<p>I also think Edith is very interesting, and when she is smiling and happy, she is really quite pretty! And the Sir Anthony-Ashley Wilkes connection–brilliant!</p>
<p>Perhaps Sir Anthony not only thought he was too old for Edith, but he also might not be too interested in (hmm, how to put this delicately…) or capable in as Lavinia Swire put it “that side of things.” So he is drawn to her and the idea of a life together, but knows it will be a disaster because he can’t really be a proper husband to her (as Matthew said to Lavinia). Then when he saw her so beautiful at the altar, he couldn’t go through with it. </p>
<p>My H also thought Sir Anthony was going to have a heart attack at the altar.</p>
<p>This article is about Lady Edith’s wedding dress. The tiara she and Lady Mary wore with their wedding veils was an antique with 45 carats of diamonds, worth $200,000!</p>
<p>Yes, I kept wondering whether the major reason behind Sir Antony’s hesitation was that his arm wasn’t the only body part disabled by his war wounds. But that was never really asserted.</p>
<p>Veryhappy and any other newcomers to the series, if you don’t want spoilers, ask any questions about the characters here. We looked up Lord Grantham to figure out his war experience and in about one sentence, had way too many spoiliers.</p>
<p>Maggie Smith is a goddess! She has the best lines of anyone. I am a little tired, and I hope something happens soon. After watching Episode 2 yesterday, I surmise that Mrs. Bates put poison in whatever she was going to serve to Mr. Bates, and it backfired on her when she ate it herself by mistake. And poor Edith! But we’ve all thrown ourselves at someone who didn’t want us. My D feels that poor Patrick (with the burns) should come back, be proved to be the legitimate heir, marry Edith and then she would be Lady Grantham, not those whiny and annoying Matthew and Mary. It would serve them right! I think the only thing I am looking forward to seeing is how O’Brien takes revenge on Thomas. Whatever it is, it’s going to be good!</p>
<p>I find the two of them(Mary and Mathew) very boring and not at all like newlyweds. Stiff old married people. I"m also sorry that Shirey Mclaine is finished for the season. She brought another dimension to the plot and developing her character would have been good.</p>
<p>In the first series, the heir to Downton (girls can’t inherit) was killed on the Titanic. Matthew turned out to be the next heir (which caused some consternation as he was a middle class lawyer from Manchester!) Essentially Mary married him in part so that she could inherit the house, but she did manage to fall in love with him along the way.</p>
<p>What year is this supposed to be?? I thought is was during or after WWI. he Titanic was in 1903. Mary looks too young to have been betrothed in 1903.</p>
<p>The Titanic sank in 1912. The current year is supposed to be 1920. The timeline is very loose in terms of the actors. No one has aged since 1912.</p>
<p>So true! The person who would have changed the most would be Daisy. I do see that she is wearing more mature clothes, but if she had gone from 12 or 14 to 20 or 22, the change would likely be a bit more pronounced.</p>
<p>Actually, the movie theater we attended had a Rocky Horror Picture Show vibe mixed in with a lot of undergrads and Naval cadets from the local colleges. Part of it was that it was a midnight showing in a large NE city full of college kids.</p>
<p>In addition to our silly noises were dating couples trying to emulate the steamy car love scene, sighs of awe whenever Leonardo DiCaprio showed up on screen, hisses at seeing the sinister characters whether it’s the bratty heir or his Pinkerton bodyguard, and more. </p>
<p>Other than the imitations of the steamy car love scene in the back of the theater, reactions varied by gender. </p>
<p>Women saw the movie as a tragic romance. Most of the dudes in the theater like myself were trying to enjoy it as a campy nautical/Naval adventure movie with some mooshy romance tossed in where the iceberg stands in for a Navy ship. :D</p>
<p>BTW: The ushers were also participating with the audience or otherwise figured it’s a midnight showing so “let them have their fun”.</p>
<p>What about the budding illicit romance between Edith and the farmhand? Well, I guess that’s out of the question, given clear boundaries between the classes in England at the time. The plotline for Bronson’s marriage to Sybill seens to be that though he was the cheuffeur, he’s educated enough to have a job (for the time being) as a newspaper man. I guess cheuffeurs and newspaper writers rank higher than farmhands in 1920 England.</p>
<p>“Budding elicit romance between Edith and the farmhand?” That wasn’t a farmhand, it was a farmer, and his wife shut it down. Maybe a tenant farmer? I don’t know. There was clearly a class component to the relationship, both on Edith’s side (she felt liberated, not so much judged and scrutinized) and on the farmer’s (he was intimidated and afraid of angering her, but also inordinately flattered by her interest), but it wasn’t the same as bonking one of your own servants.</p>
<p>“Educated enough to have a job . . . as a newspaper man.” In 1920 Ireland, as in the United States of that period, I think “educated enough to be a journalist” and “able to read and write” had about the same meaning.</p>
<p>I agree with observation that, with 8 years having passed since the story began, the characters have not aged enough, and you really notice it with Daisy. In everyone’s defense, maybe Mary, Edith, and Sybil were supposed to have been 17, 16, and 14, and Daisy 12 or 13, when the action began, even though they all – especially Sybil – seemed older than that. Actually, we know from this week’s episode that Edith was born in 1895 or '96, which is pretty consistent with the previous hypothesis. (When What’s-His-Name was reminiscing about meeting the Duchess of Marlborough in 1896, and said “You weren’t even born yet, My Dearest,” she said, “That’s not true! I was born; I just wasn’t walking too steadily yet.”)</p>