Cora’s always been a horrible judge of character, and she’s also desperate for a lady’s maid right now since O’Brien split in the middle of the night. Then there’s the glowing letter of recommendation Tom had Mrs Hughes write. :smack:
I’m probably not describing it very well; I watched it for two hours and still couldn’t pin down exactly what was going on. It looked like one of those old-timey films that’s moving just a bit too fast, but not consistently.
I was a bit confused about the nanny business. When the conflict between her and Thomas began it seemed like something that would carry on and maybe escalate as the season progressed, but then she was rightfully fired in her debut episode. I wonder who her replacement will be.
I could not quite figure out from the show if:
Option 1: If Thomas was just being his usual dick-ish self, and made vague, hinting comments about Nanny West to Cora because he simply didn’t like her. In this option, it is a massive coincidence that Cora later came upon Nanny’s terrible behavior. Well, sort of a coincidence, in that Cora was observing Nanny because of Thomas’s remarks, but that Thomas’s comments were simply his usual subversive hints that are either out of context or completely made up. The fact that Nanny mentioned the kids were on their own, and then Thomas’s comment to Cora was about leaving the children alone, seems to support this. If he had worse information, surely he would have used it to make Cora act even faster, right?
Option 2: Thomas had actually observed Nanny’s real awfulness … and was not saying anything until he decided it benefited him to put a bug in Cora’s ear. In this scenario, he is sitting on information about the horrible treatment of the little girl until it suits him. However, looking back, he also seemed particularly concerned with the girl, and it even struck me as somewhat random at the time why he would ask why she wasn’t getting eggs with her meal … in general, I would assume Thomas’s main concerns would be why Nanny wasn’t treating HIM in an appropriate (in his mind) way.
Despite all the above happening in a satisfyingly dramatic way, I thought his baiting of Anna is stupid, in terms of the show. As much as the family might like him, Mary in particular, and Edith, and Cora too, know Anna in a much more in-depth way, and I think Thomas would be crafty enough to realize that and make more subtle plans.
LavenderBlue, I tend to agree with you that it seemed too soon to be rushing Lady Mary out of mourning … except possibly for the fact that she seemed visibly (to the viewers and the other characters) not engaging with the baby (like when called him an orphan). I think a widow who would otherwise be left to grieve might spark more concerns with her family (and of course her butler, because I personally know I always rely on my butler for that kind of interpersonal insight) if she was seriously shutting out the child. I think even during a time/class where the nanny would have been doing a lot more for the baby anyway, Mary was still presented as being noticeably more distant than Tom is from his daughter, and he has also lost a spouse.
And Lady Rose shall from now and 'til the end of time be called Cousin Oliver! At least in my head.
I hope they don’t focus on her too much this season. She’s annoying.
Cora’s insistence on hiring Edna in the face of what Anna said felt REALLY forced. Plus, why would she take Mrs. Hughes’ letter of recommendation at face value without asking her for additional feedback? Mrs. Hughes is right there. Does it make any sense that she would hire a woman as her closest servant without taking the opportunity to say “So, tell me more about Edna.”
The thing with the nanny was a nice way to illustrate English attitudes toward the Irish at that time. In this day and age, and especially from an American perspective, it’s very hard to appreciate why anybody would really care that Branson was Irish, so that was a nice reminder.
Seems like they may be setting up a romance between Mary and Branson, so maybe the Irish thing will come into play in that area.
What good was it doing her to just sit in her room for 6 months? Someone said that she seemed no better than a week after she died, so more time wasn’t going to help. Nobody told her to snap out of it. They just saw that allowing her to do nothing but grieve was not doing anything to help her move on with her life so they came up with a different strategy.
Plus she wasn’t caring for or bonding with her child. They might not have thought of it as “bonding” in those days, but it’s quite clear she felt no connection to that child. Something had to change.
If you weren’t caring for your child because you were grieving for six months, wouldn’t you want someone to tell you to snap out of it? Would your husband want you neglecting your child for six months?
ETA: delphica’s post snuck in. She said it better.
I think it was a combination of Thomas being his usual conniving self and exaggerating Nanny West’s behavior to Cora, as well as legitimately caring for Sybbie. Thomas and Sybil always got along, they worked at the hospital together, and he was very upset when she died. I think he really did consider her a friend and part of why he wanted to get one over on Nanny was because he knew she wasn’t treating Sybbie as well as she should have. That Nanny was *actually *so incredibly horrible towards Sybbie was just a bonus for him.
(ETA, and after reading Green Bean’s post, I didn’t even realize her hatred of Sybbie was because Branson was Irish. I thought it was just because he was a servant and she thought the classes shouldn’t mix! :smack:)
On the other hand, his going after Anna was *completely *out of character. Thomas has never had anything against Anna, in fact she was the one who comforted him after Sybil’s death. If he were trying to get Bates in trouble instead, that would make sense (even though the only reason Thomas is still working at Downton is because of Bates, but let’s forget that little fact since Fellowes seems to have as well), but Thomas going out of his way to make trouble for Anna really doesn’t fit with how his character has behaved in the past.
Green Bean and Delphica,
My thought was that it was only about two decades after Queen Victoria died. She was allowed to mourn Prince Albert for decades after his early death. I just thought that people would have expected such long term sorrow from an upper class widow. She made me cry wondering if she was only a good person because Matthew thought she was. That rang so heartbreakingly true to life.
I do agree that Cora comes across as such an idiot in not checking with Mrs. Hughes. But then Fellowes has always made her out to be not very bright. The only time he’s ever given her any biting lines is right after Sybil died. She was ragging on Robert’s Catholic hatred and snobbery quite effectively in the next few episodes. I particularly liked her zinger about how “not everyone chooses their religion to suit Debrett’s.”
Thomas also lacks subtlety. Maybe it was O’Brien who was the brains of the operation?
Is Edna the one who had the baby and gave it to the dead father’s parents?
As for Mary, I don’t think she’s being rushed out of mourning. They’re not telling her to start dating – they just want her to participate, come out of herself even a little bit. She walks around like Miss Havisham.
Edith seems to have come out of Mary’s shadow. I like that. She was such a whiny mouse before.
No, that was Ethel. (Yes, two annoying maids both with E names is a bit confusing.) Edna was the one who kissed Branson and tried to make him feel like he was acting above his station. Mrs Hughes got rid of her when she found out.
Yeah, it was probably expected that she would be “in mourning” for a long time, but she was entirely dysfunctional. I think even in that context, a woman could be grieving and still going about her business. Or at least some portion of her business. Well, you know what I mean, right?
I thought she was Edith before I remembered who was really Edith. Fellowes needs to find another letter for naming purposes. Charlotte, Diana, Frances, Henrietta, Jessie, Katherine, Louisa, Patricia, Virginia, Winifred all come to mind immediately as appropriate period names.
Diana would be a perfect name for someone who is gunning for Anna.
Die, Anna, Die!
A recent blip on entertainment program stated that Dan Stevens (Matthew) has a bad reputation as snooty and ungrateful in the UK, this being one reason he came to the US. Does anybody know if there is any truth to this?
Check out this Which Downton Abbey Character Are You: Which "Downton Abbey" Character Are You?
I got Branson. Then I went back and did it picking the thing I liked least for each and ended up as Mrs. Patmore! I’m the anti-Mrs. Patmore.
The usual soap opera stuff. Insert a couple of back-stabbing villains in need of a sound thrashing along with a character in a state of sorrow and a bunch of characters in a confused state of desire for the wrong person.
Oh, and one of the evil back-stabbing villains screws up and does something right and ends up looking the hero.
Sounds like Daily Mail gossip. After the woefully written 2nd & 3rd series of Downton, Stevens dared exercise his right not to renew his contract. So Lord Fellowes offed Matthew clumsily at the last minute, wrecking many a cozy Christmas night around the telly…
If Fellowes had thought beyond that first season, he might have insisted on longer contracts. Or even planned believable plots & character arcs. With better writing, Stevens might have been persuaded to stay. As it is, Downton is a farm team for young hopefuls–and safe retirement for a few old pros.
My understanding is that the model is fundamentally different in the UK, and that a two- or three-season contract is pretty much standard.
I think Thomas wants to be Robert’s valet again and is forging an alliance with Edna toward that goal. He knows that Bates will figure out any action taken by either Thomas or Edna against Anna and is counting on Bates to (at least attempt to) get even, which he would then report to Cora as an unjustified attack. I don’t think he is actually targeting Anna but going after Bates indirectly.
So, watching the premiere last night, my girlfriend kept scoffing at the Earl. How he was so arrogant and controlling and whatnot. Am I the only one who still has some affection for the Earl? I mean, obviously part of his desire was for sole control again, but I found most of his concern was for his daughter’s welfare. The man just lost another daughter not all that long ago and seems uber protective of the ones he has left. And yes, part of it is patriarchal and wanting control again, but that’s somewhat human. And, you know, running the Abbey’s lands is the only thing the Earl actually has. Without that, he’s fairly useless. Anyways, I don’t think treating the Earl as just some bumbling fool is all that fair (though he can be indeed foolish, I also think that the other members of the family are shown as way too intelligent and forward looking than was the case for people of that rank in reality).
It may take awhile to get through them but, I am definitely enjoying all the comments whether I agree with them or not. I’ll just add that I thought it was fantastic! I thought what Bates did for Moseley was charming. Don’t know why but, that sticks out in my mind this morning.
Also my video was excellent in HD on a DIY antenna.
Will be interested in the viewer count. Bet it was huge!!!
this totally makes sense - I think Thomas is by far the most interesting character. doesn’t mean I like him! :eek: