I wondered if Mary’s doctor’s appointment was because she was experimenting with contraception. The voluntary motherhood movement was in full swing around this time, right? Maybe she wants to get Matthew more firmly fixed in his place before trying for an heir.
I’ve noticed that too, I thought I was going crazy at first. I guess it’s because PBS doesn’t air commercials like ITV.
I think that says something about how far Mrs. Crawley is willing to go, to help someone. This far, but no farther. Even after Ethel’s serving skills were complimented, no one offered her a position, not even a temporary one.
I was surprised little Charlie went so willingly, with people he’d never met. Maybe he’s used to new people, if Ethel’s had people watching him while she works.
alphaboi867, you’ve apparently already seen the full British version of this season. Please be more careful about not posting anything that hasn’t been aired in the U.S. This thread is for people who are watching here and – per the thread title – it’s supposed to be spoiler-free for the U.S. airing.
Thanks,
twickster, Cafe Society moderator and Downton Abbey viewer
re: mismanagement of the estate
This period was an age of revolution in agriculture in the U.S., and I suspect it was in UK as well. Perhaps the Earl wasn’t keeping up with Successful Farming and Prairie Farmer magazines. 
I re-watched the episode when Ethel first went to Mrs. Crawley last weekend. When she walked in the door, she put her hand on her belly in “that way” - seemed to be hinting that she was in the family way again.
Perhaps she is planning an abortion but knows there’s a major risk of death.
Ethel gave the child to them because she had almost no other choice to support him. Even though she had apparently put in quite a few years in the workforce she had no safety nets she could gain access to. In rewatching the episode I wish Isobel had told her she could stay and Charlie could stay in that enormous house of hers as long as she liked. Isobel is only allowed to stay there rent free because she give birth to Matthew.
I read that book. Powell was treated by garbage by many of her employers. A society where some people live in big giant houses they don’t even work to maintain while others go to work at twelve is a horrible society.
They’re all trapped by the house. Mary has to bear a son to keep it. Matthew has to employ people he didn’t want. Daisy, Mrs. Patmore and Anna work themselves silly to maintain it. Robert the Incompetent Bigot gets to run it solely because he was born to the right parents.
It deserved to be overturned.
Branson was exasperating in this episode. He needs to make up his mind. Is he a revolutionary or not? As presented he’s weak sauce: the firebrand who runs to aristocrats to bail him out.
I felt I should have been crying when Ethel gave up the kid, but I just didn’t care. I don’t hate her or the storyline entirely, but it’s just so heavy-handed and awful. Matthew’s mother just makes me cringe too much.
I don’t understand how Shirley MacLaine coming was this big deal and she was in one episode? So that was kind of a let down. It’d be nice if she were still there, stirring up trouble.
But maybe Sybil, Branson, and Edith should go visit her offscreen during the hiatus or something.
Fair point.
In terms of the historical timeline of the episode, the Earl mentioned the looming ratification by Tennessee of the 19th Amendment, granting American women the right to vote. That was on August 18, 1920: Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
BTW, I was amazed to hear a mildly anti-Catholic remark from the Earl when he was speaking to the Archbishop. He’s generally portrayed as a good guy - conservative and traditional, sure, a bit out of touch, but no bigot.
She was in two episodes. What I’d really like to see is some of the family actually visit her & the Levinsons in NYC or Newport onscreen, but that would be really expensive to shoot on location (I suppose they could fake in studio, but that would require bilding new sets). PBS sure as hell isn’t in any position to supply the extra funds.
I think it’s in keeping with his character. It was funny that he managed to come off as more anti-Catholic than the Archbishop of York (who’ll be the Archbishop of Canterbury in a few yrs).
Anybody else expecting that Bates will get shivved next episode by his cellmate for revenge?
After all, he’s relatively happy at the end of this episode, meaning he will be stomped down the next time. 
Yes, and that’s the problem with this show. No one gets to be happy for more than a episode.
I literally yelled at the TV yesterday when Daisy was about to make her move with that guy right as she finally got her kitchen maid she’s been whining about these past few episodes: “Oh, come on man! Really!?”
That poor girl just can’t catch a break.
A sign of the times. Until relatively recently I think there was a general feeling in the country that Catholics were ‘not one of us’.
To this day, my 86 year old father thinks someone being Catholic is worthy of a comment – not negatively, but still. Along the lines of ‘Do you know John? He’s Catholic, you know’. And my father’s an atheist.
[QUOTE=AuntiePam]
View Post
Shodan and Dewey Finn, why are you boxing stuff that was in the episode?
[/QUOTE]
Because I lost track of what I saw in an episode, and what I read in spoilers. And I don’t want to spoil the experience for anyone else.
Gimme a break; I’m old.
Regards,
Shodan
Toffee nosed.
(Lord Grantham said in last night’s episode “Nobody is as toffee nosed as a prince of the church so seat him by ma-ma”; had to google- it means snobbish.)
The timing seems to be odd for this series; spacing isn’t Lord Fellowes’ strong point. On the one hand it seems impossible that Matthew has spent 7 (or 8) Christmases as the heir apparent and dancing around Mary, while at the same time it seems like Bates has been in prison for 8 years and Sibyl pregnant for 3 years.
Some favorite moments in last night’s episode were Violet’s bitchiness regarding the Drumgooles and their castle.
Any idea what somebody like Lord Grantham would have studied at college? Presumably he’d have gone to Oxford or Cambridge, but would he have likely gotten some sort of liberal arts education and called it a day or would he have studied something practical? Would he have served in the House of Lords?
I also wonder (not a spoiler) if the fact Matthew studied law will ever prove useful.
Were British nobility expected to get a “gentleman’s C” and not excel at their studies? His Lordship doesn’t strike me as a scholar. By the late 1800s, when he came of age, is it possible he was privately tutored and never went to university at all?
Matthew didn’t just study law; he was - and presumably still is - a solicitor.
In 1983, the year I turned 12, my American, Catholic family moved to Yorkshire – where Downton is set – for a couple of years. Being Catholic was definitely something to comment on; I even heard it from my classmates. I’d expected to be set apart because of being American, but the Catholic thing was a bit of a shock!
Interesting! I (wrongly) assumed it meant brown-nosed – i.e., a suck-up.
Well, it already did in the first season when the Dowager Countess had him review the terms of the entail. Unless you mean something more specific and lawyer-y, such as finding a way to free Bates?
[QUOTE=Misnomer]
Well, it already did in the first season when the Dowager Countess had him review the terms of the entail. Unless you mean something more specific and lawyer-y, such as finding a way to free Bates?
[/QUOTE]
I always assumed those two plots would connect, but he’s apparently of a “Well, Bates is Lord Grantham’s valet, he should defend him as for me to do so wouldn’t seem proper. On the other hand, should Molesley perhaps like to slash Ethel or some other whores it would be my duty and my pleasure to represent him, or perhaps even Carson now that I’m invested in the estate.”
I would love to see an Alfred:Daisy match, btw, but only if it turns out Alfred is a wife beater. I cannot stand that insipid stupid rude little cow.