S06.E08: Season 6, Episode 8

[Andorra]

 

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.

 

But IMO the daughters certainly deserve their MOTHER's money more than Matthew did?

 

Also now if George dies in WW2, Martha will probably be dead already. The chimney sweep from Nowhereswill could come and throw Mary, Henry, all their children plus Cora out of the house and on the street, no matter how much Mary has worked for the estate by then. And the details have been vague, but on another board someone explained to us, that in fact the future Earl would inherit Matthew's money as well as Robert's as long as the entail is intact. So Mary plus her family would be left with nothing.

 

I don't think that's fair. And that's why I think they should have adressed the new inheritance law and Robert should have broken the entail. It also would have put the story full circle in a way. It would have been more interesting than the hospital storyline!

Edited November 18, 2015 by Andorra

[ZoloftBlob]

If George died with no heirs... wouldn't that be the end of the Crawley line anyway?  I mean, weren't they pretty openly scraping the bottom of the barrel for Matthew?

 

There's a question - what if there were no male heirs left?

[DeccaMitford]

I think then the estate reverts to the crown: it's a relic of feudalism, and the idea that they're really only holding the property at the king's pleasure.

 

 

on another board someone explained to us, that in fact the future Earl would inherit Matthew's money as well as Robert's as long as the entail is intact. So Mary plus her family would be left with nothing.

 

I'm pretty sure that for this to be true, Matthew wouldn't have been able to leave his half of the estate to Mary. If his property was tied to the entail, it would go to the heir to the earldom automatically. It would be a mess if an entailed heir was some stranger, but he'd have to buy Mary out of her share of the estate if he wanted to get rid of her, he couldn't just take it from her. If Matthew had made a deed of gift, like Cora did, to give Lavinia's father's money to Downton, then it would be tied to the entail, but he didn't: Robert made him co-owner, and Matthew was still free to leave that property to whomever he wanted.

 

And yeah, Martha will probably be dead by WWII, but Cora's brother could be alive. I doubt he'd let them starve, and for all we know if he dies without heirs his money will go to Cora. And any children Mary has will be grown up; if she hasn't raised them to take care of themselves by then she will have failed them. Any children she has by Talbot will already grow up knowing that they won't have George's wealth coming to them; if they have a lick of sense they would have prepared themselves for a Downton-less life anyway. They might have to get jobs, like nearly every other person in the world, but it's hard for me to see that as exactly a tragedy.

Edited November 18, 2015 by DeccaMitford

[Roseanna]

Living in a country where the law gave the right to the land leasers to take the land they tilled in possession about hundreds year ago, I think that those who could with the best reason speak of injustice are Drewes and Mr Mason, not any of Crawleys. Doesn't "Abbey" mean that the lands the family owns were the former church lands that were confiscated by Henry VIII?

 

I can feel much more sympathy towards Dashwood women in Sense and Sensibility for the ladies had no chance to work then. But there was no such problem in the 20th century. Sybil wanted to work as nurse, so why woudn't Mary and Edith find something too?

 

Remember that none of Jane Austin's heroines did not accept marriage without love even though many of them were pressured hard for it.

[shipperx]

Blame Coras father. He was American. He didn't have to link money to the entail (and it was proved stupid that he did so). Of course, Robert may not have married her then. He married money. She married a title. They were lucky things tuned out as a Fellowes fairytale because most of those American money met British Aristocracy marriages of the guilded age turned out to be unhappy affairs.

[MissLucas]

Yes, the great hall had supposedly been a monks' refectory - that was the one bit of historical trivia Cora was able to deliver on that oh-so-informative tour of the house.

I'm also having a hard time feeling any sympathy for the Crawley ladies predicament when it comes to the entail, inheriting titles etc. - they enjoy plenty of privileges living in a system that is based on the very principle of inequality. Sybil and to a certain degree Edith have moved on and tried to find a place in a new world while Mary is still clinging to the old world where titles and privilege play an important part. Even if she were to fight the entail that would not make her a trailblazer.

Edited November 18, 2015 by MissLucas

[ZoloftBlob]

Even if she were to fight the entail that would not make her a trailblazer.

 

Well, we're getting far afield of the actual episode but...

 

Mary never wanted the entail broken for anything but her own selfish means. She wanted to inherit, she wanted to be Countess, essentially she wanted to be Robert's son (and seriously, I would have feared her reaction if Cora had managed to have that late in life boy child for Robert).

 

This was never about Mary having deep thoughts about the inheritance laws and how unfair they were - the reality is that she didn't give two shits about how her two younger sisters would be entirely screwed by her plan to be the heiress/countess. It was never about doing the *fair* thing because the fair thing is for Cora's wealth to be equally distributed among all three daughters.

[MissLucas]

I was actually more referring to the suggestion that Mary should -now- fight the entail since it's unfair that she can never be countess in her own right and that's what she always wanted to be.

[ZoloftBlob]

At this point, she'd be the one who looked like a spiteful gold digger. She marries Matthew to get the title/money. Then he kicks it before her father, so she then goes to court to have the title stripped from the next heir, her son?

 

Yes... I get that George will eventually get the title but really she would face a huge backlash for even trying that. Because it would look like she was simply desperate to be Countess.

[Andorra]

Well, I'm surprised that here are so many women who find it completely okay that women weren't able to inherit and that men were allowed to push them totally out of their life, just because of their sex.  There is of course a question wether the rich deserved to be rich, but ONE thing is for sure: The men didn't deserve to be rich any more than the women. It's an extreme injustice. I'm not talking about the title, because who cares about a title, but the estate and the money? How about my father dies and leaves all he has to my brothers and I don't get anything at all simply because I'm female? I think that's incredibly unfair and has nothing to do with liking or disliking Mary. It was just a shit law and I would have welcomed it, if Robert had broken the entail as soon as he could. It would have been a good closure to the storyline which started everything in season 1. 

 

BTW Mary wouldn't be countess if she fought the entail. Women can't inherit titles. This law still stands until today. So if George died and there was no other male relative the title would go back to the crown. But at least the family would still own the estate (for which Mary works btw). The only way for a woman to be countess is marriage. It has nothing to do with the entail. 

Edited November 18, 2015 by Andorra

[Future Cat Lady]

I agree with Andorra. Breaking the entail is about separating the estate and money from the title. The title passes from the male line no matter what. 

 

Actually, Mary should have the entail broken. If George dies or doesn't have any male heir, the whole thing would go the next male heir. Whoever that is. If Mary or Robert break the entail, they can leave the estate to someone (or more than one person) they chose. Mary could leave it to her other children or even her nieces/nephews. This way, the house stays in the family. 

Edited November 18, 2015 by Future Cat Lady

[MissLucas]

 

Well, I'm surprised that here are so many women who find it completely okay that women weren't able to inherit and that men were allowed to push them totally out of their life, just because of their sex.

Not going down that anachronistic rabbit-hole. The discussion was framed in modern terms of fair and unfair and making victims out of people who were even with the disadvantages discussed here pretty high up in the food-chain due to that very same unfair system. And let's not forget that younger brothers were also handed the short end of the stick.

[Hecate7]

Living in a country where the law gave the right to the land leasers to take the land they tilled in possession about hundreds year ago, I think that those who could with the best reason speak of injustice are Drewes and Mr Mason, not any of Crawleys. Doesn't "Abbey" mean that the lands the family owns were the former church lands that were confiscated by Henry VIII?

 

I can feel much more sympathy towards Dashwood women in Sense and Sensibility for the ladies had no chance to work then. But there was no such problem in the 20th century. Sybil wanted to work as nurse, so why woudn't Mary and Edith find something too?

 

Remember that none of Jane Austin's heroines did not accept marriage without love even though many of them were pressured hard for it.

 

None of the main characters. But best friends of the main characters almost always did.

[ZoloftBlob]

It's less I agree that that women deserve less than men and more that I don't think Mary's motivation was wanting all women to be treated equally.  

 

That the english inheritance was and is intensely unfair to women doesn't change the fact that Mary's reasons for wanting the entail broken were essentially selfish.  

 

I mean we're discussing a period of history - do we have to disclaim all comments with "I do not believe the english system of inheritance is fair"? Because I'm also pretty certain there's been some really terrible things concerning homosexuality being illegal that we don't talk about...

[Hecate7]

Not going down that anachronistic rabbit-hole. The discussion was framed in modern terms of fair and unfair and making victims out of people who were even with the disadvantages discussed here pretty high up in the food-chain due to that very same unfair system. And let's not forget that younger brothers were also handed the short end of the stick.

 

No, they weren't, because they were sent to Ivy League schools to prepare them to take their seats in Parliament or on the board of trustees somewhere, or run a vicarage. The girls were raised to be "the wife of," not to be the boss of. Younger sons were sent to law school or divinity school or whatever sort of school looked very promising. Girls weren't. And it's entirely unfair for a girl whose brother is an MP to have nothing better to look forward to than a cold water flat and a typewriter. There wasn't any sort of equality there.

 

But I absolutely agree that Mary cares nothing about equality for women. Also that she really would look tacky breaking the entail at this point, although there are some good reasons for doing so.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Hecate7

[MissLucas]

Yes, they were when we talk about inheritance laws.

[DeccaMitford]

Right, MissLucas. And, ok. I'm a feminist, and proud to be one. Of course I think it's unfair that women were usually prevented from inheriting. But if we want to talk about fairness, I think it's valid to say that of course Mary has more inherent rights to her parents' wealth than Matthew (if anybody has a right to wealth they didn't earn), but why does she have more rights than Edith or Sybil? Why couldn't the wealth be split three ways (that was the custom in English common law, if a male heir couldn't be found: to split the estate equally between all daughters). They're also only in this position because it was determined that Robert, a man, had more right to the property than his sister; why is that ok?

 

I can see where Mary is coming from in feeling that she was arbitrarily cheated out of her birthright, I really can, and it was arbitrary, absolutely. But there is just nothing to support the idea that losing Downton would leave her with nothing, as I understand having nothing. She's an intelligent woman, she's a survivor, and she has wealthy relatives. Everyone might have to move in with Rosamund; they'd all fight like cats and dogs but they'd be fine. I just can't see a possible scenario where Mary is not fine. The ones who would have to worry if the estate was lost, the ones who would actually be out on the street, would be the servants who suddenly found themselves out of work. I'm 100% in favor of showing solidarity with other women, but mine is reserved for, you know, real live women, not fictional ones who don't even dress themselves. If we're bringing our politics to the story, what I'd really like is for Tom to have burned the whole sorry edifice to the ground when he was still a firebrand and had the chance.

[Eolivet]

Well, I'm surprised that here are so many women who find it completely okay that women weren't able to inherit and that men were allowed to push them totally out of their life, just because of their sex.  There is of course a question wether the rich deserved to be rich, but ONE thing is for sure: The men didn't deserve to be rich any more than the women. It's an extreme injustice. I'm not talking about the title, because who cares about a title, but the estate and the money? How about my father dies and leaves all he has to my brothers and I don't get anything at all simply because I'm female? I think that's incredibly unfair and has nothing to do with liking or disliking Mary. It was just a shit law and I would have welcomed it, if Robert had broken the entail as soon as he could. It would have been a good closure to the storyline which started everything in season 1. 

 

BTW Mary wouldn't be countess if she fought the entail. Women can't inherit titles. This law still stands until today. So if George died and there was no other male relative the title would go back to the crown. But at least the family would still own the estate (for which Mary works btw). The only way for a woman to be countess is marriage. It has nothing to do with the entail. 

 

Thanks for the clarification, Andorra.

 

I don't understand the argument that Mary breaking the entail would somehow be mean to poor George. Unless one thinks Mary is going to run off and join the circus, presumably the money would be spent on George's upbringing, and the upkeep of Downton. The difference is it would be Mary's estate (with yes, George retaining the title).

 

And I do think it's at least more fair to have it go to Mary than to some unknown male relative. Mary has much more investment (figuratively and literally) in the upkeep of Downton, she has Robert's love and devotion to it. Sybil is gone, and could Edith name any of the staff (slight exaggeration). We've seen Mary have interactions with Anna, with Carson, with Mrs. Hughes, even Bates and William back in the day. She's made it her business to know Downton, and she has that consolation prize of an estate manager job. She knows the role of Downton is to provide for the village around it (or it was). Presuming Edith was taken care of if she needed it, why shouldn't Mary break the entail?

 

I just can't get all excited about "Oh no, poor George, the potential four-year old Earl! His wicked, spiteful mother wants to steal his inheritance!"

[ZoloftBlob]

Unless one thinks Mary is going to run off and join the circus, presumably the money would be spent on George's upbringing, and the upkeep of Downton.

 

Well, she did just marry a guy with a dangerous, expensive hobby... ;)

 

 

I just can't get all excited about "Oh no, poor George, the potential four-year old Earl! His wicked, spiteful mother wants to steal his inheritance!"

See, I think the reason JF isn't going there, isn't addressing the law change in 1925 is precisely this - Mary would be perceived as stealing her son's inheritance and not caring about anything but being Countess Grantham.

 

Does it suck for her? A bit, but she would look pretty grasping if she insisted on it, particularly since she's already in control of so much. She's got the money and the estate and now she wants her son's title as well.

 

Would George care? Hard to tell but he would the guy who has to spend his life waiting for his mom to let him be Earl.

[sark1624]

this is one of the problems in the last season, important things like change the entail or politic issues had not been treated, in the other hand the show was about the suitors saga. The best of the show was when the history of the characters were related with historic episodes like the Titanic, the war, the irish war of independence. 

[Roseanna]

If we are speaking of equality and fairness, I think we should speak of the whole system. Then at least would side with Tom (earlier) and Daisy. Daisy was only wrong in her method.

 

Inside the system I understand that there was a point of keeping the fortune in one person's hands, even if he got it by accident of birth, instead of splitting it in every generation between all sons and daughters. 

 

Speaking of Matthew's testament, I think it was both unfair and unwise from him to leave all to his widow and nothing to his children, even as when they became adults. As Sense and Sensibility shows, that means that a mother can command his children until she dies. And Mary is just the kind of person who would do it. But of course Matthew's testament was needed for the story. 

[saki]

If we are speaking of equality and fairness, I think we should speak of the whole system. Then at least would side with Tom (earlier) and Daisy. Daisy was only wrong in her method.

 

Totally agree.  I suppose it is unfair that Mary doesn't inherit.  But it feels just as unfair that Edith and Sybil weren't going to.  And that Rosamund didn't.  And, while it is unfair that some people are never going to inherit because of their gender, it's much much more unfair to me that some people are going to have do really ridiculously hard work and graft  - like Daisy, Mrs P, Mrs Hugest - and that some people, because of the accident of birth, can make one mistake and have their children taken away (Ethel.)  

 

I don't feel this great tragedy about Mary's position, frankly.  Not least because she will have known her WHOLE life that she wasn't going to inherit, this wasn't some massive surprise for her.  For most of her life, she will have expected to have a younger brother so it's not like she always expected to marry the heir, she was brought up with the assumption that she'd be leaving Downton when she got married.  And, I'm sorry, I also find laughable this idea that she is now working for the estate - as Cora would say, she's not exactly going down the mine.  She still seems to have plenty of time to go to parties, sit around having her hair brushed and to be spiteful to her sister.

 

She knows the role of Downton is to provide for the village around it (or it was).

 

 

No, I don't think that's so clear.  When she wanted to show her American grandmother "what Downton was about", did she show her the village?  No, she threw a grand dinner.  

 

What she's been doing on the estate has been about moving towards farming the land themselves (i.e. getting rid of tenant farmers) which benefits her and the family, not other people.  I see absolutely no evidence that she's interested in the village as a whole.  There are a couple of individuals who are beneath her like Anna who she'll be nice to but, when Anna disagrees with her (as we saw over the contraception), she has no problems ordering her to do things she's uncomfortable with.

Edited November 19, 2015 by saki

[Llywela]

Does it suck for her? A bit, but she would look pretty grasping if she insisted on it, particularly since she's already in control of so much. She's got the money and the estate and now she wants her son's title as well. Would George care? Hard to tell but he would the guy who has to spend his life waiting for his mom to let him be Earl.

That isn't how it would work. Mary could fight to break the entail, sure, but that would only give her possession of the estate and its fortune. There is absolutely nothing she can do that will give her the title, because women can't inherit those even today (unless specifically stated in the initial grant of that title). George is going to be the next Earl no matter what Mary does; the only way Mary can ever be Countess is if she marries an Earl of some other estate. If she fights the entail, she would be fighting for possession of the estate and money, so that George would be Earl of Grantham but would not inherit the actual estate until Mary dies.

No, they weren't, because they were sent to Ivy League schools

No such thing as Ivy League in the UK. ;-)

Inside the system I understand that there was a point of keeping the fortune in one person's hands, even if he got it by accident of birth, instead of splitting it in every generation between all sons and daughters.

Yep. Historically speaking, the move to primogeniture from partible inheritance happened for a very good reason. Way back in the dark ages, a man's land and possessions were divided equally between all offspring, often including the illegitimate ones, which might seem to us only right and proper, but in that economy all it achieved was division of the land into smaller and smaller shares that no one could actually live on, which in turn led to internecine warfare. The move to primogeniture ensured that land and property was passed on intact, which stabilised both the economy and the country in general. In the middle ages, large estates like Downton worked because everyone had a place - their position in the pecking order might not be fair, and anyone who fell through the net was in for a bad time, but a large estate provided for everyone, from the family itself to the workers and tenants (and those tenants would also practice primogeniture rather than divide their farms).

 

The problem for estates like Downton in the 20th century is that the model on which they run is basically medieval, and the world has moved on since that time. The system no longer works - and while movement toward modernisation might keep the estate afloat, it often does so at the expense of the tenant farmers who are evicted from land they have worked for generations.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Llywela

[Andorra]

 

Would George care? Hard to tell but he would the guy who has to spend his life waiting for his mom to let him be Earl.

