Perhaps, but it would be a terrible thing to do to the farmer and his wife. (As it is, she already took the baby back from the Swiss family that adopted her.)
There have always been redshirts, er, unnamed servants about. Some of them even dine at the servants’ table but have no lines.
Glad to see Miss Bunting go, too. She had gotten seriously annoying.
Kidnapping Marigold and sneaking her out of the country is an astonishingly bad idea. I’m surprised the Dowager and Rosamund would suggest it.
Nice scenes with Carson giving Mrs. Patmore financial advice, and then Mrs. Hughes and Mrs. P. letting him down gently. And getting investment advice (indirectly) from Lord Grantham? Great idea! You can see how well he’s done over the past few years…
The art expert sneaking into Cora’s bedroom, and his tussle with the Earl, was just goofy. Didn’t ring true to me.
On the other hand, I like Blake more and more. His insouciant good humor in the London restaurant scene, with Lady Mary and Lord Gillingham’s jilted ex, was great.
I also liked when the Dowager was talking to the doctor about what a bad idea it would be for Isobel to marry Lord Merton. You could tell the doctor was being polite but didn’t believe a word she was saying.
Nice to see Rose’s and Atticus Aldrich’s meet-cute in the rain. She dated a black guy last season; why not a Jewish fellow this time? I’m sure Fellowes will avoid the usual anti-Semitic insults this season, just as he did the N-word last year. Even though, historically, some of these English aristocrats would freely and unapologetically use those terms in 1924, we just couldn’t ever look at them the same way again if they did so on DA.
Was he actually Judaism-practicing Jewish, or just “of Jewish heritage”. If the latter, they had already had Benjamin Disraeli as prime-minister, and I’d figure Robert would be relatively comfortable with that.
They aren’t really people after all ;).
Well, Cora’s half-Jewish, isn’t she. Or at least her mother married a Jew, maybe a 2nd marriage?
StG
I think that yes, that honestly was the best idea those to ladies could come up with (since neither can convince Edith to “come to her senses” and drop the matter).
Cora’s maiden name is Levinson and she outright stated to Bricker that her father was Jewish. Martha was not; and Cora & Harold were brought up in their mother’s religion (most likely Episcopalians).
Technicality (and some may consider it a nitpick, but it’s true nonetheless): you can’t be half Jewish. If your biological mother is Jewish, you’re Jewish. Period.
If your father is/was Jewish, but your biological mother is/was not, you’re not.
There are only two ways to be Jewish: 1) your biological mother is Jewish or 2) you convert.
I have witnessed a Jewish father go through a “conversion” process with his baby by a non-Jewish mother in order to ensure that the baby is Jewish. This entailed immersion in the mikveh (and yes, baptism is derived from the mikveh and not the other way around). Why would it matter? There are times and places in history where it did matter a great deal. Today it matters if you plan to emigrate to Israel.
I still don’t understand why Edith doesn’t tell the farmer’s wife the truth. Or why the farmer hasn’t. It seems like it would make his life a whole lot easier.
*The definition of who is a Jew varies according to whether it is being considered by Jews based on normative religious statutes or self-identification, or by non-Jews for other reasons. Because Jewish identity can include characteristics of an ethnicity,[1] a religion,[2] or conversion, the definition depends on many aspects that must be considered.[3]According to the simplest definition used by Jews for self-identification, a person is a Jew by birth, or becomes one through religious conversion. However, there are differences of opinion among the various branches of Judaism in the application of this definition, including:
The effect of mixed parents: i.e. whether a person of mixed Jewish and non-Jewish parents should be considered Jewish.
Conversion: i.e. what processes of conversion should be considered valid.
Historical loss of Jewish identity: i.e. whether a person’s or group’s actions (such as conversion to a different religion) or circumstances in his or her community’s life (such as being unaware of Jewish parents) should affect his or her status as Jewish or non-Jewish.*
This may be the way certain Jewish denominations reckon things, but I’m quite certain that anti-semites would have no problem giving you just as hard a time whether it was your father or mother who was Jewish.
Yep, if Marigold simply disappears, Mrs. Drewe will (1) raise holy hell, and (2) know damn well it was Edith behind it.
IMHO, the only way the boarding school alternative works is if Mr. Drewe cooperates in taking the kid back: he writes himself another letter 
that the nearest living relative of the fictional friend-of-a-friend wants the kid back. A [del]lawyer[/del] solicitor hired by Rosamund well outside of London acts as the agent of this fictional relative in actually taking physical custody of the girl. If the solicitor wants everything to be above-board, he can get the appropriate power of attorney from Edith (she knows all about those :)) but tell Mrs. Drewe that his client has proven her bona fides to the solicitor but insists on anonymity.
