<p>Could someone give a two-minute overview of the situation in Ireland at the time this is supposed to be happening, and what the views of the British aristocracy would have been at the time? My knowledge of the timeline of Irish independence is vague, to say the least. Is it even remotely plausible that an Earl would harbor Tom under these circumstances? Why would he be arrested in Ireland but not England at the time? Is it even remotely plausible that an Irish revolutionary would marry the daughter of a British peer? Wouldn’t his comrades be suspicious of him? These are actual, not rhetorical, questions. Is the viewer supposed to have a pretty good idea of the historical context of this plot-line? (I didn’t watch the previews of the next episode; maybe that answered some of these questions).</p>
<p>One more question: wouldn’t Lord Grantham already have been keeping closer tabs on Branson? If he was able to find out from his cronies that Branson was participating in revolutionary meetings so quickly, wouldn’t he already have known this?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Easter Uprising took place in 1916 and was a bloody affair as the British brought out artillery pieces to suppress it. It was considered the spark which encouraged greater activism…including armed revolution for Irish independence. </p>
<p>From that point till the early '20s, there’s a series of brutal attacks by both independent pro-Irish independence groups against Anglo-Irish aristocratic families and symbols of British imperial authority and pro-British groups against Irish establishments, families, and individuals deemed to be pro-independent and/or Catholic. </p>
<p>Only thing I’d feel is a bit ahistorical is Branson feeling such deep remorse to the point of crying like he did considering the Protestant Anglo-Irish aristocrats like the ones the Irish revolutionaries he was with burned out of their home not only symbolized British imperial domination over the Irish, especially Irish Catholics, but most of them were also downright ruthless in the way they treated their Irish tenant farmers and Irish Catholics in general. There’s been a lot of hatred and bad blood between the Anglo-Irish aristocrats who were viewed as British carpetbaggers occupying the best lands on behalf of the centuries long imperial occupation and against the mostly Catholic Irish native population.* </p>
<p>Incidentally, most of them as a class were complicit in the deaths caused by the Irish Potato famine(1840’s) through kicking starving tenant farmers who couldn’t pay the rent off their land and discouraging the British home government from passing relief measures to the point that the little relief which eventually did come about was too little too late for the countless who died or were driven to emigrate out of Ireland to places like the US. </p>
<p>While many Irish friends and acquaintances I knew growing up are proud Americans, you don’t want to get many of them started about the British or Anglo-Irish whom they regarded as one and the same…oppressive occupiers of their homeland. </p>
<ul>
<li>Relating it to my own family history/experience, it’s not too far removed from the hatred many Chinese and Koreans of my parents and grandparents generation had against the Japanese for the decades long occupation of Taiwan and its associated islands(1895-1945) and Korea(Unofficially 1895-1945/Officially 1910-1945). Incidentally, this very history is still affecting current geopolitics as illustrated by continuing territorial disputes Japan has with China, South Korea, and Russia.</li>
</ul>
<p>
</p>
<p>My impressions of his politics is that while he’s against the British class system, he’s not necessarily a bonafide socialist as much as an ardent Irish Catholic nationalist.</p>
<p>Heck, many commenters here are against the British class system as it existed in the early 20th century…and I don’t blame them.</p>
<p>Good questions nottelling. I actually give Fellowes props this week for not recasting Lord Grantham for 21st century polite conversation. His prejudice and Tom’s anger are reflective of that time and the terrible Troubles to come.</p>
<p>A few episodes ago, H and I thought the show was hinting that perhaps Bates isn’t the kind, gentle man we’ve been led to believe. But now they seem to have left that behind.</p>
<p>I love the show but agree it feels like its wandering a bit right now. Maybe that’s because H and I watched the first 2 seasons on DVR in a week, and now we’re just watching one show a week like everyone else. </p>
<p>I agree that Mary is becoming more like her early, less-likeable self - but perhaps its just because she’s finally gotten what she wants, and now has nothing to do but play the role she’s been raised for.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lord Grantham’s anti-Catholic joke in that episode shows him to be relatively polite about his anti-Catholic prejudices. Many other similarly situated British aristocrats in that period don’t always feel the need to be polite or subtle about those prejudices, especially considering the Easter Uprising, the “troubles”, anti-war/draft protests/revolts by Irish Catholics/pro-independence folks, and even a few instances of Irish independence revolutionaries collaborating with Imperial Germany during the war are still fresh in their minds in this period. </p>
<p>Not to mention that such anti-Catholic prejudices have a long history dating back to the days of Bloody Mary and the Spanish Armada.</p>
<p>Not to mention that even back then, Ireland was already effectively occupied by the English.</p>
<p>True, cobrat. However, polite as his phrasing might have been (in context at the time), Lord Grantham saying those words signaled, to me anyway, that though the man throws a rather wonderful wedding (those massive flower arrangements, that rolled carpet!), he’s not a character this modern 21st century viewer can admire.</p>
<p>The Branson subplot reminds me of the George Bernard Shaw play “Smash” written about all the fun of a girls school in Britain in the 20’s where the Irish revolutionary groundskeeper (dashing, handsome!) falls for the daughter of an Earl. Croquet, bombs, an inappropriate marriage and hilarity ensue. I suspect there was real life precedent ( for all but the hilarity.)</p>
<p>madbean #916: Yes, I agree that there was sign-posting in this episode that Lady Mary will not have children. I believe that when she visited the physician, she was told that she was infertile. (This is an inferential leap from the scene shown, but Lady Mary seemed to be emoting a lot for an upper-crust Brit.) It may turn out that the physician was incorrect, of course.</p>
<p>Extrapolating even further, I anticipate that Sybil’s child will be the heir to Downton.</p>
<p>When did Mary see the doctor? And how did I miss that? Her reaction was strange, though.</p>
<p>Quant – we thought the same thing – Mary won’t have a child (she was really freaked out by the whole idea), Edith is going to go be a suffragette, and the Branson baby will be heir. Imagine if Sybil dies in childbirth, and Tom has to stay and run Downton… I did love how highly approving Matthew and Tom were of Edith’s success, that was charming and dear.</p>
<p>I don’t think Sybil’s baby can be the heir to Downton. Mary’s male baby, if she has one, would be heir through Matthew, NOT Mary. If Matthew doesn’t have a male heir, they’ll be back to where we were at the beginning of the series, looking for some distant male relation who comes directly through the male line of the family.</p>
<p>Good point about the line of inheritance.</p>
<p>Mary was not actually shown visiting the doctor. However, she announced plans to convert the day nursery into something else–a sitting room or guest bedroom?–I’ve forgotten. Matthew came over to her and asked what they would do when they needed the room for a day nursery. Mary looked frozen. A very short time later, Matthew asked about Mary’s visit to the doctor. Mary said she had something minor (a cough? Again I’ve forgotten the details.)</p>
<p>Oh yes! Now I remember… this episode just didn’t grab my attention, I guess.</p>
<p>I’ve met a few Irish American men and women from an older generation, who have no love of Britain and laugh at America’s obsession with the monarchy. In the 1970s and 1980s they also laughed at Britain’s reputation as “The Most Liberal Country in the World.”</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>True enough, but we don’t yet have enough context of Lord Grantham’s anti-Catholic remark to know whether he is referring specifically to the Irish revolutionaries. In England “Catholic” does not always refer to Irish. In the centuries after the the Church of England split from Rome and the monarchy became Protestant, England has always maintained its own minority of stubbornly Catholic citizens, despite the centuries of persecution.</p>
<p>Some examples of English authors who were Catholic:
Oscar Wilde
G.K. Chesterton
Alexander Pope
Graham Greene
J.R.R. Tolkien
Evelyn Waugh</p>
<p>And speaking of Waugh, remember “Brideshead Revisited?” That was the story of an aristocratic English Catholic family.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>She had hay fever.</p>
<p>Mary said she went to the doctor for her hay fever but Matthew didn’t look too convinced. I do think she looked more relieved than distressed about not having a day nursery.</p>
<p>On a completely different subject, I get the feeling that O’Brien set up the new footman to tempt and subsequently ruin Thomas; i.e. get him fired.</p>
<p>Oh, I think O’Brien definitely has a plan where Thomas and the footman are concerned. You could see her wheels spinning when she noticed Thomas noticing the poor footman getting dressed! And wasn’t there a scene in the previews where the footman was complaining about Thomas? It’s hard to feel sorry for Thomas, but sometimes I do. He’s so bitter, and that’s no way to go through life.</p>
<p>Maybe Mary’s just feeling the pressure to produce an heir. I’m not a Royal follower, but I could’t help notice how poor William and Kate were married all of two minutes before the media were questioning why she wasn’t pregnant yet! (And that was here in the US!)</p>
<p>I have to say, I am learning so much! From watching the show, and from following all of you! Thanks for the history lessons! (Seems I missed quite a bit in school, but then history seemed so boring then.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While his “Johnny Foreigner” remark about Catholics may not have necessarily been specific to just Irish revolutionaries, it clearly illustrates a commonplace attitude among those of his class and nationality that Catholicism was “not British” and thus, anyone who was a Catholic was disdained as a foreigner and not “truly British”. </p>
<p>While this attitude originated from the days of Henry VIII, Bloody Mary, and the Spanish Armada(early to late 1500’s), it’s also infused with disdainful attitudes towards the French as a natural historical enemy of Britain* and the native Irish(not Anglo-Irish) as a subjugated “underclass”. </p>
<ul>
<li>This attitude started to wane in the mid-late 19th century, but didn’t really completely fade away until WWII. Incidentally, the US has adopted and added to the negative stereotypes the British had towards the French during and after WWII. Ironic considering some recent stereotypes like their penchant for surrendering are considered excessive and ignorant even by many British and German War veterans who actually fought in the Battle of France in 1940.</li>
</ul>
<p>Posting from London where Series 3 finished last year with the big finale on Christmas Day. Just wanted to say that at this point in the series, I was bored and about to give up. So glad I didn’t! I hope those of you wavering stick with it.</p>
<p>good to know samuck! thanks for the tease :)</p>