S05.E05: Episode Five

[fishcakes]

That doesn't mean it wasn't still a huge deal.  Through the 1950s, pregnant girls would be packed off to homes for unwed mothers and give up all rights to their babies, forever, because of the stigma.  It's why Jack Nicholson and Bobby Darin, to name two celebrity examples, grew up thinking their mothers were their older sisters.  It was a huge shame.  People tried to hide it.  Adoption papers included new birth certificates.  it reflected badly and most unjustly, on mother and child.  It was a big deal, which is why everyone who knows has counseled Edith to conceal it and put it behind her.  The choices might have been between bad and worse, but that's the way it was. 

 

Yes, I would say it's only fairly recently begun to be less of a big deal. I remember how people, including the Vice-President of the United States, were losing their shit in the early 1990s because Murphy Brown had a baby out of wedlock, and she wasn't even a real person. If the Crawleys weren't fictional and Edith were to claim Marigold as her own, I think the best case scenario would be that the family sends her out of the country with instructions to pretend she's a widow, minimally supports her, but essentially disowns her. In that event, Marigold would not have the privileges that wealth and position bring. But since this is fiction, I assume it will go:

 

1. Edith claims Marigold.

2. [convenient plot development]

3. Everything is fine!

Edited February 2, 2015 by fishcakes

[PRgal]

Actually, it was still happening in the 1970s and possibly later.

 

I think it's really only since the 90s that society has been more accepting of unwed mothers.  Murphy Brown kind of changed things (yes, I realize that she's different, since she's not a teenager or even a 20-something college student).  It's now increasingly difficult to adopt privately as more and more women choose to parent. 

[jadecorleone]

Actually, it was still happening in the 1970s and possibly later.

It still is. The town I grew up in Kansas has one that takes in girls anywhere from like 13 to 21. In my life wellness class a couple of the girls who lived there came to talk to us and if I remember correctly both of them had essentailly been dropped off their by their families and they didnt hear much from them. There are probably more, but not a whole lot of them

[Eegah]

One oddity I just noticed: Rade Serbedzija was 67 when this season was filmed, meaning he would have been just 17 when he supposedly had this torrid affair with Violet 50 years ago. Yeah, we can just surmise he's playing older than his real age, but it's amusing to think about.

[mightycrone]

More, please: Mable Laine "Choke on Your Dinner" Fox, Atticus (please don't let Rose be the New Edith!) and Rosamund (her scenes with Violet are great)

Less is more, thank you: Tom's waffling, Edith and the Marigold/Drewes fiasco, and the cold-case mysterious death of a valet

Edited February 2, 2015 by mightycrone

[PRgal]

One oddity I just noticed: Rade Serbedzija was 67 when this season was filmed, meaning he would have been just 17 when he supposedly had this torrid affair with Violet 50 years ago. Yeah, we can just surmise he's playing older than his real age, but it's amusing to think about.

 

Wasn't he married at that time?  Seventeen year old boys usually aren't married, so he would have been in his 20s.  Still, Violet was likely older (probably 30s), making her...a cougar. 

[maraleia]

Alright guys and gals...lets table the class difference discussion regarding Marigold. A number of you have gone round and round with the same points. Let's move on.

[Calamity Jane]

I seriously wonder if part of the reason we can debate so endlessly on some of these topics is because the writing is just so terrible that everything is left up to us to decide -- until suddenly along comes the writer to muddy the waters all over again in the name of allegedly clearing them.  

 

I'm thinking here of Sarah Bunting and Tom.  It seemed pretty clear that he barely tolerated her, and I never saw any indication that she was keen on him, until BAM!  She has loved him!!  She wishes she had met him "before"!  Daisy thinks they should be (have been?) an item!  It just wasn't there for us to see at all.  Part of what I have to train students to do is to find the evidence in the text for their conclusions.  This guy doesn't even give us the evidence, we have to make it up for ourselves.  To me, it just reeks of lazy, lazy, lazy writing, leaving everything vague until he decides which way he's going to go, even if no groundwork has been laid.  It's not that there's a gun in Act 1 that never goes off -- rather, a gun goes off that we've never seen before.  I'm sure there's a more succinct way of wording all this, but my goat is so got right now, I'm almost incoherent. 

