Who's got questions?

[SusanSunflower]

Edith produced a birth certificate for Mrs. Drewe to see and "understand" (I gathered) that Marigold was Edith's child ... which again is something someone might sleuth out, but which rather surprised me since Edith's plan was to have the child adopted out. I'd guess(?) that father isn't named. If the Swiss family formally adopted Marigold, I'd guess, she has their last name (legally) although we don't know if that adoption was formal and/or if it was legally reversed (and/or how "sealed' Swiss adoption records might have been circa 1920).  I doubt we'll be around when/if Edith decides to do something that requires Marigold have a birth certificate or a passport ... but in the days before faxes and photocopies, delays in presenting necessary paperwork were common enough due to the simple discovery that needed documents were "missing" ... who knows what pretense Edith will want or need to continue if/when Marigold decides to go to Oxford or travel abroad ... 

[Llywela]

Edith placing her illegitimate child with a local farm family to be raised was probably a lot closer to what would have happened in real life than bringing that child into her own household to be raised as a ward - the whole point of farming illegitimate children out to be raised elsewhere was to create distance between child and mother, to avoid scandal, that was the important thing; the comfort of the child was secondary. The child is never going to enjoy the same social status as the Crawleys, even as their 'ward' - she will have a much more privileged upbringing as their ward than she would as a farmer's daughter, to be sure, but what really mattered, at that time, was preserving respectability - placing her with the farmer's family did that for both parties: Edith wasn't outed as a 'fallen woman' and Marigold wasn't outed as a 'bastard'. The Drewes were a respectable local family who'd have given her a secure and respectable home. That was what mattered. Privilege and social status didn't come into it, since as a 'bastard' Marigold had neither to begin with. The way things are, with Edith playing mother to her daughter as a 'ward' - emotionally satisfying, perhaps, but not the most realistic scenario.

 

As for Marigold's surname, goodness only knows. Her birth certificate says Crawley, but she can't be called that in public. She wasn't legally adopted by the Drewes, so doesn't have their name. It seems unfair to give her the Schroeders' name when she was removed from them, but it's the only other name that can be used, short of just making something up! The official story remains that she is the orphaned daughter of a friend of Mr Drewe, taken in by the Crawleys because the Drewes couldn't cope (the unfairness of that story, after everything, still rankles).

Edited March 4, 2016 by Llywela

[PRgal]

I'm sure the Crawleys might not be thinking about this just yet, but by the 1920s-1930s, more and more girls in their social position were attending schools rather than being educated by governesses.  Wouldn't Marigold be outed someway or another if Edith decides to send her to a school? 

[caligirl50]

 

"...the comfort of the child was secondary."

 

For children of that era, even aristocrats.  Boys were sent away to boarding school at age 7.  How screwed up is that?  It’s too young.

Edited March 4, 2016 by caligirl50

[Dejana]

I'm sure the Crawleys might not be thinking about this just yet, but by the 1920s-1930s, more and more girls in their social position were attending schools rather than being educated by governesses. Wouldn't Marigold be outed someway or another if Edith decides to send her to a school?

I suppose Marigold would be more exposed to gossipy teachers and schoolmates, but they could probably enroll her without a birth certificate in those days, or procure a forged one, if absolutely necessary (though it would open the family up to potential blackmail, again). Records were all on paper and much harder to verify...with a "birth certificate" or school records, she could later get a driver's license, then that could help her get a passport, then the passport helps if she ever goes to get married, and if she has children, they'd be issued real birth documents. In time, she'd have enough real documents actually issued by the government that she wouldn't have to present the faked birth certificate at all, should she need to prove her identity.

[PRgal]

I suppose Marigold would be more exposed to gossipy teachers and schoolmates, but they could probably enroll her without a birth certificate in those days, or procure a forged one, if absolutely necessary (though it would open the family up to potential blackmail, again). Records were all on paper and much harder to verify...with a "birth certificate" or school records, she could later get a driver's license, then that could help her get a passport, then the passport helps if she ever goes to get married, and if she has children, they'd be issued real birth documents. In time, she'd have enough real documents actually issued by the government that she wouldn't have to present the faked birth certificate at all, should she need to prove her identity.

 

That's probably true.  I've always known my grandmother (a contemporary of Marigold) by a certain name and just two months ago, I found out that was NOT the name her parents gave her at birth.  The name she used was on all her legal documents, including immigration papers and all government issued ID she had here in Canada.  It was a name she had pretty much all her life - even in school, from what I understand.  However, I thought it was just because things were a little more disorganized in Macau back then. 

[Kohola3]

Same thing with me - when preparing for my grandmother's birthday many years ago (she was born in 1888) I found her birth certificate and her first name was different than the one she had on other paperwork such as her marriage license.  Guess there wasn't a lot of ways to double check things back then.

[arty]

 

the whole point of farming illegitimate children out to be raised elsewhere was to create distance between child and mother, to avoid scandal, that was the important thing; the comfort of the child was secondary. The child is never going to enjoy the same social status as the Crawleys, even as their 'ward' - she will have a much more privileged upbringing as their ward than she would as a farmer's daughter, to be sure, but what really mattered, at that time, was preserving respectability

 

The official story remains that she is the orphaned daughter of a friend of Mr Drewe, taken in by the Crawleys because the Drewes couldn't cope (the unfairness of that story, after everything, still rankles).

 

I had forgotten that was the official story. It would have made more sense and spared a lot of heartache for everyone involved, IMO, to have Isobel raise Marigold as her ward and make Edith the very-involved godmother. 

 

A few years ago I watched the Keira Knightley movie The Duchess, which was the story of the first wife of the 5th Duke of Devonshire. While married, she became pregnant by future Prime Minister Charles Grey, and the child, Eliza Courtney, was raised by Grey's parents. It wasn't ideal but at least she grew up within the same social circle as her parents and went on to have a life of relative privilege. Her story was the one in the back of my mind when the Marigold storyline was being played out.

 

Thanks to everyone who responded to my questions!

[Avaleigh]

I had forgotten that was the official story. It would have made more sense and spared a lot of heartache for everyone involved, IMO, to have Isobel raise Marigold as her ward and make Edith the very-involved godmother. 

 

A few years ago I watched the Keira Knightley movie The Duchess, which was the story of the first wife of the 5th Duke of Devonshire. While married, she became pregnant by future Prime Minister Charles Grey, and the child, Eliza Courtney, was raised by Grey's parents. It wasn't ideal but at least she grew up within the same social circle as her parents and went on to have a life of relative privilege. Her story was the one in the back of my mind when the Marigold storyline was being played out.

 

Thanks to everyone who responded to my questions!

 

I remember suggesting that Rosamund become Marigold's guardian and if not her then Isobel. I think Isobel would have played along had she been entrusted with the truth. Very odd that they wouldn't think that she's considered to be trustworthy. I feel like either of those situations would have been preferable to what happened with the Schroeders and the Drewes.

 

I read the Amanda Foreman book on Georgiana and I remember being surprised at the time at just how many of Georgiana's contemporaries gave birth to illegitimate children and still managed to hang onto their social positions. The really clever ones like Elizabeth Melbourne were able to pass off their illegitimate children as their husband's. Georgiana's sister got away with having two illegitimate children as did Georgiana's BFF Elizabeth Foster. 

[Roseanna]

I had forgotten that was the official story. It would have made more sense and spared a lot of heartache for everyone involved, IMO, to have Isobel raise Marigold as her ward and make Edith the very-involved godmother. 

 

A few years ago I watched the Keira Knightley movie The Duchess, which was the story of the first wife of the 5th Duke of Devonshire. While married, she became pregnant by future Prime Minister Charles Grey, and the child, Eliza Courtney, was raised by Grey's parents. It wasn't ideal but at least she grew up within the same social circle as her parents and went on to have a life of relative privilege. Her story was the one in the back of my mind when the Marigold storyline was being played out.

 

 

 

I remember suggesting that Rosamund become Marigold's guardian and if not her then Isobel. I think Isobel would have played along had she been entrusted with the truth. Very odd that they wouldn't think that she's considered to be trustworthy. I feel like either of those situations would have been preferable to what happened with the Schroeders and the Drewes.

 

I read the Amanda Foreman book on Georgiana and I remember being surprised at the time at just how many of Georgiana's contemporaries gave birth to illegitimate children and still managed to hang onto their social positions. The really clever ones like Elizabeth Melbourne were able to pass off their illegitimate children as their husband's. Georgiana's sister got away with having two illegitimate children as did Georgiana's BFF Elizabeth Foster. 

 

No doubt your suggestions would have "spared everyone heartache", but would they have made a good plot?

