The fictional butler who was most unrealistic (and not surprisingly) was probably Niles on The Nanny. He was cook/chef, chauffeur, vacuumed, dusted, did laundry, arranged flowers/gardener, and every other kind of domestic duty (though he had ample free time apparently). In reality there’s hardly any way one servant could do all of that even if just for a run-of-the-mill mansion instead of a palace; there’d be other staff (at least part time) as well.
Favorite of course: John Gielgud’s Hobson from Arthur, who buttled and bossed and that was it. He was not a chauffeur, nor did he cook (though he did serve breakfast) or clean or do anything else below his station.
Bertie Wooster’s personal fortune came from his father’s business dealings in India, where his sister still lived.
Wooster’s uncle was the Earl of Yaxley, I believe. It has been surmised by Wodehouse enthusiasts that Bertie is the only character appearing in the stories who could possibility be his uncle’s heir, but, of course, the stories never explicitly say that and Bertie himself never mentions being an heir to anything.
He could also have been the youngest son of an estate-holder or the youngest brother to an heir-apparent/presumptive, and thus, while wealthy, was unlikely to join the ranks of the landed nobility/gentry.
I seem to remember reading that when Bertie was introduced formally to people, his style was “the Honourable Bertram Wooster”, but I cannot locate a quote.
If I’ve got the timeline right, Patrick (the real Patrick), moved to Canada in his late teens, early 20s - a time when guys can still change sizes. And the guy who calls himself “Patrick” was claiming to have gotten amnesia when the Titanic went down, 6 years earlier. I can see a tailor keeping records for a short while, but sooner or later, the files get cleaned out.
Getting measurements from a tailor on the other side of the ocean for a guy that the tailor thought was dead would be a long shot. And even then, if fake Patrick were bigger than real Patrick, it could still be explained away.
Can someone check the first episode(s) of the first season to see what details are given about Patrick Crawley? At the time of their (supposed) deaths, did he and his father (the heir presumptive), live in Canada, had visited England, and were returning to Canada when the Titanic sank?
Now that y’all mention it, Maj. Patrick Gordon’s hasty departure confirms in my mind he was a false pretender. He knew that once Peter Gordon was located*, his (“Patrick”) deception would be revealed. So he scarpered.
Another give-away was the Major saying he took his name from a gin bottle (“Gordon’s Gin”). He was better off saying, “I don’t know why I took the surname ‘Gordon’. It just sort of came to me and I found it comforting.” The existence of a friend of Patrick Crawley’s named Peter Gordon, well, hmmmmmm now, what was that you were saying about gin bottles?:dubious:
*Even if he were dead, Peter Gordon’s documents, possessions, friends, employer(s), doctor, tailor, etc. would suffice to show “Major Patrick Gordon” was not Patrick Crawley.
We’re also assuming that just because the heir presumptive to the Grantham estate and his son died on the Titanic, there are no surviving female relatives. If they exist, they could verify or debunk Maj. Patrick Gordon’s claim.
Then again, as shown in the articles linked to upthread, some mums are so desperate to have their lost child back, they will accept a substitute as the original.
I just watched it yesterday with my daughter. There is no indication that Patrick moved to Canada. He “grew up visiting the house frequently” - unlikely if he lived in Canada. He was in England to board the Titanic to New York with his father. He and his father “weren’t going over until May” but “went early, they were definitely on the passenger list.”
I think it’s pretty clear that Sir Richard was offering Carson a butler’s position. Valet would be a demotion for Carson, and presumably Sir Richard has his own valet. He wanted Carson as butler because of Lady Mary’s fondness for him. Usually butlers would answer to the mistress of the house alot more than they would the master; especially when the master actually had something resembling a job.
And for his part the only reason Carson would even consider an offer like this is because it’s Lady Mary’s household he’d be serving in. It’s clear he thinks of himself as a retainer of some sort (the Granthams think the same of him). He doesn’t see himself as deserting them for another employer; he’s following the eldest daughter to her new household. Kind of like how families like that would trade the same nannies & governesses around various branches as their charges came of age.
If my understanding of custom shoe cobbling is correct the process would involve making a plaster model of Patrick’s feet and keeping that on file in the shop somewhere. I don’t know how long they’d keep those though. It’s even possible they were sent to NYC or Halifax to help identify the bodies that were recovered.
Good point. I don’t think there’s ever been a mention of Patrick’s mother or sisters. It would appear he was an only child and his mother predeceased his father. I’m certain he was an imposter though.
Reading Julian Fellowes response to the Mrs. Miniver “similarity” makes me understand the Simon Callow characterization of him in the parody a bit better.
Were the similarities in the scenes caused by blatant plagiarism? Was it an homage, or what it music might be called a ‘sampling’? Was it something he saw many many years ago and consciously forgot about but drew on (like George Harrison’s My Sweet Lord from He’s So Fine moment)? Or was it really independent coincidental development? None are beyond the realm of possibility, but per Fellowes it’s none of the above. It’s the left wing dislike of the show:
It sounds like if Fellowes were ever to meet Ryan Murphy they’d have a lot to talk about. All of which they’d probably ignore as they talked over each other about themselves.
Though Fellowes does make the much better show and one of which he should feel justifiably proud.
He does. We even saw him in the scene where Sir Richard made the job offer to Carson.
I know what a solicitor is. My point is, given the English parlance of the day, wouldn’t the Earl have been more likely to say “my solicitor” than “my lawyer”?
I have no idea what the frequency of occurrence would be given the setting (time period, geographic location, class habits, etc.) but so far as I know “lawyer” has always been used to mean a lawyer in England and is pretty much used interchangeably with “solicitor.”
I have a feeling that “lawyer” is more “U” and “solicitor” is more “non-U,” but that’s just a WAG and not based on any actual knowledge.
Oh, I see–I was not shocked at his lifting a whole scene line-for-line from the very famous movie *Mrs. Miniver *because it was lazy plagiarism; it was because I am a socially insecure leftie. Got it.
I was stunned by the same quote that Eve mentioned:
So, those “on the left” (by which he seems to imply those who work for a living), and who lack firm societal standing are the only ones capable of noticing plagiarism and historical innacuracy.
Fellowes, as quoted in the linked article< “You just want to say relax! It’s a show that might not appeal to the left.”
Paranoid, much? Yeah, he’s a right-winger, but that doesn’t mean that criticism of his oeuvre is based in politics. That would be an ad hominem argument; just like the one he’s using against his critics.:rolleyes:
From the article, “Eagled -eyed [sic] viewers have pointed out a string of historical inaccuracies, including a television aerial fixed to a home, a modern-style conservatory appearing in shot and double yellow lines on a road.”
Not so much historical inaccuracies as mistakes made by the location manager when selecting or preparing the site.
Mr Fellowes has lashed out at those pointing out inaccuracies, saying: "The real problem is with people who are insecure socially, and they think to show how smart they are by picking holes in the programme to promote their own poshness and to show that their knowledge is greater than your knowledge.”
No, it’s because we are fascinated with the events of this time period would love to see an accurate portrayal of the lives of people who were there.
From the article, "Viewers disagree about the importance of such perceived errors. [One viewer] said: ‘I have decided to stop watching this drama due to finding its cosy interpretation of Edwardian society nauseating. Last week was the final straw.’”
It’s not Edwardian society, as the Edwardian Era ended with the death in 1910 of Edward VII. Ahhh, never mind. I’m just shouting at the wind.
