millennium February 25, 2016 Share February 25, 2016 The characters on the show seemed hell bent on convincing all who would listen that Henry is RIGHT for Mary, but did anyone consider whether Henry was right for the future of Downton Abbey? As Mary's husband, he is bound to have significant influence, even if indirectly, on the estate's future. Does he have the character, determination and resourcefulness to be a custodian of such a treasure? Will he use Mary's wealth to his own ends? Will he become resentful of Branson for having more say in the estate's welfare? Some will argue Mary will prevent such things from ever coming to pass but I am not so sure. A woman who can be browbeaten into marriage doesn't strike me as a pillar of strength. 6 Link to comment
albaniantv February 25, 2016 Share February 25, 2016 Robert seems to be one of few upstairs characters who expect Cora to help resolve family problems or squabbles. Tom went right to Violet when he was looking for someone to take Mary and Edith in hand. Maybe Cora was exhausted from her recent (and perhaps only?) effective opposition to Violet in that dreary, endless hospital story. Much is made of Donk's relationship to the grandchildren, but Cora is not often front and central. Back in season one when she took charge of the Pamuk removal, I thought a certain American spunk or flair was what Fellowes had in mind for Cora. Other than when she partly blamed Robert for Sybil's death, I can't remember any other occasions when her point of view was particularly assertive or pivotal to the plot. There must have been some --I'm just blanking. (And no, I wouldn't count as pivotal that little nothing flirtation she had with the guy who helped her with that family painting. ) Ultimately, I felt Fellowes was sort of bored with Cora and might even have forgotten about her some episodes. 1 Link to comment
Constantinople February 25, 2016 Share February 25, 2016 Sybil really must be a saint working miracles in heaven if she can get Edith to show up to Mary's wedding just a few days after what Mary pulled. 7 Link to comment
SusanSunflower February 25, 2016 Share February 25, 2016 Cora's lack of development was quite a let down after quite a build up -- I expected her to befriend both Matthew and Isobel as someone also "not born to it" ... and to act more as "American eyes" as sop to the American audience ... When Martha Levinson, by reputation her mother, showed up resulting in a very strange mother/daughter relationship (almost none, embarassingly so) with absolutely no exposition of Cora's adjustment to life at the "manor," and the awfulness of all things American played to the hilt -- I realized Fellowes had very strange priorities and prejudices. Cora was so ditzy and disconnected, for years I assumed she would be revealed to be a closet laudanum user (because I could not believe she would NEVER have a story arc). There was so much delirious press over McGovern, it never occurred to me that she'd have less "to do" than ... anyone ... upstairs or downstairs... Again, I assumed she had been brow-beaten into submission by 20 years of Violet's disapproval and Robert's conflict avoidance ... nope ... I hope she was paid generously. 9 Link to comment
izabella February 25, 2016 Share February 25, 2016 (edited) Robert seems to be one of few upstairs characters who expect Cora to help resolve family problems or squabbles. Tom went right to Violet when he was looking for someone to take Mary and Edith in hand. I would have liked to have seen a scene with Violet and Edith as well as her scene with Mary. Back in season one when she took charge of the Pamuk removal, I thought a certain American spunk or flair was what Fellowes had in mind for Cora. Other than when she partly blamed Robert for Sybil's death, I can't remember any other occasions when her point of view was particularly assertive or pivotal to the plot. There must have been some --I'm just blanking. Once she found out about Marigold, she was pivotal in bringing her to Downtown. She even wanted to tell Robert who Marigold really was, but deferred to Edith. But you're right - Cora has not had much of a point of view. Edited February 25, 2016 by izabella Link to comment
moonb February 25, 2016 Share February 25, 2016 Yeah, I'm another one who liked Cora's rare moments of steeliness - Pamuk, her viciousness to Robert after Sybil's death, the Marigold situation. Too bad they were dropped after an episode or two; I was hoping that would add to Cora's character. She really didn't have many scenes with Tom either after Sybil's death, or with Isobel after Matthew's death. It's a strange omission. And Rosamund really took over Edith's pregnancy storyline - one of the few times she wasn't just the Aunt in London for convenience (though her actress has other commitments, right?). Which was probably a good thing. Rosamund might identify with Edith over her position in the family, but she also came off as much sharper and smarter than Robert or Cora in trying to guide Edith through her impossible choices. Even if she wasn't always kind about it. 4 Link to comment
sark1624 February 25, 2016 Share February 25, 2016 Cora's lack of development was quite a let down after quite a build up -- I expected her to befriend both Matthew and Isobel as someone also "not born to it" ... and to act more as "American eyes" as sop to the American audience ... When Martha Levinson, by reputation her mother, showed up resulting in a very strange mother/daughter relationship (almost none, embarassingly so) with absolutely no exposition of Cora's adjustment to life at the "manor," and the awfulness of all things American played to the hilt -- I realized Fellowes had very strange priorities and prejudices. Cora was so ditzy and disconnected, for years I assumed she would be revealed to be a closet laudanum user (because I could not believe she would NEVER have a story arc). There was so much delirious press over McGovern, it never occurred to me that she'd have less "to do" than ... anyone ... upstairs or downstairs... Again, I assumed she had been brow-beaten into submission by 20 years of Violet's disapproval and Robert's conflict avoidance ... nope ... I hope she was paid generously. Imo that is one of the problems of Cora in not few moments Robert, Mary and Violet had looked her with contemp because she is american, also she said in season 5 that she didnt know what to do when she came to England with 18 yrs, also Violet snaped her very often for her behaviour and for not having a son. So, in the end Cora is a lonely person upstairs, one daughter died in part because of bein pushed away for her husband (she wanted to follow Dr Clarkson advice). Mary look her with contemp because she is american and also Mary was a little rude to her brother and mother, Edith distrust her because Cora put all her effort in marrying Mary first and Edith felt abandoned by her, Sybil is dead, even being the Countess and lady of the manor she must fight everything with Violet and she knows how Violet always has the upper hand with Robert. Robert doesnt listen to her, in season 5 there is a scene when she is asking something about the cottages and Robert cut her telling her that she doesnt need to bother with that... So, the plot about the hospital is not only about health issues, is the same plot that she had about the house being a hospital during the war and finally over ruling Violet. 6 Link to comment
