Downton Abbey

<p>

</p>

<p>I thought the same thing. After seeing the Vanderbilt estate and how vast their kitchens were, I would think that a house of this size would have had at least more than one oven.</p>

<p>And a rich fellow like Matthew only has one formal jacket?</p>

<p>^^^ Exactly. They dressed for dinner EVERY NIGHT. So did the staff. Even the footmen/butler could not get away with having only one; it has to spend some time in the wash.</p>

<p>I gave it 65 minutes and then threw my shoe at the TV.
I give up. Without anything else worth watching on television, I did so want it to be good. . The third season seems even worse than the others.
Holes in the plot as big as that old house.</p>

<p>musicamusica,</p>

<p>You made me laugh out loud. Thank you!</p>

<p>Matthew is middle class, not upper class, like the rest of the family. For those who watched earlier series, he (gasp, shock horror) had a job, as a lawyer. Bear in mind that an aristocratic gentleman such as Robert would not have had a job as such - his job was to manage the estate. So, whilst Matthew might have worn a suit for work, he wouldn’t have been dining formally every evening when he lived in Manchester. </p>

<p>Whilst he might have been operating on a ‘wash one, wear one’ basis with his suits, the other one might have been in the wash. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You cannot seriously believe that we (yes, I’m British) were all cooking on Agas and solid fuel until the 1970s. Gas stoves were invented in England in the 1820s, but they didn’t become a commercial success until the 1880s, because it took longer for the gas supply to be piped to individual houses on a wide enough basis. Downton Abbey is in a very rural area, so it would have taken much longer to get a gas supply installed (indeed, many rural houses here have never had gas installed, and instead rely on a combination of electricity and heating oil). </p>

<p>The series is set between 1912 and 1921, and we hear references to electricity being installed (“What for?” says Daisy). Electric stoves are a more recent invention. </p>

<p>They were only cooking for the family at that point in the day (the staff ate later, and would have eaten other, cheaper food), so I can well believe that it would be possible to cook everything in one good sized oven, which Mrs Patmore has. </p>

<p>They might still have been using solid fuel in the 1910s / 1920s, but I can assure you that people had moved on from that well before the 1970s, and with the move from solid fuel to gas (and electric) stoves there was no reason not to serve up food immediately after cooking. </p>

<p>Still, they do rather have to come up with new plot lines now that the issue of the entail has been sewn up by Mary marrying Matthew.</p>

<p>^^ There are still some pockets in Britain who actually still live in the vestiges of that antiquated and archaic way of life (we have family connections, and actually participated in a wedding not too unlike Mary’s only a few years ago), and the “great house” has ONE stove, situated MILES from the dining room, and the food arrives lukewarm at best, and more often than not cold. And the men only have one dinner jacket, and one set of white tie and tails – but they are owned, not rented. Quaintly, it’s called tradition (said with tongue firmly in cheek).</p>

<p>I thought that the pacing of the episode was a bit off as compared to season one and two and the scenes moving from Downton to the prison did not seem to flow well. For a two-hour season opener, it seemed like too many story lines were being introduced along with the ongoing ones and so some parts seemed a bit rushed while others seemed not developed enough. I thought there would have been more to the actual wedding ceremony and a scene filmed at the reception. It seemed so abrupt -one minute arriving in a coach for the ceremony, in the next arriving in a roadster from the honeymoon…I thought Shirley MacLaine was fine but depending on how the story line goes, will she be there for the entire season?</p>

<p>I saw Dan Stevens in The Heiress and he was fine. The show got somewhat mixed reviews with the exception of raves for Judith Ivey who is outstanding. Jessica Chastain got somewhat of a negative review from the NYTIMES but I thought she was good in the role. Her character really comes to life as the show moves from Act One to Act Two as does the story . I enjoyed it, the set and the costumes are great.</p>

<p>I too was puzzled that a house as large as Downton Abbey had only one stove, but I was more puzzled by the fact that it took them until right when the guests were beginning to arrive to notice that the thing wasn’t working. I would have thought the trouble would have become apparent hours earlier the when they attempted to begin cooking the dishes requiring longer baking. I can’t think of many fancy dinner menus for which none of the cooking would start until the guests begin to arrive.</p>

