S06.E02: Season 6, Episode 2

[ShadowFacts]

I think it bears repeating: The Drewes are off their farm because of Mrs. Drewes' actions, not because of Edith. Nobody was going to make them leave until Mrs. Drewe kidnapped Marigold.

 

As far as Edith not living "honestly," I think it's very easy for anyone to say that she should be open about her relationship to Marigold in the time they're living in. Marigold wouldn't benefit from her admitting it out loud either. If only everyone could be a saint in a high-stakes situation like this one. I'm not even going to pretend I would be more open than Edith is being about Marigold.

 

Yes, they're off the farm because of Mrs. Drewe quasi-kidnapping Marigold, but that's a bit circular.  She did what she did because Edith did what she did -- none of it would have happened if Edith hadn't given her daughter to two different families, none of it would have happened if she hadn't been ruled by her fear of disgrace and not being accepted in drawing rooms.  As I said, missteps were made by all.  As to the living honestly part, I said that is the only thing she did not get, she has her daughter, whereas the Drewes are up the creek without a paddle.  I'm not saying she should have been forthright or that I could have in her shoes.  It's just that she is paying that particular price, where the Drewes are paying another one. 

[lucindabelle]

My kids had fevers quite regularly in their early years so I am confident that children everywhere are subject to them and without benefit of Tylenol, etc. Teething, viruses, toilet training, all of that happened even if we never saw it.

Many missteps were made by all, but the end result has one party with the child and a home, and the Drewes without. That looks short end of the stick to me. The tenancy wasn't in arrears, and Tim raised the prize winning pig. I have lots of empathy for them, for Edith, not so much as I used to. She got what she wanted, except she can't live honestly.

 

 

Yes, they're off the farm because of Mrs. Drewe quasi-kidnapping Marigold, but that's a bit circular.  She did what she did because Edith did what she did -- none of it would have happened if Edith hadn't given her daughter to two different families, none of it would have happened if she hadn't been ruled by her fear of disgrace and not being accepted in drawing rooms.  As I said, missteps were made by all.  As to the living honestly part, I said that is the only thing she did not get, she has her daughter, whereas the Drewes are up the creek without a paddle.  I'm not saying she should have been forthright or that I could have in her shoes.  It's just that she is paying that particular price, where the Drewes are paying another one. 

 

1. the farm WAS in arrears! Grantham loaned Drewe the money to keep it. Drewe's dad hadn't paid and it's only by the good graces of Grantham that they were there at all.

 

2. So you make excuses for Edith because she was provoked? Sorry but to me that sounds like what abusive men say, "she made me do it." She STOLE a child. Sure, she had her reasons but in the end she did what she did and thought she was right to do it.

Bear in mind this same woman threw a fit when Edith was holding Marigold on another part of the property than she expected, accusing her of taking her. Mrs. Drewe is NUTS. Why she is really no loner matters if the child isn't safe around her. My feeling, based on her overreaction when Edith was in the yard instead of the barn, is that she was a little nuts all along.

 

She took that child without a word to anyone. Drewe was in debt and he had only been allowed to stay by promising Margie would do no harm. Well, she did.

[ShadowFacts]

1. the farm WAS in arrears! Grantham loaned Drewe the money to keep it. Drewe's dad hadn't paid and it's only by the good graces of Grantham that they were there at all.

 

2. So you make excuses for Edith because she was provoked? Sorry but to me that sounds like what abusive men say, "she made me do it." She STOLE a child. Sure, she had her reasons but in the end she did what she did and thought she was right to do it.

Bear in mind this same woman threw a fit when Edith was holding Marigold on another part of the property than she expected, accusing her of taking her. Mrs. Drewe is NUTS. Why she is really no loner matters if the child isn't safe around her. My feeling, based on her overreaction when Edith was in the yard instead of the barn, is that she was a little nuts all along.

 

She took that child without a word to anyone. Drewe was in debt and he had only been allowed to stay by promising Margie would do no harm. Well, she did.

