CF, it’s not a friend of mine who gave up her child. It’s not yours truly either. I just know of the story for other reasons. I agree with you that we can’t have a system that allows a bio mother to change her mind any time she wants. I’m only saying that, if I had been Edith, I would want to know what had happened to Gregson BEFORE I made the decision to give up his child. Part of the reason I would feel that way is that I know the story I told.
Lorelai, I don’t know what the law was in England at the time, but…preliminarily, we don’t know what Gregson’s marital status was when he died either. He went to Germany, determined to become a German citizen and divorce his “lunatic” wife. We haven’t a clue how far in the process he had gotten when he disappeared. It’s at least possible that he had hired attorneys who had done all the paperwork and was awaiting a decision when he disappeared. Maybe Gregson is divorced. I think it would be very Fellowes-esque for that to be the case.
Next, I don’t know the English law about 1920, but this article suggests that Michael Gregson was free to leave his money to anyone he chose. http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1417&context=iclr Read the introduction And, my guess is that Michael Gregson would have made some reasonable accommodation for his wife’s care, but left the bulk of his estate to Edith.
We all know that Gregson gave Edith papers to sign before he left. We’ve never been told what those papers were. They may be relevant. I suspect they are.
Edith didn’t tell Mr. Drew Marigold was her child. He guessed. He told his wife that Marigold was the child of a friend of his who died. Edith, in a conversation with LG, said the family was “fostering” a child. People of the social status of the Drews in 1920 were unlikely to have consulted an attorney and done a formal adoption. IIRC, Edith gave Drew money to care for the child.
I guess the problem is that Mrs. Drewes thinks that Marigold is permanently her daughter, and Edith has let her think that. I know that a lot of us are looking at this from Edith’s eyes, and so am I, but I’m also looking at it from Mrs. Drewes’ eyes. How is she going to feel when Edith takes away her daughter? If the arrangement wasn’t supposed to be permanent, someone should have told Mrs. Drewes.
I think Mrs. Drewes is very afraid of losing Marigold. Even if she only “loses” the child because the child is bedazzled by the pretty lady from the pretty big house. She’s not really worried that Edith is flighty, she’s worried that Edith is serious.
Who’s fault is it that Mrs. Drewe doesn’t know? While some of the blame falls on Edith, I personally think more falls on Mr. Drewe. I’d have to go back and rewatch the episode–which I haven’t–but I think Edith told Mr. Drewes that an unmarried friend of her had had a child and needed a family to care for the child. Edith thought of the Drewes and said she or her friend—I can’t remember which–would help financially. IIRC–and I admit I may not–it is Mr. Drewe who told his wife that the child was the daughter of an old friend of his who had died.
If IIRC, if he had told his wife the story Edith told him–an unmarried woman wanted someone to care for her child–Mrs. Drewe would have known it was possible that the child would be reclaimed. She might, in those circumstances, have said no.
Maybe my memory is faulty–does anyone else recall? If my memory is correct, I think CF is being too harsh on Edith. After all, Drewes saw right through the story from the get go, so he knew the truth and agreed to talk his wife into taking Marigold–which is exactly what she did.
So, I think Mr. Drewes is more responsible for the current mess than Edith is…and he knows that at some level. He doesn’t want his wife to know he lied to her.
Edith could tell Mrs. Drewe (or Drew, or Drewes-- what is her name?) that Marigold is her daughter. Edith is responsible for recruiting Mr. Drewe and for allowing his wife to remain in ignorance. Mr. Drewe may think he is bound to keep Edith’s secret, but Edith can speak up herself if she wants Mrs. Drewe to know the truth.
At this point, if Edith told Mrs. Drewe–not sure of name either–the truth, it could have ramifications for the Drewe marriage. I don’t think Mr. D WANTS Edith to tell his wife the truth, since doing so will bring into question the veracity of the story he told his wife. I’d be mad as a hatter if my H asked me to take in a child who belonged to a dead friend of his, a child with nowhere else to turn and I then found out that story was utterly false AND that my H had gotten money to do this–money which he presumably hasn’t mentioned to his wife.
Second, if Mrs. Drewe WANTS to keep the child and WANTS Edith to butt out–no matter what her reasons for the latter–she might blackmail Edith. She might say "If you don’t stay away from this child, I’ll let the entire village know that you’re a “slut” --substitute 1920s word–who had a child out of wedlock and dumped her with a poor family and now you’ve changed your mind and want her back.
Who do you think the village would side with? And if it is known that Marigold is illegitimate, what would that do to her own life prospects? Remember Emma Wodehouse’s friend Miss Smith?
I suspect Mr. D made up a story about Marigold’s parentage because he didn’t trust his wife with the truth. Or thought that if she knew the truth, she would NOT agree to raise the child.
With all the surprise walking-into-bedrooms that seems to go on at DA, I would definitely have a lock on my bedroom door by now. They often have guests in the house, typical for great estates. Why would anyone, whether family member or guest, risk leaving the door unlocked?
I don’t think Edith said the child was illigitimate - I think she initially said it was her friend who died leaving the baby (no family or something to leave her to? I really can’t remember) but Mr. Drewe said Margie wouldn’t question him, and would take that baby in, treat it as her own, blablabla. Later he admitted that he knew Edith’s secret and that it was her child but that he wouldn’t judge. The one in the dark is Mrs. Drewe who thinks she’s got a lovely little girl and someone more wealthy and powerful (think: your landlord) has an unhealthy interest in your child. If Edith was my landlord, constantly sniffing around my house, with her wealth, looking at my line of washing, I might just want to move away too. I have no idea how Edith would have any rights to sweep the child away and take her to Paris, London, wherever! What does she plan to do? Tell Mr. Drewe to meet her behind the barn with the child in the middle of the night and then leave him to fix things with Wifey?