I thought it was fine. Because Cora was totally leading Bricker* on, him going in rung true. Because she didn’t really want to cheat on Robert, her saying no rung true. Robert was clearly wrestling internally between his white-hot anger at Bricker and his British upper-class stiff-upper-lip reserve, and the walloping happened when it did because the latter finally overcame the former as Bricker passed by him. And the fight was awkward because Robert was in a cardboard-stiff uniform and fighting in tight quarters. He got the best of Bricker nonetheless. 
*Fictional art expert, not actual poster. 
He clearly thought he was cobbling together a win-win scenario for everyone and thus was gobsmacked when Mabel Lane Fox had a fit about it. What does the Fox say? Probably “F you!” if they hadn’t been in a restaurant.
The operative word there is “some” and I see no reason to believe Robert or anyone else “upstairs” is anti-Semitic:
-
As has been pointed out, Cora is half-Jewish (at least!) in the eyes of an anti-Semite. If Robert (or the Dowager Countess) had a problem with Jews, Robert would hardly have married one, “technically” Christian or not. :smack:
-
Nobody in the house had a problem with presumably-Muslim Mr. Pamuk. Of course for diplomatic reasons nobody would insult him to his face, but (except to refer to him as a foreigner) nobody referred to him in unflattering terms behind closed doors either.
-
Both Robert and Edith have referred to the Nazis (as Brownshirts without using the name) as “preaching horrible things.”
-
IMHO we can’t infer from either (a) Robert’s earlier vocal anti-Catholicism or (b) Edith’s reaction to Jack Ross that they’re also anti-Semitic.
(a) Robert’s anti-Catholicism was likely tied inextricably to deep issues in British-Irish history and politics – the Irish are next door to Britain and had a history of rebelling against English/British rule, while the Brits could say neither about the Jews in 1924. 
In any case, it seems to have softened or at least become dormant.
(b) Ku Klux Klan aside, there are plenty of people who are racist against black people but not against Jewish people.
Soooooo true. You’d think they’d at least come up with a flimsy rationale for why it was a bad idea rather than just never acknowledging the possibility at all.
How did people like the Crawleys view the office of the Prime Minister, though? I could see them considering the PM position to be very respectable but not necessarily prestigious enough to supersede the fact that Disraeli was not of noble birth. Like a doctor or something. Anybody know?
Anyway, bigots have a habit of conveniently overlooking the fact that someone is from a “lesser” group when it benefits them. Would a Crawley have married a Levinson if that Levinson were dirt poor? I doubt it.
Ha! I knew there was something that was bothering me about Carson suggesting that investment to Mrs. Patmore based on what Robert said. That’s exactly it.
But Carson wasn’t suggesting investing in the investments that Robert was going to get into. Carson had insider information that Robert was going to give the building contracts to a particular firm - that firm was going to make money regardless of any bad investment ideas Robert has.
Robert said that it would be a good investment and Carson took note of it. Carson, of course, didn’t even know if the firm was public or privately held. He was way out of his depth and wouldn’t admit it.
Yes, he was out of his element, but it likely WOULD be a great investment if it was a public firm. There is a reason that insider trading is banned.
Hmmm. For almost the first time, I was uninterested in much of the latest episode.
I am tired of Granny’s schemings about Isobel and the peer. Will she/won’t she is just dragging on. Likewise with Edith and her love child - just tell Lord Grantham and get it over with. It’s goining to happen anyway. And could the writer be more obvious with Bates and Anna talking about how many children they will have after we saw Anna hide Mary’s diaphragm? And the whole set-up with Cora and the art dealer was anti-climactic - either Lord Robert should blame Cora, or else challenge the art dealer to a duel and have it over with. And the whole story arc with “who killed Green?” is dragging on waaaaay too long with no payoff. And with Thomas and his attempts to be ex-gay. And there was no genuine dramatic tension with Bunting and Tom - if he had developed any genuine insight, he would have been abel to articulate it to her, but didn’t even try. Okay, they’re both socialists - Bunting is an asshole about it, and Tom has learned not to be (and his wife and daughter are part of the upper class Bunting hates).
The story line about Rose and the mysterious Jew and the anti-Semitism of the Russian exiles was OK, but I would have liked a little more exploration of the topic to contrast Rose’s compassion for the Russians with her realization that they can be just as jerkish as her upper-class British relations.
And that whole scene between Mary and her ex’s ex just fell completely flat. No emotional pay off at all.
Nor did I see the point of Mrs. Patmore and her investments. It didn’t give me any insight into her character, or Carson’s. And OK, fine, Daisy is still Bettering Herself. Get on with it and do something, plot-wise, with it.
The whole ep just seemed like a place-holder. Which is too bad. Maybe I am just disappointed because I usually look forward so much to Maggie Smith’s performances. Even her scenes with Edith didn’t show anything more complex than anyone else.
Regards,
Shodan
There are just too many plot lines in play at this point, I think. The last two episodes put me in mind of Ricky Gervais’ bit about trying to give a hand job to 15 cocks simultaneously, and the frantic activity that would ensue in trying to keep them all going at once.
There isn’t enough time in any given episode to develop any one plot line properly. They just keep trying to further each one along a little bit.
I get that once Matthew “died,” Isobel’s role became superfluous… they had to give her something to do to make her relevant and interesting sans Matthew. But I think they’ve gone way too far on that one.
I don’t get the time and attention devoted to Thomas and Baxter’s continued antagonism. Also, I find the whole story line about Thomas trying to “fix” his homosexuality boring. Maybe it’s foreshadowing for some unexpected plot twist, but so far, it just seems like reminding us of how barbaric and wrongheaded it all was. I agree. Got it; let’s move along.
The scene between Mary and Mabel Lane Fox was silly and bordered on jumping the shark, so far as I’m concerned. Other than getting Tony Gillingham out of the way for good and all, I can’t think why Blake would have arranged it. Cat fight? Please.
I have never found Edith anything but tedious. Agree with others who have said that taking the farmer’s wife into her confidence is the easiest and best solution, and there is just no good explanation for why it hasn’t been done. And why hasn’t she flown off to find out the truth about Michael Gregson? She grabbed up every word of news about him, and now that there’s been a “development,” it can wait awhile?
I suppose it was too much to hope for this wonderful production to continue as well-crafted as it was in the beginning. I believe Fellowes needs to share around the writing tasks and infuse some new talent in that direction. It feels like it’s all got to be too much for him.
I didn’t know that Mr. Gervais was a TV critic, but I agree with him (and you).
A cat fight would have been interesting. So would the idea of Mary saying “I’m done with him and he isn’t much in the sack, you can have him back” but they didn’t even explore that very much.
Maybe it is just the fact that the Mary character is not doing much besides posing and saying “I am all tragic and rich and besides am I not just the hottest thing you ever saw but you will never have me, not really since I loved Matthew so much but I am still hot”. She needs to be shaken up a bit, like she was when Whats-His-Name the foreigner died in flagrante delicto in that bedroom farce earlier.
Her Shame will be publicly revealed sooner or later, but since it isn’t sooner and since it is fairly obvious as a solution it will be anti-climactic when it does. And if she allows her daughter to be whisked off to a school in France, that will totally go against the maternal love she is supposed to be developing, and be false to the whole character as it has developed in the last few years.
That’s another plotline that can’t be dropped. As I said earlier, maybe Gregson has amnesia or some darn thing, or maybe he has turned Nazi and will come back to confront Rose’s new Jewish boyfriend, but they have to do something with this loose end.
OK, here’s what will happen. Gregson comes back. He has amnesia from being beaten by Nazis. Thomas overhears Edith telling him of their love child, and blackmails them to fund his cocaine habit, which he has developed in an attempt to overcome his gay tendencies. Mosely the [del]first[/del] footman sees Thomas shooting up, and thinks he is getting the money from the former jewel thief servant, so Mosely attacks Thomas in some lonely place and tries to kill him. He fails, and then Bates thinks Anna suspects him of attacking Thomas in the belief that it was really Thomas who raped Anna to try to cure the gay.
But it was actually Mrs. Patmore who killed Green, and that’s where she got the 200 pounds - Green was the handsome servant who persuaded the jewel thief servant to steal the jewelry from her former employer. So Mrs. Patmore, thinking Daisy was being seduced into crime in the same way, killed Green and stole his money to fund a memorial for shell-shocked ex-gay veterans, because we find out that her nephew wasn’t shot for desertion - it was for sodomy, and he actually left his post to save his lover - who was actually Thomas.
It all makes sense if you think about it, which is why you shouldn’t think about it.
Regards,
Shodan
You know you’ve been watching Downton Abbey too long when someone writes
and the idea starts growing on you.