S06.E08: Season 6, Episode 8

[DeccaMitford]

A comparison to Austen's Emma is so apt; I was thinking something along these lines too! In fact I think the plot development of Emma, and the character development of Emma Woodhouse, provide a pretty good model for how the plot of this episode could have gone, if it were written competently. Tom's take-down of Mary in this episode is superficially similar to Mr. Knightley's admonishment of Emma after she insults Miss Bates, and the point for Emma is that if Miss Bates is as far beneath her as Emma believes, it should make Emma more compassionate, not less. The subtext too is that Mr. Knightley is so upset because he loves Emma, and knows how much better she is than that. This seems to be where Tom is coming from too, albeit in a platonic sense.

 

The difference is that Knightley doesn't dilute the criticism (and by so doing, kind of let Emma off the hook) by tying it to her angst over a guy. Emma's own love story is resolved in a separate part of the plot; her epiphany is purely about her own behavior and how she failed to be the best person she could. She doesn't end by deciding that she should just be polite and keep her unkind thoughts to herself; she interrogates the source of those unkind thoughts in her own vanity. She realizes that many of her prior, kind actions had been motivated as much by the gratification of her ego as by a real desire to do good. This doesn't make Emma irredeemable, and she gets her marriage and happy ending, but Austen very crucially lets Emma's moral redemption take place first. She has to work to regain Miss Bates' friendship, and it has to be completely unconnected to Emma's own romantic fate, or it wouldn't count.

 

What's damning of Mary, and of the...let's say, unique moral perspective of the show, especially in comparison to Austen's Emma, is that the insult to Miss Bates is treated as the climax of the novel, and the worst thing that Emma does - while it's no worse than the way Mary speaks to Edith every damn day. Emma would never have gotten to the point that Mary does in this episode, towards anyone, because Knightley would have read her the riot act the first time she publicly insulted that person.

I was really expecting an Emma-like epiphany for Mary, especially after the earlier episode where she reflected that she wasn't as good a person as Sybil. That epiphany might still be coming, but even if it does come, it'll be too late to make any kind of narrative sense. Which just shows I guess that Jane Austen was a better writer than Julian Fellowes, which (heh) is surely not a shock to anyone.

[MissLucas]

I was thinking about Emma too, who's high-handed and snobbish and at times really, really hard to like (I came around and she's my Austen favorite but I can understand why people would feel differently) but never sinks to Mary's levels of meanness.

Emma comes closest to Mary's treatment of her sister in her behavior towards Jane Fairfax. Austen makes it pretty clear that it's a mixture of jealousy and insecurity that drives Emma's scorn for the one woman who could be a great friend for her. Emma's gossiping and apparent conspiring against Jane is mean but it never reaches Mary's venom. And she feels sorry in the end and realizes what she's lost due to her immaturity.

She's only once downright mean to someone (Miss Bates) and she's immediately called out for it and shows appropriate contrition afterwards.

And although Emma comes pretty close to ruining some lifes that's not her intention. She truly thinks she knows what's best for everybody and acts accordingly but she's not actively trying to ruin Harriet's chances of a good marriage simply out of spite or because she feels 'unhappy'.

 

 

Which just shows I guess that Jane Austen was a better writer than Julian Fellowes, which (heh) is surely not a shock to anyone.

Amen to that, he!

Edited November 16, 2015 by MissLucas

[Andorra]

 

Which just shows I guess that Jane Austen was a better writer than Julian Fellowes, which (heh) is surely not a shock to anyone.

 

 

Tehee, I think that is something we all can agree on!

[DeccaMitford]

 

I agree with this - that I do have sympathy for Mary because she is tragically denied what she wants and that the ending of this episode was oddly off key and dissonant....

 

I'm just pretty convinced this wasn't Julian Fellowes's intent. I think we were supposed to think this is Mary's happy ending, not Mary's tragic downfall. I am certain  (not spoiling just guessing) that the CS special will have a LOT of Mary insisting how happy she is and I am genuinely curious if Dockey can pull that off.

ZoloftBlob, I agree with this - and to clarify, when I said that Mary's happy ending plays like something out of a horror film, I totally think it was by accident and that we're meant to think it's just a happy scene. It just...didn't work as a happy scene, because of everything that had come before, and instead played like that episode of the Twilight Zone where the kid keeps sending people into the cornfield, and the adults who are left pretend to be happy because they're afraid they're next. It's like we watched Mary learn, once and for all, that she can get away with literally anything, and we were asked to be happy about it, instead of having what I think is the natural reaction of being kind of sad and disgusted.

There are two anecdotes about Julian Fellowes that I think are illustrative, at least for me when I try to examine his writing decisions. One is from the commentary for Gosford Park, wherein he makes an approving reference to Ayn Rand, and her view of all interpersonal and political relationships as primarily hierarchical, between stronger and weaker people - and he tended to side, as Rand did, with the stronger ones. The other anecdote is from a press tour for the show, when he was asked whether Downton Abbey would ever continue into the 1930s. His response was "I’m not sure I could bear to see Robert Crawley go through a financial crisis." http://www.avclub.com/article/downton-abbey-might-beat-community-sixseasonsandam-223216

It's like the show has this deep affinity for powerful people, and for hierarchies, that's fairly unsentimental and cynical - but then it's mixed with an overlay of cloying nostalgia and sentimental escapism, and a childlike protectiveness of its characters. It makes for a pretty bizarre viewing experience. The show treats itself like escapist wish fulfillment, but I personally go to my wish fulfillment fiction to see bullies get defeated, not to watch them win.

Edited November 17, 2015 by DeccaMitford

[shipperx]

Ayn Rand lover? Oh dear, that explains so much. Well, no wonder Mary is the way she is (And Bates the way that he is, for that matter).

What's the old quote about two books that can change a fourteen year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs....

Edited November 16, 2015 by shipperx

[DianeDobbler]

 

I just can't imagine being Cora, Violet, or Robert, and not having interfered with Mary's vile behavior towards her over the years.

That bugs me as well. The haircut episode vis a vis Gregson's death was all, well, it's Mary, she's the boss of us. I also HATE writing strategems such as having Robert out of the room when Mary lowers the boom about Marigold, very conveniently he's excused from taking her to task. The momentum from this season was rubbished, rubbished in a fake, forced way, just to set up redemption for the CS. The rubbishing wasn't even remotely believable or motivated, as Fellowes WELL knew. He knows Dockery's capabilities and limitations at this point, and one thing she can't do is pretend to be passionately disappointed about a dude with whom she has no chemistry whatsoever, even if he's nowhere around and she doesn't have to deal with her lack of rapport with the actor. And setting her aside, We're not going to believe it, because it wasn't there. It came across as undiluted cruelty and spite as the driving force, not disappointment in Henry.

 

The only people I can really recall telling Mary to get off was Cora in Series 1 - don't know what it is about Elizabeth McGovern who is not a very good actress, but there's something about her that when her character is angry or not having it, I 100% believe everybody shuts it down and obeys. And Matthew was the other one. When he was angry, it was always more in sorrow than in anger, but it was real.

 

P.S., while Emma was more than a bit up herself, she did have a warm heart, because when taken to task by Knightley, not only was she mortified to be brought up short because it was Knightley, she also felt what she'd done. She was also only twenty. Imagine if Emma had cut Mrs. Bates like that when she was 33-35. She'd be Mary Musgrove or Elizabeth Musgrove then.

 

 

What's the old quote about two books that can change a fourteen year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.

 

Well, to my credit, I like to tell myself, I read Atlas Shrugged when I was quite young - a tween I think, and not only was it a chore to get through, my response was "What kind of bullshit is this?" I can't remember what prompted me to try reading it. I wasn't really aware or Rand's place in the culture.

Edited November 16, 2015 by DianeDobbler

[Hecate7]

But does Mary get annoyed when Edith is sad?  I don't think that's true - I think she gets annoyed when things go well for Edith.  That's certainly what happened in this episode - it was Edith looking happy that caused Mary to lash out.  And, previously, too, it's been when - say, Robert is proud of Edith for getting out the magazine issue, that Mary is sulky and upset with Edith.

 

Yes. She does get annoyed when Edith is sad. The reason is simple. Any emotion Edith is having, should be suppressed and invisible in favor of whatever thought Mary is having. How dare she have big sad eyes when she's just been left at the altar? That's not about Mary! Or when the guy she's pregnant by and looked forward to marrying has just died? Mary's haircut is WAY more important. How dare she be hurt when Mary, you know, hurts her? She shouldn't HAVE feelings, because she's not Mary. If she hits Mary, hitting is wrong. If Mary hits Edith, well, Edith should have ducked. What was she doing standing there in hitting range anyway? and shouldn't she be old enough not to feel any pain by now? It's not as if it's the first time...her senses ought to be completely deadened by now. Honestly. Eye roll. Shoulder shrug. Light flounce of skirt.

 

Edith cannot win. She cannot be allowed to be happy, because that makes Mary feel insecure and competitive, and that makes Mary lash out. She cannot be allowed to be sad because that makes Mary feel guilty and annoyed, and that makes Mary lash out. She cannot sit contentedly in a corner reading a book, because that is so passive, and that makes Mary lash out. Remember when Mary was annoyed because Edith was worried about Marigold? Because how DARE Edith THINK about the children! How insufferable! Mary never thinks about them! That's all sorted out and now let's move on to Mary's all-important sex life. Which Edith ALSO shouldn't have because she's not as pretty as Mary. (In Mary's mind, anyway. I think the two girls are pretty evenly matched).

 

Bottom line: for all her frostiness, Mary still hasn't learned to own her own choices or take responsibility for herself. Edith has. And that makes Mary lash out.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Hecate7

[MissLucas]

Okay, I just had to laugh when I saw this pic. No idea if it was used as a promo shot before (I don't think so since it would have spoiled the episode). I can't help it - even her Goode looks as is he's in an Agatha Christie movie squinting at Poirot who just announced his plans to spend his holidays on the same remote island where the newly-weds will spend their honeymoon. "Le beautiful island avec les dangerous cliffs!'

 

[Roseanna]

Mary was most sympathetic in the second season when she had lost Matthew but still loved him. She always behaved decently towards Lavinia. She never tried to separate her from Matthew although there was chances and both Violet and Rosamund urged her to it. Also Matthew also behaved as as "man of honor" who keeps his word no matter of what. Although we admire them their noble and unselfish behavior, from today's POV it was foolish  and Violet's advice to Matthew was sound.

 

Instead of Sybil, I think it was Lavinia who was a saint. She even died in order to give Matthew freedom to marry Mary whom he loved and wished them happy from the other world. But was all what it seemed? Remember the scene where Mary, urged by Carson, comes to confess Matthew her love and instead finds Lavinia who says that she couldn't live without Matthew and after that Mary can't make her confession. Was it just a coincidence or did she realize that it was a way to stop Mary? After all, Carlisle said in Christmas Special that Lavinia had said to him: if Matthew only admitted the truth, we could all be happy. Why didn't she act on those words earlier? Of course one can understand that: she loved Matthew and hoped that one day he would too, so she couldn't give him over until she saw him dance with Mary and kiss her when she saw that he hope was in vain.

[Roseanna]

Hecate7, you made an important point about the children. When Edith says in CS when the family goes to the hunting party that she misses Marigold, Mary wonders how she can feel like that although she isn't a mother unlike Mary. We know that Edith *is* a mother but if she wasn't, a person with kind heart wouldn't say that aloud but instead admired Edith who can love another's child so much.   

 

Most of all, Mary has not a single time behaved like a mother. We have shown that Tom loves Sybbie, Edith loves Marigold  and Robert and Cora love their grandchildren. But it seems that to Mary George is only the heir of title and estate, not her little son.

 

 

[MissLucas]

Well, Mary's not the over-motherly type - I would have had a hard time buying her going over-affectionate with George. But I thought it completely weird and OOC that George never played a big part in her decision to marry Henry. He was mentioned once and that was it. And I'm just not buying it. Even if the show for once was going for historical accuracy when it comes to mentality - i.e. fathers were not supposed to play a big part in their sons upbringing in the toddler years - there's no way Mary Crawley would not try to gauge her future husband's (step-)dad qualities. Of course it's really difficult to think of ways a race car driver could bond with a little boy...

[Roseanna]

When your reaction to a person or a situation is too strong, you may either in fact react to something similar that has happened before, or she may react to entirely something else.  

 

In the show we have shown nothing to indicate that Mary has ever had reason to be envious or jealous of Edith. I can't even imagine that their parents, grandmother nor nanny have favored Edith over Mary when they were children. I am sure that even as a newborn baby Edith never took Mary's place as a center of attention.

 

However, there is something else. Mary and Carson's relationship is shown so sweet, but in what kind of family a daughter says that a butler brought her up? In a family where the parents hadn't *shown* that they love their little daughter. So Carson took the role of the father but, being not a father, taught Mary that she is the most wonderful person in the world, deserves only the best from the other people and can do nothing wrong.

 

But why would Robert and Cora behave like that?  They are upper-class people who left their children to a nanny but probably also because they were so desperate to have a son and heir. Daughters didn't count, at least when they were still small and one couldn't communicate with them. (As it often happens, it was a different matter with their grandchildren, they really enjoy their company.)

 

So my explanation is: Mary felt deep inside from her earliest youth that her parents were disappointed because she wasn't a boy. She couldn't show her parents her hurt and resentment because they had all the power, so Edith who was younger and weaker than her became a surrogate whom she revenged. Compared to Edith, Mary was a winner even if compared to a boy her parents dreamed of, she was a loser.

 

There is a scene in the first season when Mary is so hurt that her father speaks so highly about Matthew that she rushes out of the room and cries to her mother that her father has a son now. When Cora tries to comfort her that Robert still loves her, Mary answers: but he doesn't fight for me. Robert's valid reasons (that he can't destroy Downton by taking Cora's fortune away from the entail) doesn't mean nothing to Mary. 

 

Yes, the men had all in that time. Simply because he was a man born in a right surname and with some accidental deaths, Matthew was going to inherit the title, Downton Abbey and a fortune tied to an estate that was originally Cora's. And even if Cora had born a son, Matthew would have his own career.

 

Mary is right in saying to Matthew that a woman's life is empty until she marries. Women must marry in order to get a status and there is competition between women who marries best.

 

But after Matthew died, Mary has got all that his husband or his unborn brother would have had (save the title): she owns half of an estate and she now even manages it. She has a real power and even her father has admitted that she is as capable as any man. He could also overlook her dalliance with Gllingham as he would his son's affairs. Mary has no cause to remarry if she doesn't want to.

 

So why does this woman still behave like a teen-age drama queen towards her sister? Can't Mary realize that if she can get away with it in the eyes of the others, with every mean act towards Edith she actually damages no more her but herself as she becomes meaner and meaner?  

 

[Eolivet]

But after Matthew died, Mary has got all that his husband or his unborn brother would have had (save the title): she owns half of an estate and she now even manages it.

 

I think, to Mary, that's like saying "You won the popular vote, but you can't be President."

 

Managing the estate is a consolation prize. Mary, for all her life, has wanted to be Countess of Grantham. An opportunity she would have had if Matthew had outlived her father, and now, she'll never have it. Mary was going to marry Patrick if nothing better came along (better, as in: better title) because she wanted the title. Mary had second thoughts about marrying Matthew in season 1 (other than the Pamuk thing) because she wanted the title. I think Mary is happy enough managing the estate, because it's her only option, but you cannot tell me that she wouldn't give it up in a heartbeat if she could somehow become the lady of the house. I think it showed personal growth to marry someone with no real aristocratic ties, and that happiness can be more important than a title, but I'm not kidding myself: if she could have had both, she would've taken both.

 

I just absolutely refuse to buy into this idea that Mary has found unqualified happiness managing the estate of which she will never be mistress. Again, I think it's enjoyable enough, and it keeps her involved with Downton, but I still find it sad that the entail laws were abolished in 1925 and the show never went there.

[Roseanna]

Eolit, you may be right but that only shows that Mary's values are shallow, if she rather wants to be a mistress who can make only secondary things in the secondary ares (except the vital task to bear an heir) than to be a master who has all the real power over Downton. Even after her father dies, her son has to share power with her mother because of Matthew's testament.

 

I don't blame Mary for hesitating to accept Matthew's proposal in case he didn't inherit the title and estate. Marriage was a career for an upper-class woman and when you chose your husband you chose also a way of life for your whole life. It is foolish to believe that everything will be alright just because of love. Aunt Rosamund was right in that Mary wouldn't have been happy as a wife of country barrister and then she would have made also Matthew's life miserable, too. But Mary would hardly have been happy as a duchess, either, as the duke  would have married her only for her fortune and visited her bed only to beget an heir and a spare. We know that, Mary doesn't but she should know now that she wouldn't have been happy as a wife of Carlisle even if he would have got a title.

 

I just hope that Mary would have got better advice then. She herself had a right clue that Matthew has talent and could have become Lord Chancellor. What if Aunt Rosamund had said: "Yes, and you can help him in his career. You have connections and you can entertain. You will become a great team."

 

But of course, the series demanded that Matthew and Mary separated. Easy love stories aren't interesting.  

[Andorra]

I see it as Mary's character growth that she no longer strives for position and money in a man, but for love. Nothing on screen has told me that she found it, but I accept that Julian Fellows wants me to think that she has found it. Like many times before we have to believe him even though he didn't show us. 

 

I think Mary is meant to be happy and content at the end of the show. Her goal in life is to preserve George's inheritance for him and she is not looking back. I don't see that as a "consolation prize", I see it as maturity. IMO it's better to be the manager of the estate than being the wife of an Earl and have no responsibility beyond organizing charity events, looking good and have other Earl's wives for tea, which Mary's life would have been if she would have been the countess.

 

She has much greater responsibility now and a much more fulfilling job IMO. 

 

So I don't mourn her not having a title and I don't think she will mourn it in the long run. I mourn her having such a crap romance as her endgame, but I'm sure Julian Fellows wants us to think it is pure gold. 

 

Also I have to disagree about Mary never been shown to be affectionate to George. Just this season we have seen her taking George with her to the farmer, she had him on her arms at the auction and she had him on her lap when they played puppets. In contrast Edith has bee seem to having lost sight of Marigold at the auction and leaving her behind in the nursery when she went to London without knowing when she would back again. So Edith hasn't been shown as being so very motherly this season either. They both rely on the children being watched by Nannies anyway. 

Edited November 17, 2015 by Andorra

[DeccaMitford]

Yeah, I think it's important to remember that people of this time and social class just weren't hands on parents in the way we expect now. I think I remember Michelle Dockery talking about how difficult is was when she was directed to be much less affectionate with the babies/children playing George than she would normally be with kids.

 

I think it's difficult to compare Mary and Edith's parenting styles because their experiences of new motherhood were so different. Edith breast fed her baby and bonded with her, and then had to give her away, then watched her be raised in another home for a year with Edith's access to her restricted (however much that messed up situation was pretty poorly and selfishly managed by Edith). So when Edith finally gets to take Marigold home with her, I think it makes sense that she would be more outwardly affectionate and emotional about her: she came close to losing her daughter completely. Mary on the other hand is probably less emotive by nature, and her son was born the day his father died. She probably has a lot of ambivalence about motherhood, and for perfectly understandable reasons - I wish the show had explored this a bit more.

 

Now that Edith doesn't have to worry about losing Marigold anymore, I think she's less clingy with her and is more like Mary in mostly allowing her to be raised by servants. It is what it is; even apart from social class, both women have pretty busy lives.

[shipperx]

Plus on TV most kiddies outside 'family' sitcoms are mostly stored in the attic. Infants and toddlers, while adorable, don't make great tv, have many restrictions on filming, and are not easily 'directed' in scenes (albeit I love Sybbie and Donk. Lol).

[DianeDobbler]

I think Mary bet on the wrong horse in attaching herself to Downton as her career. It's odd, because when she went away for sex week with Gillingham, she told Anna that, unlike the past, going forward  it would be impossible for husband and wife to live separate lives, even married couples among the nobility would live in closer quarters and enforced intimacy, and so Mary needed to trial run that intimacy before marriage.

 

Even if we suppose Mary's future includes Highclere-like estate operations, everything is going to be much more constricted than the world in which she was brought up. The scale at home will be much-reduced, the house much less populated. The scale of influence in the village will be reduced. At some point, her husband will give up motor-racing, and probably by young middle-age, and how will they occupy themselves? She's just not going to have the position her father had, and nor will George, rich though they'll be. I've been reading about the commingling of society, show business and nobility in the U.K. just a short time forward from Downton's current era, and it does feel like something of a bleak existence (with a real danger of alcoholism, particularly during winters) unless Mary dedicates herself to continual entertainment or becomes very involved in a cause. She's actually lucky her parents are likely to live on quite a long time, probably until George is at least her age now, if Violet's age is anything to go by, because her parents will help keep the house lively. There's a real prospect of three couples hanging about the place, none with a real occupation. An very aged Robert/Cora, Mary/Henry, and George/Spouse.

 

I just can't see Mary and Henry being happy mostly by themselves in each other's company, and sadly for Mary, it's not as if she can have her sister over to relieve the tedium.