Also, really liked seeing the displaced Russian aristocrats’ reaction to Rose’s new friend Atticus. Here they are furious that they have been chased from their homeland, and feeling gravely mistreated, but at the same time thinking what they did to the Jews during the pogroms was just fine. So glad for this scene, lest any viewers were getting teary over the fate of the Russian blue bloods and nostalgic for the Czarist regime.
Oh, please don’t think I’m not sympathetic to Mrs. Drewe’s plight! I am. I just think that it’s not as easy for Edith to tell Mrs. Drewe the truth now as some might think. No matter how you slice and dice it, Mr. D lied to his wife.
I suspect that Edith was calling Gregson’s solicitor in London as a first step to reclaiming Marigold. She’s going to ask legal advice as to what she can do. If she can prove Marigold is her child–and she probably can–and the Drewes didn’t legally adopt her legally–and it’s unlikely they have, then she could have Mr. D called to the big house to meet with her solicitors who will tell him he has to surrender the child.
Oh and thanks for the link oldmom–I love the line about growing a pair of ovaries!!!
Also liked how the Russian–actually just one Russian–reacted to Atticus and Rose’s reaction to that. Since Cora’s father is Jewish, I don’t think Rose’s family–with the possible exception of Susan, Rose’s mother–would make much of an issue about Atticus’s faith and/or heritage.
If Edith does that, Mrs. Drewe will be broken hearted but at least the situation will be finally dealt with.
Can Edith afford to live on her own without parental support? Is the newspaper gig a paying job? Rosamund wouldn’t take her in, in all her shame, I don’t think.
If Gregson is actually dead and left a will leaving everything to Edith, she can afford to tell everyone to jump in a lake.
Cue dramatic scene: Edith sitting with the solicitors looking for advice when the solicitors receive a telegram saying Gregson’s body has been found and/or he has been found in a coma in a German hospital and/or during the trial of the Brown shirts the police find the passport of a man they beat and buried in an unmarked grave…and it’s Gregson’s. (And because this is Julian Fellowes open the Season 6 possibility that it’s a mistake and Gregson is alive and in a coma from which he finally recovers or has amnesia, etc.)
She may also have a power of attorney allowing her to take full authority over Gregson’s business while he is away. If she’s now slowly becoming convinced that Gregson is dead, she might also ask the solicitors to sell the business and use the capital to support herself and Marigold. Of she could simply run the business and get paid the salary of whoever is doing that now. It’s probably enough to live on.
Those papers Gregson asked her to sign mean something. The meaning will probably be revealed when she meets with the solicitors.
I hope you’re right that Edith’s phone call to London was to Gregson’s solicitors. Something has to happen with this Edith plot line. As I’ve said before (for about four weeks now), it’s getting [gotten] really tiresome. Looking at the age of the child, Gregson has been missing for something like three or four years now. Given Edith’s past of being an independent career gal flitting around London on her own, why wouldn’t she have called the solicitors years ago??
And who has been running Gregson’s business in the meantime? Edith has been too busy mooning over Marigold to be the one in charge.
ETA regarding Thomas: I just found this tidbit on Google regarding drug aversion therapy for homosexuality: “Aversion therapy used the drug apomorphine, which induces nausea in the patient.” No wonder he looks like crap.
And here’s a little more from The Google: “Historically, apomorphine has been tried for a variety of uses including psychiatric treatment of homosexuality in the early 20th century, and more recently in treating erectile dysfunction. Currently, apomorphine is used in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. It is a potent emetic (i.e., it induces vomiting) and should not be administered without an antiemetic such as domperidone. The emetic properties of apomorphine are exploited in veterinary medicine to induce therapeutic emesis in canines that have recently ingested toxic or foreign substances.”
Gregson would have died in the Beer Hall Putsch by Hitler and his Brown Shirts in April, 1923. These episodes are fall, 1924. The baby was born about a year before, so Gregson disappeared around the time Edith realized she was pregnant.
Up until this point, I think that Edith’s communications with Gregson’s solicitors have focused on finding out what happened to Gregson. I doubt that Edith took the solicitors into her confidence and told them she had a child by Gregson.
But now, seemingly forced by circumstances to either have Marigold stay in the neighborhood without ever being able to see her–and with the distinct possibility of having the Drewes take off with no forwarding address at any time OR allowing Rosamond and Violet to somehow snatch the child and send her off to a boarding school as a toddler, Edith is going to come clean to the solicitors as to Marigold’s existence and seek advice.
Or at least that’s what I’m hoping she does.
Again, I don’t really know, of course. I’m just speculating. But with Julian Fellowes drops a hint like Gregson insisting on Edith signing papers and doesn’t tell us what the papers are, there’s a reason and we shall eventually find out what it is.
And, Marigold isn’t 3 or 4. She has to be younger than that.
While it’s represented by one Russian in the show, that count is representative of the extensive virulent undercurrent of antisemitism which ran through Russian society, especially among the conservative aristocracy.
While Prince Kuragin was representative of the minority of reasonable Russian aristocrats who acknowledged it’s a prejudice and a bad one, he was far from the majority. Many monarchist White Russian groups…some to this very day exhibit strong antisemitic attitudes.
To be fair, antisemitism continued after the Boshevik Revolution of late 1917 as shown by its continuation to varying extents under the Soviet Union as shown by Stalin’s and Brezhnev’s actions in singling out and persecuting Russian/Soviet Jews during their reigns.
