Except that bigamy is illegal in England.
Yes, but they and the certificate would be going to America. And no one in England knows about his wife, do they? Weren’t we wondering before whether she might just be a figment? an excuse to avoid marriage?
There is no adoptive family. Edith specifically said that there was no formal arrangement. It sounded to me like it was more of a fostering situation, where money would be provided to this family in exchange for caring for the child. Even in formal modern adoptions, there’s a period of months in which the mother can change her mind, and we know it hasn’t been that long since Edith left the baby.
The adoptive family could just say “bite me we’re going to the press”. It’s a soap opera after all.
That was what I was thinking too. By default he should have circled the wagons on his family’s reputation. He knows Thomas is a scheming trouble maker and Thomas knows he was given a 2nd chance.
I expect Tom to have a sit down with the family and explain how Thomas has been treating him. It doesn’t make sense for Thomas to go after a family member.
Plus the notion that the letter was so important that he carried it with him at all times, except when he didn’t so Bates could steal it.
Plus as mentioned , Mary was going to turn him in, until it turned out that he was a murderer and a forger, pickpocket, and burglar. As FDR said, “He may be a sonofabitch, but at least he’s our sonofabitch.”
I will look for this under “Special Features” when it comes out in DVD and BlueRay.
Regards,
Shodan
It could be that part of the agreement was that she got the baby back if the baby daddy ever showed up.
I agree. It was bizarre how they just dropped that part of the plot. Thomas ratted out Tom and then…nothing. It would have been much more satisfying for Lord Grantham to tell Thomas to know his fucking place.
Yes. “Thou shalt keep thy mouth shut about the doings of thy betters” is practically Scripture to servants. The upper classes need to be able to forget they are around, and they can’t do that if the servant comes and reminds the Lord of the Manor that he is noticing what the upper classes are doing.
Tom is now family, if for no other reason than he is baby Sybil’s father, and the estate manager. Lord Grantham should have shut him up short and sharp, or fired him on the spot for tale-bearing against a member of the family.
Regards,
Shodan
Also, the concept of adoption in which the adopting individuals transform into the legal parents (rather than guardians) of children wasn’t as common as it is now. Plenty of people took in orphans, godchildren, or simply boarded children for families that couldn’t provide in home care for them (many widows and widowers if they didn’t want to remarry did this).
Thomas would have just spun it as “I am telling his lordship discretely for the family’s good, so that they can handle Tom’s indiscretions privately before it becomes a scandal.” Good servants were suppose to guard the family reputation even when individual family members did not. And having the local school teacher over at night when the rest of the family is gone, especially being up on the floor where the bedrooms where, would have been frowned upon if anyone found out.
I don’t think he knows Thomas is a jerk. The last he was discussed, they were praising him for reporting on the nanny for mistreating baby Sybil. (That she actually *was *was bonus for Thomas, who just hated her because she thought she was better than the other servants.)
Actually, I think you’ve hit upon a very interesting issue: the risk to her reputation from going to the Abbey alone with Tom is way worse than the potential hit to Tom’s reputation. :smack: IIRC, even in times a lot later than 1923 and places way more sophisticated than Downton village, single female teachers were required to be absolutely above suspicion, to the point where even dating was in some public/non-religious schools a fireable offense. :eek:
I didn’t see that moment as a suggestion of a romance. I saw it as a rare physical demonstration of their friendship. They are very good friends, but the show has made it clear that is all they will ever be.
As for the card sharp leaving the letter out in a coat: it was a bit ambiguous, but Bates said he had the letter in an inside pocket. Bates did not say whether the letter was in the coat or the man’s tuxedo. He could very easily have had the letter on him and Bates picked that pocket when he helped him with the coat. Did you see the moment where Bates adjusts the collar and front of the coat. I think we’re supposed to assume that’s the pick pocket moment.
And yes, I don’t like that Anna’s rape is all about Bates. I know it’s a sensitive subject, but this is ridiculous. :rolleyes:
Wasn’t there an episode where Lord Grantham mentioned something about Thomas in passing?
Grantham mentioned in passing about Thomas’ being gay, making some sort of reference to boarding-school boys and their presumably situational homosexual ways. I don’t remember precisely what he said, though.
Which reminds me, they sort of dropped the ball on the gay thing. Thomas’ orientation in that world would have been interesting to see more of. He was a lot more human when he was a tortured soul, instead of a villain practically twirling his mustache all the time.
Thomas does need a new love interest, rather than this unrequited thing he keeps going with Jimmy.
And Tom’s choice of new girlfriend seems odd. Not a good choice. And am I the only one that suspects that Thomas is the one feeding her info and controlling the whole situation?
That’s a good point.
Regards,
Shodan
I just meant that no matter how strong your squishy maternal feelings, leaving a baby in the care of a family for several months then returning to cart it away disrupts the attachment between the baby and the only family she’s ever known. Doesn’t matter what the legal niceties are.
We have friends who adopted a baby last year, and have the low-life biological father now contesting the adoption. I’ve seen the bond this kid has with her adoptive parents, and at this point it would be a horrible thing to hand her over to someone she’s never seen before, regardless of their DNA.
This episode was set in the summer of 1923. We’re only six years from the big market crash of 1929, so I wonder if the next series will cover that period. It seems unlikely, as the show only seems to cover a couple of years each series/season. But I’d be curious how the Crawleys do when the market turns south. (It might be amusing if Robert got out before the crash and therefore redeemed all the poor decisions he’s made so far.)
Well, on one hand the Crawleys will probably be investing every cent they can spare (inheritance tax bill being paid over time, IIRC) back into the Downton land, buildings, livestock, etc., while on the other hand the Levinsons seem to be big players in the market.
In light of:
- Cora’s brother’s new-found taste for English food
- his new love interest who he would feel more certain loved him if he wasn’t rich,
- the dramatic possibilities of Granny Levinson jousting verbally with the Dowager Countess,
it would be an interesting turn if the Crash of '29 ruined the Levinsons (ruined relatively to their present position, not totally) and they had to go live with the Crawleys.
Yes. And you can bet that the issue of the child’s welfare (being uprooted from the only family she’s known) will NOT be addressed in any way on this show.
Yes, again. This (like the Fan Favorite Romance between Carson and Mrs. Hughs) is yet another example of the false and unbelievable in Fellowes’ depiction of servant life. In reality the employer would have given the servant a sharp set-down for his impudence.
This, along with the “Bates keeps the incriminating stub” storyline, is the most contrived and ridiculous plot element so far. Seriously, we’re meant to believe that Mary is all tortured over “doing what’s RIGHT”…? When there is no evidence other than supposition for what Bates may or may not have gotten up to?
The idea that Mary’s conscience requires her to say to the authorities 'this servant may have been in London at a time when a man who raped my maid happened to fall under a bus, so…you had better do something about it!!’ is absurd. What on earth could the authorities do with this information?
It’s just another implausible manufactured dilemma for inconsistently-drawn characters to unconvincingly agonize over.
…By the way, has there ever been a plot development that required two characters to be named Thomas (the chauffeur and the footman)? Or is it just that Fellowes likes that name?