 

Mary is Mary. I've said before that a lot of the time I just toss stuff that I don't think works. If it does work, I hold it as canon, if it's stupid, it's thrown away. About half of Mary's bile towards Edith I throw away, particularly the haircut/Gregson episode. I considered Fellowes to be tone deaf in that scene, and the actors semi-appalled and doing their bit with facial expressions to show it (particularly Bonneville), but the show runner was oblivious to just how horrible it was, and there was no follow up. I think prior to that season Dockery said something about how horrid Mary is to her sister - that was a fault of Mary's, and Dockery seemed a bit appalled, although I didn't know then what she was talking about.

 

I also agree that Mary's best self was exhibited when Matthew was engaged to Lavinia, the dance while Lavinia was upstairs hacking her lungs out notwithstanding.

 

Greater, to me, than Mary's vicious behavior to her sister is how everybody else stands by, not assenting, precisely, but just as if Mary is only using bad FORM. You know, they all agree, everybody knows, that Edith actually having a beau to grieve for is tedious, that they all find anything to do with Edith's emotional life dead boring and even a little repulsive, but how embarrassing that Mary isn't more discreet about it. That's how the Gregson/haircut episode seemed to me. Only after Edith had her daughter did Robert and Violet change. I totally believe that happened because the audience was revolted about Edith's story vis a vis Mary's extremely silly stories in S4, and Fellowes had to take an adjustment. It's everybody standing by discomfited as if Mary had just said something everybody was thinking but were too civilized to say that is the worst of it. How Mary is continually enabled. That's really the injury Edith has received, more than from Mary herself. Mary's saying what the family is thinking, and the family sort of finds Edith a waste of space. That's only changed in this past season.

 

I don't think Edith is letting Marigold be raised by servants. The night Robert's ulcer broke, Edith went into the children, and Mary did not.

 

George's legacy/future calls to mind an entertaining article by Charles Spencer (Diana's brother). He's a pretty prolific writer (not to say exploiter of a recently closed traveling museum called "Diana - a Celebration"). I imagine he's the age of a future son of George's. He talked about how sometimes the estates are stripped of valuable chattel by one wife or other (as Althorp had been picked over by his father's widow), how some of the chattel is valuable loan collateral or their sale can raise capital, and also references how the Pacific Palisades in California are a popular stomping ground for U.K. nobility to seek wealthy American widows.

Edited November 17, 2015 by DianeDobbler

[Roseanna]

Yes, it is quite true that Edith handled badly when she first moved Marigold from the Swiss foster parents to another foster parents who even spoke different language and then took her daughter to herself or rather give her to a nanny's care. In the real life this would show that she put her own feelings of longing before the welfare of her daughter. But this is a show, a fairy tale. And besides, at that time there was no knowledge how harmful separation is to a child. (The grandfather of Ethel's child demanded it also, and it the end Ethel had no choice but accept. Sometimes it is the greatest mother's love to give up her child.) 

 

As for Mary losing Matthew in the same day George was born, also Tom lost Sybil in the same day Sybbie was born. For some reason it was only Mary who was allowed to mourn her spouse so much that she wasn't interested even in her son for months. I don't believe that the reason was that Tom coped much better was a man. To JF, Mary's loss was the heaviest, even if Isobel lost her only son. Mary could find another love but Isobel can never get another son and yet, she found meaning in life before Mary did.

 

"This is a show, a fairy tale" is also an explanation I am willing to accept also concerning how easily people seems to instantly learn whatever profession. Violet thought that Tom could manage the estate because as a boy he had seem some relative handle his little farm in Ireland. In a village nearby I was raised was a manor and when in 1890ies the owner became old and, as his son had died early, decided gave it to his only grandchild and her future husband, but first the man had to study agriculture two years! In don't think that managing the estate in England is any easier, especially as great an estate than Downton.    

 

 

[Andorra]

This show is so full of unrealistic and downright stupid plots, I think we'll just have to accept everything that is on screen as the truth or we would have to stop watching.

 

The family looking over Mary's behavior towards Edith is one of the points that made me roll my eyes, but actually I rolled my eyes even more when they now IN THE VERY LAST EPISODE finally found out that Mary was a nasty thing from time to time. They sure should have figured out that one long before!

 

Tom going from Chauffeur, to journalist to estate manager to... we don't know but probably big car businessman is another stupid development. Also that his journalism NEVER gets mentioned again! Edith announces one evening "we have a journalist in the family" and NO ONE points out: "Oh, we actually had one the whole time, because Tom also is a journalist."

 

Edith threatening to leave Downton two times and come back each time within days: STUPID!

 

Mary getting swarmed by suitors when there was a distinct lack of men in her age due to the war (especially in her class) and she was a widow with a fortune tied to her son's estate!

 

Tom not meeting any woman (look above)

 

Tom leaving for America and coming back after 3 months. He would have needed at least 2 weeks for the travel to Boston, then stay 2 months and travel 2 weeks back. How stupid is that???

 

The whole family acted out of character when they all changed their mind about Talbot all the sudden. When even Anna and VIOLET preached his virtues I thought they had all been switched by Aliens!

[Eolivet]

I think Mary is meant to be happy and content at the end of the show. Her goal in life is to preserve George's inheritance for him and she is not looking back. I don't see that as a "consolation prize", I see it as maturity. IMO it's better to be the manager of the estate than being the wife of an Earl and have no responsibility beyond organizing charity events, looking good and have other Earl's wives for tea, which Mary's life would have been if she would have been the countess.

 

She has much greater responsibility now and a much more fulfilling job IMO.

 

But it is a consolation prize. That's what was so perfect (as Fellowes knew) about the Mary/Matthew romance -- it gave Mary everything she wanted: love and Downton. Now she's found another chance at love and something to occupy her time. She's got two great second place prizes. If Henry is her second place prize (as everyone would agree), so is the manager job. I refuse to see "preserving the estate for George" is anything but a distant second to "live as the Countess of Grantham and help George learn how to be an Earl from his father." Being the countess isn't just about hosting high teas and having other people's wives over -- it'd be about forming new traditions, making Downton their own as a family once Robert was gone. She could've easily been the manager of the estate as Matthew's wife -- something Matthew would've likely endorsed. It'd be about how she and Matthew would've run the estate as Countess and Earl, together.

 

But if we all agree Henry is a distant second place to the happiness Mary could've had with Matthew, the estate manager job is a distant second to her "having it all." Yes, she'll likely end the series "happy and content." But only relatively speaking, IMO.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Eolivet

[DianeDobbler]

Fellowes does remind me a bit (or a lot) of Matthew Weiner, Mad Men's showrunner. It's much more about falling in love with a particular character than telling a story. If a writer is that way, IMO it's important to justify the favoritism. There's different kinds of favoritism anyway, there's the favoritism of giving a particular character most of the attention.  That one is the nature of most drama.