SusanSunflower February 25, 2016 Share February 25, 2016 (edited) yes, on one hand I think Cora is/was a terrible mother ... appearing to almost avoid knowing what was up with her daughters, like not wanting to get involved or extend herself BECAUSE she's so accustomed to being cut out, cut off by Robert or Violet ... and yet, what else is she besides the mother of the girls and wife to Robert (and Robert defers to his mother) ... so there is a tragic quality to her loneliness and superfluousness -- they don't need her, none of them ... and they are as likely to reject her as to "allow" her to participate. And I agree -- when she's allowed to voice and opinion, be consulted, allowed to "vote" ... she seems sensible and capable... utterly paradoxical. I don't know if McGovern "talks like that" in real life, but it jars me in part because when I was a little girl in the 1950's, I knew several very old ladies who talked like that -- a sort of ultra-soft baby-talk faux-adorably sweet voice, one in particular who was in fact not.a.nice.person, whom my mother came to really dispise. It baffles me to see a woman about my own age -- McGovern -- talking like that, post-feminism ... During the 1970's in my early 20's I had to learn to talk "like a grownup" because, like many women, I tended to whisper, speak tentatively in self-deprecating fashion. Thanks Feminism!!! seriously. Edited February 25, 2016 by SusanSunflower 4 Link to comment
Roseanna February 25, 2016 Share February 25, 2016 The characters on the show seemed hell bent on convincing all who would listen that Henry is RIGHT for Mary, but did anyone consider whether Henry was right for the future of Downton Abbey? As Mary's husband, he is bound to have significant influence, even if indirectly, on the estate's future. Does he have the character, determination and resourcefulness to be a custodian of such a treasure? Will he use Mary's wealth to his own ends? Will he become resentful of Branson for having more say in the estate's welfare? Some will argue Mary will prevent such things from ever coming to pass but I am not so sure. A woman who can be browbeaten into marriage doesn't strike me as a pillar of strength. I am fairly sure that Mary will keep Downton's reins solely in her own hands. She married Henry to keep him as her "toy boy". Otherwise I find her choice puzzling. What Mary said to Tom made partly sensible: she had to choose carefully a husband who fit to her way of life. But then she makes no such thing but quite the opposite and marries in a week! No conversations about anything, all past and future problems are left unsolved. (I don't of course mean that they could speak of everything, that's not possible in a show, but at least of something, so that we could see that they can negotiate in peace.) Besides, could lawyers make a marriage contract so swiftly? What do their possible children inherit as Downton will be George's? Link to comment
Roseanna February 25, 2016 Share February 25, 2016 Cora's lack of development was quite a let down after quite a build up -- I expected her to befriend both Matthew and Isobel as someone also "not born to it" ... and to act more as "American eyes" as sop to the American audience ... When Martha Levinson, by reputation her mother, showed up resulting in a very strange mother/daughter relationship (almost none, embarassingly so) with absolutely no exposition of Cora's adjustment to life at the "manor," and the awfulness of all things American played to the hilt -- I realized Fellowes had very strange priorities and prejudices. Cora was so ditzy and disconnected, for years I assumed she would be revealed to be a closet laudanum user (because I could not believe she would NEVER have a story arc). There was so much delirious press over McGovern, it never occurred to me that she'd have less "to do" than ... anyone ... upstairs or downstairs... Again, I assumed she had been brow-beaten into submission by 20 years of Violet's disapproval and Robert's conflict avoidance ... nope ... I hope she was paid generously. Cora's invisible role is a mystery, because Jessica Fellowes tells in her book that Sir Julian actually got the idea for DA from the American heiresses who married English aristocrats who needed their money. As those marriages often failed, it's strange that JF made Robert fall in love with Cora in a year. If they really had had a marriage of convenience, it would better explain the family's dysfunctional problems. As Robert loved Cora, why would he let his mother dominate her? Simply because he was too weak to oppose her? 2 Link to comment
JudyObscure February 25, 2016 Share February 25, 2016 The characters on the show seemed hell bent on convincing all who would listen that Henry is RIGHT for Mary, but did anyone consider whether Henry was right for the future of Downton Abbey? I don't know about them but I've considered it. I think Mary will insist Henry quit racing, and we know Matthew ended up giving her way in everything because otherwise she was unbearable to live with. So Henry will open a car dealership which will be extremely successful as absolutely everyone starts buying cars. His tacky, lower class success in business will save Downton when the depression hits and all the Crawley's clever investments go wellies up. 4 Link to comment
Roseanna February 25, 2016 Share February 25, 2016 I think we're giving men of that period WAY too much credit here for being forward-thinking about women. Women were expected to be virgins when they married, and completely celibate when unmarried. Affairs were considered completely shocking. When a man liked a woman, he certainly didn't think she had as much sexual experience as he had, nor did any man assume that a woman had had affairs, any more than he assumed she must have turned tricks. Thirty years later audiences were still applauding women for slapping a man's face for even insinuating that she might be down for premarital groping, let alone sex. To think way about a woman was to insult her. It is completely understandable that Mary and Edith both hesitated to confide in their fiances. The world was a very different place then. The real world was indeed different, especially regarding a woman's pre-marital sex. But after an aristocratic woman had born an heir and a spare, she could have affairs so long they were secret. This aspect of aristocracy' morality (in private almost everything was allowed, provided one maintained a facade in public) Fellowes totally ignores with Crawleys whose values are rather middle-class than aristocratic. The problem with bigotry is dealt only when Lord Sinderby didn't accept the divorce of Rose's parents, although he himself kept a mistress and had a son by her. However, DA has always only played with the attitudes of the period but in the end the characters have showed themselves to have the liberal attitudes of 21th century. Mary was afraid to tell Matthew about Pamuk but in the end he didn't mind about her lack of virginity at all. Edith was afraid to tell Bertie about Marigold, but in the end he was only hurt because she didn't trust him (whereas irl he would have had to think about the harm a possible scandal would cause to him as a new Marquess, even if he himself didn't mind accepting Marigold). 1 Link to comment
