Yes, Branson and everyone else rushing upstairs for the delivery seemed anachronistic. As recently as 1948, Prince Philip raised no eyebrows by playing polo while his first son was being born.
Would any of the women have gone up, or would they have stayed at the table too? I just don’t see Cora sitting at the table while her youngest daughter is in labour (Violet & Mary doing that wouldn’t surprise me).
As I understand it, the butler was the only one who was allowed to address household members without being spoken to by one of them first. Also, he was permitted to enter a room without knocking. I learned this from the first go-round of Upstairs Downstairs.
In awe? A Earl? Of a mere Knight?
And, I’ll point out that if Dr Clarkson had been wrong, then likely both would have been dead, Or at least the Mother.
This is just poor writing for two reason: Drama does not mean tragedy, and the meme that when someone warns you, they are always right needs to be subverted once in a while. In fast when they all came down and said Mother & daughter are fine, I was going “Well, that’s a surprise, and good writing…” but then I was wrong.
I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
Well, she is an American after all …
I don’t know why elaving the dinner to attend the labour is a surprise. I’ve read that England actually has labour parties.
Mixed marriages existed back then; the Protestant partner usually agreed any children would be raised Catholic. Weddings could be held in a Catholic church but modestly–without a full-drag Nuptial Mass.
Religion could have been one of Robert’s objections to Branson in series 2–but Fellowes may not have decided he wanted to use the topic. Long term plot development is not his strong point.
Agreed, but the Granthams, like most of their ilk, were far less concerned with religious differences than with the class differences. Sybil ran off with THE CHAUFFEUR! What will others think of us?!?
Someone refresh my memory, why was Murray the lawyer at Downton when he was? Matthew took him aside to put a bug in his ear about the management of the estate, but I thought Murray was there for another reason. I can’t remember.
He was there to discuss the new Bates evidence.
“Could be held” being operative. A woman in the church where I grew up (in the US, late 1950s) told me that the priest refused to marry her in the church. It was a sacramental wedding all right — but the prick made them come to the rectory for a quickly shameful exchange of vows. No nice wedding for you, you Protestant-marryer! :rolleyes:
K, I 'member now. Too much shit happening to keep track of it all.
He wasn’t necessarily a prick because that wasn’t his rule; that was THE rule. To be married in the physical church building, both had to be Catholics. If one person wasn’t, the wedding took place in the rectory. It wasn’t seen as particularly *shameful *at the time, just the way it was done.
I know a couple in which she’s a Catholic, he’s both Protestant and divorced, and while they were unable to get married in the church the priest did give a blessing to the union. Does anybody know if that’s a common practice for people who can’t get full-sacrament married?
I’m pretty sure it is. Remember, priests’ hands are tied by Rome and by their local bishop.
As for “full sacrament marriage,” when a Catholic and non-Catholic marry, it’s still a sacramental marriage, isn’t it? Or has it been so long since I’ve been a Catholic that I’ve forgotten. I know some rules have been relaxed.
(I keep thinking about all those poor bastards who are frying in hell because they ate meat on Friday back when it was a sin. I guess the joke’s on them, eh?)
^^^^^^^^^^
not serious
My father is Catholic and my mother is not. They were not allowed to celebrate a wedding mass because she wasn’t Catholic, so they got married by a judge. I believe that the union was blessed by the church because she agreed to raise their children to be Catholics. This would be ~1960. And they’re still married.
As far as fairness goes, I can see both sides. However, I lean to the side that if you join a club, you should be prepared to follow their rules. If you don’t want to follow their rules, then don’t join the club.
You’re probably right, but he made my friend feel so ashamed I think he was a prick.
There’s the text… and the subtext.
He probably did try to shame her and used the text of the rule as his vehicle. That’s really too bad.
I’ll go along with that. It was a rule, but some priests were definitely pricks about it and some were decent, compassionate human beings. I’m so sorry your friend drew a prick.
(Not defending the Church, BTW… just about everything having to do with once being a Catholic has left a bad taste in my mouth.)
As a counter-anecdote, when my parents were married in 1949, my mother was Catholic, my father Episcopalian. Our parish priest said “eh…close enough*” and married them in the church, full -blown Catholic ceremony.
*or words to that effect.