 

And there's the favoritism of a double standard. Both Mad Men and Downton suffer from a double standard. If I understand Character A is the star, then whatever the star does can't be okay just because the star does it. The previously mentioned Jane Austen knew the rules. Emma didn't get away with her cruelty to Mrs. Bates although she's a charming girl and the focus of the novel. Downton is rife with examples of "this is okay because Mary." Fine, but please don't have some other character's story running on a parallel track and behave as if they must be held to higher standards than Mary. The other character doesn't need the same TIME devoted to them, but some sort of internal value system has to be applied other than "It's okay cause she's the star." 

 

Oh, the OTHER thing I hate, and again, Jane Austen knew better than to use this one, is when the star character harms someone in some way, and gets redemption by doing something nice for someone ELSE. This is unsatisfactory because it does absolutely nothing for the original person who was harmed. It's out of balance and the lens is much much too narrow, but I've seen this sort of writing. Fellowes has fallen into this with Mary a LOT. Although I think Mary's "bridge building" in the CS means she's going to be the star of Bertie and Edith's wedding, at least she's directing her energies where they ought to be focused, as opposed to spending the CS rescuing Anna from drowning or something.

 

Since I've compared Weiner and Fellowes, I wonder if there's something in the make-up of particularly egocentric show runners that makes them susceptible to "The star is always right." scripting. Wouldn't be surprised.

Edited November 17, 2015 by DianeDobbler

[SusanSunflower]

and if Edith is married off to Bertie or someone-else (risen from the dead perhaps), Mary may recognize her very real jealousy ... It reminds me of the family dynamic in Despleschin's "A Christmas Tale" ... the older extraordinarily talented over-achieving daughter is still trying to fill the hole created in her early years by a younger sibling's terminal illness ... and hating, loathing and resenting her surviving younger brother for being loved (better) even though he's a royal screw-up and under-achiever (but a loving and caring absolute jerk with a drinking problem) ... 

Mary would never admit to being jealous of Edith, but we've seen Edith achieve some genuine happiness and love ... that she's earned .... without the looks, without or beyond the influence of title, estate or fortune ... she got the column based on her father's name but ... she grew it into a career ... she got Strallen as a Mary's leftovers and made lemonade (again remember the unloved by Mary Patrick) ... she survived the humiliation of being left at the altar ... she got pregnant and kept her child and got the family's forgiveness and acceptance anyway ... 

What was so "cute" about Emma was how clueless she was about her own jealousy of Jane Fairfax ... she projected so much on Jane as a rival ... when she never was one... Emma had no idea how transparent she was to everyone else.... even in her disrespect to Miss Bates ... she was desperately trying to impress what'shisname ... who was, afterall, already taken. 

Edited November 17, 2015 by SusanSunflower

[MissLucas]

Frank Churchill ;)

[Roseanna]

I can believe that Tom became a political journalist but not an estate manager. But what I really can't believe that he became so *tame* and forgot all his political ideals. Later he could have  run for Parliament as a Labour candidate against the Conservative candidate supported by Lord Grantham. 

[DianeDobbler]

Roseanna, I truly believe Fellowes thinks Tom becoming an estate manager is a logical extension of his maturing as a man, of him getting to believe the aristocrats aren't such a bad lot, and because an estate manager is making things work economically, in a sort of transactional way that works for both sides. It's full of b.s. but It's about what I'd expect of Fellowes' understanding of what socialists actually believe. He probably thinks this is a mellower version of the same Tom.

 

Ultimately, Tom's political beliefs fell victim to Fellowes' worldview that everything is personal. The principal reason we were given for Tom "mellowing" was he had gotten to know the Crawleys, and they "weren't so bad." It makes no sense that, ergo, the SYSTEM of which they were a part, or their place in the hierarchy, was likewise not bad, but that's how Fellowes writes things. The folks are a good sort, therefore the system isn't that terrible.

 

Just ridiculous reasoning.

 

While I could see Mary having some jealousy of Edith once Edith began to "make lemonade" out of her life, principally by establishing a fulfilling life, which includes financial independence and professional success away from Downton, Mary was pretty beastly to Edith even when Mary had the upper hand and Edith had none. Edith would have taken cousin Patrick "like a shot" but Mary felt her presumed betrothal to Patrick as a burden. Edith didn't have anything that Mary could possibly want. Maybe one reason Mary liked Sybil better was Sybil had very little interest in any of the things that were important to Mary. Edith did have that interest, but was denied ever getting near them, and was eager to be made happy by affiliations (such as with Patrick or with Stallan) that would have made Mary miserable. I never understood why Mary was so vicious about Gregson, when Gregson was courting Edith. She doesn't want Edith to have an aristocratic marriage, and she didn't want Edith to marry outside the nobility, to a journalist and self-made man either. It appeared she wanted Edith to disappear, the end. As others have said, she insists on characterizing Edith (as a mope) in a way that has really just not been true of Edith. Robert still trends that way, although he's grown up about it and has improved (his "couldn't make her dolls do what she wanted" was a throwback to his rooted views of Edith).

Edited November 17, 2015 by DianeDobbler

[ZoloftBlob]

Maybe one reason Mary liked Sybil better was Sybil had very little interest in any of the things that were important to Mary.

 

I dunno... I've always been struck by that one moment in season one where Matthew and Sybil are genuinely looking at each other, after her beat down by the political crowd and and you see Mary seeing that and *not having that* and she instantly goes after Matthew. Made me wonder what if Sybil did try to take a toy away from Mary...

 

Ultimately, Tom's political beliefs fell victim to Fellowes' worldview that everything is personal. The principal reason we were given for Tom "mellowing" was he had gotten to know the Crawleys, and they "weren't so bad."

 

Well, part of the problem was that Tom's political views really wouldn't have been tolerated. With Sybil dead, there was really no reason Tom had to stay - he has his own family. If Robert really wanted little Sybbie, lets not pretend that he couldn't have made it happen... Tom became an irrelevant character the second Sybil died. (Not ragging on Tom, I like the character a great deal) Tom mouthing off about politics would just lead to the obvious "Tom getting kicked to the curb" plotline but nothing was ever done to make Tom relevant ever again.

[MissLucas]

I think it's not that far-fetched to assume that your political views change over time - as the (cynical) saying goes: "If you're not a socialist at the age of 20 you have no heart. If you're still a socialist at the age of 40 you have no brains."

Tom's transition was of course much faster and we never really got a good understanding why he changed his views so dramatically beyond a simple personal one: the Crawleys were nice to him. I suppose the rationale for the insufferable Miss Bunting was to put the final nail into the coffin of Tom's old persona and settle the question whether he wanted to align himself with the nice aristos or the nasty socialists for good.

[DeccaMitford]

If Tom had turned into the kind of run of the mill, fairly moderate progressive that, for instance, Isobel is, I think that would have been believable. Not every idealistic young socialist has that trajectory, but enough of them do. Especially as a lot of Tom's "radical" politics always rang kind of false and watered down to me: his big anti-war statement was going to be spilling something on a general at a dinner party.

 

But that's Fellowes: he seems to have a fairly low opinion of progressives/liberals/the left, so his progressive characters tend to fall into a few predictable patterns. Well-intentioned but immature and naive, so bound to accept more conservative ideas as they grow up (Sybil, early Tom); pushy busybodies who are often well-intentioned but also like telling people what to do (Isobel); strident harridans who cause scenes for no reason (Miss Bunting, later Daisy); and resentful ingrates (O'Brien and Thomas, who weren't political exactly, but have been the servants most likely to question whether their position relative to the Crawleys is fair). There's a range, but it's narrow.