[Portia]

I generally have little use for Cora, but I felt like her flirtation was innocent and she never dreamed Bricker would actually act on it . . . especially not in such an aggressive way. I've been so mad at Lord G, but I've got to admit,  I let out a cheer when he slugged the slimeball. Did anyone else crack up when Cora told Edith that they were playing a silly game? If I'd said something like that to one of my children, I'd have expected this kind of response: "Ewww . . . well, will you and Dad please play your 'games' as quietly as possible?" Oh, and I thought that Bricker handed Carson a calling card or note, the contents of which will perhaps be revealed in a future episode.

[lucindabelle]

Good point Calamity Jane. We go round and round the way the plot does. Will the plot ever, ever move forward? It's kinf of amazing that were five episodes in and so little has happened...

At this rate by the end of the season, rose and Atticus wIll have dinner together.

ETA: interesting about his being so much younger than maggie smith, not sure how I feel bout it, but it's ingeresting.

Edited February 3, 2015 by lucindabelle

[annzeepark914]

I need help with what the Russian exiled prince said (after the Count basically yelled that the people who left Odessa were not real Russians).  Was he agreeing with the count?

[persey]

I seriously wonder if part of the reason we can debate so endlessly on some of these topics is because the writing is just so terrible that everything is left up to us to decide -- until suddenly along comes the writer to muddy the waters all over again in the name of allegedly clearing them.  

 

I'm thinking here of Sarah Bunting and Tom.  It seemed pretty clear that he barely tolerated her, and I never saw any indication that she was keen on him, until BAM!  She has loved him!!  She wishes she had met him "before"!  Daisy thinks they should be (have been?) an item!  It just wasn't there for us to see at all.  Part of what I have to train students to do is to find the evidence in the text for their conclusions.  This guy doesn't even give us the evidence, we have to make it up for ourselves.  To me, it just reeks of lazy, lazy, lazy writing, leaving everything vague until he decides which way he's going to go, even if no groundwork has been laid.  It's not that there's a gun in Act 1 that never goes off -- rather, a gun goes off that we've never seen before.  I'm sure there's a more succinct way of wording all this, but my goat is so got right now, I'm almost incoherent. 

I used to be quite worried by Sarah Bunting.  I hated her so much and she was so awful and Tom deserved so much bettter....  And then I realized that the way she was written, to be so entirely obtuse and obnoxious, meant that she really wasn't meant as a serious love interest for Tom, but just as a red herring.  I slept easier after that, and last night my reaction was more, "Finally!", rather than, "Thank goodness!".

 

So my wish is that JF would be more subtle and not telegraph plot points in that manner.  I'd like to be surprised, just once.  Along those lines, I was really, really hoping that Ccra would decide to give Bricker a tumble, just because it was unexpected.  Alas, 'twas not to be.

[majormama]

I got a good belly laugh out of Mrs. Hughes and Mrs. Patmore finessing Carson's ego over the investment advice. My sister and I always say, for as much as men complain of women and their "silly feelings", they get upset very easily. Only they call it disrespect and wounded pride rather than hurt feelings. (Yes, I realize that's generalities and stereotypes.)

[seacliffsal]

At time I just wonder if Edith is a character who thrives on misery and playing the victim.  Her vision is totally on herself-no consideration for those around her.  I know people who always bring drama as that is what they live for, and perhaps that is her character.  Loving the original heir even though he and Mary were engaged or had an understanding, threatening her entire family's situation with the letter, etc.  Even telling Straham that she would see her life's mission as taking care of him-kind of a self martyrdom type of drama.  Anyway, her whole drama at being told to stay away from Marigold as her intrusive behavior has brought drama to their lives.  And?  Most notably?  Naming her daughter Marigold which will be shortened to Mari when she starts to play with other children.  Hmmm, then Edith can suffer every time she hears the name 'Mari'.  Just some thoughts...

