Jump to content

Downton Abbey (UK)


  • Please log in to reply

11347 replies to this topic

#16378860

TWoP Howard

TWoP Howard

    TWoP Moderator

Posted Mar 12, 2014 @ 12:15 AM

This thread is for the discussion of Downton Abbey as it airs in the UK.  If you want to discuss the show on the US timetable and without the risk of seeing untagged spoilers, please head to the Downton Abbey expanded forum

 

There seems to be some confusion about what constitutes a spoiler in here. Any major media article or interview about the show in Britain is not a spoiler by TWoP rules. Neither are sneak peeks, promos, episode synopses, or press releases. Casting news is not a spoiler. Spoilers are leaked plot details, and not given out in interviews. You can find our spoiler rules in the Spoiler section of the FAQ. PM me if you have questions beyond that.

 

Finally, if you want to discuss Mary and Pamuk, you have missed your chance. Don't bring it up at all, please. Sorry you missed out, but the reasons are here. Thanks.



#5371

Scoutlet

Scoutlet

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 22, 2012 @ 7:55 PM

On the birth control issue, the sale or import of it was made illegal in Southern Ireland in 1935. Presumably before that one could buy condoms.
  • 0

#5372

Rinaldo

Rinaldo

    Stalker

Posted Feb 22, 2012 @ 8:31 PM

I have to admit to a really silly reaction I have to the music that plays during the opening credits. I find myself singing "How will you make it on your own?" from the old Mary Tyler Moore theme song. Actually the music is similar only in terms of general rhythm and the basic up-and-down of it; the pitches aren't very similar at all. But it amuses me.
  • 0

#5373

DoraNi

DoraNi

    Channel Surfer

Posted Feb 22, 2012 @ 8:58 PM

(Rinaldo)

I have to admit to a really silly reaction I have to the music that plays during the opening credits. I find myself singing "How will you make it on your own?" from the old Mary Tyler Moore theme song. Actually the music is similar only in terms of general rhythm and the basic up-and-down of it; the pitches aren't very similar at all. But it amuses me.


That's funny! Actually, I recently bought the soundtrack on iTunes (I've been in love with the music since the days of season 1) and the last song has lyrics set to the main theme from the opening credits. Not the same lyrics as the Mary Tyler Moore theme song, though. :)

I actually had a question related to the soundtrack, though. In addition to the mentioned track, there are two other songs that have lyrics. One is "If You Were the Only Girl in the World" (sadly, not sung by Michelle Dockery/everyone else except Violet...heh), the inclusion of which makes sense. The other is "Roses of Picardy." I'm a bit confused as to why this song was included because I can't remember it being used during the show...anyone remember something about it?
  • 0

#5374

AboutTheNumbers

AboutTheNumbers

    Channel Surfer

Posted Feb 22, 2012 @ 9:09 PM

I have to admit to a really silly reaction I have to the music that plays during the opening credits. I find myself singing "How will you make it on your own?" from the old Mary Tyler Moore theme song. Actually the music is similar only in terms of general rhythm and the basic up-and-down of it; the pitches aren't very similar at all. But it amuses me.


Interesting you mention that because when I first heard it I thought the opening theme sounded a lot like the theme to The X-Files, so I laughed when NPR's Fresh Air linked to a mash-up someone had created with the two themes last month: http://nprfreshair.t...heme-mashup-via

Edited by AboutTheNumbers, Feb 22, 2012 @ 9:38 PM.

  • 0

#5375

tea4904

tea4904

    Video Archivist

Posted Feb 22, 2012 @ 9:24 PM

Do they still have an implicit mourning period during that time?

There was a discussion in the first episode (1912) about whether Mary could get away with just doing a brief half-mourning period for Patrick-as-cousin, instead of the full-mourning (all black, no parties) society would expect for Patrick-as-fiance.


I believe that the mourning period for men was much shorter than for women. Men only had to mourn formally for 3 months, mostly because it wasn't expected that they would, could or should raise any children from the first marriage by themselves
  • 0

#5376

Layla17

Layla17

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 22, 2012 @ 9:36 PM

She did give him an answer. We saw Matthew's reaction when he told her that she was only saying that because now he was guaranteed to be the heir again.


