Unpopular Opinions

[Roseanna]

According to the script book said, Mary perceived him leaving at the end of 1x03 without proposing to her as a rejection and that's what benched him. Which a) makes sense, given her vanity, but b) I think was a mistake in the long run and c) is hilarious given, again, how the others guys were seen as not being pushovers when in fact they were which is exactly why they were still options.

 

I don't think that it makes sense at all. Mary had invited Evelyn to Downton and then she ignored him by openly flirting with Pamuk. No man with any self-respect would have proposed after that kind of humiliation. And no women, even with Mary's gross vanity, would have expected him to do it. 

Before all, Mary fell in love with Matthew after ​he walked away when she began to charm Strallan, and thus (as Robert remarked) refused to be her toy. And that love was strengthened during the long years Mary got to pine for him.

 

So there was nothing amiss with Evelyn's tactics. What was decisive was his lack of charm  (although in a love story of other kind it wouldn't have mattered, but his solid qualities would have won in the end).   

[Roseanna]

only chasing after men that wanted Mary,

 

Actually no. Edith was (or imagined herself to be) in love with Patrick, but apparently she didn't chase after him. She chased after Matthew in a time when Mary had made clear that she didn't want to marry him just because he was the new heir. 

 

Even Strallan is a dubious case as Mary made clear in the dinner table that she wasn't interested him, so Edith got her chance. After Mary had charmed him to annoy Edith, there was only one situation where Mary refused his invitation and Edith offered to go, but after that he showed no interest in Mary, evidently realizing that he had no chance but also that he enjoyed Edith's company. 

Nor was there any hint, then or in S3, that Edith wanted to marry Strallan for any other reason than to become a wife of a gentleman with means. Besides, she liked him.     

[AndySmith]

Yeah but Bertie's case was different than Blake. They knew Bertie had a titled cousin during the same time they met him (or should have noticed he had the same last name as the guy whose castle they were renting), they didn't learn about Blake's cousin till someone (Tony or Evelyn? I can't remember which) told them.

[SusanSunflower]

The subtexts, as with Sybil's political interests, was that although more-than-comfortable for life, some aristos could see social injustice and the hardships of others and cared ... were even -- gasp -- socialists or sit on their sofas know-nothings ... or Mitfords...

eta: I thought it also suggested that Charles had a brain ... like Matthew ... and might be more than a pretty face to be judged on his allure and sexual prowess ...

Edited April 23, 2016 by SusanSunflower

[slf]

I don't think that it makes sense at all. Mary had invited Evelyn to Downton and then she ignored him by openly flirting with Pamuk. No man with any self-respect would have proposed after that kind of humiliation. And no women, even with Mary's gross vanity, would have expected him to do it. 

Before all, Mary fell in love with Matthew after ​he walked away when she began to charm Strallan, and thus (as Robert remarked) refused to be her toy. And that love was strengthened during the long years Mary got to pine for him.

 

So there was nothing amiss with Evelyn's tactics. What was decisive was his lack of charm  (although in a love story of other kind it wouldn't have mattered, but his solid qualities would have won in the end).

 

I think it's a case of YMMV. Mary's vanity is strong and when it comes to the Pamuk issue it's complicated because of the context. Her flirting with Strallan didn't result in her becoming a social pariah and joke. What happened with Pamuk did, and would have likely been exacerbated by Napier staying away (Robert actually refers to this when he discusses a letter from Rosamund with Cora; something like people were saying that Napier had given up any idea of marrying Mary and that it reflected badly on her character). A proposal from Napier might've done a great deal to mitigate the damage being done to Mary's reputation and it never happened. Matthew left Downton and went back to the house he shared with his mother after Mary acted like a brat, he didn't leave Yorkshire and get engaged to someone else as Napier did. And it's like Michelle Dockery said, season one Mary would've still married Richard Carlisle because it would've saved her while allowing her to get one over (in her mind) on Edith and Matthew.

 

I think JF is a believer in writing women opposite brash and dominant men. I don't think it was lack of charm that worked against Napier so much as it was he was more reserved, more of an introvert. JF wanted someone more like Gillingham and Henry so that's what he wrote.

 

Actually no. Edith was (or imagined herself to be) in love with Patrick, but apparently she didn't chase after him. She chased after Matthew in a time when Mary had made clear that she didn't want to marry him just because he was the new heir. 

 

Even Strallan is a dubious case as Mary made clear in the dinner table that she wasn't interested him, so Edith got her chance. After Mary had charmed him to annoy Edith, there was only one situation where Mary refused his invitation and Edith offered to go, but after that he showed no interest in Mary, evidently realizing that he had no chance but also that he enjoyed Edith's company. 

Nor was there any hint, then or in S3, that Edith wanted to marry Strallan for any other reason than to become a wife of a gentleman with means. Besides, she liked him.

Maybe she didn't chase after him but she did pine for him. Mary didn't want Matthew but Matthew had already begun showing interest in Mary, as had Strallan, which was my point. That's three guys, one of whom was engaged to Mary, that Edith showed interest in and that's season one which covered a two year period.

 

I've read a lot of takes on Charles and none of them clicked for me. He didn't know these people when he made judgements about them, his attitude wasn't professional imo, and him misrepresenting himself might have been a trope but it's a shitty one from a class perspective. Like, I'm trying to imagine Charles pulling that with Tom, the guy who was born poor in Ireland (where Charles, an employee of the English government, was going to inherit an enormous estate) and was a servant at Downton.

Edited April 23, 2016 by slf

[Roseanna]

Maybe she didn't chase after him but she did pine for him. Mary didn't want Matthew but Matthew had already begun showing interest in Mary, as had Strallan, which was my point. That's three guys, one of whom was engaged to Mary, that Edith showed interest in and that's season one which covered a two year period.

 

What other men there were around (except Napier and Pamuk)? Also only one man, Branson, was interested in Sybil which is hard to believe (we were told that her London season was a great success, but not that she was proposed).

 

I think that in the beginning of the series Edith was so desperate to get to be married that she would have chased after any eligible man whether he was interested in Mary or not. And at least she liked Strallan and enjoyed his company and vice versa, although luckily he got cold feet.

[whateverdgaf]

I can't blame Edith for wanting to get married and away from Downton. The way her family just dismissed her and looked down on her must have made her desperate for some love and affection. I'm just glad she found it in the end. In fact, I rather hope that after Edith married Bertie she saw very little of everyone at Downton. She would probably be much happier.

Besides, all the men brought to Downton were suitors for Mary so there was no one else to be interested in.

[Roseanna]

 What happened with Pamuk did, and would have likely been exacerbated by Napier staying away (Robert actually refers to this when he discusses a letter from Rosamund with Cora; something like people were saying that Napier had given up any idea of marrying Mary and that it reflected badly on her character). A proposal from Napier might've done a great deal to mitigate the damage being done to Mary's reputation and it never happened. Matthew left Downton and went back to the house he shared with his mother after Mary acted like a brat, he didn't leave Yorkshire and get engaged to someone else as Napier did.

 

These cases can't be compared. Mary had flirted with Mathew during one dinner and after it she ignored him flirted with Strallan - a very light thing, not enough to leave's one home, although Matthew did the right thing to show his displeasure.

 

Instead, Mary had corresponded with Napier and invited him to Downton, so he had all reason to believe that their relationships was serious and Mary would accept his proposal. Then she completely ignored him in order to flirt with Pamuk. And after his death she showed a deep sorrow and again showed indifference towards Napier.

 

So why on earth would Napier proposed? He didn't know her reputation  was ruined and in any case he had no duty to repair it after she had ruined it herself. And of course he had freedom to get engaged with an other, indeed he had a duty to marry and get an heir which he for some reason didn't

 

In fact, Napier showed exceptional kindness towards Mary when he came to tell her about Edith's letter. Even more, then or later he never showed any contempt towards her because of he affair with Pamuk nor didn't he tell tales of it to Mary's later suitors.

But he never had a deep relationship with Mary (unlike Tom), which would be demanded if he had won Mary in the end.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Roseanna

[Roseanna]

 I've read a lot of takes on Charles and none of them clicked for me. He didn't know these people when he made judgements about them, his attitude wasn't professional imo, and him misrepresenting himself might have been a trope but it's a shitty one from a class perspective.

 

What you say may be true irl, but in the fictional love stories it's a common formula that a hero or a heroine has strong prejudices and show them so that the other party gets a "wrong" impression of him/her. If the writer has skill enough to have him/her redeemed and the couple united in the end, the readers/watchers doen't mind his/her errors in the beginning. 

Edited April 24, 2016 by Roseanna

[Roseanna]

- - Mary didn't use the nuclear option (which Edith did). Outing Edith to their parents would've had a very different consequence for her; she was always seen as a victim of Mary's, the forgotten second child. But if they'd known she'd snitched, risking not only Mary's future but her's and Sybil's as well, they wouldn't have looked at her the same.

 

Actually Mary had no “nuclear option” as she couldn’t have told about Edith’s letter to Robert without  telling that the content of the letter was true and she had slept with Pamuk which she had every cause at that time to believe would lower herself with her father’s eyes. As for Cora who already knew the truth about Pamuk, many mothers in her situation would ponder whether they had done something that had caused a deed like Edith’s letter (and Edith had indeed heard her mother’s low opinion of her).

 

Before all, especially a mother’s love is ideally supposed to be non-judgmental, regardless of what a child does. In The Egyptian by Mika Waltari Sinuhe’s foster parents not only forgive him that he has donated to a high-class prostitute, Nefernefer, their house as well as their tomb which in ancient Egypt meant that they couldn’t get a life after death, but also before committing suicide they bless him for giving them only joy during his whole life.

 

I don’t know if there are so generous people irl, but the main point in fiction is that it just by falling in love so madly and thus making such evil deeds Sinuhe gets an extraordinary fate that is not determined by outer circumstances. Otherwise there would be no story.

In DA, the first decisive happening was of course the sinking of Titanic that brought Matthew to Downton. But perhaps even more decisive was Mary’s affair with Pamuk for it caused a chain of events until CS of S2. Without it Mary wouldn’t have to ponder whether she would tell Matthew or not and she would have accepted him before Cora became pregnant.  But their early marriage would have ruined the story for it would have robbed Mary and Matthew a possibility to show that their love was so great that they couldn’t forget themselves even when they were engaged to others (and for that purpose their kiss was needed).

 

As for Edith’s letter, it actually influenced most on her own fate for without it and Mary’s vengeance she would have married with Strallan and that would have been the end of her story.

 

But if we suppose what you suggest that her parents would have learned about the letter and somehow ostracized her, it wouldn’t necessarily have meant a bad result. Many women could lead a freer life during and because of the WW1, so why not Edith? And many fictional love stories begin when a heroine loses her parents and/or her former social position.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Roseanna

[AndySmith]

was interested in Sybil which is hard to believe (we were told that her London season was a great success, but not that she was proposed)

 

I always thought the definition of a good season was getting a proposal...granted, they had 3 or 4 seasons to try.

[slf]

What other men there were around (except Napier and Pamuk)? Also only one man, Branson, was interested in Sybil which is hard to believe (we were told that her London season was a great success, but not that she was proposed).

 

I think that in the beginning of the series Edith was so desperate to get to be married that she would have chased after any eligible man whether he was interested in Mary or not. And at least she liked Strallan and enjoyed his company and vice versa, although luckily he got cold feet.

 

Okay, this actually gets to the heart of a couple of issues we disagree on. This is how JF chose to write it; Mary and Edith live in a world full of men (at least before the war) and Edith would've encountered at least a few dozen of them in between her deb ball and the others she would've attended. JF chose to write it as men only visiting Mary, going for Mary, and Edith pursuing them until I think season three. That's not fair, to be certain, but it is canon.

 

I agree about the motivations Edith was given, it was likely a desperation to get away from Mary and Downton, to be the Lady of her own home, which was the closest thing to independence most women got back then. Though I'm not sure how much of Strallan's reaction was "cold feet" so much as "wow she just said I'd be her life's work." That was absolutely the wrong thing to say, and it let Strallan know how she saw him and what she figured their married life would be like, and decided to not go through with it. For me it's a case of I get them both in this situation and while it was a terrible thing for Edith to have to endure, she's of course better off for it.

 

These cases can't be compared. Mary had flirted with Mathew during one dinner and after it she ignored him flirted with Strallan - a very light thing, not enough to leave's one home, although Matthew did the right thing to show his displeasure.

 

Instead, Mary had corresponded with Napier and invited him to Downton, so he had all reason to believe that their relationships was serious and Mary would accept his proposal. Then she completely ignored him in order to flirt with Pamuk. And after his death she showed a deep sorrow and again showed indifference towards Napier.

 

Well, you compared them ("why would Mary have a stronger reaction to Napier leaving than Matthew" basically) so I was responding to that. Matthew feeling rejected and leaving was, at that point in time, very different from Napier doing it. Mary knew Matthew naturally felt thrown over, while with Napier while she had to know it was the same I think for her it was also perhaps a moral rejection of her. There was a judgement there. And that rejection had consequences (especially since until the end of s1, which was one year after Pamuk, she believed he spread the rumors about her.)

 

I don't disagree that Mary showed indifference toward Napier in the aftermath of Pamuk's death, though I do disagree that it meant something. A man had just died in her bed, will having sex with him. She had to expose this fact to two people, one of whom referred to it as Mary's "shame". So it's no surprise to me that she was completely overwhelmed by what had happened. I don't like discussing Pamuk and Mary in the context of romance - though I acknowledge this is how the canon treats what occurred between them - because I saw their encounter as coercive sex, best case scenario. 

 

I'm not sure what point you're making/arguing in the rest of your post tbh. Sorry. I agree completely that Napier was wronged and Mary behaved like a badly, and that he was very nice to find the source of the rumors and inform her. I thought he was a great guy and someone JF could've written to be a great partner for her.

 

Their relationship was never deep because it was never explored? That's what I say in my original post was a mistake, in my opinion? Tho I disagree with any idea that there was never any potential. He's known Mary longer than almost any other suitor. She befriended him at least one year before the events of season one, based on what she told Cora, and they were exchanging letters. Which was not a thing available young noblewomen just did back then so it did mean something. She maintained a friendship with him for at least ten years before the series ended (he's the only person outside the family/staff that Mary is friends with throughout the series). I think at any point after Matthew's death he could've been re-introduced and a relationship between them could've been written.

