S05.E08: Episode Eight

[abbyzenn]

I don't think anyone in the family knows that Gregson was married.  Edith told Cora he was in Germany to see King Ludwig's castles.  Even since his death I don't think she's come clean about it.

 

Robert's unhappiness about the Ethel dinner was that she had worked as a prostitute not that she had a kid.  Although I'm sure he wasn't too happy about that.

 

I'm also so very tired of the Bates/Green plot line.  I don't care how it ends = just so it ends.  Actually, I hope the Bates decide to quit their jobs and go to their house and run that B&B.

 

I also don't care for the Denker  (or whatever her name is) stuff.  It just seems like filler to me.

 

Loved Edith's outfit including the hat in the restaurant scene.

[ZoloftBlob]

That, and we saw the same thing happen when the police wanted to arrest Thomas for kissing Jimmy, and backed off when Robert told them to. Sure, by modern eyes Thomas did nothing wrong but according to the laws of the time he should be in jail.

 

I disagree in that what Thomas did in modern eyes is sexual assault. He broke into James's room and tried to initiate sex. When this happened to my college roommate she had the guy arrested on attempted rape charges.

 

I get that the story line was meant to show Robert having a liberal moment and protecting a servant but had Thomas been caught in a female employee's room attempting to kiss her while she was saying no, he would have been fired with a bad reference at the very least.

[Avaleigh]

I don't think anyone in the family knows that Gregson was married.  Edith told Cora he was in Germany to see King Ludwig's castles.  Even since his death I don't think she's come clean about it.

 

 

I'm pretty sure Matthew was the only one who knew the truth about Gregson being married. 

[ZoloftBlob]

I'm pretty sure Matthew was the only one who knew the truth about Gregson being married.

 

I feel like I am being terribly nitpicky and gripy tonight because I agree that this was true *at the time* but....Greggson didn't live in America, he lived in London. It's really hard to believe his obituary didn't mention his likely still alive wife. Greggson's crazy wife probably had family. At the very least, if she was committed to a lunatic asylum, that is exactly the kind of thing that gets attached to one's reputation. I can't believe that no one ever mentioned this even as a rumor to Robert. I mean, this didn't happen in a void.

[DianeDobbler]

Aristocratic influence with the police in the case of Thomas/Jimmy: as I recall, Robert used his influence more with the servants than with the police. The police were respectful, but it was Robert getting whoever that really tall, appalled servant was (O'Brien's nephew?) to recant his testimony that made the police back away. They didn't back away on Robert's orders. The servants were all singing from the same playbook (this was at the cricket match) with Robert having gotten them sorted, and when the police lingered a bit Robert reminded them that they really didn't have a case anymore what with it all turning out to be a misunderstanding. At that point, the police were in the wrong and Robert reminded them that they were, and that's when they retreated.

 

 He had no power to tell them to back off without Robert first using his influence with the SERVANTS to convince them they had nothing of interest to tell the police.

 

Greggson's obit can't report what isn't known. Many obituaries get the info from the family or the job, not from their own reporting ingenuity. It's possible the existence of his deranged wife wasn't generally known, or at least not known to the press. We weren't led to understand he was famous.

Edited November 11, 2014 by DianeDobbler

[ZoloftBlob]

Greggson's obit can't report what isn't known. Many obituaries get the info from the family or the job, not from their own reporting ingenuity. It's possible the existence of his deranged wife wasn't generally known, or at least not known to the press. We weren't led to understand he was famous.

 

A marriage is a matter of public record and it's hard to believe he left no instructions in his will about the care and feeding of the crazy wife.

 

I mean, I accept it for what it is, a piece of lazy writing - that Greggson like many characters before him, had a lengthy eventful life away from Downton but ultimately has no friends or family who would care (Matthew and Isobel both had this problem as well - lives spent away from Downton with never a reference to their former lives, not one old friend or member of the family even mentioned) but it just seems odd that the crazy wife just magically disappears. Did no one attend the wedding?

 

I mean, its a minor point, its just an example of poor writing - a crazy wife is actually somewhat hard to hide.

[ZoloftBlob]

Not to mention, the man basically left most (if not all) of his estate to a woman not his wife. I mean, that surely would be the topic of some gossip, no?

 

That, frankly, should be a topic of gossip, especially since Edith is now hauling around a baby that looks like Greggson....

[Eolivet]

I seriously enjoyed that episode -- with the two standout scenes of Mary with Carson (with Mary and Matthew's theme playing the background) and Robert making the dead dog plaque for Mrs. Patmore's nephew. It's funny because we've learned that Julian Fellowes writes episodes 1-5 before each season starts, and then 6-8 during filming -- and generally, 6-8 have seemed more enjoyable or at least have had a better flow to them (at least for the last few years). Once he's seen how the actors react to each other and how the scenes play out, then he starts the last few of the season.

 

This episode felt like he was wiping the slate clean for Mary: Blake's in Poland, Gillingham's getting married. Mary is losing Tom and Rose, and is once again alone. Looking back on it now, you can argue her assertions of "I want to be as happy with my second husband as I was with my first" in 5x01 was Fellowes' indication that he intended on clearing the decks of suitors this year. I believe he knew the suitors weren't popular, and set it up to write them both off. He wants the audience to love Mary's next husband as much as she does, and the audience was never going to love either Gillingham or Blake.

 

I keep thinking Branson isn't going to leave, but then I wonder what else they have for him to do. Maybe his departure will be storyline-related, and he'll come back mid-season 6 with all these new American ideas for helping out Downton (and a new American wife perhaps?).

[Pogojoco]

I love that you just called him "Branson". 

 

The thing about this show is that the characters seem to live in some sort of bubble. The show's world is entirely in this bubble and it's almost like the creators forget that the characters who might be part time at Downton have an outside life away from it. It's completely illogical that Gregson's wife wouldn't be known or her name wouldn't have been published in his obituary. Likely, his wife has some sort of annuity set up for her care over her lifetime, But that doesn't matter, because when Gregson isn't at Downton, he exists in some sort of vortex. 

 

Having Edith running his publishing empire would be a perfect opportunity to bring Carlisle back as a sort of rival. I know he's busy sexily saying "Khaleesi" but still. But again, he lives in the vortex of non-existence now. 

Edited November 11, 2014 by Pogojoco

[vesperholly]

Highclere is pretty far north of London, and its not like actors who want to do things can just skip down.

 

It's actually an hour and a half's drive straight west of London. Not a terribly isolated location (but not easy to get to by public transport, as I discovered when I was in the UK this summer and wanted to see it).

 

"Downton Abbey" the fictional place is set near York, which IS quite far north (4 hours by car), so perhaps you are thinking of that? :)

Edited November 11, 2014 by vesperholly

[Andorra]

Well, I know for myself that the show will be over for me if Tom is really going to leave at the end of the CS. And I will be mad as hell about it, because if that was the intention all along, they could have just sent Tom and Sybil to Irleand at the end of series 3 instead.

 

As it is, he has been a space filler for two series now, with nothing to do except being stalked by horrible women and by feeling out of place. His whole "identity crisis" is dragging on far too long now and it must be finally resolved for ever. I hope it will be the case in the CS and he will decide to stay indefinitely and then he will finally get another storyline!

 

It would be so easy to give him interesting storylines and I can't understand why Julian Fellows is stalling so long to do so? He could have become involved in politics, he could have become involved in Edith's journalism, most of all he could have found a LOVE INTEREST! Why in heaven does Fellows throw suitor after suitor at Mary, which is completely unrealistic for a woman in her 30s in the 1920s and he is not able to write a decent love interest for Tom? There was a man shortage after the war. Tom is handsome, smart, nice. He has a good job and good connections, there should be women falling over him instead of men falling over Mary!

 

I also think he's important within the house, as the brother to Mary and Edith and the son to Robert and Cora. He has very much taken over the role of Sybil, being close to all of them despite their differences they have with each other. He gives a different perspective, too, being more modern, more progressive and more practical than the rest of the family, due to his origins.

 

For me it would be too great a loss to bear. I'm not interested in watching the show without him. So if he's going to leave it will be no more Downton for me. And the show will rest in my memory as one huge disappointment.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Andorra

[kpw801]

I like to think, when all is said and done after the series has been retired, that they're going to release a massive box set of DVDs and unedited episodes - precisely for the point you make here. It made no sense that in Gregson's absence, Edith wouldn't try to track down his wife or that after his death, his obituary would be missing that detail (unless we are to believe he lied about it, which is a whole other rabbit hole we could fall down).

 

Then again, I'm trying to make sense of a show that had a man completely vanish from the face of the earth in early 1922, tell us in late spring/early summer 1923 that he was "set upon by thugs... in brown shirts!" and then in 1924, retcon the entire narrative to have him be a victim (of those "thugs in brown shirts!") of the Beer Hall Putsch that took place in September 1923. The "what the fuck-ery" is always quite strong in this program.

HIs obituary would say (at least in my neck of the woods) whatever the family wanted said.  Sometimes there is an entire bio and family tree mentioned but sometimes there is just  a little blurb that says, so and so died on such and such a day at the age of whatever and the arrangements will be such and such.  He had been dead for so long and like another poster said, he was not famous.  It would be sort of like Archie Philpotts short little statement on his memorial stone.  Just a mention of the fact that he was born, he lived and he died.  He probably had funds set aside for the upkeep of Mrs. Gregson or something.  They had no chlidren that we know of so, there was no one to really mourn his passing and publish anything about his situation.

 

But then again, he introduced Edith to his literary friends at a party he threw for her and it was around that time she made some inquiries and found out his situation rather easily.  One could imagine hat once everyone in London gets over the shock of finding out how the secretive Mr. Gregson died and that he left his assets to the young attractive Yorkshire columnist, there will be some whispering about, especially if the knowledge becomes common that she "adopted" a young foundling that strongly resembles the late Mr. Gregson. 

 

I would love to see Edith become closer to Tom.  That would make for some serious drama with Mary.  I'm sure Mary thinks she owns him, brother or otherwise and of course she would never understand what anyone could see in Edith.  And we saw that Tom thinks Edith is talented and smart.  So there Mary!  That would be something to see.

Edited November 11, 2014 by kpw801

[Llywela]

HIs obituary would say (at least in my neck of the woods) whatever the family wanted said.  Sometimes there is an entire bio and family tree mentioned but sometimes there is just  a little blurb that says, so and so died on such and such a day at the age of whatever and the arrangements will be such and such.  He had been dead for so long and like another poster said, he was not famous.  It would be sort of like Archie Philpotts short little statement on his memorial stone.  Just a mention of the fact that he was born, he lived and he died.  He probably had funds set aside for the upkeep of Mrs. Gregson or something.  They had no chlidren that we know of so, there was no one to really mourn his passing and publish anything about his situation.

Plus, mental illness was still seen as a terrible stigma, to be locked away out of sight and never mentioned, if at all possible. The family - whatever family there is, there may not be anyone anyway - would not want attention brought to her.

[ZoloftBlob]

It's actually an hour and a half's drive straight west of London. Not a terribly isolated location (but not easy to get to by public transport, as I discovered when I was in the UK this summer and wanted to see it).