[Pallas]

I need help with what the Russian exiled prince said (after the Count basically yelled that the people who left Odessa were not real Russians).  Was he agreeing with the count?

 

When Atticus first visits the peer poorhouse with Rose, Kuryagin tells him -- while Rose is out of earshot -- that he should take care in letting people there know that Atticus's family left Odessa in 1859.  Kuryagin makes a point that he is sorry for the (understood) reason for their departure.  As for many of his fellow countrymen/peers, "They may not have brought much baggage, but their prejudices survived the revolution."

 

In the second scene, after Rostov expostulates that Atticus's family was not Russian, Kuryagin tries to interrupt -- "Nikolai, we're not -- (in Russia anymore," I assume).  

 

The Prince is an enlightened being: one of nature's gentlemen; a Fellowes Aristocrat, to borrow from Mark Twain.  And his wife's now a nurse, like Isobel.  Maybe he should reconsider Violet and take another look at her friend Mrs. Crawley. 

Edited February 2, 2015 by Pallas

[DeepRunner]

From the top...

 

* Goodbye, Sarah Bunting. Fellowes' unending love of Toffdom doomed you from the start. For a show that harps on the changing times, it tends to take the Robert Crawley approach, and views change agents as bad. Bunting was a good character. TPTB made her a shrew, but her 'I loved you" line reminds one of Sir Richard Carlisle's last words for Mary Queen of Snarks

 

* Simon Bricker, Bedroom Prowler. Cora liked to have him there and told him to behave, but, COME ON, she knew he wasn't there for the portrait as much as he was for the Horizontal Mambo. Cora should have been more demonstrably indignant toward Simon, but then, that would require that Fellowes believes that Cora has some real passionate feeling and brains instead of the vacuousness that he gives her. Couldn't he at least have put a little of Martha and Harold in Cora? Bricker told Robert what many if not most in Downtonia think, which is that Robert invites men to pay attention to Cora, the way he alternately mistreats and neglects her. Robert's alleged punch was...mmm...ummm....yeah...."gentlemanly." Woulda been better if he had called Bates in to settle matters. Bricker's departure seemed like another callback to Carlisle, as he took one last look upward at the Abbey, but this time, he saw Cora, who was looking down on him. I am wondering if we will see him in S6.

 

* Violet, despairing that Isobel will become a Toff. Meh...

 

* I r-e-a-l-l-y like Mabel Lane Fox. It is good to see someone verbally b****-slap Mary. And speaking of Mary...

 

* Fellowes reminded us that Mary is his favorite child when Branson and Mary were walking up the stairs. "You're nicer than people give you credit for." At least there was some reality in play when she replied, "Not always."

 

* Carson is becoming more unlikable by the moment.

 

* The unctuous Blake needs to get a life instead of helping Mary plot her next move re: Gillingham. He says he got over it, but, if so, why is he so intent on helping Mary make the break?

 

* Get. Rid. of. Mrs. Drew.

 

* And Get. Rid. of. Thomas. I hate this storyline. Baxter was right, you can't change you are. Thomas was good when he was the conniving, grasping underlord, instead of the cardboard cutout aversion therapy Underbutler.

 

* Anna and Bates...murder suspects...seems familiar..

 

* It was good to see Rosamund. She has transitioned nicely into a stately aunt from the meddling prig she was in S1 and S2

 

* Rose finds a guy. Meh...

 

All in all, not bad, not great, just sort of...eh....

[txhorns79]

* Simon Bricker, Bedroom Prowler. Cora liked to have him there and told him to behave, but, COME ON, she knew he wasn't there for the portrait as much as he was for the Horizontal Mambo.

