No, please dear God, no more Mr. Green plot!!! I’d be happy if they’d never mention his name again!
But they must wrap up Mr Green and it will includes Baxter’s admission to the others of her past criminal behavior as she shares that she saw the ticket untorn. Did I hear Thomas being supportive to her correctly?
Joblue, to enjoy the show, you can’t ovethink it. Just like their loss of daughter, Sybil. They carry on without her without any lasting effects of her passing, which, if you think about it, is really odd. So I just try to enjoy the show for what it is: entertainment and not an overly realistic portrayal of this family and what it deals with.
Yes, Thomas owes Baxter since she was the one who showed compassion & got him to the doctor.
I think I’m opting out of this thread. If some of these predictions are true, it sort of takes away the surprise element of watching the show. And you don’t know who has the inside scoop from the show having already been aired in the U.K. who is wanting to spill the beans ahead of time.
I think it’s great fun to speculate. And I trust all of you not to actually “spoil” what’s coming if you have real information.
Thomas had to really be at his wit’s end to trust Baxter. But it makes no sense that Thomas couldn’t figure out that he had to see a doctor without her intervention. He may be obnoxious, but he’s not stupid. So I anticipate something else will happen between the two of them – maybe Thomas will still be a bad guy and do something else to undermine Baxter, which would be really nasty given how she helped him, or maybe Thomas will realize that other people can be nice and he’ll have a revelation that he should be nice too.
Nah. Not Thomas. He’s incorrigible.
Watched the most recent episode last night – didn’t watch it Sunday due to the SNL 40 show.
Agree that it’s best not to overthink the entire show/plotline. That Robert would just say, “OK” to bringing Marigold into the household is ridiculous. That Mrs. Drewe won’t tell anyone else what she knows about Marigold is ridiculous. That Lord Merton can’t/won’t control his sons is ridiculous. That Edith can run a magazine is ridiculous. That Tony will now “let Mary go” just because he saw her kissing some other guy is ridiculous, especially when it sounded like he was practically threatening her in a previous episode. Etc. etc. etc.
No matter – I still enjoy the show. Are Tom and Sybbie really leaving?
Tom and Lorenzo’s take on the episode - I love it when they call the Bates “dour fun-suckers.”
http://tomandlorenzo.com/2015/02/downton-abbey-regrets-only/
Fun! Agree on Anna and “M. Bates” being dour fun-suckers. They are pretty much right on every point.
“Mr. Mason is essentially a Hobbit” ^^
Ha! On this installment of ‘Hairstyles of the 1920s’!
Tom and Lorenzo do it again. Too funny. And spot on.
I enjoy all the speculations on this thread. It would be very hard to not hit the plot line coming up once in a while since Fellows doesn’t have much of a plot line since he’s past the original Upstairs, Downstairs show to copy. I still like the fashions.
Love Violet and Isobel–hoping Isobel gets married (or at least plans it) so Violet can give her a ton of unwanted advice.
I just re-watched the episode. There is no way that Rosamund is Edith’s mother. Twice, Cora said, “I am her mother” to Rosamund, with no irony, no smirks, no nothing. And if those two don’t know that Rosamund’s not Edith’s mother, who else would??
I had forgotten one of the last moments with Lord Merton’s sons: The one who is not Larry (I forget his name) came back into the house to tell his father to hurry up, because poor Larry has been sitting in the car since he left the dining room. Good grief!! What a spoiled brat!!!
Did anybody notice that Edith said she would telephone Mr. Drewe. I would doubt the Drewe’s had a telephone in 1924.
“And Mary is also Matthew’s heir, so she will own the estate when LG passes on.”
This is half-true. Mary is the heir to that which Matthew owned outright, which happens to be quite a bit of Downton or at least its land. George is the heir to the entailed part of the estate, since it cannot pass to a woman.
Entails were abolished in British law in 1925. Not sure what year we are up to in Downton Abbey.
“It was probably challenging to meet our standard maternal/paternal and warm & fuzzy for the upper classes back then. They were raised by nannies and governesses themselves, so they lack any role models for being engaged and affectionate parents.”
This reminds me of the statement made by King George to his quivering and stuttering son Bertie in the movie ‘The King’s Speech;’ ‘I was afraid of my parents and damned if my children won’t be afraid of me!’
And I also recall documentaries about the Windsor’s wherein Prince Charles was described as a rather unhappy child because Elizabeth II and Prince Philip were often away traveling around the world without him.
I believe we’re still in 1924. In any event, Downton may have been “grandfathered in” and the entail could still have been valid. If not, then yes, Mary as the eldest would likely be Lord Grantham’s heir.
That would make her even more desirable than she already is.
On another note – do we yet know why she didn’t want to marry Lord Gillingham?
Heir to the property is not heir to the title. It’s a current issue in the UK.
No “fireworks” I assume . . .
And Mary IIRC has two others to compare him too.