 

"Downton Abbey" the fictional place is set near York, which IS quite far north (4 hours by car), so perhaps you are thinking of that? :)

 

Possibly :)

 

But I was mostly remembering some arguments when the actors playing Sybil and Matthew left that because filming was pretty constant despite it being just eight episodes, and because of the distance to Highclere, that it wasn't as simple as asking for an hour or two off early to do a theater job.

 

I was also recalling how one of the actors, the guy who played James, was talking about how he couldn't bring his dog with him and it sounded like they all move to the country side for the duration of filming, and filming seems to take a lot longer than on an American show.

[ZoloftBlob]

But then again, he introduced Edith to his literary friends at a party he threw for her and it was around that time she made some inquiries and found out his situation rather easily.  One could imagine hat once everyone in London gets over the shock of finding out how the secretive Mr. Gregson died and that he left his assets to the young attractive Yorkshire columnist, there will be some whispering about, especially if the knowledge becomes common that she "adopted" a young foundling that strongly resembles the late Mr. Gregson.

 

This. Especially that Edith, hardly the Nancy Drew of the cast, was able to find it out this easily, is the red flag that everyone should have had some idea that Greggson was married. Edith found it out so easily.... you can't tell me people didn't know he was married.

[Andorra]

They film for 26 weeks. First one week of rehearsal and then filming is done in 5 week blocks.

First block Episode 1 and2,

Second: 3&4,

Third 5&6,

Fourth: 7&8

and fifth : Christmas special

 

They usually start a blockt with 2 weeks at Highclere (upstairs), then move to Ealing for 2 weeks (bedrooms and downstairs) and then do one week on location.

 

While they are at Highclere they shoot from Monday to Thursday. Friday and the weekends are usually off since they have weddings at Highclere. Normally the actors stay in a hotel while they are filming at Highclere, because they have to be on set so early.

 

A 2 minute dinner scene that we see on screen takes about 14 hours to film.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Andorra

[DianeDobbler]

It's funny because we've learned that Julian Fellowes writes episodes 1-5 before each season starts, and then 6-8 during filming

 

Didn't know it happened that specifically, interesting. I've read the actors saying Fellowes picks up on what you do, but I didn't know if that occurred during filming or in the subsequent season. I definitely enjoyed the final 3 episodes more than the rest of the season - primarily the complete shift in the writing of Gillingham. By the end, he was a completely different man from the man refusing to accept being dumped, to the far more self-aware man feeling awkward because he actually would rather be with Mabel but is too honorable to take Mary's break-up at face value without the assistance of Charles Blake. Then Charles Blake suddenly emerges as a sort of musical comedy sassy best friend. AND the writing of Mary altered substantially at the end, with a lot of the Mary-worship suddenly abated, and more awareness from the script that she had been written as a trifle over-entitled. The biggest shift for me was the Bates stuff. Clearly this conclusion was set up from the beginning of the series, but I thought it pretty funny that once Anna was arrested nobody else but Mrs. Hughes dwelled on it. More than anything the past couple of episodes, however problematic, made me have SOME hope that next season will be more balanced, more entertaining, and less focused on propping up certain characters at the expense of others. The way Mosley emerged at season's end was especially nice. Instead of being a sad clown he was someone interesting, someone to respect. I also thought that there was an additional tonal shift in the writing of Bates at the end of this series - how petulant Bates was about Baxter. In Series 1 he was the eternal, turn-the-other-cheek-ing martyr.

 

I didn't enjoy Bunting at all (although the actress's performance modulated somewhat at the end) - just zero chemistry and all wrong for Branson, no enjoyable humor, sparkle or sex appeal - but I had no idea that the negative reaction to her had been so intense. I didn't particularly dislike her for being a bitch or obnoxious, just for wasting Branson's screen time and having no chemistry with him, him being a favorite.

 

Probably the character who was written the same way all the way through was Cora. It seemed that Fellowes started out the season deciding to give Cora more consideration, and it worked, so that carried through to the finale.

[ElizaD]

Generally I tend to be a Downton defender because not every show has to be full of miserable people inflicting horrible fates on innocents in order to be entertaining TV, but I have to agree that the dramatic tension hasn't been there this season. As obvious as Thomas and O'Brien's villainy was to viewers, their jabs and little schemes drove various plots forward. In the first season, Robert was the good lord but Cora had a bit of an aristocratic edge; now Donk is disliked by viewers more than he used to be but easily manipulated by the women in his family, including the softened Cora. Edith's gotten away with her thoughless, ungrateful treatment of Marigold's two adoptive families and escaped the private and public slutshaming she was glad to see Mary endure. Gillingham and Blake didn't have their hearts broken. The family loves Tom and if he leaves (which I'm guessing won't happen) they'll be sad but resigned. Thomas has started acting nicer, which is good and even necessary development for him after he's been stuck in a rut but also makes downstairs life more peaceful. The mean aristocrats are disposable guest stars like the Merton boys and Susan. The only drama with potentially serious consequence is Bates In Prison 2, and I can't defend that storyline in any way when it means Bates and Anna have spent 4 out of 5 seasons on crime and unjust punishment.

[Guest]

Well, I had thought that Mrs Hughes was the one to have killed Green in a fit of sympathy for Bates but now that the eyewitness picked the only blonde lady in the line-up I'm starting to change my mind. Mrs Hughes is shorter than Bates though. And she was unnecessarly dramatic about the shadow of sorrow following them around (though that might have just been bad writing). 

[shipperx]

I have no idea of the protocols for that time and place but at my fathers death I wrote all the information that was submitted to the papers, and that was the end of it. With Gregson owning a paper the paper itself most likely wrote it and if he desired privacy they probably would have respected it. Plus he's been MIA for a year so the obituary might be a tad awkward after all that time.

