Note that the Downton Abbey movie was set in 1927; WWI was in the past, and several of the characters went to war, while the house itself was used as a hospital. (I think Lady Crawley mentions this during the movie.)
She does indeed, and confesses that she’s still a little nostalgic for those days.
Another thing; someone (perhaps Cora, perhaps Mary) notes that the house is very under-staffed, with perhaps half the people they should have. If one were to go back to the first episodes, set in 1912, would it be obvious that the house has more staff?
Yes. In the early years, the house had live-in cleaning staff and many of these characters (Gwen who becomes a secretary, Jane who Robert falls for) figured in their own subplots. Once the war was over, the only upstairs staff still around (and getting airtime) were the ladies’ maids.
But WW2 will come just in time to take off young Master George!
Did anyone see the SNL Downton Abbey trailer? The punchline is : “This trailer has been brought to you by the producers of Joker. Joker: it’s not perfect, but at least something happens”
Fellowes said in an interview awhile back that the house would, to be totally realistic, have a much larger staff than was ever shown in the series.
Wait - if Imelda Staunton can leave her title to her “maid”, why were they all wringing their hands about there being no male heir back in Season 1?
First of all, it wasn’t clear to me if Lady Bagshaw (the Imelda Staunton character) intended to leave her title to her maid, Lucy Smith, or just her estate. Second as I remember, the Crawley estate and the title of Earl of Grantham were tied together due to a British legal thing called an “entail”. It’s not clear if Lady Bagshaw’s title and estate were similarly tied together but in any case, there was a real-world change to the law about entails in 1926.
The movie said she intended to bequeath her estate, not her title. And yes, the Crawley estate was bound by the entail: Downton Abbey - Wikipedia
She can’t bequeath the title, but she can leave her property to whomever she likes.
Yep, she’s only leaving her estate to her daughter. And her title is mostly likely hers by marriage to a peer, not her being a peeress in her own right (rare, but not unheard of). Even she was a peeress in her own right it’d still be impossible for her daughter to inherit due to being born out of wedlock.
I’ll watch it, but from what I remember about the show, is that to play the part of English aristocracy they all sound like they’re doped up on Prozac.
Well, I finally saw it yesterday. I was impressed with how smoothly it ran and how nearly everyone in a vast cast had at least one memorable moment. It was better than anything in at least the last two seasons of the show and so justified itself very nicely. Of the new characters, Lucy was very charming and it was believable that Tom could fall for her (she is practically a clone of Sybil). It was nice to see Tom have a story of his own rather than constantly mooning over Henry. (Speaking of Henry, when he finally drove up in the last 10 minutes, I thought, “Oh yeah – I forgot about him.”)
Apparently the movie has done so well that the sequel is virtually a done deal, and the actors are being asked to keep room in their schedules. This movie was better than I thought it’d be so I give Fellowes credit that he could probably write another one and it would at least be decent. But with the imminent death of the Dowager Countess, it would leave a major dent in the cast. It really wouldn’t feel like Downton, and the movie was a good enough send-off that if this were the last-ever Downton Abbey, I wouldn’t be disappointed.
But I’m sure I’ll eventually see the sequel anyway.
Downton Abbey Goes Hawaiian.
You read it here first.
Bumped.
Just heard an audiobook of Ian Fleming’s Goldfinger read very well by Hugh Bonneville (Lord Grantham), and I see he made the news last year for his weight loss:
And also: