S05.E04: Episode Four

[hendersonrocks]

Sarah Bunting caused Grantham to have a total meltdown at dinner in front of guests??? What a baby he is.

 

Yes, he's a baby...but this is the what, third or fourth time she's done virtually the exact same thing? I think most of us hit some kind of breaking point when someone continues to poke us in that one spot in which they know full well we hate to be poked. 

Edited January 27, 2015 by hendersonrocks

[dustoffmom]

Just three things I haven't seen discussed here....but well could have missed it if they have been mentioned:

1) In the drawing room before dinner, or maybe library, when Tom or Mary reminded Robert they had a meeting the next day with the man who wanted to buy the land for the new houses.  Cora quickly turned to them and said to please tell her more about it and she wanted to hear the pros and cons (in so many words) and Robert immediately shut her down saying it was not her concern.  No wonder she had such a disgusted/angry look on her face and was happily chatting with the art man and snapping at Robert!  It seems to me she is much more interested than he ever wants her to be and she is getting about sick and tired of the 'little addlebra

ined woman' role.  Is her Mother coming out in her??

2) My impression was that Carson and Mrs. Hughes had an agreement of sorts to swamp Mosley with work to attempt to break him of his "Title" in the downstairs preoccupation.  I felt they do not expect the 'first footman' to really shoulder everything but he was so insistent that he should have the title they would make it as disagreeable as possible.  I note both of them offering little smug grins after his exasperation.

3) My impression of Blake and Mary's talk on how to break it to Tony gracefully was he was hinting that she should tell Tony that she had decided to accept Blakes proposal and that was why she was breaking it off with him.  Blake said something to the effect that there was an easier way to do so and when she said she couldn't think what it was he wryly said 'don't you' with that look.

And one last thought....I find Violet and Isobel already friends who still snipe at each other now and then.  When they went to the church to see the Russians I thought Isobel was nothing but supportive and kind.  Against what either of them ever dreamed, they are confidants and real friends these days.  Although neither would want to admit it!  :)

[SusanSunflower]

me too:

 

3) My impression of Blake and Mary's talk on how to break it to Tony gracefully was he was hinting that she should tell Tony that she had decided to accept Blakes proposal and that was why she was breaking it off with him.  Blake said something to the effect that there was an easier way to do so and when she said she couldn't think what it was he wryly said 'don't you' with that look.

 

because then all of Gillingham's anger might have been directed at Blake (although what Blake would think after he learned that Mary had spent the preceding week in G's bed, I don't know, except I suspect he would think that G was an absolutely abysmal lay.) What G is going to think when he hears of Mary meeting up with Blake at a fashion show, and having dinner together (yes, that same dinner) the night before she dumped him ... much less if Blake prematurely blabbed to friends about G's impending status of "ditched"  -- Seriously bad form 

Edited January 27, 2015 by SusanSunflower

[mac]

I didn't see Gillingham's reaction as creepy or irrational. Rather, I thought that it was understandable. Mary blindsided him. He really didn't have the opportunity to process what she said at all. For him, it came out of the blue. What should he have said? Maybe, "Jolly good then. Thanks for the memories.".

Not that I don't think Lord Gillingham is without a dark side. I think the police officer was watching his residence because they are suspicious of him with regard to some investigation, either the death of a Green or something else.

[madam magpie]

As I understand it, blaming the Treaty of Versaille in 1919 for WWII was part of the general rehabilitation of Germany's image after two world wars -- and spread the blame for the failure of the post-WWI leaders at Versaille to forge a lasting peace.  WWI ended in an armistice (rather than a defeat) which was not terribly satisfying for many of those who lived in countries devastated by the fighting , not only casualties but the destruction of infrastructure, like railroad lines and roads, munitions left in agricultural fields turned battle grounds. Germany's infrastructure was largely unscathed -- which was why they were "made to pay." There are revisionist views about just how much of this blame is based in reality. Still being rehashed. 

 

ETA:  for conservatives and isolationists, blaming Versaille became proxy for blaming Wilson and his idealism, League of Nations, etc. 

 

On some level, this is true. Since WWII hadn't happened yet in the 1920s, there's no way anyone at the time could blame it on the Treaty of Versailles. What's untrue is that concern over what Germany would do as a result of the severe reparations imposed on it after WWI is a modern creation. During the negotiation of Versailles, many people discussed that topic. The American population was divided over it. American politicians debated it. Keynes wrote a book about it. There was a great deal of concern that ultimately proved to be valid, of course. But at the time, it was just an opinion—similar to the debate today over whether or not the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq has saved the western world from more extreme terrorist attacks. Time will tell, but right now, it's just a discussion, fight, and debate among people interested in politics. Certainly many people take a side, though, and despite what the media tells us, not everyone's opinion fits the stereotype of his or her financial and social position.

 

A quick internet search tells me that the roots of fascism trace back to around the turn of the 20th century, it was on the rise in Italy after WWI, and the ideology rejected communism, democracy, and the bourgeoisie. It also promoted violence and war. Given those facts, it certainly seems possible to me that an upper-class Brit would consider fascism a negative thing in 1924. Others probably weren't worried. Like the effect of Versailles, all that was just opinion in 1924.

 

Robert is a man who doesn't like change. From what I can tell, the rise of extremism (including fascism) in Europe during the 1920s was a common subject of discussion and was threatening huge change. I have no trouble believing he was aware of the politics of the day and see no reason that he'd be anything but against it all.

[MonicaM]

I don't understand why Isobel isn't interested in marrying again.  She and Dr. Clarkson would have been a wonderful couple with so much in common, yet she made it clear to him she didn't want a proposal.  Now she has yet another suitor who proposed marriage before she could shut him down, and she clearly wants to say no.  It's not as if anyone is after her for social status or money.  Her only child is dead and she rarely sees her grandchild - it would seem to me that she'd welcome the opportunity to share her life with someone.  

 

This season seems to be plodding along so slowly!  This program used to be priority viewing at our house, now we save it for times when we're too tired to do anything else so we fire up the DVR.  

[madam magpie]

I don't understand why Isobel isn't interested in marrying again.  She and Dr. Clarkson would have been a wonderful couple with so much in common, yet she made it clear to him she didn't want a proposal.  Now she has yet another suitor who proposed marriage before she could shut him down, and she clearly wants to say no.  It's not as if anyone is after her for social status or money.  Her only child is dead and she rarely sees her grandchild - it would seem to me that she'd welcome the opportunity to share her life with someone. 

 

Maybe she just likes being alone? Scandalous, I know, but plausible.

[mac]

Robert grew up as the entitled heir and, as we keep seeing, the times they are a changin'. He is a sensitive sort and quite ego driven. For all that sensitivity, he can also be insensitive when it comes to the feelings of other people. He'll tromp on another person's ego quick enough. But I really don't think he intends to do so. He just doesn't know anything else. Robert is getting longer in the tooth and he's very confused about the direction the world is going.

But Sarah Bunting is so extremely rude and obnoxious that Robert would have to be cool beyond belief to not be annoyed by the things she says. She's certainly entitled to her opinions, but there is a time and a place to express them.

[RedHawk]

My impression from Violet's demurral wrt to the Prince and learning her husband's "true nature in time" was , in fact, her marriage was quite unhappy. She did not learn "his true nature" in time and at least part of the Prince's attraction was because she longed to leave ... the frame was a firm reminder that if she did, she would never see her children again.

 

 

I picked up on the first part, that Violet was not at all happy in her marriage, that it was probably a loveless one and he may even have been cruel or gay or just cold and unaffectionate. Yet I didn't quite realize the deeper implications of the framed photo. Violet's Lord Grantham would certainly not have packed the kids up and sent them to Russia every summer and alternate Christmases. He was reminding her 1) that she had children she no doubt loved and 2) that she would likely be giving up all contact with them if she ran away with the prince. 

[ennui]

It's hard to read Violet's motivation.  Isobel's grandchild is at Downton -- which as far as I can tell -- with Fellowes translating -- would appear to matter to her not at all. She'll care more when George is in school, perhaps, reading, talking and thinking.  

If Isobel married very well, Violet might deign to visit; which she would not do if Isobel married Dr. Clarkson and stayed in Downton (no reason, no big house). Clarkson's a great match -- except his track record as Violet's pet doctor suggests he is weak. I think Isobel knows this.  

Since Isobel appears midway between Violet and Cora in age, perhaps she simply does not want Isobel to retire from life prematurely, as she did.

My impression from Violet's demurral wrt to the Prince and learning her husband's "true nature in time" was , in fact, her marriage was quite unhappy. She did not learn "his true nature" in time and at least part of the Prince's attraction was because she longed to leave ... the frame was a firm reminder that if she did, she would never see her children again. (It was very very long ago.) I think she feels somewhat guilty towards the Prince's (now missing) wife whom she treated like inconvenient furniture.  Perhaps we will learn more, but I'm guessing the wife was aware that she had captured her husband's heart. 

Oh, wow. That's not how I interpreted it at all.

 

I thought "true nature" was a positive. My take -- Violet was young and bored, probably in an arranged marriage, and the Russian seemed dashing and exotic. The photograph of her children reminded her that she had a good husband, and a family, and a place where she belonged. Violet might have thought the grass was greener, but she wasn't really giving her husband a chance, and he was a good man. Perhaps his fine qualities weren't obvious until she looked for them. I think "true nature in time" meant that she almost made a horrible mistake, but didn't.

Edited January 27, 2015 by ennui

[jnymph]

I don't understand why Isobel isn't interested in marrying again.  She and Dr. Clarkson would have been a wonderful couple with so much in common, yet she made it clear to him she didn't want a proposal.  

 

Did I miss something ?  Did Dr. Clarkson insinuate a proposal to Isobel and she shut him down ?

I can understand someone wanting to be alone, but it seems like her and the good Doc have a great chemistry !   Boo !

 

 

As for this episode, I missed something here too.  I was completely baffled as to why Carson/Hughes were messin' w/ Molesly.   Seemed cruel and out of character.

 

So now Edith is a stalker.  Nice.    Mrs. Drew is fast becoming my favorite character; especially after basically shutting the door in Edith's face.

Edited January 27, 2015 by jnymph

[helenamonster]

Did I miss something ?  Did Dr. Clarkson insinuate a proposal to Isobel and she shut him down ?

I can understand someone wanting to be alone, but it seems like her and the good Doc have a great chemistry !   Boo !

 

Yes, Dr. Clarkson insinuated a proposal during the S3 CS when he and Isobel were at the fair. He got interrupted when Jimmy came running after Thomas saved him from being mugged. Later, I think at Isobel's house, she let him know that she wasn't interested in marriage again. I can't remember if she said why.

 

While part of me really wants Isobel and Dr. Clarkson to be endgame, Lord Merton is such a sweetie pie that I don't want him to go either. I realize they just brought him in when unforeseen circumstances left the actor who plays Dr. Clarkson unavailable (the sudden death of his wife), but I think it still really works. Oh well. I'll be happy if she ends up with either of them, or if she just decides she'd rather not marry anyone. They both seem like the type who would take the rejection in stride and still come around for tea as friends.

[Llywela]

Oh, wow. That's not how I interpreted it at all.

 

I thought "true nature" was a positive. My take -- Violet was young and bored, probably in an arranged marriage, and the Russian seemed dashing and exotic. The photograph of her children reminded her that she had a good husband, and a family, and a place where she belonged. Violet might have thought the grass was greener, but she wasn't really giving her husband a chance, and he was a good man. Perhaps his fine qualities weren't obvious until she looked for them. I think "true nature in time" meant that she almost made a horrible mistake, but didn't.

I think this is true.

 

But it is also true that if Violet had left her husband for the Russian prince, she would not have been able to take her children with her (they weren't even in the country with her to be taken), and most likely would never have seen them again.

[stopeslite]

 

Is her Mother coming out in her??

Oh, if Cora is of an age where she's turning into her mother, this show could get good. I would love to see Elizabeth McGovern imitate brassy Shirley Maclaine!

 

I also took Violet's speech as her saying she dodged a bullet by not running off with the prince - that she didn't care much for her husband, but as the years went by she appreciated and loved him more. We know how much she cared about her children; she spent a scandalous 15 minutes per day with them when it was unheard of to be so involved! :) 

[Andorra]

I never assumed that Violet's marriage was happy. She has always made remarks that indicated otherwise. I remember in S3 when Rose first appeared, where she said that she "spent many happy evenings with Lord Grantham" by "smiling" while she didn't "understand a word" he was saying.

[Avaleigh]

Oh, if Cora is of an age where she's turning into her mother, this show could get good. I would love to see Elizabeth McGovern imitate brassy Shirley Maclaine!

I also took Violet's speech as her saying she dodged a bullet by not running off with the prince - that she didn't care much for her husband, but as the years went by she appreciated and loved him more. We know how much she cared about her children; she spent a scandalous 15 minutes per day with them when it was unheard of to be so involved! :)

Now, now it was a full hour every day. Violet was devoted! ;-) Edited January 27, 2015 by Avaleigh

[Andorra]

 

Now, now it was a full hour every day. Violet was devoted! ;-)

 

I always think people are making too big a deal out of the children being raised by Nannies in Downton. Where's the difference to modern childcare? I think most full time working people are not spending significantly more time with their children to be honest.

[Calamity Jane]

That was the fashionable silhouette in the '20s. I don't find the style hideous at all.

It was a running gag in the old movie "Thoroughly Modern Millie," set in the 20's  --  the character Millie couldn't keep her beads perfectly straight because she actually had boobs. 

[Constantinople]

A quick internet search tells me that the roots of fascism trace back to around the turn of the 20th century, it was on the rise in Italy after WWI, and the ideology rejected communism, democracy, and the bourgeoisie. It also promoted violence and war. Given those facts, it certainly seems possible to me that an upper-class Brit would consider fascism a negative thing in 1924. Others probably weren't worried. Like the effect of Versailles, all that was just opinion in 1924.

 

Robert is a man who doesn't like change. From what I can tell, the rise of extremism (including fascism) in Europe during the 1920s was a common subject of discussion and was threatening huge change. I have no trouble believing he was aware of the politics of the day and see no reason that he'd be anything but against it all.

 

 

In 12 years Robert never once expressed an interest in

 

• the causes of the war
• the disestablishment of the Church of England in Wales
• Home Rule for Ireland, the Curragh mutiny, the Easter Rising, and the partition of Ireland
• the Royal family changing its name to Windsor
• the Amritsar massacre or the burgeoning movement for Indian independence
• the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian and Turkish empires, and the British carve out of Iraq, Kuwait and other states from the latter.
• the abdication of the Kaiser, and the abolition of the monarchy in Germany
• the Balfour declaration and the creation of the states of Iraq, Kuwait and other countries in the Middle East
• the Paris Peace Conference
• the identify of the Prime Minister of Britain, Asquith's replacement by Lloyd George or the break-up of Lloyd George's coalition government
• Mussolini's March on Rome
• attending a session of the House of Lords, though he is a member
• any matter before Parliament except, perhaps, whether women should have a right to vote, and only then in response to hearing Edith's opinion.

 

 

But now I'm to believe that not only has Robert classified the National Socialist German Workers' Party as fascist organization, but he thinks that fascism is bad because it's anti-communist, as is Robert; anti-democratic, as if Robert ever cared about promoting democracy in Germany or Italy, or even Britain, for that matter; anti-bourgeoisie, about which Robert appears to be indifferent (he certainly doesn't identify himself as such).

That's too much for me.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Constantinople

[ennui]

I think this is true.

 

But it is also true that if Violet had left her husband for the Russian prince, she would not have been able to take her children with her (they weren't even in the country with her to be taken), and most likely would never have seen them again.

Aside from not seeing them, Violet would have caused her children to grow up under the cloud of scandal, and we know how these people keep up appearances. They are even trying to talk Shrimpie out of divorce; "just live apart."   

[majormama]

My view of Violet is colored by her being pretty much exactly what my grandmother would be if she'd married rich. Because of that, I tend to think she doesn't care whether Isobel marries Lord Merton, Dr Clarkson, or no one; she just really enjoys messing with her.

 

I suddenly realized during this episode, Bates doesn't walk with a limp anymore. Shows you how much I pay attention to him, I have no idea how long that's been the case. He had a cane in S1, and his being a cripple was a huge deal. I seem to remember him limping sans cane while walking around the prison yard. Now there's no hint of it. For some reason I had thought his injury was something permanent, though I can't even remember how he was supposed to have been injured in the first place, but I guess 10 years of healing has taken care of it.

[izabella]

This framed photograph people are referring to that the late Earl gave Violet?  I thought Violet said he had given her one of those fabulous Faberge eggs, with small pics of the children embedded in it.  Am I imagining I heard that?  Did anyone else hear her say this?

Edited January 28, 2015 by izabella

[Avaleigh]

I thought the frame was by Faberge.

[RedHawk]

I suddenly realized during this episode, Bates doesn't walk with a limp anymore.

 

 

Actually, when he went into the room and offered to help Anna with her chores (polishing shoes?), he was limping slightly and he had his cane, which he put aside. I'd also noticed in previous episodes that he rarely limped and I didn't remember seeing a cane often. Eh, it comes and goes with the weather I guess.

 

Now that I think of it, was he at Piccadilly Circus with his cane? That would have been something memorable about a suspect. Perhaps he was smart enough not to carry one and to try to hide his limp. 

 

Also, we never see any sign of Thomas' hand injury do we? And wasn't he disfigured enough to need to use a glove to hide the ugly from the delicate upper classes? I try now and then to spot a glove and never do, although I think he wears them while serving but all the footmen do.

Edited January 28, 2015 by RedHawk

[ennui]

I thought the frame was by Faberge.

Yes.

[chessiegal]

Thomas is wearing some kind of covering on his hand that covers most of it except his fingers past about the last joint. It is beige. I noticed it several times in this episode.

Edited January 28, 2015 by chessiegal

[izabella]

Thank you for the clarity on the Faberge frame!

[CleoCaesar]

nvm

Edited January 28, 2015 by CleoCaesar

[Mrsjumbo]

I can suspend belief & imagine that Robert talks politics with the boys in his gentleman's club. and doesn't really discuss it at home, except when that is the subject-as in Edith bringing up Germany.

[Abstract]

If this were real life, all Mary's suitors would be dead or disabled from the war, and she would be pining for a proposal from Lord Merton.

So frustrated with all the gerbil wheel plots. It's the exact opposite of sitcom syndrome where everything is wrapped up in 30 minutes.

[txhorns79]

If this were real life, all Mary's suitors would be dead or disabled from the war, and she would be pining for a proposal from Lord Merton.

 

World War I was incredibly destructive in wiping out a generation of men, but it wasn't like every single man who fought in the war either died or was injured.  Though I do like the idea of Mary having zombie suitors.  I can imagine the reaction: "Even the dead don't want to marry Lady Edith!" 

 

 

I always think people are making too big a deal out of the children being raised by Nannies in Downton. Where's the difference to modern childcare? I think most full time working people are not spending significantly more time with their children to be honest.

 

I think the difference is that Mary and Tom clearly have a lot of free time, and specifically choose to have limited interaction with their kids, while someone who has to work doesn't have that same choice.   

[JudyObscure]

I can suspend belief & imagine that Robert talks politics with the boys in his gentleman's club. and doesn't really discuss it at home, except when that is the subject-as in Edith bringing up Germany.

He probably tells himself not to discuss these things at home  because it might worry Cora's pretty little head.

What seems inconsistent to me is that while he's so chauvinistic he thinks Cora isn't capable of understanding these thin, he allows Mary to correct him in front of others.    As for the idea that Edith writes columns for the newspaper and no one reads them -- totally unbelievable.  If she's, say, writing that men who were shot for treason should be listed on their village memorials, then that would be something the entire family would be talking about.  Lord Grantham and the Dowager would probably think everything she writes reflects on the family so they would be keeping anxious track.

[Andorra]

World War I was incredibly destructive in wiping out a generation of men, but it wasn't like every single man who fought in the war either died or was injured.  Though I do like the idea of Mary having zombie suitors.  I can imagine the reaction: "Even the dead don't want to marry Lady Edith!" 

 

I think the difference is that Mary and Tom clearly have a lot of free time, and specifically choose to have limited interaction with their kids, while someone who has to work doesn't have that same choice.   

 

Well, at least Tom works all day and

we see in a later episode that he spends his free time with Sybbie.

 

If he would live outside the Abbey, he would see her less and she would be completely alone with a Nanny from dusk till dawn. This way she has George as her little "brother".

Edited January 28, 2015 by Andorra

[Zahdii]

Good to know about Tom.  Mary, however, seems perfectly comfortable with limited interaction with her child.

[ShadowFacts]

Mary operates as if she is childless. She just had a week of carefree sexperimentation. Parents these days, even with full time daycare, are actively engaged for more than an hour a day--getting kids bathed, dressed, fed, transported, and then the same in the evening, plus activities and the inevitable repeated childhood illnesses. All of this while tired from work. So I think the contrast between nannied children of aristocrats and kids of today's working parents is stark.

[RedHawk]

Good to know about Tom.  Mary, however, seems perfectly comfortable with limited interaction with her child.

 

 

As did many women of her age and station in that era. 

[Andorra]

I think Mary is not very maternal and not very interested in parenting her child, BUT I still think children could have worse than the childhood they have in Downton. They have their almost siblings around, they have nice people who take care of them and their parents take at least one hour where they give you all their attention. I think this one hour is more many children today get from their parents.

My father for example went to work before I got up for breakfast and came home for dinner after which I had to go to bed. I only saw him that half hour every evening at the dinner table and that was it. I think it was a fairly "normal" relationship children had to their fathers to my time.

My Mom was at home, but we were four kids and she worked from morning till evening. An hour "playing with the children"? I can't remember that there was ever time for that.

[Calamity Jane]

The pre-revolution House of Faberge created only 65 of the famous eggs, 50 for the Imperial family, 43 of which have survived, so I always laugh when TV shows try to tell us someone who isn't monstrously wealthy had one sitting in their house. Most are in museums.   Certainly the Granthams would be nowhere near the level of a Faberge egg owner, even in the previous generation, so I am glad that Downton dodged that gaffe.  

[tapplum]

As did many women of her age and station in that era. 

 

Not only is Mary's behaviour with her son within the limits of what was considered normal in her time and social circles, she's always been far more interested in him as the heir to Downton than as her child. Isn't that basically the first thing she says to Matthew when he comes to the hospital just after George is born, that "it's a son - we've done our duty". And during an earlier scene where she's talking to Sybil, Sybil asks if Mary's trying to avoid getting pregnant (quite possibly indicating that Mary historically has expressed no great desire to be a mother), to which Mary replies that god no, the faster they produce an heir so that everyone can stop worrying, the better. Not a very romantic or maternal sentiment, and not one that indicates she's ever wanted children for the sake of having children. Rather, it seems to support Matthew's view of her as a pragmatist at heart: the estate needs her to have a son, so she has a son. Add to this her intense grief during George's infancy, and possible post-partum depression, and it would really be more surprising if she were to take a great interest in him.

 

ETA: now what DOES surprise me is that Isobel seemingly hasn't taken any interest at all in her grandchild.

Edited January 28, 2015 by tapplum

[SusanSunflower]

oddly enough -- others saw faberage egg(s) 

https://www.facebook.com/DowntonAbbey/posts/914671738573432

 

 

On the table in the library, there appear to be several Fabergé items laid out for the Russian guests to enjoy: a cigarette case, picture frames; and it looks like two of the famous eggs, along with other souvenirs. Could these be real Fabergé pieces used in the show? If not, the detail is superb. Does anyone know?

It would be glorious for the Granthams to find out that they had knock-offs (like everybody else).   Yes, we were told Violet's frame (that I guess is also one of the items mentioned above) was Faberge.  (Just rang a mental bell that there had been discussion of eggs appearing in the prior episode) 

Edited January 28, 2015 by SusanSunflower

[Andorra]

ETA: now what DOES surprise me is that Isobel seemingly hasn't taken any interest at all in her grandchild.

 

I think that is mainly due to the very limited time they have to film with the children, especially with the younger ones. Sybbie has some sweet scenes later in the series and I'm looking forward to see more of the children in S6 when they're all able to talk.

[millennium]

 

Oh, and is it just me or did Tony literally just pull a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde?!  I never cared for the guy but I expected him to be pathetic and butthurt, not scary.

 

That's funny, I was going to suggest perhaps Barrow was Jekyll and Hyde-ing.   The syringe, the frantic barricading of the door ...

 

To be honest, I think Tony merely let his mask slip.   The learned civility of the age, the practiced etiquette ... fleeting in the face of ugly human emotions.

 

Speaking of that, I believe the Bunting woman is motivated by jealousy masquerading as social justice.   Who wouldn't be jealous of the Crawleys, seated at their lavish table, warmed by the glow of their magnificence?  Their privileged existence is an affront to anyone who has ever had to work for a living.   It's fun to watch a television show about the family and its foibles, but I freely admit I would despise them in real life.  Miss Bunting believes she is serving some greater principle by constantly challenging them, but I think she's only tormenting herself.

Edited January 28, 2015 by millennium

[DeepRunner]

This episode was not-so-bad. Yes, Gillingham is a creep, but watching Mary get a verbal beat-down from him has all the fascination of a train wreck. Can't look away. I am tired of Mr. Drew and Mrs. Drew. (Isn't it interesting that Edith, in S2, had to deal with the Drakes, and now it's the Drews.) Edith is still a sympathetic character. I want a good outcome for her.

 

I guess I will be the last one standing in defense of Bunting. She is a necessary character who Fellowes has turned into an unnecessary caricature. She was sort of charming in S4, but Fellowes couldn't leave it that. No, she has to be a bore of a boorish boar. The argument with Robert at the dinner party was too much, and Mary the B****-Goddess made the scene even more unwatchable. Eesh.

 

I like that they appear to be giving Cora more of a backbone and/or brain, although they could always give us more cowbell in that department. Robert at least is beginning to wakeup to the fact that Bricker has plans and is trying to execute them.

 

Anna and Bates...mmm...I think you could count the seconds in your head as to how long they were on-screen. Molesley is still Molesley. Baxter is coming along as a character. I don't buy her sympathy for Thomas the Vampire, though. And speaking of Thomas...

 

Just write him out of it once and for all. In the first two or three seasons, he was a good, essential character. Now he's just...there. Trying to change who he is is a droopy storyline, to me, anyway.

 

Carson continues to be an insufferable curmudgeon, and this episode, Mrs. Hughes seemed more like The Reverend Mother.

[moonb]

Not only is Mary's behaviour with her son within the limits of what was considered normal in her time and social circles, she's always been far more interested in him as the heir to Downton than as her child.

 

Not too unusual for an aristocrat in her position - she's done her job, so to speak, if Downton has an heir. "Parenting", good or bad, is such a contemporary term that I'm not sure any of these characters would understand it the way we do, or worry about being a good mother or father (Tom might).

 If George is comfortably raised, educated properly, and understands his duties and obligations to Downton as an adult, Mary's been a good mother. 

Violet was a good mother by protecting her children from scandal by not running off with the Prince. 

The jury's still out on Susan and Shrimpie's divorcing and its effect on Rose's prospects. 

And then there's Edith and her attachment to her child, Marigold's relative prospects in life as the child of unmarried parents, and what's best for everyone involved. 

[JudyObscure]

now what DOES surprise me is that Isobel seemingly hasn't taken any interest at all in her grandchild.



If I remember correctly Isobel was one of the first to notice something was off with Bad Nanny, the one who Cora fired for neglecting "the Irish servant's child," in favor of the heir to Downton.  Isobel had gone to Downton early, specifically to see the babies, and Bad Nanny stopped her on the stairs and refused to let her in the nursery with some lame excuse. Isobel acted as though it wasn't the first time she had been blocked.  I thought that gave the impression that Isobel does slip over at odd hours to see them.

[ennui]

"Not only is Mary's behaviour with her son within the limits of what was considered normal in her time and social circles, she's always been far more interested in him as the heir to Downton than as her child. Isn't that basically the first thing she says to Matthew when he comes to the hospital just after George is born, that "it's a son - we've done our duty"."

 

It's the difference between the working class and nobility. I seem to recall a very famous Princess of Wales who had "an heir and a spare," and her work was done. It was a big deal that she actually spent time with her children.

There are plenty of families today who hire nannies and au pairs and life goes on. It's just a matter of money.

 

I forgot what I came here to say. For anyone wondering why Violet and Isobel are friends, it's because they're related. By marriage, yes, but they are both Crawleys. I've seen it in my own family. Once you're in, you're in.

Edited January 29, 2015 by ennui

[twoods]

I'm a bit surprised that everyone is criticizing Tony for his behaviour, but no one is critcizing Mary?

I actually think they're even. After all what was he supposed to think after she played "happily in love" for him at the hotel in Liverpool? His anger is not nice, but she wasn't fair with him either. She pretended to be perfectly happy and he was clearly thinking that they would get married now and then she ran around and told 4 people (Anna, Tom, Violet and Blake) that she was going to dump him, before she dumped him.

So IMO Mary has no reason to hink he would just say: "Oh, okay. Then it was nice to meet you, bye." and deserved part of his anger. And HE deserved to have his pride wounded, because he was just too sure.

This! She was acting like she was in love, and said that to Tony. I don't blame him for being crushed. Now that she's been pursued, she will eye the other guy because he's not into her anymore. Even though Edith is wallowing in self pity, I will take her any day over haughty Mary.

I find Isobel's love life more compelling than anyone else's- I guess it helps liking all of the characters involved.

I didn't get that Thomas was trying aversion therapy to "de-gay" himself so thanks for the clarification. Poor guy.

Why can't Edith tell the farmer's wife that Marigold is her child?

[madam magpie]

So wait...Mary thought she was into Gillingham and then decided she wasn't, and in the meantime, she slept with him. But somehow she's done something wrong? Because that doesn't happen to everyone, often more than once? It's just more acceptable now. Mary had sex with him and then dumped him. Welcome to the world. Maybe it was bad. Maybe she didn't feel anything special for him while doing the deed. I see nothing wrong with what she did. I don't think it was odd of Gillingham to be upset about it either. I do think that just telling her, "no, we'll work through this until you change your mind" is a bit possessive, but as long as Mary doesn't give in to it, who cares? She's allowed to love 'em and leave 'em, and he's allowed to dislike it. Neither of them is a bad guy (yet). They just aren't well suited for each other.

[saki]

I think what happened with Mary and Tony was partly misunderstanding - I think Tony definitely saw this as them having a firm 'understanding' that they were all but engaged whereas Mary was much more ambivalent still.  And I think it was partly about how difficult it is to read Mary's feelings - I think Tony assumed that, since she didn't show any outward signs of having changed her mind about him, she hadn't.  I don't think that's unreasonable - particularly given the context, given that Mary went away with him and had sex with him for a whole week, if she didn't show any signs of disliking him/the sex, I don't blame him for being quite shocked.  

 

I don't think she was in the wrong for changing her mind - she was perfectly entitled to do that - but I also don't think he was in the wrong for being quite shocked and upset at being dumped without any warning.  I do think he was in the wrong for how aggressive he became but, then, I also agree with Andorra that telling lots of other people that she was going to dump him before him was pretty tacky.

[Andorra]

Just to clarify: No, Mary was not wrong to change her mind. I just think she shouldn't have faked to be happy for him and then go around telling everyone but him that she was going to dump him. THAT was not nice and honest. She should have told him honestly in Liverpool.

 

I was just surprised that everyone seems to see Tony as "shady" and "Mr. Hyde" just because he was angry. For me his anger was justified and normal. He will get over it. His "we will work through this" is just pathetic and will never work, but I don't see him as shady or evil because of that little outburst. He is just disapointed.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Andorra