S06.E04: Season 6, Episode 4

[Llywela]

Probably not, because no woman worked if she had a Baby in the early 20th century. Not if she absolutely had to. It was just not a life concept for a woman to work and have children. 

Whether a woman worked after she had children was really dependent on her class and financial situation. Many women did continue to work after having children, because they had no choice - it was either that or starve. They scrubbed floors, they went into factories, they laid out the dead and delivered babies, they did anything they had to in order to feed their families. But that was the very bottom end of the economy, the lowest of the working class. Plus, of course, farmers wives and the like. But someone in Sybil's situation most likely wouldn't have worked, no - nursing was a nice middle class profession and respectable middle class women did not work after having children.

[Constantinople]

Sybil put Branson's work down first. 

 

SYBIL: But you won't be content to stay at Downton forever, will you? Tinkering away at an engine instead of fighting for freedom? I thought you'd join the rising in Dublin last Easter.

"Sybil started it" reflects poorly on Tom given that he is allegedly an adult and that at least 3 days elapsed between the time of Sybil's remarks and the time Tom said her work was serving hot drinks to randy officers.

Sybil's remark is also nothing that Tom hasn't said himself. In his first conversation with Sybil in Season 1 he gave her political pamphlets about women voting, said he was political and that he wouldn't be a chauffeur forever. That's probably why neither Sybil nor Tom took Sybil's remark as in insult.

Unlike Sybil, Branson apologized though. Unfortunately the scene was cut...

In which case it never happened.

[Roseanna]

Whether a woman worked after she had children was really dependent on her class and financial situation. Many women did continue to work after having children, because they had no choice - it was either that or starve. They scrubbed floors, they went into factories, they laid out the dead and delivered babies, they did anything they had to in order to feed their families. But that was the very bottom end of the economy, the lowest of the working class. Plus, of course, farmers wives and the like. But someone in Sybil's situation most likely wouldn't have worked, no - nursing was a nice middle class profession and respectable middle class women did not work after having children.

 

How about Vera Brittain? She continued her career as a writer after she got children.

 

In a way, women who were highly educated had easier to work then nowadays because they children were cared by a nanny at home. I understand that a daycare is rather expensive in Britain? 

[Llywela]

How about Vera Brittain? She continued her career as a writer after she got children.

 

In a way, women who were highly educated had easier to work then nowadays because they children were cared by a nanny at home. I understand that a daycare is rather expensive in Britain? 

No such thing as daycare in the 1920s. Working class women who needed to work left their children with relatives or neighbours (or alone, with the oldest in charge). It was rare for middle or upper class women to work - there are exceptions to every rule, obviously - and as you say, they could afford nannies. But they would have defined 'work' rather differently than we do. For instance, someone elsewhere commented on Violet, Cora and Isobel's interest in the hospital as being 'work'. but they would absolutely not have seen it as such. 'Work' was something servants did, to earn a living. When an aristocratic woman took an interest in a benevolent institution like a hospital, that was charity and philanthopy, not work.

[Roseanna]

No such thing as daycare in the 1920s.

 

I mean daycare today.

[Llywela]

I mean daycare today.

Ah, yes. Childcare can be extremely expensive today, which can make life hard for women who need/want to go back to work. In the 1920s, though, women who had to work had no formal childcare options at all and had to make their own arrangements - no nannies for working class women scrubbing floors or laying out the dead, they just made do.

[lucindabelle]

I am conscious of cultural differences (the British and Americans say more often "thank you" than is usual in my country). Yet I still find odd that if somebody agrees with my opinion or idea, I should regard it as a compliment and even supportive for which I must be thankful and say it aloud. As I see, agreeing or disagreeing with my opinions or ideas is nothing personal, and I only want that the others say what they honestly think, not that they humor me saying compliments.

 

The reason to take it personally (American here) is when someone stands up and says it publicly. Nobody has to do that.That's the equivalent of someone praising the way you think or the course you took. It doesn't really matter why they do it, it IS personal when they say it.

 

Similarly, if a total stranger says "cute shoes," yes, technically, they're praising my shoes, not me, and they're having the thought "I want those shoes."

 

HOWEVER, it's also a public praise to my TASTE. So yes, "thanks" is in order.

 

similarly, someone approving my idea is by implication approving my judgment. and it's always nice for someone to say something aloud-- it's going out on a limb and therefore should be thanked.

 

i can imagine some situations where that isnt the case, say discussing some law or somethig that you support, but when it's an action of your own... yes, thanks aren't extra, they're good manners.

[Roseanna]

The reason to take it personally (American here) is when someone stands up and says it publicly. Nobody has to do that.That's the equivalent of someone praising the way you think or the course you took. It doesn't really matter why they do it, it IS personal when they say it.

 

Similarly, if a total stranger says "cute shoes," yes, technically, they're praising my shoes, not me, and they're having the thought "I want those shoes."

 

HOWEVER, it's also a public praise to my TASTE. So yes, "thanks" is in order.

 

similarly, someone approving my idea is by implication approving my judgment. and it's always nice for someone to say something aloud-- it's going out on a limb and therefore should be thanked.

 

i can imagine some situations where that isnt the case, say discussing some law or somethig that you support, but when it's an action of your own... yes, thanks aren't extra, they're good manners.

 

Anyone who has lived or even travelled in other countries or learned foreign languages has noticed that what is considered as good manners isn't the same everywhere. They differ even inside one country according to social class, age, gender and region.

 

Actually I thank a lot. But I have learned that it's not always reveiced well ("do you think that I am pitiable that you must encourage me"). 

 

However, one of best advice I have ever got was: "your work is not you". If it's criticized, I am not offended but interested how to get it better. If it's praised, I am curious to know what it gave to the other. I don't take neither personally.    

[lucindabelle]

i have traveled a lot. your assumption that i haven't is a little irritating.

 

i do know that manners vary. i was trying to explain why people do this here. if you care about being perceived as having good manners, than take into account that someone will expect a response if they say something nice about you.

 

i certainly dont think saying thank you implies pity and i find it odd that anyone would.

as for your work is not you-- it can, however, be VERY close to one's heart. ask an artist! and who said we were only talking about work, anyway?

i certainly agree that constructive criticism can be very useful. but it all depends on context.

 

in THIS context, mary's support of edith is rightfully taken as surprising and notable. mary could privately think she agrees. she took the trouble to SAY so.

[Camera One]

I'm glad they brought back Gwen for the final season.  Though I was a disappointed she was a tad uppity and wanted to hide her past.  I wasn't as moved by the mention of Sybil as I thought I would be.

 

It's the fourth episode in, and while I don't mind a slow pace, I'm not fond of repetition.  The hospital business has been played to the ground, and it's depriving us of good Violet/Isobel moments as friends, which I enjoyed in recent seasons.  I hate the sniping and was afraid Violet would have a heart attack out of anger or something.  Likewise, making Daisy so shrill and hotheaded is too much, and is ruining her character.  It was a tad obvious where they were going when that servant guy mentioned he wanted to stay in the country.

 

Mary and Talbot have no chemistry.  Why was Mary so against Mr. Mason?  For the same reason as Robert?  Even though Mr. Mason was old, wouldn't he have enough experience to help?

[TaurusRose]

On 10/12/2015 at 9:54 AM, ajsnaves said:

A few years ago a cousin, who is raising three boys, came up to me and asked when my brother and I stopped fighting.  I told her it was when he moved to a different state.  It is amazing what a few area codes between you can do for a sibling relationship.  I've always thought that if Edith would just move to London, she and Mary would start to form a better relationship based on being adults, not the children they act like now. 

It was so nice to see Gwen again.  It is nice to see that even after all these years, Sybil can still shame the Crawley's a bit.  If only they could have worked in the line "You know nothing Jon Snow."

I agree that if Mary and Edith had lived separately, they might have had a better relationship.  I have a big family.  We fought all the time when we were under one roof, but that changed when we grew up and moved out on our own.  Now we get along very well when we get together, and laugh about the good old days when fighting and annoying each other was the only way to go.   I would have thought JF totally lacking if he'd given Gwen the slightest line hinting at RL's involvement with GoT.  That said, I didn't see any trace of Ygritte in Gwen.  Good thing, too, because I really couldn't stand Ygritte, but I found Gwen to be very likable.       

On 10/12/2015 at 10:06 AM, vesperholly said:

Exactly. People in service changed jobs all the time - hello, army of ever-changing house maids. Even with little money, Daisy could easily browse the papers and find something. She could have left to work with Mr. Mason at his farm at any time. I don't recall any time where Daisy expressed an overwhelming desire to stay local. I get that leaving for America is probably a bridge too far, but London is just a train ride away and Northern cities even less so.

Daisy is a pain in the ass because she's all talk and no action.  I'm sick of her shrill complaints and temper tantrums.  If she doesn't like her current situation, change it.  No one is holding her prisoner at Downton Abbey.  If she can't run with the big dogs than STFU and stay on the porch.  Which brings me to Sarah Bunting.  I thought she was the rudest, most uncouth person ever to cross DA's threshold.  I get she had a point of view and that she was all fired up by the winds of change, but that didn't give her an excuse to be so ill-mannered and insulting as a guest in someone's home.  Whatever made her think she was winning a place in Tom's heart acting like that?  I was delighted when she left town without Tom.  And I wanted to smack Daisy in the face for trying to stick her nose in that.  Brunhilda was not right for Tom and he knew it.  

[RedbirdNelly]

On ‎10‎/‎11‎/‎2015 at 4:21 PM, MissLucas said:

I must say I did not have high expectations for Gwen's return but that was extremely well done. The awkwardness, Thomas being his usual manipulating (and self-destructive) self, the call back to Sybil (I had completely forgotten how she had helped Gwen), Tom's face when Gwen talked about her and Lady Mary's almost visible mental *gulp* because she probably remembered the conversation she had with Lady Edith at their sister's deathbed. And then she was actually nice to her sister for a nanosecond (of course she was nice to Anna too but that's not novel.) Well done show!

I loved Gwen's return--it was really nice and for a second I forgot who helped her or that others didn't know that Sybil helped. It was very nice to remember how nice Sybil was and how fun they were together. and nice that once again Thomas gets caught.

[Kenzie]

I'm curious why the English (in this case in Yorkshire) say, "I'm going up to London tomorrow." London is south of Yorkshire so wouldn't that be down?

[Athena]

1 hour ago, Kenzie said:

I'm curious why the English (in this case in Yorkshire) say, "I'm going up to London tomorrow." London is south of Yorkshire so wouldn't that be down?

First, London was socially, culturally, and politically the centre of the UK and the British Empire and it was even important in Roman times so it's a geographic superiority. Second, train lines in Britain have been described as being either up or down. Most of them are going up to London (left side track).

[Kenzie]

10 hours ago, Athena said:

First, London was socially, culturally, and politically the centre of the UK and the British Empire and it was even important in Roman times so it's a geographic superiority. Second, train lines in Britain have been described as being either up or down. Most of them are going up to London (left side track).

Thank you for your excellent explanation!