kpw801 October 21, 2014 Share October 21, 2014 The problem IMO is that on the Drewe side, the plot has escalated into completely unbelieveable hysteria. When Mr. Drewe told Edith that Mrs. Drew would give up the farm and move away if Edith kept coming around, it was oh please time to the millionth power. That's absolutely insane writing. I thoroughly agree that the writing about leaving the farm to avoid Edith was OTT. It was inconsistent with the desperation to stay and farm the land his family had farmed "for generations" back to the Napoleonic wars. He was hardly going to do that without first telling his wife the situation. The way they make up unnecessary drama is infuriating! Just about as insane as Edith, who has been googly and droopy and teary over Marigold, visiting her daily, bringing round her aunt, a great lady, and Mrs. Drew going "She just wants the child as a play thing for the entire house!" Right, because there aren't already two cute kids up there. What a ridiculous, unbelieveable way they're writing Mrs. Drew. A CARTOON would have Mrs. Drew already strongly suspect and be pretty damn sure that Edith was the mother, and feel confirmed when Aunt Rosemund came calling. DITTO! DITTO! DITTO! What woman anywhere just uses a child as the kind of stupid play thing Mrs. Drew accuses Edith of doing! Anyone can see she loves the child. She calls her darling and holds her and longingly looks at her when she leaves the house and never wants to put her down. As a woman who is a mother and who loves my kids but would never make a career out of day care because I just am not into other people's children, I know what it is like to just want to play with a baby for a minute or two. I am fine with a cute little baby and like to hold them and cuddle for a second. But now my kids - that's another thing all together. When I had my last child, he came a little early and had to be in the NICU I would go to the NICU and hold him and sing to him and would not sleep because I just didn't want to put him down. Edith is behaving like a mother, not some spoiled woman looking for amusement. She is obsessive because she has been through trauma as well. The father of her cihld is missing presumed dead, she has been left at the altar and ignored by her family most of her life Marigold is her life. Mrs. Drew is not being written as a sensitive woman whatsoever. If Mrs. Drew suspected Mr. Drew might be the daddy, that's another thing, depending on Mr. Drew's past behavior. But moving away from the farm? This single lady of childbearing age can't stay away from Marigold and brings another family member to meet her - Mrs. Drew doesn't clue in? She and her husband are married, and married for some years. The only conversations they have are hysterics and ultimatums? There's no point where Mrs. Drew might has said to Mr. Drew - what's your take on this lady? You know her better than I. Lonely? Crazy? Or is she the mother, as looks like from where I'm sitting. Again, so true! I know if Mr. Drew were my husband and had brought the child to me and all of a sudden Edith started showing up acting the way she acted, I think I would have asked some questions and I would not have stopped asking until I got the answer I needed. No. Because Fellowes has written this like a lunatic. Yes. Fellowes has written this like a raving lunatic! I get the idea is to jeopardize Edith's position, talk about scandal and all that. The writing for Mrs. Drew is batsh*t, that's the problem. And taking present-day psychology out of it, I think that a woman like Mrs. Drew, who works her arse off and has other kids, could just as plausibly be presented as a person thrilled to pieces the lady of the house is so interested, and might even suggest her taking little Marigold up there from time to time, if it makes her happy and if she's not speaking out of turn. They don't have help, they're on a farm, Marigold isn't their daughter, and a child that age needs a lot of supervision. I just feel I've read so many books and stories of vaguely similar situations and how Fellowes is writing this makes zero sense with Mrs. Drew having nineteen conniptions about Lady Edith spending so much time with a kid they agreed to raise just to help out even though they're already pressed. I actually had the thought today that maybe they'll let Isobel marry Lord Merton, but then I'm thinking, nope, the budget isn't going to spring for a drafty old house for Isobel. She'll kindly turn him down, Violet will be all "are you sure" and be secretly thrilled, because the actual reason she doesn't want Isobel marrying is fear of losing Isobel. 1 Link to comment
ZulaMay October 21, 2014 Share October 21, 2014 I was just about to post about this, LOL. Mrs. Drewe has a household to manage and three kids. No modern appliances, nothing. She's probably working from dawn to dusk and exhausted. I've been in that position: working during the day and caring for two kids at night? It's draining. If I had some nice childless neighbor who liked to drop by and play with the kid and distract her while I did the million other things I had to do, I would be THRILLED. The minute she walked in the door I'd be handing her the kid and saying have at it. Assuming the kid was perfectly content to hang out with said neighbor, which Marigold clearly is. I think the way Mrs. Drewe is being written is completely unrealistic and also unflattering. She comes across as unreasonable and unhinged. And it's important to remember that this was never an adoption. She asked Drewe to foster the baby. She's paying him monthly. She asked him if he was sure his wife was willing to "take this on", so she did think of Margie's needs. Drewe assured her that his wife would treat her like "one of her one." Then she told him that it had to be a total secret. But she never told him to keep it secret from his wife. That was his idea. He said "I think it should be our secret and ours alone." He wrote a letter to himself, supposedly from an "old friend." He chose to keep Margie in the dark. Of course Edith agreed to it, but to be fair she doesn't know Margie. She didn't realize that she would react this way. Sure, they both should have foreseen it and should have told her. It was a mistake, but an honest one. 3 Link to comment
Andorra October 21, 2014 Share October 21, 2014 I agree. Also the thread that she will leave her husband or make him leave the farm? Come on! We're talking 1924 here. In those days a woman didn't leave her husband even if he beat her half to death once a week, but she will do that just because a Lady from the Abbey wants to pay some visits and play with a child? 7 Link to comment
DianeDobbler October 21, 2014 Share October 21, 2014 The WRITING was half-baked from the start. The Drews aren't her parents, the set up was maybe okay, as the "story" has evolved it's bananas. Marigold's actual situation isn't like a contemporary times open adoption; it's like Harry Potter being raised by his aunt and uncle because his real parents were dead and it wasn't safe for him among his own kind. :) Back when soap operas were a thing - most of them are gone now - I used to get into a good number of them - only one at a time, but I formed sequential attachments. After watching those shows, I grew accustomed to moving a plot along because one character was too stupid to figure something out. There were other contrivances too numerous to mention, of course, and because it was a soap opera, one thing after another would happen - kidnappings, murders. IOW, most of these stories were plot-driven and character behavior had to accommodate the story. Okay, so this is the second time in five years I've been charged with murder. Or, this is my seventh marriage. Or whatever. Soap operas normalize extreme situations. BUT, only one soap opera - Passions - depended on utterly irrational behavior from its characters. Not until Downton did I see another. Out of nowhere, Daisy acting like Bunting was an established romantic interest of Tom's. We never saw it, nor was it implied. Why does Fellowes have characters reacting strongly to things we never saw on screen and never heard were happening on screen? Bricker going into Cora's room - sorry, no. Tony Gillingham refusing to take no for an answer and Mary not really knowing what to do next? Like it was some sort of norm and he's not extremely "off"? Seriously? Charles Blake and Mary treating it like an actual problem? Mrs. Drewe. The whole thing. That is unwatchable at this point. I'm keep reminding myself the actress is probably glad to be employed but her eyeballs must roll down the street every time she reads a script. In Season 2, it was mostly Matthew who was saddled with this kind of irrational ridiculousness. I love Dan Stevens and loved him as Matthew, and there were countless times I thought oooh boy. That's really ridiculous. Clearly, they made Matthew irrational at times to push the plot along. Some of it was pure soap, where things were compressed to make a point, and they pulled it off even though it was a stretch on paper, but a lot of it was irrational. Anyway, thankfully, my memory has clouded over about a lot of how they wrote him then, but I simply recall having a lot of "Mrs. Drew" type reactions to him in Season 2. For example, if they want Edith pushed to the brink, IMO, it might make sense if she was allowed to see Marigold as much as she wanted, and if the Drews were even - oh, take her up to the house. This is not a contemporary situation, many many aspects are different, and I could see the Drews believing there are many advantages to not just Marigold having a patroness, but the family overall benfitting (I imagine Marigold will be raised knowing she's fostered and has family somewhere). Marigold's future marriage prospects, for one, unless Mrs. Drew thinks a life of 24/7 labor would be just great for Marigold as well when there's a chance she could do better. Up at the house is where George and Sybil live. If there were more opportunities - and contrived and implausible if Fellowes' middle name - for Edith to be with Marigold while observing the family with Sybbie and George, that's plenty of emotional pressure/grief/stress to force a decision. A good fantasy or good soap works when the circumstances and situations are very dramatic but the reactions to it as believable as possible. Julian Fellowes works the other way - his stories depend upon irrational behavior, ungrounded in the rules of the plot, even the rules of melodrama. 2 Link to comment
