<p>Ahem, I think the finer details of history may be escaping me, which may be what comes from skim-reading Wikipedia… </p>
<p>Still, on the subject of religion, in 2008 there seemed to be substantial concern over the idea that Obama might be a Muslim. I got the distinct impression that people thought being a Muslim would somehow render you utterly untrustworthy, to the point of being unelectable. Atheists also seem to be near unelectable. Say what you like about the lack of separation of church and state, but at least significant numbers of non-Christians exist in high level British politics.</p>
<p>Back in the 40s, 50s and early 60s, my law firm was known for its “diversity”…100% white guys, but we hired Jews and Catholics when other firms wouldn’t.</p>
<p>I am amazed to see the roots of religion conflicts after watching The Tudors, Elizabeth, The Medici, and Borgia. They were pretty nasty. All were related to distribution of wealth.</p>
<p>Re post 1298, the prohibition on the monarch being Catholic has certainly not been removed!The Monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and so by definition must be Anglican, hence Charles’ concern over the proposed reforms to the laws of succession. I should note at this point that I am republican ( no, not in the US sense, but anti-monarchy).</p>
<p>Class structure is not religious structure in Britain, though it certainly has been in Ireland where the Protestants were most of the upper classes. That is an issue which carried through into the Ulster Troubles.</p>
<p>The British class system is more of a caste system related to land, church, the military, etc. Its roots are feudal, not religious. </p>
<p>To give a feel for the pervasiveness of class, at the end of the 19thC the 2nd largest occupation and the largest for women was domestic service. Only agriculture employed more. That changed as agriculture mechanized and service actually increased to be the largest employer in the 1900’s. (I don’t have the actual figures in front of me. I can check them when I get home.) </p>
<p>The system only changed with WWI. That was due to 3 things. We see at least 2 of them in the show: money and social change. The war bankrupted the nation - and the economy was then made ridiculously worse by stupid economic policies that insisted on maintaining a strong pound rather than let it fall to stimulate exports. Look up the general strikes and the rise of fascism in Britain - brilliantly parodied by Wodehouse through the character of Roderick Spode, his Oswald Mosley stand-in who actually wants to design lingerie. We see the loss of money indirectly; it’s said Grantham lost money on a bad investment. The reality would have been more complex and reflected a general loss of wealth in the nation. </p>
<p>If you want a real indictment of Britain - other than the human cost of 11 million slaves trafficked and the lives lost in conquest - consider that all the wealth extracted went into big houses and material things instead of productive investment to raise the living standards of the people. While the Empire was at its fullest, people starved in London. What a waste. Empires destroy: when Cortez sent back the finest specimens of Aztec art, the King looked at them, said how nice and had them melted down. No better than the barbarian horde of Timur.</p>
<p>Social change was hastened by the need to have women work, same as the US experienced in WWII. We saw that in the show as the women became nurses. But women worked in war industry because the men were dying.</p>
<p>And that is the 3rd big reason for the decline of the servant class: the death of an entire generation of men had an effect like the Black Death on the availability of labor. You no longer had to take a job that gave you a half day off a week and which limited - strictly in many cases - your ability to date let alone marry and have a family.</p>
<p>Britain lost nearly 900,000 men with another 1.6M wounded. Out of 45 million. France lost 1.4M dead and over 4 million wounded. They were bled white. I keep that in mind when I think of the mistakes of trying to appease Hitler: they knew what a war would cost and were trying desperately to avoid killing another generation. They didn’t realize not confronting the menace would lead to worse.</p>
<p>Is the character who will be Edith’s editor not Mary’s former fiancee, Richard? Or am I mistaken? </p>
<p>Last night’s episode was quite touching, especially with the rather different angle on the Dowager Countess and her lines…the closest she comes to a prototypical line is when she quips that she and doctor have nothing in common if he cannot lie to save a situation. Otherwise, she is empathetic, supportive, and has wisdom from her age. One has to wonder who it is that supports her and keeps her strong. That would be an interesting plot line, her staff, friends, etc. </p>
<p>For some reason, last night’s episode has been on my mind, food for thought.</p>
<p>No, Lorelei, it was another British actor who was rather popular in the '80s, was gorgeous and apparently remained so. I can’t think of his name!! Argh!
And Lergnom, thanks for the background.</p>
<p>Yes, I love the education I’m getting here! But I have to correct one thing - it wasn’t Jesus who forbade a man to marry his brother’s widow. This was a matter of Mosaic law, from Leviticus. But there is another verse in Deuteronomy 25, which describes a situation in which a man dies without producing offspring. In this case, it is his brother’s duty to marry his widow and produce heirs in his place. This is how Ruth came to marry Boaz in the Old Testament. When her husband died, she returned to his homeland with her mother in law and invoked the right of a widow to marry her husband’s kin. I’m not sure how the church came to interpret this all as absolute prohibition against the widow/brother in law union, but it did. The New Testament passage deals with the disciples asking Jesus about a case in which a woman is subsequently married to each of 7 brothers, all marriages without children. They want to know who she will be married to at the time of the resurrection, but Jesus explains that when the dead rise, no one will be married or given in marriage. He did not condemn the brothers or the widow. Just had to clarify…</p>
<p>I found my old notes about servants. I was generally correct. I’ll paste them in:</p>
<ol>
<li>Servants were not only in big houses, only perhaps 1/5th of the total.</li>
<li>1851 - 905k women, 134k men</li>
<li>1901 - about 2 million total out of total population of 40+ million, largest employment for women and 2nd largest for all after agriculture.</li>
<li>1911 - census figures - 1.3 million, more now than agriculture (1.2) or mining (971k).</li>
<li>1777 to pay for American revolutionary war, tax on male servants, including their hair powder. 1780 figure of a “guinea a head” suggest 50k menservants. Expanded tax in 1785 to females but rescinded and remained on men at least nominally until the 1930’s. (p. 98)</li>
<li>In 1600’s employment became more lower class, with fewer gentlepeople serving to learn. </li>
<li>Estimated 14-20k African slaves in London by 1770, using 1790 known numbers. </li>
</ol>
<p>Also, not that it matters for this discussion, but the answer Jesus gave relates to the story of Ruth because she was a Moabite, not an Israelite, and the Moabites are specifically listed as the enemy. Through her behavior honoring her mother-in-law Naomi - hard to imagine, right? - she was deemed worthy of being treated as an Israelite. The law otherwise would not apply to her. That was not only a basis for conversion but raised the question of who belongs to whom on earth and in the eyes of God.</p>
<p>OK–fascinating info and thanks so much Lergnom and samuck and everyone with such informative posts. </p>
<p>I, too, enjoyed last night’s ep and was pleased to see Mary returned to her former sweet(er) self with Matthew. Of course, the death of someone close brings each of us a renewed sense of appreciation for what we have. Good show. Also thought the Robert/Cora friction was fascinating as it roused the serious concern of the Dowager and Mary, to name two, and even got the doctor to give up his role as smarter-than-thou to bring detente.</p>
<p>What was really clever, I thought, was that while Cora was pooh-poohing Robert, she and the gels went to lunch at Isobel’s. I could imagine that had she been on good terms with her husband, she might not have disobeyed his wish that they remove themselves from Ethyl’s disgraceful shadow. Had Cora obeyed, surely the daughters would have as well. But this rift seemed so nicely symbolic of how even the most devoted moms/wives of that time were beginning to lift their eyes and see their man was apt to make poor judgments and it was time to think for oneself. </p>
<p>Very satisfying show, with Thomas getting deeper in trouble (oho!), and what do you think of Daisy’s new offer? If her FIL intends to give her his farm, she could be quite a catch. And that new footman Jimmy actually seems to prefer Daisy to the flirty new girl. Anyone else catch this? Or is it just wishful thinking on my part.</p>
<p>"“high church” Anglican services are nearly indistinguishable from the Roman mass."</p>
<p>True, but this is far more true today than it was in 1920 (pre-Vatican-II). The service being in English was a pretty big difference. At that time, Catholic masses were still conducted with the priests’ backs to the congregation. I don’t know if that was true of Anglican worship.</p>
<p>It was a very satisfying show, Madbean, (and sorry to get so far afield). I think you might be right about Jimmy and Daisy. Like Mrs. Patmore said, “The trouble with you lot is you’re all in love with the wrong people!” And I think the relationship between Daisy and her father in law is so sweet!</p>
<p>Those statistics about the numbers of people in service and also the number of British war dead and injured are very interesting and so pertinent to understanding Downton. There really wouldn’t be so many marriage candidates left for the unmarried women on the show. </p>
<p>I do think that the Crawley women and also Mrs. Hughes and Mrs. Patmore would not be so accepting of Ethel because of her past. I think this is a more modern way of looking at things, that people can reform and lead better lives. In reality I think almost everyone would have attitudes like Mr. Carson.</p>
<p>And here’s something I read on another Downton discussion: What happened to Mr. Bates’s limp? When he has been walking around the prison yard for exercise time, he no longer limps.</p>
<p>Thanks for the information, Lergnom! I have really enjoyed the last two episodes. This seems to be a more sensitive side of Downton on air, and it’s showing well. More plot, more sensitivity, more Maggie Smith appearing sharp and intelligent, and fewer scenes ending with quick fades to the theme music.</p>
<p>Great discussion today! Bookiemom, I do agree that Ethel’s almost complete rehabilitation over the course of one episode is pretty far-fetched. Apparently the writers just couldn’t resist tweaking Lord G.and Carson with that one. All the women get a chance to stand up to “their” men. Of course it helps that Cora would have refused to leave a burning house had Robert suggested it at that particular time. </p>
<p>I am starting to feel terribly sorry for Thomas. He’s very sympathetic right now, the way he grieves for Sybil, and O’Brien is going to make sure he’s as humiliated as it’s possible to be via Jimmy. On top of that, he’s going to be demoted. Really, I’m dreading it!</p>
<p>Will Bates start limping again when he gets back to Downton?</p>