<br>
<br>
<p>What? They did come up with this plot twist, not me. Shirley MacLaine actually did solve the seemingly insurmountable problem with her ingenuity and informality. And it did seem to be received by the guests as an odd but refreshingly-new way to hold a dinner party. I’m just providing my interpretation of what those scenes were meant to convey.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha ha! You beat me to it. I was thinking, “uh, that IS the plot twist they came up with.” </p>
<p>:D</p>
<p>^^really? Must have been in the last half hour – I missed it. But then I’m convinced I missed the wedding too.</p>
<p>cobrat:
</p>
<p>That’s what they want you to think. :)</p>
<p>This from the Oxford website:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dorothy Sayers’ Gaudy Night takes place in the '30s, and reflects both at least a full generation of women at Oxford before the time of the book’s action, and the ongoing precarious state of women in higher education at that time.</p>
<p>But I believe Oxford was one of the last to admit women. If the Crawley girls had been allowed/encouraged to become educated, they would have found a way. It’s no wonder Edith is desperate to become the lady of a manor house and Sybil was eager to run off to Ireland–they have absolutely nothing else to do all day! Honestly, except for nursing during the war, we’ve never seen any of the daughters do anything but dress for dinner. I’m sure Fellowes thinks he’s created a sympathetic family and has the viewing audience rooting to save Downton Abbey for the Crawleys, but I can’t wait for it all to come crashing down on their silly, useless heads.</p>
<p>For the experts: why is Downton called an abbey rather than a castle? I’ve only seen that term used for religious structures.</p>
<p>Many great houses were abbeys, because they originated as such and were taken from the Catholic Church by Henry VIII and distributed to cronies. See “dissolution of the monasteries.”</p>
<p>If I were Matthew, by the tenth time Mary asked me if I had heard from the lawyer about the potential inheritance, I would have called off the whole thing.</p>
<p>I must admit I also don’t understand why the third contingent heir would have been notified until the first and second were out of the way for sure. Is that how it works??</p>
<p>WHY?
Because the “plot”, no matter how absurd, needs to move along.
Miraculous cures, repetitive unlikely inheritances, equally unlikely relationships, absurd dialog, and downright bizarre historical inaccuracies are just part of the fun. I just wish it was more campy, then I could get through the evening.</p>
<p>Thanks Consolation! That’s a whole chunk of history I knew nothing about.
Lots of build-up for little payoff. I thought for sure that oven was going to catch fire and destroy a section of the house, requiring everyone to decamp for London with highjinks ensuing as the whole staff has to all try to fit into smaller digs and Daisy meeting the nice butler from across the street. Who knew I could be even soapier than Fellowes?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. I don’t watch it expecting great theater. I watch it expecting fabulous soap opera and on that level, it’s delicious. </p>
<p>coureur, regarding the sudden breakdown of the stove, Daisy did complain several times earlier in the episode that it wasn’t heating well, and no one paid any attention.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Apparently I didn’t either, because I didn’t pick up on that. Even so, even if Mrs.Patmore completely ignored Daisy you’d think she would notice that the earlier dishes weren’t coming out properly cooked.</p>
<p>The oven was smoking when Daisy was complaining to Mrs. Patmore earlier in the epi.</p>
<p>I noticed Daisy noticing the stove (and Mrs. Patmore not taking her seriously.) I was afraid they were going to make it explode. Glad they didn’t!</p>
<p>“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>Back in the day, a good lady of the manor actually had significant things to do if she cared how the house was run. It was rather like being the CEO of a boutique hotel. Hiring and firing, planning menus, resolving disputes, OKing budgets, etc. There would have been guests coming and going frequently, including plenty of people who knew the difference between a brilliantly managed household and an indifferently managed one. A good Countess would be busting her ass to ensure the guests experienced the world’s finest hospitality.</p>
<p>Like any CEO, you could delegate decision-making to the housekeeper/butler if you wanted to, but if you wanted to be good at the job, you kept a close eye on staff operations. A sharp and energetic person like Cora would have been in the nursery and housekeeper’s room on a daily basis to supervise the senior staff. The Dowager Countess would have been a hell of a boss, too.</p>
<p>/women’s social history nerd hat</p>
<p>Had to share this - it’s very funny!
[Downton</a> Abbey Facebook Recap | Happy Place](<a href=“http://www.happyplace.com/20382/dowton-abbey-facebook-recap]Downton”>http://www.happyplace.com/20382/dowton-abbey-facebook-recap)</p>
<p>Sure hope tonight’s episode is better than last week’s…</p>
<p>^ roflmao!</p>
<p>I really enjoyed last week’s episode. I teared up at the wedding. And I liked the way Martha came to Edith’s defense regarding marrying the older guy. I wonder if Edith will marry him only to have him die suddenly- leaving her wealthy and alone. If that happens, maybe Mary will put the pressure on her to give the money to the Downton Estate…</p>
<p>I did find the prison visits redundant. And I am not impressed with Shirley MacClaine’s stereotypical American. I also think Branson needs to work on his “filter”- not quite sure what his bride thinks of him at this point… he acted selfishly in her family’s home in my opinion. Looking forward to tonight’s episode.</p>
<p>Love that DA “Facebook”, patsmom.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Branson is actually being honest about his political views and his dislike of her family for being symbolic of the imperial and class oppressions on Ireland while having no animus and actually much liking for many members of her family personally. </p>
<p>Moreover, his behavior towards her family symbolizes the contestation between the old stiffer formality of the pre-WWI period and the less formal more “real” interactions between folks of different classes/backgrounds in subsequent decades. </p>
<p>In some ways, his behavior/actions are very much like the stereotypical student at my LAC from the 'late '60s till the late '90s. Protest and annoy one’s supposed “social betters”…preferably to the point of forcing them to run for their proverbial smelling salts. :)</p>