crowceilidh February 25, 2016 Share February 25, 2016 I also hated the sexist column. How funny (not) "My husband doesn't like me anymore." Answer "have you looked into the mirror lately" It's very true to the period -- it definitely would have been considered amusing by most. And for that matter, it's true to the girl magazines I read in my youth (70s and 80s) like Cosmopolitan etc. 1 Link to comment
kassa February 25, 2016 Share February 25, 2016 As Robert loved Cora, why would he let his mother dominate her? Simply because he was too weak to oppose her? In a word? Yes. The world is full of couples at odds over meddlesome inlaws. The public face of morality certainly was sterner "back in the day" but historically speaking, premarital sex has been pretty damn common. People have always said one thing publicly and done another privately. (Even in this series Cora and Robert reference torrid affairs (and possible wife swapping?) at house parties.) Back in colonial times 30-40% of brides were already knocked up. It may have been lower than that post-Victoria, but the essence of the matter stayed the same. As long as the guy married you, everybody looked the other way (after a good snark. Hence the old joke "Babies take 9 months. Except the first one. That can come at any time.") Edith's problem (and Hester Prynne's) was not pre/extramarital sex -- it was that it could not all be "made better" by a quickie marriage. 6 Link to comment
blackwing February 25, 2016 Share February 25, 2016 The characters on the show seemed hell bent on convincing all who would listen that Henry is RIGHT for Mary, but did anyone consider whether Henry was right for the future of Downton Abbey? As Mary's husband, he is bound to have significant influence, even if indirectly, on the estate's future. Does he have the character, determination and resourcefulness to be a custodian of such a treasure? Will he use Mary's wealth to his own ends? Will he become resentful of Branson for having more say in the estate's welfare? Some will argue Mary will prevent such things from ever coming to pass but I am not so sure. A woman who can be browbeaten into marriage doesn't strike me as a pillar of strength. I think Henry and Mary are going to be just fine. It seems a bit unfair to me to criticise Henry since we have seen so little of him other than he loves Mary. We hardly know anything about him, other than he is a "Talbot of Shrewsbury" and there are about 30 strong men in line for the Earldom before him. We never saw anything of his family. Did any of them even come to the wedding? Henry came to Downton with a marriage licence in hand and was apparently determined to get married on Saturday, so he knew in advance what he was planning on doing. Did he not think to invite his parents (Are they even alive?) What about other family members. I found it a bit odd that he asked Tom to be his best man. Not that I don't like Tom. but they've known each other for a few months at best. I guess you can become fast friends in the span of a few months, but doesn't he have any brothers or close friends? Fellowes has apparently deliberately given us very little knowledge about Henry, other than he is tall and handsome and it's about time Mary married again because it's the last season. 4 Link to comment
helenamonster February 25, 2016 Share February 25, 2016 Robert seems to be one of few upstairs characters who expect Cora to help resolve family problems or squabbles. Tom went right to Violet when he was looking for someone to take Mary and Edith in hand. Maybe Cora was exhausted from her recent (and perhaps only?) effective opposition to Violet in that dreary, endless hospital story. Much is made of Donk's relationship to the grandchildren, but Cora is not often front and central. Back in season one when she took charge of the Pamuk removal, I thought a certain American spunk or flair was what Fellowes had in mind for Cora. Other than when she partly blamed Robert for Sybil's death, I can't remember any other occasions when her point of view was particularly assertive or pivotal to the plot. There must have been some --I'm just blanking. (And no, I wouldn't count as pivotal that little nothing flirtation she had with the guy who helped her with that family painting. ) Ultimately, I felt Fellowes was sort of bored with Cora and might even have forgotten about her some episodes. One of my favorite moments where Cora shows some backbone is in S2, when Isobel wants to take over managing Downton as the convalescent home. I say this as someone who loves Isobel, but Cora's, "This is my house!" was a thing of beauty. But yes, unfortunately for the most part, Cora's been a big old plot point. It was her new American money that saved Downton. She couldn't be arsed to have a boy (sarcasm heavily intended) so after that she really served no purpose, either to the characters onscreen or to the show as a whole. I guess you can become fast friends in the span of a few months, but doesn't he have any brothers or close friends? Well, his best friend had just died in a brutal car accident, and he didn't even realize he was his best friend until after he died. Maybe "best" was a synonym for "only." Another thing that bothers me about Mary and Henry getting married so quickly is that there was room for rich conflict regarding what would happen to their children, should they have any. Mary's inheritance from Matthew will go to George, as will the house and estate. George will be titled, but any future brothers or sisters he has will not. Mary did have the line about Henry's stepson having a higher rank than him, but that was it. If Henry (or a similar, non-titled character, like Charles Blake) had been introduced and married to Mary earlier, this could have been a good storyline for them this season, I think, Mary being pregnant to a child entitled to nothing. It would have been a nice parallel to Marigold lacking legitimacy in any way whatsoever (at least by the social mores of the time). That's a plot I would actually be interested in, but unless Mary gets pregnant on the honeymoon and the conflict comes up in the CS, the opportunity was missed. 4 Link to comment
sark1624 February 25, 2016 Share February 25, 2016 I think that the Cora and Robert are simply tired of Mary´s behaviour in this last period in part because they also have discovered new facets in Edith, before seeing her as a professional woman they saw her as the loser or the future spinter, but with Marigold and the magazine they see her with another eyes, i think that they realized what produced their lack of attention in her and also the inner streng of Edith regarding Marigold and how she fought to have her daughter. If we notice, neither in season 5 o 6 Robert or Cora gave more advices (apart from the blackmail attempt) to Mary because in reality Mary already did her job: produce the heir. Also if we notice (and i dont understand why) Mary is a "high maintenance" person, she needs always: her fathers, Violet, Tom, Anna and Carson in comparison Edith doesnt need too much persons in the family to help her (Rosamound and Cora). And i dont remember in wich part Robert slightly mocked about "Mary´s suitors" and also Tom. And also they understood better the negative side of Mary, its very telling when they are discussing why Edith hasnt told about Marigold to Mary and Cora said to Robert that Mary can use that as a weapon and Robert agreed with that. And in this episode in particular i think that they also were very angry with Mary because in the end Mary not only was vicious towards Edith, she was vicious towards Bertie and more importantly towards Marigold (her own grandaughter). And the only person who can put Mary in her place is Violet because in another ocassions she has overruled her mother and father, so in the end we have both parents angry with her daughter and a daughter who dont listend to them. And also i found odd that neither Cora or Robert were extremely happy about her marriage, i think that is was because they only wanted that Mary finally settled in something and stop trying to bring missery to all in the house. 6 Link to comment
JudyObscure February 26, 2016 Share February 26, 2016 I don't think Robert will ever fully forgive Mary for putting the kibosh on their big chance to have a real copper-bottom Marquess in the family. 7 Link to comment
SusanSunflower February 26, 2016 Share February 26, 2016 A lot of people tend to believe that "when push comes to shove" even quite openly selfish people will "come around" and pitch in for common cause ... that there are limits and no-go-zones. Mary really trashed Robert and Cora's assumptions on that score.Even as a matter of simple self-interest, they don't really want to spend the rest of their lives (as they age and deal with various other losses) with their daughters unable to be in the same room together ... oh, gee. Yes, it's very inconvenient when this sort of family division happens, isn't it? (You can "disapprove" or pity such events in other people's families, but when it happens in your own, you realize just how tedious it is when people refuse to get over "stuff"). Edith seems to understand that "there will come a day" when they will need each other; Mary's still not prepared to admit such an eventuality 4 Link to comment
jschoolgirl February 26, 2016 Share February 26, 2016 How old are the children at this point? Link to comment
Dejana February 26, 2016 Share February 26, 2016 (edited) The real world was indeed different, especially regarding a woman's pre-marital sex. But after an aristocratic woman had born an heir and a spare, she could have affairs so long they were secret. This aspect of aristocracy' morality (in private almost everything was allowed, provided one maintained a facade in public) Fellowes totally ignores with Crawleys whose values are rather middle-class than aristocratic. The problem with bigotry is dealt only when Lord Sinderby didn't accept the divorce of Rose's parents, although he himself kept a mistress and had a son by her. However, DA has always only played with the attitudes of the period but in the end the characters have showed themselves to have the liberal attitudes of 21th century. Mary was afraid to tell Matthew about Pamuk but in the end he didn't mind about her lack of virginity at all. Edith was afraid to tell Bertie about Marigold, but in the end he was only hurt because she didn't trust him (whereas irl he would have had to think about the harm a possible scandal would cause to him as a new Marquess, even if he himself didn't mind accepting Marigold). The public face of morality certainly was sterner "back in the day" but historically speaking, premarital sex has been pretty damn common. People have always said one thing publicly and done another privately. (Even in this series Cora and Robert reference torrid affairs (and possible wife swapping?) at house parties.) Back in colonial times 30-40% of brides were already knocked up. It may have been lower than that post-Victoria, but the essence of the matter stayed the same. As long as the guy married you, everybody looked the other way (after a good snark. Hence the old joke "Babies take 9 months. Except the first one. That can come at any time.") Edith's problem (and Hester Prynne's) was not pre/extramarital sex -- it was that it could not all be "made better" by a quickie marriage. Downton Abbey oddly underplayed the adulterous ways of the era's aristocrats, considering that Fellowes likes to dish about those saucy Victorians during interviews. Noblewomen liked tea gowns because they could dress and undress without needing a maid's help—all the better to usher in secret lovers without witnesses. It wasn't that only rich people had affairs, but middle/working class England didn't regard libertine bed-hopping as some sort of leisurely way to pass the time. As for the expectation for unmarried women to be completely "pure", I think in any era, a person can reach an age where society views virginity as less of a virtuous thing than...slightly pathetic (unless someone's in a religious order). Not that it is, just that others see someone as sad and lonely and totally undesirable. Edith is 33, with a "man's job" and her own flat in the big city. People would have been familiar with books, articles and films featuring single city girls who had their (implied) share of fun, more than five years into the Roaring Twenties. I doubt Edith would have felt the need to confess a mere sexual past, like Mary did with Matthew, were there no Marigold. Being a woman who had sex before marriage was viewed differently still than a woman who had a child out of wedlock. If Edith had slept with Michael Gregson and that's all, she probably wouldn't have gone on about him around Bertie, but, IMO, also wouldn't have felt the need to concoct an elaborate wedding night ruse with hidden vials of blood, and whatnot, at that stage in her life. At 18 or 23, perhaps. BTW, was Bertie's "Send me to bed a happy man" comment his way of begging for an answer to the proposal, inviting her into his room, or a little of both? In any case, his reaction to the Marigold news was mild for the times. Edited February 26, 2016 by Dejana 2 Link to comment