 

I appreciate that we all disagree and this is the Unpopular Opinions thread, but I'm really not going to be talked out of my ship, especially when people keep repeating what I've said back to me, no offense meant. Mary is a character, not a real person. She prefers whomever JF wants her to prefer. I'm saying I wish he'd written her as preferring Napier. 

 

What you say may be true irl, but in the fictional love stories it's a common formula that a hero or a heroine has strong prejudices and show them so that the other party gets a "wrong" impression of him/her. If the writer has skill enough to have him/her redeemed and the couple united in the end, the readers/watchers doen't mind his/her errors in the beginning.

Not just in real life, in fiction too. That it's a common formula is my problem though. Sexism and classism still abound in literature, especially romances, and Charles Blake was, as you point out, very classic in that regard. Perhaps JF would've redeemed Charles but for me he didn't.

 

Actually Mary had no “nuclear option” as she couldn’t have told about Edith’s letter to Robert without  telling that the content of the letter was true and she had slept with Pamuk which she had every cause at that time to believe would lower herself with her father’s eyes. As for Cora who already knew the truth about Pamuk, many mothers in her situation would ponder whether they had done something that had caused a deed like Edith’s letter (and Edith had indeed heard her mother’s low opinion of her).

 

Before all, especially a mother’s love is ideally supposed to be non-judgmental, regardless of what a child does. In The Egyptian by Mika Waltari Sinuhe’s foster parents not only forgive him that he has donated to a high-class prostitute, Nefernefer, their house as well as their tomb which in ancient Egypt meant that they couldn’t get a life after death, but also before committing suicide they bless him for giving them only joy during his whole life.

A mother might ponder those things, and a mother's love might ideally be non judgmental, but I don't see the point in pretending that things Mary said and did over the years didn't sway how her parents saw her. Knowing that someone has done awful things doesn't mean we don't love them but it does affect how we see them, what we believe they are capable of, how quick we are to give them the benefit of the doubt, etc. Knowing Edith was willing to throw the entire family under the bus because Mary hurt her feelings would have absolutely colored Cora's view of Edith. Edith was seen as the put-upon daughter, the one forgotten, whose greatest weakness was being seen as dull. She was seen as a victim. Edith was never seen as capable of giving as good as she got and even sucker punching another person. Knowing she authored that letter would have affected how Cora saw Edith, absolutely.

 

Robert did eventually find out, though. And then Mary could have easily let is slip that Edith sold her out. And it definitely would've affected how Robert saw Edith. I think both of her parents would've forgiven her and still loved her, but I do think Edith wouldn't have been looked at the same. Which is fair.

 

Also only one man, Branson, was interested in Sybil which is hard to believe (we were told that her London season was a great success, but not that she was proposed).

Well, Sybil was presented after the Pamuk thing broke. Either that was JF's way of conveying some of the consequences of Edith's letter or he didn't see the point in giving her multiple suitors because he'd already settled on Branson.

Edited April 24, 2016 by slf

[Roseanna]

 

Okay, this actually gets to the heart of a couple of issues we disagree on. This is how JF chose to write it; Mary and Edith live in a world full of men (at least before the war) and Edith would've encountered at least a few dozen of them in between her deb ball and the others she would've attended. JF chose to write it as men only visiting Mary, going for Mary, and Edith pursuing them until I think season three. That's not fair, to be certain, but it is canon.

 A mother might ponder those things, and a mother's love might ideally be non judgmental, but I don't see the point in pretending that things Mary said and did over the years didn't sway how her parents saw her. Knowing that someone has done awful things doesn't mean we don't love them but it does affect how we see them, what we believe they are capable of, how quick we are to give them the benefit of the doubt, etc. Knowing Edith was willing to throw the entire family under the bus because Mary hurt her feelings would have absolutely colored Cora's view of Edith. Edith was seen as the put-upon daughter, the one forgotten, whose greatest weakness was being seen as dull. She was seen as a victim. Edith was never seen as capable of giving as good as she got and even sucker punching another person. Knowing she authored that letter would have affected how Cora saw Edith, absolutely.

 

Robert did eventually find out, though. And then Mary could have easily let is slip that Edith sold her out. And it definitely would've affected how Robert saw Edith. I think both of her parents would've forgiven her and still loved her, but I do think Edith wouldn't have been looked at the same. Which is fair.

 

Of course I don’t try to change your views. However, I want still to explain mine a little more.

 

As for Mary telling Robert about Edith’s letter after he had learned about Pamuk, I don’t think that parents even irl like if a child who is caught in doing something “bad” (bad from Cora ad Robert’s POV sleeping outside wedlock even if we disagree) would start to defend herself “my sibling has done even worse”.

 

In any case, we watchers did know all the happenings and at least I think that Mary’s finest hours (besides her relationship with Lavinia) were that she not once tried to defend herself about the Pamuk affair, not to Cora, Carlisle, Robert nor Matthew. She acted like an adult whereas by saying “but Edith” she had shown her a child carrying tales in order to absolve herself.

 

In addition, for some reason parents tend to love more those children for whom they have suffered most. Kristin Lavransdatter in Sigrid Undset’s trilogy breaks his father’s heart with her willful love which he (correctly) anticipates will lead to disaster and but he loves her more than his exemplary youngest daughter. As do the readers. 

 

I doubt if there was many watchers who sympathized Edith in S1, nor even paid her much attention. She was only a pathetical, almost comic character who tried to catch any man but lacked any skills to do it and therefore envied Mary.

But looking back, the chief reason was that the happenings were mostly shown from Mary’s POV. It was her we saw in her room suffering alone, not Edith. Nor did it help that Edith had that ugly air in her face whereas Mary was beautiful and dignified even when she cried. And she had Carson to comfort her and convince her that nothing was truly her fault and she deserved only the best. Most of all, Mary was interesting because she had real problems and she had to make real choices.

 

That changed in S3 when Edith was jilted by Strallan. After that her story became more interesting because she had to face real problems and make real choices. Instead, Mary’s story became less and less interesting because Fellowes made all so easy for her (that has been discussed before, so I leave it to that).

 

For some reason Fellowes, when he felt the need to renew the sister’s rivalry plot, didn’t use the obvious plot where Edith, now a magazine owner, would have met the blackmailer in S6 ep 1 and would have to choose between helping Mary out of trouble or let her sink in a scandal. That would have been a good way to show if she had changed, won her envy or at least was no more ruled by it.

Instead, Fellowes chose to show that his favorite character, Mary, had not changed for better but for worse. I would have really preferred that she had felt temptation but decided not to act on it, if for nothing else then for pride which is Mary’s dominant quality. But Fellowes chose otherwise and because this happened so near to the end of the series that she couldn’t really redeem herself, that incident now colors Mary’s character for good.  For whatever has happened earlier during the story, can be forgiven and forgotten if the end shows that the character has changed.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Roseanna

[Roseanna]

 

 I'm not sure what point you're making/arguing in the rest of your post tbh. Sorry. I agree completely that Napier was wronged and Mary behaved like a badly, and that he was very nice to find the source of the rumors and inform her. I thought he was a great guy and someone JF could've written to be a great partner for her.

 

Their relationship was never deep because it was never explored? That's what I say in my original post was a mistake, in my opinion? Tho I disagree with any idea that there was never any potential. He's known Mary longer than almost any other suitor. She befriended him at least one year before the events of season one, based on what she told Cora, and they were exchanging letters. Which was not a thing available young noblewomen just did back then so it did mean something. She maintained a friendship with him for at least ten years before the series ended (he's the only person outside the family/staff that Mary is friends with throughout the series). I think at any point after Matthew's death he could've been re-introduced and a relationship between them could've been written.

 

All this could be good basis for a relationship irl, but fiction needs contradictions, suspense, outer and most of all inner hindrances. Which all Matthew and Mary had.

 

And even more. According Julia Kristeva’s theory that the love story is the only place where one has a right to be narcissist and to expect to be loved as one’s ideal self, i.e. not as person one really is.

Now, with Matthew (and because of Mathew, with Lavinia) Mary really was her ideal self, especially in S2. So it was with a reason she wanted to be “Matthew’s Mary”, seen with his eyes (although he was by no means blind to her faults) and in that magical atmosphere she was seen also by the watchers. 

But that magical, narcissistic atmosphere was never created with Mary and any ​of her later suitors, although Fellowes tried his utmost to convince the watchers that all the men fell for Mary and could never forgot her. It was not only that the men were "wrong" but, before all, Mary was "wrong" with them.  

When Henry spoke to Edith that “my Mary” wasn't the same as hers, that sounded complete nonsense. For during their courtship Mary had shown herself a cold flirt and Henry couldn't know anything about her inner qualities. He even named her “la belle dame sans merci” (a beautiful women without mercy) although he then translated to Tom otherwise. 

Instead, Edith got that narcissistic dream when she was seen with Bertie’s adoring eyes.

[slf]

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I personally don't think romances in fiction always need outside hindrances and I think Western media in particular relies way too much on that; most of the time by the time a book or show is finished I'm so over the flagship couple it's not even funny (Castle, Bones, Gilmore Girls, The Vampire Diaries, etc).

 

When it comes to Mary/Matthew, it wasn't the outside forces/suspension thing that interested me at all. I liked them in spite of what I thought were some pretty stupid plots (Matthew is paralyzed! No he can walk again! But he's still going to marry Lavinia despite being in love with another woman! But lo, flu!) because I thought they had good chemistry and he witnessed some of Mary's less than sterling behavior so he had the whole picture; so when he said he loved her I believed it. Season three was for me the most interesting season for them as a couple (and the least popular among fans) because it gave us what so few shows do: their life. Stop throwing asteroids and affairs and epidemics and sinking ships at your couple- let us see them live their lives, day to day. Especially if you're trying to give us a star-crossed pairing, because the day to day stuff is going to be the toughest and the most fulfilling. And sure enough, tension was created organically. How they differed in their views of the estate and its management, how they dealt with family issues, etc. There's safety in the big outside forces because the audience knows they're just speed bumps on the way to the inevitable hookup. It's easier for writers. It's what happens after a couple is paired that makes or breaks them, that shows how well written and strong the pairing really is.

[Roseanna]

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I personally don't think romances in fiction always need outside hindrances and I think Western media in particular relies way too much on that; most of the time by the time a book or show is finished I'm so over the flagship couple it's not even funny (Castle, Bones, Gilmore Girls, The Vampire Diaries, etc).

 

When it comes to Mary/Matthew, it wasn't the outside forces/suspension thing that interested me at all. I liked them in spite of what I thought were some pretty stupid plots (Matthew is paralyzed! No he can walk again! But he's still going to marry Lavinia despite being in love with another woman! But lo, flu!) because I thought they had good chemistry and he witnessed some of Mary's less than sterling behavior so he had the whole picture; so when he said he loved her I believed it. Season three was for me the most interesting season for them as a couple (and the least popular among fans) because it gave us what so few shows do: their life. Stop throwing asteroids and affairs and epidemics and sinking ships at your couple- let us see them live their lives, day to day. Especially if you're trying to give us a star-crossed pairing, because the day to day stuff is going to be the toughest and the most fulfilling. And sure enough, tension was created organically. How they differed in their views of the estate and its management, how they dealt with family issues, etc. There's safety in the big outside forces because the audience knows they're just speed bumps on the way to the inevitable hookup. It's easier for writers. It's what happens after a couple is paired that makes or breaks them, that shows how well written and strong the pairing really is.

 

You misunderstood me. Or perhaps I wrote unclearly? Although outer hindrances are needed in a love story, inner hindrances are most important. Therefore, although Fellowes used the oldest tricks in the book in the outer happenings, basically Mary and Matthew were kept years apart by their own mistaking descisions based on their psychology. F.ex. Matthew was hurt when Mary didn't accept him in S1, although Violet's advice (accept him now when he is poor and he will always love you, you can always break the engagement if Cora's child is a boy) shows that you can't really know the other for sure. But all this was needed to show that they really couldn't forget each other.

 

As for S3, it showed clearly why love is usually described outside marriage. For some reason Fellowes avoided the aristocratic adulterous love affair and used only the bourgeois love story leading to marriage. It would have been great fun if Mary had married Carlisle and cheated him with Matthew. Instead, I am really sorry Fellowes made Mary so petty.

 

It's only a writer with Undset's brilliance who can describe love in marriage.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Roseanna

[amensisterfriend]

This show and I have such a complex relationship ;) I dislike certain aspects of it with a fiery passion, but DA will always have a place in my heart anyway, and I can never quite let go of it! A few more random UOs:

 

1) I just really love Phyllis Baxley. I get that people think she's boring, but the way she's forever trying to atone for the past and is clearly hesitant to trust and open up again makes her really relatable to me. I don't know if it's the acting or the writing---let's face it, with this show the credit usually belongs with the acting over the writing!---but for some reason I just really love her and her relationships with Thomas, Molesley etc. I also felt like she and Cora could have had a really compelling relationship that would further serve to develop both of them, but as with a lot of things about DA, there was a lot of unrealized potential there! 

2) Season 5 is really kind of awesome and surprisingly rewatchable to me for a bunch of reasons I've probably already bored you guys with. I have terrible taste. 

3) I think Matthew would have been much happier with Lavinia than with Mary. And while I get the argument that he softens Mary and makes her a warmer and more likable person, how does HE benefit from being in a relationship with her except arguably to be a little less dully perfect since she could frustrate even the most saintly of men?! I'm making it sound like I hate Mary/Matthew as a couple, and I don't---though I sure came close to hating Mary at various points throughout the series---but while they're often considered the best thing about DA, with repeated viewings I've found that they're surprisingly low on my list of reasons to watch. 

4) This one is as weird as it is unpopular, but I actually feel like Rose made for a better Sybil than the real Sybil :) (Rose is one of the reasons I unpopularly adore S5, by the way!) Something about the actress just makes Rose the youthful, spirited, rebellious yet warm and sweet character that I think Sybil was supposed to be but somehow wasn't IMO. The actress who plays Sybil seemed somehow detached and out of it IMO, and I had trouble buying her as genuinely passionate about Tom, politics, social change or anything else. I actually think the actress would have worked much better as a Mary-esque type of character. 

5) I used to be very opposed to the idea of Tom/Mary, but I came around to thinking that they might have been better off with each other than other people. Tom calls Mary on her awfulness, and while both have a tendency to bully (Tom's not really a 'bully', but I'm lacking a better word here!) people with their strong personalities and extreme stubbornness, neither would be steamrolled by the other. Initially they were so ideologically opposed that the match seemed ridiculous, but let's face it, by the end Tom's passionate liberal politics had all but evaporated anyway and he had grown almost as enamored with the estate as Mary, so that wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue. Tom was often the only person whom Mary was decent around. And Mary/Henry was just awful IMO. I'm also in that tiny minority who didn't find the actor who played Henry especially attractive and found literally nothing about the character appealing at all. 