Gregson's wife could have been in the sort of abominable situation as Rosemary Kennedy, whose father had her lobotomized for her 'instability' (without her mother's knowledge or consent) with the lobotomy then botched (poor, poor woman). Rosemary Kennedy was closeted away and not spoken of despite the fact that she lived until 2005. Neither Joseph or Rose Kennedy ever visited the institution once sending her there. Not once. Ever. It was 1970 before even her surviving siblings even saw her and that was 40+ years later)

Depending on who his wife's family might be, they might not want her mentioned.

This being Fellowes, I figure there is no story so we just have to make something up that would fit the circumstances. I'm sure it boils down to the writer never thinking about it. Now, what new scene could he write about some man collapsing at Mary's feet or her having a haircut...

Edited November 11, 2014 by shipperx

[romantic idiot]

All that aside, the resolution of the Marigold storyline is the embodiment of anticlimax. All that buildup, tediousness and heartbreak for what? And Robert, whose slutshaming both Mary and Edith have lived in terror of, who was aghast at the notion of his family dining on food prepared by a servant who'd had a child out of wedlock - he's immediately and completely fine with his own daughter raising a bastard, begotten by a man Robert didn't even deem fit to have legitimate children with her, under his roof? Really?

 

Maybe the dramatic beat is different. We saw the build up of Edith taking her child, we had the happy ending last episode and this episode was the epilogue, so to speak. That's why it was so soft. 

[Guest]

I looked through IMDB Plot Summary which also provide no information about what was happening at Downton around Green's death. This article speculates it might have been Lady Mary. It's a stretch, but she could have been confronting him and accidentally pushed him. She was in London that day to visit that black singer Rose was dating. 

[Tetraneutron]

 

I don't understand why Tom's storyline is all about Boston or Downton.  There are other options here!  He could go and live in Liverpool or London, places with Irish communities.  Sybil should grow up with contact with her Irish side as well as the Crawley side. I also don't think it is healthy for her to grow up in the same manner as George when their future prospects are so different.  She won't have that much money and her origins will limit her marriage prospects, he is the heir to an Earldom.

Can he really live in London, though? As an Irish Catholic chauffeur? I think anti-Irish prejudice and the rigid class system make it too hard for Tom to really have a place in London. He's be working-class with no real shot at advancement.  And it limits Sybbie's prospects as well. If they live at Downton, he has family (and a better job than he could probably get otherwise). If he moves to Boston, he has an opportunity to run a business and make something of himself, and the stigma of Irish origin is much less. In London he has no advantages and all drawbacks.

[Guest]

If he moves to Boston, he has an opportunity to run a business and make something of himself, and the stigma of Irish origin is much less. In London he has no advantages and all drawbacks.

 

 

ITA. Plus, we've going back and forth on this plot line for ages. Tom feels out of place and out of his depth / Tom loves his family and his child / Tom is ideologically seperated from the Downton-ers / Tom wants to feel close to Sybil.... Ugh, just let him leave and let it end already. 

Edited November 11, 2014 by lovedwallflower

[Andorra]

Mary can't have murdered Greene, because she was at lunch with Gillingham and then they had to rush to get the train back to Downton.

 

Gillingham can't have killed Greene when it happened to the time Anna was seen on the pavement, because at that time he was at lunch with Mary.

 

Anna can't have killed Greene if it happened AFTER the lunch, because then she hurried with Mary to the train.

 

Mrs Hughes and Baxter were both at Downton the day before the fair.

 

IMO it was Mabel. I think there must be a reason why Mabel and Tony are still sticking around even though the love quadrangle is over. Mabel is a short woman, like Anna. She probably knew Greene through Tony. I don't think Greene would have raped a woman like Mabel. That was far too dangerous for him, but Mabel might have brought a lady's maid herself if she was invited to a Gillingham house party?

 

So maybe Greene raped HER maid and she got wind of it. So she went to talk to Tony, but ran into Greene herself at Picadilly. She confronted him and got furious and Greene was so surprised, he took a step back, stumbled and was killed.

[Camera One]

Good theory.

 

Overall, I enjoyed this episode.  Rose's mother was a class-A witch, but I found her entertaining.  I can't believe I've grown to like Rose, but I can't say I'm too torn up about her leaving either.  It was sort of fun to see Tom and the others in a who-dun-it of sorts.  

 

Daisy is just all over the place, isn't she?  I felt so sad for Mrs. Patmore even though I doubted that Daisy would actually leave.  As others have said, it's the typical pattern where various characters announce they're leaving at the end of the season.  The Moseley and Baxter scenes were enjoyable.

 

It was nice follow-through to see the War Memorial ceremony in this one.  Overall, nothing much happened this season, but it just reminded me how I just enjoy watching their day-to-day life.  

 

I can't believe they're sending Anna to jail now.  She can't catch a break, can she.  They didn't give the various characters much of a reaction to it, either.

 

I can't believe that Violet would stand to have someone like that as a lady's maid.  She would see through her so easily, one would think.  I was annoyed at Spratt but now I understand why he is so fed up with her.

 

Tom and his neverending goodbye got a little old, but I liked his scenes with Mary and Edith.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Camera One

[Tetraneutron]

What was WITH Denker, anyway? Buildup for the whole season. Played by a name actress. Impending drama with Spratt teased out. A big showcase episode where we see her being devious and dangerous (but to another one-off, so we can't even get invested) but nothing comes of it and only Thomas even knows about it. What on earth was that about? Why this big buildup? Why even have her and that skinny extra footman at all? There better be something big with her in the Christmas episode is all I can say. Maybe she's running a smuggling ring out of the dower house or something that would justify all that buildup.