Edited November 17, 2015 by DeccaMitford

[DianeDobbler]

I honestly don't know if Robert would have been able to keep Sybbie from Tom. Robert wouldn't want the bad publicity, and unless he was going to use mob-like, strong-arm tactics, which are not Robert, I don't think he would have or could have done it. Tom was a strong man. Anyway, I don't count that as a factor - we haven't been shown it was in Robert's character or an influence on Tom.

 

Interesting about Sybil and Matthew. That might support the point that Mary was nice to Sybil because Sybil didn't share Mary's playground - and the second it appeared Sybil MIGHT, Mary put an immediate stop to it.

 

Mary hasn't enough to do. That's her problem in a nutshell. She has to make up things. Edith had the incentive to go out and make her life. She would always be an also-ran at Downton. Sybil was naturally interested in the world and proactively involved herself. Mary has an almost terminal ennui. She needs an interest to fall in her lap. Rose's affairs, when Rose was at Downton. Or Matthew tooling around in a wheelchair. She's no good at generating meaningful enterprises for herself really.

[MissLucas]

The pigs - don't forget about the pigs!

[Roseanna]

I can also believe that if Tom abandoned his political views, he wanted to go to the USA and succeed there on his own. But I can't understand that he came back - especially as his former job was now Mary's. What kind of man really wants to live in his deceased wifes's parents house together with them and her sisters?

 

Besides, there is Sybbie. So long she is a baby, it was perhaps nice that she is taken care of a nanny. But does Tom really want her grew up in the house from where Sybil wanted away? To learn the life-style that can never be hers save as a poor relative?

 

The same applies to Marigold. When Edith took her to London, they should have stayed there. 

 

Of course I understand that these kind of decisions are due to that in the show most of happenings must be in Downton.

[MissLucas]

I call it the Full House curse - nobody is ever allowed to leave. At least Downton Abbey's got enough rooms so that newlyweds with twins don't have to squeeze into the attic.

[ZoloftBlob]

I honestly don't know if Robert would have been able to keep Sybbie from Tom. Robert wouldn't want the bad publicity, and unless he was going to use mob-like, strong-arm tactics, which are not Robert, I don't think he would have or could have done it. Tom was a strong man. Anyway, I don't count that as a factor - we haven't been shown it was in Robert's character or an influence on Tom.

 

I don't think it was in character for Robert either... but Robert is a rich man while Tom is an Irish fellow who already had some serious legal difficulties that Robert had to smooth other. I mean, if he really wanted to give Tom the boot after Sybil died, it was well within his means  

 

And no... I can't see Mary not going for Sybil's throat if Sybil took something she wanted.

[ZoloftBlob]

Again, I think it's enjoyable enough, and it keeps her involved with Downton, but I still find it sad that the entail laws were abolished in 1925 and the show never went there.

 

The problem is that if Mary fought and broke the entail... who is she taking the title and estate from?

 

Not Matthew the interloper, but her *son*. I mean, what would the point have been at that point... other than to look petty and spiteful toward her son and the memory of his father?

[DianeDobbler]

I don't think it was in character for Robert either... but Robert is a rich man while Tom is an Irish fellow who already had some serious legal difficulties that Robert had to smooth other. I mean, if he really wanted to give Tom the boot after Sybil died, it was well within his means.

 

Cora would never have permitted it, and the rest of them would have clubbed Robert over the head with Sybil Sr.'s memory. All I'm saying with this is I don't believe it was meant to inform story at all, not even subtextually, even if technically a man in Robert's position could have made it hard for a man in Tom's. Not a slam dunk, though. I do think it's silly for Tom to have stuck around Downton. All I can think is the family member of his that we met (the drunk brother) wasn't much, he was valued at Downton both for his abilities and for himself, and he connected the family with the love of his life. And, I guess I'm contradicting myself here, BUT, it might be gratifying for him, who was considered this upstart reaching above his place, to be in a situation of respect with the family, and actually guiding and teaching them about stuff.

 

Fellowes is just a mess. I recall his justification for suitor season was Mary needed to marry again in order to enjoy the importance she wanted to have in society. No, really she didn't. Thanks to Matthew's will, she was worth a bloody fortune. She could be like Elizabeth I of England, enjoy the pursuit, but refuse to choose. Her son was the Earl apparent. She had no need, not in terms of position.

 

Matthew really was the all-in-one jackpot for Mary, although I don't think there would have been much of Mary teaching George how to be an Earl like his father. As Matthew said to Lavinia once, Robert and Cora are quite young and Matthew and Lavinia will have been well on themselves before they took the title. Mary would likely be Cora's age or above before she got to be Countess (if Matthew had lived) - in her fifites. Even as it is now, and ulcer aside, Robert could well last another thirty years or more.

 

A bit OT, but I think the better ending for Mary would  have been to not pair her off, but signify somehow that she likely would pair off some day. She's a good-looking woman, very rich, the odds are in her favor, even if she didn't remarry by the end of the series. It might have been interesting to have Edith married (unlike Mary, if Edith weren't married by series end, the audience could assume that was it for the rest of her life), and everyone settled, but Mary sort of in flux exactly as she was at the start. The audience would know something could happen with Mary at any time after the series ended.The rushed marriage to Henry just leaves a couple of options. One being, pretend she IS madly in love, that whatever adjustments come up will be fixed and oh boy, will they be happy, and isn't he sexy. The audience won't buy that IMO and will come away with the protest-too-much feeling that augers an unsatisfactory long term match. OR the show acknowledges that this is not likely to go long. Wait, I guess the third option is, Mary realizes she's not truly in love with Henry, but has made her peace with it. 

 

I'm betting on the first option.

Edited November 18, 2015 by DianeDobbler

[Andorra]

I think originally Gillingham was planned as endgame for Mary. He was titled, rich and very conveniently did have an estate but not a house. So Mary and Gillingham could have had it all and still live at Downton.

When it didn't work out with Gillingham, because the audience hated him, they had to turn Mary's ambitions around. She needed a man who was willing to stay at Downton and so it could only mean "no title", because yet another titled man without a house would have been ridiculous. 

[Roseanna]

Andorra wrote that Mary "needed a man who was willing to stay at Downton". For that there was an obvious choice: Tom with whom she could share the management of the estate. But I didn't favor the idea: they were acting together well, but like siblings or best friends, not lovers.

 

The problem was that what is a good romance in the show (not necessarily in the real life) demands problems and obstacles. They can be outer circumstances (social differences, relationship with another), but at the best they are psychological (the pair has such characters and values that they make fatal mistakes like Mary and Matthew did). Also, we must fervently hope for their union but it can't succeed too easily.

 

Gillingham was a too suitable suitor - there was no real obstacle to win. With Blake the obstacle was removed when Gillingham revealed that he would inherit a title and besides, if he didn't, it would be a repetition of Matthew 1st season. With Talbot the obstacle was whether could Mary overcome her fear of losing also him in the accident - but it was missed in the solution. 

