Downton Abbey - Am I Missing Something?

[Jan]

The Borgified Corpse wrote:

---

Sybil's death was sad but not altogether unexpected because you could tell that the writers had run out of ideas for her after she married Branson.

But I fear that Matthew's death may be a crippling blow to the series.

Apparently both actors wanted to leave. Interesting interview here says in part:

Q.
Was it your decision to dispense with Sybil and Matthew in the same season?

A.
No. You see, in America, it’s quite standard for an actor to sign, at the beginning of a series, for five or seven years. The maximum any British agent will allow you to have over an actor is three years. And Jessica and Dan wanted to go.

Jan

[Serial thread killer]

auntiehill wrote:

---

I would LOVE to Edith shine on her own, go out into the world and leave her family behind. She deserves to be a success on her own--man or no man.

I was hoping she would move out and live her life.
Because that's be honest her family does not really care about her.

[Allyn Gibson]

The Borgified Corpse wrote:

---

But I fear that Matthew's death may be a crippling blow to the series. I felt that he was, for the upstairs portion at least, the key point-of-view character for the series. I mean, the show started with his arrival as the new heir. Theoretically, the show could continue without him but I think it would be rather like Northern Exposure without Joel Fleischman.

Or Homicide, post-Andre Braugher. Which was still good, but it lacked something.

The Borgified Corpse wrote:

---

Also, without Matthew, I kinda see the family falling apart. He's the only one that even remotely understands where Branson is coming from. He's the only one that's been able to take the edge off of Mary's bitchiness. He's the only one that seems able to stand Isobel. He's the only one that likes & respects Edith. (Interestingly, he was also the only one besides Edith that knew that her new boyfriend is married.) And, I suspect he would be the only one with the right firm-but-fair temperament to be able to handle Rose.

QFT.

I really don't know what to add to this.

The Borgified Corpse wrote:

---

I'll still watch Season 4, if only because I still like most of the downstairs people and I'm hoping for a happy ending for Edith. (But why isn't Daisy living on the farm yet? Mr. Mason gave her a very generous offer and she bloody well better take it.) Plus, I have a morbid curiousity for how the show could possibly function without Matthew.

Perhaps the "Canadian" heir, Patrick, will return. Even though the new baby is the Earl's grandson, Patrick is still closer in the succession than Matthew was and his son will be.

I enjoyed the third season, but I didn't like it. It felt too aimless, there wasn't a "Big Bad" plot element that affected everyone, and the storylines were all over the map. I hope that Matthew's death can actually shake the pieces up somewhat and get the series out of the ditch it seems to be stuck in.

[Pavonis]

Allyn Gibson wrote:

---

Perhaps the "Canadian" heir, Patrick, will return. Even though the new baby is the Earl's grandson, Patrick is still closer in the succession than Matthew was and his son will be.

But as the Earl's grandson through his own daughter, wouldn't the kid be the most direct heir? Even Patrick was only a second cousin to the Earl. Besides, didn't Patrick die on the Titanic? For real?

[Serial thread killer]

Pavonis wrote:

---

But as the Earl's grandson through his own daughter, wouldn't the kid be the most direct heir? Even Patrick was only a second cousin to the Earl. Besides, didn't Patrick die on the Titanic? For real?

nope the female line does not matter, otherwise Mary would have it all.

[propita]

Correct Stk! The estate goes though the males...Matthew's son would inherit regardless of who the mother was, a Crawley female was irrelevant.

I like how Matthew's plan was confirmed to be the correct direction. It's had a year to be implemented and it's been successful enough to have saved Downton. I'm hoping Tom steps up.

Regarding Thomas...is it possible he would instigate that beating to get on James' good side? It doesn't seem likely, since the muggers had ample reason to mug James--all that money he was flashing. And, again, it's been a year since their dust up so maybe things are better between them.

[Pavonis]

^Fine, so regardless the new baby is the heir, and "Patrick" is not closer in the line of succession.

[auntiehill]

propita wrote:

---

....
Regarding Thomas...is it possible he would instigate that beating to get on James' good side? It doesn't seem likely, since the muggers had ample reason to mug James--all that money he was flashing. And, again, it's been a year since their dust up so maybe things are better between them.

No, I don't think it was in any way planned. But since Thomas still carries a torch for James, it was only natural he would step in to try to save the little idiot. I liked how they "buried the hatchet," so to speak, and agreed to be friends. It was probably the first grown-up thing we've seen James do.

[Ood Sigma]

auntiehill wrote:

---

Just watched the season 3 finale.

Well.................................fuck.

Just watched it last night. That totally sucked. Still upset about it, and my wife is even more broken up about it. She literally screamed at the end.

I noted that the 2011 Christmas special was depressing until the last 60 seconds, which was awesome. Then the 2012 one is the exact opposite...

[Allyn Gibson]

propita wrote:

---

Correct Stk! The estate goes though the males...Matthew's son would inherit regardless of who the mother was, a Crawley female was irrelevant.

Matthew's son may inherit the estate; it depends on how Reggie Swire's money was invested into it. (Was the money added to the entail? Or did Matthew buy the estate from Robert?)

But Patrick is still a closer heir to the Earldom than Matthew's son because Matthew's patrilineal ancestor is further back than Patrick's.

The laws of inheritance were reformed in, I think, 1923, which may make all of this moot.

[Anwar]

After what happened with Cora's money and the Entail, I'd like to think Robert wasn't so backwards as to do the same thing to Matthew, who he loved like a son.

[Pavonis]

Allyn Gibson wrote:

---

But Patrick is still a closer heir to the Earldom than Matthew's son because Matthew's patrilineal ancestor is further back than Patrick's.

A moot point if Patrick is dead, which was established in the first episode, correct? The Canadian impostor was just that - an impostor. Or is that wrong?

[J.T.B.]

Allyn Gibson wrote:

---

Matthew's son may inherit the estate; it depends on how Reggie Swire's money was invested into it. (Was the money added to the entail? Or did Matthew buy the estate from Robert?)

But Patrick is still a closer heir to the Earldom than Matthew's son because Matthew's patrilineal ancestor is further back than Patrick's.

The laws of inheritance were reformed in, I think, 1923, which may make all of this moot.

Matthew becoming heir to the title depended upon Cousin Patrick being declared dead. If the burned officer could have that overturned, wouldn't he have done it by now? But he hasn't because he's really some other guy named Gordon.

Matthew was the heir to the title, and also the heir to the Swire money. It's hard for me to imagine why he wouldn't combine it all with the estate which was his to inherit, but either way the baby should get the whole ball of wax.

[propita]

Since Patrick IS evidently dead, Matthew is heir. His son, is next-in-line because he is the male heir to Matthew. If the boy were to die without an heir, they'd have to backtrack through the line again, to find another Crawley male. Since this is all through the male line, it is most likely it would be someone named Crawley.

Unless that person, or someone earlier in his line, was "adopted" by another family. He would still be in the male line of succession. See Pride and Prejudice's Mr. Collins being heir to Mr. Bennet's estate, although it was entailed to the male line. Mr. Collins' father and Mr Bennet were cousins and had a falling out. I don't remember why, but it might've been due to just such an adoption--or a fight over Mrs. Bennet (lol).

[Winged Victory]

The Borgified Corpse wrote:

---

But I fear that Matthew's death may be a crippling blow to the series. I felt that he was, for the upstairs portion at least, the key point-of-view character for the series. I mean, the show started with his arrival as the new heir. Theoretically, the show could continue without him but I think it would be rather like Northern Exposure without Joel Fleischman.

Also, without Matthew, I kinda see the family falling apart. He's the only one that even remotely understands where Branson is coming from. He's the only one that's been able to take the edge off of Mary's bitchiness. He's the only one that seems able to stand Isobel. He's the only one that likes & respects Edith. (Interestingly, he was also the only one besides Edith that knew that her new boyfriend is married.) And, I suspect he would be the only one with the right firm-but-fair temperament to be able to handle Rose.

Oh, and as if Matthew's death wasn't enough of a Jump the Shark moment, they've also added a rebellious younger cousin. Isn't adding a new young cousin a standard Jump the Shark cliche (i.e. Cousin Oliver on The Brady Bunch or Olivia on The Cosby Show)?

Honestly, this has kind of soured me on the entire series. I deliberately avoided the repeat of the episode last night. And I kind of regret recommending the show to some of my friends now. (Considering how badly one of them reacted to the ambiguous downer endings of Angel & Veronica Mars, I expect the fallout from this to be severe.)

I'll still watch Season 4, if only because I still like most of the downstairs people and I'm hoping for a happy ending for Edith. (But why isn't Daisy living on the farm yet? Mr. Mason gave her a very generous offer and she bloody well better take it.) Plus, I have a morbid curiousity for how the show could possibly function without Matthew.

Oh, and early prediction: Lord Grantham is suffering from early stages of arterial sclerosis. That's why he's been more irritable this season and has shown such a colossal lack of business sense. You read it here first!

The only thing worse than this is that the British viewers got this lump of coal dumped in their stockings on Christmas! Jeez, and I thought Doctor Who's "Voyage of the Damned" was rough!

I completely agree. He was the glue of the show. How can Mary go on with her life so quickly? I've read that she'll be getting a new romance next season, which picks up only six months after the Christmas episode. I've loved this show since the first season, and now I wish I hadn't bought the Season 3 Blu-Ray.

Cousin Rose just rubs me as a Sybil wannabe. If she ends up with Branson, I think my eyes won't stop rolling. Fellowes might even ditch writing the show if his pilot for "Gilded Age" gets picked up. I hope next year will be better if it's DA's last.