 

I have to agree with this.   I can't imagine what Cora thought was going to happen if she kept inviting the guy back to Downton.  Obviously, she has the right to refuse him, but I very much feel like Cora led the guy on repeatedly. 

 

* The unctuous Blake needs to get a life instead of helping Mary plot her next move re: Gillingham. He says he got over it, but, if so, why is he so intent on helping Mary make the break?

 

Isn't it because Blake wants Mary? 

Edited February 3, 2015 by txhorns79

[ZoloftBlob]

 

Isn't it because Blake wants Mary?

I think he wants Tony :)

[DeepRunner]

I think he wants Tony :)

 

Who knows? Maybe in S6, Blake and Barrow can get together....

[Tippi]

I am envying Isobel.  The two men she has chasing after her are more interesting than the ones pursuing Mary.  In her shoes, I'd have married the doctor the first time he asked.  Maybe Edith can have one of her cast offs.

[SusanSunflower]

I prefer Clarkson because he's not a prig and he's relaxed and he genuinely likes (as opposed to venerates) Isobel and I trust Clarkson, having dealt with the obnoxious and stubborn Isobel over the years, will not suddenly feel betrayed when that side of her personality is again provoked. They survived the War and the Hospital together ... Merton has no idea, and I like Isobel. 

Edited February 3, 2015 by SusanSunflower

[jschoolgirl]

It was said way upthread that Violet had an affair with the Russian. We don't know that; last week it was posted (I think last week) that it was likely an infatuation. Perhaps like Donk and Jane.

Edith looked very beautiful in many if not most of her scenes.

For me, the one true Atticus is Atticus Finch! But Rose's is very handsome, and I'll bet they marry.

Have we ever heard Lord Merton's first name?

[Badger]

It's Richard.  His nickname is "Dickie."

[jschoolgirl]

Well, he loses points with me on the nickname, although I'm sure it was started when he was a wee chap. "Dickie" is a dreadful nickname, sorry to fans reading from across the pond.

[meep.meep]

 

The Prince is an enlightened being: one of nature's gentlemen; a Fellowes Aristocrat, to borrow from Mark Twain.  And his wife's now a nurse, like Isobel.  Maybe he should reconsider Violet and take another look at her friend Mrs. Crawley.

God knows every other elderly aristo is!

[blackwing]

Edith is insufferable. The way she keeps lurking around. She gave up the child, she has no right to demand visitation or prevent Drewe from taking her with him should he have to move away because of her interference. Now she's just going to kidnap the child and take her to London? Ridiculous.

[quarks]

I just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly:  Two mothers love Marigold so, so much that they are fighting over who gets to take care of her, and  Rosamund and Violet's reaction to this is to plan to take the little kid away from both of them and send her to France? 

[ennui]

As for going 'round and 'round, I think it's challenging to write television in the Information Age. Imagine we were all watching this show and simply speculating around the water cooler at work the next day. It wouldn't be the same microscope.

 

I was glad to see Bunting leave. I think Tom liked her, but he didn't love her. It's for the best. Daisy, however, is bordering on obnoxious.

[honeywest]

On behalf of my grandparents, born near Odessa in the nineteenth century: F*** you, Mr. Kuryagin and Mr. Rostov. 

 

When Simon Bricker was introduced, I wondered whether he was going to turn out to be Jewish. Some of the most prominent art dealers of the time were; in Noel Coward's song "The Stately Homes of England," there's a verse about selling off the estate paintings "with assistance from the Jews."

[mikem]

I think Cora liked the attention from Bricker, but I think she also tried to make it clear that it was just a harmless flirtation from her perspective.  She said to him several times that he "shouldn't say such things," and earlier in the episode, she said she enjoyed having him around as long as he behaved himself.  However, he didn't look at it that way and crossed a line that Cora would never be okay with.