 

In addition, Talbot was too pushy both in his proposal and having a licence. In the phone call he thought only of his own "carpe diem" and had no understanding how Mary felt because of Matthew's accident. Not a good husband material. And like Violet said, marriage is a long business - one must not rush into it, and it is entirely against Mary's character, too.

 

After all we have seen, I think that Mary doesn't really *need* a new husband. For she had already had all she needed: wealth, position, child, affection, companion (Tom).  Only one thing was really missing, sex, and that she could have got during the week end parties and holidaying in the Mediterranean.

 

Of course, if she had met a really interesting man, then she would marry him if their life styles would fit. But otherwise she had no need to remarry. I believe that audience would have been satisfied with a hint of possibility and used their imagination.

 

There is a second problem in the show, too: after the pair has overcome their outer and inner obstacles and problems and finally got each  other, how to make their marriage interesting? They must have different characters and values in order that they are not all the time of the same opinion even if they fight together against to overcome an outer obstacle, otherwise they become quite boring.

 

That was the problem with Tom and Sybil. Their greatest obstacle was of outer kind, social status. Once they got married, they were happy period. No wonder Sybil had to die.

 

Even Mary and Matthew's marriage wasn't very interesting. They had problems about financing Downton, but they were solved too easily and I didn't like that it was Mary who always won. Matthew had even to live in his father's house and Mary couldn't have forgiven him if he hadn't invested in Downton. Also, they were very reserved which was of course the English way, but there was never even a hint of passion of newly-weds. Mary seemed to be more interesting in decorating the rooms and having breakfast in bed. 

 

Taking the whole show, Edith's development is really most interesting. After being an almost pathetically comic to pursue *any* man, after being jilted at the altar she begun to grow on her own. *Then* was no wonder that first Gregson and then Bertie fell for her as a person. And unlike Mary with anyone with Matthew, one can really believe that she loved them in return. I hope that Bertie comes back in CS, but the main point is that Edith has grown through obstacles she had met and won. On the contrary, Mary has become worse, a teen drama-queen who believes that the whole world circles around her needs and moods.

[Roseanna]

Many people in this forum have insisted that Edith should have told Bertie about Marigold. But if the characters of the show behaved as they should, their story would have no interest whatsoever. They *must* make mistakes, both because of the story and because that's what all people do and we can't feel sympathy for flawless characters as we aren't such ourselves. Of course those mistakes must be somehow understood even if not always accepted by us.

 

If one understands the period, it's easy to understand that Edith hesitates. For it is by no means certain that a man would accept that his future wife has a child born out of wedlock. Edith probably thought that in case Bertie took it badly, she wanted to collect so many memories of their love as possible. Of course it was selfish as she didn't think that postponing the revelation she would hurt Bertie more, but considering  Edith that had had so few experiences of love it was natural. That she wanted to tell before making the engagement official, is clear by the fact that she tried to stop Bertie making the announcement.

 

It is really naive to believe that all would have been well if only Edith had trusted Bertie. She couldn't really know how Bertie would react before the issue is handled in reality. A man can *seem* to be good, but his real character can be tested only by action. And ultimately, it is tested by his capacity to forgive her mistake as she will forgive his.

 

On the other hand, what is considered good and decent is different in different ages. In the real life it would be quite natural that a Marquis, however regretting losing love, would take back his proposal of marriage to  "the woman with a past" that could cause a scandal if leaked into the press. In a sense, it would have been easier if Bertie had not become a Marquis - then it would be only their own matter which nobody else would have been interested in. Therefore it was a total anachronism that Edith's family was enthusiastic about her becoming a Marchioness.

 

What was accurately in the period *and* social class was the earlier scene when Bertie says that he has a little to offer and Edith says that she isn't worth it.  

 

As for Mary, as Talbot knew that he wasn't marrying a virgin but a widow, even considering the period she had no reason to tell all about her past because it's extremely unlikely that either affair would cause scandal any more. Besides, all sensible people must realize even at that time that a beautiful thirty-something woman with a fried marriage can have had affairs as well as man have had, and it's best for the future happiness not to know the details including names (Mary and Talbot would probably meet Gillingham and his wife in the future).  

[ZoloftBlob]

As for Mary, as Talbot knew that he wasn't marrying a virgin but a widow, even considering the period she had no reason to tell all about her past because it's extremely unlikely that either affair would cause scandal any more.

 

I disagree in that if that was the case then why did we have an actual storyline about a blackmailer being paid off so that Lady Mary wasn't revealed as a woman who slept with Tony Gillingham. I get what you're saying, I am simply pointing out that the storyline was written to imply and out right state that Mary would have problems if the truth about the sketching weekend was revealed. If there was really no threat or concern... then why pay people off?

[Roseanna]

ZoloftBlob, that was before Robert had paid the blackmailer and made her sign a confession. After that it was unlikely that she should cause any trouble for she had no personal reason to do it.

 

As for the papers, they must have much better recent scandals than a widow sleeping with an unmarried man in the past.    

[Eolivet]

The problem is that if Mary fought and broke the entail... who is she taking the title and estate from?

 

Not Matthew the interloper, but her *son*. I mean, what would the point have been at that point... other than to look petty and spiteful toward her son and the memory of his father?

 

That's assuming Robert dies 20 years down the road. What if it's 5 or 10 -- or next month? Then you have a four-year old Earl. How does that benefit anyone?

 

I do have a problem with the idea that Mary, who fought so hard for the title that should be her birthright, should roll over and die because the law says a little (male) child gets it. That's not petty and spiteful -- that's practical. And the right thing to do, in my eyes. It's not like George would never be Earl. But then the sweat equity Mary has put into Downton would actually yield her something other than the sense of a job well done.

 

(And how does it denigrate the memory of his father? George would still be Earl eventually. Wouldn't Matthew want his wife to have the title she has wanted since birth, since relatively speaking, it really meant nothing to him?)

[DeccaMitford]

 

(And how does it denigrate the memory of his father? George would still be Earl eventually. Wouldn't Matthew want his wife to have the title she has wanted since birth, since relatively speaking, it really meant nothing to him?)

I have to agree with this - if Mary is the heir, George is still first in line after her, and I can't see Matthew minding either way. In a way, Mary becoming the heir apparent to the title makes George's place in the line of succession more secure, not less. As it stands now he's still just the heir presumptive, not the heir apparent: as long as Robert is alive, there's the possibility that he could have a son. It's a very slim chance and nothing anybody would really plan around at this point, but there's nothing actually stopping Cora from dying unexpectedly and Robert marrying a twenty-five year old: older men than him have had late in life children that way. If Mary was the heir apparent over any future children Robert might have, then George's place is safe forever as Mary's first child.

[ZoloftBlob]

You're arguing from a modern standpoint - I completely agree in our time, that its perfectly ridiculous that Robert's children can't inherit because they're girls. But take it a step further - is it really *right* for Mary to get the house, the money and the title while Edith and Sybil due to their lesser birth order, get nothing but nominal sums?

 

Mary fought very hard for a title that was never *due* to her because of how the law in England is set up. If something were to happen to Robert right now, a regent, likely Mary, would be appointed. We can argue that's unfair to Mary - and to a point I absolutely agree - Robert's children should inherit his wealth, not a random cousin who happens to have a penis - but that is NOT how people would have felt in the 1920s. Mary had a bizarrely unrealistic expectation that she would be handed the earldom.

