Maybe Molesly could be Branson’s valet? I know that Branson might chafe at the idea, but they do have him wearing nice clothes now, so maybe he could get used to being dressed . . .
I was vaguely speculating on future storylines . . . let’s say this storyline extends till 1935ish. Could there be any possibility at all of a romance between baby Crawley and baby Branson? Or as first-cousins is that too squicky, even for aristocracy?
That room looks . . . oddly proportioned. Why are their heads almost hitting the ceiling?
First cousins who grew up in the same house? :eek: That’s just too squicky; especially since they’d be raised as brother & sister for all practicle purposes. Mussolini’s March on Rome was in 1922 so hopefully we’ll get to see Lord Grantham’s opinions of fascism (something alot of the aristocracy flirted with).
I think it’s a mix of the height differences - Imelda Staunton is only 5 feet tall, while Jim Carter is 6’2’’ - and the photographers shooting at an angle that makes the perspective somewhat wonky.
Who is Enid?
Are you thinking of Edna the maid who flirted with Tom and got fired for it?
Or have I missed someone?
I was wondering that too!
This whole upper-class idea of having nannies raise your children and only seeing them an hour a day sounds ideal for (happily childless) me, but from what I can gather most parents want to spend lots of time with their kids. And these parents had tons of free time. I can understand not wanting to clean up spills or change dirty diapers, but most modern-day parents really like playing with their kids, teaching them things, etc. So why had the aristocracy come up with this manner of child-rearing? Was it simply because they could afford to never interact with their children, and so doing so became “common” or “vulgar”? Or were they worried their children would become too “soft” if they always hung out with their parents, and wouldn’t develop a sense of independence?
Is this an objectively bad way to raise your kids? Because if I ever have enough money I would consider trying it, assuming it wouldn’t leave my kids with weird complexes . . .
In one earlier episode Robert mentions Charels Ponzi and his fantastic returns. With Matthew gone I fear that Robert may jump on that and squander more of their fortune.
That would be disappointing. Fellowes should not go to that particular well again, and Robert has learned his lesson. The estate seems to be doing fine financially, after just a year under Matthew and Tom’s management.
An estate manager to replace Matthew could be an interesting new character.
Tom Branson is the estate manager; “land agent” was the title they used. Presumably Matthew’s share in the estate now passes to his son and Lady Mary has control over it until he cames of age.
I’m not sure the estate agent qualifies for a valet. He’s an employee of the estate, just one with a higher status than the servants, kind of like the doctor and the lawyer.
They look like they’re from two different species of humanoid.
One question about the inheritance. If Tom and Sybil had a boy, and then Matthew and Mary had a girl, would Baby Boy Branson be the heir after Matthew died?
Nope. It has to pass through the male-line. Master Crawley’s status as Robert’s heir has nothing to with him being his grandson. If Matthew had married Lavinia and then died after she gave birth to a son that son would still be the heir.
Exactly. There can be no women in the line of inheritance.
James Crawley was Robert’s first cousin, so had to be the son of Robert’s father’s younger brother. James’s son, Patrick Crawley, was Mary’s second cousin.
Matthew’s father was Robert’s second cousin (Robert’s father’s father’s younger brother’s son’s son), so Matthew and Mary were third cousins.
Matthew and Mary’s son and Tom and Sybil’s daughter are fourth cousins.
So, there as far as inheritance, there are still a lot of variables. Young Master Crawley could die before Robert, yes? And Robert could, under various conditions, remarry and produce an heir.
Matthew hadn’t actually inherited yet, but it was assumed that he would. If the baby doesn’t outlive Robert, then they will look further, beyond Matthew’s 2nd or 3rd cousin status to an even distant relative, right? But if Robert dies and Mary’s baby survives him, the baby inherits and we hope that he grows up, marries well, and produces yet another heir.
Childhood and children weren’t valued as such until quite recently. Childhood was seen as a messy, useless period on the way to becoming a productive, tidy adult capable of conversation. At best, children were miniature adults; at worst they were blank slates that were useless until they had something written on them. I had a book on this subject, but I can’t remember the title…something like The Little Darlings.
The idea of “teen culture” didn’t come into being until the late 1940’s.
Even as recently as my own childhood in the 1950’s, children and parents were natural enemies. We wanted to be adults, but they didn’t want to be children. They had their own highly desirable world and we were not invited into it. You see some of this culture separation on Mad Men.
Oh, right. What was Matthew’s position? It wasn’t limited to finances, was it?
Matthew doesn’t have a “position.” He is the heir presumptive to Robert and a part owner of the estate. That’s it. Once Matthew gave up his law practice, he became a gentleman, and the primary characteristic of a gentleman is he doesn’t hold a job.
Yes, but without the entail the estate doesn’t automatically go with the title. So the title could go an even more distant relation while Lady Mary & her heirs keep the land & money. And Lady Mary, above all else, cares about keeping Downton. She’s not going to give 2 shits about some distant cousin (possibly even lower on the social scale than Matthew) inheiriting the earldom and becoming a landless peer.