 

I don't want to re-litigate the whole sorry mess.  I only meant to make the point that the end result of the fiasco was that the Drewes were the bigger losers.  I have no interest in making excuses for Edith, so I assume you meant Margie, who I also have said is not blameless.  I don't know what any of it has to do with the way abusive men say someone made them do it.  Again, the point is that if Edith hadn't given her child to two families, then changed her mind both times, the Drewes wouldn't be hitting the road to who knows what fate. 

[lucindabelle]

Yes I did mean Margie,

And what it has to do is your statement that its circular reasoning to blame Margie because we must bear in mind what drove her to it.

No.

We do not.

Nor must we bear in mind what abusers do. Most child abusers and molesters were themselves molested and abused. It does not mitigate their crime.

What Margie did was absolutely criminal. Period, the end.

You also stated he farm was not in arrears. But it was. Drewe was there in the first place only ont he charity of lord Grantham. His father hadn't paid in years. It's not a small point. Your statements suggest they had some kind of rights they didn't.

Edited January 28, 2016 by lucindabelle

[Roseanna]

Again, the point is that if Edith hadn't given her child to two families, then changed her mind both times, the Drewes wouldn't be hitting the road to who knows what fate. 

 

Why wouldn't we go even one step far and say that if Rosamund wouldn't persuade Edith to go Switzerland and give the baby up, none of this wouldn't have happened :) That simply won't do.

 

Yes, Edith made mistakes and hurt other people, but she didn't cause Drewes to lose the farm. Mrs Drewe did it by kidnapping Marigold, not caring of the consequences of her act to her husband. And she had already earlier demanded him to move out in order to prevent Edith visiting Marigold.  

 

We must remember that Mrs Drewe wouldn't have kept Marigold anyway because  Rosamund and Violet had decided to send the girl to the French school, because they thought that keeping her so near Downton courted a danger to cause scandal. They comapred  Mrs Drewe a volcano that was ready to disrupt.    

[Crs97]

I shudder to do this, but . . .

I don't think the farm was in arrears anymore because Lord Grantham made Mr. Drewes a personal loan to bring the farm current. A loan I assume Mr. Drewes was repaying because he was making the farm a success and doing a bang up job of raising those pigs. I seem to recall Lord Grantham taking Mary and Tom out of the equation with regard to the estate and arrears and expenses by putting up his own money. I may be remembering incorrectly. I am sure someone will be eager to tell me if I am wrong.

[SusanSunflower]

That seems most likely... the debt to Robert is not "arrears", those were as far as we know 'caught up" ... has it been a whole year for next-year's rent to have been due and paid? 

I also think -- though Fellowes might not have bothered -- that Mr. Drewes or Robert would have mentioned the debt since Mr. Drewe's imminent departure (with its expenses) would have meant settling accounts (for whatever prorated rent might be due) and make arrangements if repayment was expected/legally binding. Robert might not care much, Mr. Drewe would. 

Edited January 29, 2016 by SusanSunflower

[lucindabelle]

You're correct. But essentially, mr drewe was thereONLY because off lord granthams generosity. You bring up a good point: I'm guessing robert forgave the loan.whic was substantial. I was under the impression it would take a good while to pay it back. It was a lot more than one year.

Edited January 29, 2016 by lucindabelle

[Wordsworth]

Marathoned the second-fourth episodes yesterday.

 

Edith:  I think her editor resents the fact that he ultimately answers to a woman with no experience running a magazine.  But, it's possible he also sees her as just a dilettante who just thinks it's fun to be the boss in between hair appointments and luncheons.

 

As for Marigold, I think most of us agree that the whole situation with the Drewes was botched from the beginning.  Mrs. Drewe didn't know the child was Edith's, she thought Marigold was theirs forever, if Edith was paying them any cash, Margie wasn't in on that.  fishcakes  and others have mentioned in previous posts that she was probably fine with Edith coming around at first, but, by the time the first episode, 5th season, came around, it would seem that Edith was wearing out her welcome.  Even Robert and Cora, clueless at the time, noticed this and warned Edith not to make a nuisance of herself.  I've read in this thread, especially early on, that some people thought of 5th season Margie as obsessive and desperate, but I would use those to describe Edith, not Mrs. Drewe.  Yes, Edith is Marigold's mother, but Margie didn't know that.