 

 

I can't believe they're sending Anna to jail now.  She can't catch a break, can she.  They didn't give the various characters much of a reaction to it, either.

They probably just rolled their eyes and went, "Ugh. Again?"

Edited November 12, 2014 by Obviously

[kpw801]

"Welcome to the Velvet Violin!"  The first song they had playing in the background was the song William was playing when Daisy and Thomas danced the grizzly bear in season 1.  They are recycling sound tracks as well as plots.

 

Are the Flinchers destitute?  He is no longer a great land owner, but how are they going to pay for the house Lady Flincher can't wait to be alone in?  Did he lose his job in the diplomatic corps?  How did they afford nice clothes for the wedding?

[Camera One]

I think the Flinchers just lost the means to hire servants and staff.  I assume they can still live comfortably enough like those in the upper middle class.

[Llywela]

Just to say, it's Flintshire, not Flincher. They take their name from the place - a county in North Wales.

[Avaleigh]

I think the Flinchers just lost the means to hire servants and staff.  I assume they can still live comfortably enough like those in the upper middle class.

 

 

It sounds like they still have their London house they'd just been renting it out. She talks about having important pieces from Duneagle in storage so to me it sounds like they still have nice things it's just that the Flintshires aren't anywhere close to what they were overall. I'd be willing to bet that Susan still has a cook and there's no way that woman is doing her own cleaning. Maybe she only has dailies but I'm sure they have something worked out so that she doesn't have to worry about cooking, cleaning, or laundry. I'm sure they have it good in comparison to a lot of people but to them they mostly see it all as a long way from living in the days where they even employed a man to give them a wake up call every morning with a set of bagpipes.

 

To save money I imagine both she and Shrimpy will visit and stay with the friends and relatives in their circle who don't have strong feelings about divorce. Although why anyone would invite Susan anywhere when she's such a pill--hopefully she'll be different if she isn't around Shrimpy. I kind of doubt it though because she seems so bitter and pessimistic in general. Maybe she's just an unpleasant person. We never really find out why their marriage turned out the way it did or why they "don't like each other" but it's certainly easy to see why Shrimpy wouldn't want to be around Susan. Shrimpy seems nice and friendly enough and it's usually Susan who is snapping at him or being intolerant about something. Robert and Cora also seem to think that Susan was the difficult one between the two of them. At the same time Shrimpy seems like he's willing to bear being around her much more than she's willing to bear being around him and I wonder what that's all about. He was willing to share a room and seems like he's going out of his way to be accommodating while it's Susan who is all no fucking way, I want to be as far away from this man as possible. Was Susan always like this because it's her personality or was Shrimpy hard to deal with in ways that we didn't necessarily see? I just think it's odd that there's no explanation for why they'd end a 30 something year marriage unless something major happened to give them the final push into permanent separation. Given what we know her feelings seem incredibly hostile and it's hard for me to really understand why. 

[Daisy]

This was such a great episode. 
 

Though the "LADY Mary Crawley" vs. "I don't care if you're queen of the Nile"   - i think in a sense another slap to the "world is changing." I bet in 1914 or so, saying that she was a member of the peerage, that would allow some 'wink wink, nudge, nudge' where as in 19....wherever we are, it's like "and your point is what?"

I'm also wondering if Gregson really was married? I mean something like his death would have announced his wife - maybe it was just away for Gregson to get some extra loving, then ditched. (then met his pre-Nazi demise? is that what we're supposed to believe? He died via Nazi?)

 

Rose got married really quickly. (I hate her mother, for real? that was real Erica Kane of you, lady). I thought we were rid of Daisy (who would have thought that I would seriously grow not to like the scullery maid who used to wear pink). and i am so over Banna. to which, I blame Bates for. Anna used to be amazing. and then she fell in love with Bates and this is totally and utterly ruined. And we're supposed to believe that Anna - who was freaking out that Bates would be blamed for the death  and everything killed Green? honestly?

I would have rather now seeing this unfold, enjoyed another path (ie: Anna does decide to tell, and deal with the consequences rather than oh, no we is going to be in jail. watch Anna shuffle, and Downton try to get her off). 

 

but i'm not quitting the show. despite the flaws. I do think Fellows needs a co-writer though

[kpw801]

I think he was willing to do whatever he needed to do to ensure that Rose had her wedding without any hiccups.  He put his own feelings of revulsion aside for the sake of his daughter.  However from the moment they got in the house, Susan didn't care about how it looked to anyone or how the impending divorce would affect Rose's chances of making it down the aisle.  She was determined to do everything to stop it.  I think she focused no the fact that Rose was marrying a Jew, but I think her bitterness at life and her jealousy of her own daughter's youth and vitality would have led her to try to ruin any chance that Rose would marry happily.  

 

Some people instead of rejoicing in the chances their children may have to make better decisions and live happier lives, tend to resent their youth and take the regret and resentment of missed opportunities and blown chances out on their offspring out of spite.  If Rose was marrying Prince William of Wales, she would have found something to complain about and tried to ruin that too.  Rose and her father seem close and that is a cause for resentment as well.  But the funny thing is the more bitterness and malice she spits at them, the closer they become because they have a shared experience of suffering through the Susan Flintshire experience.

This was such a great episode. 
 

Though the "LADY Mary Crawley" vs. "I don't care if you're queen of the Nile"   - i think in a sense another slap to the "world is changing." I bet in 1914 or so, saying that she was a member of the peerage, that would allow some 'wink wink, nudge, nudge' where as in 19....wherever we are, it's like "and your point is what?"

