When, exactly, has any of the Crawleys told us exactly how many generations they have been living in that house? We’re supposed to just assume it’s since time immemorial–when the evidence indicates otherwise…
I understand the points people are making but it still gets on my nerves after a while. If I could choose to be one character on the that would be Isobel Crawley. I’d tell my son to donate the money to people who really need it. And then I would see what I could to do make my new daughter in law and her father have some sense of how most of the rest of the country lives and stop with the self pitying bs. Fellowes has let her focus instead on prostitution to bring back Ethel.
…how is it NOT?
Seriously.
You can’t have a show about life downstairs without somebody upstairs for the servants to wait on.
Only Violet, Robert, & Mary are really upset about leaving. Cora doesn’t care (& chided Mary of overreacting, Matthew explicity said he wants to live simply, Edith seems pretty indiferent, and Isobel wanted to turn Downton into a community rec centre.
That wasn’t just true for the men either. Once a couple had been married a few years, and poped out an (ideally male) heir & optional backup heir it was socially acceptable for the woman to have a discret affair.
Well, we know Robert is the 7th Earl of Grantham and according to the press packet it’s subsidiary title is “Viscount Downton”. That would imply that either they already owned Downton when the title was created, or they are granted the title & lands at the same time. That the main house is called Downton Abbey implies that it either predates the Reformation (& was thus an acutally) or at least thats what the Crawley’s wanted to imply. Oh, and the Dower House was designed by Christopher Wren for the 3rd Earl’s sister, which makes this Earldom of Grantham older than the real one.
Because he didn’t say anything about what was going to happen.
Seriously.
Saying something is going to be addressed is saying what is going to happen.
That post is not a spoiler in my opinion. If you want to discuss our policies on spoilers, you can start a thread in ATMB, but it’s time for everyone to stop arguing about them in this thread.
Seriously, AK84, that’s TWO things you’ve spoiled for me. Please quit posting if you cannot control your fingers from revealing developments that have not been aired in the U.S. yet.
If last week’s episode happened entirely on Facebook.
I ROFL when I heard that!! It almost sounded like a blooper that the director decided to leave in, as it was so out of Carson’s character!
LavenderBlue - Why do you have such a hard time with the idea that some people are rich? And that being rich doesn’t make one bad or evil, any more than being poor makes one virtuous. Most people in comfortable circumstances prefer to stay in those circumstances. They don’t throw everything they know away because things are difficult right now, they don’t generally give up their lifestyle and give all their possessions to the poor, unless they’re taking some religious vows. However, most of the nobility understood the concept of noblesse oblige and did their best to look after their tenants.
As far as Lord G is concerned, he doesn’t want to be the Earl of Grantham who lost the ancestral estate. I haven’t seen him self-pitying. He feels bad because he lost his wife’s money (and I think it speaks well of him that after all these years he still thought of it as her money). He feels bad because he did a dumb thing. But he wasn’t asking for a bailout from the in-laws, and he was ready to face whatever their future was, even if it made them leave their estate. I think he truly doesn’t understand why Matthew wouldn’t use his new-found fortune to shore up Downton, because Lord G. surely would. And I bet he’d hoped that Matthew would have the same feelings for the estate that he has. He would want the heir to love the place.
StG
StGermaine,
It’s not just the fact that they are rich. It’s the fact that they seem so unaware of how incredibly rich and massively privileged they are. Their lifestyle means living in an incredibly huge house they can barely afford that they really don’t need and have rooms that aren’t even used. It also involves paying lots of people very little money so they can do so.
Poor hard working Mrs. Patmore is clearly terrified of losing her job yet Do Nothing Lady Mary sits around whining all day that her husband won’t use yet another unearned fortune so she can continue living in what amounts to a privately owned hotel and doing nothing all day.
Really it’s just a fucking house. I’m sorry but that’s all it is. A giant pile of stones and some nice stuff. I understand the mindset that is being portrayed here but I wind up finding that mindset part of a set of truly repugnant values.
Watching the show makes me want to tax the hell out of all of them so Mrs. Patmore can get her earned social security instead of noblesse oblige. She should have inherent rights because of her hard work instead of having to depend on her employer’s whims.