[Artymouse]

I was just thinking about when Violet told Isobel the story of her dalliance with Prince Kuragin. At the end of the story, Violet says, "We were the Edwardians." But if I remember my history correctly, didn't the Edwardian era begin after Queen Victoria's death in 1900 or 1901? If the dalliance happened in 1900, then Violet was already a grandmother, and I have a hard time imagining that whole scenario taking place at that point in time.

 

Wouldn't that have happened in the Victorian era? I'm thinking 1870s-1880s -- if Robert and Rosamund were meant to be children during this time -- and that was the heart of Victoria's reign. Or am I overthinking all of this?

[caligirl50]

 

If the dalliance happened in 1900, then Violet was already a grandmother, and I have a hard time imagining that whole scenario taking place at that point in time.

 

The dalliance happened at the very beginning of her marriage.  The date was said in the episode but it was way before 1900.

[moonb]

You're correct. The Edwardian era only began in 1901 after Victoria died. If Robert and Rosamund were children Violet would never have seen again, we're talking more like 1870s, maybe. Mary was born in 1891, so Robert would have married Cora in 1890 or earlier.  Before Edward VII took the throne in 1901, there hadn't been an Edward for a couple of centuries at least.

 

Although, Edward VII was supposedly pretty famous for being a playboy with a mistress or two in addition to his wife, so maybe it's a throwaway reference to that? I guess Violet saying "we were Victorians" would have called repression and prudery to mind. 

[arty]

 

No doubt your suggestions would have "spared everyone heartache", but would they have made a good plot?

We'll never know. At any rate, these suggestions would have served Edith better in the eyes of the audience than the storyline we got, I imagine.

[kassygreene]

If by Edwardians she meant part of the Marlborough House Set, then it's probably just a nod to those viewers not intimate with Victorian Era aristocratic cliques.  

[Atlanta]

If by Edwardians she meant part of the Marlborough House Set, then it's probably just a nod to those viewers not intimate with Victorian Era aristocratic cliques.  

Makes me think of Wharton's "The Buccaneers." The mini-series is pretty good though much grittier than DA. You can find it on Netflix and Youtube. Carla Gugino and Mira Sorvino are in it. I think Mira's Conchita is supposed to be inspired by Consuelo Vanderbilt who was part of the Marlborough set.

[Artymouse]

If by Edwardians she meant part of the Marlborough House Set, then it's probably just a nod to those viewers not intimate with Victorian Era aristocratic cliques.  

 

Thanks, that's an interesting article. So I guess Edward was influencing society for many years before he made it to the throne, which makes sense when you think he was around 60 when he finally became king.

[caligirl50]

I have more questions:

1) How much money does everyone think the Crawley’s have?  The family just gets bigger and bigger and Tom made a comment how the estate is not making any money.  It’s been years since Mr. Swire’s money came to them.  I would think at this point they’d be broke again.

2) Can Michelle Dockery really ride like she does?  Can she really ride sidesaddle?  I’ve always wondered.

 

:0]

[Athena]

I have more questions:

1) How much money does everyone think the Crawley’s have?  The family just gets bigger and bigger and Tom made a comment how the estate is not making any money.  It’s been years since Mr. Swire’s money came to them.  I would think at this point they’d be broke again.

2) Can Michelle Dockery really ride like she does?  Can she really ride sidesaddle?  I’ve always wondered.

 

:0]

 

Speculating about the money seems to be a lost cause since it's implied that Tom and Mary have really been able to maintain the Swire money to keep Downton afloat now. They've made changes to make the estate self-sufficient. They've downsized most of the staff and sold some things off or re-invested land.

 

Michelle Dockery did train and ride for the show, but as in all shows, there are riding doubles. I don't think she is the one doing the sidesaddle or for very long since that is moe difficult.

[jschoolgirl]

I posted this in the episode thread, but perhaps this one gets different traffic.

I looked at the wedding pictures again, and Mrs. Pelham was sporting a tiara. Did non-titled but well-born women wear them?

I noticed Edith skipped the Grantham tiara the second time, but I wonder if Sybbie or Marigold would be eligible, so to speak, to wear it when the time comes? I realize World War II will make such considerations very trivial.

[Athena]

I looked at the wedding pictures again, and Mrs. Pelham was sporting a tiara. Did non-titled but well-born women wear them?

I noticed Edith skipped the Grantham tiara the second time, but I wonder if Sybbie or Marigold would be eligible, so to speak, to wear it when the time comes? I realize World War II will make such considerations very trivial.

 

Tiaras came more in fashion in the 18th century so they were made for wealthy women, titled or not. It was a better and fancier piece of jewellery for them. I think Mrs Pelham got hers as part of the inheritance from Bertie being Marquess. The family probably had a tiara. It would probably go to Edith. Maybe it was a way for Bertie to put his mother in a better mood.

 

Tiaras are worn for white tie generally. There is no reason why any of the upstairs women would not wear them since they are family heirlooms.

[Badger]

Actually, the investment Robert made was a very good one on paper.  However, the man who owned the company died, and his heirs pretty much ran it into the ground.  The problem was that Robert had sunk all his money into it. 

 

The Fife princesses are good examples of women inheriting titles in their own right.  They were granddaughters of King Edward VII.  When their father married Princess Louise of Wales in 1889, he was the Earl of Fife.  Queen Victoria made him Duke of Fife.  He and Louise had two daughters, Lady Alexandra Duff in 1891 and Lady Maude in 1893.   Queen Victoria recreated the title of Duke of Fife in 1900 with a special remainder allowing his daughters to succeed him.  Alexandra did so in 1912.  In 1906, King Edward VII made Louise the Princess Royal and elevated her daughters to the rank and style of Highness and Princess of the United Kingdom with precedence after Royal Highnesses.  Alexandra became a Royal Highness when she married Prince Arthur of Connaught, who was the son and heir of HRH The Duke of Connaught.  They had one son, Prince Alastair.  After King George V limited the rank of Prince and Princess to grandchildren of the Monarch in the male line, he became Earl of MacDuff.  Prince Arthur predeceased his father so Alastair became heir to both the titles of Duke of Fife and Duke of Connaught.  He succeeded his grandfather in 1942, but died in 1943, predeceasing his mother.

 

Maude married Lord Carnegie who was heir to the Earl of Southesk in 1923 and was generally referred to as Lady Maude Carnegie after that.    They also had one son, The Hon. James Carnegie, born in 1929.  Lord Carnegie became Earl of Southesk in 1941 Maude died in 1945 so James became heir to his aunt's title and his father's.  Princess Arthur died in 1959 so he became Duke of Fife then.  However, his father, the Earl of Southesk lived on until 1992.  Upon his death, James's son David who had been using the courtesy title of Earl of MacDuff, began using the title of Earl of Southesk as his courtesy title.  James died last year so David is now Duke of Fife and his eldest son Charles is Earl of Southesk.

 

Regarding servants' baths, they probably used cold water for the most part.  It was more than likely a case of get in, soap up, rinse off, get out.  I imagine if they wanted to use hot water, they'd have to get permission from either Mr. Carson or Mrs. Hughes.

 

Although Mary can never be Countess or Dowager Countess unless Henry gets a title, she can petition to have the precedence of the title after George inherits. 

[Popples]

Tiaras came more in fashion in the 18th century so they were made for wealthy women, titled or not. It was a better and fancier piece of jewellery for them. I think Mrs Pelham got hers as part of the inheritance from Bertie being Marquess. The family probably had a tiara. It would probably go to Edith. Maybe it was a way for Bertie to put his mother in a better mood.

 

Tiaras are worn for white tie generally. There is no reason why any of the upstairs women would not wear them since they are family heirlooms.

 

In How to Marry an English Lord, it states that only married women could wear tiaras. I don't know how Bertie's mother acquired hers (from the marquess inheritance, maybe her parents were well off enough to afford to buy her one on her wedding day), but that's why she could wear one. I think soon after Mary married Matthew she was sporting one as well. I could be wrong, it's been a while since I've seen those episodes.

[helenamonster]

Michelle Dockery did train and ride for the show, but as in all shows, there are riding doubles. I don't think she is the one doing the sidesaddle or for very long since that is moe difficult.

 

Not to mention that if, God forbid, something had happened to her during a particularly dangerous riding scene, the show would have been in a real pickle.

[AndySmith]

Although Mary can never be Countess or Dowager Countess unless Henry gets a title, she can petition to have the precedence of the title after George inherits.

 

She can petition...but she wouldn't Countess or Dowager Countess even if Henry got a title. She would get the title of whatever title Henry got (which would usually be Baron, Baronet, or Knight if he is awarded a title), but sadly, short of petitioning, she will never be the Countess or Dowager Countess of Grantham.

[ShadowFacts]

My question is why did Thomas refer to his new employer as Sir Mark?  I don't remember ever hearing anyone on this show ever being referred to as Sir First Name before.  It seems so informal.

[AndySmith]

They always referred to Anthony Strallan, as Sir Anthony, as he was a Baronet. Richard Carlisle was also addressed as Sir, making him either a Baronet also or possibly a Knight.

 

Sir Mark was probably also a Baronet or Knight, which would explain why he was addressed as Sir.

Edited March 11, 2016 by AndySmith

[Artymouse]

They always referred to Anthony Strallan, as Sir Anthony, as he was a Baronet. Richard Carlisle was also addressed as Sir, making him either a Baronet also or possibly a Knight.

 

Sir Mark was probably also a Baronet or Knight, which would explain why he was addressed as Sir.

 

Thanks for the explanation; I was thinking about asking that same question. 

 

And this may be a question too complex for a quick answer, and I may just need to read a book. but here goes. They talk about the estate being a major employer for the village, and that the estate basically "owns" most of the village. How much ownership does that entail? For example, a person who has a shop in the village, would that person be required to pay rent for the business to the estate, or a portion of profits or something? I may be overthinking (which would not be unusual), but is there a quick, simple explanation for how that all works?

[ShadowFacts]

They always referred to Anthony Strallan, as Sir Anthony, as he was a Baronet. Richard Carlisle was also addressed as Sir, making him either a Baronet also or possibly a Knight.

 

Sir Mark was probably also a Baronet or Knight, which would explain why he was addressed as Sir.

 

Thanks, and duh, I just re-viewed the early episodes with Sir Anthony and didn't remember that.  It's sort of endearing, that use of the first name.

[AndySmith]

Hah...I love how it was informal, and now it is endearing ;)

[ShadowFacts]

That's what I like about it and find endearing -- the seeming informality in a world where everything is so very stratified and people are so aware of their social superiors and inferiors.  That someone like Thomas would be calling his employer by his first name, I like it.  To my American ears it's a bit akin to people calling elder women Miss First Name. 

[AndySmith]

Technically, he isn't calling him by his first name...the important part is the "Sir" preceding it. It isn't informal, it's actually following the correct protocol. Addressing him in any other way would have probably been a faux pas. There are rules to addressing people who have the precedence of Sir, and Thomas was just following them. The whole system is a weird one.

 

Why are Knights and Baronets addressed by Sir <First Name>?

[ShadowFacts]

Yes, as I said, the seeming informality.  As with the American Miss Daisy, for example.  The show of respect is there, but with a humanizing touch.  The why of the use of the first name interests me, as well.  Is the female counterpart Dame?

 

[AndySmith]

Well, it depends. As per debretts' website (I put it as a spoiler because it's a long piece of text).

 

For a Baronetess in her own right:

 

"When a lady inherits a baronetcy she is known as a Baronetess, with the official style of 'Dame Alice Gilbert, Btss'."

 

For the wife of a Baronet:

 

"If a baronet's wife has a courtesy title in her own right, this should be included as follows: Lady Mary Stratton (if the daughter of a duke, marquess or earl), or The Hon Lady Stratton (if the daughter of a viscount or baron). The wife of Scottish baronet who uses his territorial designation should be so addressed, eg Lady Grant of Monymusk.

 

The wife of a baronet has the style 'Lady' before her surname. The old-fashioned style of 'Dame', followed by her forenames and surname (eg Dame Mary Stratton), is no longer in use, but is retained for legal documents. It is useful for legal purposes because it allows for the identification of a particular Lady Brown (for example) by the use of her forenames.

 

In circumstances where there could be uncertainty as to the identification of a Lady Stratton (for example), 'Lady' may be followed by the forename in brackets. This form is often used in publications and in newspaper announcements."

 

As for Knights:

 

"The wife of a knight is known as 'Lady', followed by her surname, and she is addressed as for the wife of a baronet.  The old-fashioned style of 'Dame', followed by forename and surname, eg Dame Edith Waverton, is no longer in general use, but is retained for legal documents.

 

If there is possible confusion between two ladies of the same surname it is permissible in correspondence for the lady's forename to be inserted in brackets between title and surname.  This form is often used in publications and in newspaper announcements.

A knight's wife should never be addressed as 'Lady Edith Waverton' (ie with the inclusion of her forename) unless she is the daughter of a duke, marquess or earl.

 

If a knight's wife bears the courtesy title of 'The Hon', this style precedes 'Lady Smith', eg The Hon Lady Shepherd.

 

The wife of a Church of England clergyman who receives a knighthood, but is not eligible to receive the accolade, continues to be addressed as, for example, ‘Mrs John Shepherd’, but she has the precedence of a knight’s wife. The wife of an honorary knight is also addressed as ‘Mrs John Shepherd’."

 

As for a Dame:

 

"A Dame is the female equivalent of a knight of an order of chivalry. Similarly, the title is always used in conjunction with the forename.

 

The recipient is allowed to use the prefix and appropriate letters from the date of the announcement in the London Gazette, e.g. Dame Irene Wood, DBE.

 

A peeress (including female peers in their own right, and the wives of holders of peerage titles by courtesy) who is appointed a dame adds the appropriate letters after her name, e.g. ‘The Baroness Beever, LG, DCB’.

 

The daughter of a duke, marquess or earl who is appointed a dame adds the appropriate letters after her name, e.g. Lady Mary Waverton, DBE.

 

If a wife or widow of a baronet or knight is appointed a dame she is usually known as Dame Irene Wood, DBE, but some ladies prefer to continue their former style of Lady Wood, DBE.

A lady who is styled 'The Hon', who is appointed a dame, is addressed 'The Hon Dame Mary Avers, DBE'.

 

When a dame of an Order of Chivalry is gazetted by her professional, rather than her legal, name she usually prefers to be so addressed, e.g. Dame Judi Dench, CH, DBE.

 

A husband does not derive any style or title from his wife, nor do the children of knights and dames derive any style or title from their parents."

Edited March 12, 2016 by AndySmith

[helenamonster]

Is the female counterpart Dame?

 

Yes. Like around these parts you'll sometimes see people refer to Maggie Smith as Dame Maggie, which is usually in jest but actually the formal way to address her (or I suppose the most formal would be Dame Margaret).

[AndySmith]

Just for fun, as per her wiki page, Maggie Smith's full title would be Dame Margaret Natalie Smith, CH, DBE. Judi Dench is Dame Judith Olivia "Judi" Dench, CH, DBE, FRSA. But yeah, if you're addressing a Dame verbally to her face, it would be Dame <First Name>. If you're mentioning her in a conversation, if would be Dame <First Name> <Last Name>.

 

If you are wondering what all those letter are, CH = Order of the Companions of Honour, DBE = Order of the British Empire, and FRSA = Royal Society of Arts.The DBE is the part that makes them a Dame.

 

Interestingly, most times I've heard people mentioning them, I've always heard people say Dame Maggie Smith and Dame Judi Dench, as opposed to using Margaret or Judith.

Edited March 12, 2016 by AndySmith

[Popples]

Interestingly, most times I've heard people mentioning them, I've always heard people say Dame Maggie Smith and Dame Judi Dench, as opposed to using Margaret or Judith.

 

I guess people use the name they're most called. Paul McCartney's first name is James, but everyone calls him "Sir Paul."

[Lonesome Rhodes]

Not to mention that if, God forbid, something had happened to her during a particularly dangerous riding scene, the show would have been in a real pickle.

I saw in an interview Michelle relate that she had fallen in almost the precise fashion we saw in the show.  But, yes, that was a double who took the fall in that scene.

[AndySmith]

I guess people use the name they're most called. Paul McCartney's first name is James, but everyone calls him "Sir Paul."

 

Wow...apparently, Maggie and Judi outrank Paul! Looking up some random names online, Maggie and Judi > Ian Mckellen > Patrick Stewart > Paul McCartney...even among Knights, there is ranking and order of precedence.

Edited March 13, 2016 by AndySmith

[Lonesome Rhodes]

Was there any mention of the now Queen Mother being pregnant with now Queen Elizabeth, who was born four months after the show ended (1/1/26)?  Certainly, the birth of the potential heir to George VI would have been a subject of conversation at Downton, yes?

[Llywela]

Was there any mention of the now Queen Mother being pregnant with now Queen Elizabeth, who was born four months after the show ended (1/1/26)?  Certainly, the birth of the potential heir to George VI would have been a subject of conversation at Downton, yes?

Not really, because at the time of her birth Elizabeth was just the daughter of the spare and no one dreamed she'd actually inherit the throne someday - her uncle was heir apparent and could reasonably have been expected to marry and beget a line of his own. In 1925, no one saw Edward's abdication coming - it came as a huge shock in 1936. Elizabeth's birth would have generated an amount of public interest, sure, but just as the birth of any royal generates public interest - in 1925, no one would have dreamed that Prince Bertie's daughter would one day be queen. So no, there's not really any reason for the Downton crew to comment on a pregnant minor royal in 1925. They might comment on the birth itself, but that hadn't happened as of the end of the series, and given the constraints of cramming storylines for that many characters into each episode, there would have to be a very good plot reason to expend screentime on such commentary!

[paloma58]

And,that far back, were pending pregnancies even announced? Wasn't it something along the lines of HRH so and so is withdrawing from public appearances for the next xx months? And then the birth would be announced?

[Constantinople]

In 1925, no one saw Edward's abdication coming

 

Lady Mary did!  Back in the Season 4 Christmas Special, which I think corresponds to 1923.

 

Anna: So it was a happy ending, My Lady?  A hapy ending for the Prince?

 

Lady Mary: A crisis for the monarchy has been averted, although given his character, I wonder if we won't see another before he's finished.

Unbelievable, isn't it?

[PRgal]

And,that far back, were pending pregnancies even announced? Wasn't it something along the lines of HRH so and so is withdrawing from public appearances for the next xx months? And then the birth would be announced?

 

Isn't that "code" for The Duchess of York is expecting? 

[AndySmith]

Growing up in Kuwait, we had a similar "code" for Kuwaiti girls in our high school who took sudden trips to Switzerland...ie, they were pregnant and had to "take care of the situation"...and unlike Edith, it wasn't a long 8 or 9 month trip, it was only a few week or two.

[paloma58]

Yes, that was the 'code' before everyone became so fascinated with baby bump watch.....

[Trillian]

1. Cora is called Lady Grantham, while Rosamund is Lady Rosamund. I'm guessing it's related to the aristocratic hierarchy, but how.?

?

Late to the party, but a further complication to women's titles: Rosamund is Lady Rosamund, ie, Lady [first name] because she was born to it. She is Lady Rosamund regardless of whom she marries. Cora is Lady Grantham, ie Lady [last name] because the title is hers only by virtue of her marriage - the "Lady" is roughly the equivalent of "Mrs".

The distinction between being born to it and marrying into it is apparently an issue among royal and aristocratic circles, with those born to a title apparently looking down on those who married into it, even if the latter may technically outrank them (as the case may be).

[AndySmith]

Cora is Lady Grantham, ie Lady [last name]

 

Technically, Cora isn't Lady [last name], its Lady [official title], ie, she wouldn't be called Lady Crawley.

 

Lady [last name] is usually how the wife of a baronet or knight would be addressed, with the last name being her husband's last name.

 

She is Lady Rosamund regardless of whom she marries

 

Well, if she marries someone who isn't titled. If she marries someone titled, it would change, just as Edith went from Lady Edith to Lady Hexham.

Edited March 25, 2016 by AndySmith

[Trillian]

Isnt that because, if she marries a title, she moves up? But if she divorced, she'd still be entitled to Lady first name, wouldn't she?

I'm thinking of Diana Spencer, who, of course, was never properly Princess Diana (whatever the press said), who was quoted as saying at least she could revert to Lady Diana if they took away her marriage titles at divorce.

[AndySmith]

Isnt that because, if she marries a title, she moves up? But if she divorced, she'd still be entitled to Lady first name, wouldn't she?

 

Not exactly. If Edith got divorced, her title would now be Edith, Marchioness of Hexham, and she'd still be addressed verbally as Lady Hexham, until she remarries. Now, if Mary got divorced, she'd still be Lady Mary Talbot, or she could go back to her maiden name and be Lady Mary Crawley again. But she'd still be addressed as Lady Mary. Mary's title would only change if 1) Henry himself was awarded a title or 2) she divorces Henry and marries someone else with a title or 3) she is awarded a title in her own right (like baroness or if she is knighted).

 

Diana did have the title of Princess, even after her divorce, the issue is she couldn't be addressed as Princess Diana (only women born as a Princess get that honor). Her full title while married was Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Chester. That's a lot of titles lol. Post divorce her title was Diana, Princess of Wales, minus the HRH bit.

Edited March 25, 2016 by AndySmith