 

I am trying to recall another piece that had a similar concept.  I think it was a TV series, but it might have been a movie, where there is this undercurrent of flirtation, and then the guy brings it out into the open.  And the woman says something like, "Why did you have to bring it out into the open like that?"  Because now that he's made open advances, she has to do the honorable thing and they can't be friends anymore.  Does this ring any bells with anyone?

 

On an unrelated note, the Green murder investigation makes Scotland Yard look like idiots.  Why do they have to keep coming out and interviewing people in dribs and drabs when there's no new information?  Why couldn't they just have interviewed everyone at once, like normal detectives?

Edited February 3, 2015 by mikem

[millennium]

First and foremost I'm of course happy that Bunting is gone. I hated her from the first minute she appeared and I never could believe that she was a love interest for Tom, even though the press kept calling her "lovely" and kept talking about the "blossoming feelings" of Tom. We never saw that!

 

Poor Tom.   He tried Bunting but didn't even get to first base. 

[txhorns79]

I think Cora liked the attention from Bricker, but I think she also tried to make it clear that it was just a harmless flirtation from her perspective.  She said to him several times that he "shouldn't say such things," and earlier in the episode, she said she enjoyed having him around as long as he behaved himself.  However, he didn't look at it that way and crossed a line that Cora would never be okay with.

 

Then Cora is either really dumb, or enjoys the danger inherent in playing that kind of game with someone.  I don't think you can send those kind of mixed messages without expecting the other person to eventually call you out. 

Edited February 3, 2015 by txhorns79

[Andorra]

I'm on Edith's side in the Marigold-conflict. I think it's really, really cruel towards Mrs Drewe, but I also think that this is not entirley Edith's fault, but also Mr. Drewe's fault. Edith gave him the child for Foster care, but he was the one who decided not to tell Margie and  to pretend the child was given to them by a friend of his.

 

He meant well of course and of course the Drewe's are nice to Marigold and love her dearly, but in the long run, I want Edith to take her child and be with her. She will be a doting mother, she can provide for Marigold and she can give her the best chances in life. She didn't give up her child willingly, she was pressured and bullied into it and has tried and fought to get her back into her life all along.

 

Edith has nothing but Marigold. It's easy for us to say from our modern perspective, that she should just stand her woman and live openly with the shame. We can't even pretend to know what it meant to that time. I hope she will do it anyway, but I will admire her for it and not think it's easy and not a big deal.

 

I feel very sorry for Mr and Mrs Drewe, especially for Mrs Drewe, but she has 4 other children of her own. Edith has only Marigold and no one else.

[Llywela]

Edith gave him the child for Foster care.

She didn't. She gave him the child to raise, in his home, as part of his family - and she originally told him that the baby was an orphan she wasn't in a position to take in herself. He guessed that she was the mother, because she did a lousy job of hiding it, but maternal rights were never part of the deal. What she asked for was a loving home and family for the baby, close enough that she could see her from time to time. And she did give up her child willingly, there was no bullying. Keeping her was never an option for Edith - she made that choice herself, from the start. She's just finding it harder to live with than she expected.

[Andorra]

Well, we all know how it will turn out and I - personally - think it will be the best for child and mother. Marigold will be with her real mother who dotes on her, she will inherit her real father's and mother's money and she will have a good education and all advantages that come with wealth.

The only poor person in this whole thing is Mrs Drewe.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Andorra

[ElderPrice]

she has 4 other children of her own

 

Really? I have three children myself. So if something happens to one of them, it's OK, I have two spares left? Mrs Drewe took in Marigold to raise as her own child. She is not a "foster parent". Marigold is her child.

[Llywela]

The only poor person in this whole thing is Mrs Drewe.

Now that I agree with. Mrs Drewe has done nothing wrong and has been treated appallingly.

[txhorns79]

Really? I have three children myself. So if something happens to one of them, it's OK, I have two spares left? Mrs Drewe took in Marigold to raise as her own child. She is not a "foster parent". Marigold is her child.