 

George would still be Earl eventually. Wouldn't Matthew want his wife to have the title she has wanted since birth, since relatively speaking, it really meant nothing to him?)

 

Because it would make it clear that Mary loved being the Countess more than being Matthew's wife. Really, I get that Mary doesn't have to be a loving parent or wife but really overturning the law so she can have her son's title? I could see fighting Matthew the interloper for it, although she would lose... but society of the times would judge Mary very harshly for attempting such a thing.

 

For the record, I doubt Matthew cared in the slightest over the title itself

Edited November 18, 2015 by ZoloftBlob

[DeccaMitford]

To be fair, as I remember season one, it wasn't that Mary thought she was entitled to the title (heh) but that she was entitled to Cora's money. The issue was that all of the money keeping Downton afloat was money that Cora had brought to the marriage, and it was now legally tied, via deed of gift, to the estate - which was tied to the earldom. That would have been a decision that seemed reasonable when it was made, as Robert and Cora expected to have sons. When it was clear they probably wouldn't, cousin Patrick was treated like an heir and tacitly engaged to Mary, so the expectation was that Cora's fortune and the estate would at least stay in the immediate family. The very boring legal issue at the center of season one was to see if Cora's money (and estate) could be untangled from the earldom and kept for Cora's children (or child) after all. Matthew always had a legal right to the title; he might not have had a legal right to Downton and the money keeping it running. They finally figured out that the two couldn't be untangled. That's how I remember it, though I could be wrong.

 

It's a good point that really, even if it's not fair that Mary has fewer rights to the property and title than a distant male cousin, her place as first born doesn't make her inherently more entitled to it all than Edith and Sybil. Still, I think it's in character for Mary to see it that way. She has the (common, I think) perspective of someone who has every single advantage but one, so that particular lack stands out sharply for her. She's first born, she has all the connections and pedigrees of wealth, she's intelligent, she's beautiful, she's a natural leader, she has all the ruthlessly pragmatic tendencies of a born CEO. Only she's a woman, so none of that really means anything. She's just close enough to power to know exactly what her life would be like if she were a man, and it angers her. I don't think it's a very sympathetic perspective, but I do get it.

[Roseanna]

Mary didn't for the title because she simply couldn't get it, but for Cora's fortune to be taken off from the entail which would have make her an heiress whom a duke would have wanted to marry but destroyed Downton Abbey. What kind of person that makes her?

 

Robert was right by saying that if he had made fortune, then it would be right that his children would inherit it, but because he had inherited Downton, he must pass it to the heir in a good condition according to the rules. In addition, it would have broken his heart to know that after his death the next earl would be without Downton.

 

As for Mary trying to take his son's inheritance, what kind of mother does that? An earl who isn't of age is no problem at all. In practice, the situation would be the same as now when Mary manages the estate. The problem is rather that because of Matthew's testament, George must share power with his mother until she dies. And knowing Mary, it wouldn't be sharing power but Mary commanding his son until her dying day. 

 

I am perhaps the only one who thinks that Matthew's testament was very stupid for it means that inheritance taxes must be payed two times. Matthew would have acted wiser by making Mary only a guardian. But of course he didn't know the death day, nor the sex of his eldest child. If she had been a girl who couldn't be an earl, Matthe's testament would have destroyed Downton in the same way as taking Cora's fortune away from the entail would have done (Robert lost Cora's fortune and instead Matthew invested the inheritance he got from Lavinia's father to the estate).

 

Unfortunately we do know the future. George will fight in WW2, so there is no surety whether he will ever be an earl.     

[Andorra]

No matter if Robert would break the entail, Mary would still never be Countess. For that she would have to marry another Earl. The title is gone no matter what she does, because women STILL can't inherit titles in England. It's still the law, modern perspective or not.

 

I would still have liked Robert to break the entail, because if something happens to George, Mary (and maybe other children) would still own Downton. If George would die in WW2, Mary would lose everything and that's not fair. 

 

But of course Fellows assumes George will survive the war. 

 

As for Robert wanting to preserve Downton for the next heir is all right and nice, but to use his wife's money and deprive his children from a future just for some unknown male relative is not okay IMO. If Robert had died, Matthew could have thrown all four women out of his house immediately and without any money. Cora was once a rich heiress and she would have to see how to live and be at the mercy of relatives or to work (and what would she have worked in her age?). So Robert's sense of honor to save Downton, but to let his wife and daughters starve in the process is weird IMO. They probably wouldn't have starved, but they wouldn't have been able to live just from what they got as their dowry. They would have needed a man to provide for them or find a job. And Robert had not "inherited" Cora's money. He pracitcally stole it. 

Edited November 18, 2015 by Andorra

[DianeDobbler]

Edith really did/does have the most interesting arc. I think Bertie is a terrific partner for her, but, looking back, I have a bit of nostalgia for her relationship with Michael Gregson. Transplanted to Downton, he wouldn't set the room on fire, but the life he and Edith built together was really compelling. I absolutely loved the scene of them in the apartment, when he had her sign the power of attorney. The feeling and trust between them was lovely. When I look at her life now, it's apparent that it's a gift (that she earned) from Michael Gregson, who had the faith, love and trust in her that her family never did, and she's more than justified his feelings. She treats his memory with respect and is apparently a wonderful journalist/publisher/editor.

[MissLucas]

 

As for Robert wanting to preserve Downton for the next heir is all right and nice, but to use his wife's money and deprive his children from a future just for some unknown male relative is not okay IMO. If Robert had died, Matthew could have thrown all four women out of his house immediately and without any money.

Well - that's what more or less happened to the Dashwoods in Sense and Sensibility and what could have happened to the Bennetts in Pride and Prejudice. It was an inherent flaw in the system that could be dampened by certain legal measures. Cora's father could have demanded that some of the money Cora brings into the marriage would be settled on her and her children (which was actually the case for Mrs Bennett whose father was not a US tycoon). But apparently he thought getting an aristo title for his daughter was more important and agreed that all money was to be tied to the estate. Given how eager the British aristocracy was to marry American heiresses he would have had plenty of leverage.

[DeccaMitford]

True, though I don't think we know whether some smaller settlement was made for Cora and any potential daughters - I'm sure they got something, though obviously not enough to make one of them a catch for a duke looking for an heiress.

 

Their potential reduced circumstances after Robert's death is all relative, too. If worse came to worst, they could have moved to America with Cora's still extremely comfortable and wealthy mother. Even the Dashwood women never had to work; they were poorer, and good marriages seemed less likely, but they were never poor.

 

That's what makes a lot of this kind of tough to take seriously, at least for me: we're talking about very rich people who might possibly be reduced to living in a just slightly less rich manner. And if we're speaking in real terms, none of these people actually deserve Downton or the money or the title: not Robert, not Matthew, not Mary, not George. It's not like any of them did anything to actually earn it: they just happened to inherit from someone who inherited from someone else. The most you can say is they didn't piss it all down the drain, or that they acted as good stewards when they had control, but that's luck as much as anything.