No she didn't. She asked him 'why the rush?' (paraphrasing). He then asked her to say yes or no and she didn't. At that point, he withdrew the offer and left. And I think that's when she realized what she'd lost by hesitating.
  • 0

#5377

Milburn Stone

Milburn Stone

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 22, 2012 @ 10:11 PM

If you ever get a chance to see 'Albatross' do so. Jessica Brown Findlay is luminous and rightly described as one of best of Britain upcoming young actresses. She received universal praise for her performance.

As Sybil she is poorly used by a pedestrian awful script.

I just added Albatross to the "saved" section of my Netflix queue (the part where you can put movies that Netflix doesn't have yet, but might soon). Thanks for the tip, exzim.
  • 0

#5378

Princess Aldrea

Princess Aldrea

    Stalker

Posted Feb 22, 2012 @ 10:17 PM

No she didn't. She asked him 'why the rush?' (paraphrasing). He then asked her to say yes or no and she didn't. At that point, he withdrew the offer and left. And I think that's when she realized what she'd lost by hesitating.



Okay, I watched it again.

Mary: But I don't understand. Nothing's changed.
Matthew: Everything's changed.
Mary: You can't be sure I was going to refuse you, even if it had been a boy because I'm not.
Matthew: That's the point. I can't be sure...of you or of anything it seems. The last few weeks have taught me that.
Mary: But you can't leave Downton.
Matthew: I can't stay. Not now.
Mary: What will you tell Papa?
Matthew: That I'm grateful for what he's trying to do but the experiment is at an end. I'm not a puppet. I must take charge of my own life again.
Mary: Would you have stayed if I'd accepted you?
Matthew: Of course.
Mary: So I've ruined everything.
Matthew: You've shown me that I've been living in a dream. And it's time to return to real life. Wish me luck, will you, Mary? God knows I wish the best for you.

The first time I saw it I thought Mary had just accepted him since her brother was dead and she could do it safely (this show has the most dreadful habit of skipping important conversations) and I think it's still ambiguous enough that it could have been her accepting and him refusing or his refusing before she said anything.

"Would you have stayed if I'd accepted you?" is the one line that makes it seem the most like Matthew had taken it back before Mary gave an answer but it could also mean 'would you have stayed if I'd accepted you...before the miscarrige.'

Since Mary didn't say yes immediately (or at all in a timely manner), Matthew knew she wasn't rejecting the proposal out of hand and once the knews of the pregnancy spread he looked at her hesitation and thought she was waiting to see if he'd be the Earl. While she may have loved him, he wanted her to love him enough to marry him with or without the title and the house and because she waited too long and there was a miscarriage he just couldn't be sure.
  • 0

#5379

madam magpie

madam magpie

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 22, 2012 @ 11:08 PM

You're right that it does matter to the story, and I wish it had been either more clear in their conversation or we'd seen the actual exchange. I'm of the mind that she never said anything, and if she STILL hadn't said yes, even after the miscarriage, that's an important detail. "Would you have stayed if I'd accepted you" sounds to me like she either turned him down (unlikely) or was still hesitating (probably), even though she knew there was no new potential heir. That tells me there was more to it than the maybe baby. If it had all been about Matthew's status, she would have tried to accept the proposal when the baby was no more. And then when she says she's not sure she'd have turned him down if the baby were a boy, I heard it as Mary saying, "How can you say I'd have done that, when I don't think I'd have done it myself?" So it's always bothered me that all the characters (including Mary) blame her hesitation on that baby, when it seems entirely possible that he had very little, if anything, to do with it. I guess I can see why the others think so, but either Mary's not being honest with herself, or it just wasn't written well.

Edited by madam magpie, Feb 22, 2012 @ 11:14 PM.

  • 0

#5380

tinsel1939

tinsel1939

    Channel Surfer

Posted Feb 22, 2012 @ 11:09 PM

I'm wondering about Rosamund and Carlisle getting together? They're of an age and when he first came to Downton, he arrived with Rosamund who seemed intrigued.

I'm not sure I can wait an entire year for the Crawley Squared wedding.

Edited by tinsel1939, Feb 22, 2012 @ 11:09 PM.

  • 0

#5381

angelaudie

angelaudie

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 22, 2012 @ 11:16 PM

Since Mary didn't say yes immediately (or at all in a timely manner), Matthew knew she wasn't rejecting the proposal out of hand and once the knews of the pregnancy spread he looked at her hesitation and thought she was waiting to see if he'd be the Earl. While she may have loved him, he wanted her to love him enough to marry him with or without the title and the house and because she waited too long and there was a miscarriage he just couldn't be sure.

I agree. It's also what makes Matthew telling Mary he's sure in the Christmas special proposal all the more sweet. He wasn't just saying he was sure he could let go of Lavinia and be happy with Mary. He was also saying he was sure of Mary's feelings for him. His body language especially screamed out that he was now confident Mary sincerely loves him.
  • 0

#5382

DoraNi

DoraNi

    Channel Surfer

Posted Feb 22, 2012 @ 11:23 PM

tinsel1939, I love that--"the Crawley Squared wedding". Excellent description!

Princess Aldrea, I'm glad you quoted that exchange from season 1 again. I had always interpreted Mary's line to mean "if I had accepted you before the miscarriage" since that was arguably the only thing that would have convinced Matthew of the sincerity of her feelings at the time (we knew she might also be hesitating because of the Pamuk affair, but Matthew didn't). But no matter what had happened between them prior to that exchange, that line of Mary's--"Would you have stayed if I'd accepted you?"--is tied to one of the things I like the best about the Christmas special proposal: Matthew's opening of the subject of staying/being with him was "Would you stay...if I asked you to?" I loved how it echoed that conversation from season 1.

Really, though, the more I think about the proposal scene, the more I decide it's one of the best TV proposals I've seen. It was very sweet without being over-the-top sappy, IMO. (I'm totally a sap, but even I have my limits, and overly sappy declarations of love always make me cringe in embarrassment for the characters.) Mary even lays out all their previous issues to make absolutely certain that Matthew has decided they're not issues anymore, or at least not insurmountable ones. There's no pretense here; these people seem to know pretty well what they're getting with each other and they're happy about it and that makes me happy.

Edited by DoraNi, Feb 22, 2012 @ 11:24 PM.

  • 0

#5383

ScienceGirl12

ScienceGirl12

    Video Archivist

Posted Feb 23, 2012 @ 12:15 AM

Re: Matthew's first proposal: Thanks for including the transcript of that conversation, Princess Aldrea. I also remembered that Matthew mentions having rejected Mary when he's lying in the hospital, which confirms to me that he rescinded the proposal before she had a chance to say yes. And I agree with those who have pointed out the parallels between this conversation and the Christmas special proposal; I hadn't thought about those before but it's nice that the central questions introduced in season 1 re: Mary/Matthew ("are you sure?" and "will you stay?") have been answered.

Even if it did strike me as pretty rich that the only self-avowed feminist on the show ends up married and pregnant. So much for seeing the rest of the world, Sybil.

Of course one can be married and have children and still be a feminist.

Yes, but I do think it's ironic that she is the first of the three sisters to make the rather traditional decisions of marriage and motherhood given how progressive she is/thinks she is. It'll be interesting to see if married, mama Sybil feels any bitterness (I fully admit that I want Fellowes to go this direction, but then, I'm on a push to make Branson and Sybil interesting). She made a big deal about wanting to do something - which I at least interpreted as wanting to stick with nursing - with her life. Given the time period and unless Branson has a lot of money stashed away to afford some serious household help (highly doubtful!), she would have to be a stay-at-home mother and this would could limit her extracurricular activities. Nothing against being a mother and a feminist, but it just seems that Sybil could feel limited in the future.

There's been a lot of talk about the possibility of maybe-Patrick popping up again and raising real questions as to Matthew's claim on the title and estate, but at this point, I don't think Mary would see that as much of an issue.

One of the (many) things that bugged me about Faux Patrick was that his introduction at this stage was unnecessary, particularly in light of the poignancy of the previous episode, which I thought was one of the best of both seasons. We all got it, Matthew is impotent and sad about the inability to have children and this has serious ramifications for the future of the estate. Why beat us over the head with it by introducing some ridiculous bandaged man that's going to disappear in a half hour? Having said that, an imposter storyline might have been better used next season to show how far Mary has come, as you suggested Shanna Marie.

The other series ending I'd like to see (assuming the show makes it this far) is Mary/Matthew having a daughter who can inherit when the entail laws change in 1925 (think I've got the year right) and/or Mary ends up being able to officially inherit in 1925. I think it'd be nice to see the show go full circle to the issue of the entail and show that now, it's a non-issue.

I'm not sure I can wait an entire year for the Crawley Squared wedding.

Ha! Love it - and I share your apprehension about the wait. I'm suffering serious Downton withdrawal problems...at least when I finished watching for the first time in Dec I had the re-watching and additional discussions to keep me going.

And as a personal plea, if anybody knows of a way to get some of the music from season 2 not included on the CD please let me know! In particular, there's a lovely theme that plays several times (including during the sweeping shot of Downton receiving the first batch of convalescent soldiers) that I'd love to have. I'm actually annoyed at how much music was left off the CD.

ETA: just discovered Vanity Fair's recaps: http://www.vanityfai...ristmas-special

I particularly enjoy this line "The ensuing luncheon at the shooting lodge is rife with claret, candelabras, and tension, as Mary and Matthew prattle about Adele’s performance at the Grammys, and Murdoch-Carlisle watches, seething among the pinecones."

Edited by ScienceGirl12, Feb 23, 2012 @ 12:46 AM.

  • 0

#5384

bijoux83

bijoux83

    Stalker

Posted Feb 23, 2012 @ 1:42 AM

Yes, but I do think it's ironic that she is the first of the three sisters to make the rather traditional decisions of marriage and motherhood given how progressive she is/thinks she is.

But her choice of husband is so very unconventional. If she works as a nurse or is a stay at home mom, her life with Branson won't fit any convention of her upbringing.

One of the (many) things that bugged me about Faux Patrick was that his introduction at this stage was unnecessary, particularly in light of the poignancy of the previous episode, which I thought was one of the best of both seasons. We all got it, Matthew is impotent and sad about the inability to have children and this has serious ramifications for the future of the estate. Why beat us over the head with it by introducing some ridiculous bandaged man that's going to disappear in a half hour? Having said that, an imposter storyline might have been better used next season to show how far Mary has come, as you suggested Shanna Marie.

I can never utterly despise this plot point because it allowed Michelle Dockery and Laura Carmichael to come out and play. And it did show how far Mary had come. Her primary concern was Matthew. I think this is a cruel trick to play after Matthew has been through so much! The way things shake out had no impact on her then. She was engaged to Richard, Matthew even told her he wouldn't let her near him had she not been. So she only cares about how this will affect him, not her.

Vulture's Paper Dolls in Action

Edited by bijoux83, Feb 23, 2012 @ 5:11 AM.

  • 0

#5385

Diorelli

Diorelli

    Just Tuned In

Posted Feb 23, 2012 @ 5:10 AM

Really, though, the more I think about the proposal scene, the more I decide it's one of the best TV proposals I've seen.


I would even dare to say it's one of the best proposals I've seen - TV/movies/theatre/musicals included.

Kudos to JF, the actors - Dan and Michelle and the crew for making this scene really work.

Regarding the Ouija board, I liked the scenes with it. I probably would have taken Lavinia's bit on it as it was as suble as a blow in the head. It was a nice social commentary to reflect the Ouija craze during that time. If I write Downton Abbey set in 2012, I would have Mary and Matthew following each other on Twitter.
  • 0

#5386

not Bridget

not Bridget

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 23, 2012 @ 8:08 AM

The other series ending I'd like to see (assuming the show makes it this far) is Mary/Matthew having a daughter who can inherit when the entail laws change in 1925 (think I've got the year right) and/or Mary ends up being able to officially inherit in 1925. I think it'd be nice to see the show go full circle to the issue of the entail and show that now, it's a non-issue.


But the daughter would not be able to inherit the title. Unless there are other male heirs waiting in the wings, it would go extinct after the death of the last Lord Grantham. To Cora & Violet, the entail meant that a bunch of Cora's money would remain with the estate, keeping the building standing & perhaps helping with the mysterious (in the show) finances of the greater holdings beyond the house. But when they saw a middle-class lawyer destined to inherit the title, they would have been quite happy to see the him impoverished. Lord Grantham wanted the title to continue, but he would be dead at that point....

Edited by not Bridget, Feb 23, 2012 @ 8:12 AM.

  • 0

#5387

Mrs Tebbens

Mrs Tebbens

    Channel Surfer

Posted Feb 23, 2012 @ 8:21 AM

Dear twopers, I do love reading your comments and insights!

Have any of you read E.F. Benson's hilarious "Lucia" novels, from the 1920's, where Ouija board craze has set in and the characters take tea and "weedj" in the afternoons?

I haven't had a chance to chew over and savor the Christmas special to my satisfaction, and I have some questions:

When Isobel says to Matthew as they are entering a room in dress clothes: "I wish you'd take my advice and fight for her" is that the continuation of a conversation held off screen, after the scene by the grave? Are they going into dinner at the Abbey? And when Matthew comes up to the Abbey in his evening clothes and asks if Carson can hook Mary out from the drawing room, is that the following day? (Which means he and Isobel dress for dinner at home?)

I love how bleak Mary's expression is while she is at the Servant's Ball, just before Matthew comes up and asks her to dance. And it must have been while they were dancing that he decided to propose, finally. And Mary seemed like she knew right where he was heading when he asks if she would stay if he asked her.

Has anyone mentioned the weird continuity error with Thomas's bowtie during his conversation with Robert after hunting for Isis? And I thought his scenes in the woods, peering out from behind trees and splaying himself against the door of the hut were pretty hilarious.

Edited by Mrs Tebbens, Feb 23, 2012 @ 8:28 AM.

  • 0

#5388

madam magpie

madam magpie

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 23, 2012 @ 8:53 AM

Not Bridget, I was thinking about that too. If Matthew and Mary only have daughters, could the eldest one even inherit Downton after 1925 (or 1926?)? I think they could leave her the money, but couldn't they have done that anyway? My understanding of the entail was that Robert's father locked most of the money in it, but if he hadn't, Mary could have gotten that. I don't know that I understand it correctly, though.

And would the title automatically die, or would they find the next distant heir? Could Matthew and Mary sell Downton to leave their daughter more money?

I'd actually really love to see them only have daughters, a realistic problem that takes us back to where we started, and a son would be too pat. It would be interesting to see if Mary dealt with it differently than her parents, given her experience. Plus, with all the sexist laws, I find myself rooting especially for any girls.
  • 0

#5389

ScienceGirl12

ScienceGirl12

    Video Archivist

Posted Feb 23, 2012 @ 8:58 AM

And it did show how far Mary had come. Her primary concern was Matthew. I think this is a cruel trick to play after Matthew has been through so much! The way things shake out had no impact on her then. She was engaged to Richard, Matthew even told her he wouldn't let her near him had she not been. So she only cares about how this will affect him, not her.


That scene was good (and I did like the Mary/Matthew stuff in this episode, plus the bitter Matthew rants), but if somebody somehow managed to catch only that episode of Downton, they'd be stunned by all the hype I think. It's the one episode of season 2 I haven't re-watched in its entirety (I only watched the Mary/Matthew scenes), it just feels jarring in light of the episodes before and after. I think Matthew's importance to Mary was still made clear/could have been made clearer without Faux Patrick's brief intrusion. In re-watching, I found I wanted more of that early scene where Mary is pushing Matthew's wheelchair - more discussion of the impact of William's death (I still wish a subplot had been tied in with Isobel feeling guilty about helping send him off to the front) and maybe more elaboration on the war generally. Granted, I generally want more of these two actors together. But anyways, water under the bridge - I think that episode was just a misstep.