 

I don't know if I would go that far.  This isn't Mrs. Drewe's biological child, foster kid or even adopted child.  I would agree that Mrs. Drewe is an innocent party in all this, but I don't think of Marigold as Mrs. Drewe's child.  I view Mrs. Drewe's actions with Marigold as purely a reaction to Edith being overbearing and in the way.         

 

 

1. Edith claims Marigold.

2. [convenient plot development]

3. Everything is fine!

 

Hee!  I can just imagine. 

 

Edith: Marigold is my daughter.

Lord Grantham:  We just found this letter from Michael, apparently written the day before he disappeared forever.  It says that the two of you were secretly married, so any sex and future babies you may have had are totally cool.

Edith: How lucky you found that letter, and do not intend to ask any follow up questions.

Dowager Countess: Now that, that issue is settled, let's party!

*Boom box plays 1920s version of "Everybody Dance Now."

Audience laughter and applause is heard.  Freeze frame and fade to black.   

Edited February 3, 2015 by txhorns79

[Andorra]

 

I don't know if I would go that far.  This isn't Mrs. Drewe's biological child, foster kid or even adopted child.  I would agree that Mrs. Drewe is an innocent party in all this, but I don't think of Marigold as Mrs. Drewe's child.  I view Mrs. Drewe's actions with Marigold as purely a reaction to Edith being overbearing and in the way.

 

Exactly. It is Edith's child, not Mrs Drewe's. I also agree that Mrs Drewe is completely innocent and that it will be cruel for her to lose Marigold, but the fact remains, that it isn't merely Edith's fault. She can blame her husband just as much for this. Had she known that Edith gave the child into their care, she might have less objected to Edith visits. Edith is also paying for the child, so it is clear in my eyes, that Edith wanted Foster care and NOT give up Marigold as a whole.

 

And what is the alternative? Edith being unhappy for the rest of her life? She wants her child. She can afford to care for her. She nursed her for 4 months and didn't want to give her up in the first place, but let herself talk into not having another alternative.

Living with Edith would also be good for Marigold, too. She would be in good care, loved and cherished. She would have financial and educational advantages.

So what now? Let Edith pay for the rest of her life just to spare Mrs Drewe the heartache? I don't think so. I think one person is going to suffer here.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Andorra

[glasscaseofemotion]

I think one historically accurate component of the lives of the aristocrats during this time period, and is missing from Downton Abbey, would have been the number of affairs, mistresses, being a mistress, etc which would have been apart of their lifestyle. Even Winston Churchill's own mother, Lady Randolph - herself an actual "dollar princess" from which Cora's character is based - had many lovers, including the future king of England.

 

That said, I think no one but Mr. Bricker is to blame for what transpired in Cora's bedroom. Yes, Cora enjoyed the attention that Bricker was showing in her and her ability to talk astutely about art. I also think she was genuine when she said she wanted to publicize that the family had such a valuable piece of artwork.

 

But, I don't think she was at all sending "mixed messages" or "enjoying the danger inherent in playing that kind of game with someone". Cora was being nice, as a lady of her standing would be, and also enjoying the attention she was receiving. There honestly should be no danger associated with behaving that way. Cora should not have to assume that being nice and intrigued by a man's mutual interests as an art collector and historian automatically puts her in a vulnerable position. To do so seriously gets far too close to the idea that women who are assaulted were somehow "asking for it" because they were nice to a man, went on a date with him and wore a short skirt when they went out to dinner.

 

When Bricker sneaked into her bedroom and was asked by Cora to leave, but did not, the issue was entirely with him. Not her. No woman, then or now, should expect a man to just show up in her bedroom uninvited. No matter how much flirting she might have been doing earlier in the evening or ever. If Robert had not shown up, I imagine that Bricker would have forced himself upon her. Would she somehow have been at fault/to blame for that, if he had raped her?

 

Some of the implications being made on this thread are seriously grossing me out.