abbyzenn October 21, 2014 Share October 21, 2014 When Edith cooked up this scheme she never told Mr. Drewe she was actually the baby's mother. He may have seen thru it then and certainly later did because there was a scene where he told Edith he knew she was the mother but Edith wasn't truthful with him from the beginning. There's a difference between having the child close by and you could secretly watch her grow up and trying to be a part of the child's life. I thought the original plan was for the former and not the later. Rosamund knew that Edith wouldn't be able to keep away from the child and that's one reason she was opposed to this when Edith first broached it as a possible solution and why then Edith didn't tell her she had taken the child from the Schrodders. I'm not sure of the legality of the whole situation - apparently they didn't have "foster" and "adoption" like we do now. But for all purposes, the Drewes are raising Marigold as their child. The only times we've seen Edith drop in has been a couple of times at tea time (disturbing the family), once when she was ready for her nap and Mrs. Drewe shut the door in Edith's face, and that time with Rosamund. So Edith hasn't come to play babysitter. She's come when she felt like it. I guess this whole situation has been to set up the next scene which will either be another hairbrained scheme of Edith's or it will blow up and Edith's secret will be found out by the family. Whatever, this effects a lot more people than Edith but she can't see beyond her own selfishness. 3 Link to comment
Andorra October 21, 2014 Share October 21, 2014 So Edith hasn't come to play babysitter. She did come to play the Babysitter when Mrs Drewe went to the dentist with the boys. But Mrs Drewe got a panic attack because Edith had gone to the stables with Marigold when she came back. I'm also sure she offered to do that more often, but Mrs Drewe obviously is a bit overprotective. Also Edith pays for the care of the child. No, Mr. Drewe didn't officially know she was the mother when they talked about it, but he later confessed he knew it the minute she asked him to take the child. So they could have come with a sensible solution right then and still pretend the Baby was from a "friend" of Edith. She could just as well be the goodmother to the child of a "friend" as to her own. She could just as well have taken financial support for the child of a "friend" than for her own. No one needed to know it was hers. And it wasn't really that unusual to that time. A lot aristocratic bastards were brought up by loyal servants. Everyone knew the real origins, but it was nothing they talked about. I agree with Diane, that the whole scenario relies on incredibly stupid behaviour from ALL parties involved. Edith, because she didn't set conditions. Tim Drewe, because he didn't talk to her about conditions and because he didn't tell his wife and Mrs Drewe, because she overreacts permanently. BTW I bet the "she must have her nap" was just a putoff. No child gets permanent damage by having a nap 10 minutes later than usual. Mrs Drewe just doesn't want Edith there and that's why she is saying Edith is "unsettling" the child. Whenever we saw Edith with Marigold, Marigold was perfectly happy. The only time we saw her cry was last episode with Rosamund and that was because she didn't know HER. She does know Edith though. Link to comment
kpw801 October 21, 2014 Share October 21, 2014 on an urelated note, but since the writing is so stupid, I am going to nit pick. Every time we see Mrs. Drew hanging out the laundry, it is already dry. She is hanging dry comforters up and the other day when Edith was watching them with the laundry getting ready to hang it out, it was not even damp. All the clothes were already dry. 10 Link to comment
bluebonnet October 21, 2014 Share October 21, 2014 Also "adoption" like we have today, didn't exist to that time. And people were generally far less sentimental about their children than they are today. Look at how George and Sybbie are brought up mainly by a nanny. In poorer family it wasn't a nanny but the older siblings. Mothers didn't sit down with their children and play with them, they just tagged them along while they were working 24/7. So a fairy godmother from the Abbey who would a) support them with money and b) spend a little time with the child every week wouldn't have been a nuisance. And I bet Mrs Drewe wouldn't have spared a thought about children trauma in real life. She probably never heard of it. No. The realities and standards of child rearing may differ between classes, nationalities, or over time. Child rearing practices that differ from one's own is absolutely not any sort of indication that parents care less for their children. It also doesn't really matter whether or not Mrs. Drewe lacked access to 21st century literature on attachment disorders and other childhood trauma. One doesn't need a certain set of vocabulary to understand something is off. Mrs. Drewe might use "unsettled" to describe symptoms borne out of this entire situation while today we'd use more specific diagnostic terminology. This is not unlike how the terminology and understanding of war trauma has changed over the years (shell shock often treated as a form of cowardice whereas today we call it ptsd and identify it as a very real form of trauma). The way we speak and think about things changes humans are pretty much the same across space and time. Parents love their kids regardless of standard child rearing practices. There isn't really anyone to cheer for in this situation because, while the writing is terrible, it's easy to see things from each perspective. It's unfair that everything bad always happens to Edith and that she cant raise her own daughter. It's unfair that Mrs. Drewe is raising this girl as one of her own and is being denied full disclosure while also being put in the position of not having full control over how she raises this child. Most of all it's incredibly unfair to Marigold, who is now with her third family where the complexities of the entire situation makes it further unsettling to her due to a variety of causes. I can see things from Edith's point of view for obvious reasons. She gave birth to this girl and it's unfair that her society has decided that the circumstances of the birth are so unacceptable that the only option is to give the baby up. But I can definitely also see things from Mrs. Drewe's pov. She is the de facto mother and as such, she should have primary charge in how the child is raised. Yet this is complicated by the fact that the child is not legally or biologically hers. Edith adds to the complications because her presence further illuminates this lack of rightful motherhood. It sets Marigold apart from the rest of the family. Edith isn't just a regular person in the village. She's the lord's daughter. The baker's wife helping out with the new addition to the family is just business as usual. The lord's daughter going into the village to babysit or play with a new addition to the family is not usual at all, especially when the lord's daughter has no history of being involved with the children of the village. This would be like if Malia Obama dropped by my house claiming to want to help out with my adoptive daughter despite having no history of being interested in assisting adoptive families. It would be hard to send Malia away considering who she is and what sort of power is behind her name and I wouldn't be able to stop fretting over exactly what Malia was doing there. From my view, it would look like she was just there treating my child like a toy to amuse her until she got tired of it. The writing is unquestionably bad for this plot but Mrs Drewe's point of view on this is certainly valid. 1 6 Link to comment
DianeDobbler October 21, 2014 Share October 21, 2014 It may be valid but I find it completely unrealistic. When I read about poor or farm households of the era with multiple kids, or ones that labored hard, they were getting their actual kids either out of the household young (pre-child labor laws) to make one less mouth to feed, or working the kids hard. It's not about vocabulary, it's about culture, and the culture was very different - it's not different words for the same thing. The "thing" wasn't even a thing. I'm not saying there wasn't emotional/psychological fallout, but the kid's psychological well-being wasn't in the lexicon for many many families, particularly poorer families. Furthermore, if Mr. Drew "knew" the second Edith asked him to care for the child, how the hell does his wife not know by now, unless he's married an idiot, in which case Mrs. Drew is unfit. In her current situation Marigold will be doing hard manual labor before her tenth birthday (that's how it is on the farm in 1924, and I should really say seventh birthday), and she'll be married to a man she doesn't love in her mid-teens to get off the farm, AND she'll have an entire family, a thriving, fairly loving family in much better circumstances who know nothing about her because the mom couldn't face the social stigma. That's a reality that can't be erased by simply letting her be raised by the Drews, who, btw, work and live on the Crowley property! Everybody up at the big house is this child's relative - her grandparents, cousins, aunts! If Edith stops visiting that doesn't become any less true. She's going to encounter them and be in complete ignorance of the connection and they her. It's untenable. Even if it weren't, and considering economic factors, and that Marigold is female, any edge she can get in life as far as education and advancement is worth it. Otherwise she's going to not just have the limited education of the farm girls of her day, she's going to have limited options, period. As a girl being raised on a farm that is attached to a Big House system, she's already in an environment that's dying. I don't think I've ever read, novel or history, where a poor, striving family decides a well-meaning would-be patroness isn't worth the annoyance of having her underfoot and decides she should keep away, particularly when it's her family's property they're farming. That would be a gift from heaven. The writing is beyond ridiculous. 4 Link to comment
ZoloftBlob October 21, 2014 Share October 21, 2014 Marigold living with the Drewes ultimately becomes Daisy, in other words. A barely literate worker bee from a large family who will always be worker class. Seriously - what is Edith going to do if Marigold wants a job "in service" at 12-14? 3 Link to comment
Llywela October 21, 2014 Share October 21, 2014 (edited) I think a few people are confusing 1924 with 1824. Marigold is not going to grow up barely literate, she won't be doing hard manual labour before she turns 10 and she won't be getting married mid-teens to a man she doesn't love just to escape life on the farm. She's unlikely to go into service, either. She's going to grow up on a farm - helping out, sure, but that isn't a bad life, and she doesn't have to stay there forever. She'll go to school and get an education, at least until she's 14 if not 16. There are employment prospects out there for young women by the time she's grown. She'll have a loving family behind her. She'll be fine. It won't be life as a Crawley, but the Drews aren't destitute, they are a respectable family, and the world is changing fast, even for the working classes - in fact, especially for the working classes. Edited October 21, 2014 by Llywela 8 Link to comment
ZoloftBlob October 21, 2014 Share October 21, 2014 I'm basing my comment off Daisy - who has the same background, large farming family, and Anna, and any number of lower class young females we've seen on the show. Marigold will be 14-18 in what, 1936-1940? Trust me - my grandma was working class English during that time - life in the underclasses wasn't so cheery and I could see where Edith might have some guilt about it.If she'd left the baby in Switzerland, it was probably a middle class Mathew Crawley pre-inheritance sort of home. Now her daughter will be lucky to escape the life of a farm worker (not an easy living - there's a reason people wanted to leave the farm) or will, if lucky, possibly rise to the middle class. All the babysitting Edith offers isn't going to change that. 2 Link to comment
bluebonnet October 21, 2014 Share October 21, 2014 Ok, so this is bordering on ignorance and offensive. Poor parents love their children and also want the best for their kids. Parents in the lower classes don't just happily bend over anytime a wealthy person shows a bit of interest. I hope this isn't too shocking for some. I'd also like to point out that life isn't roses and sunshine for women in the upper class. Things are changing quickly for this generation but the story still started because Mary's lack of a penis meant she had no rights in the family business unless she married a penis that was in the line of succession. Edith, ffs, is the saddest person in the world. She can't even raise her own daughter. Sybil died due to poor medical care. Marigold's quality of life isn't automatically better if she's suddenly raised in the big house. Edith isn't acting as a patroness. A patroness doesn't come over for babysitting duty or to feed the child lunch. A patroness also doesn't bring her aunt over to gawk at the child. She's coming across as a rich lord's daughter who is bored and has decided that Marigold will be her focus. If she wants to continue pretending to be an interested party who simply wants to ensure Marigold's future, she should act like it. A patroness would be doing stuff like arranging for certain playmates and friendships with other children from different backgrounds, hiring a tutor/nanny to both assist the family and jumpstart the child's education, etc. Edith's case would be significantly improved if she could prove that her interest in sincere. She could expand her patroness duties to include other girls in the village. It's already known that Edith is interested in the plight of the modern woman, it would be perfectly plausible if her interest extended to wanting to help young girls attain greater freedoms and goals. I feel sorry for Edith, but it's perfectly valid for Mrs Drew to be concerned (this is ignoring the super bad writing that makes it look like Mrs. D is stupid for not realizing Edith in Mari's mother) considering Edith's behavior is not at all what should be expected from any sort of patron. 6 Link to comment
ZoloftBlob October 21, 2014 Share October 21, 2014 Well, I'm not talking about love or willingness to parent, I'm talking about a class based society. To compare - Sybbie, even though she is a chauffer's daughter, will have dozens more opportunity than Marigold simply because she has connections to the peerage and it will continue to make a difference. Just, less of one, the older the two girls get. Everything will be harder for Marigold, higher schooling, attaining position - worse, Marigold will likely have the working class accent that is ALSO an issue for employment. I'm certainly not sayng the Drewe family is bad but there's reasons why some people are upstairs and some people are downstairs and Edith putting the kid with the Drewes means if Marigold stays Marigold Drewe, her opportunities in life compared to Sybil Branson are less. Thats just the reality of the class system. 1 Link to comment
ZulaMay October 21, 2014 Share October 21, 2014 Marigold is too young for a tutor, bluebonnet. She's not even two. Edith said she would take her to the house to play with George and Sybbie, and effectively offered to give her better opportunities as she grew older. That was how Drewe explained it to his wife but she's not having it. I imagine she'd take the financial support and patronage but she doesn't want Edith seeing the kid. Well, it's a two-way street. All Edith wants to do is drop by and spend time with her, maybe a couple of times a week. In exchange for that Marigold would have a lifetime of opportunities she would never have otherwise. There is a huge gap between what the Drewes can give her and what Edith can. No one is saying working class people didn't love their kids, that they couldn't be happy, that they would be overworked and uneducated. But there is no denying she would be better off having more education, more connections, more options, more of a financial safety net. She shouldn't be deprived of that because Margie can't handle a well-meaning neighbor doting on her adopted child. 5 Link to comment
Featherhat October 21, 2014 Share October 21, 2014 (edited) Well, I'm not talking about love or willingness to parent, I'm talking about a class based society. To compare - Sybbie, even though she is a chauffer's daughter, will have dozens more opportunity than Marigold simply because she has connections to the peerage and it will continue to make a difference. Just, less of one, the older the two girls get. Everything will be harder for Marigold, higher schooling, attaining position - worse, Marigold will likely have the working class accent that is ALSO an issue for employment. Sybbie also legitimate. Even though people will find her status scandalising because of her Irish Catholic, socialist, republican etc chauffeur father and runaway bride mother, no one doubts that she is legit. Marigold is illegitimate in the eyes of every strata of society, especially as Gregson had a living wife at the time, its not a "whoops they didn't get married yet" its adultery. Even if Edith claims her and takes her back to the Abbey and her father accepts that, her prospects are severely limited as Lady Edith's bastard and not Lady Mary's heir or Lady Sybil's "trueborn daughter". There's a reason why a lot of aristocratic people had "legal fathers" who knew damn well they weren't the bio parents of some of their children. Its very unfair but it didn't actually change until well after the 1920s, more like the 70s and 80s according to some in my family. Unless Edith is going to move to a place where no one knows here and she can be a widow, her daughter would be much better off with farmers for parents with a vety generous benefactress giving money and encouragement for whatever she showed talent at in the future. Edited October 21, 2014 by Featherhat Link to comment
DianeDobbler October 22, 2014 Share October 22, 2014 (edited) Her prospects depend upon how Edith and the family handle it, considering that the real life Countess of the place where Downton is filmed, was, during that era, herself an illegitimate child. Edith has money and an income, although Fellowes has forgotten it, she has power of attorney from Gregson over Gregson's affairs. Marigold is not the first illegitimate child of gentry in the world and plenty of them ended up marrying well, living well, and accepted into society. Is it stickier than the child of a lawful marriage, apparently, but it's not cut and dried. Nobody is saying parents of the era didn't love their children. But I have read a LOT and economics were so radically different back then, with no safety net, that it was not a child-centered society, children WERE sent off to service at age ten and under. Love had nothing to do with it - survival did. Although Downton is a fantasy, the reality is a girl in Marigold's position, without any outside advantage, is in extremely limited circumstances with extremely limited prospects, and that includes the sort of education she is liable to receive, which is unlikely to extend past grammar school, if she finishes, and nobody is going to be insisting on good grades. That was common at the time, and apparently worse in England than America. Kids from poor families worked. Because of limited opportunity, including limited educational opportunity, girls options were severely restricted. If Mrs. Drew is to be left to raise Marigold as her real mother, and Edith goes away, I'd love to know what future is envisioned for Marigold as a three year old "daughter" of a tenant farmer in 1924, as she grows up, although all the social stigma in the world doesn't change the reality that Edith is her mother, that the folks in the big house are her close relations, and it's better to deal with it than continue this stupid arrangement. It's as Edith said "I'm not Sybil, Sybil could pull this off." Well, she should get cracking and start practicing her best Sybil until she's good at it. Veering off to another topic - I sometimes try to predict how a storyline will turn based on the sets. Unless Tom marries in the final series, it's hard to envision him marrying anywhere outside the family, because then they have to contrive scenes for him - he can't just turn up in the halls or dining room. They have to have some estate manager story to get him in the picture. This show just doesn't build a lot of extra permanent sets that it uses regularly. Occasionally, yes. Get out of storage in every episode, no. It's Highclere and the grounds, and whatever one-off sets they're using for the particular episode or arc. The exceptions, which have always been the exceptions are Crawley House and the Dowager House. Matthew and Mary were only at Downton temporarily but you know if Stevens had stayed it would have stretched to forever. While Tom is Sybil's dad and the estate manager, it doesn't make a bunch of sense to me that he hasn't taken a cottage on the grounds for himself and his daughter, just to have a private life, but he has to be available in the halls. I do wonder, if Mary marries Charles Blake, how they get him to take up residence in Downton as well, but I'm sure Fellowes will think of something. Edited October 22, 2014 by DianeDobbler 2 Link to comment
Pogojoco October 22, 2014 Share October 22, 2014 on an urelated note, but since the writing is so stupid, I am going to nit pick. Every time we see Mrs. Drew hanging out the laundry, it is already dry. She is hanging dry comforters up and the other day when Edith was watching them with the laundry getting ready to hang it out, it was not even damp. All the clothes were already dry. I want someone to write about all the problems with this show and call the book "All the Clothes were Already Dry." 10 Link to comment
Andorra October 22, 2014 Share October 22, 2014 Her prospects depend upon how Edith and the family handle it, considering that the real life Countess of the place where Downton is filmed, was, during that era, herself an illegitimate child. But she was officially not illegitimate, because her mother was married and her official father acknowledged her. It just was obvious that she was a Rothshild, because her real father took an active role in supporting her.. It's a difference in the eyes of society what is gossiped about in salons, or what is plain to see for everyone. 3 Link to comment
photo fox October 22, 2014 Share October 22, 2014 Hey, all, there are clearly a lot of passionate opinions about the Edith storyline. Please remember it's just a work of fiction, and try not to take or make it personal. Thanks. 2 Link to comment
Superpole2000 October 22, 2014 Share October 22, 2014 It is painfully obvious to me that the Edith and Bates storylines offer nothing entertaining and only detract from the show. The only thing worse than a bad storyline is a bad storyline that lingers for many episodes/seasons. Is it too late to give them the Spanish flu? 3 Link to comment
Andorra October 22, 2014 Share October 22, 2014 I think everyone has storylines that don't interest him. I AM interested in Edith and Marigold. The Bates storyline I fullheartily agree though, it is terribly boring. As was the - thank god - now resolved Sarah Bunting storyline and the Mary and her suitors storyline. Actually I'm most interested in Cora and Isobel this series. Never thought I would say that about Cora! But I like her storyline so far, I've learned a lot about her and I think she has so much more style than her husband. Isobel/Violet is a much more equal relationship this series, I'm loving that also. Violet has to swallow a lot of cool lines from Isobel this year, like "you'*re as infirm as Windsor Castle" LOL. And Lord Merton/Isobel is a sweet couple. He really won me over with his proposal, I'm looking forward to see his horrible sons. And I hope Larry and Tom will clash again! Also I like the friendship and "love advise" scenes with Tom and Mary very much and Mrs Patmore and her nephew. I'm waiting for Thomas' storyline to really take flight next episode and I hope the same will happen with Edith's storyline. And I can't wait to see Tom getting something new to do besides squirming because of awful women! He spent 13 episodes with Edna/Bunting and I can't wait to finally see episodes without them and where Fellows has to give him other things to do and other people to communicate with! All in all, I must say, I like the series this year.It is slow and there hasn't been a BIG thing happening so far, but I like that there are so many little stories going on. 3 Link to comment
Eolivet October 22, 2014 Share October 22, 2014 I do wonder, if Mary marries Charles Blake, how they get him to take up residence in Downton as well, but I'm sure Fellowes will think of something. Charles Blake has an Irish estate of his own. After the Stevens debacle, I think Fellowes ensured all of Mary's potential love interests could be very conveniently written to be away, in case they wanted to leave the show for long periods of time, without jeopardizing their health or Mary's. (Gillingham, when he was a viable suitor, also had his own estate). The show is going to have to do a lot of fancy footwork, however, to get me to think Mary is romantically interested in Charles Blake. I'd have expected an emotional scene between them by now instead of a whole bunch of aimless flirting and snark. Mary likes to deflect, but not that much, and other than the pigs (and even that's debatable), I haven't seen her have one genuine moment where she drops her guard with Blake. She had several with Matthew (in public and private) by this time. She's even had a few with Gillingham -- despite his turn for the worse. But with Blake, it's like "Let's scheme and plot and be besties!" not "I think I'm falling for you and I'm scared to tell you!" I wonder if Fellowes is now using Blake and Gillingham to show what Mary needs in her next husband: intellectual conversation, fun and flirting, and also mutual attraction and deep passion. Combined together, Blake and Gillingham would be the perfect guy for her. But they're each uncovering sides of herself she thought were lost forever when Matthew died, and it's going to be Bachelor #3 who becomes the total package. (I still wonder if Lord Merton has a nicer son somewhere -- if only because I think Fellowes would be incredibly amused by Isobel becoming Mary's mother-in-law all over again.) Link to comment
NotBothered October 22, 2014 Share October 22, 2014 The show is going to have to do a lot of fancy footwork, however, to get me to think Mary is romantically interested in Charles Blake. I'd have expected an emotional scene between them by now instead of a whole bunch of aimless flirting and snark. I like Mary and Blake, but even I am starting to doubt it. I keep waiting for some discussion about Blake's prospects now that she's decided against Tony, but it hasn't come. I do think that they've had some honest conversations, but the shows hasn't really tried to switch gears to Blake, and I'm starting to wonder if they're not going to. Or if they're really going to drag it out. 1 Link to comment
ZoloftBlob October 22, 2014 Share October 22, 2014 Charles Blake has an Irish estate of his own. After the Stevens debacle, I think Fellowes ensured all of Mary's potential love interests could be very conveniently written to be away, in case they wanted to leave the show for long periods of time, without jeopardizing their health or Mary's. (Gillingham, when he was a viable suitor, also had his own estate). I disagree but only a little. A) Fellowes clearly wants us to point at Dan Stevens and say "It was the actor who did this! Lets all blame the guy who legally left his employment!" when again and again, its acknowledged that Stevens was getting some really horrid storylines to work with in season two. If there was a "debacle" in the Matthew storyline, Fellowes always had the power to mitigate it and instead went with the "Ha ha fuck you Dan!" zippy car of death. B) The real problem with all of Mary's love interests, Matthew, Tony, and Blake, is that Fellowes is in love with Mary (and to a lesser extent, Mary and Matthew) and for Mary to get stories as a married woman - she has to be cheated on. I mean, a season four with Matthew was likely going to involved Matthew cheating (and of course being caught, etc) because Mary is the hero in Fellowes's eyes. The reason Mary's courtship have always dragged out is because Mary dating is far easier to write than Mary single. There's no sex vacations or multiple suitor stories or dating stories once she is married because Fellowes is never going to depict Mary as a woman who cheats on a husband she loves... because Fellowes loves her too much. Once she is married, all the fun stops and that's why it is dragging out. Because once the husband is on board (and a guess, it won't be until next season) the husband will cheat on her or die, Matthew frankly would never have worked at having an affair - he was probably too well liked by the audience to get the villain role (I feel similarly about Robert and Tom) but Tony or Blake? I just have this feeling we shouldn't get attached since as soon as they marry Mary, a reason will be found to have Mary lining up the suitors again. Link to comment
ZulaMay October 22, 2014 Share October 22, 2014 Veering off to another topic - I sometimes try to predict how a storyline will turn based on the sets. Unless Tom marries in the final series, it's hard to envision him marrying anywhere outside the family, because then they have to contrive scenes for him - he can't just turn up in the halls or dining room. They have to have some estate manager story to get him in the picture. This show just doesn't build a lot of extra permanent sets that it uses regularly. Occasionally, yes. Get out of storage in every episode, no. It's Highclere and the grounds, and whatever one-off sets they're using for the particular episode or arc. The exceptions, which have always been the exceptions are Crawley House and the Dowager House. Matthew and Mary were only at Downton temporarily but you know if Stevens had stayed it would have stretched to forever. While Tom is Sybil's dad and the estate manager, it doesn't make a bunch of sense to me that he hasn't taken a cottage on the grounds for himself and his daughter, just to have a private life, but he has to be available in the halls. I do wonder, if Mary marries Charles Blake, how they get him to take up residence in Downton as well, but I'm sure Fellowes will think of something. I think Tom will stay at the house through S6, the last one, and at the end remarry and move into the Agent house. They will drag out a romance for him in S6 so they can just wrap it up at the end and keep him conveniently there until it's all over. Link to comment
Llywela October 22, 2014 Share October 22, 2014 I think Tom will stay at the house through S6, the last one, and at the end remarry and move into the Agent house. They will drag out a romance for him in S6 so they can just wrap it up at the end and keep him conveniently there until it's all over. I think this is probable - in much the same way that Isobel not marrying Lord Merton is probable - but it's a shame as it highlights how limited the vision of the show is. It would be easy enough to allow Tom to move into the agent house and Isobel to remarry and still develop stories including them, but it would mean being brave enough to change the formula and try something new, and that's what the show is lacking at the moment, imo. 1 Link to comment
Eolivet October 22, 2014 Share October 22, 2014 I disagree but only a little. A) Fellowes clearly wants us to point at Dan Stevens and say "It was the actor who did this! Lets all blame the guy who legally left his employment!" when again and again, its acknowledged that Stevens was getting some really horrid storylines to work with in season two. If there was a "debacle" in the Matthew storyline, Fellowes always had the power to mitigate it and instead went with the "Ha ha fuck you Dan!" zippy car of death. And I strongly disagree with this. Fellowes has said (and I have no reason to doubt him, because of how much he loved M/M) he would've written Matthew going off to America or to work in the London office or something, had Stevens agreed to come back for a few episodes a year. Stevens refused to do even that, so Fellowes had no choice but to kill him off. I agree that the "zippy car of death" was Fellowes' way to give the middle finger (as opposed to Matthew dying of a tragic illness or heroically saving someone, with all the family tearfully surrounding him), but Stevens gave Fellowes no choice but to kill Matthew. Fellowes chose the manner of his demise, but Stevens was the impetus for it all. But I do think Stevens made Fellowes wise to (and skeptical of) all of Mary's future love interests -- to the point where none of them -- likely including the guy she ends up marrying -- will need to be a regular on the show. Fellowes got caught flat-footed when one-half of his main power couple opted out, and I think the writing for Mary's suitors has been very purposeful after that. It would've been bizarre for Matthew to suddenly agree to leave Mary and just disappear, but not these other suitors. Mary will remain at Downton (where the action is) and her eventual husband can have matters at his own estate to look after. He shows up for the occasional family dinner, and it's pretty much status quo (and likely the way many aristocratic marriages functioned back then). If the guy wants to join the cast, great! But if he decides to leave, he doesn't have to die in order to do so. Ironically, I think Fellowes wants to lock up a suitor/husband for Mary just to make him irrelevant. Making her husband cheat on her or killing him gives him relevance. He wants someone to stick with Mary to occasionally disagree when the plot calls for it, and who can conveniently disappear for long stretches of time so Mary can interact with her family. 2 Link to comment
ZoloftBlob October 22, 2014 Share October 22, 2014 And I strongly disagree with this. Fellowes has said (and I have no reason to doubt him, because of how much he loved M/M) he would've written Matthew going off to America or to work in the London office or something, had Stevens agreed to come back for a few episodes a year. Yes, I know this - thats Fellowes blaming Stevens for not renewing his contract. The guy wanted out, Fellowes couldn't convince him to stay and then Fellowes runs to insist how he was the heighth of reasonableness and he did everything but personally blow Dan Stevens in order to get him to stay. Particularly after Fellowes wrote the zippy car of death, as much as Stevens can be a pretentious twit in interviews, his comment was only that he had no input in Matthew's death, while Fellowes was all "I had to! Oh how I tried to convince Dan that one more episode would make a gigantic difference but the man left me no choice!". My honest guess on the current suitors? We're not going to see Mary marry any time soon because I don't think Fellowes knows how to write Mary without her needing to choose. 1 Link to comment
shipperx October 22, 2014 Share October 22, 2014 (edited) I think it's difficult to argue that Edith is 'there all the time' and irratic with her schedule. She can't be a fixture and a non-fixture at the same time. These two things are different. Either can be the problem but both together is a stretch. As far as bonding, isn't Edith the one who breastfed her for months, who travelled with her from Switzerland in pre air travel days, and who is 'obsessively there all the time' now? I think Marigold is bonded to Edith and to Mrs Drew. Children are capable of bonding to multiple caretakers. The problem remains that all parties to this agreement either did not think this through or were not made aware beforehand. It is unfair to Mrs Drew and she is also being singularly oblivious to the obvious. Any way you cut it, this is poorly written. But the situation also owes a great deal to its time period. If it were the present day, Edith never would have contemplated giving up her child in the first place. As for her prospects, we know what the characters do not know... The Depression and WWII will bound Marigolds childhood and coming of age. Edited October 22, 2014 by shipperx 2 Link to comment
DianeDobbler October 22, 2014 Share October 22, 2014 (edited) I loved Matthew and I'm okay with the way he died. I think it was just ripping the bandaid off. My experience was that the character was very very very popular, and we'd already seen a ton of bedside stories with him, and suffering. As written, it was full on happiness up until literally the last moment of the episode, and a couple of scenes letting us know what happened. The following series, six months had expired. I really didn't want to have to go through horrible pain with the character. A deathbed scenario might have gone overboard considering the family had just spent an episode at Sybil's deathbed. I viewed it as Fellowes recognizing that the character was really popular, squeezing all the happiness out of Mary and Matthew that he could up until the last seconds of the last episode the actor was available, Matthew goes out not knowing what hit him, presumably on one of the happiest days of his life, and because the series picks up six months later in Season 4, the audience is spared the agonizing scenes of the family learning what happened to him and reacting. If Matthew's death had occurred for legitimate dramatic/story reasons, versus the actor leaving, then maybe buffering the event for the audience would have been a cheat, but it wasn't the way the show itself chose to go, so I, personally, appreciated the buffering. I thought Fellowes handled it considerately. That said, I've no objection to Dan Stevens leaving the show and don't blame him. ITA that Mary needs that total package, but I wouldn't put it as a Charles Blake/Gillingham combo. I never saw the passion with Gillingham, and Charles Blake seems like an amusing relative. I don't mean to be all stereotypical, but there he is at a fashion show with Mabel. Then he gets the girls together and tells them his clever idea. Then he's amusingly particular about the food. Throw another fifteen years on him and he's Max Detweiler to Mary's Baroness Schraeder in The Sound of Music. Edited October 22, 2014 by DianeDobbler 7 Link to comment
shipperx October 22, 2014 Share October 22, 2014 (edited) I think a few people are confusing 1924 with 1824. Marigold is not going to grow up barely literate, she won't be doing hard manual labour before she turns 10 and she won't be getting married mid-teens to a man she doesn't love just to escape life on the farm. She's unlikely to go into service, either. She's going to grow up on a farm - helping out, sure, but that isn't a bad life, and she doesn't have to stay there forever. She'll go to school and get an education, at least until she's 14 if not 16. There are employment prospects out there for young women by the time she's grown. She'll have a loving family behind her.My maternal grandmother was an orphan born in the 1920s who grew up on a farm. She was out of school by the 5th grade and married at fifteen. (For that matter my maternal grandfather never made it passed 4th grade. Neither was illiterate or unintelligent, and they were both wonderful people. This is a common Depression era story, not an uncommon one, for farm families in the 20s and 30s)My paternal great aunt on the other hand attended college and got a degree in chemistry. The difference was, as you might guess, status and finances. Life isn't fair and, yes, in the 1920s there were still many of these class issues. Marigold would be more on track for Daisy's life than Sybil's. Edited October 22, 2014 by shipperx 5 Link to comment
kpw801 October 22, 2014 Share October 22, 2014 Well I have to say Fellowes must have some kind of sick need to have certain characters perpetually miserable such as Bates and Edith. Now as we have seen for several series there is never sexual love without major consequences on this show. The only one who sort of got a happy ending is Ethel. She paid her dues by losing her job and having to work the streets since she had no character reference that would allow her employment elsewhere plus she had the baby to raise on her own. Eventually, she found redemption. She found a happy home for her child, employment and training as a cook/housekeeper and an job near her child where presumably she won't act as irrationally obsessed as Edith has. I watch to show like an addict. I have all the episodes on my computer and really enjoy the visual smorgasbord of costumes and set. However, I pray with all my heart Julian Fellowes will find a way to make someone happy for at least a bit in this series. The best episodes to my recent memory were as follows: the Christmas episode where Matthew proposed, the first episode where Mary and Matthew married. The worst as far as pushing the misery envelope were: The day of Sybil's funeral when they arrested Bates and Anna began her series after series appearance of a pinched miserable aging woman - I mean seriously she very seldom smiles anymore and the other worst episode was the day Edith was jilted. Anna's rape falls in there too but that episode seems to have just been drawn out into one long tedious boring series of will they or won't they arrest one of the Bates and it is ruining the show for me. I will continue to watch but mostly to tell you the truth, I rather enjoy watching episodes of the earlier series. I wish Julian would make some kind of obvious reason to why Thomas hates Mr. Bates so much. My God! He has turned into a mental case! I remember one episode right after Bates got out of prison and O'Brien and Thomas were surreptitiously watching Bates and Anna and O'Brien said "Love's young dream. I think not." Thomas said, "Sod em" or something to that effect and O'Brien said that he was going soft in his old age because she held a grudge longer than he did. Actually her grudge didn't make sense either when you looked at it. Sure she was trying to get Thomas the valet position but her dislike and venom didn't make any sense at all and now Thomas has joined the insane I hate Bates because I just do club. I am thinking about starting an I hate Julian Fellowes club if he doesn't give us some kind resolution to some of the drearier storylines. He gets an A- for finally getting rid of Ms. Bunting though. Even the story line about Edna was rather stupid. I mean, who tries to say they are pregnant after a one night stand. Seriously? 1 Link to comment