moonb February 26, 2016 Share February 26, 2016 (edited) How old are the children at this point? If I'm doing my math right, Sybbie is about 5 or nearly 5 (Sybil died in 1920), George is several months younger, since Matthew died in 1921, and Marigold is around 3, going by Gregson's murder in late 1923. It is indeed one of Downton's black comic jokes that we calculate the children's ages by the deaths of their respective parent. ETA: upon rewatch, another small thing that's evidence of Michelle Dockery's great acting this episode: when Mary is sitting by herself immediately after the breakfast table scene, she looks chagrined at her own behavior, and when she hears Tom coming, her face hardens into its characteristic "Lady Mary haughty mask." Amazing stuff. Edited February 26, 2016 by moonb 10 Link to comment
WatchrTina February 26, 2016 Share February 26, 2016 (edited) Another thing that bothers me about Mary and Henry getting married so quickly is that there was room for rich conflict regarding what would happen to their children, should they have any. Mary's inheritance from Matthew will go to George, as will the house and estate. Yeah, that did ring a bit false. I've read a lot of Anthony Trollope novels and based on that it seems clear that the British aristocracy invented the notion of the "prenup." In those books, absolutely no one with a title or any inherited wealth got married until the lawyers had had their say. Mary would have made sure her inheritance was protected for George (with provisions for any subsequent children) and she would have made sure the wealth Matthew left her remained in her control and did not automatically become the property of her husband (which I think was generally the case if you did not have a pre-nuptual agreement.) Edited February 26, 2016 by WatchrTina 3 Link to comment
BrianJ62 February 26, 2016 Share February 26, 2016 In this show or in real life of the same era(s) I've never heard of anyone talking about men or women having alternative lifestyles. Definitely no one on DA being like Todd Chrisley. Link to comment
shang yiet February 26, 2016 Share February 26, 2016 I wish Fellowes had modelled Cora after Consuelo Vanderbilt and not Carol Brady. McGovern could have had a meatier role playing a bitter unhappy woman who sacrificed her happiness for a title in danger of passing out of the family after three girls and a way of life which was slowing dying. Plus resentment towards her socially ambitious mother just like Consuelo was pushed into marrying a duke. 4 Link to comment
kassa February 26, 2016 Share February 26, 2016 (edited) In this show or in real life of the same era(s) I've never heard of anyone talking about men or women having alternative lifestyles. I forget the term Mrs. Patmore used in the first season when trying to warn Daisy off Thomas -- that he was a "lost soul"? The Bloomsbury group was in full swing in London at the time, and while the Crawleys were basically country folk, certainly Edith seems to be moving around if not in the same circles, enough to be aware of them. Edited February 26, 2016 by kassa 1 Link to comment
Artymouse February 26, 2016 Share February 26, 2016 I forget the term Mrs. Patmore used in the first season when trying to warn Daisy off Thomas -- that he was a "lost soul"? She said he was a "lost soul," and "not a ladies' man" and, I think, "not the boy for you." Then she gave up after realizing Daisy didn't have a clue. 2 Link to comment
meep.meep February 26, 2016 Share February 26, 2016 Of course the most important thing we learned from this episode is that Mrs. Patmore's name is Beryl. She's the least Beryl-ish person ever! And we will be left to eternally speculate whether Mrs. Hughes, Baxter, and the footman glanced at Thomas's wedding vegetables while pulling him out of the tub. 5 Link to comment
RedHawk February 26, 2016 Share February 26, 2016 (edited) I forget the term Mrs. Patmore used in the first season when trying to warn Daisy off Thomas -- that he was a "lost soul"? The Bloomsbury group was in full swing in London at the time, and while the Crawleys were basically country folk, certainly Edith seems to be moving around if not in the same circles, enough to be aware of them. A few episodes back, when Edith gave Rosamund a tour of Michael Gregson's (I mean Edith's!) flat, she said that she had met Virginia Woolf and Lytton Strachey there at one of Michael's parties. Edited February 26, 2016 by RedHawk 2 Link to comment
LadyintheLoop February 26, 2016 Share February 26, 2016 I was livid as the episode was winding down and we could see that Mary would marry and Edith would not, but that last luminous shot of Edith redeemed it all. It's better to see that she'll be all right with her child, her career and her hard-won self-respect. (And if Bertie does come round, that will make it all the sweeter.) And we will be left to eternally speculate whether Mrs. Hughes, Baxter, and the footman glanced at Thomas's wedding vegetables while pulling him out of the tub. He'd taken off his livery but he had on his shirt and underwear, though they were sopping wet. And I've heard of "wedding tackle" (though that really wouldn't apply) and "meat and two veg," but is "wedding vegetables" really a thing? 1 Link to comment
meep.meep February 26, 2016 Share February 26, 2016 quote from James May from Top Gear, a real Briton's Briton. 2 Link to comment
AndySmith February 27, 2016 Share February 27, 2016 (edited) Did he not think to invite his parents (Are they even alive?) What about other family members. I found it a bit odd that he asked Tom to be his best man. Not that I don't like Tom. but they've known each other for a few months at best. I guess you can become fast friends in the span of a few months, but doesn't he have any brothers or close friends? I'm guessing JF just couldn't be bothered to introduce family for Henry this late in the game, and also just not enough time, since we had more pressing issues, like the hospital drama and Daisy's tests. Also, JF usually only seemed to introduce family members for other characters if they added drama to the storyline, which we usually saw as the form of opposition to the relationship. We saw Lord Merton's kids because they were opposed to his relationship with Isobel. We saw Atticus' dad because he opposed the marriage of Rose and Atticus. Strallan, Mary's other suitors, etc, we never saw much (or any) family because the drama in those relationships didn't come from a family member opposing the relationship. Gregson's wife was mentioned only because she was an obstacle in the relationship between Edith and Gregson. Since the drama in Mary and Henry wasn't a family member opposed to their relationship, JF didn't need to really introduce family for Henry, besides his already introduced aunt. That and his problems with pacing meant no time for Henry's family. Besides, could lawyers make a marriage contract so swiftly? Well, considering how the marriage license was already set up or whatever Henry arranged, I wouldn't be surprised if Robert and Tom, in-between pimping Mary out to Henry, already had a pre-nup arranged and ready to be signed as well. or a similar, non-titled character, like Charles Blake Well, not quite like Blake, since he would be inheriting the title of Baronet one day... Edited February 27, 2016 by AndySmith 2 Link to comment
JudyObscure February 27, 2016 Share February 27, 2016 Downton Abbey oddly underplayed the adulterous ways of the era's aristocrats, considering that Fellowes likes to dish about those saucy Victorians during interviews. Noblewomen liked tea gowns because they could dress and undress without needing a maid's help—all the better to usher in secret lovers without witnesses. It wasn't that only rich people had affairs, but middle/working class England didn't regard libertine bed-hopping as some sort of leisurely way to pass the time. As for the expectation for unmarried women to be completely "pure", I think in any era, a person can reach an age where society views virginity as less of a virtuous thing than...slightly pathetic (unless someone's in a religious order). Not that it is, just that others see someone as sad and lonely and totally undesirable. Edith is 33, with a "man's job" and her own flat in the big city. People would have been familiar with books, articles and films featuring single city girls who had their (implied) share of fun, more than five years into the Roaring Twenties. I doubt Edith would have felt the need to confess a mere sexual past, like Mary did with Matthew, were there no Marigold. Being a woman who had sex before marriage was viewed differently still than a woman who had a child out of wedlock. If Edith had slept with Michael Gregson and that's all, she probably wouldn't have gone on about him around Bertie, but, IMO, also wouldn't have felt the need to concoct an elaborate wedding night ruse with hidden vials of blood, and whatnot, at that stage in her life. At 18 or 23, perhaps. BTW, was Bertie's "Send me to bed a happy man" comment his way of begging for an answer to the proposal, inviting her into his room, or a little of both? In any case, his reaction to the Marigold news was mild for the times. I take anything Fellowes says about the period with a big grain of salt. Not that I disbelieve lovers coming during tea-time, affairs going on in the country house parties, etc. I just think it probably was not as common as writers like Fellowes want us to think. They're going to focus on what will bring drama and what they think we will find titillating. Just the title of the article, "saucy" Victorians smacks of giggling behind one's hand. I think that's very Uncle Julian. I read a lot of books written about this period, too, as well as watch the movies of the 20's and 30's and I notice a big difference between "the way things are," when written about the past and actually written during, those times. Edith Wharton's Lily in "The House of Mirth," is completely ruined over just the hint of having slept with a man. Lots of those pre-code films are about girls who got jobs in the big city and became "fallen women," no longer considered wife material. I've seen no hint of an attitude that because they are over twenty and have jobs in business, it's okay for them to have sex. I'm sure lots went on and lots of marriages were rushed because the woman was pregnant, but I don't think it was taken for granted that young single women would have an active sex life until about the time of "Sex and the Single Girl," was published. JMHO 4 Link to comment
lucindabelle February 27, 2016 Share February 27, 2016 Unpopular opinion: the small children are AWFUL actors. Even little george so clearly had zero emotion behind his line and went to th bed because he been told tol I giggle myself silly over the 3-year old in the tiger suit in the expedia commercial and just last week there was a heart wrenching little one on SVU. All then kiddies can't act. Yuck Re mary, I'm very disapointed as she had a lovely insight after the Gwen fiasco, wondering why she was so pettish, I once hurt a friend badly when I was 10 and I wrote her 3 letters of apology. I didn't see any amends making by mary. Do the crawleys hav any actual religion apart from snobbery to catholics and marrying in church? I know that's where I got my sense of repentance and morality. Even Mary's if that's how you feel why are you here showed such a sense of entitlement. Granny was not tough enough on her. And why did mary say she didn't know why she'd been fighting it, when she did know? Indid like the moment where she giggled and said she felt that way over the touch of his hand and she didn't know why she said that. I think henry is very handsome, has a perfect profile, and I do see chemistry but I liked it better when he sneered at her. What was with her saying he shot like a banker when it was made very clear in s5 that his "not at this level" signified he shot better than they all did? 1 Link to comment
ScoobieDoobs February 27, 2016 Share February 27, 2016 Cora's lack of development was quite a let down after quite a build up -- I expected her to befriend both Matthew and Isobel as someone also "not born to it" ... and to act more as "American eyes" as sop to the American audience ... When Martha Levinson, by reputation her mother, showed up resulting in a very strange mother/daughter relationship (almost none, embarassingly so) with absolutely no exposition of Cora's adjustment to life at the "manor," and the awfulness of all things American played to the hilt -- I realized Fellowes had very strange priorities and prejudices. Cora was so ditzy and disconnected, for years I assumed she would be revealed to be a closet laudanum user (because I could not believe she would NEVER have a story arc). There was so much delirious press over McGovern, it never occurred to me that she'd have less "to do" than ... anyone ... upstairs or downstairs... Again, I assumed she had been brow-beaten into submission by 20 years of Violet's disapproval and Robert's conflict avoidance ... nope ... I hope she was paid generously. I've wondered the same thing -- why has Cora been so under-developed? And why is she soooo simpering most of the time? I figured EM is just a limited actress & not capable of much else so JF didn't trust her to give her anything interesting. But you know, I don't think that's it now. EM can casually throw off a dig very effectively. I thought she was great when was she said to Bitch Mary to be careful not to show off being jealous of Edith. EM was capable of much more than JF ever gave her the opportunity to do. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying she's anything so great as an actress, but she can be pretty good. On this show, you'd never know it. Jeez, Mrs. Patmore would do quite well these days running her joint as a house of ill repute. I hated everyone laughing at her tho. Mean. Man, I hated all the crappy comments about Edith in this one. First, Robert says she couldn't even get her dolls to do what she wanted & then Bitch Mary calls her pathetic. Yeesh. Sure, I admire her that she ignores all the negativity heaped toward her & plugs ahead. But it's so apparent in her general demeanor & her attitude about herself that she absorbs all of it. I really hope she gets a happy ending. 4 Link to comment
