpy knows his career is going to take a hit and his career is one of the few things he has going for him so that's a big thing to give up. Obviously, he and his wife are also both going to have to deal with long-term social consequences, and it's probably going to be more expensive for them to live apart rather than together and we know that they're already having financial difficulties. To me that they're suddenly ready and willing to deal with these problems as long as it means that they don't need to be around each other anymore suggests that something extra might have happened to give them the push and make them feel that it would be better for everyone involved for the marriage to end sooner rather than later.

Also, just to be clear, I wasn't trying to suggest that this should be a long story with sordid details, I was just hoping for a bit more clarification during his conversation with Robert. Shrimpy could have acknowledged that his marriage was in the same state from when they all went to stay in Scotland or maybe even worse. Robert could have asked about why they're going through with it all now and Shrimpy could have explained something along the lines about how one evening something happened (maybe seeing another unhappy couple snapped their own situation into focus) and they both finally realized that it isn't too late for them to salvage some measure of happiness even if that means making some big changes and adjustments.

One of the reasons I was hoping that Shrimpy would be more specific is because I was hoping it would get Robert to reflect again on how lucky he's been with the success of his own marriage especially in comparison to the marriage of Shrimpy and his wife.(Sorry, I'm blanking on her name right now and can't recall their title.) Somebody needs to give Robert a clue that Cora has other options. She might have to leave her money on the table* and she cares about what society thinks, true, but I'm not convinced that she wouldn't seriously consider bolting if the opportunity seemed attractive and sensible enough. Robert continues to be disappointing and even Violet can see why Cora would resent constantly feeling as though her opinion is of no matter or that she's somehow too frail or delicate to be able to handle discussing anything related to the running of the estate.

I also feel bad for Cora in that she doesn't really have a confidante on this show. Even Edith has Violet and Rosamund and can be honest with them about her feelings. It's too bad Cora never really hit it off with Isobel. They get along fine but they aren't close IMO and I think someone like Isobel could be helpful just in terms of Cora having someone to talk to about her occasional frustrations. I also wish that Isobel had somebody other than Violet to confide in about Lord Merton. Now that I think about it though I guess Robert doesn't really have a confidante either unless we count Mary.

 

*I'm sure that Cora's mother and brother would be financially supportive if a divorce ended up happening.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Avaleigh

[ZulaMay]

It would just be nice to see Mary have some enthusiasm for anything at all - her baby, the estate, even a nice dress...  

 

It feels like we get quite a lot of Sybbie but very little of George - have we seen Isobel interact with him at all this season?

This is what bothers me about Mary.  She seems perpetually bored.  She was never animated like Rose or Sybil but she had a certain playfulness and an undercurrent of emotion.  Now she doesn't seem to take pleasure in anything or, conversely, to feel any pain.  Hook her up to a monitor and you'd basically get a flat line with a small, random blip here and there.  

 

She did get a bit excited about one of the dresses at the fashion show, I think.  Didn't she say "Oh, yummy"?  But even that was said without barely a trace of enthusiasm.

 

And she seems to feel that way about the men too.  Well, Tony anyway.  With Blake she seems to be feeling her way.  I think he intrigues her a bit?  

 

You know, a lot of people said that MD was carrying the weight in the M/M relationship in terms of establishing chemistry and connection, etc.  Dan was clearly bored in S3.  But looking back I think he did not get nearly the credit he deserved.  He carried his weight just fine.  These guys?  Not so much.  Although I do think JO is doing a better job.  He's not Matthew and that's OK.  Maybe I just prefer him to the other guy, IDK. 

[DianeDobbler]

One of the reasons I was hoping that Shrimpy would be more specific is because I was hoping it would get Robert to reflect again on how lucky he's been with the success of his own marriage especially in comparison to the marriage of Shrimpy and his wife.(Sorry, I'm blanking on her name right now and can't recall their title.)

 

Didn't Robert actually do that when they were visiting the Shrimpies? (I'm blanking just like you on names). The marriage was so horrible, and Robert had a front row seat. I have this memory of him being extra affectionate/loving to Cora later on, so grateful he loved his wife and wasn't stuck in a nightmare like Mr. and Mrs. Shrimpie. Articulated it and everything. I could have dreamt this. :)

 

I never really gave Cora much thought once the writers gave up trying to write her mean-ish compared to Robert (she used to say quasi chilly things about Bates and the servants, and was pretty acid about Mary and Pamuck, stuff like that). When Downton did heavy drama Cora/McGovern would come across as out of it, but over time I've learned to appreciate aspects of Elizabeth McGovern's acting, particularly such as scenes with Baxter, or dealing with servant stuff, and years after Mary/Pamuck when she finally lets Robert in on it. I also just loved her walk/conversation with the art dealer.

 

I think the sometimes dismissive writing of Cora has come out of the dismissive attitude towards McGovern's acting. I certainly subscribed to that dismissive attitude, but just as I believe now there may be a little more ability there than I thought, it sort of dovetails with Cora not being appreciated/taken for granted, and it's working. I believe the story. Even though it's been going on for years with Cora not taken seriously, maybe because McGovern wasn't considered to have much to offer, now for Downton Abbey to be making the whole McGovern/Cora thing part of its "text", works.

 

P.S. - oh boy, when you look back at Dan Stevens, "carrying his weight" is underplaying it. He invested a lot of energy, passion, and nuance into it. I had no idea people credited mostly Dockery. Stevens would make what he said mean something and tell something about what Matthew was thinking and feeling. I recently did check back, and was startled by his ability to bring his character and his dialogue to life, and lord knows, some of it was painful in S2 and S3. He may have been bored but compared to some of the acting now, including the new guys, he's all in.

Edited October 17, 2014 by DianeDobbler

[Llywela]

If I recall correctly, Mrs Shrimpie was called Susan.

 

Maybe it was O'Brien who tipped the balance in the marriage. Like...Susan was bad enough on her own, but with O'Brien's poisonous tongue dripping venom in her ear, Shrimpie finally decided he couldn't take any more, it was the final straw that broke the camel's back. And being so far from home can't have helped, away from their familiar routines and escapes. I can believe that transplanting a failing marriage to a new setting might have hastened its demise.

[Avaleigh]

Didn't Robert actually do that when they were visiting the Shrimpies? (I'm blanking just like you on names). The marriage was so horrible, and Robert had a front row seat. I have this memory of him being extra affectionate/loving to Cora later on, so grateful he loved his wife and wasn't stuck in a nightmare like Mr. and Mrs. Shrimpie. Articulated it and everything. I could have dreamt this. :)

Yes, that's why I said "reflect again". It's almost like Robert has forgotten how lucky he is and I was hoping the conversation might end up reminding him.

 

I never really gave Cora much thought once the writers gave up trying to write her mean-ish compared to Robert (she used to say quasi chilly things about Bates and the servants, and was pretty acid about Mary and Pamuck, stuff like that). When Downton did heavy drama Cora/McGovern would come across as out of it, but over time I've learned to appreciate aspects of Elizabeth McGovern's acting, particularly such as scenes with Baxter, or dealing with servant stuff, and years after Mary/Pamuck when she finally lets Robert in on it. I also just loved her walk/conversation with the art dealer.

I think the sometimes dismissive writing of Cora has come out of the dismissive attitude towards McGovern's acting. I certainly subscribed to that dismissive attitude, but just as I believe now there may be a little more ability there than I thought, it sort of dovetails with Cora not being appreciated/taken for granted, and it's working. I believe the story. Even though it's been going on for years with Cora not taken seriously, maybe because McGovern wasn't considered to have much to offer, now for Downton Abbey to be making the whole McGovern/Cora thing part of its "text", works.

 

 

I didn't warm to Cora until the second season. I was firmly on her side during her conflicts with Isobel but didn't warm to her character fully until she was struck with Spanish Flu. I didn't think they'd actually kill her but the moment when the blood started pouring out of her nostrils I do remember feeling worried and hoped that she'd pull through. Ever since then, I feel like I've liked her and appreciate what she brings to the show. 

 

I think Mary and Dan were both great in their scenes together. For me it isn't a contest. 

 

As for Mary not showing pleasure in things, I think it's understandable that she'd be different now than she was seasons ago. The disappointment of Matthew left it's mark so this makes sense to me. 

 

I do think that she's shown joy in certain scenes though and she isn't the sort of character that I expect to go above and beyond when it comes it comes to being especially demonstrative of her happiness. Even in some of the scenes from past seasons where she's supposed to be at her happiest she's still fairly cool and measured. This season I think she seems happy in the scenes where the children come to visit; I thought she seemed happy during the dress show and I thought she seemed happy when she was initially talking about Rosamund's invite; I thought she's seemed happy in her scenes with Blake and there was a hint of teasing I thought when she mentioned that he was taking the news better than Gillingham would; I also thought there was a similar hint of teasing when Mary was talking to Violet about Violet's "past" with the prince; even the scene with Robert where she talks about how she's been looking into crop rotation or whatever--in a moment like that she seems like someone who is reasonably content with her life and is happy that she has found a solid role for herself at Downton. In the brief conversation that Mary and Edith have where Mary comments on Edith's low spirits, I felt like the implication there was that Edith is the only member in the house above the stairs who is visibly down and that everyone else, while they still also have their own problems, is more or less in reasonably good spirits including Mary. So far Mary is smiling a lot more this season than she was at the beginning of last season so I'm not sure that I agree that she's a character who doesn't take pleasure in anything. I just don't think that she's naturally inclined to be particularly demonstrative when it comes to showing pleasure and happiness--it doesn't mean that she is incapable of feeling that way. JMO.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Avaleigh

[ZulaMay]

Didn't Robert actually do that when they were visiting the Shrimpies? (I'm blanking just like you on names). The marriage was so horrible, and Robert had a front row seat. I have this memory of him being extra affectionate/loving to Cora later on, so grateful he loved his wife and wasn't stuck in a nightmare like Mr. and Mrs. Shrimpie. Articulated it and everything. I could have dreamt this. :)

 

I never really gave Cora much thought once the writers gave up trying to write her mean-ish compared to Robert (she used to say quasi chilly things about Bates and the servants, and was pretty acid about Mary and Pamuck, stuff like that). When Downton did heavy drama Cora/McGovern would come across as out of it, but over time I've learned to appreciate aspects of Elizabeth McGovern's acting, particularly such as scenes with Baxter, or dealing with servant stuff, and years after Mary/Pamuck when she finally lets Robert in on it. I also just loved her walk/conversation with the art dealer.

 

I think the sometimes dismissive writing of Cora has come out of the dismissive attitude towards McGovern's acting. I certainly subscribed to that dismissive attitude, but just as I believe now there may be a little more ability there than I thought, it sort of dovetails with Cora not being appreciated/taken for granted, and it's working. I believe the story. Even though it's been going on for years with Cora not taken seriously, maybe because McGovern wasn't considered to have much to offer, now for Downton Abbey to be making the whole McGovern/Cora thing part of its "text", works.

 

P.S. - oh boy, when you look back at Dan Stevens, "carrying his weight" is underplaying it. He invested a lot of energy, passion, and nuance into it. I had no idea people credited mostly Dockery. Stevens would make what he said mean something and tell something about what Matthew was thinking and feeling. I recently did check back, and was startled by his ability to bring his character and his dialogue to life, and lord knows, some of it was painful in S2 and S3. He may have been bored but compared to some of the acting now, including the new guys, he's all in.

I think people really liked Matthew/Stevens but she was the one who got the Emmy noms.  And Jim Carter for God's sake...but not Stevens.  And when I look back on it I think it had nothing to do with his acting and everything to do with the writing.  Matthew was a bit too perfect, I guess, but in Dan's hands he never seemed that way.  Decent, gentlemanly, upright and all that, and with a fundamentally sunny disposition.  He was a lot like his mother IMO.  But he could also be priggish and prickly and too noble by half.  He was a character in his own right but more and more he was written as a satellite to Mary.  He did his best with it but there is only so much you can do.

 

I do remember some people giving her more credit and again, she was the one who got nominated.  But maybe that was because he made his job look easy when in fact it wasn't at all.

 

And as a Sybil/JBF fan I would say that some people said she was "too perfect" and that made her boring, that she had no charisma.  But I disagree.  I actually like Rose but she doesn't have the gravitas that Sybil had.  JBF managed to make her sweet and animated but with a kind of principled stubbornness.  Rose is stubborn and sweet too, and again I like her but she just can't fill the void.

 

BUT I will say Lily James is better as Rose than JO or TC are in their roles.   But that's probably not fair, since Rose gets different storylines and all they do is circle Mary.

Edited October 18, 2014 by ZulaMay

[lottiedottie]

TV guide has a new episode at 8 *and* 9 pm tonight. Is the synopsis for the 8pm episode from last week's episode? I can't tell if it's actually a new one or not.

For the 8pm episode:

Mary and Lord Gillingham's love is tested; and Bates also faces a trial. In other events, Cora makes a new friend while Violet is reunited with an old one.

 

And the 9 pm:

Lord Merton stuns Isobel; Mary has bad news for Tony; the police continue their investigation; and Robert and Sarah lock horns.

 

Can anyone clarify  this for me?

[Zahdii]

My PBS station only has one show listed for tonight:

 

New, 1/25/2015, Anthology, Drama, Literature
While Lord Merton shares some overwhelming news with Isobel Crawley, Mary Crawley does the same with Tony; the police grow more suspicious as they continue to investigate an unexplained death; Robert and Sarah get into an argument.

[chessiegal]

My PBS station is routinely running last week's episode at 8, with a new one at 9. The on-line guide does not have the 8 pm episode as "new". We've been watching the reruns because we find we miss so much with the British accents and our pellet stove roaring away to keep us warm. :)

[lottiedottie]

My PBS station is routinely running last week's episode at 8, with a new one at 9. The on-line guide does not have the 8 pm episode as "new". We've been watching the reruns because we find we miss so much with the British accents and our pellet stove roaring away to keep us warm. :)

We have two PBS stations on my cable, one only lists the 9pm episode, the other lists one at 8 and 9, both new. It must just be mislabeled. Thanks!

[CeeBeeGee]

DAMN can my Edith get a BREAK?  The crushed look on her face when the Dowager C put her in her place...Et tu, Granny?

 

Say yes, Isobel!!!!!  He is awesome!

 

Matthew mention!  Lady Mary: "When Matthew died...."

 

Does Tom have a heroin addiction?

 

Why can't Robert be nice like that to my Edith more often?  When he bestirs himself he can be so loving.

 

Re: Archie: Beautifully put, Mrs. Patmore.

 

I love how after Isobel "insists" that Miss Bunting be invited AGAIN, both men gulp brandy in unison.

 

Dowager C: "I never take sides in a broken marriage"--does she know that many???  They were VERY rare back then!

[MrsRafaelBarba]

Best moments of this episode....

Lord Merton proposing to Isobel.

Lord Jackass verbally dragging Miss Bunting's ass, then throwing her out.

Tony is going to be a problem, watch out Mary!

[LittleIggy]

Man, Robert kept me going back and forth! I cheered him for what he said to Mrs. Patmore and for yelling at Miss Can't You Just STFU Bunting, then booed him for his treatment of Cora and the art historian.

Say "Yes" Isobel!

[Primetimer]

As Cora gets woo pitched at her some more, The Dowager C pulls strings for her old side piece, and Lord G and Sarah Bunting have their most vicious showdown yet!

Read the story

[stopeslite]

Oh, EDITH. Jeez. Take the kid already. Put us all out of our misery.

 

I really hate Bunting. 

 

Stop making me feel sorry for Thomas! 

 

Mary - eh, who cares. 

 

Isobel - DO IT. 

 

Violet so slept with the Prince, I'm sure of it.

 

ETA: The loveliest framing moment was when Cora turned her head after being ignored, and then the camera panned to Edith in the same pose. I really wanted the two of them to notice each other and how they were both invisible and have a heart to heart about SOMETHING, for pete's sake. I can't remember the last time we saw Cora even talk to Edith. But no, camera panned away and moment lost. 

Edited January 26, 2015 by stopeslite

[Greta]

That Bunting cow reminds me of a certain subset of people I've met who rant on about the environment and then toss their plastic water bottles in the regular trash when the recycling bin is 9 inches farther away.  She behaves exactly as she accuses the aristocracy of behaving, with no real regard for people as human beings.  If Lord Grantham really was the ogre she claimed, that stunt at dinner could have cost Daisy her job and gotten her tossed out without a reference.  Or maybe that's what she wanted so she could a) smug about it to Tom and b) have a story she could self-righteously tell about the Evils of the Granthams to her fellow travelers. I really, really want Tom to just snap and tell her that she has not only completely inspired him to become a complete British loyalist and member of the Conservative Party but also gay (his couple name with Barrow can be...Tom Barrow), because she is just that unattractive in mind, spirit and body.  Again, I really enjoy my hatred of this trashy heifer.  She's the '20s Britain version of Alexis Davis from General Hospital.

 

Say yes, Isobel! 

 

I'm surprisingly really invested in this Barrow and Baxter story.

[Popples]

Can Bunting just go already? She just doesn't know when to quit, she just had to keep needling Robert. What the hell did she hope to accomplish? She was actually astonished that Mary knew Daisy's name, but just couldn't resist pointing out that Robert probably didn't. She needs a date with the "Bus of Justice" in the worst way. When people tell Tom he should invite her, I wish he would just wait a couple of hours and lie and say she couldn't make it.

 

Isobel, please say yes! Lord Merton's proposal was so incredibly sweet.

 

Lots of Isis and Sybbie's "Hi Donk!" were highlights for me.

 

I didn't recognize Shrimpie, but I have an awful memory for faces and Downton's wiki tells me it's the same actor. I kind of hope he stays for at least another episode.