Regarding Matthew's will or rather lack of a will. This seem rather strange not only because he was a solicitor but he also served in WW1 and, as an officer would have, I would have thought, made a will. Of course his circumstances changed and he married Mary. I'm not a lawyer but I would have thought that once a will was made it remained live, so to speak, until a new will was signed and witnessed. Unless it was lost or misplaced. Not that this would help Mary or the estate, as he may have left it all to someone else, possibly Isobel or even Lavina:eek:
I believe there was a change in law in 1922 allowing wives to inherit from their husbands. It's possible I suppose (and we haven't seen ep.1 yet) that Matthew drew up a new will with the change in law in mind but died before it became law. I don't know if that was possible. Anyway it there's anything to this line of thinking I'm sure it will soon become apparent.
How many doctors smoke or are very overweight? How many accountants go bankrupt? I'm sure there are plenty of solicitors who don't have wills themselves!
The idea of having a will as a matter of course seems a fairly recent one. In medieval times (when we think life hung by a thread and people were much more aware of their mortality) wealthy men only tended to make wills when they especially knew they were in peril, such as before going to war.
That would have applied to Matthew but in 1914 he had nothing to leave in a will. Dr Crawley's property (whatever he had) would likely have gone to Isobel and Matthew only became man of property with the Swire inheritance.
National Television Award long list nominations are in. Dockery, Smith, Bonneville and Carter are nominated in drama performance. Interestingly, it's the first time Maggie Smith has been nominated.
Not that it's of any significance in comparison to the contents of her bulging trophy cabinet ( ) but for my 2p Maggie Smith can never have enough awards. The image that still defines the third series for me is Violet walking away from Carson after Sybil dies.
Not that it's of any significance in comparison to the contents of her bulging trophy cabinet ( ) but for my 2p Maggie Smith can never have enough awards. The image that still defines the third series for me is Violet walking away from Carson after Sybil dies.
Absolutely. She's known for the one-liners but the characters is so much more rounded than that. That was an amazing moment from writer, director and actress.
PS When they say "long list" about the NTAs, the really do mean long list,don't they? :eek::eek:
I love the pictures of Tom with Sybbie and Mary with George. And Rose is looking so pretty with her new hairstyle. Much better than that wig they gave her in season 3.
National Television Award long list nominations are in. Dockery, Smith, Bonneville and Carter are nominated in drama performance. Interestingly, it's the first time Maggie Smith has been nominated.
Not that it's of any significance in comparison to the contents of her bulging trophy cabinet ( ) but for my 2p Maggie Smith can never have enough awards. The image that still defines the third series for me is Violet walking away from Carson after Sybil dies.
And again Jim Carter is nominated but neither are Allen Leech nor Rob James Collier. I don't understand it! What did Carson have to do in season 3? Nothing outstanding. But Allen Leech and Rob James Collier both were fabulous!
And again Jim Carter is nominated but neither are Allen Leech nor Rob James Collier. I don't understand it! What did Carson have to do in season 3? Nothing outstanding. But Allen Leech and Rob James Collier both were fabulous!
While he doesn't have the explosive drama, Jim Carter always delivers a superb, nuanced performance but I agree that Allen Leech and Rob James-Collier were outstanding in series 3.
Anyway, there are only a handful of serious candidates in that list. Irons and Ferguson from The White Queen?:eek::eek::eek:
Here's another Meridian News report on the new Downton series:
And absolutely loads of articles in the TV magazines and pretty much every other weekly magazine. All almost saying the same things and using the same pics, apart from Radio Times which did a very smart cover shoot.
Tell you what, I won't worry about which telly mag. you buy, if you don't worry about mine.
How rude.
I just thought it was an odd thing to moan about. You bought it TWICE when you didn't like the content. I wouldn't waste my money on something I didn't like but to each his own...
I just thought it was an odd thing to moan about. You bought it TWICE when you didn't like the content. I wouldn't waste my money on something I didn't like but to each his own...
I love DS.
You of course don't think your post to me to which I responded was rude.
'cos that one doesn't count eh?
If you are a fan it is always good otherwise why keep watching.
I'll record it and give it a go, but I've always found later series of most dramas aren't always as good as the originals. An element of "cost saving" sometimes comes in, so that they can, "really make some money."
You of course don't think your post to me to which I responded was rude.
'cos that one doesn't count eh?
Bless!
I too liked DS and was disappointed he wanted out, as it's spoilt the storyline I would have liked. However, we are where we are and I can see with him leaving, so abruptly LOL, the opportunity arose for a different story or stories for S4. Actually the more I think about it by leaving he has kept the whole thing bubbling for the last 9 months so all this news must have been good publicity, as far as Carnival are concerned.
I'm also a Mary fan, I know a number of you aren't, but I think without Matthew/DS it will give Mary/MD a chance to shine, even though she will be grief-stricken to begin with. I think MD is very good at playing the grief/emotional side of things and I'm looking forward to some of her cutting remarks.
Much of what has been written in the tv mags newpapers etc is repetitive. They all attended the same press screening and interviews and of course, no one wants to give anything away about future episodes.
I'm also a Mary fan, I know a number of you aren't, but I think without Matthew/DS it will give Mary/MD a chance to shine, even though she will be grief-stricken to begin with. I think MD is very good at playing the grief/emotional side of things and I'm looking forward to some of her cutting remarks.
I think Mary's storyline will be very interesting and it will rejuvenate the character. Marital happiness is difficult in a serial like this because it limits the dramatic opportunities - now Mary's storyline can go in any direction.
Much of what has been written in the tv mags newpapers etc is repetitive. They all attended the same press screening and interviews and of course, no one wants to give anything away about future episodes.
Almost all only refers to plotlines the first couple of episodes plus the introduction of some new characters later on. When you think of the expectation of press from August - really, it's been quite long enough as it is!
Anyway, here's another clutch of mini interviews and couple of comments on Baxter who doesn't arrive for a while:
Have I missed something Bates in prison again or are you speculating?
I'm really looking forward to Michelle delivering these cutting remarks. She does it so deftly.
Regarding Matthew's will or rather lack of a will. This seem rather strange not only because he was a solicitor but he also served in WW1 and, as an officer would have, I would have thought, made a will. Of course his circumstances changed and he married Mary. I'm not a lawyer but I would have thought that once a will was made it remained live, so to speak, until a new will was signed and witnessed. Unless it was lost or misplaced. Not that this would help Mary or the estate, as he may have left it all to someone else, possibly Isobel or even Lavina:eek:
I believe there was a change in law in 1922 allowing wives to inherit from their husbands. It's possible I suppose (and we haven't seen ep.1 yet) that Matthew drew up a new will with the change in law in mind but died before it became law. I don't know if that was possible. Anyway it there's anything to this line of thinking I'm sure it will soon become apparent.
In modern law, wills become invalid upon marriage (the assumption being your beneficiaries have changed)
If you die intestate today, your partner gets your personal d possessions, the first £250k of the estate and a "life interest" in half the remainder. This means you can get the interest on it, etc. but not spend it. Any transfer to the surviving spouse is tax free.
The rest (included your life interest, upon your death) is divided between any children.
I know it wasn't rude. It was helpful. But Daily Mail readers spend their lives looking for something to be offended over. Can spot 'em a mile off.
What a shame.
Helpful?
What a silly excuse and an even sillier assumption, but as I said, that's DS.
My point, (I actually had one, when conversely....) was that this show has been hyped up to the max, everywhere.
I just hope it lives up to expectations and a lot of people aren't disappointed, including myself.
In modern law, wills become invalid upon marriage (the assumption being your beneficiaries have changed)
If you die intestate today, your partner gets your personal d possessions, the first £250k of the estate and a "life interest" in half the remainder. This means you can get the interest on it, etc. but not spend it. Any transfer to the surviving spouse is tax free.
The rest (included your life interest, upon your death) is divided between any children.
This came in in 1975 - so no good to poor Mary!
From what you say it doesn't look as though the law on intestacy has changed an awful lot since the 1920s apart from the first £250K. I'm posting a link to The Law of Property Act 1922 for anyone that interested, as it describes the law at that time: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/12-13/16/section/150/enacted?view=plain
From what you say it doesn't look as though the law on intestacy has changed an awful lot since the 1920s apart from the first £250K. I'm posting a link to The Law of Property Act 1922 for anyone that interested, as it describes the law at that time: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/12-13/16/section/150/enacted?view=plain
So yes poor Mary.
Ooh, well done, I was looking for that but couldn't find it
From what you say it doesn't look as though the law on intestacy has changed an awful lot since the 1920s apart from the first £250K. I'm posting a link to The Law of Property Act 1922 for anyone that interested, as it describes the law at that time: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/12-13/16/section/150/enacted?view=plain
So yes poor Mary.
I find all this very interesting. I know very little about this subject (though we were at the theatre last night and the couple behind us were arguing about a will even as the house lights went down....)
In a sense Mary's lost on Downton for a second time - first, as the eldest child she could inherit the estate because of the specific entail, and now she can't inherit her husband's share whereas her son can.
It seems George has inherited Matthew's half of Downton and is heir to Robert's remaining half, If Mary's and Matthew's child had been a daughter, would the position have been the same? Or would Robert's half go to the next heir to the title (the one Violet said might well be a chimney sweep from Solihull!)?
I think Matthew's demise has opened up a lot of interesting plot developments that bring the story back to the core issue - the future of Downton itself. Death duties, too, were such an important part of the decline of the country house which the storyline couldn't really have reflected without Dan Stevens's departure.
I know it wasn't rude. It was helpful. But Daily Mail readers spend their lives looking for something to be offended over. Can spot 'em a mile off.
What a shame.
I thought you came across as quite rude tbh.
I read that Mary will be back to her 'old spiteful self' this series. Brilliant. I thought she became very dull when she was happily married to Matthew.
Comments
No - I meant that's pretty much all she did last series. Oops.
I'm looking forward to her doing something else now.:)
Although i wouldn't be surprised to someone else in the clink - or at least spending a little time under the long arm of the law.
The idea of having a will as a matter of course seems a fairly recent one. In medieval times (when we think life hung by a thread and people were much more aware of their mortality) wealthy men only tended to make wills when they especially knew they were in peril, such as before going to war.
That would have applied to Matthew but in 1914 he had nothing to leave in a will. Dr Crawley's property (whatever he had) would likely have gone to Isobel and Matthew only became man of property with the Swire inheritance.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/a515890/national-television-awards-2014-voting-opens-the-full-longlist.html
Not that it's of any significance in comparison to the contents of her bulging trophy cabinet (
Absolutely. She's known for the one-liners but the characters is so much more rounded than that. That was an amazing moment from writer, director and actress.
PS When they say "long list" about the NTAs, the really do mean long list,don't they? :eek::eek:
She is such a cutie.
And again Jim Carter is nominated but neither are Allen Leech nor Rob James Collier. I don't understand it! What did Carson have to do in season 3? Nothing outstanding. But Allen Leech and Rob James Collier both were fabulous!
While he doesn't have the explosive drama, Jim Carter always delivers a superb, nuanced performance but I agree that Allen Leech and Rob James-Collier were outstanding in series 3.
Anyway, there are only a handful of serious candidates in that list. Irons and Ferguson from The White Queen?:eek::eek::eek:
Here's another Meridian News report on the new Downton series:
http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/story/2013-09-17/new-series-of-downton-abbey/
And another
http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/update/2013-09-17/actor-jim-carter-talks-about-his-character-in-downton/
And absolutely loads of articles in the TV magazines and pretty much every other weekly magazine. All almost saying the same things and using the same pics, apart from Radio Times which did a very smart cover shoot.