jschoolgirl February 28, 2016 Share February 28, 2016 Unpopular opinion: the small children are AWFUL actors. Even little george so clearly had zero emotion behind his line and went to th bed because he been told tol I giggle myself silly over the 3-year old in the tiger suit in the expedia commercial and just last week there was a heart wrenching little one on SVU. All then kiddies can't act. Yuck The little girl who plays Sybbie is very good; she just hasn't had much to do this season. Her first name is Fifi. She was excellent in the last season. Link to comment
Roseanna February 28, 2016 Share February 28, 2016 (edited) Marigold is around 3, going by Gregson's murder in late 1923. Gregson left for Germany and Edith became pregnant in April 1922, so supposing that Marigold was a full-term baby, she was born in January 1923. That makes her in this episode which happens in August 1925 a little over 2,5 years. Gregson's murder which was supposed to happen during the Bier Hall Putsch in November 1923 is mysterious, for when he came to Munich, he was seen to quarrel with Brown Shirts, after which he "disappeared". That is, he was alive nearly 1,5 years but it was never explained where he was during this time. Edited February 28, 2016 by Roseanna Link to comment
Roseanna February 28, 2016 Share February 28, 2016 A few episodes back, when Edith gave Rosamund a tour of Michael Gregson's (I mean Edith's!) flat, she said that she had met Virginia Woolf and Lytton Strachey there at one of Michael's parties. We probably saw this party in Gregson's flat in S4, but unfortunately his quests were never introduced to us, which was a shame for now we just have to believe (instead of being shown) that Edith, who lacked all social skills in S1, in fact succeeded to socialize with London bohemians. All we was shown was the discussion between Gregson and Edith about "living in sin" as Edith put it. In any case, Gregson's friends knew he had dated Edith, so irl there would have been rumors why he left her his magazine and flat. But in DA there was no hint of this. Link to comment
caligirl50 February 28, 2016 Share February 28, 2016 Gregson's murder which was supposed to happen during the Bier Hall Putsch in November 1923 is mysterious, for when he came to Munich, he was seen to quarrel with Brown Shirts, after which he "disappeared". That is, he was alive nearly 1,5 years but it was never explained where he was during this time. In the show, Edith tells Robert that Michael went out the night he arrived, was seen arguing with the Brownshirts and was never seen again. Link to comment
Roseanna February 28, 2016 Share February 28, 2016 I take anything Fellowes says about the period with a big grain of salt. Not that I disbelieve lovers coming during tea-time, affairs going on in the country house parties, etc. I just think it probably was not as common as writers like Fellowes want us to think. They're going to focus on what will bring drama and what they think we will find titillating. Just the title of the article, "saucy" Victorians smacks of giggling behind one's hand. I think that's very Uncle Julian. I read a lot of books written about this period, too, as well as watch the movies of the 20's and 30's and I notice a big difference between "the way things are," when written about the past and actually written during, those times. Edith Wharton's Lily in "The House of Mirth," is completely ruined over just the hint of having slept with a man. Lots of those pre-code films are about girls who got jobs in the big city and became "fallen women," no longer considered wife material. I've seen no hint of an attitude that because they are over twenty and have jobs in business, it's okay for them to have sex. I'm sure lots went on and lots of marriages were rushed because the woman was pregnant, but I don't think it was taken for granted that young single women would have an active sex life until about the time of "Sex and the Single Girl," was published. JMHO I don't think that the movies and novels can be regarded as an evidence for how things were at that time, for novels could be banned and the movies were heavily censored. Of course they tell about the official morality, but even more they tell about for how things were hoped to be. Cate Haste writes in Rules of desire. Sex in Britain: World War I to the Present: "If films give the impression of a stable, moral and virtuous society in these years, it was largely because of tight controls, and not only overly 'excessive' material, A long list of subjects -drunkenness among women, brutality to women, fights between women, prostitution, 'illegal operations', brothels, rape, confinements, girls made drunk or seduced, incest, white slavery - were forbidden altogether. Complicated issues were trimmed in an attempt to fit accepted tenets of morality; while love triangles, for instance, may involve 'departure from virtue', distinction was to be made between 'errors caused by love' and 'pursuit of lust' which was wholly unacceptable. The 'betrayal of young women' may be treated 'with restraint', but it was inacceptable if suggested the girl is morally justified in succumbing to temptation in order to escape sordid surroundings or uncongenial work. No 'glorification of free love' was acceptable, and objections were made to material which exonerated marital infidelity or the 'sacrifice of a woman's virtue', to 'first night scenes, couples in bed together, 'equivocal' bedroom and bathroom scenes and 'growing habit with actors of both sexes to divest themselves of their clothing on slight or no provocation." Elsewhere in her book Hastes tell about the changing habits: "One survey found that petting increased from 7 per cent among those born 1904-1914 (people in their teens and twenties during the 1920ies) and an increase in premarital intercourse from 19 per cent for those born before 1904 to 39 per cent for those born 1914-24 (in their teens and twenties in the 1930ies). in another survey, only 4 per cent of the women questioned admitted to ex which other than their husbands (Mass Observation put this at 10 per cent), although 40 per cent of men admitted to sex with women other than their future wives. Still another survey estimated that 50 to 60 per cent of men and 30 to 50 per cent of women had premarital sex during this