Same thing with with poor sweet Daisy. You know if she loses her job it’s probably to horrors of the workhouse for her although William’s war pension might provide her with a small safety net. How is that fair? Why should Lady Mary live in enormous unearned comfort while far harder working people like Daisy and Anna know dismissal means catastrophe for them?
They are sympathetic. The Crawleys aren’t.
I truly enjoy the show but I swear Julian Fellowes is really bringing out my inner socialist.
It’s also the inherited wealth aspect of it. Richard the publisher at least earned his money. WTF have the Crawleys ever done to earn theirs other than marry and get born from the right uterus?
I want Fellowes to get Isobel to stop chasing Ethel and shake a little sense in Lord Robert. The house they were whining about moving into was one of the most beautiful houses I’ve ever seen. Certainly bigger and nicer than the houses that most of humanity will ever live in or anyone I personally know. It’s not like they’re going to be consigned to the workhouse on Call the Midwife where a poor woman lost her children solely because the fucking assholes in charge of the Crawley’s English society refused to feed them enough after their father died.
They really need some perspective. I wish Fellowes would let Branson make it without turning the character into a loud mouthed, ill-mannered jerk.
Is Matthew Viscount Crawley or is he still just the heir apparent?
Also, Robert mentioned making something official “in appreciation for your being ever so nice in giving us the shitload of unearned money you received to replace the shitload of unearned money I seem to have misplaced”. Not asking for a spoiler, just a clarification- did anybody interpret that as Robert leaving Downton, or is he just planning to put Matthew’s name on something? (Though I didn’t think he could do so due to the entailment since there are a few conceivable possibilities that would prevent Matthew from succeeding him [e.g. if Robert were to have a son {Cora might be too old, but if she were to die and he were to remarry a younger woman- again, very unlikely, but possible].)
I got the impression that Robert was going to make it so that they have joint ownership of the property.
spoiler from previews only
They show Carson sputtering something like, “do you mean to say that I now have to answer to both of you.”
I love the plot twist idea of Robert marrying a second wife after Cora dies and the new wife having a son.
LavenderBlue, I think society began to change at that time in history exactly because of the points you made. People started asking the same questions and making the same observations that you have. The series shows us how far we’ve come. (without getting depressed at how far we have yet to go … )
Matthew is the heir presumptive, not heir apparent, so long as it is conceivable for Robert to produce a son. Even if Cora were menopausal, it is still conceivable for Robert to divorce or be widowed and produce an heir that would displace Matthew. In fact, I think it might be possible for even an illegitimate son to inherit so long as Robert acknowledges his paternity, but that might depend on the specifics of the grant of title.
Do you not under stand that the servants being in fear of losing their jobs & Lady Mary being afraid of losing the house are directly connected? They have jobs because the Crawleys live in a big fancy house and don’t work. If Downton Abbey goes they loose their jobs. It’s 1920, not 2013. By the standards of the time the Crawleys are extremely generous and benevolent employers. There isn’t much of a safety net; the Welfare State is 28 yrs away. It’s like the housewife on The 1900 House who insisted on “liberating” her maid because she felt so wrong oppresing her; despite it being pointed out that in the real Victorian Age a women who couldn’t even find work as a domestic would end up a prostitute (like Ethel).
Neither, he’s only the heir presumptive. Robert could still (at least in theory) have a son who would displace him. As a pratical matter that’s not going to happen. Only the heir apparent (who can’t be displaced by another birth) get’s to use the subsidary title. He’s still plain old Mr Matthew Crawley and will be until the day his father-in-law/3rd couse once removed dies.
[QUOTE=Acsenray]
… In fact, I think it might be possible for even an illegitimate son to inherit so long as Robert acknowledges his paternity, but that might depend on the specifics of the grant of title…
[/quote]
Nope, that’s impossible for English & British titles. Bastards can’t inherit. Scottish titles work a little differently. Bastards can inherit as long as they’re legitimated by their parent’s subsequent marriage, but only if they aren’t a product of adultery (ie neither parent can be married to anyone else at the time of birth.
FWIW, according to Wiki, his title is either Lord Fellowes of West Stafford, or Baron Fellowes, but not Lord Kitchener-Fellowes: Julian Fellowes - Wikipedia
Baron Fellowes of West Stafford would be the actual title.
Lord Fellowes would be a form of addressing someone who holds that title.