<p>I had to rewind more than once to verify that I had not fallen asleep and missed the entire church wedding and receptions scenes. </p>

<p>ALL that build up…will they marry, yes, wait no, huh, why yes!!</p>

<p>ALL the food prep, shopping for dresses, flowers etc and then we only get to see Mary walk up the aisle and meet Mathew and then poooffff…they’ve just now returned from the honeymoon???</p>

<p>Oh come on now.</p>

<p>I, too would have liked to have seen some of the wedding. Do you suppose we’ll see Edith’s?</p>

<p>In Britain this was not one long episode, but instead was 2 separate episodes shown a week apart. The first episode ended at the wedding with Mary’s comment that she would hate to be predictable. The screen went black and then the credits rolled. The
2nd episode a week later started with Matthew and Mary returning from their honeymoon in the convertible. It made more sense and didn’t seem as rushed.</p>

<p>With Downton Abbey, you just have to accept that the plots are ridiculous and enjoy the scenery, costumes, and much of the acting–though I do wish Fellowes had bothered to include some good reason for saving Downton Abbey for the Crawleys, other than they really, really, want to keep it.</p>

<p>Some combination of the return of the show and spending time on CC had gotten me wondering at what point it became acceptable for the daughters of the aristocracy to delve into higher education (which it seems was open to women in England after the turn of the century). I assume the Crawley girls were educated by governesses and tutors to whatever level was then deemed appropriate, but you have to wonder when the ladies of the manor house began to have lives that progressed beyond planning dinner parties and blessing charities with their presence–or whatever it is that Lady Cora does all day and Lady Mary plans to do all day.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No, he sent his only jacket off to be mended. It was to take several days, and his valet was waiting with baited breath, praying it would be ready and delivered on time for the BIG party.</p>

<p>I also still maintain that for such an important BIG dinner which was planned to the T and, for Mary, was to be a big show, that much of the dinner would have been prepared in advance, certainly not thrown into the oven right as numerous guests are arriving. That whole thing was bizarre.</p>

<p>But, I do agree it’s probably best not to go over the episodes with a magnifying glass; just enjoy the story line and the characters, the costumes and the setting, just as you do for any other kind of fiction.</p>

<p>I have read that this season actually is quite good. I will reserve judgment for now!</p>

<p>Above should read “bated breath.” Saw it too late to correct, darn it.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I would suspect that it would have been related to WWII and wider societal changes - so many men were off fighting that the women had to do their work instead. Hence, there were the ‘land girls’ who replaced the normal farm labourers. Women, in many ways, got used to the freedom and security that having their own income gave them, and they were rarely particularly keen to give their jobs back to the men when they returned from the front. </p>

<p>In addition, the Education Act 1944 delivered widespread changes to education, and there was a big expansion of HE in the 1960s. </p>

<p>Furthermore, such large estates simply aren’t economic any more. Many are visitor attractions nowadays, often owned by the National Trust. The rest have owners that spend their time desperately trying to keep their stately home in some state of repair - whilst they are very asset rich, they are also very capital poor! Highclere Castle (where Downton was filmed) has an entire floor that is derelict, and I think it’s quite rare to find a family owned stately home that is not at least partially derelict. The one exception I can think of is Longleat, which is still owned by the original family, but it now hosts a drive through safari park (elephants, lions, tigers, monkeys, the works), and the house and gardens are open to visitors. </p>

<p>There are two such former stately homes (though neither quite as grand as Highclere / Downton!) within a couple of miles of where I grew up. One was given to the city in lieu of inheritance taxes that they couldn’t pay, and is now primarily used as a large open space, free to the public. The other one was sold to the National Trust and opened to visitors after the death of the last owner. </p>

<p>The whole country is littered with large homes, but if the owners can actually afford them, then it’s highly unlikely that it’s been in the family for more than a couple of generations. </p>