I'm also wondering if Gregson really was married? I mean something like his death would have announced his wife - maybe it was just away for Gregson to get some extra loving, then ditched. (then met his pre-Nazi demise? is that what we're supposed to believe? He died via Nazi?)

 

Rose got married really quickly. (I hate her mother, for real? that was real Erica Kane of you, lady). I thought we were rid of Daisy (who would have thought that I would seriously grow not to like the scullery maid who used to wear pink). and i am so over Banna. to which, I blame Bates for. Anna used to be amazing. and then she fell in love with Bates and this is totally and utterly ruined. And we're supposed to believe that Anna - who was freaking out that Bates would be blamed for the death  and everything killed Green? honestly?

I would have rather now seeing this unfold, enjoyed another path (ie: Anna does decide to tell, and deal with the consequences rather than oh, no we is going to be in jail. watch Anna shuffle, and Downton try to get her off). 

 

but i'm not quitting the show. despite the flaws. I do think Fellows needs a co-writer though

Well, Daddy Flintshire won't be hurting.  Rose has really married into money now, and he can visit her anytime he chooses and live in the lap of luxury.  Mommy won't have a pot to piss in if they decide to get ugly and she will have to eat some humble pie.  Who knows, Rose and Daddy might jointly convert.  That would send Susan (I refuse to call her "Lady) Flintshire into an asylum I am sure!

[Avaleigh]

I'm also wondering if Gregson really was married? I mean something like his death would have announced his wife - maybe it was just away for Gregson to get some extra loving, then ditched. (then met his pre-Nazi demise? is that what we're supposed to believe? He died via Nazi?)

 

 

Right now I'm fanwanking that the wife died after Gregson did but before his death was confirmed.

 

If Rose was marrying Prince William of Wales, she would have found something to complain about and tried to ruin that too.

 

 

Oh, absolutely. Susan seems like she actively resents her daughter's happiness and it's sad to see. It would be interesting to view the relationship Susan and Shrimpy have with their other children to see if there's a similar dynamic. Odd that neither of Rose's siblings were introduced for the wedding but they had time to show some anti-semitism from a random guest.

 

Seriously, anytime Edith wants to feel sorry for herself and think that she's had a horribly neglectful mother in the form of Cora I wish she'd take a minute to appreciate what poor Rose has had to endure with Susan.

[DianeDobbler]

Re Mary, Downton, the show, hasn't informed us or shown us that the eligible male shortage is now over and there are plenty to go around pursuing all these all these real life female aristocrats. I guess I just find it implausible that Mary would be among their number and not, say, Rose. Or even Edith. Or not INCLUDING Rose and Edith. It's only Mary. I know Mary's got a lot of money, but she's pursued by men genuinely in love with her, not fortune hunters who like her awfully well or maybe a little. I simply don't believe she'd have this many men falling madly, genuinely in love with her, as was certainly suggested at the end of last series and beginning of this. The show backed off at the end, but for most of two series, that was the premise.

 

As it's played, we don't see context. We don't see the bees buzzing around other queens. In fact, other queens (such as Mabel Lane Fox) get dumped - while engaged! so the man can simply PURSUE Mary. Mabel Lane Fox is adorable, fun, and rich, Mary is pallid, dry and also rich, and has a kid. Don't get it. Why has only Atticus fallen in love with Rose that we've seen. And part of it is last season the series ended with Mary surrounded by three suitors, all present and accounted for. It was ridiculous, particularly as, again, they were all meant to be wild for her in her own right and not after her money. Whatever the charms of the real life aristocratic women who had men in hot pursuit, Mary, IMO, has not been shown to possess the sort of charm, nor does she possess the sex appeal, that would have wealthy men dumping other rich, pretty, fun, eligible girls to fall at her feet and take their chances.

Edited November 12, 2014 by DianeDobbler

[Tetraneutron]

I think the show's explained that. Yes, there is a shortage of men (relative to women) in Mary's general age group. But there's also an increasing shortage of wealthy landowners (as estates are crumbling left and right), and Mary's not only a landowner (not on paper, but for all practical purposes), and a heiress (again, practically) - which would actually be fairly rare for a woman. In some ways, rich Mary might be a better prospect than penniless Rose (if we assume they're both equally well-bred and pretty, as the show seems to want us to think). Rose would still be a catch, of course, but she's also written as wanting to rebel, and reject everything about her parents' values and way of life, and we've seen her pursue a black guy and a Jewish guy. I expect she wouldn't be interested in the kinds of "suitable" men that go after Mary. Even during the fourth Christmas Special (am I the only one that enjoyed that episode? I thought it was lots of fun), we saw one friend had an affair with Prince Edward, one got shoved at Paul Giamatti by her gold-digging father, and Rose had no men and didn't seem to care.

 

And I don't think Julian Fellowes wants us to see Mary as dry and pallid. She's been written as cool and sexy. Getting that daring, fashion-forward bob haircut? And having the hairdresser comment how she can pull it off? And knowing enough to procure birth control and have sex? AND having Mabel Lane Fox say she looks like something out of Vogue? Mary is supposed to be vivacious and charming and sexy, even by the standards of her social set. Whether or not the writing and acting actually delivers on this, we're supposed to see Mary as "all the guys want her, all the girls want to be her." Whatever the 1920s equivalent is of the hot cheerleader, that's Mary.

 

There's also the fact that it's called Downton Abbey, so we aren't going to see other women not connected with the Crawleys, even though the show did point out in season 4 that Mabel had tons of suitors and Gillingham landing her was a feather in his cap. We only see (besides Mary), Edith, Sybil, and Rose. Frank Grimes, Activist, and Rebel.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Obviously

[Avaleigh]

I think the show's explained that. Yes, there is a shortage of men (relative to women) in Mary's general age group. But there's also an increasing shortage of wealthy landowners (as estates are crumbling left and right), and Mary's not only a landowner (not on paper, but for all practical purposes), and a heiress (again, practically) - which would actually be fairly rare for a woman. In some ways, rich Mary might be a better prospect than penniless Rose (if we assume they're both equally well-bred and pretty, as the show seems to want us to think).

 

 

For social climbing types and people who care about being apart of this society, Mary and Rose would both be considered to be a catch particularly Mary since she has money and place in Downton for at least the next twenty years or so assuming that they keep the house. (I imagine she'd eventually move to either the Dower house or Crawley house depending on how long Cora, Violet, and Isobel end up living and whenever George ends up marrying.) For aristocratic men who don't have estates or are younger sons they would see marriage to Mary as a perfect solution to maintaining the lifestyle in which they were raised. For men newly rich men like Richard Carlisle who want to move in higher levels of society, a wife like Lady Rose would be considered the perfect catch.

 

I've personally never doubted Rose's popularity on the social scene. She had a fantastic debut thanks to the help of the Prince of Wales, we had Freda confirm that Rose has the talent of keeping the Prince amused, we see her charm practically everybody she meets, she has friends, and when she has the conversation with Shrimpy about how she isn't just interested in accepting some suitable bore, I got the impression that there were men who were showing their interest she just didn't happen to be interested in them. She was looking for something different and it happily seems as though she's found it in Atticus.

[DianeDobbler]

Well, I'm talking about one thing really, what I've seen, not really what Fellowes intends. Of course Fellowes thinks Mary is the bees knees, sexy and all that. We've gotten to where he actually has to tell us, or have other character tell us, because IMO it's not on the screen. So it's really a writing situation. If Mary were incredibly sexy (a stick of dynamite), charming, wonderful company, and add in her estate and status, sure, she would have suitors, particularly as the kid situation really isn't an obstacle - the next husband won't really be raising George if he doesn't want to - the nanny would. However, until the end of this season, for two series straight Gillingham has been written as madly in love and so, apparently, was Evelyn Napier all this time, with Charles Blake poised to be the come from behind winner. It's Mary being a subject of on screen fascination that I don't think works, or is convincing, anymore. If she were written so that her money, the landed estate, her status, were a strong part of her attraction for men, that would make a difference, but instead the writing has been that that stuff is a given, but what makes this men stick around is they're madly in love and want her for herself, because she's so fascinating, gorgeous and sexy. For my money, it simply didn't work. Dockery and Mary sank under the weight of those three suitors, even though the writing only toyed with the premise and didn't play it out.

 

My money's also on Charles Blake being done, and I believe initially he was set up to be The One. The new Matthew. Dockery even described him that way a bit, described the dynamics as evoking Matthew, sort of steering in that direction. I guess maybe the audience didn't follow.

Edited November 13, 2014 by DianeDobbler

[ZoloftBlob]

My money's also on Charles Blake being done, and I believe initially he was set up to be The One. The new Matthew. Dockery even described him that way a bit, described the dynamics as evoking Matthew, sort of steering in that direction. I guess maybe the audience didn't follow.

 

It was there.

 

Matthew and Mary had chemistry in season one in part because Mary had basically established right off the bat that Cousin Matthew was never going to cut it as her husband. So... they were  friends first, and Mary could share things with Matthew and vice versa and they had...a more fair relationship? Where they were equals and Matthew could criticize her without it meaning she could simply cut him off from her pile of suitors and discard him. With Matthew, because he was going to be there no matter what... she didn't have all the power.

 

They tried that with early Blake, where Blake was the middle class anti-estate guy who wasn't taking Mary's crap and didn' timmediately join the harem. They had some chemistry in the pig scene. I was kinda like "oooh there's a spark!". The problem - and I don't know if this was actor availability or what, is that they then dropped Blake - who was a pretty good dark haired version of Matthew - for more scenes with Tony and the whole who killed Greene routine and then started season five with Mary and Tony test driving her vagina.

 

It could have worked. It just wasn't developed.

[Tetraneutron]

I think it's more of a stotyline problem. When UST-type romances work in TV or film, it's because there's an obstacle. They love each other, but can't be together. Or they love each other, but can't acknowledge how they feel. Etc. That was the situation with Matthew. They loved each other, but Matthew was taking the thing that Mary wanted and felt should have belonged to her. They love each other, but Matthew might not choose to run the estate with Mary and her immediate family as considerations. He might marry someone else and kick her out, or sell it and be a lawyer, or whatever. (Plus they set up the Pamuk situation as a time bomb, which added drama). That's an obstacle. So there's conflict and tension.

 

But now that Mary has a son and her future is assured, there's no real source of tension. If Mary wants to mary someone, she can. The estate is solvent so she doesn't need to marry for money. She's not interested in a higher rank or bigger estate, so she doesn't need to marry for status. So the show needs to strain to provide conflict, and all that effort saps viewer interest. They tried. Anthony might like Mabel better! So what? Charles has middle-class values! Already done with Matthew. Anthony might tell the world she had sex! Been there, only with much higher stakes. So there's nowhere to go.

 

I think the only way the audience can be invested in Mary's love life is if there is conflict. And how can they bring that back? (Not rhetorical, I'm really wondering).

[ZoloftBlob]

I think the only way the audience can be invested in Mary's love life is if there is conflict. And how can they bring that back? (Not rhetorical, I'm really wondering).

 

Mary would have to change.

