Yeah, that definitely took me out of the time period.
Also, did anyone else notice the frequent use of the word “stuff?” Just sounded too anachronistic.
I hope nothing happens to Mr. Pamuk. He’s such a nice fellow.
Yup, Mr. Athena and I definitely noticed it. Seemed odd to us as well.
Looked up “stuff” in Etymology Online
So, since the 1570’s…
The only two surgeries I could think of were removal of a thick and stubborn hymen, or fibroid removal.
The hymen must be a no-go because they have perforations in them that let menses out anyway, and would let sperm in.
Fibroids sounds like an advanced sort of thing to diagnose in 1920.
Oh, I don’t doubt the word existed back then. It just didn’t seem like a word that would be used as it was in this ep.
Fallopian blockage?
No mention of Robert wanting to put thier money into, LITERALLY, a Ponzi scheme?
That stuck out like a sore thumb.
I’m wondering if Edith might decide to update her hairstyle, after visiting that club. She looked entranced by those flappers. I wouldn’t like to see her in one of those frizzy perms, but her finger wave needs to go.
[QUOTE=Sampiro]
Did anybody else think that some of the attitudes towards homosexuality were a bit too modern by Lord Grantham (he hates Catholics but has nothing against predatory homos?) and some of the staff?
[/QUOTE]
Yes. I was going to come in and post this.
Especially the part about “he can’t help it, he was born that way”. The idea that someone is born gay is way too modern to fit.
But the off hand remark from Lord Robert about situational homosexuality at his boarding school was apt. That, I could see as a justification to go easy on Thomas, at least from His Lordship.
It may have made for a more satisfying plot flow if Lord Robert were the one being understanding, and forcing Carson to give Thomas a good reference, including by browbeating the other footman into recanting his report to the police. There was no need for Bates to become involved at all. Although the Bates line about how he was in prison, and wouldn’t wish that even on his enemy Thomas, was very affecting.
Maybe part of that is my dislike of the incident where Ms. O’Brien plants the soap so Lady Grantham will slip on it and miscarry. That is too - cliche, coincidental? Not sure what to call it. Sort of a deus ex machina in reverse - something thrown in to screw things up.
I really enjoyed the subplot about the eighteen year old wild child slipping off to meet with her married boyfriend, and Matthew et al. hunting her down in the night club and ripping her a new one. Great fun.
But this talk about the series finale has me jonesing - there will be another series, won’t there? Please?
Regards,
Shodan
Pretty please?!? http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2rth7O7fb1qkb6keo1_500.gif
How long has it been since Mary’s wedding? Maybe an abortion to get rid of the newsman’s child?
StG
Yes. The term “series” is used in the UK to refer to seasons here in America, so a series finale there doesn’t mean the same thing it would here. They just began filming on series/season 4 earlier this month.
Far too long. And I doubt that Mary gave that upstart fellow more than one of her chilly smiles…
I agree with Robert, Edith should use a pen name. A job offer after one letter to the editor strains credulity, especially in a era where women weren’t expected to be able to do much. Edith isn’t seeking fame either, she just wants to be useful and write hard hitting exposes, having a fake name will help her do that. If the paper doesn’t let her, she’ll know they weren’t really interested in her writing anyway.
The wedding was in March 1920 and the cricket match was in September 1920. This season, each episode has been roughly one month apart.
Yeah I had to laugh out loud at that one. I can’t blame Robert, though. Someone promising fantastic return rates, and nobody knew anything of the eponymous schemes at that time. Heck, even recently people STILL fell for them (Madoff) even though the Ponzi Scheme is well known today.
I didn’t the buy the gay storyline at all. They were far too easy on Thomas. The only way I could even remotely see it is just because they knew Thomas and didn’t want to get him into trouble. That I can understand. Most people are probably reluctant to get people they know in trouble unless there’s a real serious crime involved.
But some real sweetness in this episode. I loved Tom asking Mary to be a godmother. I am surprised it was allowed. My sil is Catholic. She was specifically told I couldn’t be a godmother to one of her kids as I am Jewish. My husband was allowed by the priest because his father is Catholic even though he’s an atheist and was raised as a Methodist. Mary’s clearly a firmly committed Anglican.
Poor Mosely. He continues to be a sorry little puppy of a person.
I loved the Dowager Countess in this episode. She was deliciously knowing and devious with regards to Rose. Am I correct in presuming that she tried to push Ethel out of Isobel’s house in part so she could be nearer to Charlie?
Backing up a few seasons, if Cora had not miscarried but had given birth, but (what with her age and all) the child had been Down Syndrome- perfectly healthy otherwise- would he still have been the heir to Downton or is there a law that prevents the mentally retarded from inheriting?
Thats a good point, she was the one that handed the letters to Isobel, she certainly could have picked through it (I think they were open) to narrow the choices. She was also the one that got the adopted mother involved.