<p>Given that they couldn’t afford to keep the house going, let alone have lots of children who were incapable of supporting themselves, when combined with higher education becoming open to all regardless of income, was how HE became acceptable. Nowadays, such families spend a lot of money on schools whose primary purpose is to get their sons and daughters into the best universities, with the aim of well paid professional careers. That said, some of them remain ill-educated - Princess Diana got two O-Levels (in US terms, she didn’t get a HS diploma), and Prince Harry is also an educational failure, despite receiving the best education the UK has to offer. The royals aren’t known for their intellect. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, but they’re more the 0.01%, as opposed to the 1%, and there’s no way that they have such a large staff as Downton! </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I watched this episode in September / October - the finer details escape me!</p>

<p>The oven story I thought was part of the development of Daisy’s character. She has been asking to be respected as the Assistant Cook and she noticed the oven was slow at least three times before it failed. I’m looking forward to hearing what stuffed up the chimneys. Storks, perhaps?</p>

<p>“it’s probably best not to go over the episodes with a magnifying glass; just enjoy the story line and the characters, the costumes and the setting, just as you do for any other kind of fiction.”</p>

<p>^This. </p>

<p>I wouldn’t enjoy any fictional drama otherwise.</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>I viewed the oven story as a plot device to create an emergency that would totally stop the hide-bound British aristocrats and their servants in their tracks, but that the Shirley MacLaine character could then quickly solve with her Yankee ingenuity and informality, and thus provide the Crawleys and their stuffy friends with a glimpse of their own (probably unwelcome) future.</p>

<p>coureur – you should write for the show. That’s more interesting and organic than some of the plot twists they came up with.</p>

<p>How about this? A dear friend of Mary’s drops by with a wedding gift (she was in Australia until recently and thus has a charming Aussie accent). Mary’s away on her honeymoon, but the Crawleys do the right thing and welcome her to stay with them until Mary returns. She has ulterior motives for one of the male characters (maybe Lord Crawley) – blackmail, or asking him to join the newly formed OSS (because why is he always in uniform if not to suggest a military role again someday?) But her accent slips, and it’s noticed by…Shirley Maclaine!</p>

<p>Maybe I should stick to the dog sub-plot…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>FYI, the OSS was an American organization and was formed after the start of WWII…20+ years into the future. </p>

<p>Also, while being stationed in India as an Army officer would have fit the times better, it wouldn’t have worked with Matthew considering he was already an established lawyer. Moreover, being a career officer in the British Army…especially an Indian Army Officer(separate organization) would have been odd considering he was now an heir to not one…but two fortunes. </p>

<p>British Army officer careers were often reserved for second or later sons of wealthy families so they’d have a socially prestigious occupation to keep them busy as they aren’t likely be inheriting the family fortune unless the first son kicks the bucket…especially before WWI. </p>

<p>Moreover, few of their socio-economic station would ever consider joining the British Indian Army as that was considered “too middle class” considering pay is actually much higher with correspondingly much lower social prestige. That stigma comes from the Victorian period when the British Indian Army, officers could actually afford to live off their pay without independent incomes from the family estate(s) whereas this wouldn’t be possible in the regular British Army. </p>

<p>Especially in the early-mid Victorian period when aspiring regular British Army officers actually put up a small fortune to “purchase their commissions” up to Lt. Colonel with extra premiums for socially desirable units such as the Blues and Royals. </p>

<p>Even when the purchase of commissions was abolished, the salaries weren’t anywhere near enough to cover their expenses considering they were expected to maintain what we consider a lavish style befitting the sons of Aristocrats/Peers or the upper/extremely well-off portions of the upper-middle class…especially during the Victorian and Edwardian periods. </p>

<p>When Winston Churchill was serving as a junior cavalry officer in the turn of the 19th-20th century, he needed his parents to send him the equivalent of $50k+/year on top of his Army salary to maintain the lifestyle expected of someone of his rank in his high status unit unit(4th Queen’s Own Hussars). Even then, it didn’t seem to be enough and he had to keep asking his parents for more money and later caused him to take up freelance journalism.</p>