The thing I found appalling was Grantham throwing a lavish “old-style” house party when living off Matthew’s (and now George’s) money and with huge death duties right around the corner. Surely the examples of the other well-bred guests should’ve been enough to show him that he shouldn’t be throwing around money he doesn’t have. The Duchess without a lady’s maid and what’s-his-name whose family sold their estate and is living in the dower house should have been an illustration of what could happen. And to lose a significant amount of money at cards! And yet he thinks he’s the only one qualified to manage the family estate and fortune.
George will be lucky if he doesn’t end up in a council house going to a local school.
To maintain wealth requires investing money properly and spending within your means. He’s not doing either and has lost multiple fortunes. Of course, he seemed to be putting money in things that were noteworthy at the time but not necessarily money spinners. railroads being one of them. The modern version would be aircraff. If you want to make a billion dollars invest 2 billion in aviation.
I am not nearly as bothered as some by the plot device, since a many great film makers have paid homage to Coppola by using similar simultaneous actions to illustrate in real time what may or may not have occurred at the exactly the same time. The most beloved and the most heinous.
I also was reminded that Fellows was behind Gosford Park with the use of the names of visitors’ servants by their names downstairs, something I learned there. I remember Maggie Smith playing a money-poor (but presumably upper-crust) guest, wallowing in the luxuries permitted by visiting the wealthy. “Oooo, yummy!” she says, upon being served breakfast.
Double-nitpick…it was Godfather I. Third time’s the charm.
My apologies for bumping the thread on something so trivial, but I’m 3 days behind in my DVR. So I’ll just add: I loved this episode more than any one since Season 1. I was hoping against hope that Anna had successfully fought off her attacker, but I doubt that was the case.
I also think Bates line about having learned a lot in prison will mean more than just the forgery of the IOU for Molesley.
The Opera singing/rape did not remind me of The Godfather christening occurring while all family business gets settled. However, when Bates settles his family business with this fellow, Sollozzo, I mean, this fellow Green…I suspect Mr. Green will end up sleeping with fishes, having the veal at Louis’ Italian restaurant in The Bronx or just having a nice massage like his American relative…Moe.
I must have an even colder heart, because I thought the whole juxtaposition was a crack about how terrible opera is. Someone (Robert?) earlier in the episode referred to it as a grown woman screeching, and lo-and-behold, by the end of the episode, it provides the perfect cover for the sound of a woman being raped because it sounds exactly the same. Ba-dum-tss.
If the recent changes to the royal succession affected peerages as well then Lord Fellowes wife would’ve been able to succeed her uncle as 4th Countess Kitchener. Since it didn’t the title went extinct. IIRC Spain has changed their laws to let women inherit noble titles on the same basis as men. I don’t think any of the other European monarchies care about noble titles, even though must have changed royal succession rules.
I loved this episode as well, even though Anna didn’t, at least we have some meat to the Bates’ story again. It would have been an utter bore to simply go back to just continually exchange barbs with Thomas.
My wife and I are enjoying this season of DA, although of course it has its ups and downs. I particularly liked the cardsharp subplot and its outcome. Sweet.
And while I don’t usually foresee major plot twists, after the “May not be suitable for all viewers” warning at the beginning of the episode, and the visiting valet flirting with Anna… I called it.
Absolutely. Thomas should’ve been gone for good after he was caught stealing wine anyway; they only keep him around because Fellowes needs an ongoing conniver on the premises.
Both my wife and I got Cora, too. I love the samurai concept!
I was very interested to see this - thanks. Glad the actress was totally on-board.
Is that you, Lord Julian?
Yes. Juries date back to Ancient Greece, and in England were formalized in the 1300s (they’re used much more in the U.S. today than in England). But a jury trial would be very risky, given Bates’s past, and the trial would likely be damaging both to Downton Abbey’s and Anna’s public standing, to say nothing of the ordeal Anna would face in testifying.
BTW, who called out Anna’s name as she left the building right afterwards? Bates, the rapist, or someone else? Was that meant to be ambiguous?
Especially for them - both Peach Melba and Melba toast were named for her:
That’s my personal theory, too, but I don’t recall that it was ever 100% definitively established, was it?
Please reread the OP. NO SPOILERS of any kind until each week’s episode has aired. Thanks!
Wasn’t it Just Not Done to walk out while a singer was mid-screech? Seemed very, very rude. At least wait for a break between songs.
Because of football, I will be avoiding the forum until I see episode 3. Probably Monday or Tuesday. But, I was wondering. It seems the rape of Anna has taken the sparkle out of the show. This is the first time I haven’t watched it at least twice since S1E1.
I guess you could call it good writing if it effected me that much, but seems more, to me, like a cheap trick.
I watched Gosford Park for the thousandth time yesterday and I find that really sucks a lot of the luster off of DA, what with all the recycling of plots and characters. The fake valet/actor even tried to assault Merida, like this guy did successfully to Anna.