Noooooo!!!
There’s a lot of important paperwork getting lost and being found at the very last minute in this story. Sooner or later Fellowes has got to stumble upon a new plot.
Maybe amnesia or a cougar attack.
I don’t quite understand why Moseley owed money or to whom. (I understand Bates’s IOU subterfuge. That’s not the issue. But when Anna happened upon Moseley working on the street he said something about being in debt to someone and I couldn’t figure out what was going on there)
Initially I thought he was referring to cumulative general “cost of living” type expenses – running a tab at the pub, a grocer’s bill, etc. But it turns out 30 GBP was A LOT of money, online I have been seeing it valued at over 1000 GBP today (over 2000 USD) which strikes me as extremely high – especially since he has been living at Downton for some time, and then with his father. It does explain, though, why Bates went to the Dowager for the money, I doubt he and Anna could hand that amount of money over without any hardship.
Note that I haven’t read any spoilers, but Moseley seemed really desperate. Almost suicidal.
I got that as well. The man lost his livelihood and his shot at a new job due to a colleague sabotaging him (the paranoia was somewhat understandable seeing as Moseley was a cautionary tale right there in front of him).
Presumably Moseley was without a job for 6 months at that point and probably had accumulated some debt around town.
Was anyone else waiting…and waiting…and waiting…for someone to point out to Isobel that she was going out of her way to help a down-on-his-luck stranger but made no attempt to assist Molesley, who she actually knew and who had worked for her and her son?
Moesley is comic relief. That’s why he exists. I don’t see why he can’ go back to working in the village. He grew up there. Surely he has skills employers want? How old is the guy supposed to be? The actor who plays him looks at least 50.
What practical skills does a former man-servant have?
That’s part of the larger story.
The house gets an electric mixer and Mrs. Padmore sees the future. Eventually they (the family) is going to realize they don’t need 3 cooks.
It’s already ludicrous that they created an “under-butler” job…Thomas does nothing all day except stand around.
The 'necessity" of the servants is going to fall way as the show marches deeper into the 20th century and the despair of “what do I do now” will just come more and more to the forefront.
The test gave me Cora, I’m strangely ok with that. She’s the samurai of the series, calm and rational, but ready to behead any betrayers in an instant. “Anna, be a dear and wipe the blood from my katana for me, I’d like to retire early this evening. And see what Mrs Patmore could do with this extra strewn viscera.”
Yes, a butler of Carson’s status might make only 40-60 pounds per year ($4,300-$6,400).
that was funny, in a bad taste kind of way…
That would have been true in 1890, but it’s the 1920s. Carson’s probably making about 60-80 a year. It’s Bates who’d be making about 40.
I had a completely different take on the Thomas situation. I couldn’t believe he would go after Anna, since she is probably the most beloved staff member, and it’s clear that Bates would take swift revenge on anyone who hurt her (“he learned a few things in prison”). I thought that showed uncharacteristic stupidity on Thomas’s part, until I realized that it was O’Brien who would have set him straight. I think Thomas is just a jerk who comes up with plans without thinking them through (locking the dog in the shed, the black market food), while O’Brien was the one who was always thinking six moves ahead. Without her, Thomas’s schemes are going to be a lot less successful.
I am Anna, who is my favorite character, so that’s all good. Now all I need is a Bates.
That makes sense to me. Thomas has never struck me as the brainiest of men. O’Brien was better at reading people. I wonder what his background is. I got the impression that O’Brien had a large family and developed her nasty shell as a form of self defense. Then again I would think Thomas would have been very attuned to people’s signals. He lived in a time when a single sexual advance on his part could easily put him in prison.
I wonder. The median income in the USA around 1960 was $3,000. Prices and wages didn’t change/climb that much from year to year until the present day (post-Carter Administration).
New York Times columnist Maureen Down weighs in with a pretentious bit of ludicrous commentary
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/opinion/dowd-beautifying-abbey-road.html?hp&rref=opinion
It’s a television show, Maureen honey. Calm the fuck down. I watch it because it’s silly, amusing fun with occasionally amazing insights that can be quite moving. I do not watch the damned thing because I admire the British class system or want to bring back scullery maids.
This is hilarious! Someone put a lot of work into it. I wonder what they were supposed to be doing instead.
[QUOTE=LavenderBlue]
New York Times columnist Maureen Down weighs in with a pretentious bit of ludicrous commentary
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/op...p&rref=opinion
It’s a television show, Maureen honey. Calm the fuck down. I watch it because it’s silly, amusing fun with occasionally amazing insights that can be quite moving. I do not watch the damned thing because I admire the British class system or want to bring back scullery maids.
[/QUOTE]
I think some of that article is on the money though. Downton Abbey is fantasy. Watching the Christmas special, I was struck by how it almost seemed to be tailored to an American audience, perhaps with ratings in mind. It dwelt heavily on the contrast between the supposed egalitarian American Dream and the stultified British class system, exactly the sort of thing that foreign viewers lap up. The truth is a bit more complicated than that, but never mind.
I remember talking to an American co-worker a while ago and he mentioned how much he liked Downton Abbey. He asked whether things were still like that in Britain. I was slightly taken aback. “It’s not a documentary”, I thought to myself.
Indeed, don’t overestimate the American viewing public. Some of them may take it far more seriously that you’d think.
I did some research on Pre & Post-War Britain (mostly because of Parade’s End.) There was a shortage of servants after the war; many had done war work & realized there were better ways to live. Of course, lots of men just didn’t return. Time-saving appliances did not put servants out of work–they were adopted because servants were harder to find. (Even middle-class households had some “help.”)
Of course, Molesley’s problem is that he’s Lord Fellowes’ Designated Humorous Victim. Just as Edith is the Not-So-Humorous Female Victim…