 

He would be Earl the minute Robert dies, no matter if the entail was broken or not. The only difference is, that Mary would be the owner of the estate as long as she doesn't hand it over to him or as long as she lives. She would NOT steal his inheritance, because she would certainly leave it to him anyway. It's her life's dedication to preserve the estate for him and to work her arse off to save his inheritance. 

 

AND she could do what people want her to do: She could leave money to her other children, too. As it is now, she will work for the rest of her life as the manager of the estate. Without a salary of course and if something happens to George she would not own a penny. Every single penny she owns and all she has worked for would go to the new heir (if there is one) or to the crown. She would get no gratification or pension or anything for her life's work. If George dies in WW2, Mary will be in her 40s. Would anyone hire a female estate Manager? Of course not!

Edited November 19, 2015 by Andorra

[saki]

He would be Earl the minute Robert dies, no matter if the entail was broken or not. The only difference is, that Mary would be the owner of the estate as long as she doesn't hand it over to him or as long as she lives. She would NOT steal his inheritance, because she would certainly leave it to him anyway. It's her life's dedication to preserve the estate for him and to work her arse off to save his inheritance. 

 

AND she could do what people want her to do: She could leave money to her other children, too. As it is now, she will work for the rest of her life as the manager of the estate. Without a salary of course and if something happens to George she would not own a penny. Every single penny she owns and all she has worked for would go to the new heir (if there is one) or to the crown. She would get no gratification or pension or anything for her life's work. If George dies in WW2, Mary will be in her 40s. Would anyone hire a female estate Manager? Of course not!

 

I'm sorry, I just think this is total hyperbole.  She doesn't have to be the estate manager, she is choosing to be one - she could hire one and go off and live somewhere else.  It's not just because she's a woman that no-one would hire her - she doesn't treat it like a proper job, there is a massive difference between the way that she "works" and the way that, say, Bertie Pelham was working as an estate manager.  She can pick and choose what she does, she can swan off to London whever she feels like it, she doesn't even have to brush her own hair!

[Andorra]

 

It's not just because she's a woman that no-one would hire her - she doesn't treat it like a proper job, there is a massive difference between the way that she "works" and the way that, say, Bertie Pelham was working as an estate manager.  She can pick and choose what she does, she can swan off to London whever she feels like it, she doesn't even have to brush her own hair!

 

And that is what I think complete prejudice against Mary. We see Bertie dash of to London just as often as Mary and it's not as if Brancaster is nearer to the estate as is Downton, but in her case it is the implication that she is  just doing a pretend-job of being the estate Manager in Bertie's case we assume he is splendid at it. As was Tom, because he was a man. He lived exactly the same life as Mary did. He changed for dinner every evening and had enough time to do just as many things as Mary did, but just because he's a man we think he must be a hard worker, while Mary is just showing off.

 

The show said us, that Mary is working as estate Manager and we see her doing it. We don't see her working at it 24/7 because it is boring to watch, but we know she does the full job. She is not just pretending to do the job. 

 

And of course she could just leave it and waste her time and fortune elsewhere, but the show is making a point about her not wanting to do that. We also know that Anna is not going to be replaced once the Baby is there so the old argument she "doesn't have to brush her hair" is not going to work any more either. 

[saki]

And that is what I think complete prejudice against Mary. We see Bertie dash of to London just as often as Mary and it's not as if Brancaster is nearer to the estate as is Downton, but in her case it is the implication that she is  just doing a pretend-job of being the estate Manager in Bertie's case we assume he is splendid at it. As was Tom, because he was a man. He lived exactly the same life as Mary did. He changed for dinner every evening and had enough time to do just as many things as Mary did, but just because he's a man we think he must be a hard worker, while Mary is just showing off.

 

The show said us, that Mary is working as estate Manager and we see her doing it. We don't see her working at it 24/7 because it is boring to watch, but we know she does the full job. She is not just pretending to do the job. 

 

And of course she could just leave it and waste her time and fortune elsewhere, but the show is making a point about her not wanting to do that. We also know that Anna is not going to be replaced once the Baby is there so the old argument she "doesn't have to brush her hair" is not going to work any more either. 

 

I don't think we do know she does the full job.  What we  see from her is obviously different to what we saw from Tom and the glimpses we've seen from Bertie.  They didn't get breakfast in bed, they had to look after their own clothes/hair.  If they wanted a day off, they had to actually ask their employer.  Bertie has made it very clear that he can't get down to London to see Edith anytime, that he has to fit it around his work.  Mary has not once, ever, on the show said that she couldn't do something she wanted to because of work - what we have seen is nothing like a woman with a proper full-time job.

 

I just don't buy that I should somehow feel sorry for Mary because her life is so hard.  Other than perhaps Robert, she is the character on the show who has had the most good fortune.  Why on earth should I feel sorry for her rather than, say, for Daisy who at the beginning of the show was a girl barely into her teens who was up at the crack of dawn working hours and hours in a backbreakingly tough job, being shouted at by Mrs Patmore, for an absolute pittance?

[Llywela]

It's all kind of a moot point anyway, since as of this episode, Mary has shown absolutely zero desire to break the entail now that she is the mother of the heir. Outright ownership of the estate and fortune wouldn't in practice be much different from her current situation as a major stakeholder. She wanted to break the entail when as a young woman she envisaged her home and her mother's fortune disappearing off into the hands of a complete stranger - she is no longer in that situation. This episode was set in 1925, when the law had only just changed and no one at Downton has any reason to look into pressing the matter, so it's hardly surprising that it wasn't addressed. All very well to look back from 2015 and say 'ah, but WWII is coming up' - the characters don't know that, and WWII did not cut the bloody swathe through aristocratic ranks that WWI did, so George stands as good a chance as anyone of surviving it - he might not even go off to fight at all, since WWII also didn't see the kind of compulsory enlistment that WWI did. From where Mary is standing, Downton's future and her place in it are already secure - I can't imagine any circumstance in which George would throw her out, even if she didn't already control half of the fortune keeping the estate afloat. She doesn't need outright ownership of everything. There's nothing left for her to fight for, which is why it hasn't come up. The only thing she might still desire is a title, and only marriage could give her that - which has been part of the point of all her romantic dithering.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Llywela

[Andorra]

She doesn't have breakfast in bed any more, btw. In case you didn't notice.

 

Mary has no desire to break the entail, but she should have the desire to do so. She doesn't know of course, that WW2 is in the books, but we know. So we should root for her breaking the entail, because George is in imminent danger and with it her and her family's future. Not just George's.

 

It's not a matter of "feeling sorry" for her. I don't feel sorry for her and that's not the point. As long as George lives nothing changes for her (or him) whether the entail is intact or not. It's only about fairness and justice of the system. The system changed and it was good that the system changed. So it should be addressed, because the entail was the main point which started the whole show in the first place. It's idiotic that it now isn't addressed at all and the audience is left to assume that George will survive WW2 and so the entail will not have any consequences any more. 

 

Luckily after George the entail is broken anyway because he is the third generation. So at least for HIS children there wouldn't be an entail any more, thank God. I hope he had only daughters, too!

Edited November 19, 2015 by Andorra

[Llywela]

Mary has no desire to break the entail, but she should have the desire to do so. She doesn't know of course, that WW2 is in the books, but we know. So we should root for her breaking the entail, because George is in imminent danger and with it her and her family's future. Not just George's.

But you are arguing that she should want to do something that you only want her to do for external reasons that she could have no way of knowing. George is not in imminent danger. This season is set in 1925. George is a happy, healthy little boy with, as far as anyone knows (including us), a long and healthy life ahead of him. Mary no longer has any reason to want to break the entail - it wouldn't give her anything she doesn't already have by default. She is content with the life that she has. Why would she want to put time and effort into breaking the entail just on the off-chance her son gets killed in a war 20 years down the line? Who goes around thinking like that? As far as Mary is concerned, all the reasons she wanted to break the entail no longer apply. She already owns half the fortune outright. She already has control over both the other half of the fortune and the estate. If Robert dies while George is still a child, she would assume full control for the duration of his minority. If Robert lives till George is grown, she would expect George to continue to work with her in the same way that she currently works with her father - and no doubt she will raise him in that expectation. Mary has never been concerned with rights for women or the unfairness of the system in general. She wanted the estate to remain in the family under her control and that's exactly what she now has. The only thing she doesn't have that she once wanted is a title, and breaking the entail won't give her that. I can't see any reason why Mary would have any interest in breaking the entail any longer. She just wouldn't think that way - and wanting her to think that way is a projection of modern expectations, rather than an understanding of the time in which she lives and the culture in which she was raised.

 

We might say that it would have been narratively satisfying if Fellowes had brought the story full circle by addressing the entail issue once more, but that's a different argument.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Llywela

[DeccaMitford]

I agree with Llywela. And this is crucial: Mary is in a much better and more secure position, as of Matthew's death, than most women even of her social class. She is not just an estate agent drawing no salary; she is co-owner of the estate, with a share of it equal to Robert's and she is currently entitled to the income from half of it. And I just don't see how it's possible for Mary's share to be tied to the entail and thus liable to be taken from her. If it were tied to the entail, it would have been tied to the entail when Matthew died, and his letter leaving it to her would have been a meaningless piece of paper. There's nothing about George's potential death that would make property which Mary currently owns suddenly not be her property anymore. If there's any evidence that this would happen, I'd love to see it, but everything I know about property law tells me it couldn't happen. That was the story after Matthew's death: Mary has every thing she ever wanted, apart from love and a title.

 

And we're not dealing entirely with hypotheticals here. We know what happened to nobility who lost their ancestral estates at this time. It was a process that started with industrialization as more and more working people moved off the land and into cities, and the process was sped up by two world wars. The nobility mostly survived the change: there was never a huge contingent of earls' daughters in the breadline. They managed. They, like Tony Gillingham's family, would sell or rent out the family mansion and move into a smaller house with fewer servants (the Crawleys were also on the verge of doing this at the beginning of season 3). The moved in with relatives (Rosamund owns her own house in London, and there's always the rich relatives in the US). They wrote their memoirs, which often sold like hotcakes. They sold their extensive art, jewelry or couture collections and lived off the proceeds.

The ones who had to worry were the Thomases and Baxters of the world, who had few marketable skills outside of service, no savings or property of their own, and no wealthy relatives to help them out.

ETA: and the cynical side of me thinks that the real reason we'll never see any reference to WWII on this show is that Fellowes doesn't want to confront the fact that a huge number of the Crawleys' social class were vocally pro-fascist. They themselves likely wouldn't be, but Lord Merton's sons have "Oswald Mosley supporter" written aaaaaaallllll over them.

Edited November 19, 2015 by DeccaMitford

[Andorra]

 

We might say that it would have been narratively satisfying if Fellowes had brought the story full circle by addressing the entail issue once more, but that's a different argument.

 

But that's exactly  my argument actually.  

 

 

There's nothing about George's potential death that would make property which Mary currently owns suddenly not be her property anymore. If there's any evidence that this would happen, I'd love to see it, but everything I know about property law tells me it couldn't happen.

 

About Matthew's share being part of the entail: I must search for the discussion on the other board. It was a lawyer who pointed it out and I didn't understand it either. It said that Matthew couldn't become co-owner of the estate without his part going into the entail. Because either an estate was entailed or not and it was not possible that part of it was and part was not.

 

We can only assume that Matthew was not in fact co-owner, but only paid money into the estate, but as soon as it got invested in any goods, machines, houses or animals it would also be part of the estate and be entailed. So if he just paid salaries or something like that, it was possible, but he didn't get anything out of it and the money would just be lost. 

Edited November 19, 2015 by Andorra

[DeccaMitford]

Oh, see that I completely understand - I don't think it was ever satisfactorily explained how Matthew could become "co-owner" of an entailed estate, and I don't think it's actually possible in real life.

 

However, in the fictional world of the show, we were explicitly told that Matthew left his share in the estate to Mary in his will and that Mary became co-owner after his death, not George. If Matthew was able to do this, that means this property (Matthew's share of the estate) was not entailed. If you could leave entailed property to whoever you wanted, there would be no point to an entail at all. If you could leave entailed property to anyone you wanted, there was never anything preventing Robert from leaving the whole lot to Mary in his will way back in season one. Ultimately we have to work with what the show is telling us. I suppose the case could be that a new, unknown heir could argue successfully that Matthew lost legal rights to that money when he invested it in the estate, and that his will should never have been declared valid. That I can see happening.