ZulaMay October 22, 2014 Share October 22, 2014 (edited) I loved Matthew and I'm okay with the way he died. I think it was just ripping the bandaid off. My experience was that the character was very very very popular, and we'd already seen a ton of bedside stories with him, and suffering. As written, it was full on happiness up until literally the last moment of the episode, and a couple of scenes letting us know what happened. The following series, six months had expired. I really didn't want to have to go through horrible pain with the character. A deathbed scenario might have gone overboard considering the family had just spent an episode at Sybil's deathbed. I viewed it as Fellowes recognizing that the character was really popular, squeezing all the happiness out of Mary and Matthew that he could up until the last seconds of the last episode the actor was available, Matthew goes out not knowing what hit him, presumably on one of the happiest days of his life, and because the series picks up six months later in Season 4, the audience is spared the agonizing scenes of the family learning what happened to him and reacting. If Matthew's death had occurred for legitimate dramatic/story reasons, versus the actor leaving, then maybe buffering the event for the audience would have been a cheat, but it wasn't the way the show itself chose to go, so I, personally, appreciated the buffering. I thought Fellowes handled it considerately. That said, I've no objection to Dan Stevens leaving the show and don't blame him. ITA that Mary needs that total package, but I wouldn't put it as a Charles Blake/Gillingham combo. I never saw the passion with Gillingham, and Charles Blake seems like an amusing relative. I don't mean to be all stereotypical, but there he is at a fashion show with Mabel. Then he gets the girls together and tells them his clever idea. Then he's amusingly particular about the food. Throw another fifteen years on him and he's Max Detweiler to Mary's Baroness Schraeder in The Sound of Music. Sybil was a very popular character too, but Fellowes didn't have the decency to let her and Tom be happy right up to the last possible moment and let her go out painlessly. He milked it for all the trauma and tragedy he could. Sybil and Tom didn't even get to have a moment alone with their child before she died: everyone else was there with them. And Sybil literally did not get a word of dialogue in that scene, either. Not with Tom. He was the only one who got to say "I love you" before she died. Instead we had Sybil telling MARY how much she loved Tom, robbing the fans of that couple of that single happy moment before it was destroyed. Sure, JF wasn't giving the middle finger to the actress because she got a juicy death scene. But he sure as Hell was giving the middle finger to her fans and the fans of the couple. And frankly given how Sybil was sidelined in S2 (she was a nurse but we never saw her do any real nursing) and basically treated like a pregnant prop in S3, I cannot blame JBF for leaving the show. Imagine sitting around on a set in a corset for six months a year only to film one or two one-minute scenes per episode, many of which end up being cut. It really pissed me off the way JF and the show did their best to milk every happy moment out of M/M before he died, and spent months apologizing and dealing with the fallout, but didn't do the same for Sybil who was a beloved character too. He also used her death as a plot device for a half-assed storyline about Robert and Cora's estrangement and to make Tom more popular. And now that he is popular, JF doesn't even bother writing him a decent story. For two seasons. He does disservice to so many characters and in the process does the same to the viewers. Sorry for the rant but when she subject of how JF handled Matthew's death arises, it starkly highlights his excessive favoritism toward him and M/M. Which is now favoritism toward Mary. Edited October 22, 2014 by ZulaMay 2 Link to comment
ZoloftBlob October 22, 2014 Share October 22, 2014 He does disservice to so many characters and in the process does the same to the viewers. And thats why I can't get behind some of the rage I see directed at the actors. Downton Abbey by all reports is a pretty contained writing environment. Fellowes does the writing, its all on Fellowes's schedule etc etc etc. I mean really, has anything actually happened this season? I couldn't blame any actor leaving this show at this point, and frankly I think the cast that exited in season three got out when the getting was good. Season four and so far season five have no storylines that aren't miserable (Edith's) or dull retreads of season one and two (Mary's need to pick a husband, the many suspected murders of Mr. Bates, or so minor, they're mostly after thoughts (Tom, Isobel's potentional marriage, Thomas's gay stuff). Link to comment
DianeDobbler October 22, 2014 Share October 22, 2014 (edited) And now that [Tom] is popular, JF doesn't even bother writing him a decent story. For two seasons. Awww. :( I felt so bad reading that - I've been there. I binged watched up until Matthew's death, and read about Sybil before I'd ever seen the show, so I was working backwards. I definitely noticed that for a character whose death was meant to be a shock to the viewer, Sybil was underwritten in the two complete series she appeared, and her romance with Tom was ridiculously underwritten. The "harem pants" scene definitely jumped out at me. She had no dialogue. It was just - appear in the pants, register it as "look at this modern woman" and out, no real story in it. In show publicity it's played as some major moment, but Sybil had no story and it wasn't a major moment. It was like a cameo. Fellowes succeeded in making Tom popular, but for me it's not due to Sybil's death. It's very shallow. They cut his hair, and started writing towards Allen Leech's sense of humor, or at least gave him lines that played on his natural rhythms. While he was married to Sybil I wasn't crazy about some of his lines, such as "Don't disappoint me." Or some of the yes means no stuff as far as her feelings. There wasn't a lot of warmth written. In fact, the one time I really liked Tom pre-Sybil's death was the few seconds he clearly was one of the few at Downton who could handle the telephone. Tom got better scenes with Matthew than with Sybil. So I guess this is working around as - you're right, they didn't write them as a romantic couple. Their elopement was all about the family reacting - the script didn't follow them. Their entire relationship was mostly about the family reacting, and Fellowes didn't appear to have much interest writing Tom with his wife. Even now that Tom is popular because, IMO, he looks better, is more personable, they allow his charm to show - he doesn't have his own story. I couldn't take Bunting either, but that wasn't a story. Edna was horrible and dragged on too long. If you're going to give me villainesses, or the "wrong" woman, don't make it drag on forever for God's sake, or if you do, cast better! I didn't know Fellowes pretended that Downton had 18 protogonists. I always thought he was open about it being "Mostly Mary at Downton". I probably just assumed he was open about it because ... look at the show. Now that it's brought up, I'm wondering why it had to be written that Sybil and Tom went to Ireland to live. As contrived as this show is, they could have wrangled his whole political side without writing them off to Ireland. Edited October 23, 2014 by DianeDobbler 2 Link to comment
kpw801 October 22, 2014 Share October 22, 2014 Sorry for the rant but when she subject of how JF handled Matthew's death arises, it starkly highlights his excessive favoritism toward him and M/M. Which is now favoritism toward Mary. I agree Zula. Perhaps that is why Michelle Dockery says she will stay until the bitter end. She has a starring role as long as the show runs. She gets more screen time and more costume changes than anyone else. Unfortunately, since Matthew died, her stories are really really dull. I was sort of angry at Dan Stevens and hurt by JBF leaving too but now that you mention it, I don't blame them either. I think the stupidest plot was Matthew not wanting to take the money because "it would be like stealing". I have to take my hat off to Dan Stevens for not laughing during the delivery of the lines. That was just incredibly stupid. I will keep watching though. I have hope there may be something to see but I am watching for the resolution of Edith's plot with the child (I can't call that big ol' rusty girl a baby) and I want to see what happens with Mrs. Hughes and Carson. Not interested in Bates and Anna anymore. Just too much angst. Can't wait for their scenes to be over. By the way, since he switched the house to Anna's name, I am assuming they have some rental money coming in, why does she still have to work? She could be a homemaker starting a family but that would make too much sense. Link to comment