Maybe you should buy a different telly mag if you don't care for the content it prints....
Oh dear...
Lighten up.
I guess it's your favourite TV programme.
Tell you what, I won't worry about which telly mag. you buy, if you don't worry about mine.
How rude.
I just thought it was an odd thing to moan about. You bought it TWICE when you didn't like the content. I wouldn't waste my money on something I didn't like but to each his own...
If you are a fan it is always good otherwise why keep watching.
I love DS.
You of course don't think your post to me to which I responded was rude.
'cos that one doesn't count eh?
Bless!
I'll record it and give it a go, but I've always found later series of most dramas aren't always as good as the originals. An element of "cost saving" sometimes comes in, so that they can, "really make some money."
I too liked DS and was disappointed he wanted out, as it's spoilt the storyline I would have liked. However, we are where we are and I can see with him leaving, so abruptly LOL, the opportunity arose for a different story or stories for S4. Actually the more I think about it by leaving he has kept the whole thing bubbling for the last 9 months so all this news must have been good publicity, as far as Carnival are concerned.
I'm also a Mary fan, I know a number of you aren't, but I think without Matthew/DS it will give Mary/MD a chance to shine, even though she will be grief-stricken to begin with. I think MD is very good at playing the grief/emotional side of things and I'm looking forward to some of her cutting remarks.
Much of what has been written in the tv mags newpapers etc is repetitive. They all attended the same press screening and interviews and of course, no one wants to give anything away about future episodes.
I know it wasn't rude. It was helpful. But Daily Mail readers spend their lives looking for something to be offended over. Can spot 'em a mile off.
What a shame.
I think Mary's storyline will be very interesting and it will rejuvenate the character. Marital happiness is difficult in a serial like this because it limits the dramatic opportunities - now Mary's storyline can go in any direction.
Almost all only refers to plotlines the first couple of episodes plus the introduction of some new characters later on. When you think of the expectation of press from August - really, it's been quite long enough as it is!
Anyway, here's another clutch of mini interviews and couple of comments on Baxter who doesn't arrive for a while:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S6g_oPRvW4&feature=youtu.be
If you die intestate today, your partner gets your personal d possessions, the first £250k of the estate and a "life interest" in half the remainder. This means you can get the interest on it, etc. but not spend it. Any transfer to the surviving spouse is tax free.
The rest (included your life interest, upon your death) is divided between any children.
This came in in 1975 - so no good to poor Mary!
Helpful?
What a silly excuse and an even sillier assumption, but as I said, that's DS.
My point, (I actually had one, when conversely....) was that this show has been hyped up to the max, everywhere.
I just hope it lives up to expectations and a lot of people aren't disappointed, including myself.
And you were rude, as you "started it."
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/12-13/16/section/150/enacted?view=plain
Ooh, well done, I was looking for that but couldn't find it
I find all this very interesting. I know very little about this subject (though we were at the theatre last night and the couple behind us were arguing about a will even as the house lights went down....)
It seems George has inherited Matthew's half of Downton and is heir to Robert's remaining half, If Mary's and Matthew's child had been a daughter, would the position have been the same? Or would Robert's half go to the next heir to the title (the one Violet said might well be a chimney sweep from Solihull!)?
I think Matthew's demise has opened up a lot of interesting plot developments that bring the story back to the core issue - the future of Downton itself. Death duties, too, were such an important part of the decline of the country house which the storyline couldn't really have reflected without Dan Stevens's departure.
I'd say not very informative (we don't really want them to give the plot away anyway...) but here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQDLl4TUzpg
Here are some more Meridian News interviews (not sure if you can see them, tangled, as they're on the ITV website. perhaps they're on UTV's?)
http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/story/2013-09-17/new-series-of-downton-abbey/
I thought you came across as quite rude tbh.
I read that Mary will be back to her 'old spiteful self' this series. Brilliant. I thought she became very dull when she was happily married to Matthew.
Thanks LadyOfShallot really appreciate it.:)