period." Haste uses as her sources surveys and public discussion, but also the biography of prominent individuals. Letters are of course the most trustworthy sources to prove affairs, but the upper morality is told later by Lord Jessel and lady Margaret Taguye who both give a testimony that during the week end parties heavy petting was allowed to unmarried couples whereas, as Haste put it "The value put on female chastity survived". Further:"The stigmatization of women who engaged in premarital sex as 'amateur prostitutes', which gained currency at that time, was one form of the control. The penalties on unmarried mothers remained an even more effective deterrent , especially for the working class who were less able to disguise the consequences of mistakes. Women of all classes were packed off out of sight to have the child. The social shame brought on the family was severe; many women suffered rejection from their parents as well as intolerance and ostracism from the outside world. If they were well ff, they might be sent to a nursing home and then the baby was adopted. If they could not afford this, they were at mercy of institutions. - - // The illegitimacy rate throughput he period remained at a steady 4 to 5 per cent of all live births, but the premarital conceptions were covered up by marriage. In 1938-1939 the Registrar General estimated that 'one seventh of all births now born in this country are products of extramarital conceptions, or to go further, that nearly 30 per cent of all mothers today conceive their first born out wedlock." 5 Link to comment
JudyObscure February 28, 2016 Share February 28, 2016 The Hays code in Hollywood didn't begin until 1934 and until then it was anything goes with films like "Baby Face," showing Barbara Stanwyck sleeping her way to the top in business and full frontal nudity in some films. It may have been different in Britain, both the actual morals and the way they were shown in film. YouTube has lots of "pre-code" films that are shocking, even by today's standards. I think the truth probably lies somewhere in between the old days when writers showed us a world more chaste than reality and today where writers think we won't be interested or wont find it realistic if everyone isn't having sex three times a day. I've noticed that just in the past few years, biographies of famous people of the past are now claiming many of them were gay or lesbian, based on nothing more but letters where affection is expressed for someone of the same sex. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't, but I think, just as writers in the past wouldn't have thought their work would sell of it was too sexy, these days it's just the opposite. 3 Link to comment
Roseanna February 28, 2016 Share February 28, 2016 In the show, Edith tells Robert that Michael went out the night he arrived, was seen arguing with the Brownshirts and was never seen again. Yes, but when Gregson's death was confirmed in 1924, Robert told to Cora that he was murdered during the Bier Hal Putsch, which was 1,5 years after Gregson's disappearance. The explanation could be either that he was held a prisoner by the Nazis, or he went undercover to search for them. Or should we take a "kind" interpretation that Robert simply misunderstood? That is, Gregson was murdered already the night he disappeared, but his body was found only when the police investigated the Nazis after the coup attempt. Link to comment
MakeMeLaugh February 28, 2016 Share February 28, 2016 (edited) Unpopular opinion: the small children are AWFUL actors. Even little george so clearly had zero emotion behind his lines... He is a supercute little boy but I totally agree. Not looking at the camera is the kids's main jobs, and often their roles involve sleeping, or pretending to, while the grownups look at them and talk about them. I like that--the shows aren't about the kids. Edited February 28, 2016 by MakeMeLaugh Link to comment
Andorra February 28, 2016 Share February 28, 2016 (edited) In the show, Edith tells Robert that Michael went out the night he arrived, was seen arguing with the Brownshirts and was never seen again. Yes, but when they find his remnants, he is said to have died during the Beer Hall Putch and that took place in the fall of 1923. Where has been all that time?? Edit: I see Roseanna was quicker already! Edited February 28, 2016 by Andorra Link to comment
Kohola3 February 28, 2016 Share February 28, 2016 The JF timeline does not always follow reality as long as it suits the story. Best not to think too hard about continuity. 6 Link to comment
jschoolgirl February 28, 2016 Share February 28, 2016 Yes, but when they find his remnants, he is said to have died during the Beer Hall Putch and that took place in the fall of 1923. Where has been all that time?? Edit: I see Roseanna was quicker already! Was Gregson's body ever definitively identified and interred? Link to comment
sark1624 February 28, 2016 Share February 28, 2016 (edited) Yes, but when they find his remnants, he is said to have died during the Beer Hall Putch and that took place in the fall of 1923. Where has been all that time?? Edit: I see Roseanna was quicker already! I think that they got confused with the nazis and all that stuff, even before the Putch, the Brownshirts were involved in fights with comunists and others, so it wouldnt have been rare a serious fight involving Gregson, even before the putch. I think that they tried to said to us that Gregson for some reason got involved in a "argument" with the brownshirts and later the Putch delayed the investigations that would lead the confirmation of his death. But the most plausible thing is that they simply made a mistake with the dialog. Edited February 28, 2016 by sark1624 Link to comment
caligirl50 February 28, 2016 Share February 28, 2016 (edited) Or should we take a "kind" interpretation that Robert simply misunderstood? That is, Gregson was murdered already the night he disappeared, but his body was found only when the police investigated the Nazis after the coup attempt. This is what I took away from that scene. Edited February 28, 2016 by caligirl50 Link to comment
AndySmith February 28, 2016 Share February 28, 2016 The JF timeline does not always follow reality as long as it suits the story. Best not to think too hard about continuity. But the most plausible thing is that they simply made a mistake with the dialog. Probably a combination of those 2. Link to comment
lucindabelle February 28, 2016 Share February 28, 2016 See I disagree. There are some great child actors out there. It's simply not truer that this is the best out there. Go rewatch Kramer vs kramer. Or an Expedia commercial. It just seems so darn lazy. When you see better kids in crime procedurals week after week it just irks, Sybbie is cute but not a good actress. None of them are, and it takes me right out of the scene, how very bad they are. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts