Ship of Fools: The return of Downton

Thread: The return of Downton Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024013

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Why is there not already a thread on this? Downton has returned. Life is back to the way it should be.

I liked the first episode, setting up well for the series. Roll on!

Posted by Surfing Madness (# 11087) on :

My flatmate says I was very funny to watch when I was watching it!
I'm late to the Downton party, but am now loving it, looking forward to seeing where they go in this series.

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

Delighted to see its return... will have to rewatch on catch up as I'm so tired at present I fell asleep partway through it. [Hot and Hormonal]

But I did get some of Lady Violet's moments (I have aspirations to being a dowager [Big Grin]

)and to catch up on my favourite couple, Anna and Mr Bates. [Axe murder]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Loved it! I never thought Matthew and Mary would actually get to the altar. After they'd patched it up, Lord Grantham's remark, "I'm so happy my chest feels as if it could explode" had me seriously wondering if he'd have a heart attack while walking Mary up the aisle (brought on by the stress of going bankrupt) with the wedding being called off again as concerned relatives clustered around.

Cora's mother was a bit less spectacular than I'd expected. Lady Violet could easily have her on toast for breakfast at the moment, but maybe things will change.

Downstairs, I think Alfred and Daisy will probably get something going, and Thomas will hate Alfred even more. Looking forward to next week!

Posted by Surfing Madness (# 11087) on :

Don't expect it will happen, but I think it would be interesting to have an episode set in Dublin, maybe Mary and Matthew visiting Tom and Sybil, to see how they cope in a world in which Tom feels comfortable.

Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :

Yes, a good start. It seemed less soap-opera and more drama which is a good thing in my book.

Posted by BalddudePeekskill (# 12152) on :

OOH I'm jealous. We've got to wait until January here in the States.

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

**So** relieved they're back!! Nice to finally get to know Cora's mother. Bring on the duel of the matriarchs [Devil]

@baddude: no need to wait that long. Order the DVD from Amazon, they will be released in November.

[ 22. September 2012, 09:37: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

No idea what you're talking about. I thought this was a geo-sociological thread about the rebirth of the inner city. Frith knows my local city needs it.

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

I enjoyed it up to the trailer for next week's ep when they gave out a spoiler [Mad]

of
.
.
.
.
.

the result of Mrs Hughes' visit to the doc

.
.
.
.
.

I don't want to know until I watch the episode! Why do they do that? it drives me nuts!

And no, I didn't think Cora's mum very scary either.

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:

the result of Mrs Hughes' visit to the doc

I don't want to know until I watch the episode! Why do they do that? it drives me nuts!

But I bet it's a red herring... unless the actress wants to leave the series. Likewise Bates, did he or didn't he - in the light of the scene in the cell? I refuse to believe he did.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

I've forgotten what the result was. I was too busy wondering why the ex-maid had turned up again.

Mary has got to persuade Matthew. Somehow. He is now the only hope, unless Anna can find something that overturns Bates' case, and he can claim for huge sums of compensation, buy Downton Abbey and present it back to Lord Grantham/charge him a nominal rent.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I did like the thing about being scruffy for dinner. That was well done, and a good indication of the way things were going.

Posted by Chelley (# 11322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I've forgotten what the result was. I was too busy wondering why the ex-maid had turned up again.

Well I suppose we have a personal connection between Mrs. Crawley's new works in helping prostitutes and an existing character who has turned to prostitution after falling on difficult times?

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

What an episode - don't know whether to laugh or cry. Delighted that Matthew saved the day but how could Sir Anthony do that? Talk about picking your moments!

And did Mrs Hughes tell the truth? I'm betting she didn't.

Posted by Surfing Madness (# 11087) on :

Another very enjoyable episode. I feel sorry for Edith, with the number of young men of her generation who would have been killed in the war, the chances of meeting someone her own age are greatly reduced.

Following the clip from next week, we are already showing our ignorance of Irish history in my flat.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

What year is it supposed to be now? I've lost track and only know it's after WWI.

Posted by Surfing Madness (# 11087) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
What year is it supposed to be now? I've lost track and only know it's after WWI.

The Christmas episode, which is when it was announced that Sybil was pregnant was Christmas 1919, so maybe Spring 1920?

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

That'll be the flare-ups in Ireland that led to the Irish Free State in 1922, and independence. With no doubt a pregnant Lady Sybil wandering the streets of Dublin and no melodrama spared.

Posted by Eleanor Jane (# 13102) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
What an episode - don't know whether to laugh or cry. Delighted that Matthew saved the day but how could Sir Anthony do that? Talk about picking your moments!

And did Mrs Hughes tell the truth? I'm betting she didn't.

Yup, I bet that too. And poor Edith!

But I found the 'Matthew just happens to inherit a great wodge of money and here's a letter so he can take it in good conscience' plot a bit weak. I would've liked it better if they sold a bit of the estate and had to make economies and got a bit of a loan and scraped by. I forsee conflict between him and Lord Grantham and I can't imagine that'll be very entertaining.

However, I do love the show.

Anyone been watching "Parade's End"? It aims to be a bit more high brow but is actually just as soap opera-y and quite enjoyable. Benedict Cumberbatch is a fine actor.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Yes, I thought the Matthew plot was a bit weak too. Mind you, I found it hard to sympathise with Lord and Lady Grantham's money problems - that house which they rejected with scorn as Not Big Enough (or if we're being polite, OK If You Don't Mind Slumming) is Grey's Court in Oxfordshire, my dream house... I suppose it might be considered poky compared to Highclere, but on the other hand the corridors are shorter so you don't have to lug your dead Turkish diplomats so far.

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eleanor Jane:
Anyone been watching "Parade's End"? It aims to be a bit more high brow but is actually just as soap opera-y and quite enjoyable. Benedict Cumberbatch is a fine actor.

Yes, I watched that with Mr Nen, who has no time for Downton but liked Benedict's wife whom he described as "intriguing" (and we all know what that word means when used by a bloke about a woman [Biased]

). I think Benedict Cumberbatch is a fine actor. [Smile]

He apparently has female fans who describe themselves as "Cumberbitches".

Mrs Hughes lying? Is such a thing possible? [Eek!]

And I'm sure we're being led up the garden path about Bates... I refuse to believe he is anything other than totally honourable... but what if Anna and I are wrong? [Eek!]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

I think Mrs Hughes probably would if she felt it would ease Mrs Patmore and Carson's feelings and they'd stop treating her like a delicate piece of china. I reckon she'll probably carry on then collapse at a strategic moment.

The O'Brien v Thomas fallout is going to be interesting. They'll be a pretty good match for each other, though heaven help anyone caught in the crossfire!

Posted by Not (# 2166) on :

I think we've been given the crucial clue to Bates' innocence - more subtly than usual for Julian "crashing plot development" Fellowes. However he's nicked it from Agatha Christie...

(Spoiler space for those who don't want to know)

The 'halo' around Vera's head described by her friend is identified by Poirot in Dumb Witness as a sign of phosphorus poisoning, which can look like arsenic poisoning. Crucially, Vera's friend saw it when Vera was on her way to meet Bates, so she must have already been poisoned.

The thick plottens...

Posted by Surfing Madness (# 11087) on :

Spoiler Alert

quote:
Originally posted by Not:
I think we've been given the crucial clue to Bates' innocence - more subtly than usual for Julian "crashing plot development" Fellowes. However he's nicked it from Agatha Christie...

(Spoiler space for those who don't want to know)

The 'halo' around Vera's head described by her friend is identified by Poirot in Dumb Witness as a sign of phosphorus poisoning, which can look like arsenic poisoning. Crucially, Vera's friend saw it when Vera was on her way to meet Bates, so she must have already been poisoned.

The thick plottens...

Excuse my ignorance, but how do you get phosphorus poisoning?

Posted by Not (# 2166) on :

My memory of the Agatha Christie is a bit foggy, but I think, like lots of poisons, you could just buy it at that time - usually to kill some sort of pest (like cyanide and wasps).

In which case who did do it? Vera herself or SOMEONE ELSE. My money's on sir Richard as an outside chance

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Maggie Smith can do no wrong. I just wait for the choice one-liners and am never disappointed.

I'm enjoying it a lot again. Despite the improbabilities of the plots. Consistency of character being sacrificed for dramatic storyline? Looks like it. But quite irresistible, nevertheless.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

<checks copies of Agatha Christie>

Phosphorous poisoning! Of course!

You have to eat it. So it could have been in some tablets she was taking. Perhaps the doctor did it? It's nearly always the doctor in Dorothy Sayers.

This is far more plausible than my theory that she committed suicide and framed Bates herself.

Posted by Not (# 2166) on :

Interesting you raise Dorothy Sayers - Lord Peter would fit in so beautifully, in period and social context, that I keep wanting him to come and sort it all out. Bunter would probably sort out Thomas at the same time, for no extra charge!

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Surely Lord Peter was still suffering from shell-shock in 1920 and no use to man nor beast? IIRC his first case was the Attenbury Emeralds in 1921...

But I agree, he'd fit in perfectly.

Posted by Chelley (# 11322) on :

I'm not sure if my memory's just being fuzzy from the end of the last series or if I missed something early in this one, but how did Thomas and O'Brien come to be at complete loggerheads?
Their escapades take my cringe-o-meter to the max, but when did they turn on each other?

Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chelley:
I'm not sure if my memory's just being fuzzy from the end of the last series or if I missed something early in this one, but how did Thomas and O'Brien come to be at complete loggerheads?
Their escapades take my cringe-o-meter to the max, but when did they turn on each other?

I think in the first episode of this series the axis of evil came acropper when Thomas wanted some job but O'Brien wanted it for her nephew or the other way round or something like that. Yes, they are the pantomime villains.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

On Saturday my son got married in Devon. On Sunday we were sorting out the huge mountain of leftover food and wondering what to do with it. Some would do into the freezer but not all.

That very night we heard they had the same problem at Downton. So, could Maggie Smith take any of our food? - once the poor have munched their way through their share, of course.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
I think in the first episode of this series the axis of evil came acropper when Thomas wanted some job but O'Brien wanted it for her nephew or the other way round or something like that. Yes, they are the pantomime villains.

Yes, that was it, then when Thomas didn't get the job (he wanted to be valet to Matthew Crawley I think), he started trying to deliberately spoil things for the nephew (Alfred) and get him in trouble. O'Brien wasn't having that. Luckily Alfred is a likeable sort of lad who doesn't seem to have a clue what's going on.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Any views on last night's episode?

Poor old Daisy
Poor old Ethel
What an idiot Branson is and will Sybil continue to put up with him?

Can't say I care much for the new footman, but next week should be interesting. Can't see Thomas getting anywhere with him!

...I think that about sums it up.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I thought it was excellent. There were some fabulous lines, and not just by Maggie Smith, although her attitude to the burning down of the Irish castle was superb.

Branson is finding that acting by his principles is not working, which is interesting. I suspect there will be more problems in that marriage to come. And it will be interesting to see if Matthew can reorganise Downton and make it run more efficiently.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

I think the real heir will turn up again this series - the guy with the bandaged face and memory loss. He will marry Edith and she will become the Countess.

A question from Sunday's episode - why did married women get to have breakfast in bed? Was it on account of the sex?

Posted by Pasta (# 5635) on :

The settings are great, very evocative

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
why did married women get to have breakfast in bed? Was it on account of the sex?

Doesn't that spill the coffee?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I didn't see that coming. That was so sad.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

We did at our house. Just as a Fallen Woman™ can only be redeemed in Victorian fiction by a good death, so, in the world of Downton, a daughter of the house who marries a chauffeur (an Irish Catholic chauffeur, yet) has to redeem herself by kicking the bucket. Various new plot ramifications are thus created: the disagreement between the doctors, leading, after Sybil's death to the rift between Lord and Lady Grantham (he's sleeping in the doghouse), the question of the baptism of the choild (RC or CofE?--maybe the Ordinariate would be a good compromise), and the question of whether Matthew's war injury (remember that?) has put his testicles out of action.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Hmm, once they'd called in two doctors I knew things were going to go wrong, and then when Sybil was asking her mother to look after the baby I knew it.

I wonder if Branson will have a bit of a breakdown next and only be pulled through by the love of his baby daughter? He may be written out of the series completely now, though.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I saw it coming during the episode, but not previously. And it is very brave to write out a major character.

It is nice to see the redemption of the ex-maid (names are always a problem for me). And the outrage that it produces.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
... and the question of whether Matthew's war injury (remember that?) has put his testicles out of action.

I'm voting yes, so that he can go ahead and adopt Sybil's baby. There are too many hints about Mary not being in an interesting condition.

Posted by littlemiss (# 17372) on :

Yep, an avid Downton fan too! last nights episode was brilliant! It sure make one understand why us English are the way we are! Im interested to see where the Valet is going with the footman! The footman surely knows that some-rt aint quite right there!

