Downton Abbey - Am I Missing Something?

[Samurai8472]

I've had this underlying urge to see this show completely jump the shark. Season 5 should be set in 2013 with Maggie Smith playing the same role too.

[Gov Kodos]

Samurai8472 wrote:

---

I've had this underlying urge to see this show completely jump the shark. Season 5 should be set in 2013 with Maggie Smith playing the same role too.

Shark Jump, make a Doctor Who crossover set in 1963 for the anniversary. She can play the Doctor's regeneration into Hartnel.

[stoneroses]

It is just a drama version of 90s sit-com 'You Rang M'Lord'* The first episodes of both are very similar. I found It very boring.

* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3McK3BknyGk

[The Borgified Corpse]

Serial thread killer wrote:

---

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

Agreed. She's like the Meg Griffin of the series.

BTW, Serial thread killer, where did you get that Edith av? I've been thinking of switching mine to something with Branson or Daisy or Hughes&Patmore.

Allyn Gibson wrote:

---

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

Not quite. While Pembleton was a dominant character, he wasn't the point-of-view character. A better analogy would be if they'd gone on with Season 8 without Tim Bayliss.

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.

While Thomas may still carry a torch for Jimmy, I would think that he would still give him a wide berth. After all, it's only thanks to Jimmy's good graces that Thomas isn't in prison under Britain's anti-buggery laws.

Gov Kodos wrote:

---

Shark Jump, make a Doctor Who crossover set in 1963 for the anniversary. She can play the Doctor's regeneration into Hartnel.

I keep thinking of Doctor Who answers to the Matthew problem. Like, can't he just regenerate into Matthew Goode or Tom Hiddleston or something? Or maybe they can bring him back as a plastic Roman for no reason. ("It's all a bit fuzzy. I died and turned into a Roman. It's very distracting.")

[J.T.B.]

And speaking of inheritances, Daisy's story was rather left hanging, wasn't it? She had apparently mended fences with Ivy, but nothing more was heard about the farm. Good old Mr Mason had one of my favorite lines of the season (paraphrase): "Do you think houses like Downton will go on the next forty years just as they are? Because I don't."

[propita]

He was proved right with what happen to Shrimpy. Shrimpy didn't change/modernize and they're losing the estate. Robert modernized, albeit under protest, and they've become self-sufficient.

But I still like the idea of Daisy becoming independent. And I like her relationship with her "dad."

[The Borgified Corpse]

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.

I still think it's really wierd that females can't even be used as the throughline to a male heir, even if females can't inherit the actual title. (And how does that make any sense in a country that has had at least 3 or 4 female monarchs by this point?)

Allyn Gibson wrote:

---

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.

Personally, other than Matthew's death, I liked Season 3 far more than Season 2. The conflicts felt more natural. Season 2 mostly contrived conflicts by throwing Lavinia Swire & Sir Richard Carlyle into the mix to deliberately keep Matthew & Mary apart. (And, seriously, they had to turn Sir Richard into an absolute beast just to create a character that was too mean even for Mary. Lucky for the writers, all they need to do was cast Iain Glen. The man exudes menace just by breathing.)

Plus, as troubled as I am by Matthew's death, I think the deaths in Season 2 were a bit too convenient. I mean, Lavinia just had "dead meat" written on her forehead the second anyone even mentioned "influenza epidemic." And William's death was also fairly convenient for Daisy. She got to marry him, take a war widow's pension, got a new surrogate father out of the deal, and never even had to perform any wifely duties because he spent their entire 2 days of marriage bedridden, dying of his war wounds.

But, I will say that no scene in Season 3 quite matches the ecstatic high of that scene in Season 2 when Matthew & William unexpectedly returned after being missing in action. Mary seemed so much nicer during the war.

[The Borgified Corpse]

propita wrote:

---

He was proved right with what happen to Shrimpy. Shrimpy didn't change/modernize and they're losing the estate. Robert modernized, albeit under protest, and they've become self-sufficient.

But I still like the idea of Daisy becoming independent. And I like her relationship with her "dad."

We also know he was proven right by history. From what I've heard, it took a while for the producers of the show to find a suitable location for Downton Abbey since most of those big houses were demolished after the war and split into smaller estates. The house they use on the show is one of the few left standing.

BTW, have we ever learned anything about Daisy's family? What kind of background is she from?

[auntiehill]

And now we have to wait a year for the next season.

[propita]

Daisy says she has no family. I don't remember what happened to them. She mentioned it to her "dad."

The reason the estate can't go through females is that it's entailed not just to the "issue" of whomever entailed it, but entailed to "male issue" only, i.e., through the male line. It wasn't uncommon at one time in England. Nowadays, in the US, it is sometimes possible to be overturned based on discrimination, the particular words would be stricken.

[The Borgified Corpse]

And yet, if Lord Grantham's title passed directly from him down to his theoretical grandson, skipping over Mary completely, you could keep the line of succession so much cleaner and yet still maintain your stupid sexism. How did the British ever expect to keep their empire when they were so busy maintaining stupid, arbitrary rules instead?

[J.T.B.]

The Borgified Corpse wrote:

---

How did the British ever expect to keep their empire when they were so busy maintaining stupid, arbitrary rules instead?

The rules evolved to fit an agricultural society where land equaled wealth and the aristocracy had military obligations. In the industrialized era, yeah, it seems kind of arbitrary and stupid!

[diankra]

The Borgified Corpse wrote:

---

And yet, if Lord Grantham's title passed directly from him down to his theoretical grandson, skipping over Mary completely, you could keep the line of succession so much cleaner and yet still maintain your stupid sexism. How did the British ever expect to keep their empire when they were so busy maintaining stupid, arbitrary rules instead?

It's just become an issue again because Parliament's putting through legislation to ensure that William and Kate's first child will be the heir to the throne regardless of its gender (whereas under the old rules a girl would be displaced by a younger brother). Various noble families have been saying 'If you can do it for the monarchy, why not sort out our inheritances while you're at it?' At which point JTB's point about trying to avoid separating the title and the land cuts in...

[Gov Kodos]

Well, this Miss O'Brien news should make the next season quite different. http://tv.yahoo.com/news/downton-abb...203802840.html

[Nerys Myk]

Maybe Lady Shrimpy's O'Brien clone can sign up.