Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by Matryeshka, Jan 23, 2011.
Thank you. I had the right actress in mind but the wrong royal.
To me it is much more similar to the original (1970's) Upstairs, Downstairs in its depiction of the contrasting (and often interwoven) lives of early 20th c. English gentry and their servants.
I'll admit to being by BittyBug's post as well. The late Lynn Redgrave was Vanessa's only sister. Lynn Redgrave did create the role of Miss Jean Brodie on the stage, though, so perhaps that was what BittyBug was referencing -- or there maybe some other acting connection?
I wish there were some other connection. The only connection is my poor aging brain that conflates people and things in similar categories.
No problem, for now it's time for my own poor aging brain to take a few hits, because what I meant to write in my post above, was that Vanessa Redgrave created Jean Brodie on the stage. So there was a more direct Vanessa-->Maggie connection than my careless original post indicated. for me.
It has spoilers through the end of the second season. I don't know if you've been spoiler free, but two major plots are revealed.
The house used for exteriors (and interiors? Think it's Highclere Castle?) is so huge, they could just stash a body in an upstairs room somewhere and it might be YEARS before anyone found it...pack it in salt, you wouldn't even need to worry about the smell.
I think I'd find the Anna/Bates plot a little less frustrating if the first Mrs Bates weren't so two-dimensionally evil. One thing I liked about the Tudors--in that case I was (ironically, given the actress) absolutely sympathetic to Queen Catherine but Anne Boylen was more than just "evil ho." In this case, Anna is nice, Mrs. Bates is evil, and we don't even have much secondhand backstory to explain why he married the sociopath in the first place.
In fact that really is what bugs me with that plot: EVERYTHING is second hand. We learned about Mrs. Bates and what happened from his mother telling Anna, we learned how on earth his wife found out about Mary with HER telling Bates...it's not much showing and a whole lotta telling.
I think the chauffeur hasn't been called up and may not be an enormous rush to volunteer to fight for a country he views as oppressing his (I don't know if he'd have to join an Irish regiment or not and they might hold his politics against him as well.) Considering WWI is easily in the running for "most people killed for the least logical reasons" I really can't blame anyone for not being in a rush to enlist.
I don't know if I feel sorry for William (who clearly does not get when she is not that into you) or Daisy (who clearly isn't interested but can't get the point across.)
Why is it an abbey and not a manor?
I am spoiler-free and will stay that way, thank you.
And NBC Nightly News just ran a story about how wildly popular Downton Abbey is on both sides of the pond. Wheeeee!
Just a guess...perhaps it was a religious abbey before Henry VIII confiscated Roman Catholic properties back during the 16th century.
I would assume that at one time in its distant past, it actually was an abbey. Now, no longer tied to its former religious functions (and much added to by successive generations), it retains the historic name. When Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries, a number of former abbeys were converted into private country homes.
ETA: Civic beat me to it.
I'll try to remember to post it in February when the season ends.
I just saw Iain Glen (Sir Richard) play another conniving baddie in Spooks last year, so I had to laugh once this turned out to be a similar part.
This show was just a story today on the NBC nightly news: The focus was a short remembrance of the "wildly" popular "Upstairs/Downstairs" and now we have the wildly popular "Downton Abbey." I knew a lot of us were watching but to make the nightly news: I am both surprised and delighted.
"Brideshead Revisited" was mentioned earlier. This show does not remind me of that program except for two points: One is the difficulty in those times of marrying for love without the consideration of money/titles/ownership etc.. And I thought BR was magnificently written and acted and feel the same way about DA.
Thanks, I just watched the NBC news segment here (ETA corrected link): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#45934794
All 4 episodes of Season 1 can be viewed online -- in the US only? -- at PBS.org until January 17, 2012, and episode 1 of Season 2 is online now: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/watch/index.html
What is a British historical soap without an illegitate son popping up and claiming to be the heir? Preferably the son of a long-lost black sheep brother or cousin whom everyone assumes is dead and no one talke about.
Terrible Thomas has all the earmarks of being SOMEONE'S illegitimate son, the chip on the shoulder, and why is O'Brien always so concerned about him?
If he's illegitimate, then he can't be the heir. Not even a decree by parliament can change that. But if Matthew dies, then there will be actual incentive to go to parliament and petition for Mary to become the heir. If there's no legitimate heir to a title, it's not unheard of to allow the female to be the heir, then her husband will be the next earl.
It would be interesting plot twist for Matthew to be missing thought to be dead, then Mary becomes heir presumptive, only for Matthew to come back. Only now he's just a lawyer and Mary's the heir presumptive to Downton Abbey.
Didn't a lot of aristocrats lose everything during/after the War? It may become irrelevant who the heir is. It may become a story about who can survive/succeed in the modern world.
I think being working class and gay in Edwardian Britain, apparently with some latent sociopathic tendencies, is more than enough. O'Brien's just a bitter old hag and knows a kindred spirit when she sees one (though at least she had the grace to change her mind about setting up Lady Cora to fall, if not fast enough to stop it.)
I didn't catch the gay part, but it was my first time watching. My local PBS station ran the last 2 and the current episode back to back on Sunday, so I got the intensive version.
It was a subplot in the first episode of Season 1. Thomas had a relationship with the Duke who came to call on Mary and suss out her inheritance prospects. The actor who played the Duke, Charlie Cox, also plays Owen on Boardwalk Empire.
Isn't that why the father married Cora, b/c they ran out of money. They can do that again, and Richard, the new love interest, is very rich. Besides a title is always attractive, and an earl is pretty high up there.
Would be interesting to see what happens when the depression hits. Since Cora is an American, I'm assuming her money is tied up to the US stock market. Even if it wasn't, all stock markets took a hit during the 30s.
No, the laws of succession to a particular peerage are clearly laid out, and the vast majority can only go to "heirs male of the body lawfully begotten" of the original grantees. ie legitimate heirs in the male line. There are a few exceptions, but these exceptions were put into the original patent granting the title. For example when Lord Mountbatten was given his earldom, it was specifically written that his daughters were in succession, as he had no sons. Lord Nelson's earldom went to his brother on his death, as he had no legitimate children and again it was written into the patent. The Dukedom of Marlborough can descend in the female line too, as it was written down in the patent. For the rest, the title will just die out if there are no legitimate heirs- hundreds have done so in the past century. The property once a line dies out is a different story- I imagine that that can go to daughters, but it would depend on the entailment.
There are a few very old (medieval titles) that can descend through the female line as well, as they were created before the patents were written down. The Earldom of Arundale is one such, as is the Earldom of Mar. Scottish succession works a bit differently too- and some Scottish titles can descend through the female line as well.
But the fictional earldom of Grantham is none of these - IF Matthew is the only heir in the male line (do we know that for sure?), then the title will die out. The property might be able to go to Mary, though.
There have been cases where the title died due to no male heirs, then revived for the daughter's husband. (I was reading a biography about Catherine Parr, Henry VIII's last wife, her brother was married off to an heiress with that assumption in mind. That her father's title will be revived and given to him.)
It's not common and it's not automatic. But it has been done. So maybe that's why Mary said in the first season, she'll needs a parliamentary decree to inherit. But since the real Earl of Grantham went extinct, she just might mean the money and not the title.
Yes, but those were the older titles that I mentioned- it would not be done for a title more recently created than Tudor times.
The most recent example of something like you mentioned was the Dukedom of Fife. The title was created in the 1890s (a promotion from and Earldom of Fife) when the Earl married a daughter of Edward Prince of Wales (later Edward Vll). When they had only daughters, a NEW Dukedom was created with the proviso that the elder daughter could inherit the title when her father died. Note that they couldn't just change the old one, they had to create a new title of the same name. But that was for a Royal (or semi royal) title. They have never, to my knowledge, done that for a non-royal title. Certainly not the Earldom of Grantham. As I have said hundreds of titles have died out in the past century.
I'm watching "Pompeii, The Last Day" on PBS and Mr Carson is one of the citizens.
Goodness!!! No wonder he was feeling rather unwell from overwork on Sunday night! Amazing that he even made the attempt to serve the dinner at his great age.
Actually Downton is what was called "entailed" and it's been specifically referred to as an entailment--the same thing happened to the Bennetts in "Pride and Prejudice"--Mr. Bennett HAD to leave his estate to the male-line descendant no matter what if he didn't have a son of his own. He couldn't split off property to give to his daughters, hence the importance of at least one marrying well. In the case of Downton Abbey it's not so much the title, even, that's all that important, it's that apparently the Dowager insisted that if her son married Cora, Cora's fortune would be legally brought into the state and made subject to the entail and that means Cora cannot separate any of what she brought to the marriage and leave it to her daughters. The assumption was, no big deal, they'll have a son, he'll inherit, take care of his sisters, and the fortune stays in the immediate family. Now it's not just that Downton goes to Matthew (or the next male heir down the line), Cora's fortune goes with it. The daughters are basically left hoping to A. marry rich, B. hope for largesse from a cousin who starts as a near-total stranger, or C. get a job. Their parents can't leave them a thing.
This is also about the last point in British history where the situation can come up, too, as while I don't recall the exact date, the laws were changed to eliminate entails.
Mr Carson is also in Shakespeare In Love.
Just finished watching the second season!
I have to admit I wasn't really planning on watching it at all...I knew that it was going to air at some point but I never sought it out. Then a few weeks ago I read a spoiler in this thread about the Christmas special (mainly the ending) and I was like, "Awwww YEAH!" Talk about payoff. So the second season it was!
I'm going to spoiler the rest just in case.
I really enjoyed the second season. I found all the characters MUCH less tiresome than the first season, even Mrs. O'Brian. The whole season seemed to flow much better without the whole sabotage storyline. Edith was nice too...I was rooting for her, and I was happy when she found her niche. I hope that the next season develops her character more and gives her some more action, since she will be the only daughter left unattached.
The new characters were good. I liked Ethel, and I really liked Lavinia. I know that Mary and Matthew are fated for each other, but she was so nice...I wish she could have had a better resolution; she deserved something better than the martyr's death.
I thought that the Anna/Bates storyline was REALLY irking; it just dragged on way too long. They're a nice couple but not one I'm willing to agonize over so much for. Yeah, they kind of hammered that story too much.
Given the ending of this current season, how do you think the next season will progress?
I think it might take awhile to actually get Mary and Matthew to the alter, and I HOPE it's not too long and drawn out...they just need to get over it and get married. Although I'd miss seeing the lead-up, I'd almost not mind if the new season opened on their wedding day!