Officially, adultery was the only ground for divorce. Not insanity, drunkenness or abuse. Forget “incompatibility.” On occasion, when both spouses wanted out, the man would cook up a drama with a “rent a floozy” so they could both escape–but it was illegal & still left a cloud over the divorced couple. If things were bad, they could legally separate. Or just maintain the usual separate bedrooms & appear together in public…
The Marlborough divorce was mentioned–Consuelo Vanderbilt had been forced into marriage with the Duke of Marlborough; he needed the Vanderbilt fortune to keep Blenheim Castle from falling down. The marriage made both of them wretchedly unhappy. They divorced & she remarried for love; he remarried but remained unhappy. Both of them remained wealthy; he remained a Duke. if he’d been trying for a career, he would have been in trouble.
Especially after losing his estate, Shrimpy needed his career. So, no divorce. A string of lovers doesn’t make up for living with someone who detests you. Besides, I don’t see possible lovers lined up to service his wife…
Please forgive this slight hijack, but who is the actress playing Lady Susan, Shrimpy’s unhappy wife? I know I have seen her before in something, but I can’t place her.
Help me out- does Matthew’s death affect the inheritance? Will it automatically go to Mary now (through their son) since they married? Since he technically never inherited (Robert is alive) can someone claim to be the heir?
He’s the heir and there can be no spare, which means nobody can breathe for the next 20-something years until he weds and produces sons. If they’re smart they’ll marry him off at 16 to a hyperfertile 25 year old wealthy widow who’s had 5 healthy children, to ensure highest likelihood of procreation, otherwise whatever’s left of Downton goes to 8th cousin Ludovic “Bubba” Crawley-Patel of Yellowknife. Lady Edith promptly falls for Ludovic, in spite of the fact he is 72 years old, married, and a microcephalic. (Provided that she doesn’t first become Viscountess Glass in honor of the aristocratic husband George, Viscount Glass, that nobody has ever met, for she is truly Jan Brady raised to the peerage.)
Okay now that you Yanks have seen it I can finally comment.
Why does everyone think that the manner of handling Thoma’s homosexuality was “too modern”. It seemed precisely how an upper class house of that time would handle a situation like that.
Other points re Bates release. At that time and until about 2 decades ago, the Home Secretary had the power to vacate criminal convictions and that it what happened.
I knew about the ending because it was spoiled in comments (that were supposed to be spoiler free) over Christmas, and I’m actually kind of glad I did know as it lessened the melodrama. I’m hoping Dan Stevens will take this opportunity to broaden his exposure in a role that allows copious nudity.
Mary has had moments of classist bitch before now, but I’m wondering if with Matthew gone she’ll become completely unbearable.
Yup, I think the show’s jumped the shark. Not cuz of Matthew – I had heard someone wanted out of the show and so I expected another death, just didn’t know who or how – but this Rose joining the household smells like a shark. I can just see promos for the next season: “… and flirty, flappy Rose comes home to Downton! Hijynx ensues!” :rolleyes: I just really don’t think I’m interested in any of it.
Funny how, as I was watching, every sidelong glance, every scene with a gun, made me think “oh oh, Something’s gonna happen …” Fellowes has me well trained.
Sigh, I dunno. Sort of glad this was the last episode, it was just starting to get a little tedious. Well, I have a year to get over it and see if I’m interested again.
Even though it would make Robert and Cora 60-somethings and Violet pushing 90, I kind of hope they F-Fwd a few years for the start of the next season and go ahead and take on the Depression.
I understand that Matthew’s son is the heir because he is Lord Grantham’s grandson and closest male relative. However, if Matthew had married Lavinia and they had had a son and Matthew died before Lord Grantham did, then Matthew’s son would not be heir to the estate, correct?
I thought that he was the presumptive heir, and so his lineage was not in line to inherit unless he became the actual Lord Grantham. For instance, if he had died when he did without having a son, then the next-in-succession would be Lord Grantham’s next male relative, not Matthew’s next male relative, or so I thought.
Baby Boy Crawley is not the heir (presumptive) because he is Robert’s grandson but, because he is Robert’s third-cousin-X-times removed.
I’ll have to go back to the scene where Matthew explains to Martha his relationship to Robert in order to determine how many times removed Baby Boy Crawley is from Robert.
Ah, gotcha, cause the line can only go through men, and Isobel’s husband (and Matthew’s father and the baby’s grandfather) was distantly related through male relatives to Lord Grantham.
Entail was abolished in 1925, and it might not even apply now since Cora’s dowry is gone and has been replaced with Matthew’s inheirtance. So they won’t have to worry about the estate going to an even more distant relative anymore; just the title.
Right, unlike the Crown very few English & British peerages can pass thru the female line. Scottish peerages are an exception; that’s why Shrimpie’s grandmother was Countess of Newtonmore in her own right. Master Crawley is still only the heir presumptive since Robert count theoratically remarry and have a son (also peerage law presumes a woman is capable of having children regardless of her age). I wonder if Susan’s mother is Violet’s sister Roberta; the one who loaded the guns at Lucknow.
Personally I’m looking forward to next season. Especially since I heard that…
…Fellowes want’s to explore race relations somehow; possibly by having the Granthams host a visiting Indian prince & his entourage. It’d certainly make for some interesting dinner table talk; especially with Tom.
They’ve referred to him as a third cousin before (you share a g-g-grandfather with your third cousin), though when American Grandma visited he said that his great-great-grandfather was a younger son of an Earl. Sounds like it might be more of a third-cousin once removed. Or, it could be that Robert had a grandfather or other ancestor who, like Matthew, inherited the title other than from their own father due to the previous Earl not having a son.