Regarding the entail law change, my bad - and here I thought I understood the implications of the law change in 1925/1926! So just to clarify: in 1926, the Earl can leave the estate's money, property (basically everything EXCEPT the title) to Mary? Not that it matters at this stage, since she'll have the benefit of all that through marrying Matthew. And similarly, if they had only daughters, Matthew could leave the money/property to them but the title would have to go to some male line heir still? If I'm now understanding correctly, I'll modify my series ending hope to Matthew/Earl getting involved in the rule change. It'll make Cora and Violet happy and it would still complete the entail story circle.
  • 0

#5390

exzim

exzim

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 23, 2012 @ 9:21 AM

Regarding the entail law change, my bad - and here I thought I understood the implications of the law change in 1925/1926! So just to clarify: in 1926, the Earl can leave the estate's money, property (basically everything EXCEPT the title) to Mary? Not that it matters at this stage, since she'll have the benefit of all that through marrying Matthew. And similarly, if they had only daughters, Matthew could leave the money/property to them but the title would have to go to some male line heir still


I think you have it exactly correct Sciencegirl12

I just added Albatross to the "saved" section of my Netflix queue


She shows great comedic timing in the movie. Like many others I thought the scene where she lifts her sweater to prove she's old enough to buy alchohol one of the funniest short pieces of cinema in a longtime.
  • 0

#5391

not Bridget

not Bridget

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 23, 2012 @ 9:36 AM

And would the title automatically die, or would they find the next distant heir? Could Matthew and Mary sell Downton to leave their daughter more money?


If there is no heir--which is quite possible--the title goes extinct. When Matthew reappeared, we heard Violet exclaim in relief that they wouldn't have to go looking for another, even more lower-class, heir. This was ridiculous. They would have known precisely who was next in line--if there was anyone.

Julian Fellowes was made a Life Peer in January, 2011; he became Baron Fellowes of West Stafford--but can't pass the title on. Actually, that's "Kitchener-Fellowes." He changed the name because his wife was descended from the 2nd Earl Kitchener--elder brother of the 1st Earl, who had no chlidren & was not particularly into women. But she was the last of the line; as she was female, the line has gone extinct. So The Hon. Peregrine Charles Morant Kitchener-Fellowes (Lord Fellowes' son) will just have to get by on money....

I got the impression that the Estate--the house & its lands--are linked to the Title. But the Entail (which was not all that common) tied Cora's money to the Estate so it could be preserved. Cora & Violet played along but it was interesting how eager both of them were to break the Entail & let the next Earl be impoverished after Lord Grantham died. If the Title went extinct, I'm sure the Entail could have been broken more easily.
  • 0

#5392

ravenqueen

ravenqueen

    Channel Surfer

Posted Feb 23, 2012 @ 9:43 AM

Regarding the entail law change, my bad - and here I thought I understood the implications of the law change in 1925/1926! So just to clarify: in 1926, the Earl can leave the estate's money, property (basically everything EXCEPT the title) to Mary? Not that it matters at this stage, since she'll have the benefit of all that through marrying Matthew. And similarly, if they had only daughters, Matthew could leave the money/property to them but the title would have to go to some male line heir still? If I'm now understanding correctly, I'll modify my series ending hope to Matthew/Earl getting involved in the rule change. It'll make Cora and Violet happy and it would still complete the entail story circle.


So translation: Though this is a non-issue as of right now since Mary and Matthew are getting married, all Robert technically has to do is survive for a few more years, then Mary get everything but the title. Would it be a decision whether the rest of it goes to Mary or Matthew, then? Since Matthew's the earl but Mary's the eldest child? Or would it all go to Mary automatically?

I'm a little unclear on something else too. I think the show established that Cora's fertility is more or less at an end, and that they're not getting an heir that way. But if *Mary* had a son, could the title skip over Mary and go straight to the son? Or would it have to go to Matthew?

Edited by ravenqueen, Feb 23, 2012 @ 9:45 AM.

  • 0

#5393

not Bridget

not Bridget

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 23, 2012 @ 9:51 AM

If Cora had a son who lived, he would be the next Earl. If Cora died & the Earl married a younger women who gave him a son--he would be the next Earl.

Otherwise, Matthew will be the next Earl. And his son after him--whether or not Mary is the mother. Except in very rare, special circumstances, titles do not go through the female line. If Matthew had died or remained impotent, the Earldom would have died with him. Napoo finny!*

Unless there was another, even more distant, heir out there. As I've said, the family would have already looked into that little matter--especially when they sent the heir to the Western Front....

* bastardization of the French "n'y a plus; fini" meaning "no more"; from The Great War (used on Parade's End.)

Edited by not Bridget, Feb 23, 2012 @ 9:58 AM.

  • 0

#5394

lulee

lulee

    Stalker

Posted Feb 23, 2012 @ 9:51 AM

If Fellowes is at all sensitive to criticism, he will not revisit the Faux!Patrick storyline. Every article I read about season 2 panned that as the low point of the season.

What would be the point of bringing back Faux!Patrick anyway? It's not like the Crawleys - as a whole - were close to convinced that he was really Patrick. And what knowledge of Patrick at Downton could he pick up away from Downton that could convince them?
  • 0

#5395

bijoux83

bijoux83

    Stalker

Posted Feb 23, 2012 @ 9:54 AM

Regarding the entail law change, my bad - and here I thought I understood the implications of the law change in 1925/1926! So just to clarify: in 1926, the Earl can leave the estate's money, property (basically everything EXCEPT the title) to Mary? Not that it matters at this stage, since she'll have the benefit of all that through marrying Matthew. And similarly, if they had only daughters, Matthew could leave the money/property to them but the title would have to go to some male line heir still? If I'm now understanding correctly, I'll modify my series ending hope to Matthew/Earl getting involved in the rule change. It'll make Cora and Violet happy and it would still complete the entail story circle.

As far as I understand it, after the law changes, the money AND the estate could be inherited by women as well, only the title would have to be passed on to a male descendant through the male line. So say Matthew and Mary had only girls, those girls could inherit the money and the land, while some far off relative got the title of the Earl of Grantham. Prior to that, even if the impossible was accomplished and the entail broken, a woman could only inherit the money. And the estate would effectively be in the ruins, at least with an (upper-)middle class solicitor inheriting it. He'd have no funds to pump into the estate and it wouldn't affect only him but the people working and living on the property. I never got how Violet overlooked that.
  • 0

#5396

madam magpie

madam magpie

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 23, 2012 @ 10:10 AM

Very interesting, all.

Re: the title. But Elizabeth 2 became queen, so some titles passed to women, yes? And I think I recently read that in 2011, the Brits got all the commonwealth countries to agree and so all titles will now pass to the first-born regardless of gender, right?

Edited by madam magpie, Feb 23, 2012 @ 10:15 AM.

  • 0

#5397

EatShootLeave

EatShootLeave

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 23, 2012 @ 10:13 AM

Prior to that, even if the impossible was accomplished and the entail broken, a woman could only inherit the money. And the estate would effectively be in the ruins, at least with an (upper-)middle class solicitor inheriting it. He'd have no funds to pump into the estate and it wouldn't affect only him but the people working and living on the property. I never got how Violet overlooked that.


I have a feeling noblesse oblige only goes so far. After all, Mary has the advantage. She's family. (Or however that quote went.)

Edited by EatShootLeave, Feb 23, 2012 @ 10:13 AM.

  • 0

#5398

not Bridget

not Bridget

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 23, 2012 @ 10:16 AM

Re: the title. But Elizabeth 2 became queen, so some titles passed to women, yes? And didn't I read that in 2011, the Brits got all the commonwealth countries to agree and so all titles will now pass to the first-born regardless of gender?


Yes, the rules for royalty were different. According to the most recent change, the eldest child of the monarch will succeed to the throne--even if she eventually has a younger brother.

But the rules for mere nobility remain the same....
  • 0

#5399

Jodhaa

Jodhaa

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 23, 2012 @ 10:27 AM

Ratings

Downton Abbey Finale Ends On A High Note

http://www.pbs.org/a...4YDDR5w.twitter
  • 0

#5400

rippleintime

rippleintime

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 23, 2012 @ 10:36 AM

Broadway.com casts the (fictional!) Downton Abbey musical!
  • 0