 

Frankly, that's why I think its potentially plausible that she will end up with Tom. It gives her an internal conflict on several levels. Can she back down from her very public stand on not settling? Can she handle the potential backlash and societal judgment choosing a lower class man would bring? How long would it take her to make a decision? Will Tom put up with a lot of hemming and hawing? What will the family do?

 

Or you know... she could give up the ghost and admit she likes women....

[Tetraneutron]

I disagree with that. Marrying Tom wouldn't mean she's settling. Before the estate was hers, that was a factor. But now she can marry whoever she wants and will still be the heiress and run Downton. (I don't know what the term is. Proto-Dowager?) She doesn't give anything up now by marrying a commoner. And it's not like she'll lose face in society by marrying him either. We've seen consistently during the many many MANY Downton parties, that the rest of the swells are perfectly nice to Tom and treat him like family. The only exception I can think of are Lord Merton's asshole sons and the show made it clear thateveryone found them to be in the wrong.

 

Plus, they're of the same mind about modernising the estate and keeping it solvent. and as for Tom's revolutionary leanings, the very act of marrying Mary would show he thinks that isn't important.

 

This is why, in general, it's a bad idea to give characters everything they want and give them perfect lives. Maybe Julian Fellowes could keep that in mind for his next show.

[AllyB]

Can he really live in London, though? As an Irish Catholic chauffeur? I think anti-Irish prejudice and the rigid class system make it too hard for Tom to really have a place in London. He's be working-class with no real shot at advancement.  And it limits Sybbie's prospects as well. If they live at Downton, he has family (and a better job than he could probably get otherwise). If he moves to Boston, he has an opportunity to run a business and make something of himself, and the stigma of Irish origin is much less. In London he has no advantages and all drawbacks.

What he could do is go home. It's late 1924, the Irish War of independence ended years ago, the Irish more or less won. Tom's arrest warrant is wastepaper and has been for a couple of years at this point. The civil war that followed the establishment of the Free State ended about 18 months ago. Tom could go home whenever he wanted. If the actor wants to stay on the show, it could be written that Tom somehow gets a job in the Irish diplomatic services due to his connections to the British aristocracy. And he could be based in London and see characters there or visit Downton regularly. He'd be happy in service to the country he was once supposedly so passionate about but able to navigate the Crawleys' world and stay in touch with his in-laws while having a respected role in their world, rather than that if an outcast/pitied interloper in his and their circle.

[tapplum]

 

Or you know... she could give up the ghost and admit she likes women....

 

Yes please, still shipping

Mary/Mabel

. Alas for that lost opportunity

[Avaleigh]

I think the only way the audience can be invested in Mary's love life is if there is conflict. And how can they bring that back?

 

 

If Tom ends up being the love interest then I think the conflict can come in a few ways. They can have bonding scenes involving the running of the estate and maybe they come into conflict at some point with Robert siding with Tom rather than Mary or something like that. Have Tom teach Mary something and have her come around to his original position. I could see a situation happening that makes them both see the other in a way that they hadn't previously. I think a political conflict could be interesting too if done the right way. Something where Mary comes around to Tom's POV rather than the other way around or maybe we could see the ways in which they influence each other. 

 

There's also conflict that could come after they begin a relationship. Maybe they'd worry about the opinions of the family and they'd try to keep it a secret. Maybe we could meet more of Tom's family and they could disapprove of Mary in a way that they didn't disapprove of Sybil. If they were to marry there could maybe be religious conflict as far as how they'd raise any children they might have. 

 

Or you know... she could give up the ghost and admit she likes women....

 

 

She and Anna almost ran away to America together in the season 2 CS. ;-)

[photo fox]

Guys, the speculation is a lot of fun, but can you please take it to the UK speculation topics? (With our without spoilers, whatever your case may be.)

The posts in this topic should focus primarily on Episode Eight. Cheers!

[kpw801]

Looks like Thomas is trying to play straight.  

Did anybody catch the little remark he made when they went into the Velvet Violin?  Denker was snarking about how it looked like a divorced couple marrying because Rose didn't wear a veil and blah blah blah.  Thomas said, "I wish they were divorced.  I don't mind Lady Rose, me", looking at the new footman, like he was one of the boys.

[romantic idiot]

Maybe she's just an unpleasant person. We never really find out why their marriage turned out the way it did or why they "don't like each other" but it's certainly easy to see why Shrimpy wouldn't want to be around Susan. Shrimpy seems nice and friendly enough and it's usually Susan who is snapping at him or being intolerant about something. Robert and Cora also seem to think that Susan was the difficult one between the two of them. At the same time Shrimpy seems like he's willing to bear being around her much more than she's willing to bear being around him and I wonder what that's all about. He was willing to share a room and seems like he's going out of his way to be accommodating while it's Susan who is all no fucking way, I want to be as far away from this man as possible. Was Susan always like this because it's her personality or was Shrimpy hard to deal with in ways that we didn't necessarily see? I just think it's odd that there's no explanation for why they'd end a 30 something year marriage unless something major happened to give them the final push into permanent separation. Given what we know her feelings seem incredibly hostile and it's hard for me to really understand why. 

 

I think she's always been unpleasant and demanding, probably finding him unequal to her expectations. And now he's gone and lost their fortune and prospects. I can imagine such a woman having no compassion and hating him for that. 

[Camera One]

Maybe Susan was satisfied enough when they were rich, and the marriage problems began to crop up as the financial problems arose.  Maybe she is just particularly unpleasant to her husband, but away from her family, she has a sparkling personality?  

[cricketmum]

As the mother of an autistic child, I'm finding Marigold less special than "special".

Edited November 17, 2014 by cricketmum