 

I get the argument that the show should come full circle and tie up the inheritance plot, but I suspect Fellowes believes he's done that. Downton is secure through the next generation, and will be kept in the Crawley family as far as anyone knows.

 

And any scenario possible would just be as far as anyone knows. That's life, and though it might be realistic for a young widow like Mary to be preparing for the worst at every moment, it would make me sad for her if she lived like that. George might die in WWII, or he might join the British Union of Fascists and refuse to enlist, or he might become a conscientious objector, or he might survive the war (as most British people who fought in it did), or he might catch a fever and die at age 10, or he might be gay and never produce a son of his own to inherit, or he might marry someone who can't stand Mary and who banishes her to the dower house. He might decide that he can't stand country life and wants to sell Downton and do something else. We don't know any more than the characters do.

[Roseanna]

Llywela, you are quite right: the characters can't make decisions on the basis of what they don't know although we do. 

 

In addition to all else, that would make a bad and boring drama. Or are we really interested in flawless characters who know the future beforehand and always make the decisions? Or are we rather interested in how they meet great and unexpected challenges in life?

 

Remember that there would be no show at all without Titanic and the Pamuk affair. Mary's love story became really interesting only when she made her fatal mistake ans Matthew couldn't forgive her. Edith became interesting only after being jilted at the altar.

 

Of course most problems are solved too easily. Robert loses Cora's money and Crawleys must move to the smaller house. But simsalabim, two heirs whom Laviania's father left his money have died conveniently and Matthew get it - and when he has qualms whether he can accept it, Lavinia's letter saves the day.

 

I don't complain for I know this is a fairy tale. In this kind of story Matthew wouldn't stay lame, and Lavinia dies so that Matthew can marry Mary after having qualms to show that he is indeed a man of honor.

[Roseanna]

DeccaMitford, you are quite right. One can never know what happens in life. 

 

However, in DA the fates of the characters are decided by JF. Therefore I am fairly sure that if he described WW2, Mary's beloved George would survive but somebody else would die (cf. Matthew - Wlliam Mason). 

[DianeDobbler]

For what it's worth it was very clear to me at the time that Matthew's money went to Mary, it wasn't part of the entail, and that's why the will was significant. It liberated Mary from being a mere caretaker of her son's legacy. She had power in her own right.

 

Furthermore, and as is customary, I take for granted that the daughters all have what Jane Austen would call "an independence." Not enough for them to purchase their own estate, but I remember Robert telling Sybil there would be no money if she married Tom (Sybil at one point mentioned "her" money) - which I actually don't think was within his power to deny. This seemed to indicate the conventional daughter's trust fund/portion. Edith has mentioned "her" money once, when making calculations about her future (can't recall if this was regarding Marigold), and of course, now she has the newspaper. In my previous reading of what was conventionally the daughters' share among the nobility/aristocracy at the time, it would be enough to have a lovely flat, get clothes from the shows, eat in nice restaurants, travel, and not have to work. I see no reason to assume the daughters of Downton don't have that, it would make them unique if they didn't, as that was how things were managed.  Particularly as the money would have been marked out for them prior to any one of Robert's financial crises, and not affected by them.  When I read about Diana, Princess of Wales, she had her own money as well, although not her own property, and although her brother inherited the family estate. Even though Diana's family, as well, had had to "streamline" even while she was a child (customary for these places to have terrible heat and awful plumbing, as too expensive to replace).

 

P.S., I previously mentioned an article written by Charles Spencer, Diana's brother. In it he referenced a fellow "nobleman" who had a hell of a time after he inherited the title/estate, trying to sell off enough chattel and juggle the finances enough so that his sisters would have their trust funds, as the financial situation was such a mess, they didn't even have that.

 

When I've read stories of show business in Europe (you know, the Noel Coward, Astaires (Adele), Oliviers, etc.) they were always socializing with the aristocracy - the sister of and the cousin of, and these relations of landholders always lived very nicely, even if a lot of them were extremely tight and freeloaded whenever they could. The lifestyle was as described - basically a life of leisure, but in a flat, or beautifully appointed small home, enough to sustain, in comfort, a single upper class individual (and perhaps a child or a parent), not anything on par with commanding an estate.

Edited November 19, 2015 by DianeDobbler

[Llywela]

But that's exactly  my argument actually. 

But the thing is that arguing that Fellowes could have found a way to re-address the entail issue if he'd wanted to for narrative reasons isn't really the same as saying that Mary should randomly be fighting the entail still, even though she has absolutely no reason to do so. If Fellowes wanted to raise the issue of the entail once again, just for the circularity of the story, he'd have to have found a storyline reason to do so, which currently doesn't exist. Internal to the story as it stands, Mary has no reason to push for an end to the entail.

 

And having said all that, there isn't really any narrative imperative to bring the entail issue around full circle at all, since its existence was mainly a driver for other plots, rather than an issue that inherently required resolution in itself.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Llywela

[photo fox]

Guys, I asked just a few days ago for everyone to please limit discussion in this thread to the episode (or mainly the episode). It's just common courtesy to everyone who comes in after the episode airs elsewhere that we not make them wade through pages of Mary vs. Edith, etc.

 

The past few pages have been interesting comments, but they've had little to do with the episode. When I have a free few hours, I'm going to move a bunch of things. But in the meantime, if you want to continue to discuss things that didn't happen in this episode, take that to the appropriate place. We have character topics, speculations topics (which includes Christmas), a past seasons topic, even a Mary vs. Edith topic. Just remember to spoiler tag any specific plot points from season/series 6 outside of the episode and UK speculation topics.

 

Since this is my second official note in four days about the same issue, and most people apparently ignored the first one, I'm going to take a harder line. Any posts from here out that aren't at least 50% about this episode will be deleted.

 

Questions? PM me.

[shipperx]

I agree that the point was that Matthews money was left to Mary. It was free of the entail because Matthew never inherited Downton. Robert us still alive so Matthew's personal money isn't bound to the estate even if Mary andMatthew have chosen to use it to finance the estate.

Now, I have little idea of how Talbot will factor into this. Does Mary's money default to her husband? I don't know the rules at that time. Does Mary have the 1920s version of a prenup? It sounds like Talbot isn't independently wealthy. I guess these are questions that should have been ask d before rushing into marriage.

Edited November 19, 2015 by shipperx

[saki]

So, going back to this episode..  For me, it was largely really upsetting to see what Mary did to Edith - I found it genuinely really hard to watch her being so cruel.  I'm not entirely sure why I found it so difficult to watch - I guess, it was partly how calculated it was, you could see Mary thinking about it and planning it and then deciding to finally do it, it was absolutely not an spur of the moment thing and partly the awfulness of her response (as I've said earlier, the way that she never acknowledged it - even when both Tom and Edith tell her to her face that she can't get away with playing the innocent and pretending she didn't do it deliberately, and the way that she doesn't apologise properly).

 

But there were some good bits:

 

I enjoyed Edith at the magazine and the Spratt as the advice columnist - felt that was a welcome return to the tone of Season 1.

 

Cora's line - "it's 5:30 and we're in North Yorkshire, did you expect me to tell him to pitch a tent?" - was funny.

 

Completely inadvertently funny but Tom and Talbot's bromance..  I laughed out loud when Tom was trying to leave Talbot to propose to Mary and Talbot was all "Don't go!" and then when the two of them were going off to the church together, they made such a lovely couple...

 

Things I was more 'meh' about:

 

Barrow - I just didn't find this storyline worked for me.  There are some people who have been consistently kind to him - like Anna, Baxter, Molesley and Bates - so I didn't really find it realistic that not being Andy's reading buddy and being made redundant drove him to suicide.

 

Mary/Talbot - I thought this was written really badly.  I still have no idea what was meant to be going on.  For some of the time, it was written as though the racing car thing was the big problem but, then, when she decides to marry him, she doesn't raise the issue at all.  Is he still going to race?  Does she now not mind?  Who knows?  I actually do think the actors had some chemistry - though, to be honest, I think Michelle Dockery plays Mary as such a cold fish that she doesn't have a lot of chemistry with anyone - I don't think that was the major problem, I just thought the writing was all over the place.

 

I think it's been obvious for several seasons now that Julian Fellowes doesn't see Tom as a massively important character so I didn't find it that surprising that he had no plot and no very satisfactory ending.

[DianeDobbler]

Fellowes is just perverse, in a very Matt Weiner-ish way, as I've said upthread. He used Tom a great deal this year - but of course, it was all vis a vis Mary. Still he got loads more material than Mary's new husband. I have to believe that is conscious.

 

I hope there's a strong reaction to this episode AND the xmas special so maybe one day Fellowes will actually spill the beans as to why he didn't allow Tom to get a new love interest, and why he brought Rose on only to hustle her straight off the show the following season (I won't believe it was because of Cinderella - Lily James repeatedly said she hoped to return for S6). Why Mary's love interests were cast so poorly, and why she was hustled into this union with Tablot.

[ZoloftBlob]

Its like, I have an opinion on this, Diane, but I also feel like I'd end up on a lengthy rant not related to episode 8 of season six. Can I pm you?

[Tetraneutron]

Tom was brought on to be a love interest, like Michael Greyson and Anthony Gillingham. When Jessica Brown Findlay wanted to leave, he was hastily rewritten to be the new Sybil (the Crawley sibling who provides the rootable goodness to counteract Edith and Mary sniping at each other). I seriously doubt Rose was ever supposed to be a love interest for Tom. When she was introduced, it was as a rich party girl, a Bright Young Thing Jazz Age stereotype (what people would call a hipster today). I bet if he had paired her with Tom, the fans would have rioted. This shallow, spoiled brat who dresses in trampy clothes talks back to her parents and has an intrigue with a servant (not love, just fun) and likes to party, after Sainted Sybil? Sure, in season 5 Rose was rewritten to be nicer and more mature, but that wasn't her character originally. 

 

And Mary was "hustled" into marrying Talbot because you can't have a period soap without the heroine getting a happily ever after in the form of an attractive, kind, dashing man. My guess is Fellowes underestimated how attached people were to Matthew, and how he couldn't just pull a new character out of nowhere after the audience was invested. So Gillingham and Blake failed, because no conflict = boring to watch. So he loaded the scales by casting Matthew Goode. And made Talbot everything Gillingblake wasn't - no estate, no real money, well-born but not titled, modern hobbies. And it worked, because it had to. It doesn't matter if the fans like it or not, it's what narratively has to be done, so you write the happily ever after. 

[Free]

And Mary was "hustled" into marrying Talbot because you can't have a period soap without the heroine getting a happily ever after in the form of an attractive, kind, dashing man. My guess is Fellowes underestimated how attached people were to Matthew, and how he couldn't just pull a new character out of nowhere after the audience was invested. So Gillingham and Blake failed, because no conflict = boring to watch. So he loaded the scales by casting Matthew Goode. And made Talbot everything Gillingblake wasn't - no estate, no real money, well-born but not titled, modern hobbies. And it worked, because it had to. It doesn't matter if the fans like it or not, it's what narratively has to be done, so you write the happily ever after.

 

Even with all the setbacks, he was given plenty of time to craft one instead of literally making a last minute wedding for 1 of his main characters in the last episode (excluding the CS).

 

The LIs were mostly bland and Fellowes never really did much with their characters but string them along until he was done with them without actually fleshing them out like he should've done so.

[Tetraneutron]

He tried fleshing out Gillingblake. The conflict between the old way and the new way of land management (Blake) the working for the new government (Blake) the being in love with Mary even though he's engaged to someone else (Gillingham) the stuff with rescuing the pigs (Blake) and wanting to have sex before they were married (Gillingham). It just didn't work, because they were both attracted to Mary, she had no obstacles to being with either one of them, so there was no, say it with me, conflict. It's not like they ever gave Matthew much of a personality, beyond wanting to be a lawyer and liking old churches, both of which they dropped within a few episodes. But Mary and Matthew had obstacles to overcome, which makes them rootable and fun to watch. 

 

My theory is Julian Fellowes was trying to set up a Mary-Gillingham-Blake love triangle, with shipper wars and the contrast between the old-fashioned Gillingham and the modern Blake. But it didn't work because Mary could have just chosen either one of them and it wouldn't have mattered. 

 

And honestly, I'm glad he got Mary her ending as fast as possible because I'm not sure how much more dragging out the story could take. A sub-sub-sub-Taming of the Shrew with that silly car conflict really isn't much to go on. 

[Andorra]

What I still find puzzling is how many great scenes Tom got this series. So many more than in season 4 and 5 and still they were ALL about Mary. Nothing at all for himself. I'm sure he'll get Laura Edmunds in the end (because what other reason for her to be in the show is there?), but why did he have to do all the work for Henry and was pushed in every single scene with the supposed "couple" and then had even the double number of scenes with Mary alone than the supposed "suitor"? That was just so badly written that it puzzles me. I can only explain it with Matthew Goode having a contract that limited his filming days for Downton so they couldn't use him more and that was the reason they had Tom do the courting for him instead. 

[Roseanna]

Tetraneutron, you are right: there was no obstacles to overcome and therefore no conflict. 

 

What made Matthew interesting to me was, besides his blond boyish looks, was that he had a code of values of his own (although I didn't always agree with him, I respected that he acted according to them) and because of them he could say to Mary. Although he was clearly smitten with her, he walked away when she began to flirt with Strallen after they had just shared a common laugh at his expense. As he said after Sybil's accident "don't play games with me" when they were eating sandwiches. Because he had a sense of his own worth, he refused to be a toy for a spoiled girl.

 

After Matthew's Mary's suitors have been Mary's toys. I don't see her searching for love, I saw her only playing games with men by keeping them in thrall out of boredom and because she likes power over them. (The only exception was the pig scene and it was also the only time she had seemed happy and relaxed with any of those men.) I didn't like her "trial week" with Gillingham, not because of morality but because there is ugliness in the way she tried a man like a new dress or a car in order to make sure (there is no surety in the world). The only saving grace was that Gillingham knew and accepted the rules of game.

 

Instead, Edith has had a genuine relationship with Gregson. He loved her and she loved her in return. She radiated happiness. They were decided to marry when she made love to him out of love. I like that she dared to take a real risk. Although she lost, it wasn't because of her immorality or bad judgment of him but because of fate (= JF). But she could cope and, after twists (that were demanded by the story) took their daughter to herself although only as a ward.

 

It's the same with Bertie. They love each other, but there is a real obstacle: can Bertie accept Marigold? Can she trust enough to tell him?The stakes are again high and therefore it counts. But she don't have to marry (as she believed with Strallan) for even without marriage she can life a full life.  

[Roseanna]

It's not that I don't sometimes like bitches. I really enjoy the battle of Marchioness with Valmont in Les liaisons dangeours because they are equals and live in a society where they have nothing else to do than sexual power games. Valmont's seduction of Cécile is quite funny but it wouldn't be that if she didn't really enjoy his lessons. As for madame de Torvel, even if Valmont didn't in the end fall in love her and refused to admit it, she would still retain her dignity in her pure love.  

 

But I don't like that a person like Mary, as an adult and having all, intentionally cruelly bullies a weaker one. Everyone makes mistakes as both Mary and Edith have done years before, but they were explained (although not accepted) by the other's behavior Instead, this scene that she has ugliness inside. Whatever happens to atone it in CS, I can't really believe it. She had her big chance to rise to a great lady but she (or JF) missed it.

 

I have read earlier threads that noticed that people have been sure that Mary wouldn't never misuse the secret about Marigold against Edith told nor wash the family's dirty laundry in public (although Bertie hardly tells it to the others, the point is that he could). But it's just that she did. And don't say that it was to revenge on the Pamuk affair (just recently Mary could remember it smiling with Anna), or that she was unhappy because the man whose proposal she had refused had left. 

 

Mary couldn't be civil towards Edith even during the Gregson affair even if she was happily married to Matthew. She couldn't do it even when the man she loved asked for it. Although Matthew had made all big concessions in their marriage (moving into her father's house, accepting Swire money in order to "save" Downton). Mary didn't even try to please her husband in such a small matter.  

[Roseanna]

Tetraneutron, I think that it would have been possible to leave Mary single and the master of DA because the audience thought that noboldy could be as good to her as Matthew. Or she could have in the end see "a tall dark stranger" - or rather his back, then he turn but we never see his face, only Mary's face that tell us that now it has happened. We could have imagined the rest.

But because JF had decided that Talbot was the man she finally fell in love but didn't dare to marry because she was afraid to lose him as she has lost Matthew, JF should have followed the line to the end: f.ex. Mary demands as a condition to accept that Talbot abandons driving in competition. And after long, long angst, he either accepts her condition or (rather) she understands that she can't make him a "lesser man" and wants him regardless of danger. Lines: "A few moments of happiness is better than none at all", "It's better to love and lose than not to love at all".

[Roseanna]

Thinking backwards, I find funny that Mary in her early twenties the had to find a husband refused to pushed to marriage by her relatives but in her mid-thirties she did just that although she had no need to remarry.

In addition, Talbot was the worst possible choice. What had he common with Mary? Love is not enough, and even that we didn't actually *see*. What topics would they discuss with? Talbot would talk about cars with Tom and Mary would talk about agriculture with Tom.

I don't think he was strong but rude. He was insensitive to propose after the car crash - he though only of his own needs to catch the moment, not a moment how Mary felt because of Matthew's accident (unless he tried to use her moment of weakness).

He didn't accept her "no" but tried to force her by coming to Downton and accusing her of his invented reasons to say no as if she hadn't refused others before - I don't regard this as an evidence of love but an evidence of bullying. And what kind of man wouldn't mind that he was penniless and, instead of supporting his wife and children, had to live in the house of her father? Seems like a gold-digger even if Mary's fortune was tied to Downton.

It should at least been so that Mary would have gone to him, not him returning at once when she whistled.