ETA: NM, just realized I’ve said all this before.
Yeah. Prince William’s (the 2nd in line to the throne) wedding banquet was “only” a black tie event (ie dinner jackets). Granted state dinners in the UK are still white tie (ie tails); that’s not going to change until after the Queen is dead.
To be fair, she appears more selfish than I think she really is. She was raised with the responsibility of Downton Abbey on her shoulders. It’s not just the place she grew up, keeping Downton means providing for her family, the only friends she has and the only life she was ever prepared to expect.
Her sisters knew they’d never be in the position to have Downton depend on them so could figure out what they want to do with their lives independent of the place.
Matthew never knew it was even a possibility so grew up not caring, only began to care at all later in the show.
Those people can afford to take principled stances even if it hurts Downton, she and her father cannot.
Maybe that isn’t a moral justification or excuse, but that’s one of the more interesting questions this show examines.
That would not have been true until Cora and Robert had finally resolved that Cora was past child-bearing years. And remember that in S1, Cora was pregnant with a son until the evil O’Brien plotted to have her slip and fall.
But it would have been on her mind all along that there was little chance of a brother suddenly appearing. Remember she was already engaged to one second cousin at the beginning of the series (who went down with the Titanic) in order to guarantee that the estate would stay within the family.
Right. But she is also one of the driving forces of a major theme of the show. It isn’t about wealth, Downton is a job. The audience easily dismisses Violet and Roberts views because they are of another age. Mary’s view is towards continuing to do whatever she can to hold up this house of cards past the Age of it making any sense. Beautifully illustrated in this last episode when Cora, Violet and Mary connived to show the ‘value’ of the place by having a party for rich people.
Mary’s American grandmother doesn’t care to stop it from falling apart because she doesn’t agree owning a house is a job.
She also said she couldn’t help because she can’t touch her principle.
Does anyone else think Matthew’s stance re the inheritance was, well… dumb? He’d let his new family suffer because he happened to come into this money? Not just the family, but the whoe community that Downton supports. It would be like a major employer shutting down. It’s not like he was Lavinia’s father’s FIRST choice as heir. He was prolly the only one the old guy could think of. And if he doesn’t take the money, I assume it’s like here, and the money will just go to the state.
Just imagine what they might infer from a “NO SHIRT NO SHOES NO SERVICE” sign! 
Very British, iddinit? Reminds me of the conclusion of Dickens’ Nicholas Nickeby:
Granted, by this time both Nicholas and Kate have married money and are comfortable. But the ever-charitable Brothers Cheeryble might have told them, “So take the money and do something good with it!”
Nope.
The only reason he was even mentioned in the will was because the old man assumed he was potentially leaving the money to his son in law. In his view he never fullfilled his end of the bargain so why on earth is he due this money?
Like has been mentioned, no one ends up destitute if the family scales down. Some folks will get laid off and have to move somewhere else…that’s not Matthew’s fault that is on the man who actually did become his father in law.
I thought I heard Matthew say he’d so something with the money but not take it for his own use.
The claim that he never fulfilled his end of the bargain is not even correct. He didn’t abandon Lavinia even though he still had feelings for Mary.
The logic question to ask is would Lavinia support the family in their time of need if she survived. Given her selfless bedside release of Mathew I have to say yes.
The logic question to ask is would Lavinia support the family in their time of need if she survived. Given her selfless bedside release of Mathew I have to say yes.
[/QUOTE]
But had she survived:
-
she and Matthew would’ve gotten married, and Downton would’ve eventually been hers through Matthew, so yes I think she would’ve bailed them out as a means of saving it for Matthew and her; or
-
she would not have married Matthew and would’ve gone back to wherever she came from and never have known about the need.
The only indication we have of Lavinia’ s father’s intention is that he left Matthew the money after two preferred heirs. For Matthew to turn down the money second-guesses the old man and disregards his clearly expressed desire, namely, that Matthew should inherit if the other two couldn’t be found. Matthew should put aside his guilt and holier-than-thou attitude and honor the will. He can accomplish some good with it by saving the local industry that is Downton Abbey. He and Mary don’t have to live in the big house if he can’t stomach it. He’s being short-sighted.
If we’re talking about general philosophy and ethics rather than the context of the show, then I completely disagree with you. The living should never feel obligated to be bound by the wishes of the dead merely because the dead expressed a wish, when accepting it is contrary to the morals, ethics, values, judgment, etc., of the living person. Legally, Matthew would have no choice but to decide what to do with the money, but he has no moral, ethical, or other obligation to keep it and spend it for his own benefit. If he wants to give it away, because in his judgment that’s the right thing to do, then he should, the dead man’s wishes be damned.
sniff Most un-British!
No, she couldn’t help because she can’t touch the principal. Matthew won’t accept his inheritance because it will offend his principles.
But why does only Mary have this responsibility? Wouldn’t one of the other sisters marrying the heir have done just as well?
It would’ve, but the family pushed Mary into marrying Patrick, then when he died pushed her toward Matthew without giving Edith & Sybil a 2nd though. Edith did have a crush on Patrick, but nobody noticed. She even tried to get closer to Matthew, but he was oblivious to that. And Mary is the oldest daughter; naturally they’d want her married off first (before the bloom is off the rose). If the earldom had the same rules of succesion as the Crown Mary would inheirit Downton and become Countess of Grantham in her own right, but peerages (except of course in Scotland) don’t usualy work that way.
I didn’t mean he was BOUND to follow the dead man’s wishes. I meant he was permitted to. IOW he shouldn’t turn down the money because he thinks he has not fulfilled the reasons HE thinks Lavinia’s father left it to him. He can turn down the money for his own reasons (princiPLES which I probably wouldn’t agree with), but he certainly shouldn’t do it based on what he imagines Lavinia Pater’ s reasons were. If the old man thought so highly of Matthew, why wasn’t he first on the list?
I thought about that. It might be that he figured that a future Earl wouldn’t need the money.