I was only convinced Mary actually loved Matthew when she opened her eyes during their kiss, and saw that he’d kept his side of their bargain. She was glowing. But I still don’t like her, probably never will.
Matthew is way cuter than when he first appeared on the show. The actor has a different hairstyle, and I think maybe he even colored his hair. The lighter color of his hair brings out his eyes.
I’d like to see Sir Richard back, but he was probably busy with Game of Thrones.
I was looking forward to her chewing the scenery. It wasn’t even good on that level. She was a big disappointment.
Maybe they’d cross paths with the Bellamys! that would be awesome. Except that most of the cast is dead, though.
And the ones who are still alive are too old to play their 1920s era characters. In a way the townhouse in London is to this series what Southwold was to Upstairs, Downstairs. We never actually saw Southwold, even though it was Lady Marjorie’s family home, the family frequently visted, and most of the staff came from there.
I get the impression that most of the Crawleys (Robert & Mary in particular) prefer the country to London. They only visit because of the Social Season (& pressing need to find husbands for their daughters), and presumably Lord Grantham’s attendence in the House of Lords. Nobody ever seems to look forward to going there.
Oh, that’s not how I took the exchange … I thought Matthew was referring to Mary being so feisty; I mean in general, not sexually. That’s why I thought Lord G. chuckled. Like, “now you see what you’ve gotten yourself into?”
Hmmm, perhaps I’m just naive.
I thought pretty much the same thing: it was a comment on married life in general, not just sexually.
Back in the day, people as wealthy as the Earl employed a lot of people. So Lord Grantham mismanaging his wife’s fortune would impact not just his own family, but everyone who worked in the place, if not a good portion of the surrounding village. It takes a lot of manpower and goods to keep up a 50 bdrm house! Which begs the question: Can Anna be tossed out onto the street and still manage to be cheerful? Would she turn to prostitution a la the poor wench, Ethel? (And who is watching Charlie while she’s turning tricks?)
I find it odd that the Dowager would encourage Edyth’s suitor to break up with her. ~800,000 Britons died in WWI, leaving a severe dearth of eligible bachelors. You’d think she’d encourage any relationship for her dowdy and disagreeable granddaughter, especially with an established gentleman.
I, too, wasn’t a huge fan of Shirley MacLaine. Her overly exaggerated mannerisms seemed cartoonish.
Matthew’s sense of honor and Mary’s dramatic scene were silly. As I said, his honor would not only put his in-laws out, but a whole bunch of innocent, lower class workers. If he didn’t want to take the money for himself, he could establish a charity for displaced Downton workers!
I found the whole “I saw you put a pill in Thomas’ drink” scene to be awkward and horribly contrived. If Strallan witnessed Sybill’s old suitor putting a pill in Thomas’ drink, why didn’t he say something then? It was worsened by the fact that obviously a good part of the scene was left on the editing room floor.
I assume that in the original airing, one episode ended at the altar and the subsequent episode started with them returning from their honeymoon. Because the jump in time was a bit jarring as it was aired in the US.
I agree that Thomas would have been sacked a thousand times over his behavior. Though, personally, I wouldn’t make an enemy of O’Brien. (Though, I have to say that the actress is prettier this season than in season’s past. I wonder if they’re softening up her look along with her personality.) I still wonder if she or Thomas didn’t have something to do with Bates’ wife’s death.
Things I enjoyed:
As always, I really enjoyed the costumes and hair. And the house is just glorious.
I really enjoyed Mary and Matthew’s make-up scene.
The Dowager and Mrs. Crawley’s interaction is still superb. Them forcing the acerbic Thomas to get his ass into tails was really cute.
Nitpick: When somebody hides Lord Grantham’s “dress shirts,” and he has to come to dinner in black tie (still kinda dressy by today’s standards, ISTM) instead of white tie, Martha Levinson remarks, “Robert, you look like a Chicago bootlegger!” Maybe so, but this is 1920. Bootleggers don’t exist quite yet.
Also interesting to be reminded that at this point in time, “formal” dress for men meant white tie, tails, and stiff-front shirts. And a tuxedo/dinner jacket with black tie and silk shirt was considered informal.
The 18th Amendment was ratified in 1919 and took effect in January 1920, so I assume there were quite a few Chicago bootleggers by the time of this episode. The term predates American Prohibition anyway. I just checked Merriam-Webster, and “bootleg” was used as a verb by the late 19th century.
I suppose what we now call a “business suit” is what you wear to mow the lawn?!
No, no, of course not. Morning dress is for mowing the lawn; a business suit is for cleaning the cesspool.
I remember an NPR interview a couple of years ago in which an American journalist described an incident in which he was invited to a garden party with the queen and when he called to ask what he should wear, he was told that a “lounge suit” would be sufficient. Of course he then had to ask around to find out what a lounge suit was, and to his relief he learned that it was an ordinary business suit.
Lord Grantham and his mother both stated that the purpose of Downton Abbey (or other such institutions) was one of employer. Of course, they could downsize to a nice country inn and call it Fawlty Towers.
Strallan saw *something *out of the corner of his eye, but was quite sure what. He didn’t put 2 & 2 together until Tom’s drunken/drugged tirade at dinner. He certainly wouldn’t make an accusation like then until he was absolutely sure.
One of my ideas for a distant finale involves a scene of Downton being a hotel and some kind of references to the Crawleys. Like one of the characters’ (now elderly) children being wheeled around muttering about “Bloody tourists”. The other idea an ordinary shot of one of the rooms or gardens, pull back to reveal a film crew, then cut to an elderly Crawley complaining about “Bloody film crews”. Hell, for the last one they’d wouldn’t even need to hire extras. 
What is the relationship between Mrs O’Brien and the new footman, Alfred? Is he related to her?
And what is the theory about how Bates is expected to have murdered his wife? He wasn’t even in the same town.
No, Bates did go into town that day, to see his wife, I forget why. That was one of the points against him.
Alfred is her nephew.
Info about Vera’s death has come in dribs and drabs. What we knew in S2 was that Bates purchased arsenic – I think at Vera’s request, because she had vermin. Vera was somehow poisoned. I think this episode is the first mention of arsenic in a pie.
What else do we know? Did she tell people that she was afraid of Bates? I vaguely remember something like that.
Maybe Vera mistook the arsenic for seasoning and her death was actually an accident.
A part of me would enjoy if Bates were really guilty.
part of me hopes it’s Mr Carson because, you know, he’s the butler.
Did anyone catch that Bates admitted to it in prison?