To me there was no question that it was intentional. She was lashing out. Of course, she had no idea that it would cause a miscarriage, but her statement to herself in the mirror was definitely a sign that she had intentionally tried to harm Lady Grantham and had changed her mind. She even called out to stop her from coming out of the bath, too late.
I think it’s obvious that they never used any kind of method to avoid conception. Their conversation certainly does not reflect any intent to avoid conception. They would never even consider it unless they had guaranteed their family security with at least one son, anyway, perhaps more.
Nitpick: Withdrawal
He was surprised because they had been having sex for 18 years without conceiving. From Cora’s response to him, as well as his reaction to the doctor’s attempt to explain, it’s obvious that sex and conception are not freely discussed in their relationship, which is probably just a “that was then” type of societal habit (“Stop right there. If you want to know any more, go downstairs and offer the doctor a whiskey.”).
So, while Lord Grantham has a general idea that sex leads to babies, he doesn’t have (and apparently doesn’t want) a more detailed understanding of how it works. He was just wondering if they had somehow been having sex “wrong,” that is, in some way that was preventing conception.
Nitpick: separate.
Rich people did often sleep in separate bedrooms, not only because they could afford it, but because people often married for reasons other than love (indeed, Lord Grantham initially married Cora just for her money) and sleeping in separate bedrooms would facilitate extramarital liaisons. It seems like the Granthams have a very close relationship and probably don’t sleep around, but from Mary’s point of view, it seems unusual for married couples of their class to always sleep together – it seems to flaunt an unseemly degree of affection for each other.
Ah, thanks to Elendil’s Heir and acsenray for clarifying. I had to catch up with the 4th ep online with a library computer, and sometimes the online video got jerky due to heavy use. I had to “rewind” a couple of times but was running short on time. I completely missed O’Brien’s self-reproach and also her calling out to stop Lady G coming out of the bath. Okay, so I guess that was my own instance of a “misinterpretation.” :smack:
Being conscripted isn’t volunteering. And it seemed clear to me that he believed his little scheme would help him avoid combat. The doctor even suggested that volunteering might help him get his choice of assignments.
Any ideas what the problem with the cook’s eyesight might have been? They didn’t have cataract surgery in the 1910s, did they? If not that, what else would cause blindness that could be fixed by an operation at that time?
I’m pretty sure it was cataracts. No other eye ailment could be so easily treated, I’d think. The concept has been understood since prehistoric times and the first modern cataract surgery was performed by the 1750s or so.
Few if any dreamed that within one year (by 1915), the carnage would take such a toll that volunteers in the Territorial Force and in Kitchener’s volunteer army would routinely be sent into combat areas as replacements. It’s well within the realm of speculation that Thomas could end up in France in short order, his schemes to the contrary notwithstanding. It will be interesting to see how they play out that little drama. He’s such a weasel, I’d put nothing past him, plotwise.
My problem with that scene is that it was so contrivedly over-determined: there just happened to be two bars of soap down there; there was also a good-sized puddle (but no towel or mat; surely there would’ve been one – which would’ve been duly aired and/or laundered daily – if only to prevent damage to the floor), Lady Grantham just happened to plant her foot squarely on the bar/puddle and slip, apparently without looking at what she was doing; her fall just happened to induce a miscarriage, and the lost embryo/fetus was male… jeesh!
re. “smart people” sleeping in separate beds – my guess is that’s more likely a use of a secondary meaning of “smart,” as fashionable, de mode, rather than intelligent. I think that meaning was well established by the 1920’s and possibly much earlier.
And re. Thomas’ volunteering – was anybody else thinking that his motivation wasn’t just to avoid combat, but to enjoy the proximity to so many wounded or incapacitated young men? Men whose wounds he would help nurse, whose bodies he would help wash and dress, whose letters home he would help write…?
I thought that when Cora dropped the bar of soap, it broke in half and O’Brien only picked up one of the halves to give to Cora. In that house, there would never be a random bar of soap lying around on the floor.
This kind of stacked coincidences is pretty common in dramatic fiction, though. (I don’t really know if there should have been a towel or mat in place.)
This seems evident. Did anyone think Mary used “smart” to mean “intelligent”?
Isn’t it enough that he thought he was saving his own skin? Would you think the same if, say, Anna – a heterosexual woman – had embarked on a similar scheme?
We just watched all seven episodes over two days and loved it.
Dame Maggie is awesome… “What’s a week-end?” combined with the delivery of the line was absolutely the high point of the show for me.
I’m wondering about Thomas. His homosexuality seems well known to all the staff, except the poor scullery maid. I’d buy that. But what about the valet throwing off a little remark about it to the Earl, and the Earl kind of chuckling about it? It seemed kind of unlikely to me, even seeing how much the mother and the daughters gossiped with their maids. That a footman in England in 1912-14 would be openly gay, and that even the master of the house would know and joke about it, rang false. Am I wrong?
Also, I hated the oldest daughter but admire the actress for playing the character well. I quite liked the middle daughter, and wowza is the youngest daughter a stunner.
Thomas wasn’t “openly” gay, but Gaydar was apparently invented decades before Radar.
Oscar Wilde’s trial, the great scandal at the end of the previous century, was *not *caused because he was hunted down by the forces of propriety. Sophisticated people were willing to ignore anything that didn’t happen in the streets & frighten the horses; the less sophisticated were as innocent about certain practices as Daisy. The Marquess of Queensbury, father of his lover, left him a note: “For Oscar Wilde, posing somdomite.” (He knew boxing better than he knew spelling.) So Wilde accused him of libel! The succeeding trial did not prove Wilde’s innocence. Another trial led to his imprisonment. The papers had a field day.
Thomas’s inclination was apparently known by many at Downton Abbey. But, as long as he didn’t cause trouble, they were willing to let it slide. (Of course, his rejected advances on The Turk led to the blackmail that caused Mary’s downfall. But nobody knows that detail of the miserable affair.)
I believe it to be during the arrival of Napier and Pamuk and the others. Bates is with the Earl in the dressing room, or whatever that room is. They discuss how the ladies of the house will enjoy having the young men around, and the discussion somehow involves Thomas - who is serving as the Footman to Pamuk; due to blah blah something I can’t remember his guy is not there. Anyway, I think the Earl asks if Thomas minds being assigned to Pamuk, and Bates responds with something that pretty obviously implies he’s quite happy with it in a way that is really hard to read in a non-gay way. It would have been the third episode in the original airing, probably part of episode two in the PBS airing. I’m not home right now but I’ll check the dialogue when I do get home.
Afterthought re the bar of soap breaking in half: when I was a kid, I remember that Ivory soap came in big bars that were scored, and you were supposed to break them in half. That would explain why the bar broke so easily. Carry on.
After the last line, the two kind of exchange a look and a smile. Neither says “Yup, Thomas is probably going to put the moves all over that dude”, but the last line doesn’t seem all that subtle to me.