 

All she knew was that the rich lady from the manor house was coming around all the time, petting on Marigold and behaving very clingy. She constantly wanted to play with Marigold or put her to bed or do other things that an aristocrat would never really do for a farmer's child.  She ignored the other Drewe children (yes, there is one Drewe daughter).  If Margie feared that Edith was going to take Marigold, it's because Edith looked about every time like that's exactly what she wanted to do.  She came home one day, didn't find Marigold in the house and, because she was already upset with Edith and felt, in the back of her mind, that Edith wanted her child, allowed herself to fear the worst.   It's not unhinged to fear that someone who acts like they want to take a child has actually taken said child.  

 

Margie wasn't out of line to reject money from Edith for Marigold when Edith ultimately decided to change tactics and offer to be the girl's patron because she very likely felt that taking money would then obligate her to share Marigold with someone she was already uncomfortable having around so much.  When Edith showed up with Rosamund in tow, Mrs. Drewe decided that enough was enough.  Then Edith turned the tables on her and took the child away, exactly what Margie feared she would do.  In one fell swoop, she found out that her husband had lied to her and that the child she'd been lovingly raising as her own for the last year was being taken.

 

In the 1920s, if servants were finding their voices, then the tenant farmers were, too.  Mrs. Drewe felt betrayed and let Cora know it.  

 

In the present, Cora sees that Mrs. Drewe hasn't been able to move past the loss of the child.  That doesn't mean Margie is unhinged or mentally ill, but that she isn't seeing straight.  When Cora mentioned that they needed to get back to luncheon, it appeared to me that Mrs. Drewe got a mental image of Marigold in a large, cold house, eating with other children, being trotted out at tea-time for the adults to look at and not getting the one-on-one time with a mother that she had provided the girl.

 

At the auction, she confirmed her belief that Marigold was being ignored and took her.  It was wrong.  It wasn't within her right to do.  But that's what she did.  Even sane people do random senseless things sometimes.  

 

Anna/Bates:  I am tired of the prolonged legal dramas of the Bateses.  Scotland Yard would never have spent as much time on the death of a servant as they did on this Green business.  Now Anna thinks that Bates doesn't want adopted children? Do those two ever actually communicate?   They seem to constantly jump to conclusions.  Of course, there are secrets they must keep because they're servants in a manor house.

 

Thomas:  Most of what Thomas has done during his time here is self-serving. Not all of it, I grant you.  But he seems to have accepted his life as a servant; he just wants to be at the top of the pecking order.  He started working as a footman, has brought himself up to a position of almost second in the household staff...only to find that the changing times have altered the rules.

 

He can't go anywhere else and get the same position of authority he has at Downton.  He would either be overworked while doing the jobs of several types of servants, some of which he considers to be beneath him or he would be the sole employee with no one to lord it over.

 

I also felt that the interviewer figured out he was gay.  His line about Thomas not having "found the right person" was a type of code for his suspicions.  After all, Thomas is a man in his early-to-mid thirties who has a decent job as underbutler in a grand manor house in a country with a shortage of eligible men.  For him to be unmarried, especially during a time, as the butler interviewing him pointed out, servants are now getting married with little interruption to their work, likely red-flagged him.

 

And, his poor reputation at Downton is his own fault.  Most of the senior servants remember him plotting with Miss O'Brien, bossing people around while being the military attache to Downton during the war, dabbling in the black market and overall being unpleasant to people.  

 

Carson has certainly never cared for him since he was caught stealing in season 1.  Thomas has only remained at Downton because of his own good luck that Grantham happens to be a fair-minded, if somewhat clueless, boss.

 

* I agree that Mrs. Hughes is not being unreasonable to not want to celebrate her wedding in a house that's not her own, where she has spent the last couple of two or three decades working for a living and where she can't have the celebration she wants.  And I love that Cora seems to understand that.

 

* Ugh, Daisy.  For God's sake, how old are you now?  It's been 13 years since season one, anyone know how old Daisy is?  I could tolerate her naivete in 1914, but not 1925.

 

Mary:  I'm beginning to think of Mary as being kind of like Scarlet O'Hara.  We're not actually supposed to like her, but we can admire her.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheGreenKnight]

At the auction, she confirmed her belief that Marigold was being ignored and took her.  It was wrong.  It wasn't within her right to do.  But that's what she did.  Even sane people do random senseless things sometimes.

I re-watched the episode when I got the season set yesterday, and I have to say that it wasn't true that Marigold was being ignored. She was kidnapped while everyone was looking up at Mary, then they show a shot of Marigold running down the side of the fence, and then two shots later, Edith asks where Marigold is. Just because a parent doesn't have their eyes locked on their child every second of every day doesn't mean a kidnapper can claim they feared neglect. If Mrs. Drewe really thought Edith was obsessive during season 5, why would she then believe Marigold was being neglected anyway? I don't think Mrs. Drewe was unhinged in 5, but in this episode she definitely was.

[Roseanna]

When Cora mentioned that they needed to get back to luncheon, it appeared to me that Mrs. Drewe got a mental image of Marigold in a large, cold house, eating with other children, being trotted out at tea-time for the adults to look at and not getting the one-on-one time with a mother that she had provided the girl.

 

An anachronistic view. A farmer's wife had so much to do that children had very little "one-on-one time with the mother". Often children were mostly cared by those who were unable to do more valuable work, like their grandmother or older siblings.

[Wordsworth]

But since there appears to be no Drewe grandmother and all the children, even the daughter, attends school, then Mrs. Drewe would have spent a good chunk of her weekdays with Marigold.

[lucindabelle]

I truly don't understand the apologia for mrs. Drewe. She clearly was unhinged when her husband came home and filmed to seem so. She was NOT behaving as a sane person wh did a dumb thing ut as someone who'd had, frankly, a psychotic break. She took the child, told nobody, and Brought her home. Completely unacceptable. It's not her child.

I also thought Margie was the dumbest person on planet earth not to have figured out that the mysterious baby of friends Shes never heard of before, wh looks just like the spinster at the abbey who weirdly keeps coming by and wants to see the child, belongs to the spinster. I mean her husband figured it out. I believe Margie had to be willfully blind.

[Roseanna]

I truly don't understand the apologia for mrs. Drewe. She clearly was unhinged when her husband came home and filmed to seem so. She was NOT behaving as a sane person wh did a dumb thing ut as someone who'd had, frankly, a psychotic break. She took the child, told nobody, and Brought her home. Completely unacceptable. It's not her child.

 

She also believed in the earlier scene where Crawleys visited the farm that Marigold would know and remember her. But that was completely impossible. Marigold has now lived in Downton Abbey nearly a year.

[TheGreenKnight]

Not to jump back down the rabbit hole, but after re-watching the series, I also don't get what people were saying about Edith being completely devoid of any sympathy for Mrs. Drewe, when in fact she had sympathy for her. The last episode they interact in season 5, Edith apologizes to Mrs. Drewe even though, in her words, she knew Mrs. Drewe wouldn't want to hear it from her. She even asked Mr. Drewe if they should tell her the truth when things were escalating. If she doesn't express her sympathy again in this episode, it's probably because kidnapping crosses a line.

[ShadowFacts]

She also believed in the earlier scene where Crawleys visited the farm that Marigold would know and remember her. But that was completely impossible. Marigold has now lived in Downton Abbey nearly a year.

I don't think it's completely impossible.  I don't think all of a toddler's memories are lost totally as time goes by.  We can't know about Marigold, of course.  But my earliest memories are of two great-grandparents who died when I was not yet 2 years old.   Obviously they must have made an impression on my young mind, but they are admittedly hazy memories.    I've heard other people recount similar stories.  And Marigold was comfortably drifting off in Margie's arms, so there was at least some indication of familiarity.

[Roseanna]

I don't think it's completely impossible.  I don't think all of a toddler's memories are lost totally as time goes by.  We can't know about Marigold, of course.  But my earliest memories are of two great-grandparents who died when I was not yet 2 years old.   Obviously they must have made an impression on my young mind, but they are admittedly hazy memories.    I've heard other people recount similar stories.  And Marigold was comfortably drifting off in Margie's arms, so there was at least some indication of familiarity.

 

I doubt if one can make a conclusion how the child actress behaved as we have already discussed that she can't act at all and was probably chosen that she could sit still. In guess that in this scene she refused completely to cooperative, so it was decided that her face wasn't shown.   

 

Your own situation can't compared with Marigold because you continued to live in your home. From Marigold's POV, Mrs Drewe whom she had reagarded as a mother had abandoned her - as she couldn't yet talk well, she couldn't understand otherwise why she was moved from one home to another home. The only way she could cope such a trauma was forget her former life. And that's just how the young children who were sent to safety during the WW2 reacted: they forgot completely their biological parenst. 

[Andorra]

Well, I'm the absolute opposite. I truly can't understand how anyone could excuse Edith's behavior towards Mrs Drewe and her lack of compassion about her situation. She and Tim Drewe are responsible for this poor woman's depression and Edith is cold as a fish. I can't forgive that, it made me truly hate her for the rest of the show and it opened my eyes to her character. I've always defended her before that, but when I look back, we have seen a similar cold, selfish personality from her from season 1 till the end and I can't like her anymore. 

[Roseanna]

Well, I'm the absolute opposite. I truly can't understand how anyone could excuse Edith's behavior towards Mrs Drewe and her lack of compassion about her situation. She and Tim Drewe are responsible for this poor woman's depression and Edith is cold as a fish. I can't forgive that, it made me truly hate her for the rest of the show and it opened my eyes to her character. I've always defended her before that, but when I look back, we have seen a similar cold, selfish personality from her from season 1 till the end and I can't like her anymore.

i don't believe a depression is caused by other people, whatever they have done. And depression alone doesn't make one "non compos mentis".

Besides, also Edith was exremely depressed when she didn't know about the fate of her lover and her child's father, and then learning that he was murdered, but still you blame her for not having empathy towards Mrs Drewe.

If one chooses only some acts and condemn a person on the basis of them, it would be easy to call

Mary cold and selfish, but we have seen that she can be also warm and unselfish, although the latter quality is seen only in S1 (William) and S2 (Lavinia). It's how she behaves in S6 and especially ep8 when she is really tested that shows what kind of character she has now.

I think it was a great pity that Fellowes couldn't really "redeem" Mary in CS (telephoning Bertie wasn't really that) whereas he did at least a somewhat better job with Edith (by allowing her to the tell truth to Mrs Pelham).

[Andorra]

Well for me it is - as I said - the opposite. Nothing can redeem Edith in my eyes, sorry. We won't ever agree on this one. For me Mary is worth a 1000s Ediths and I say that after watching episode 8.

[WatchrTina]

Please don't hint about future episodes. We in the USA are only up to episode 7.

[TheGreenKnight]

Well, I'm the absolute opposite. I truly can't understand how anyone could excuse Edith's behavior towards Mrs Drewe and her lack of compassion about her situation.

Because she didn't have a "lack of compassion." She felt sorry for how the whole thing went down, but it's not something that can be fixed or undone and she wasn't going to leave Marigold with Mrs. Drewe. I guess a person can either accept what's onscreen and spoken or not.

 

I don't really find characters irredeemable unless they're murderers or rapists (even Mary, as much as I detest her). That said, I'll leave the Mary lovers to cling to the Mrs. Drewe storyline for a reason to hate Edith, since there's 6 seasons' worth of moments to hate Mary.

Edited February 20, 2016 by TheGreenKnight

[AndySmith]

Oh, there are plenty of other reasons to hate Edith besides that...

 

Granted, I probably hate Daisy the most, but still.

Edited February 20, 2016 by AndySmith

[TVForever]

Holy cow, has Daisy always been this annoying, or was I simply not noticing before?

[AndySmith]

She was ok at first (for me) but she really started to bug me during the Season 3 Love Quadrangle of Boredom...and she just got worse.

[photo fox]

Guys, keep the discussion to this episode. Spoiler tagging certain bits still lets a lot of context show. Tag all of it, or better yet, take it to the last episode you want to discuss.

[Llywela]

I don't really find characters irredeemable unless they're murderers or rapists (even Mary, as much as I detest her). That said, I'll leave the Mary lovers to cling to the Mrs. Drewe storyline for a reason to hate Edith, since there's 6 seasons' worth of moments to hate Mary.

Believe it or not, it is possible to feel sympathy for Mrs Drewe and hold Edith accountable for her actions entirely independently of whether one loves or hates Mary. Mary has nothing to do with this situation -  not everything in this show is a binary Mary-Edith opposition!

 

No wonder it's been impossible to have a sensible conversation about this.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Llywela

[TheGreenKnight]

Believe it or not, it is possible to feel sympathy for Mrs Drewe and hold Edith accountable for her actions entirely independently of whether one loves or hates Mary.

 

No wonder it's been impossible to have a sensible conversation about this.

I agree. But it's pretty transparent when it's really just the eternal Mary-Edith argument being transferred on top of this storyline, so I don't mind calling it what it is

 

I think it's impossible to have a sensible conversation when people ignore what actually happened on the show and post inflammatory, condescending responses, so... Pot meet kettle?

Edited February 20, 2016 by TheGreenKnight

[photo fox]

Everybody take a breath and cool down. I don't want to have to start handing out warnings. If you can't disagree without being disagreeable, you need to step back.

[alphacat]

While I completely agree that inflammatory and condescending responses don't help foster a discussion, the challenge is that some things that "actually happened on the show" are interpreted differently and sometimes people get very invested in shows/characters. I'm always interested to see how other people interpret things in different ways!

I rarely take this show that seriously (Sherlock is where my irrational side comes out!) and my opinions on the crazy storylines are not all that strong, so hope I don't tension to the conversation. 

At the risk of wading into deep water ... I have sympathy for Edith and Mrs. Drewes. Mr. Drewes is the one who irritates me. IMO, it was really his "backstory" for Marigold and his ongoing lie to his wife that laid the ground for the failure of the arrangement. If Mr. Drewes felt he couldn't tell his wife the truth (for whatever reason), then I think there needed to be a strong connection to Edith in his backstory - maybe the child belonged to a former employee of DA of whom both he and Edith were very fond - something that would make it seem reasonable for Edith to be engaged. Also, had they set a schedule for meetings and had Edith work through Mr. Drewes if she wanted to see the child more often, maybe it would have cut down on the annoying and random visits. Just because she wanted to be able to see Marigold, disrupting the rest of the family's routine on a whim was not optimal. He seemed to think he could control the actions/responses of both his wife and Edith when in reality he couldn't control much of anything!

I lean toward seeing the attachment of Mrs. Drewes to Marigold as being odd in that it was so intense and possessive. Of course, it's reasonable that she would love the child, but her reactions just didn't seem quite right to me, particularly given that they are tenants and her husband works for the family. Perhaps that's how she might respond today but back then, she should have been more deferential to Edith, IMO - hard as that might have been. 

On Edith's side, she is very indecisive and doesn't really seem to have a plan, which drives me crazy. I can understand her not knowing whether to go to London or stay at DA, as it's really only been 9 months (?) since Gregson died and she inherited - that's a big decision for her and I'm guessing she is not used to making big decisions. She really wouldn't have to be alone in London. She would need a nanny/au pair to look after Marigold and maybe she could find someone who could live in and do light cleaning/cooking - not sure how big the flat is, so maybe that wouldn't work. And Rosamund would be around.

I don't particularly like Mary, but I'm not really "Team Edith" either. Both have their moments, good and bad. I wouldn't really want to put up with either of them. I'll invite myself to tea with the Dowager, Rosamund and Isobel!

Edited February 1, 2017 by alphacat

[sark1624]

I think that the whole story about Edith and the Drewes was badly done; but about the story about Edith having a child out of wedlock it would have been a great story. We can not see the whole thing with today views, having a child in that way was a very, very serious thing about ANY women in that period. Abortions for those cases were not strange, or some schemes like Edith and her family did in the end. But basically it was totally insane that Robert or Cora would have been so happy about the whole thing, with any lucky in Edith´s part, she should have "banned" from the family and send her, and maybe with the baby to america, and probably not to New York, but instead to some part, away fron anyone who can reconigsed her and her name, never spoke again in the house.  

In my view, her story would have been better if Cora or Robert could have done that, and after some time living alone in London working (as many single mothers with their "guards" or war widows did in the 20´s), the family is reunited, maybe some big event cause the reunion and some kind of reconciliation betwen Edith and the rest of the family. 

Agree with some things said above, about Mrs Drewes, even if a women liked children, in those times there was not welfare state, even, i remember in some parts of the series she (mrs Drewes) said that she took the rest of the kids (3 or 4) to the dentist! ludicrous, dentists were for people of middle class and higher, not for lower class farmers who at most they could one pair of shoes in the year and some basic clothing. So that the fact that her husband would bring another mouth to feed and she wouldnt be worried was totally insane; furthermore, as the same series says, Edith is giving money and "taking care" of Marigold, any women of their class would have been very, very happy that one her kids is being "helped" by someone rich and powerful as Edith was to her in comparison, its mean, money for clothes, food, shoes, education, a lot of things that they could never afford.

The problem with Downton in the end, is that they didnt face the real values of that time, like Mary whinning about singing for the soldiers, in reality all those girls were fervent patriotic, and they understood that it was their patriotic duty to help on any form,  so Mary doing practically nothing was also a mistake. In a "normal" aristocratic family in the ww1, probably all the sons would have been in the army and their sisters as nurses or others ocuppations in the war effort, Robert would have never complained about lending the house, etc. 

[TaurusRose]

On 1/11/2016 at 9:45 AM, Roseanna said:

 

Sybil may be called "a reverse snob" in Dublin where she was known as Mrs Branson and not Lady Sybil Branson although I think she had every right to do it as in probably made her socializing with other people easier, especially as the Irish at the time hated the English.

There is no way Sybil would be referred to as Lady Branson in Ireland because she married a man who was not titled.  Mrs. Branson was her correct title.

On 1/11/2016 at 0:47 PM, helenamonster said:

But yeah, my sympathy for him [Thomas] only runs so deep. I feel bad when people mistreat him for his sexuality (the butler interviewing him called him dainty or something like that, which was awful) but no matter how gay he is, he's also a raging douchebag. I think most of the servants downstairs are long past caring about his sexuality and just dislike him because he's an awful person.

This.

[AndySmith]

Even married to a man who was not titled, I think Sybil's title would still be Lady Sybil Branson. She wouldn't be addressed as Lady Branson, but Lady Sybil, no?

[TaurusRose]

3 hours ago, AndySmith said:

Even married to a man who was not titled, I think Sybil's title would still be Lady Sybil Branson. She wouldn't be addressed as Lady Branson, but Lady Sybil, no?

I'm not an expert in titles, but I would think no.  If she hadn't married Tom, she could call herself "lady" until the cows came home, but once she did (and relocated to Ireland and lived among regular folks), she would have come across as if she were putting on airs.  Besides, if titles and all the trappings of aristocracy had meant that much to Sybil, she would not have been with Tom in the first place.

Edited March 3, 2017 by taurusrose

[AndySmith]

I don't think it's a question of self-identification...the daughters of titled men are allowed to keep their title when they are married to someone of a lower rank. Obviously Sybil probably wouldn't care how she was addressed, but saying her correct title would be Mrs. Branson isn't entirely correct itself.

Edited March 3, 2017 by AndySmith

[TaurusRose]

10 minutes ago, AndySmith said:

I don't think it's a question of self-identification...the daughters of titled men are allowed to keep their title when they are married to someone of a lower rank. Obviously Sybil probably wouldn't care how she was addressed, but saying her correct title would be Mrs. Branson isn't entirely correct itself.

We cross posted.  Maybe so, but again, she wasn't in England, she was in Ireland and at a pretty contentious time.  It was my impression that she had pretty much renounced all of that when she left DA.

Edited March 3, 2017 by taurusrose

[AndySmith]

Robert threatened to disinherit her, but didn't go through with it.

Again, Sybil herself might not have wanted people to address her as Lady in Ireland, but that doesn't mean that her official title wasn't Lady Sybil anymore. And her saying she renounced "all of that" doesn't make it official either. I guess if she had gone to court in the UK to officially and legally change her title, then that might mean she was no longer a Lady. But we never saw her do that nor was it ever referred to on the show.

[helenamonster]

AndySmith is correct. Sybil may not have wanted to be called Lady Sybil anymore once she married Tom and moved to Ireland (she said she enjoyed only being known as Mrs. Branson there) but that doesn't change the fact that it was her title...if you watch any season three episodes, the servants still refer to her as Lady Sybil.

Two other in-show examples that prove this are Rosamund and Mary. Rosamund's husband was not titled, but she was still Lady Rosamund; her full name with title was Lady Rosamund Painswick, despite the fact that Marmaduke Painswick was untitled. Mary, too, was still Lady Mary after she married Matthew, who may have been in line for a title but did not have a title himself.

[TaurusRose]

It's a safe bet that no one in Ireland called her Lady Sybil whether it was her title or not.  She said as much when she returned home, which indicated she was free of the class restrictions in Ireland.  She was simply Tom's wife, Mrs. Branson, nothing more or less.  This would not have been the case if she had stayed at DA.  The class thing would always be hanging over them.

ETA:  AndySmith and helenamonster I will agree that the title is her birthright and hers to use.  The point I am making is that the title did not appear to be in use when she was in Ireland.  I am basing that on what Sybil said when she returned to DA.  Of course, on her home turf it would be used by everyone because it was her birthright, damn it, and they weren't about to let anyone forget it.  And I'm done with this now because really, as an American, I could give a shit.

Edited March 3, 2017 by taurusrose

[AndySmith]

Her title follows her no matter what country she is in, since the British aristocracy system is still active.

Quote

Mary, too, was still Lady Mary after she married Matthew

And with Henry too. She is now Lady Mary Talbot.

[CeeBeeGee]

On 3/3/2017 at 11:51 AM, AndySmith said:

Her title follows her no matter what country she is in, since the British aristocracy system is still active.

And with Henry too. She is now Lady Mary Talbot.

 

Yup. Sybil is correctly styled as Lady Sybil Branson, whether or not she wants to use that form of address and whether or not she is in Ireland. But that is still the correct way to address her. (Not Lady Branson--that would be for a woman who is married to a Lord Branson, if there is one. Much as Cora is not Lady Cora--she did not inherit her position as her daughters did, she married it, so she is styled Lady Grantham.)

[Roseanna]

On ‎3‎.‎3‎.‎2017 at 4:00 PM, AndySmith said:

Again, Sybil herself might not have wanted people to address her as Lady in Ireland, but that doesn't mean that her official title wasn't Lady Sybil anymore. And her saying she renounced "all of that" doesn't make it official either. 

It isn't about what she officially was. She could keep her title secret in Ireland where nobody knew her - and considering the anti-English attiuedes in Dublin, she was wise to do so.

Also, if she met some new person elsewhere, she could present herself just as she chose. In Death of Nile by Agatha Christie, there is a man who doesn't use his title.