 

Edit: to fix a typo

Edited February 3, 2015 by glasscaseofemotion

[Llywela]

This isn't Mrs. Drewe's biological child, foster kid or even adopted child.  I would agree that Mrs. Drewe is an innocent party in all this, but I don't think of Marigold as Mrs. Drewe's child. .   

But she is Mrs Drewe's child, emotionally. There may not have been a legal adoption, because these things weren't always formalised back then in the way they are today, but when Mrs Drewe took that child in, she was making a commitment for life. She was told that the baby was an orphan, and responded to her accordingly - another 'mother' (acknowledged or not) poking around was never part of the deal she made. She took an orphan into her family to love and cherish and has repeatedly told us how much she loves Marigold, as if she were her own child. She is a hand's on mother. They have been together for months. They have bonded. And if anyone doesn't believe it is possible to love an adopted child as much as your own, they clearly have never experienced adoption in their family. I'm not having a go at Edith when I say this - I have no axe to grind in the eternal Edith v Mary wars of this fandom. But the way Edith has treated Mrs Drewe and her family is appalling, and it is nonsense to claim that the Drewes aren't important because Edith loves her child and that's all that matters. Edith decided early on in her pregnancy that she was going to give her baby away because she wasn't 'brave' enough to go through with being an unmarried mother. That was her choice. She has found that decision harder to live with than she anticipated, without ever going so far as to actually reverse it, and as a result has played inexcusable games with other peoples' lives.

 

Sometimes when you make a decision that big, you don't get to take it back. It's sad for the individual, yes, but there are larger concerns.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Llywela

[Kohola3]

But, I don't think she was at all sending "mixed messages" or "enjoying the danger inherent in playing that kind of game with someone". Cora was being nice, as a lady of her standing would be, and also enjoying the attention she was receiving.

 

I agree. Remember that Cora was a sheltered rich girl with probably few friends and few social engagements before she got shipped out to England as a prize for some penniless titled dude.  She had no one to teach her social graces so probably emulated the other titled women she met through Robert. Her entire "job" is to be a gracious, subdued, and welcoming hostess, finding all of the right things to say to flatter the guests, agree with the Lord and Master and otherwise keep her mouth shut.  

 

Her comments to Bricker the Skunk were totally within acceptable social limits. He decided to step way over the line.  I would have whacked him over the head with a heavy object right off the bat but Cora stuck to her persona with trying to quietly talk him out of the bedroom and avoid an uproar in the house.

 

Heck , even when hauling Pamuk's corpse around the house she did it with the Lady of the Manor subdued hysteria.

[Portia]

For some people, casual sex is just not on the radar regardless of current social mores. This is the year 2015, and I don't consider myself at all naive about the ways of the world, but I just don't currently hang out with very many people who are sexually promiscuous (at least that I'm aware of). I can totally imagine myself in a situation where I might indulge in some "harmless" flirting, having zero intention of following through physically, and naively assuming that the other party would never act on it, either. This is especially true now that I'm of a certain age. A few years ago, while I was soaking in a hotel hot tub on a solo business trip, a man propositioned me out of the blue (after about 5 minutes of what I considered purely friendly conversation), and I was stunned. STUNNED. I know those things happen, but I don't ever expect them to happen to me. Anyway, my point is that I think Cora was guilty only of being naive.

 

Ugh--I swear I don't even like Cora. Why do you keep making me defend her, Show?

[kpw801]

As for going 'round and 'round, I think it's challenging to write television in the Information Age. Imagine we were all watching this show and simply speculating around the water cooler at work the next day. It wouldn't be the same microscope.

 

I was glad to see Bunting leave. I think Tom liked her, but he didn't love her. It's for the best. Daisy, however, is bordering on obnoxious.

 

ITA about Daisy but I think she has already crossed the border into being obnoxious!  She went on and on about how "everytime she comes here (speaking of Bunting) she gets insulted."  When she really doesn't know what she is talking about.  She was the confrontational one everytime she sat at Lord Grantham's table.  I cannot understand how she can be so ungrateful and disrespectful.  I cannot stand Daisy anymore.  The character is inconsistent.  Suddenly she is a mathematical genius?  Give me a break!  Now she has choices?  She could have gone to that cooking school Alfred went to  but she chose not to.  She had the chance to go to America and start a new life there and she chose not to.  What is JF writing anyway?

[txhorns79]

But, I don't think she was at all sending "mixed messages" or "enjoying the danger inherent in playing that kind of game with someone". Cora was being nice, as a lady of her standing would be, and also enjoying the attention she was receiving. There honestly should be no danger associated with behaving that way. Cora should not have to assume that being nice and intrigued by a man's mutual interests as an art collector and historian automatically puts her in a vulnerable position. To do so seriously gets far too close to the idea that women who are assaulted were somehow "asking for it" because they were nice to a man, went on a date with him and wore a short skirt when they went out to dinner.

 

Mr. Bricker told Cora in London how he felt about her.  She put him off at that point, and said she doubted they would see each other again.  She's also seen how her husband feels about the situation.  However, despite her knowing how Mr. Bricker and Robert feel, she's repeatedly invited Bricker back to Downton, where she and Bricker flirt and have moments.  She's now invited Bricker back to Downton for more flirting, etc. during a time when both she and Bricker know Robert will not be there. 

 

Cora has been shown to be an intelligent woman.  I can believe she might have not expected that Bricker would be as brash as he was with going to her room, but I don't believe for a moment that her interactions with Bricker were all about some innocent interest in art that he wildly misconstrued.  She wanted his flirtation, intelligent conversation and attention, but never really gave much thought to what her actions meant to him.  Obviously, she has the right to refuse Bricker (and no one has suggested otherwise), but it isn't as if she and Bricker came to that point through some kind of wacky misunderstanding.         

[CleoCaesar]

Heck , even when hauling Pamuk's corpse around the house she did it with the Lady of the Manor subdued hysteria.

 

That whole scene will always be one of my favorites on the show. Mary banged the poor hot guy to death and her bestie Anna stepped up and literally moved a dead body with her. And then mom got in on the act, in her subdued druggie-like way.

 

Sigh. REMEMBER WHEN THIS SHOW WAS FUN, FELLOWES? But no, you're right, Julian, five episodes of Mrs. Patmore crying about her nephew being taken off the war memorial is much more entertaining TV.

[Kiss my mutt]

After seeing the scene where Bates is hinting around to having lots of little Bates children with Anna I wondered why they hadn't had children yet. Seems like they've been married long enough. Maybe Anna is using Mary's contraption.

[AZChristian]

I think Anna's purchase of Mary's contraption will come back up.  Bates will assume that Anna doesn't want his children.

[TexasGal]

What was the point of the scene where Tom pondered the knowledge that Bunting was leaving and then, hastily and dramatically, fled his office!  To....meet her and say goodbye?  Huh?  I mean, thank god he didn't go declare his undying love for her but that was just weird.

Edited February 3, 2015 by TexasGal

[SusanSunflower]

Agree Texas Gal, which made me suspect that Fellowes had not intended everyone (including Tom) to be loudly cheering her departure ... He managed to write the character so that 90% of the time (or more) we saw her at her worst.  Remember when everyone "hated" Isobel?? 

But imho, Bunting's departure will in fact leave Tom very lonely and isolated. Even though he's become sufficiently "domesticated" that he no longer keenly feels or reacts to the slights and condescension, I think, in fact, her being "driven from Downton" shows him just how badly he'd be treated if he failed to self-censor or took up a cause.  If he failed to speak in quiet tones, failed to accept the much less pronounced slights and rejections that were still evident to her.  Heavens, if he failed to dress for dinner (as he used to do), Violet might proclaim him no better than a savage ...