6) I've grown to have a soft spot for the admittedly VERY flawed Robert. He's stupidly stubborn and out of touch and embarrassingly averse to change and kind of a blustering, bumbling fool way too often, but he really does care and try, you know?! And he even showed some real growth, even if it wasn't always very enduring or consistent. (But again, that's just par for the course with this show!) I actually think that Robert and preternaturally calm yet quietly astute, pragmatic Cora are a terrific match. And, yes, I conveniently block out his S2 dalliance with Jane :) Plus, he loves dogs as much as I do. 

7) By contrast, Robert's downstairs counterpart, Carson, became more and more insufferable to me in pretty much every conceivable way, and this is coming from someone who used to really enjoy and even defend the character.  By the middle of S6 I was hoping that Elsie would sprinkle a generous amount of arsenic in those dinners he criticized so relentlessly. 

8) I actually really liked Jimmy and the Jimmy/Thomas dynamic and found myself missing it when he left the show. 

9) I know you're supposed to love snarky Mrs. Patmore, but I found her really irksome and am glad we didn't see much more of her than we did. The wonderfully sweet Mr. Mason deserves better IMO :)  

10) I wish Isobel had ended the series happily single. 

Edited May 1, 2016 by amensisterfriend

[Roseanna]

20 minutes ago, amensisterfriend said:

3) I think Matthew would have been much happier with Lavinia than with Mary.

If they had been characters of Agatha Christie, yes (f.ex. Sad Cyprus).  And no doubt Lavinia would have been a better "wife material".

However, on the basis of DA, Lavinia never had a chance. Matthew never looked at her as he looked at Mary. Plus, he was always sneaking in some corner with Mary, as Carlisle accused.   

[amensisterfriend]

3) I think Matthew would have been much happier with Lavinia than with Mary.

If they had been characters of Agatha Christie, yes

I've read every Agatha Christie book and have no idea what you mean here! Do you mean if DA had been a murder mystery or something? Which, granted, at times might have made things a lot more interesting. 

 However, on the basis of DA, Lavinia never had a chance. Matthew never looked at her as he looked at Mary.

Yeah, I know thinking he'd be happier with Lavinia is an unpopular opinion. That's why I posted it here. 

ETA: I'm sorry that the above is one big quote now. I can't figure out how to change it. 

[caligirl50]

I have watched the final season, all the seasons actually, over and over and over and, well you get it.  I turn it on every day.  Yes every day since March 2015.  So here are my thoughts on the last season.

1) The dialogue  - so bad.  It has really devolved after 5 seasons and so it is just as well that the show ends now as Julian seemed out of gas.  Rose and Atticus’ dialogue in the last episode was simply, stupid.  I found it embarrassing for the characters. The actor playing Atticus didn’t look great and each time he said something, the purse just fell out of his mouth. I thought, what has JF done to this character?  Robert yelling at Rosamund when arguing about telling Bertie about Marigold, “How long are you going to stay?  Surely your cold has cleared up by now.”  Is that an English saying?  If not, he said the same thing to her several seasons back when arguing with her.  

2) Making Carson and Daisy odious.  Daisy always had her moments but she was insufferable this season and came off as entitled...which doesn’t make sense considering her status in the house.  After mouthing off once, almost twice then rifling through Mary’s bedroom and taking the hair dryer, wouldn’t that be just wrong in those days?  And no one thought anything of it.  Carson, who was hard but was always shown to be sentimental, had no heart this season AND HE GOT MARRIED, which would imply he would be softer, yes?  He said horrible things with a smile on his face like he was giving someone a compliment.  So much so when at the servant’s table and Daisy tells the group that Mosley is a natural in his teaching, Mr. Bates comment, “Your a kind man.  It’s about time you were rewarded for your kindness,” he looks at Carson when he is done speaking. No one says a word. I caught that after watching a few times and thought, is he throwing shade at Carson?  

3) Julian’s obsession with food.  This is really an observation about the entire series.  The amount of time devoted to meals on this show, the show should be titled Mealtime at Downton Abbey.   It is always time to eat.  They’ve just eaten.  Lunch isn’t for a half hour.  Why don’t you have breakfast in your room?  You missed lunch but how about a cup of coffee? We’d better get back or we’ll be late (for a meal). Dinner is at 8.  We’ll be back before tea. What about a tray?  Has the gong been rung?  Is breakfast finished? I've thought this for a long time: How is this family not a bunch of obese alcoholics?  They drink at lunch, dinner and after dinner (more or less).  Everyday. 7 days a week, 365 days a year.  Year after year.   And all the while Michelle Dockery looks like she’s about to fall over from starvation.  

4) The actress who played Lily.  This another overall observation. I don’t know her real name but she was on the show for five seasons, all but Season 6.  She muttered ONE line of dialogue her entire time on the show: “Hurray up” in the opening of Season 1 talking to Daisy when they do the 2 minute single shot of the servants in the house working before the family comes down.  What a champ.  

5) Nothing for Maggie to do.  I believe JF ran out of gas for Violet years ago.  He should regret: the endless hospital storyline, the chicken broth storyline, and lastly, the missing letter knife/ivory figurine/gardener kid storyline.  JF loves Maggie.  Loves writing for her.  Why he failed her season after season makes no sense.  To her credit, she did great with what she was given but she deserved better.  The best thing he did was after seasons of ho-hum plot lines, introduce an scandalous love story into her storyline.  It was kind of brilliant.  When Mary utters, “Granny has a past” it was an adrenaline shot to her character in the best possible way.  But these others?  Sheesh.

I’m sure there is more but these are my opinions....would love to hear what others think.  Thanks!

Edited May 2, 2016 by caligirl50

[amensisterfriend]

I actually like S6 a lot---which I'm pretty sure is a  really unpopular opinion---but I agree with many of your points. I think I liked it primarily because I really enjoyed Edith's growth and her romance with Bertie, watching Cora develop a real interest and purpose outside of Robert, the kids and the estate, and the fact that Anna and Bates were finally more enjoyable to me than I'd found them since back in the first season!  

I agree especially about S6 making Carson and Daisy absolutely insufferable. I've already planned to fast forward through all their scenes the next time I rewatch it :)

I actually have pretty major issues with EVERY season, and have always been pretty 'eh' on S1, which I know is a lot of people's favorites. Overall, though, the things I love about DA tend to overshadow the ones that I don't---except during S4, which I'd be fine never watching again :)  

Edited July 23, 2016 by photo fox

[NorthangerAbby]

I'm so happy this thread exists. I have opinions that seem unpopular even for a thread devoted to unpopular opinions and am excited to get them out! Maybe some of these aren't as unpopular as I think, but either way it's been really interesting reading this thread because I recently rewatched the show. 

1. I loved the show from beginning to end and it will go down as one of my very favorite programs. There were a lot of problems and aspects of the show worthy of the snark and criticism they get, but I never stopped loving it. While I rewatched I found that even episodes I had thought were the series' worst have some wonderful moments. 

2. Mary can say and do terrible things, a couple of which are close to unforgivable, but I thought she was a great character and had more layers and redeeming traits than she's often given credit for. I understand not liking her and probably wouldn't care for her much if she were a real person living in this century, but as a character on a show like Downton I thought she worked really well and was probably quite a realistic representation of a certain type of woman of her status living in that time and place. 

3. It seems most feel very strongly about Edith one way or the other, but I'm indifferent. I don't hate her at all and am glad things turned out well for her but I didn't find the character interesting or enjoyable to watch. Even when she was happier and kinder there is something I find a little unpleasant about her that kept me from connecting with her character. If you described her to me I would guess that she's the character I would love most, especially once she forges a great career for herself, but she comes off as so querulous and passive aggressive even at the best of times. I also don't think I like Bertie quite as much as most do. He seems like a lovely man and I'm sure in real life he would make a wonderful husband, but as a character he was pleasant but just there. He seemed like one of many love interests to whom the writers forgot to assign a personality. 

Along those same lines, I don't have strong feelings about Matthew, Henry Talbot, Tony Gillingham or Michael Grigson either. Many love Matthew, hate Michael and Tony and don't care about Henry, but while I don't dislike any of them I didn't find any of them interesting or memorable. I feel like I couldn't describe any of them very well or tell any of their personalities apart, like if you gave me a list of some traits I'd have no idea which of the above men you were describing. I think I agree with the people who said that Matthew's main appeal is that he brought out the softness in Mary, but I thought Henry brought that out as well during his shorter time in her life. That's fine if that was the men's purpose for being on the show, but they didn't feel like fully formed characters in their own right. 

4. Cora is my favorite character on the whole show and has been from the first episode. I tend to like characters who are underestimated but in their own ways are more competent and valuable than they seem, especially if they're set during times when women were often viewed as just decorative baby machines. I love her relationship with Robert though obviously it has its flaws. I also agree with loving her development in the final season which is why I may be the only person I know of who liked the hospital plot.  

5. Not even the plots about one of the Bateses behind bars made me stop enjoying them. Bates being dark and seeming like he very well could kill under certain circumstances made him more interesting in a strange way. I do wish those plots had gone somewhere, though, and been treated like real who-dun--its instead of afterthoughts.

6. This may be the most unpopular one here so far but I like Tom more in later seasons than in the earlier ones. He says something in season five about how he no longer sees the world in such black and white terms, and that sums up for me how he seems to have evolved. I don't feel he abandoned his beliefs, just learned that you can have strong opinions and passionate feelings without expressing them in a way that alienates people. I love Tom a lot overall and feel like that may be a little unpopular. 

7. Other than Cora x Robert, I think all the romantic relationships I cared about involved the downstairs characters: Anna x Bates, Baxter x Molesley, even Daisy x William. I didn't really want Elsie and Carson to get together, which I'm guessing is very unpopular. I felt like she deserved better. 

8. Ending on a light note: Robert getting that new puppy is one of the best moments of the show and I rewatch it whenever I need to cheer myself up. I would own the sixth season just for that scene even if I didn't love other things about the final season! 

[caligirl50]

Amensisterfriend and Northhanger Abby - I agree with you on so many points!

I realize I didn’t say what I liked about the show, which as I pointed out, I watch every day and love. Regarding Season 6,  I agree about Robert and the puppy.  It is a favorite moment. Robert gives one of the best faces.  Ever.   My other favorite moment of Season 6 is Mrs. Patmore running to see Edith and Bertie off.  I get goose bumps every time I see.  It’s adorable and funny at the same time.

Edith at work is a joy to watch...something completely different for the show. The show gave away that Bertie and Edith were going to be together with the comment from Season 5, “Poor Mr. Pelham. We all sort of feel sorry for him.” Ding, Ding, Ding!!!!!  Edith’s soul mate!!!  Ha!

I will write more when I think of more...thanks for all the positive feedback!

[AndySmith]

Especially around these parts, I wouldn't call Carson being an unlikable ass in later seasons or not liking Henry and/or his relationship with Mary being all that unpopular. I don't visit other sites, so who knows, maybe they are, I'm just basing it on what I see here (and as someone who did like both Henry and his relationship with Mary, it does feel like being a member of a very very small club here at TWOP).

Edited July 23, 2016 by photo fox

[Roseanna]

amensisterfriend, what I meant was that Agatha Christie's Sad Cyprus ends with Poirot saying to a woman he has cleared from the murder charge that she can be happy with a man whom she doesn't love but who had proved during her trial that he loves her - whereas a man she loves has made her very unhappy.

That is, simply loving someone is no guaratee that you will become happy with him/her. 

However, in the classical love stories one wants to be the person one loves, regardless of it makes one happy or unhappy.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Roseanna

[Roseanna]

As for being an unpopular opinion, I think it isn't simply the same as a rare opinion (Evelyn+Mary) but it demands also that the issue raises feelings (f.ex. Henry+Mary).

My unpopular opinion concerns rather fanfiction than the series itself. I can't understand why so many fanfiction writers make Michael Gregson a rogue and favor Edith marrying Anthony Strallan.       

Edited July 23, 2016 by photo fox

[NorthangerAbby]

I would love to know what people loved about the Henry and Mary dynamic because I would like to fall in love with them too! As I noted, I don't hold the popular opinion of thinking Mary and Matthew was necessarily better than Mary and Henry in any way, so my mind is wide open. Basically I just love hearing about why people feel the way they do and always keep those perspectives in mind when I rewatch the show. 

I also thought of another unpopular opinion, which is that I could never warm up to Rosamund.  Just like there is something unpleasant about Edith to me even as I can recognize her growth and positive qualities, Rosamund has this unlikable air about her that's hard for me to define but impossible for me not to see. I think I only liked her in this one scene with Cora, but then as established above I hold the unpopular view that Cora is my favorite character so I enjoy almost everyone in scenes with Cora. 

I think the relationship between Anna and Mary is one of the most important facets of the whole show. I'm honestly not sure whether that's unpopular but thought I would mention it because it's also a big part of why I have the unpopular opinion of really liking Mary despite her shortcomings. 

[slf]

On 5/1/2016 at 0:33 PM, amensisterfriend said:

3) I think Matthew would have been much happier with Lavinia than with Mary. And while I get the argument that he softens Mary and makes her a warmer and more likable person, how does HE benefit from being in a relationship with her except arguably to be a little less dully perfect since she could frustrate even the most saintly of men?! I'm making it sound like I hate Mary/Matthew as a couple, and I don't---though I sure came close to hating Mary at various points throughout the series---but while they're often considered the best thing about DA, with repeated viewings I've found that they're surprisingly low on my list of reasons to watch. 

4) This one is as weird as it is unpopular, but I actually feel like Rose made for a better Sybil than the real Sybil :) (Rose is one of the reasons I unpopularly adore S5, by the way!) Something about the actress just makes Rose the youthful, spirited, rebellious yet warm and sweet character that I think Sybil was supposed to be but somehow wasn't IMO. The actress who plays Sybil seemed somehow detached and out of it IMO, and I had trouble buying her as genuinely passionate about Tom, politics, social change or anything else. I actually think the actress would have worked much better as a Mary-esque type of character. 

7) By contrast, Robert's downstairs counterpart, Carson, became more and more insufferable to me in pretty much every conceivable way, and this is coming from someone who used to really enjoy and even defend the character.  By the middle of S6 I was hoping that Elsie would sprinkle a generous amount of arsenic in those dinners he criticized so relentlessly. 

Since there's no hard and fast rule around here as to whether it has to be an unpopular opinion on PTV or in general I say keep 'em comin'. Personally I'm not going back through every thread on this forum to see what other people think to know if I should bother posting my opinion or not, you know? As for these unpopular opinions of yours:

I rather agree. M+M wasn't my otp but I didn't hate it and thought they had some solid arcs, but overall I can't pretend he wouldn't have been happier with someone with fewer issues. I love Mary, a lot more than most people, but she could be difficult. I think they would have remained happily married had he not died but I think they would have had a lot of problems, a lot of rough patches. Lavinia was more easy-going, gentler in many ways, and I think Matthew might've been happier overall with her.

Sybil I always thought was shyer than her sisters; spirited but shy. Fellowes, in my opinion, liked to mix personality traits so everything wasn't so standard; like how Mary remained traditional and very emotionally distant even when swept up in romances which isn't typical for period heroines while Edith as the 'plain' sister should have been the smartest but wasn't any smarter than her sisters. So Sybil was the most progressive but also the softest and shyest, prone to ducking her head and speaking in a gentle voice. Rose always struck me as almost childishly excitable, which could be charming or grated, depending on the situation. I never thought she was meant to be like or replace Sybil as anything other than a young female character; Rose wasn't especially interested in politics or class (as Sybil was) and I think her relationship with Jack rather highlighted that. In fact I thought she had some similarities with the one JF had suss out Rose's motivations: Mary (who I always thought partially went after Pamuk just to sabotage the situation because she resented her father showing more interest in marrying her off than breaking the entail) despite how different their personalities were.

Carson! God, almost everywhere else on the internet people love Carson and wanted him and Hughes together but I couldn't stand him after maybe season three. He could be pointlessly rude to his staff and I never understood his attachment to serving in the Crawley household to the point where he resented others who wanted to leave service (like poor Gwen). And poor Hughes! He treated her like a servant once they married. I couldn't bare him by the end of the show.

[txhorns79]

I have been rewatching the first season, and while I think Bates and Anna have a nice chemistry, I think their relationship is a little bizarre.  Within the context of the first season, I would say the two of them probably spend all of fifteen minutes alone on screen before Anna is pledging her love to Bates.  Why does she love him?  Who knows?  The show certainly doesn't suggest anything.   

On the positive side, the Isobel/Dowager Countess sniping is just wonderful.   

[Roseanna]

On ‎23‎.‎6‎.‎2016 at 3:08 AM, txhorns79 said:

I have been rewatching the first season, and while I think Bates and Anna have a nice chemistry, I think their relationship is a little bizarre.  Within the context of the first season, I would say the two of them probably spend all of fifteen minutes alone on screen before Anna is pledging her love to Bates.  Why does she love him?  Who knows?  The show certainly doesn't suggest anything.      

I think it's quite clear. Bates is lame and in the beginning he is treated badly or at least it is suspected whether he will be able to conduct his duties. Anna feels sorry for him and defends him. Bates responds to her kindness by bringing food to her when she is sick.  

One can assume that Anna for some reason is drawn to a man who is an outsider and a little mysterious.  

Still, I find curious that Anna has such a confidence in Bates' moral worth without any actual proof and can't give him up. Of course we will learn that Mrs Bates is a horrible person but Anna can't know it in the beginning. Why does she insist to marry a man who has abandoned his wife? In addition, the audience seems never have felt any moral scruples with this, unlike with Edith and Gregson.    

[caligirl50]

On June 26, 2016 at 1:09 AM, Roseanna said:

Of course we will learn that Mrs Bates is a horrible person but Anna can't know it in the beginning. Why does she insist to marry a man who has abandoned his wife? 

Really?

[txhorns79]

Quote

I think it's quite clear. Bates is lame and in the beginning he is treated badly or at least it is suspected whether he will be able to conduct his duties. Anna feels sorry for him and defends him. Bates responds to her kindness by bringing food to her when she is sick.  

One can assume that Anna for some reason is drawn to a man who is an outsider and a little mysterious.  

I'd like to think the reasons someone openly professes their love for someone are deeper than that.   I don't think the show did a great job on that front, and maybe the actors' chemistry simply made it easier to believe.  

Quote

Still, I find curious that Anna has such a confidence in Bates' moral worth without any actual proof and can't give him up.

 

I find it bizarre that in later seasons she is to the point where it seems obvious she believes that Bates is capable of murder, yet she stays with him. 

Quote

And poor Hughes! He treated her like a servant once they married. I couldn't bare him by the end of the show.

 

I have no idea how Mrs. Hughes could stand to be married to someone who seemed to value the Crawley family a heck of a lot more than he valued his wife. 

[caligirl50]

Agreed.  In addition, I never saw the “slow burn” between Carson and Mrs. Hughes that was discussed/obvious to everyone.  Julian Fellowes did the character no favors writing Carson as insensitive and condescending this last season.

Mosley and Miss Baxter were the better couple.  I thought we would see them marry or at least get engaged.  

[txhorns79]

Quote

Mosley and Miss Baxter were the better couple.  I thought we would see them marry or at least get engaged.  

They at least seemed to be on the same wavelength.  There were times when I thought Carson considered himself above all the other servants, including Mrs. Hughes, and that translated into their marriage at times. 

[caligirl50]

YES!!!!!

[Roseanna]

On ‎19‎.‎5‎.‎2016 at 3:44 PM, slf said:

Mary (who I always thought partially went after Pamuk just to sabotage the situation because she resented her father showing more interest in marrying her off than breaking the entail) despite how different their personalities were.

Mary was sexually attracted to Pamuk just because his personality was so different from her English suitors (even apart his different etnicity, some women are drawn to attractive "rogues"). In their ride he encouraged her literally go over barriers which awoke something in her that was normally kept inside, her usually cold face was lit with glow. Her attraction was purely impulsive and there was nothing calculated in her behavior, so I can't see how it could have to do with his father. She flirted with Pamuk but when he kissed her, she rebuked him. He came to her bedroom uninvited and (at least) manipulated her to sleep with him. So I can't agree that she "went after him" (actually, it would have been quite interesting if she had).

[Roseanna]

On ‎10‎.‎7‎.‎2016 at 7:38 PM, txhorns79 said:

I'd like to think the reasons someone openly professes their love for someone are deeper than that.   I don't think the show did a great job on that front, and maybe the actors' chemistry simply made it easier to believe.  

There are many differences between the real life and fiction. The audience knows certain rules by heart, f.ex. a silent mysterious man is the one for a heroine. Irl he hardly makes a good husband, but in fiction we seldom see their marriage but believe in their happiness if there is a chemistry between the couple.  

As for Anna, I think the clue is JF's remark that her suggestion to cohabit with Bates is "big" in the age. We have difficult to notice how many rules she breaks as they don't exist any more (even that she professes her love first is inappriate to a woman). Although she always speaks sweetly, in her behavior she is S1 and S2 a real rebel willing to risk all for love. 

[Roseanna]

On ‎10‎.‎7‎.‎2016 at 7:38 PM, txhorns79 said:

I find it bizarre that in later seasons she is to the point where it seems obvious she believes that Bates is capable of murder, yet she stays with him. 

Well, even the kind Mrs Hughes accepted that a man has a right to murder a man who had raped his wife. And when Lady Mary thinks she has an evidence against Bates she destroys it because Bates has proven his loyaly towards Crawleys by making a forgery. 

[slf]

3 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Mary was sexually attracted to Pamuk just because his personality was so different from her English suitors (even apart his different etnicity, some women are drawn to attractive "rogues"). In their ride he encouraged her literally go over barriers which awoke something in her that was normally kept inside, her usually cold face was lit with glow. Her attraction was purely impulsive and there was nothing calculated in her behavior, so I can't see how it could have to do with his father. She flirted with Pamuk but when he kissed her, she rebuked him. He came to her bedroom uninvited and (at least) manipulated her to sleep with him. So I can't agree that she "went after him" (actually, it would have been quite interesting if she had).

I think Mary was sexually attracted to Pamuk because Theo James is gorgeous. She might've found his personality appealing but she reacted strongly to him physically before he'd even opened his mouth. In terms of "went after", I'm referring to sticking with him during the ride, walking in with him rather than the man she was looking to marry, looking to Pamuk flirtily during the introductions, focusing on him during dinner, and then abandoning the other guests during their after dinner drinks. 

As I said, I think Mary's interest in Pamuk (such as it was) was layered. I think there was a combination of pure lust, the excitement of the foreign bad boy, a desire to be the center of attention, and yes, in my opinion, an underlying need to stick it to her own family w/r/t them just giving in (in her opinion) where the inheritance was concerned, and to not just give up herself. This also played a hand in how long she waited to give an answer to Matthew- she hadn't spoken to him in months, prior to Cora's pregnancy, after he proposed. Mary didn't want to marry a man and become the lady of his home, she wanted to be lady of her own home. 

[Roseanna]

8 hours ago, slf said:

I think Mary was sexually attracted to Pamuk because Theo James is gorgeous.

No doubt, but they on purpose searched for an actor whom the female audience would find "hot".   

[slf]

7 hours ago, Roseanna said:

No doubt, but they on purpose searched for an actor whom the female audience would find "hot".   

That's what I'm saying.

Mary's attraction to and flirtation with Pamuk was all about Mary; where she was psychologically at the time, what her needs were (emotionally), etc.

[txhorns79]

Quote

Well, even the kind Mrs Hughes accepted that a man has a right to murder a man who had raped his wife. And when Lady Mary thinks she has an evidence against Bates she destroys it because Bates has proven his loyalty towards Crawleys by making a forgery. 

That's kind of my point.  She presumes that under the right circumstances her husband will become violent and murderous.  This is as opposed to the situation with Mrs. Bates, who spent essentially two seasons regularly provoking Bates and trying to destroy him, where Anna refused to believe that her husband could ever be driven to murder.   

I had also forgotten how horrible Carson was to Branson when he and Sybil returned for Mary's wedding.  There is something very wrong with the picture when Carson is taking more offense to the situation than the family is. 

Edited July 16, 2016 by txhorns79

[caligirl50]

3 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

I had also forgotten how horrible Carson was to Branson when he and Sybil returned for Mary's wedding.  There is something very wrong with the picture when Carson is taking more offense to the situation than the family is. 

Carson has tunnel vision when it comes to the family he serves and ESPECIALLY, Mary Crawley.  Thinking about it, the only times (3) I liked Carson was a) when he was made a fool of by Charlie Griggs and, b) he’s pretty lovely to Mr. Bates when he is having all his problems (telling past history, awful wife showing up and threatening the family, convicted of murder), c) when he goes into Baby Sybil’s room when she is crying.

Which after reading the above is surprising considering the way he treated Mrs. Patmore when all her problems arose...and none were as bad as Mr. Bates’.  Some times the writing in this show makes no sense.

Edited July 16, 2016 by caligirl50

[caligirl50]

Also, and this is SO STOOPID but I feel like sharing ‘cause I’m feeling silly:  How funny would it have been in the second episode of this season when Mr. Bates finds Anna in the boot room crying and he says to her, “You are married. That means you never have to cry alone” and he started wailing????  

I’m sorry.  I couldn’t help myself.

[txhorns79]

I thought the resolution of Cora and Roberts' estrangement following Sybil's death was a big cop out.  While it was true that Sybil may have died regardless of what was done for her, Robert facilitated a situation where Sybil wasn't given any options other than death.  I can't imagine how Cora would have forgiven him for that, much less in the way it happened, with making Dr. Clark essentially be like "She totally would have died anyways, so even though I showed good judgment, I still end up looking like it wasn't a big deal."  

Or maybe I just didn't really care for Robert, if only because he seemed to regularly show awful judgment during the show, while rarely learning from the situation.           

[slf]

On 7/26/2016 at 5:41 AM, txhorns79 said:

I thought the resolution of Cora and Roberts' estrangement following Sybil's death was a big cop out.  While it was true that Sybil may have died regardless of what was done for her, Robert facilitated a situation where Sybil wasn't given any options other than death.  I can't imagine how Cora would have forgiven him for that, much less in the way it happened, with making Dr. Clark essentially be like "She totally would have died anyways, so even though I showed good judgment, I still end up looking like it wasn't a big deal."  

Or maybe I just didn't really care for Robert, if only because he seemed to regularly show awful judgment during the show, while rarely learning from the situation.           

All of this. Sybil was my favorite character the first time I watched the show and her dying (and in such a crappy way) put a dent in my interest in the show. But seeing Robert "but what about my feelings" his way out of that situation with an assist from Violet put my teeth on edge. As you say, he absolutely helped create that situation and the cost of that was his daughter's life. Sybil's death was only a possibility if they listened to Clarkson, it was a guarantee if they didn't, and Robert put his own feelings and ego ahead of what was best for Sybil. Not only do I not buy Cora forgiving him so quickly but I don't buy Tom getting over that so quickly.

[caligirl50]

Jessica Brown Findlay gave Julian Fellowes early warning that she wanted off the show. He gave her a big send off. Julian’s writing doesn’t always make sense.

Personally, I don’t feel that Tom got over Sybil quickly.  But that’s just my opinion. 

[txhorns79]

I think it was around Season 4 that I realized that the writers really have no clue what to do with Thomas.   They seemed to have him rotate between being pathetic and scheming.  They spent Season 3 having him being grateful to Bates and Anna for essentially saving him from the consequences of O'Brien's evil revenge scheme, only to have him turn around the next season to start scheming against Bates again for no real reason. 

[slf]

On 7/30/2016 at 2:12 PM, caligirl50 said:

Personally, I don’t feel that Tom got over Sybil quickly.  But that’s just my opinion. 

Oh I don't mean that Tom got over Sybil's death quickly, I mean that he got over the role Robert played a little too quickly.

[slf]

I don't think that it makes sense at all. Mary had invited Evelyn to Downton and then she ignored him by openly flirting with Pamuk. No man with any self-respect would have proposed after that kind of humiliation. And no women, even with Mary's gross vanity, would have expected him to do it. 

I was rewatching bits of seasons 4 and 5 this past week and this struck me; Mary has both Tony and Charles on the hook and each was aware not only of the other but of the other's relationship with Mary. The average man wouldn't tolerate that situation at all, less yet want to marry the woman, and yet they did and Mary herself was only slightly bothered by it all. Mary was written pretty consistently throughout the years; Mary, more often than not, thought she was the shit and she expected everyone else to think so to and to tolerate her faults no matter how rude or obnoxious.