The Bates/Anna story is my least favorite. We see that Anna was entirely right that if Bates knew, he would feel compelled to kill the man who raped her. And although he is pretending to her that his only concern is her, he is actually planning to do exactly what she feared. Why does he not understand that what she most needs is for him to be with her and not to risk leaving her alone by killing and being hanged for it? Some may see that as evidence of how far he would go to protect her but I see it as evidence of his feeling that his possession has been violated. I most definitely do not like this dark side to his character.
My theory is Bates goes investigating and ends up fixating on a likely suspect in the village and murders him. Bates will reveal to Anna that he avenged her, making her simultaneously horrified and relieved. She barely has any time to process when Gillingham is announced as having arrived. Anna goes upstairs and sees Gillingham’s valet and realizes the truth.
Now she has decide whether to turn in her actual murdering husband.
Sorry, too late. This has already gone on your Permanent Record Card. You’ll be hearing from us.
It was mine too until the new gardener who we all know didn’t really steal the letter opener because it fell behind the couch or Lady Mary borrowed it or something.
It’s true. A man named Peg cannot be guilty of anything but adorableness.
I’m fine with Bates’ “this isn’t over” comment. He’s supposed to just let it go?
We don’t know for sure what he meant. Could be he’s going to tell Robert, who can vouch for Anna’s character if the valet says she was willing. Or he could tell the police.
I don’t see it as any different from what you or I would do if one of our loved ones was harmed. We would do something.
I really don’t understand this. Are you telling me that if someone you loved was raped, you would not feel vengeance?
If you think Bates thinks of Anna as “his possession” then you have clearly not been watching the same show as everyone else.
Good episode. We liked it at our house.
I wondered why Lord Grantham (looking so dapper in a top hat!) was so hesitant with the guy who wanted to take over his father’s farm. Wouldn’t it be easier to just let the guy have it, work out a payment plan for the arrearage, and continue the tradition “since the days of George III”? Seemed like a no-brainer to me, esp. since the amount at issue was only 50 pounds. Even in those days, it wasn’t THAT much money, compared to the value of a farm.
Poor Molesley. Carson’s sarcasm and impatience with him was a joy to behold, though!
Yes, didn’t she? She seemed particularly upbeat and beautiful in that scene, the best I’ve seen her this season. As to what Napier’s up to in his “hush hush” work, remember that, if it’s still 1922, Lloyd George is still Prime Minister (until October), and he was no friend of the British aristocracy. His Majesty’s Government of the day will be doing no favors for the landed gentry.
I love that line. I think it’s right up there with “What is a ‘week-end’?” and “Do you promise?”
Agreed. He’s no fool, and despite Mrs. Hughes swearing on her mother’s grave, she was obviously very reluctant, and wouldn’t meet his eye. If it had happened that way, his obvious next questions would be, “How did he get in?”, “Why didn’t anyone else see him?” and “If he forced his way in, why was the door not jimmied or a window broken?”
I actually thought Fellowes might take a more Shakespearean route, with Mr. Bates meeting with Anna and her assuming that Mrs. Hughes had told him the entire truth, rather than the partial lie that it had been an unknown intruder. He might have implied he knew exactly who it was, and then had her inadvertently confirm it was Lord Gillingham’s valet after all.
The menacing music in his last meeting with Mrs. Hughes in the hallway was a bit over the top, though.
I wonder. Did the initials that followed the doctor’s name on his brass address-plate mean anything significant? Do we know if he was an ob/gyn?
That would be a pretty interesting plotline, but I doubt they’ll go in that direction.
Yes, but he didn’t want to break the agreement that he made with Mary and Tom. In that situation, the old ways were the best.
They (Tom and Mary, I think) said something later about the location of that piece of land. They wanted to absorb it with other land that they were farming, I think. Efficiency and all that.
Also, if the father couldn’t make the farm pay so he could keep up with his rent, how will the son? Unless the estate starts farming more collectively with the tenants (the estate buys the expensive modern farming equipment and increases the tenants’ rents but allows them to co-operatively use the machinery), the tenants and their farms will fall further and further behind, as modern production methods increase other farms’ incomes. It doesn’t make sense for each small-holder to own a tractor, for example, when they don’t need it except for planting and harvesting and other occasional farm chores.
Just as Mrs. Patmore is seeing (and fearing) technological change, the farmers will have to keep up with the times. The post-WWI mechanization is vastly changing the way farmers farm. Gone are the draught horses and in are the tractors. In fact, during WWI, a great many draught and saddle horses were conscripted by the war effort and left in the fields and abattoirs of France.
This changing times for farms would be an interesting side story for DA.
StG
Interestingly enough the one phrase that seemed to really echo with Robert was that the tenants had been “in partnership with the Crawleys” for how many ever years. I wonder if that’s what Robert is thinking can be done.
And then Anna takes poison because she’s “spoiled” now, and Bates finds her and stabs himself, and then she comes to, and sees that he’s stabbed himself, and she stabs herself, then he comes to and sees that she’s stabbed herself, and he takes the rest of the poison (hidden in Alfred’s cheese/*béchamel *savouries) and they die in each other’s arms?
It’s entirely plausible that the father was just feeble/incapable/a loser/whatever, and the son is not. Given that there are presumably many other farms of around the same size in the same situation that are NOT being foreclosed, it seems like a sound assumption that a properly managed farm can stay in the black.
Yes, and it’s certainly worth giving the guy a shot. If he fails after a season, they’re no worse off than they are now.
This confused me. I thought Isobel and Matthew were the Crawleys. Robert is a Crawley?
Well… no.
Precisely.
The whole family’s last name is Crawley. Robert’s title is Earl of Grantham, aka Lord Grantham, but his last name is Crawley.
Since Matthew was only heir because he was a male-line descendant of a previous Earl, it would be unusual (although not impossible) for him to have a different last name than Robert.
Ah. I get it. Thanks. :smack:
There’s probably no chance that a little brat from the village will ever call the family the Creepy Crawleys, is there? Damn shame, that.
So they’re going to keep Thomas’s evil meter set on maximum.
wouldn’t bother me if they dialed it back a bit. he’s going to be eating rattle snakes for breakfast at this rate.