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

Dear me. [Waterworks]

However, great plot developments. [Big Grin]

I'm loving the way Ethel's coming into her own and like the idea of her becoming Countess of Grantham, especially now that marriage seems to have turned Mary into a boring old fart. Can't wait to see what happens with Anna and Mr Bates. (Could someone remind me why those guys in prison have it in for him? [Eek!]

) And I wonder how long Lord Grantham will put up with being banished from his marital bed. Are we in for a bit more clandestine maid-kissing, or is would that be using the same gag twice?

Lady Violet... that woman rocks. [Overused]

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
A question from Sunday's episode - why did married women get to have breakfast in bed? Was it on account of the sex?

Perhaps if they were trying to conceive, they were told it was best to lie flat for a bit afterwards to let things... take effect... [Biased]

Posted by Surfing Madness (# 11087) on :

Great storyline, but it did make me cry. Will be interesting to see how Tom survives the family without Sybil, and how the family survive Tom. It did cross my mind that he (and baby Sybil) might be sent/ choose to go to America and stay with Cora's mother, as the whole class thing would then be less of an issue.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

We know too much about the conventions of soap opera in our house.

"She's making plans for the future! She's doomed!"

Actually, I thought it might go either way - I was waiting for the local doctor to haul her off to the cottage hospital and triumphantly save her life, thereby putting Sir Harleystreet-Bigshott's nose thoroughly out of joint...

I predict three more episodes of angst over who looks after the baby. Branson will then go back to Ireland on his own to take part in the civil war, whereupon everyone at Downton will wash their hands of him until he turns up in Episode 1 of the fourth season to demand the return of his daughter.

For me, the real surprise was Thomas's reaction to The Tragedy. But it was in character.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Sorry for the double post, but

quote:
There are too many hints about Mary not being in an interesting condition.

Yes, I noticed that she didn't want to talk about why she'd visited the doctor in the previous episode.

I wouldn't have thought she would be very keen on getting herself in an Interesting Condition after what happened to Sybil...

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
I'm loving the way Ethel's coming into her own

I mean Edith. [Hot and Hormonal]

Ethel's the disgraced maid. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

Would there be any question over the baby's baptism? Wouldn't she have to be brought up a Catholic, as it was a mixed marriage?

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Only in theory. The trailer for the next episode suggests that she will be baptised RC because the Earl, having insisted on the Harley Street obgyn, is no longer in a position to insist on anything relating to Sibyl and her child. The Granthams don't give a hoot what is required in a mixed marriage, and the baby's father only wants her to be RC because she's Oirish.

[ 16. October 2012, 16:43: Message edited by: Amos ]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
The Granthams don't give a hoot what is required in a mixed marriage, and the baby's father only wants her to be RC because she's Oirish.

They'll probably have to have a Catholic christening if only to put Lord Grantham firmly in his place. ("Mary, tell your father to sleep in the kennel tonight, I mean dressing room.")

I'm seeing a scenario where mad with grief Branson jumps into the Liffey/has a breakdown and the baby is brought up at Downton, and her cuteness (and resemblance to Sybil) eventually reunites Cora and Lord Grantham.

Surprised at Thomas being so moved by Sybil's death, but nice to see he has a human side to him. Will the new footman sock him one on the jaw and get himself dismissed?

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Hurrah for Anna and Bates! That should add a bit of fun to the goings-on downstairs - Bates will probably see pretty quickly what Thomas and O'Brien are up to.

And kudos to Granny for doing what she did, she is magnificent.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

To my mind the most interesting aspect of last night's episode is 'What will Daisy do next?' Be fascinating to see how many people want to marry her if she does decide to go and be a farmer...

I did briefly wonder whether Branson would take up the vacant farm that Matthew is agonising over. But the way he was talking suggests that he will tootle off to Liverpool and get a job as a mechanic, contrary to Sybil's wishes.

I also wonder whether the twist to the Bates subplot will turn out to be that he really did murder her after all; once the verdict has been set aside he could go and confess at the top of his voice in the middle of the Old Bailey with impunity, because of the law of double jeopardy.

Mind you, poisoning doesn't seem in character.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

I just love Maggie Smith as she remindss me of my mother.

Incidentally Maggie is 'Lady Grantham' and not 'Lady Violet' - the latter would imply that she was an Earl's daughter (she might have been), rather than the wife of an Earl or Marquess.

The late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother disliked the term 'Dowager', and had invented for her the novel title of 'Queen Mother' though she was always referred to in private and formally as 'Queen Elizabeth' not 'The Queen Mother'

The reigning Sovereign is simply 'The Queen' NOT 'Queen Elizabeth'

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Incidentally Maggie is 'Lady Grantham' and not 'Lady Violet' - the latter would imply that she was an Earl's daughter (she might have been), rather than the wife of an Earl or Marquess.

It does make it easier for the purposes of this thread, though, otherwise people may assume that "Lady Grantham" is Cora, which could lead to confusion.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Therefore she is formally: Violet, Lady Grantham. She simply is NOT Lady Violet, who would be a different person entirely, and either a young woman or an aged spinster who was the daughter of an Earl.

The Dowager Countess would freeze anyone at 100 yards who made such an error.

From time to time here in our village we hear of 'Lady Emma' who is the wife of someone knighted on becoming a senior military officer. She is not 'Lady Emma' but Lady Jones. She is not a member of the peeerage.

It would be like (say) referring to a newly ordained assistant curate in speech as 'archdeacon'.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Here in Oz/NZ she's likely to be 'Em'

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

How very presumptuous. [Smile]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

The Queen Mother was normally referred to as "Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother", IIRC. the Queen seems to be referred to as "Her Majesty The Queen", and only "Queen Elizabeth" when she is being talked about with a historical perspective, to distinguish her from other Queens and Kings.

And if I had to refer to Lady Grantham face to face, she would probably be "erm [gulp] Ma'am?", as she scares me even over the screen.

Even today, some people with titles are insistent on them being used properly, whereas others do not care, and I don't think this is a generational thing.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The Queen Mother was normally referred to as "Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother", IIRC. the Queen seems to be referred to as "Her Majesty The Queen", and only "Queen Elizabeth" when she is being talked about with a historical perspective, to distinguish her from other Queens and Kings.

And if I had to refer to Lady Grantham face to face, she would probably be "erm [gulp] Ma'am?", as she scares me even over the screen.

Even today, some people with titles are insistent on them being used properly, whereas others do not care, and I don't think this is a generational thing.

To her staff Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was always 'Queen Elizabeth' (NEVER 'the Queen Mother') and when addressed 'Your Majesty' in the first instance, and then 'Ma'am' (to rhyme with 'ham') thereafter.

Similarly, the reigning Sovereign has always been simply 'The Queen' or more formally 'Her Majesty The Queen' NEVER 'Queen Elizabeth'. In speech her style is that as for Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.

I once made the mistake of referring to HM as 'Queen Elizabeth' to a lady in waiting, and was met with a bemused look as she had assumed that the Queen Mother and Queen Elizabeth I had both died.

I do rather like the archaic mode of addressing the monarch in the third person as in 'the Queen's Grace...'

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:

The late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother disliked the term 'Dowager', and had invented for her the novel title of 'Queen Mother' though she was always referred to in private and formally as 'Queen Elizabeth' not 'The Queen Mother'

She couldn't have invented the title 'Queen Mother'. I have before me a copy of the BCP (undated but inscribed 1912) in which the Prayer for the Royal Family includes "our gracious Queen Mary, Alexandra the Queen Mother, Edward Prince of Wales . . ."

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Sebby - by referred to, I meant on TV and the like, where I presume they would know the proper formal titles to give them. Some of us don't hang around the royal palaces enough to know what they are called at home, you may be surprised to know. Although I have actually been into the Palace.

The "Your Majesty" followed by "ma'am" I have heard before, and would try to remember if the occasion ever came up. Having said that, I am not especially good at using titles, as I generally prefer to use peoples names. Probably why the CofE and I always struggled.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Perhaps Edith and Branson could become close and there could be all sorts of arguments not just about class, Ireland and Popery, but the real horror of marrying one's deceased wife's sister.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:

The late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother disliked the term 'Dowager', and had invented for her the novel title of 'Queen Mother' though she was always referred to in private and formally as 'Queen Elizabeth' not 'The Queen Mother'

She couldn't have invented the title 'Queen Mother'. I have before me a copy of the BCP (undated but inscribed 1912) in which the Prayer for the Royal Family includes "our gracious Queen Mary, Alexandra the Queen Mother, Edward Prince of Wales . . ."

That is certainly true, but the way the Queen Mother (as we knew her) used it was completely novel. Queen Alexandra in her lifetime was never called 'The Queen Mother' as Queen Elizabeth was depite formal use in the Prayer Book, but simply 'Queen Alexandra'. Queen Mary, although a surviving Queen Mother and grandmother was NEVER so called. She was 'Queen Mary'.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:

The late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother disliked the term 'Dowager', and had invented for her the novel title of 'Queen Mother' though she was always referred to in private and formally as 'Queen Elizabeth' not 'The Queen Mother'

She couldn't have invented the title 'Queen Mother'. I have before me a copy of the BCP (undated but inscribed 1912) in which the Prayer for the Royal Family includes "our gracious Queen Mary, Alexandra the Queen Mother, Edward Prince of Wales . . ."
That is certainly true, but the way the Queen Mother (as we knew her) used it was completely novel. . . .

Nor I think were Alexandra or Mary known as 'Dowager'. The title we came to love was probably taken up more out of necessity because she had the same name as her daughter and the illustrious Tudor.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

And Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother may have become a more common title, just to clarify the distinction between her and the current queen.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

but again, NEVER used as such by those in royal service, formally, or by those 'in the know'.

The title 'Queen Dowager' was used most certainly of Queen Adelaide (wife of William IV) in the early years of Queen Victoria's reign. As far as I am aware, it is the last instance of that useage.

A number of widowed peeresses have disliked the term 'Dowager' and never used it. An example was the late musician June Aberdeen. She was always June, Marchioness of Aberdeen. In speech 'Lady Aberdeen' as her daughter-in-law.

Interestingly, a few divorced peeresses have reverted to the dowager form but without the 'dowager' of course. Thus (say) Lydia, Lady Taunton.

Referring to the original digression, neither would have been Lady June or Lady Lydia as they WEREN'T those persons.

*peeresses are the wives of peers. Ladies with noble titles in their own right, and not courtesy ones, are peers.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

My point was simply that the 'Queen Mother' title was not one invented for or by the present Queen's mother, and nor was it "novel". It was a title available to her, and a particularly useful one as (unlike Alexandra and Mary) she needed to be distinguished from her daughter.

[ 28. October 2012, 15:23: Message edited by: Corvo ]

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Yes, I understand your point and agree with it - but there was a novelty in the way it was used and I doubt will ever be used again in quite the same way. It goes somewhat beyond what you suggest.

In short, and not quite the full story, on the death of King George VI in 1952, his vigorous and comparatively young widow, who had been the driving force behind her husband and supported him through the abdication crisis and the Second World War, experienced an acute and quite severe depression.

Queen Mary was still alive and living in Marlborough House, which would have been the natural home for Queen Elizabeth after her daughter's accession to the throne. Queen Elizabeth was offered the more modest Clarence House, and eventually made this her 'court'.

The then prime minister (Winston Churchill) and a few other close ministers were quite concerned about her. This was because of her depressed state, her formidable personality and comparative youth, her incredible influence with her daughter the new Queen, and the fact that although the public were rejoicing in a new Elizabethan age dawning in a grim and ration conscious 1950s, the widow of the late King was a popular figure associated with Britain's recent war victory and very highly regarded, especially in the capital.

It was suggested to her in the first instance that she should take an interest in her regiments. This she did, and it helped 'take her out of herself' as it were, and on the road to recovery. Added to this was the almost immediate suggestion fired by Churchill and others, that she should be 'The Queen Mother' and carve out a specific and supportive role to her daughter. She made this her own, and it was a novelty. A novelty perhaps in the way she used a position that had not previously been a 'Position' as such.

That she was formidable cannot be in any doubt. Early in The Queen's reign, seeing Queen Elizabeth's car drawing up on the sweep at the front of Buckingham Palace (the bit on the other side from the public bit), the Queen's private secretary said: 'Ah, here comes Your Majesty's biggest problem'.

The present Sovereign would do little without asking 'mummy'. When the monarch voluntarily agreed to pay tax, she was nervous lest Queen Elizabeth should find out, as the Queen Mother and the King had negotiated the previous non-taxpaying settlement themselves.

Frequently musing and asking aloud 'but would the King have done that?' after Queen Elizabeth's death, the Queen has become noticeably more relaxed and self confident.

Understandably, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother took her strength from the fact that she had been a Queen Consort and actually crowned at the coronation of her husband, and was the wife of the King to whom both her daughters looked with love and awestruck admiration. She was not the sort of person who could have become retired like Queen Mary - nor did she intend to be.

Despite the novelty of the way Queen Elizabeth fastened onto the idea of making 'Queen Mother' an almost formal postion, it was not a title she relished. Hence her staff, officials and just about everyone else to her referred to her merely as 'Queen Elizabeth'. On state occasions it was customary to refer to her as 'Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother'.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Thanks, folks. Tangents aside, I hope you're all looking forward to the next episode of Downton Abbey tonight? It will be good to see Bates back.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Perhaps Edith and Branson could become close and there could be all sorts of arguments not just about class, Ireland and Popery, but the real horror of marrying one's deceased wife's sister.

If Edith starts writing for the papers there could be a fair few arguments over the breakfast table in that.

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

Poor old 'Mr Barrow', as he is now. Considering he and O'Brien were once constantly in cahoots she seems to have thrown him to the sharks with scarcely a second thought; and all to give her nephew a leg up, presumably. Perhaps he'll move into one of the cottages - right next door to the Bateses?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Well that was interesting. Rampant gay sex on Downton! Whatever next.

The preview for next week seems to indicate that the house gets into even more chaos next week.

The political manoeuvrings below stairs and above stairs are very different, the ones above stairs being along strict lines, as per the previous discussions in this thread. the ones below stairs are much more like standard office politics today. Is there no escaping it anywhere?

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

No, that's human nature. Office politics ye shall always have with you.

I assume we've just seen Edith's New Boyfriend. Will he turn out to be already married?

Best thing about that episode: the baby. Too cute for words.

Nadir of episode: Thomas really believed that O'Brien was telling the truth about hearing James singing his praises to Alfred?

Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

I assume we've just seen Edith's New Boyfriend. Will he turn out to be already married?

Did anyone else think he was incredibly like whatsisname who jilted her?

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Yes, for a moment I thought it was him. Perhaps that was a deliberate choice, he might be Her Type, and then she'll realize that he isn't The Man She Is Still Carrying A Torch For and it'll all fall apart.

Then again, perhaps not.

Posted by SyNoddy (# 17009) on :

Was shocked to find myself experiencing symptoms of sympathy for Thomas! O'Brian has played a long game with devastating results, but this could all end terribly for Thomas. Was anyone else watching the whole slow car crash through their fingers?

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Welcome to The Ship, SyNoddy.

Heaven is, of course, the bestest board, but do check out the others - the rubrics give an idea of their scope and purpose.

Any questions, just ask. Enjoy.

Firenze
Heaven Host

[ 30. October 2012, 09:03: Message edited by: Firenze ]

Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :

I was feeling annoyed watching Downton yesterday, as I am finding this third series to continue to be good and interesting; I am annoyed because the second series has prepared me to expect cheap soap opera stumbling blocks appearing in the path of our hero and heroines, but they do not.

I have been intrigued to observe the conflict between young Crawley and the Lord over the estate - that was good drama as was the Ethel tea scene last week.

And indeed this series has been so much better written than the second that Thomas has ceased to be a pantomime villain and has become a realised person evoking sympathy.

This third series has been consistently good.

And if people wish to discuss events that haven't been show yet would you put 'SPOILER' before it.

[ 30. October 2012, 13:30: Message edited by: Mr Clingford ]

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

Haven't been shown where? If it's been on ITV surely it's fair game? Or are we waiting for it to be broadcast in the US before we can talk about it properly?

Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
Haven't been shown where? If it's been on ITV surely it's fair game? Or are we waiting for it to be broadcast in the US before we can talk about it properly?

I mean the 'next week on DA' bit at the end of each episode.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

I think we're entitled to talk about that. It lasts barely two minutes and is public viewing, and I think it can fairly be considered a fit topic for speculation on this thread. If you decide not to watch that part of the programme, that's your right, but I don't think speculating about the brief glimpses we see needs spoilers. We don't actually have the details fleshed out - and in some cases people guess wrongly anyway - so aren't giving anything away that isn't already in the public domain. IMO.

Posted by Surfing Madness (# 11087) on :

Rather late to the party I know, but I'd not seen series 1, so now have it on D.V.D. Anyway, anyone know if entails still happen?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Surfing Madness:
Rather late to the party I know, but I'd not seen series 1, so now have it on D.V.D. Anyway, anyone know if entails still happen?

They're very rare indeed these days. They can be broken fairly easily. It's been impossible for a very long time to take away the power to sell the land and transfer the entail to the proceeds. And they're not very flexible or effective for tax planning.

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

Watched the Christmas special episode this evening.

Dear me. [Eek!]

Nen - traumatised.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

I must say I hadn't expected that until just before it happened. It's always a giveaway when someone starts telling another character how much they love them.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

Much as I have enjoyed Downton Abbey, I'll have to resist reading this posting as it contains too many spoilers- we haven't got the new series yet although I think we will do so later in 2013.

Posted by Surfing Madness (# 11087) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
Watched the Christmas special episode this evening.

Dear me.

Nen - traumatised.

I know the feeling. Not sure where it is going to go next.

Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :

The set-up for Matthew's death was soap opera at its worst.

But the special was an enjoyable bit of nonsense to enjoy, especially without adverts on demand.

On to Series 4!

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
The set-up for Matthew's death was soap opera at its worst.

Oh, right... are we allowed to give spoilers as spoilery as that? [Eek!]

I disagree, actually - I thought it was quite well handled. Mary was still slightly offish and Matthew was as wibbly and affectionate as I'd have expected from someone as adoringly in love as he is. I only started to guess with the camera angles of him driving along with that soppy grin on his face. Then disbelief set in. They wouldn't, would they? No, surely not. But it looks as though... no... Oh cr@p...

I guess we are quite sure he's dead?

Nen - clutching at straws.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Well, it's not exactly been a secret that something had to happen!

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Well, it is a discussion thread, the repeat episode has been shown on TV, the internet and Twitter have been full of "OMG"s, and it would be unfair to expect people not to discuss a stunning final episode at all.

I only twigged just after the adoring "I love you so much" speech when he got into the car with a soppy grin on his face. This is the man who recovered from being completely paralyzed and in a wheelchair but I think Matthew genuinely has had it - the actor playing him wanted to leave the series.

However, they could have waited until war broke out and got him killed parachuting into France or something.

[ 28. December 2012, 12:40: Message edited by: Ariel ]

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

I am embarrassingly uninformed, nor am I a Facebooker or Tweeter so I didn't know the actor wanted to leave the series. [Hot and Hormonal]

No more illusions that he might not be dead. [Roll Eyes]

I think it'll lead to more great storylines, I have every confidence in the writers. [Smile]

Nen - in recovery. [Biased]

Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on :

Surely the thing about these soaps is they are largely built around the question of will she/ won't she marry him/go to bed with him. Therefore successful marriages (especially among the young, given that older people aren't 'romantic' in soaps) are rare and ultimately doomed. You see, old Mary is now free to hate/love/marry/not marry/bed/not bed some new bloke - and I guarantee she will. The chance of her deciding to live as a chaste widow for the rest of her life is zilch - it wouldn't make 'good' TV.

And yes, I am a cynic.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
You see, old Mary is now free to hate/love/marry/not marry/bed/not bed some new bloke - and I guarantee she will.

Well, she won't have any freedom if social media has its way - she's already been paired off with Branson. (Either that or the two children will be married as soon as old enough.)

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
You see, old Mary is now free to hate/love/marry/not marry/bed/not bed some new bloke - and I guarantee she will.
Well, she won't have any freedom if social media has its way - she's already been paired off with Branson. (Either that or the two children will be married as soon as old enough.)

Surely not. She is his deceased wife's sister. It may have been lawful by the 1920s but it wasn't approved of.

Anyway, isn't the Hon Rose going to set her cap at him?

The two children will come of age about the right time to be killed in the 2nd World War. Perhaps baby Sybil will be parachuted into France as a spy.

Edith is all set to shock everyone by going Bohemian and living in sin.

It is getting into soap territory now.

Also, would people of that class, yet alone any class, have hugged each other when the Granthams said good-bye to the Flintshires? I don't recollect that coming in until about 20 years ago.

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
You see, old Mary is now free to hate/love/marry/not marry/bed/not bed some new bloke - and I guarantee she will.
Well, she won't have any freedom if social media has its way - she's already been paired off with Branson.

I'm sure both of them will be married off in the fullness of time, though not necessarily to each other. It would make things nice and neat, mind you. [Smile]

Nen - who enjoyed Topless Tom Branson. [Big Grin]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0