Avaleigh October 22, 2014 Author Share October 22, 2014 Sure, JF wasn't giving the middle finger to the actress because she got a juicy death scene. But he sure as Hell was giving the middle finger to her fans and the fans of the couple. I was a fan of Sybil and I definitely didn't feel like JF was giving me the middle finger during her death scene. For me, the episode with Sybil's death was one of the strongest episodes in the entire series. With the exception of Dan Stevens I thought everybody brought their A-game that day and was touched by so many scenes. Elizabeth McGovern was excellent and seeing the moment where she's alone with Sybil and telling her that she won't need to worry about Tom or the baby--I thought it was so moving and well done. I loved the honest conversation Sybil had with Mary and I liked that Sybil seemed like she and Tom were going to find their place within the family again. I also enjoyed the scene between Edith and Mary even though people like to use it as an example of Mary being mean to Edith, I thought it was a sweet scene and liked that the girls had a moment alone together to honor their sister. AL was especially good during the actual moment of death and I think it's still probably his strongest scene to date. I loathe the character of Thomas but even he had a nice scene during this episode. I didn't think that any of the above scenes were wasted or pointless and since AL wanted to continue to be apart of the show I understand why Sybil had to go. I don't think that JF was deliberately trying to be mean about "robbing" Tom and Sybil fans of their happy ending. I personally was disappointed when I thought they were going to be written out permanently as living in Ireland or America so I'm glad the show ended up not going that route. Sometimes popular characters die. I don't think it's necessarily something personal against the fans from the showrunner/s. As for Mary and Matthew, I was definitely a fan of this couple but I wasn't traumatized by Matthew's death or anything like that. I was shocked that people were angry with DS and/or JF and had no idea that there was some unwritten rule in television about not having sad endings occur during a holiday weekend. (When I think of how many sad movies are released on Christmas Day, I honestly still don't get it.) There were articles where people were flat out accusing JF and the show of ruining their holiday and it was something that I had trouble understanding. I don't feel that Matthew's death takes at all away from the wonderful past scenes with Matthew and Mary and their romance. The old episodes haven't been ruined for me. I'm grateful to have had those three seasons and understand that onscreen chemistry like that isn't always easy to find, so I'm thankful for what we got. I wish Julian would make some kind of obvious reason to why Thomas hates Mr. Bates so much. My God! He has turned into a mental case! Seriously, Thomas is just the worst. He wants to tell himself that people don't like him because he's "different" and it's like no, dude, no. People don't like you because you act like an asshole on a regular basis and have been since day one. Crying over Sybil's death and being nice to a guy that he was super attracted to doesn't erase all of the years of douchebaggery that he inflicted on that household. Maybe when he drops the attitude and becomes a friendlier person people could actually be given the chance to warm to him. He brings many of his problems on himself and I have little patience for it. The other problem of course is that Bates went through a similar story in the first or second season when he kept wearing that awful brace on his leg. The story with Thomas almost feels like the same thing all over again with characters commenting on how he doesn't look well and Thomas acting like everything is fine just as Bates did. Baxter is in the role of O'Brien and Violet comments about Thomas's appearance as Robert once commented on Bates's . Honestly, there should be a thread about for all of the recycled storylines from this show from over the seasons. 4 Link to comment
ZulaMay October 22, 2014 Share October 22, 2014 (edited) I was a fan of Sybil and I definitely didn't feel like JF was giving me the middle finger during her death scene. For me, the episode with Sybil's death was one of the strongest episodes in the entire series. With the exception of Dan Stevens I thought everybody brought their A-game that day and was touched by so many scenes. Elizabeth McGovern was excellent and seeing the moment where she's alone with Sybil and telling her that she won't need to worry about Tom or the baby--I thought it was so moving and well done. I loved the honest conversation Sybil had with Mary and I liked that Sybil seemed like she and Tom were going to find their place within the family again. I also enjoyed the scene between Edith and Mary even though people like to use it as an example of Mary being mean to Edith, I thought it was a sweet scene and liked that the girls had a moment alone together to honor their sister. AL was especially good during the actual moment of death and I think it's still probably his strongest scene to date. I loathe the character of Thomas but even he had a nice scene during this episode. I didn't think that any of the above scenes were wasted or pointless and since AL wanted to continue to be apart of the show I understand why Sybil had to go. I don't think that JF was deliberately trying to be mean about "robbing" Tom and Sybil fans of their happy ending. I personally was disappointed when I thought they were going to be written out permanently as living in Ireland or America so I'm glad the show ended up not going that route. Sometimes popular characters die. I don't think it's necessarily something personal against the fans from the showrunner/s. I was responding to the poster who said JF made an effort to let Mary and Matthew be happy together for as long as possible until he died, right up to that lovely sun-lit scene with the two of them in the hospital, ALONE, with their baby. That was a very transparent effort to give fans of this couple as much happiness as he could squeeze out of them before Matthew died. And the poster said she appreciated it. With Sybil and Tom, by contrast, he did the opposite. He barely showed them interacting in the episode she died. Instead, we got her talking to her sister and mother. Sorry, but it took two seasons for them to get together so the least he could have done was give them more time together before she was taken from him and us. The fact is she was a beloved character and they were a popular couple. JF was responsive to how popular Mary/Matthew were so he gave the fans something nice to remember. He has even said as much. I am not saying the episode wasn't well-done, but obviously that was not Fellowes' only priority when it came to Matthew's death episode. He wanted to make it as lovely as possible and leave good memories. With Sybil, he didn't give a shit about that. It's nice for you that it didn't bother you and I wish I could say the same, but I felt cheated and so did a lot of other fans of her and of them as a couple. There was a lot of anger and grief after that episode, and the stark difference between the two death episodes did not go unnoticed. Yes, it was a good episode from a dramatic perspective but it could have been just as good with them having more time together. JF was exquisitely sensitive to the feelings of M/M fans and incredibly insensitive to those of Sybil/Tom fans. Not just in how he wrote the episodes but in how he handled the aftermath. As for Tom's "don't disappoint me" line that bothered some people, it would have come across differently if the show hadn't cut an important scene that showed the two of them in Ireland. Robert didn't want Tom there, and Tom told Sybil he thought it might be best and less awkward if she went alone. But she insisted he come, told him she couldn't let them act like he didn't exist, and she wanted to return as a happy couple or not at all. Then when her grandmother and father insulted his clothes at the dinner table, she didn't present a united front with him or defend him. She asked him to go out and buy the penguin suit and not talk about Ireland (even though they were the ones who asked about it). That was unfair of her and that is why he said "don't disappoint me". He was facing hostility and he needed her on his side. Edited October 22, 2014 by ZulaMay 1 Link to comment
DeepRunner October 22, 2014 Share October 22, 2014 (edited) Someone said a book should be written titled "All the Clothes Were Already Dry," which, I must say, is rather clever. Seeing the sway of the conversation lately, perhaps the sequel could be, "Fellowes, Fans, and The Middle Finger of Misery." Edited October 22, 2014 by DeepRunner 4 Link to comment
ZoloftBlob October 22, 2014 Share October 22, 2014 (edited) Hey speaking of inconsistencies (maybe we need a topic) - here's one! In season one, episode one, there's a whole lotta drama about Bates not being physically capable of carrying a tray, to the point that it was essentially a firing offensive. But in season 2, there's at least one scene where Bates is getting paralyzed Matthew into bed and Matthew is all "yeah um.. tingling.... that's not heavy handed foreshadowing to my recovery at all!" - so Bates can't carry plates but he can physically assist a 180 pound paralyzed man? To keep this on season five - Edith needs to grow a set and make a decision. There's a point where I am sympathetic and there's a point where she's needs a slap and someone to shake her and tell her to grow up. The reality is that she's had a baby and she needs to decide whether she's going to be the parent or not. True story - thanks to the power of Altheimers, my English grandmother revealed to her five adult children, that her younger brother was actually their OLDER brother - she had gotten pregnant *by the vicar no less* - and her parents "sent her away to stay with an aunt* and told everyone that her mom was pregnant. Mom joins her in exile, and they return home with the new baby brother... and this kind of thing happened ALL the time. I mean geez Edith could simply lie and say it is Greggson's child with his crazy wife and he asked her to take custody or hell, if she got the family on board, they could all lie that it's the child of some unknown cousin who died in the war. Edith assumes custody as she needs something to do, problem solved. It's not like record keeping was good back then. This is being made too hard. If my family of tinkers and rominishel can manage it with no one finding out, I'm sure some bloody toffs could too. Ironically, I think Fellowes wants to lock up a suitor/husband for Mary just to make him irrelevant. Making her husband cheat on her or killing him gives him relevance. He wants someone to stick with Mary to occasionally disagree when the plot calls for it, and who can conveniently disappear for long stretches of time so Mary can interact with her family. I don't disagree with this at all, but it's why the storyline is failing. If Mary's second husband is nothing but an irrelevant tool that doesn't matter to the story, when why should we care who she marries at all? Pick Tony, pick Blake, pick Sir Anthony Strallan.... if all Mary needs is a prop to interact with, why not just have her marry Tom? I mean, it doesn't fucking matter - "Mary's husband" is just a prop to occasionally disagree with her and whp can be gotten rid of so Mary can play. Why should we give a shit in the slightest if that's all this quest for marriage is about? If the most significant storyline of the season exists for this purpose alone, then no wonder we're bored. Edited October 23, 2014 by ZoloftBlob 3 Link to comment
DianeDobbler October 23, 2014 Share October 23, 2014 (edited) ^Wasn't Bates carrying cases, pitching in with Anna, this past episode as well? The whole "scandal" deal with Downton is a pain in the butt. They kept holding Pamuck over Mary's head - when they remembered, which they didn't always. It was super important to get her married right away! Then she blew the Matthew deal and that kept her single for how many years? No - boy, she better get a move on cause that Pamuck thing could blow - not until Sir Richard. Then on the peak end of this two series, multi-year arc, she IS with Sir. Richard who takes care of the Pamuck story when Bates' wife starts making noises. By this point you'd think the entire family could just be all - give me a break, the guy never died in her bed. It's not a murder, the Turks aren't demanding an investigation, so it's just a potential social scandal rapidly receding into historical gossip. Where's the proof, besides Edith, and I bet the family could lean on her to say she lied. Anyway, so right before Matthew finally does propose a second time, the whole solution to Pamuck is - oh well, I'll just get on over to America ... maybe. And that will handle it. Additionally, all along it appeared the real concern was Robert finding out, but when he did, he had other priorities and was all sympathy. So with Edith, they can tell me all day long, every episode, that Edith is going to be ruined, and I won't believe it. Even if they play it in the script I won't believe it. She has money. She has assets. As you say, she needs to nut up. The whole plot can't pivot on Edith not facing what will probably be a nonexistent scandal because Fellowes won't write it anyway, but apparently it is. P.S. - I mentioned Passions, the soap opera. What felt like years of plot rested on the premise that Gwen and Ethan had to marry or his family would destroy anyone who prevented that marriage. The daughter of the housekeeper to Ethan's family was in love with Ethan, and the housekeeper told her that one every episode. That's a two-year obstacle! The gloom and doom. Comes the day the Gwen/Ethan deal goes on the rocks thanks to Theresa and not a single member of the groom's family can be bothered to show any interest. They're all up to their own shenanagins. The only person who took action was Gwen herself. That was not what we heard for two years - Gwen will go after you with a baseball bat! It was "his family will ruin us!" I don't mean to draw lines between Fellowes and this soap, but there are weird similarities between the free and easy way the supposed stakes in a story evaporate whenever it's convenient. It's happened enough on Downton that the "oh the scandal!" warnings are tedious. Edited October 23, 2014 by DianeDobbler 2 Link to comment
ZoloftBlob October 23, 2014 Share October 23, 2014 So with Edith, they can tell me all day long, every episode, that Edith is going to be ruined, and I won't believe it. Even if they play it in the script I won't believe it. She has money. She has assets. As you say, she needs to nut up. The whole plot can't pivot on Edith not facing what will probably be a nonexistent scandal because Fellowes won't write it anyway, but apparently it is. Now here's the thing. I do think bearing an illegitimate child was a big scandal in this era and I don't want to discount it. When and if Marigold is revealed to be Edith's child, Edith can forget about marrying anyone even on the fringes of society, and she will be cast out of her social circle. On the other hand, Edith is thirtyish with no significant inheritance in a society denuded of men anyway. So she isn't likely to marry in her social circle. While her parents love her, they don't seem to like her very much. Mary will be getting the estate, Edith doesn't appear to have any close friends, hell, even Isobel isn't exactly friendly. What's keeping her in Downton? If the scandal was revealed.... Lets be honest, it would be insanely out of character for Robert to cast her out penniless to be a whore like Ethel, and frankly she at least has the money to grab her child and head to America and Rosalind would probably help her out as well. So why is she staying in misery? It doesn't really make sense, even though I would cite Edith as the least intelligent of the sisters, she's certainly bright enough to figure this out. 1 Link to comment
Camera One October 23, 2014 Share October 23, 2014 (edited) All of that is a huge risk, so it makes more sense that she would feel stuck in the situation. While I agree that in the grand themes of things and from an objective position from the sidelines living in the twenty-first century, she would end up being alright; but from her perspective, her entire world would fall apart... her father might not give her money, her aunt might withdrew her support if she is caught up in the scandal, or her relatives in America (who she isn't that close to) might not take her in. She has lived her whole life in a privileged position, and she isn't exactly well-equipped to start off independently as a single mother. It is frustrating and sad to watch, but I can't criticize it as not making sense, or even that Edith is being stupid for being afraid of the consequences. Edited October 23, 2014 by Camera One 1 Link to comment
Superpole2000 October 23, 2014 Share October 23, 2014 I think the writer forgets that his audience can get the point after just one scene. You don't need to show us Bates/Anna being intreviewed dozens of times, and you don't need to show Edith lurking around that farm dozens of times. Progress the damn story, or show us something else. 8 Link to comment
Andorra October 23, 2014 Share October 23, 2014 (edited) I think what we see is Edith getting through this process of realizing that she can't live as if nothing happened anyway and that it will be better in the long term to come clean with it all. I can understand her initial panic though and also that she let herself bully into giving the child up. Reputation was immensely important these days and the life of an "outcast" from society was not just an "okay then I get other friends" kind of decision. Outcast really meant outcast. It meant that she would probably never be allowed to visit her home, see her nephew or niece, it meant that she would never be invited to any family events. Her parents might have visited her, but only secretly. Her name would not be mentioned in the family any more. Also Marigold would have been stigmatized. And illegitimate child was someone you didn't let your children play with. On the other hand Downton is not reality and so I don't see Edith having to live apart from her family. They will find a solution that will allow her to live under the same roof with them AND have her child. She's probably just going to take her as a ward and they will pretend she is someone else's Baby. Edited October 23, 2014 by Andorra Link to comment
kpw801 October 23, 2014 Share October 23, 2014 ...or her relatives in America (who she isn't that close to) might not take her in. She has lived her whole life in a privileged position, and she isn't exactly well-equipped to start off independently as a single mother. It is frustrating and sad to watch, but I can't criticize it as not making sense, or even that Edith is being stupid for being afraid of the consequences. I highly doubt that her American relatives would turn their backs on her. Mrs. Levinson is a much more modern thinker than the Crawleys anyway and she did not like one bit the way they stomped all over her dreams of marrying Sir Anthony Strallen. Let's face it if they had stopped being so openly hostile to the man, Edith would be Lady Strallan and probably would have provided Sir Anthony with an heir and a spare by now and have a respected place in society. I think Uncle Harold and Grandmother Levinson would open their arms and pockets to their great-niece and grand-daughter and with their money, she could eventually end up married to an impoverished English peer. The best thing for the girl looking from the outside in right now is to be raised in America by Grandmother and and Uncle moneybags and have a substantial dowry and she would be set. 3 Link to comment
ZoloftBlob October 23, 2014 Share October 23, 2014 I don't even think its as difficult as asking the american relatives to help (I actually suspect Edith is as snobby as the rest of her family on the subject of America). The baby is the war orphan of an old friend. Edith promised to take in the child. Problem solved. Would people be *suspicious*? Sure, especially if the kid looks like Edith. Would it be like the Pamuk incident, where people would allude to it? Sure. Is it ten times easier than the mess we're watching? Yeah. 3 Link to comment
Eolivet October 23, 2014 Share October 23, 2014 Charles Blake seems like an amusing relative. I don't mean to be all stereotypical, but there he is at a fashion show with Mabel. Then he gets the girls together and tells them his clever idea. Then he's amusingly particular about the food. Throw another fifteen years on him and he's Max Detweiler to Mary's Baroness Schraeder in The Sound of Music. I haven't been able to stop chuckling about this since yesterday, so I'm just requoting it for posterity. If I could like it a hundred times, I would. Heh heh. Again, not seeing romantic sparks with Mary. I half-expect her to opine in the next episode how (a la "Clueless"), "Charles has become one of my favorite shopping partners!" 6 Link to comment
Llywela October 23, 2014 Share October 23, 2014 The baby is the war orphan of an old friend. Edith promised to take in the child. Problem solved. The war ended years before Marigold was born. Could she pass the child off as the orphan of a friend? To outsiders, perhaps - not to the family, who would want to know who this friend was and why they didn't know them. But a war orphan? Not a chance. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts