Unpopular Opinions

[SusanSunflower]

Fellowes could never decide what to do with Sybil or Tom -- as a pair or individually. I'm not sure he realized in casting Findley-Brown he had created real competition with MARY ... in looks and temperament.  Sybil began as an almost throw-away youngest sibling and then -- who can forget the pajamas and the political rallies -- blossomed into someone much more interesting than Mary (but even Tom and Sybil's courtship was written badly and unevenly) before vanishing to Ireland apparently to become a drudge wife ... 

I recall my shock when I realized that Sybil was -- in fact -- the great beauty ... Fellowes was briefly infatuated with the character and then ... done with her. 

 

From what I've read of this last season, I'm most curious about Brendan Coyle -- a top of the marque actor -- who was given absolutely nothing to do for the entire final run. ... not even in the finale.  As usual, I have to wonder what Coyle did the Fellowes decided he needed to be punished ... but it's still shocking to me given how much Coyle was probably being paid (having, I assume, skillfully negotiated the value of his loyalty to the production, after the defection of so many cast members). . 

[amensisterfriend]

I wish so many people didn't hate nearly everything about this show, though obviously I get feeling disillusioned with various aspects of it. I still love it and think many aspects of it were top notch despite readily acknowledging its many flaws. In fact, this last season went a long way towards reminding me of what I thought was so special about DA in the first place.

 

If I start a positivity thread, will anyone else join me there?! I hope so :)  But before we get to the positivity...

 

 

 

I'm not sure he realized in casting Findley-Brown he had created real competition with MARY ... in looks and temperament.

 

 I found her just above average looking and utterly dull, flat and forgettable as a character, but again, I hold the admittedly unpopular opinion of not enjoying Sybil/Tom nearly as much as most! 

Edited December 28, 2015 by amensisterfriend

[Eolivet]

I recall my shock when I realized that Sybil was -- in fact -- the great beauty ... Fellowes was briefly infatuated with the character and then ... done with her.

 

Easy. JBF herself said in interviews after the fact that she came back to season 2 and told Fellowes she'd only do three seasons. It's why (IMO) the Sybil/Tom courtship is so rushed -- Fellowes having penned the first five episodes of the season already. Watching it back, it's almost comical: Sybil goes from hesitation to a total about-face in 2x06 ("I want to travel and you're my ticket!"). He married her off to get rid of her, kept her out of the Christmas Special so fans would get used to not having her there, and then drastically changed her appearance so viewers could see how unkind living in Ireland had been to her and how much better she was at home -- before he killed her off.

 

Coyle is a more interesting case -- I get the feeling he hated Downton by the end (some Twitter thing about how he was promoting a project where he said he was proud to be associated with it and someone asked if he felt the same way about Downton and he basically said no), but kept showing up for the paycheck. Wasn't there rumors he came to set so drunk, they couldn't film at one point? This has to be later, though, because I don't see Fellowes keeping on a problem actor after the initial contracts expired in season 3. But I do wonder now if season 5's "Bates is suspected of murder: Part Deux" was payback for Coyle's behavior.

[Andorra]

 

If I start a positivity thread, will anyone else join me there?! I hope so :)  But before we get to the positivity...

 

 

Sorry, no. Had you asked me before season 5, I would have gladly joined you. That was the time where I still had hopes for Downton. Tom's storyline in season 5 changed that and then my love for the show turned into annoyance and by the end of season 6 I'm actually hating it. 

 

 

Coyle is a more interesting case -- I get the feeling he hated Downton by the end (some Twitter thing about how he was promoting a project where he said he was proud to be associated with it and someone asked if he felt the same way about Downton and he basically said no), but kept showing up for the paycheck. Wasn't there rumors he came to set so drunk, they couldn't film at one point? This has to be later, though, because I don't see Fellowes keeping on a problem actor after the initial contracts expired in season 3. But I do wonder now if season 5's "Bates is suspected of murder: Part Deux" was payback for Coyle's behavior.

 

He made the mistake of criticizing Julian Fellows for the "Bates in prison" storyline of season 3. He dared to say that it was boring. After that he was a dead man with a contract. He had to turn up, but he was completely sidelined and now in season 6 he really had no storyline at all.

 

Allen Leech was a different case though. No other actor has been as busy promoting the show in the last years. He was at every single Downton event, he went to all promotion tours, he promoted Downton for free when he was in the USA last year for "The Imitation Game" and still he got just as sidelined as Brendan Coyle. 

[SusanSunflower]

oh, I had no idea about Coyle -- he was so clearly one of Fellowes' favorites in the first seasons and I would guess that he has/had a substantial enough fan base to be a draw -- it was so strange to literally "lock him up"  endlessly ... past the point where indifference turned to annoyance to outright hostility ... I thought Fellowes owed him (Coyle, not Bates) some sort of "redemption" ... ISIS got replaced by an adorable puppy ... besides with Carson turning into an ogre, there was room for Bates to be a wonderful husband/father/downstairs male role model ...  but that does seem to have become a problem ... so many characters turned unlikeable or "iffy" or long-suffering ... oh well, so many of the actor/character story arcs had so much potential ... and should serve as a caution to those approached to be in Fellowes' next project ... cough ... 

 

Eta: Given the amount of what looks to me like "flailing around" (possibly even "agonizing") that Fellowes seems to have done wrt characters and plots, I'm guessing he may be the most relieved to be done with this project. 

Edited December 28, 2015 by SusanSunflower

[ZoloftBlob]

He made the mistake of criticizing Julian Fellows for the "Bates in prison" storyline of season 3. He dared to say that it was boring. After that he was a dead man with a contract. He had to turn up, but he was completely sidelined and now in season 6 he really had no storyline at all.

 

I really pray *someone* writes a tell all book :D

[TheGreenKnight]

I found her just above average looking and utterly dull, flat and forgettable as a character, but again, I hold the admittedly unpopular opinion of not enjoying Sybil/Tom nearly as much as most! 

I liked Sybil, but not Sybil/Tom. I could never get behind that relationship since it was portrayed more as Sibyl trying to buck against the Downton lifestyle rather than really being “in love.” I felt so sorry for Sibyl in season 3; her scenes with Tom as her new owner, excuse me, husband were excruciating to watch. I didn’t like Tom at all until season 5 when he began to take over Sybil's role as mediator between Edith and Mary. I don't think this show could satisfactorily portray revolutionary characters like them believably.

 

So many people Fellowes supposedly had problems with on this show. I'm surprised he and Maggie Smith got on.

 

I'm surprised how many feel 5 is where the show really went to the dogs, but it's the one that brought me back in, strangely enough. I felt like I was in a coma when I first watched 4. 

[kpw801]

I don't know how unpopular this opinion is but I don't see anywhere else to address the absolute abdication of responsible or creative writing during the second incarnation of the Bates jail odyssey.  I rolled my eyes in disgust when they recycled the dialogue having Mrs. Bates say "Do you ever doubt?" and Mr. Bates say, something to the effect of "I don't doubt the sun will rise in the morning."  It was like JF just resorted to cutting and pasting dialogue.

 

I didn't like the agony aunt success of Spratt.  There was never any resolution or karmic payback for his spiteful sabotage of Molesley.  I never liked the fact that Moseley was a perfectly humble and well behaved servant who would have represented the Dowager in any situation perfectly rather than that snobbish Spratt who refused to serve Dr. Clarkson.  She nearly fired Denker for being disrespectful yet she put up with Sratt's ridiculous behavior over and over again.

 

She should have fired Denker after she blabbed something she was specifically asked to keep confidential.  The screen time given to Denker and Spratt was to me filler because JF couldn't think of anything more substantial to write about. 

 

I am doing a rewatch but It is because I am addicted to the beauty of the scenery and the costumes.  The best season was season 1.  

 

I agree with many other fans who think the show began to flounder when Matthew died.  I hope the new show "The Guilded Age" will have a group of writers because JF really needs help coming up with new ideas.

[SusanSunflower]

I was mostly interested Tom and Sybil as a way to explore what was happening outside of Downton at that time -- Women's suffrage movement in England in those years was radical and making strides ... as were many leftist/socialist causes. This was before we knew about the Downton Triangle ... I developed a particular affection for Rosamund for the same reason ... people who existed outside the bell jar .... 

 

The re-launched Upstairs Downstairs that debuted almost simultaneously with Downton ALSO had a daughter + chauffeur romance as well -- much sexier and less prominent to season, as I recall. UsDs was unflatteringly compared with Downton at the time, but I found when I rewatched it was considerably better than I remembered -- however any story/soap opera in which a woman seduces her sister's husband is -- for me -- queasy making ... Keeley Hawes played the female lead (the wife) and -- to my surprise -- somehow never really created a spark 

Edited December 29, 2015 by SusanSunflower

[ZoloftBlob]

I'm surprised how many feel 5 is where the show really went to the dogs, but it's the one that brought me back in, strangely enough. I felt like I was in a coma when I first watched 4.

 

I think, speaking just for myself, that I am willing to forgive season 4 a lot more than season five or six because I thought they had to dig out of one hell of a hole. I liked Edith's storyline, I thought the rape storyline with Anna was compelling, and I even liked Rose's presentation to the King. As much as I didn't like "let the games begin" I also accepted that Mary's story had to go somewhere...

 

Season five and six are kinda in a tie for worst with me, with season 5 edging out season six slightly but they both suffered from similar problems, namely that JF subscribes to the "all of this has happened before and all of this will happen again" way of writing. The murder of Greene. Mary needing an entire season just to dump Gillingham.... the only thing that happened in season five that actually mattered and had a lasting impact was Edith getting her kid back, and that was ridiculously convoluted. Season five was essentially a holding pattern for Matthew Goode and JF clearly relied on old, used, story ideas.

 

Season six frankly started way too slow and far too much was wrapped up in episode eight while the first four episodes dragged. And Matthew Goode didn't impress, and the writing of Henry didn't impress - up until the CS, Henry came off like a creepy, potentially abusive demanding jerk with his "I love cars and YOU WILL TOO!" stuff. Then - and I kidded about this on a different site but I start to wonder when I consider how JF reuses everything - is it just me or did all of Henry's lines to Mary when they were alone in the Xmas episode sound like they could have easily have been said by Matthew?

[Tetraneutron]

I'd say season 4 was when there stopped being conflict between the characters and they stopped having real obstacles they had to overcome. At least obstacles that lasted more than an episode. The first season had everyone's worlds changing right from under them, stuck in positions they hated but couldn't get out of, competing with the other characters, unhappy with their roles in life, unsure what all the coming social revolution meant, not getting along personally, love vs security, comfort vs excitement . . . And people DID things rather than sit around moping for half the show (TOM).

 

Even the big thing in season 4 (Anna's rape) didn't work because it became so over the top. The consequences of being raped are not that you or your husband get arrested for murder. They just aren't. Besides being a retread of the Vera plot (which actually worked because the situations sprang organically from the characters). If the rape had affected Anna's relationship with Bates, or the rest of the staff, or she became pregnant (soapy and cliched, but that IS what we're watching) or she tried to go to the police but they didn't believe her, that would be interesting and dramatic. 

 

Season six had three episodes devoted to what kind of wedding reception Carson and Mrs. Hughes should have. Cocktail party or sit-down dinner? Turn in two weeks from now for the exciting conclusion!

[Roseanna]

Tetraneutron, I agree with you completely. Although DA was soap from the beginning, at least the plot was based on from the characters and they had real problems. From S4 only Edith had.

Regarding Anna's rape, it was odd that she refused to tell her husband would kill the rapist and after he died she was afraid that he had actually killed it. If she really think that he was capable of killing, why had she been sure that he hadn't killed his wife?

The affair showed rather oddly that the characters abandoned the concept of justice as a legal system conducted on the half of the society and accepted the private revenge. Lady Mary destroyed the evidence because Bates and Anna had been loyal to the Crawleys. Even the ever kind Mrs Hughes thought that Bates had a right to revenge on the half of his wife - evidently without a thought that if Bates was brought to the trial, Anna's rape would be know by the public although Anna had refused to go to the police in order to prevent that.

[kpw801]

I'd say season 4 was when there stopped being conflict between the characters and they stopped having real obstacles they had to overcome. At least obstacles that lasted more than an episode. The first season had everyone's worlds changing right from under them, stuck in positions they hated but couldn't get out of, competing with the other characters, unhappy with their roles in life, unsure what all the coming social revolution meant, not getting along personally, love vs security, comfort vs excitement . . . And people DID things rather than sit around moping for half the show (TOM).

 

Even the big thing in season 4 (Anna's rape) didn't work because it became so over the top. The consequences of being raped are not that you or your husband get arrested for murder. They just aren't. Besides being a retread of the Vera plot (which actually worked because the situations sprang organically from the characters). If the rape had affected Anna's relationship with Bates, or the rest of the staff, or she became pregnant (soapy and cliched, but that IS what we're watching) or she tried to go to the police but they didn't believe her, that would be interesting and dramatic. 

 

I totally agree.  I think the show became less of an escape and pleasure and more of an addiction.  It was like the bad feeling after drinking too much.  When Anna was raped and then we had to go through this ridiculous plot of her pulling away from her husband because he would be hung for murder.  What happened to all that faith in his character.  JF gave the vapid Rose a more perceptive character when she just "knew" that sort of thing (the tart episode) was not his (Lord Sinderby's) cup of tea.

 

I think if I never hear the phrase IT WAS NOT MY SECRET TO TELL It will be too soon!!

 

Season six had three episodes devoted to what kind of wedding reception Carson and Mrs. Hughes should have. Cocktail party or sit-down dinner? Turn in two weeks from now for the exciting conclusion!

Edited December 29, 2015 by kpw801

[DianeDobbler]

 

Sybil was not only too flatly perfect, but the casting choice never quite worked for me---the actress didn't really exude the sweetness,energy and passion that I gather Sybil was supposed to.

 

Me too. I thought Lily James exuded those qualities far more naturally and with more energy than I ever felt from Jessica Brown Finley, and she had more chemistry with everybody. So naturally, she never got a good romance and was hastily rushed off the show after several set pieces showing us her supposed "wild side."

[kpw801]

I'd say season 4 was when there stopped being conflict between the characters and they stopped having real obstacles they had to overcome. At least obstacles that lasted more than an episode. The first season had everyone's worlds changing right from under them, stuck in positions they hated but couldn't get out of, competing with the other characters, unhappy with their roles in life, unsure what all the coming social revolution meant, not getting along personally, love vs security, comfort vs excitement . . . And people DID things rather than sit around moping for half the show (TOM).

 

Even the big thing in season 4 (Anna's rape) didn't work because it became so over the top. The consequences of being raped are not that you or your husband get arrested for murder. They just aren't. Besides being a retread of the Vera plot (which actually worked because the situations sprang organically from the characters). If the rape had affected Anna's relationship with Bates, or the rest of the staff, or she became pregnant (soapy and cliched, but that IS what we're watching) or she tried to go to the police but they didn't believe her, that would be interesting and dramatic. 

 

I totally agree.  I think the show became less of an escape and pleasure and more of an addiction.  It was like the bad feeling after drinking too much.  When Anna was raped and then we had to go through this ridiculous plot of her pulling away from her husband because he would be hung for murder.  What happened to all that faith in his character.  JF gave the vapid Rose a more perceptive character when she just "knew" that sort of thing (the tart episode) was not his (Lord Sinderby's) cup of tea.

 

I think if I never hear the phrase IT WAS NOT MY SECRET TO TELL It will be too soon!!

 

Season six had three episodes devoted to what kind of wedding reception Carson and Mrs. Hughes should have. Cocktail party or sit-down dinner? Turn in two weeks from now for the exciting conclusion!

[Roseanna]

I was never interested in Rose, but that was maybe due to her romances that were rather light. First there was a married man (BTV, a taxi driver said that he had to wait outside for a few hours, so was it a hint that they were in bed?) and Matthew made clear to Rose that "the horrible wife"-stories can't be taken seriously. Then there was a black singer and Mary intervened although in the end there was no need as the singer understood that it wasn't possible. And finally a Jew and all went smoothly as the only problem was his father. After which everybody was happy.

Sybil at last got herself hurt in a rally and became a nurse.

[Roseanna]

JBF herself said in interviews after the fact that she came back to season 2 and told Fellowes she'd only do three seasons. It's why (IMO) the Sybil/Tom courtship is so rushed -- Fellowes having penned the first five episodes of the season already. Watching it back, it's almost comical: Sybil goes from hesitation to a total about-face in 2x06 ("I want to travel and you're my ticket!").

It wasn't rushed from Tom's side as he had pined for her during the whole WW1. But it's odd that Sybil said to Mary that she doesn't even know whether she likes him.

On the other hand, she never actually refused him. When he said that he was going to stay in Downton so long that she would consent to elope with him, she could have said that it would never happen as she didn't love him, and that would have been the end of the story. By not giving an answer she gave him hope.

 

I liked Sybil, but not Sybil/Tom. I could never get behind that relationship since it was portrayed more as Sibyl trying to buck against the Downton lifestyle rather than really being “in love.”

I agree that it was a strange. But maybe she was only franker or more conscious of her motives than other women.

There were always many reasons why a woman or man fell for one person and not for another. Most people choose a person who was "suitable", being one of "our own". But if a woman wanted out of her old lifestyle, one way was to subconsciously choose a man who was not suitable or even not available. Cf. Edith and Michael Gregson and Rose's earlier men.

I don't think that there was nothing wrong if Sybil chose Tom as her way of Downton, if she also learned to love him. On the contrary, if she had only loved him but didn't like his way of life in Dublin and longed for all she had given up for him, there there would have been problems.

PS. Why did everybody keep saying in DA that they eloped, when they actually come back and left for Ireland with Lord Grantham's blessing?

[AZChristian]

According to the real definition of "elope," that's what they did.  From dictionary.com:

 

1.  to run off secretly to be married, usually without the consent or knowledge of one's parents.
2.  to run away with a lover.
3.  to leave without permission or notification; escape:
 

You don't have to complete the marriage ceremony to have eloped.  It's the running off that makes it an elopement.

[DianeDobbler]

I always felt that what happened with Brendan Coyle was the Bates thing went on SO long, Coyle was so absolutely correct about it being boring, and Bates was so freaking insufferable, that the audience would have revolted if there were another Bates storyline. I also think Fellowes has no imagination at all. The category in which he pegs an actor or character is the category in which that person stays. I thought Coyle was a whole lot better working with Anna how to get Barrow out of the fix he was in with O'Brian than he was with the murder mysteries and glowering vengeful husband schtick. You know, the guy who'd been around, knew how to say a word to the wise to Robert at the right time, almost a bit like Tom was inititally, in that his worldview was a bit more than that of someone in "service." He had more sophistication. Anyhow, I just assumed, maybe wrongly, that the audience would have stormed the studios if Fellowes kept nailing Bates to the cross, and Fellowes had no other stories in mind, cause that's Fellowes.

 

I'm not sure he realized in casting Findley-Brown he had created real competition with MARY ... in looks and temperament.

 

 

I'll disagree. I didn't think Brown-Findley was anything special. She was very pretty in a contemporary way, and sounded very different from her sisters, but to me she was sort of a sex symbol type (to me, anyway) and perhaps more plausible as a downstairs sort than an upstairs sort. I could never work out who she was supposed to look like. I figured Mary took after her mother (the bone structure and the thin frame), and Edith took after the Crawley side (lighter hair, softer face).  I definitely believe Lily James, as Rose, has it all over Brown-Findley as far as personality, charm, charisma, and communicating that this is a young woman who is truly sweet-tempered, energetic, passionate, kind-hearted and democratic at her core. It was disappointing to me that Rose was only this sidelight and then rushed off the show.

 

I thought the Tom/Sybil romance was somewhat badly done, because it used that bit Fellowes has used with Mary, where the guy insists the girl loves him while the girl's doubts don't impress him at all. I remember thinking, are you SURE she's in love with you Tom? They didn't really bother using Allen Leech's humor and showing much of a playful side, or how they were together as people and personalities, versus a duo with shared beliefs. The only time I recall using Leech's humor and energy back then was when the house got a telephone and he was one of the few who could manage it.

[SusanSunflower]

Brown-Findley is considered a near-perfect example of classic pre-Raphaelite beauty ... which is not currently 'fashionable' but which never dies out as an enduring "type" from a time when a woman's beauty was supposed to be softer and curvier, even "kinder" ... one of the big problems with both Dockery and K. Knightley ... too thin, too tiny, unlikely to survive childbirth much less multiple pregnancies and childbirths ... certainly some tiny hip-less women survived, but fullness, even ample fullness was considered desirable. Cora has healthy-looking proportions ... so does Edith ... Mary, not really, and her pale stoicism does not look like it conceals a kind-forgiving heart ... Before I realized that JF actually had very little idea what he was doing, I thought it was marvelous to have the youngest, usually overlooked or taken-for-granted daughter suddenly blossom into a "force" ... then Sybil and Tom got in to Groundhog Day predictability and she largely became an uninteresting drudge... keeping Tom in line ... 

I liked the early Sybil/Tom relationship where Sybil wasn't a flirt or a tease, just a very young woman looking for someone to talk to ... and Tom was a thoughtful, somewhat flattered but also vaguely frustrated young man, mindful of her youth (and his position) ... compared to UsDs, it was refreshing to see "young people" behaving sensibly ... Sibyl was lonely and alone ... Mary, Edith and Cora weren't terribly interested in her ... getting Mary married and securing the estate was far beyond Sybil's influence and her self-by date was still years off. 

Edited December 30, 2015 by SusanSunflower

[skyways]

Yes with regards to Bates/Brendan Coyle, I too believed Fellowes really enjoyed that character and that's why he seemed to have a storyline almost every season (the only downstairs character to manage this). I thought it was hilarious that the audience moved from 'free Bates' to 'enough about Bates'. He was a very interesting character in the early seasons. I agree also that season 4 can be forgiven for being the way it was considering what had happened prior. It was an opportunity for a clean start so one could approach that season without bias yet full of expectations. Good plot points were set-up that had good possibilities (Bunting as the newest progressive in town, Tom wondering where he belonged, Mary and Isobel getting closer, Mary as new estate care-taker and mother, Edith as an unwed mother in the early 20's, Blake and the changing face of aristocracy and food production, the new prime minister and the working class as personified by Daisy, Anna's attack and consequences on BOTH upstairs and downstairs (I sincerely thought there would be wider ramifications on Gillingham and Mary). Soooooo many possibilities but so very, very little materialized.

For me Season 5 was the worst. I have little to no interest in 6 since nothing happened in 5. I liked the Christmas special of season 4 because of the glamour of Rose's coming out. For me the tone of that whole episode was appropriate. No plot unbalanced the other. It was a time for lightness and gaiety, no unnecessary or over-wrought drama and no plot needing to be rushed to a 'happy ending'. It was just clean, entertaining and well done episode.

[Roseanna]

I agree also that season 4 can be forgiven for being the way it was considering what had happened prior. It was an opportunity for a clean start so one could approach that season without bias yet full of expectations. Good plot points were set-up that had good possibilities (Bunting as the newest progressive in town, Tom wondering where he belonged, Mary and Isobel getting closer, Mary as new estate care-taker and mother, Edith as an unwed mother in the early 20's, Blake and the changing face of aristocracy and food production, the new prime minister and the working class as personified by Daisy, Anna's attack and consequences on BOTH upstairs and downstairs (I sincerely thought there would be wider ramifications on Gillingham and Mary). Soooooo many possibilities but so very, very little materialized.

You said it! The screenwriter's job is to make you expect something and then, after he has frustrated you many times, either fulfill those expectations - or if he doesn't, he must give you something better (I don't mean happy end, it can be also tragic or whatever that makes you sigh "it is this it ought to be").

Now it's clear that JF didn't want seriously to handle those subject you mentioned, so why even begin with them?

[Andorra]

 

Now it's clear that JF didn't want seriously to handle those subject you mentioned, so why even begin with them?

 

That's the question I'll forever ask. 

 

For example Tom: 

 

In the CS of season 3 I was so hopeful. Several interesting storylines for Tom had been started. He was felt alone and isoltated, didn't belong to either the family (who didn't take him with them to Scotland), nor did he belong to the servants (who felt awkward in his presence when he dined with them and who tried to use him for their own advantage (Edna). Isobel from upstairs and Mrs Hughes from Downstairs both encouraged him to find his own identity.

 

Also the theme of finding love again was started. Edna was obviously wrong, but the fact that Tom responded to her (even though confused and insecure) showed, that he was hoping to fall in love again someday. When he broke down in the library and told Mrs Hughes that he "can't bear to be without Sybil", she told him that hopefully one day he would find someone again. He also talked to Isobel about the prospect of finding love again. He knew it would be difficult, no Aristocrat would take him on, no working class girl would fit in, but she told him, that it would depend on the woman and that everything was possible. 

 

In season 4 we saw him struggle to find his place within the house and with the family. America as an option was mentioned, but the family told him, that they didn't want to lose him. He worked well with Mary and they managed to work well with Robert, too. He no longer felt as insecure as he did in season 3 and for me he was a valued member of the family by the end of season 4 and his "struggle to fit in" was resolved satsifactorly for me, when he managed to deflect Thomas' attack. So far so good. 

 

New storylines were introduced for him. Foremost politics. He developed a friendship with Isobel and she encouraged him to take an interest in politics again. She even asked him if he wouldn't be interested to go for a local office. Sarah Bunting was introduced and on paper she would have been a perfect possibility for a love interest for him, but unfortunately she turned out to be horrible instead.

 

Now I ask myself if that was unintentional. Had Julian Fellows planned to make her Tom's new love interest and then had to change direction, because the audience hated her so much? She wasn't exactly nice in season 4, but she definitely got worse in season 5, so I think it is possible that this was a storyline that went wrong and had to be corrected. And I wonder if Sarah Bunting is the reason that Tom didn't get a love interest in the end. Julian Fellows was pissed. 

 

Along with Sarah Bunting went Tom's interest for politics, his friendship with Isobel and his friendship with Mrs Hughes. There never were any scenes between them again. From the moment Sarah Bunting was away, Tom's old storylines were all dead. Instead all the sudden he started thinking about America, which was all he did for the rest of season 5. It didn't make any sense, because he now fit in, was a beloved family member and all matters of conflict had been removed, too. Also Sybbie was the beloved centre of attention for her grandfather. She was happy in Downton, too, so why should Tom leave?

 

He shouldn't have, as we found out in season 6. He came back resolving nothing, because there was nothing to resolve. He had a good job in Downton, a beloved family, a place where he belonged. His departure hadn't made any sense and so his return was just as pointless. 

 

All his storylines had been given up. No politics any more. And even love was no topic any more. He was now the happy Eunuch of the family and he ended season 6 as that. 

Edited December 31, 2015 by Andorra

[Eolivet]

Had Julian Fellows planned to make her Tom's new love interest and then had to change direction, because the audience hated her so much?

 

This has always been my theory, about pretty much anything that Fellowes wrote. He has an idea and when the audience (who he can't really poll, so it's mostly the media) doesn't like it, he doubles down on it or goes out of his way to pretend that wasn't his plan all along. Because the audience didn't like Sarah Bunting (and to be fair, the hate that poor actress got on Twitter from viewers was absolutely shameful), Fellowes went out of his way to write her as terrible. I also think that was his final indictment of "socialist" politics.

 

But this is another reason why I find Downton viewers not on this board to be a bunch of petty children who are determined to dislike anything their parents (Fellowes) put in front of them. I liked Sarah Bunting in season 4, but the metric ton of hate the audience seemed to have for her because she dared to be Not Sybil was really unbelievable. Like Tony Gillingham, I think the audience brought Tom's lack of romance on themselves, in Fellowes' eyes. Tom could be happily married to season 4 Sarah Bunting by now, with another little one, and be a contented family man if the audience hadn't howled so loudly that she was Not Sybil.

 

And I think that was the case with supporting characters not named Robert, Mary or Violet. There was only so much effort Fellowes was going to spend on them, and if you didn't like his effort, you didn't get anything at all. (like the child who rejects the meal and the parent says "It's this or go hungry." The audience chose the second option.)

 

Again, so we ended with Mary married to a man with a famous face who she knew for 10 minutes and Tom all alone. Was that better than Tony Gillingham and Sarah Bunting? I don't know. I'd have been happy with both. But I wonder if Fellowes could poll the audience now, is this the better ending? Or would they go back to the way Fellowes saw things in season 4?

[DianeDobbler]

I think casting is very important, and the animus against Sarah Bunting was not because she wasn't Sybil. I also believe it's completely possible to cast four and even five potential love interests and have them all be wrong. It's happened plenty of times in plenty of projects. I, personally, don't believe Sarah was intended to be a real love interest, but more to get Tom back in the swim, but he never did.

For good or bad, and for reasons that I've written about in other threads, I think Season 4 and the debacle of Mary's Three Suitors (even though they weren't REALLY three), and whatever plans Fellowes had to remarry her then, had the collateral effect of scuppering everybody else's romantic life.

[Andorra]

Well, I hated Sarah Bunting in season 4, too. Not as much as in season 5, but she was really awful and not just because she was "not Sybil". She was so harsh and obnoxious from the very beginning. The voice alone! Every sentence she said was a shout out, she seemed unable to say something nice even to Tom. She never respected Tom or his views, mocked his affection for the Crawleys and behaved generally like a cow. I actually do think the casting was a mistake in this case. Had Antonia Bernrath (Laura Edmunds) been Sarah Bunting, I don't see how anyone would have disliked her. 

 

Also I think to give him "overfeisty" Sarah Bunting after the Edna incident was also a bad idea. Sybil had been the sweetest and friendliest of the Crawley sisters. To foist two shrews on Tom now felt just wrong and out of character. He looked more frightened of Sarah Bunting than enamored. I also think Allen Leech didn't like the character (or the actress?), because he deliberately seemed to play against romance from the very beginning. 

Edited December 31, 2015 by Andorra

[skyways]

Season 4 for sure. I too liked Bunting as the perfect antagonist and the actress played her well. I truly saw her as vehicle to what Tom could become which is confident in his politics and having a real partner in this. (I mention Tom because most of her interactions were with him). But really is Fellowes the type of writer that is constantly listening to what the audience wants? Some part of me doesn't want to believe that.

Looking back definitely Fellowes should not have changed directions as often as he did with some major storylines from Season 4. Unless he himself got bored with it? Which I can more readily believe.

[Andorra]

 

Unless he himself got bored with it?

 

Since he replace the "boring" storylines with nothing or even more boring ones, I tend to think that can't be true. 

 

And I heard in an interview of Liz Tubridge that Fellows "likes to give the audience what it wants". That's why he paired up Carson and Hughes and why Edith got her happy ending. The Tom fans pissed him off when they didn't like Bunting and that was why Tom didn't get anything in the end and why he made them all cry on Christmas last year when he seemingly sent Tom away. That was his private, little revenge for not liking Bunting. 

Brendan Coyle pissed him off, too, when he said that he didn't like the prison storyline. After that he never got a storyline of his own again and Anna became the sole focus of the pair. 

[Roseanna]

Since he replace the "boring" storylines with nothing or even more boring ones, I tend to think that can't be true. 

 

And I heard in an interview of Liz Tubridge that Fellows "likes to give the audience what it wants". That's why he paired up Carson and Hughes and why Edith got her happy ending. The Tom fans pissed him off when they didn't like Bunting and that was why Tom didn't get anything in the end and why he made them all cry on Christmas last year when he seemingly sent Tom away. That was his private, little revenge for not liking Bunting. 

Brendan Coyle pissed him off, too, when he said that he didn't like the prison storyline. After that he never got a storyline of his own again and Anna became the sole focus of the pair.

Seems rather boring.

Carson was such a dreadful husband that JF could have left Chelsie to fan fiction writers.

As for Tom, why shouldn't DA have one unhappy marriage? He could have divorced Sarah later when he met Laura.

Thinking it more, there was even no adultery. JF seems to have rather petty bourgeois morality.

[Daisy]

I wish so many people didn't hate nearly everything about this show, though obviously I get feeling disillusioned with various aspects of it. I still love it and think many aspects of it were top notch despite readily acknowledging its many flaws. In fact, this last season went a long way towards reminding me of what I thought was so special about DA in the first place.

 

If I start a positivity thread, will anyone else join me there?! I hope so :)  But before we get to the positivity...

 

 

I'll join you. Like I said - there are a lot of issues with a show (but no show that's utterly perfect).  But I am going to miss this show. I wish the show turned left when they went right, or went straight when they went left so they say.

 

I'm rewatching season 2. there's so much I didn't realise I had forgotten. 

 

My Unpopular Opinions (of season 2)

This isn't even because I didn't like Bates near the end . But I wish they had even went an episode or two with Anna and Mr. Molesely. Or that they even had a relationship because Bates kept saying no. 

Edith and the Farmer. 

i wish they had let that been more of the thing. not to do the whole "Pamuk Wars" again, but I am of the notion that Mary's "scandal/ruin" would have been due to the fact Pamuk basically went to third base with Mary. At night. naked. In her bedroom. i think it would have been interesting to actually have Edith ruined (now - but w/no baby) - which would "explain" the Strallan, why she was so okay with being Gregson's lover, and something really for Bertie to overcome. an actual past. 

 

Matthew & Lavina/Mary

there are two things I think they could have done

1: have Matthew + Lavina marry anyway. (I mean there was a time jump in Season 3 anyway) - they could have married when he got hurt, and she still could have died of influenza, and we could have gotten the "Gotten over it" at Christmas and the Proposal. it still realistically makes sense. And it ironically enough - would still have put Mary/Matthew on equal terms (as RIchard Carlisle put it). 

 

or

 

I would have given Mary influenza, and that's how Matthew realised he loved Mary, because she almost died. and then Lavina could still have gone away. 

 

And my biggest one. 

I would have had Robert + Jane happen. 

(and I would not have had Cora sick). 

[Future Cat Lady]

Thinking it more, there was even no adultery. JF seems to have rather petty bourgeois morality.

 

Adultery? That would've made the Crawleys and the aristocrats look bad. We can't have that! ;)

[ZoloftBlob]

See, I kinda liked Bunting as she was origanlly introduced - she was a kick in Tom's pants. Unfortunately I don't think we were ever going to get a sympathetic presentation of a socialist or liberal character from Julian Fellowes - if you really look at Tom's characterization, he's a working class guy who marries above himself. His one protest during the war was completely thwarted (and was comically asinine and designed to make him look stupid) and as soon as the revolution gets tough, he grabs his upperclass wife and they head to her daddy's and her rich aristocratic daddy saves him from prison (and from having to actually participated in more revolution) Then when his upperclass wife dies.... he's lost because he has no anchor in the rich upperclass family... not so much that he hates being rich and upperclass.

 

I liked Tom, don't get me wrong, but I always thought he represented the viewpoint that the lower class when presented with more will become what they profess to hate. Bunting was meant to reflect that view as well, in my opinion.

[Eolivet]

Brendan Coyle pissed him off, too, when he said that he didn't like the prison storyline. After that he never got a storyline of his own again and Anna became the sole focus of the pair.

 

I never thought of it that way, but you're right. Though I think there was the general consensus that Anna's rape was all about Bates, but now that I think about it, we rarely saw his POV -- Anna was basically afraid of his (unknown) reaction the whole time.

 

The more discussion here, the more I am convinced Fellowes was never at home in the modern TV landscape. He wrote the show like it was a period drama -- I mean, you don't stop watching Pride & Prejudice because you don't like their choice for Bingley, right? There's writing, there's casting and there's filming and then the show is done. There's no going back in and tinkering with it, quickly rewriting things a few episodes in -- but nor is there a line out the door of available casting choices like in Hollywood. It's the peril of a one-man band, as well -- though I'm not sure even a writer's room could've fixed a supposed casting problem. And the irony of it is Downton was always popular, so it's not like the network would've ever thought of interfering -- you don't mess with your #1 drama.

 

I mean, U.S. dramas deal with bad casting all the time, and people have been affronted by bad writing, but eventually the audience moves on. I can't explain why this wasn't the case here. Perhaps because Downton started off so strong, and the audience was accustomed to quality, or at least, likability. But I can't explain why, say, Grey's Anatomy never had the audience revolt for one of their casting choices that Downton had for...three (Bunting, Gillingham, Blake) of theirs. I don't think it's just Fellowes -- I think it's a very particular audience.

[Andorra]

 

See, I kinda liked Bunting as she was origanlly introduced - she was a kick in Tom's pants.

 

She could have been great, but either Fellows can't write nice left wing characters, or the casting department undermined his good intentions (I don't really believe that theory myself). They either miscast or she was meant to be awful. Even Isobel mellowed down a lot and telling everyone how good the Crawleys were to her when Matthew died. In the end it was all "the aristos are so nice if you get to know them" and all characters who had been against the system were either reformed or had left. 

[ZoloftBlob]

Andorra - I get what you mean. I'm just saying, as a member of the audience - I didn't turn my nose up at a new character simply out of spite. Bunting could have easily worked. It would have meant losing Tom - the plot I'd envisioned when she was introduced was that they could have gone to London to work as activist writers. If Bunting started abrasive, it was due in part to Tom being a radical who had cozied up to the aristos in his life. The two of them coming to terms with Tom's family... without Bunting simply screaming her rage at a dinner party (something I found unlikely and poorly conceived) would have been an interesting plot and a great way to ease Tom off the show

[skyways]

Bunting was meant to reflect that view as well, in my opinion

 

And that's why that character was full of possibilities waiting to happen. At least I think I can give Fellowes this - he creates memorable characters all unique and individuals in their own way. No two characters are/were the same and all were played well by those who played them (except Matthew Goode). Even Bertie, Larry Grey, Farmer Mason, Denker all were more memorable than him. I can appreciate this at least.

 

But back to stakes (my thread from the Christmas episode),  Robert should have died early on and that would have raised the stakes of who runs the ship now that the new caretaker is a woman and a young widow. Then the suitors storyline would have made more sense and become more organic. That's why I fell for Blake because he embodied that present and future of Downton plot which in my view would have tied in nicely with Mary's often conflicting loyalties ( 'am I an aristo loyalist or am I ready to push Downton whole heartedly into the future?). Perfect conflict without easy solutions knowing now what we know of both characters, that they have strong views and opinions of their different positions. Blake was made all the more interesting because he came from Mary's background (unlike Matthew) and it would have been interesting to see (if he was developed), how he came about his views.

 

Thomas should have been realistically fired in Season 3 and Andy? (is that his name) brought in earlier to stay. Of course he's no Thomas but we would have had him skulking around the village unable to find work (if Fellowes really wanted the actor that badly on the show).

Daisy could and should have left after passing her exams and fulfill the dreams we were made to believe she had back in season 4. (Remember when she got to London how wide eyed she was about the larger world? But nooooo, Patmore only had to shed a few tears and Daisy stays back in the kitchen, effectively making Bunting redundant.

Molesley's story, on the other proceeded the way Daisy's should have been allowed to proceed.

[Future Cat Lady]

I don't think that any of the actors should be blamed. It's mostly Fellowes's fault and maybe with a little reluctance from the audience for accepting new love interests. 

 

Tony, Charles and Henry only existed to be in Mary's orbit. They had no life outside of that. We barely knew them. Also, JF has a tendency to write things that are supposed to be perceived one way but the audience receives another way (Pamuk not supposed to be a rapist, Richard not supposed to be an asshole...).  Tony was supposed to be seen as romantic but he came off stalkerish and creepy. A lot of people saw Charles as rude. As for Henry, JF didn't even try to write a romance. He just had every character telling us how perfect he was for Mary instead of showing us. All of the actors were good and handsome but the writing didn't help them. I think a lot of people were happy to get Matthew Goode on the show. Unfortunately for him, JF was lazy and decided that the actor's popularity would be enough. It's kind of funny that Henry ended up as the least popular of the three. 

[Roseanna]

Adultery? That would've made the Crawleys and the aristocrats look bad. We can't have that! ;)

That depends on circumstances.

[Roseanna]

Tony, Charles and Henry only existed to be in Mary's orbit. They had no life outside of that. We barely knew them.

That's quite true. But it's odd because we got to know Bertie. So JF can write scenes where a character's quality is revealed.

So why did he fail with Mary's suitors? Was it that he felt so much pressure to succeed with Mary's remarriage?

[photo fox]

Hey, all, just a gentle reminder to please write your post about your own unpopular opinion, and let others speak for themselves.  Also, refrain from trying to convince people that they are wrong.  Everyone's opinions are welcome here, especially unpopular ones!

[Ravenya003]

Me too. I thought Lily James exuded those qualities far more naturally and with more energy than I ever felt from Jessica Brown Finley, and she had more chemistry with everybody. So naturally, she never got a good romance and was hastily rushed off the show after several set pieces showing us her supposed "wild side."

 

And yet she's the one currently enjoying the most post-Downton success. Certainly more than Jessica Brown Findley - I've often wondered how she might feel about that (namely that she left for bigger things, only for her replacement to end up with all the plum Hollywood roles!)

[DianeDobbler]

Lily James has a lot of charm, energy, is always committed in the scene even when she has no lines, and she's got a very unpretentious, accessible quality that's endearing. Even when Rose was in her "rebellious" phase.
 

 

Then - and I kidded about this on a different site but I start to wonder when I consider how JF reuses everything - is it just me or did all of Henry's lines to Mary when they were alone in the Xmas episode sound like they could have easily have been said by Matthew?

 

 

Not just you. My first reaction was, "hey, Mary's lines sound like they could easily be said TO Matthew" - and figured that was how Fellowes wrote "Married Mary".  And right after I thought "And he's writing Henry like Matthew!" down to Henry's chummy conversation with Edith telling her that her Mary isn't his Mary.

 

Daisy, I like the idea of Mary being the one with influenza, but then we wouldn't have had half a season of Matthew moping about Lavinia's grave until even his mother wanted to slap him silly. I always felt Matthew knew he loved Mary; was never in denial about it, but he also felt he could have no confidence in her fundamental love for him if she waited to see if her mother would have a boy or not before accepting Matthew. He got over that; I think a lot of that was Mary's behavior towards him (and towards Lavinia) while he was in a wheelchair, pledged to another woman, and adamantly romantically unavailable to Mary. She still loved him in a disinterested way, respected and understood him. THAT worked for me, and surprised me, how much she loved him for long stretches without pining or fantasizing - she simply loved him in his own right whether he was hers or not.  If Mary had been the one with influenza, Matthew could have confessed his love and regrets to her at her presumed deathbed, Lavinia could have overheard and ended things, and there you are. Both scenarios - the one that happened and the one imagined, were pretty solid soap opera.

Edited January 1, 2016 by DianeDobbler

[ZoloftBlob]

Guys, this is stupid but Wayne "Trapper John from MASH" Rogers died today and I don't know why this is affecting me so and I know this is totally the wrong place but we don't have a "small talk " category here and I need some support.

 

My unpopular opinion is that someone who colored my childhood and life choices died today and I am genuinely shocked at how overwhelmed I feel. :(

Edited January 1, 2016 by ZoloftBlob

[Roseanna]

My first reaction was, "hey, Mary's lines sound like they could easily be said TO Matthew" - and figured that was how Fellowes wrote "Married Mary".  And right after I thought "And he's writing Henry like Matthew!" down to Henry's chummy conversation with Edith telling her that her Mary isn't his Mary.

The problem is that while Matthew could say it because he had seen the soft side of Mary, Henry hadn't seen it. But he said it after the birth of their son. I don't believe he would have overlooked Mary's action towards Edith. Although Henry wasn't present, he must have at least a suspicion that Mary had caused Edith and Bertie to split, and if he really doesn't mind unless Mary act wrongly towards himself, he is quite shallow.

So I guess it was JF's way to insist again in his own vision of Mary - unless he wanted to show how generous Edith was hoping that Henry would keep his ideal image of Mary.

[Future Cat Lady]

Not just you. My first reaction was, "hey, Mary's lines sound like they could easily be said TO Matthew" - and figured that was how Fellowes wrote "Married Mary".  And right after I thought "And he's writing Henry like Matthew!" down to Henry's chummy conversation with Edith telling her that her Mary isn't his Mary.

 

That annoyed me. I think that was just another one of JF's manipulations to make us see how "perfect" Henry is. But in reality, Henry has no idea what he is talking about regarding the Edith/Mary relationship. He has known them less that a year at this point. He barely knows Edith. Matthew had a relationship with both sisters for almost ten years. He was aware of a lot (not all) of the crap that went on between them. He knew Mary's good side (his Mary) but he was also very well aware of Mary's bad side. And he did call her out on it. 

 

I hate the Henry/Mary pairing. It was really forced and JF really shoved them down the viewers throat. It felt like JF was screaming at us (by using Tom) that they were perfect and that we should love them. 

 

And by the way, how freaking convenient was it for Henry to no want to race anymore?

[Daisy]

Lily James has a lot of charm, energy, is always committed in the scene even when she has no lines, and she's got a very unpretentious, accessible quality that's endearing. Even when Rose was in her "rebellious" phase.

 

 

Not just you. My first reaction was, "hey, Mary's lines sound like they could easily be said TO Matthew" - and figured that was how Fellowes wrote "Married Mary".  And right after I thought "And he's writing Henry like Matthew!" down to Henry's chummy conversation with Edith telling her that her Mary isn't his Mary.

 

Daisy, I like the idea of Mary being the one with influenza, but then we wouldn't have had half a season of Matthew moping about Lavinia's grave until even his mother wanted to slap him silly. I always felt Matthew knew he loved Mary; was never in denial about it, but he also felt he could have no confidence in her fundamental love for him if she waited to see if her mother would have a boy or not before accepting Matthew. He got over that; I think a lot of that was Mary's behavior towards him (and towards Lavinia) while he was in a wheelchair, pledged to another woman, and adamantly romantically unavailable to Mary. She still loved him in a disinterested way, respected and understood him. THAT worked for me, and surprised me, how much she loved him for long stretches without pining or fantasizing - she simply loved him in his own right whether he was hers or not.  If Mary had been the one with influenza, Matthew could have confessed his love and regrets to her at her presumed deathbed, Lavinia could have overheard and ended things, and there you are. Both scenarios - the one that happened and the one imagined, were pretty solid soap opera.

 

 

Pretty Much :) like I am Happy how it ended out - (regardless), but I think just really - Lavinia was such a nice character and she kind of "fit" even thought she was basically there to be sweetness and light. I thought she could have easily been part of "Downton's World" and killing her off didn't need to happen. I feel. 

 

I'm actually taking a break from Downton to watch Downtown-esque things - I know i should at least watch Season 3 - but i'll get there :) (plus i have to save up to get the UK editions of 5-6 and the 3 christmas specials i'm short, so i don't really want to rush through my re-watch anyway)

 

my friend and I were talking about Jessica Findly Brown/Dan Stevens and if Downton was a US show - would they have simply been re-casted instead of killed off. (I'm not sure if re-casting is really a UK show thing)... curious eh? it makes you wonder how the show would work if Matthew/Sybil hadn't died.

[Tetraneutron]

Recasting is something that used to be done in US shows, but it hasn't happened for decades (outside incredibly minor characters). Like in season one there might be a guest star on one episode and then they might recast the part when they make her a regular character in season 8. For main characters? Never. It's seen as cheesy and soapy. 

 

Unfortunately, once an actor decides to leave, I think killing the character is your only option. 

[Roseanna]

Pretty Much :) like I am Happy how it ended out - (regardless), but I think just really - Lavinia was such a nice character and she kind of "fit" even thought she was basically there to be sweetness and light. I thought she could have easily been part of "Downton's World" and killing her off didn't need to happen. I feel.

Or Matthew could have married her during the war and she could have died after giving birth to a son. It would have been fun to see Mary as a step-mother - could she have been good to a boy who had been a heir, not her own son?

But if we remember Carlisle's words (Lavinia had said to him seeing Matthew and Mary again in some corner that if only Matthew admitted the truth), Lavinia knew full well that Matthew loved Mary and she could have ended the engagement herself. Of course it would have been too easy as there wouldn't have been Matthew's guilty feelings. A love story must have outer and inner obstacles that frustrate the audience several times.

[Daisy]

Or Matthew could have married her during the war and she could have died after giving birth to a son. It would have been fun to see Mary as a step-mother - could she have been good to a boy who had been a heir, not her own son?

But if we remember Carlisle's words (Lavinia had said to him seeing Matthew and Mary again in some corner that if only Matthew admitted the truth), Lavinia knew full well that Matthew loved Mary and she could have ended the engagement herself. Of course it would have been too easy as there wouldn't have been Matthew's guilty feelings. A love story must have outer and inner obstacles that frustrate the audience several times.

 

I like that too! :)

and your scenario is intriguing too. Especially due to the entail  - and Mary had a daughter. (Georgianna instead of George ;) )

[DianeDobbler]

So sorry to hear about Wayne Rogers! I looked up the obit and was actually shocked to read he was 82. I thought he'd be at least ten years younger, and, pushing it, mid-ish 70s. Not 82. Sorry about it. I think he was pretty successful outside of acting. Wow, Trapper John - 82!

 

I disliked Henry and Mary too, didn't believe them, but became resigned after the episode prior to the xmas special. I agree with Andorra that the "type" of guy that worked with Mary was the utterly nice guy. Not the nice Mosley type guy, but the nice, smart, quick-witted guy, with warmth, insight, compassion, and strength of character. It's actually kudos to Fellowes that he wrote two of those - Dan Stevens' Matthew, and Allen Leech's Tom. It suggests that instead of deciding Mary's next love interest should be a male Mary (although he never followed through there and ended up writing a "dark, arch" sort of dude with Matthew's dialogue when Mary married Henry), he should have straight up cast/written a nice guy. If he was against having Tom be the obvious Mr. Right as Mary flitted among aristocrats, well fine. Maybe Fellowes couldn't get past Tom being Sybil's widower, although good lord, when I read up on the aristocracy, royalty, nobility in Europe and the upper society of the US, nothing is more common than someone's widow or widower marrying a sibling of the departed. But there could have been another nice guy introduced into the picture.