Downton Abbey Series Five Thread

15657596162156

Comments

  • haphashhaphash Posts: 21,448
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Wonder what Charles blake meant when he said that she had an easy reason?

    I do wish Downton was on more days a week than just one!!

    I was puzzled about that too. Does anyone know the answer to this question?

    I just cannot understand why men would fall for Mary, I can't stand her. How can she have no notion of what her sister has been through when they live in the same house?
  • ZipgoesamillionZipgoesamillion Posts: 1,215
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    haphash wrote: »
    I was puzzled about that too. Does anyone know the answer to this question?

    I just cannot understand why men would fall for Mary, I can't stand her. How can she have no notion of what her sister has been through when they live in the same house?

    It is rather a large house so quite easy to avoid each other apart from dinner when they never tend to sit next to one another but at opposite ends of the table.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 300
    Forum Member
    Ep 6 PI (ignore the cast list blah blah blah):

    http://www.itv.com/presscentre/ep6week44/downton-abbey-0

    Looks like Cora and Simon Bricker will do something in Episode #5 that she would regret later, akin to Robert/Jane sharing a kiss back in S2 :(

    Poor Edith. I assume she's finally learning about Gregson's demise. I hope her "drastic measures" don't involved her kidnapping Marigold :(

    WTH is Baxter involved in Green's investigation? Will she be revealed as Anna's mother or secret sister or something?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 300
    Forum Member
    Of course Bunting is an atrocious dinner guest. However, by the standards of his class and time he is not being a gracious host. Fellowes is a devotee of old-fashioned manners. He has said that no matter how you are feeling, you don't take it out on the people around you. And you try to deflect unpleasant or rude behavior by your dinner companions, or at least ignore them as much as possible.

    The truth is he and Violet (and Mary) ignore those rules quite a bit. He thinks himself a proper gentleman but he does not always act like one.

    Well, I don't know about you, but IMO given Bunting's behavior, esp with her frankly telling him that he would've known the names of his servants (like Daisy) (which is probably true in real life, but this is Downton's world), let alone approving her taking lessons in grammar and math, I think even the most gracious of all hosts would've be pissed with that kind of insult to him/her.

    Forget about your politics, there are rules one needs to follow when you got invited into someone's house for dinner. One of them is never insult the host, even if you're strongly disagree with their political views, ideology, mannerisms, etc.

    To her credit, the Dowager did try to restrain Robert after he called Mrs. Patmore and Daisy to the dining room, telling him "be careful, this might be something you'll regret later."

    Plus, with a temper like Robert has, you'll know that he's going to burst sooner or later, esp. when confronted with a rude guest like Bunting. I'm surprised that he held his own in the past dinners she attended and only burst now. I expected him to ban her from Downton right after she attended her first dinner.
  • MARTYM8MARTYM8 Posts: 44,710
    Forum Member
    That ghastly troublemaker provocative irritant Bunting should be literally kick out head first.

    The character & the actress is so bloody unlikeable that whoever cast her should be shot.

    But that's the point of the character - she is a plot device for Tom, Daisy and Robert. You are not meant to like her.
  • Gill PGill P Posts: 21,571
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I have just read tweets from Elizabeth McGovern and Julian Ovenden to say that they (and other cast members) are releasing a Christmas album!

    Christmas Album
  • kat180kat180 Posts: 911
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Well as much as I don't like the character, I have to say I don't think Bunting was rude at the first dinner (towards Robert - though before dinner she was snide to another guest). The only person who was rude at the table was Robert. She was discussing the war with some other diners, no issues, he overheard and didn't agree with her and flat out told her she was wrong and basically said she had no right to an opinion. Isobel and Tom tired to intervene and say that she actually had some good points but Robert being Robert wasn't interested in listening.

    Then of course at the dinner in the latest episode they were just goading one another. However rude she was, Bunting was right which is why Robert lost it. He didn't know Daisy's name.
  • LadyOfShalottLadyOfShalott Posts: 3,017
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    kat180 wrote: »
    Well as much as I don't like the character, I have to say I don't think Bunting was rude at the first dinner (towards Robert - though before dinner she was snide to another guest). The only person who was rude at the table was Robert. She was discussing the war with some other diners, no issues, he overheard and didn't agree with her and flat out told her she was wrong and basically said she had no right to an opinion. Isobel and Tom tired to intervene and say that she actually had some good points but Robert being Robert wasn't interested in listening.

    Then of course at the dinner in the latest episode they were just goading one another. However rude she was, Bunting was right which is why Robert lost it. He didn't know Daisy's name.
    Good point about the fact Robert broke into the conversation at the first dinner party.

    Robert doesn't come out at all well out of the whole Bunting business. It's all very well apologising to Tom after the fact (and only at Mary's instigation) but he needs to both respect Tom's right to bring a friend into his own home and learn to be polite to people he doesn't like. Cora has spent a lifetime sitting next to boring and no doubt at times irritating men at dinner - she really does have better manners than all the Crawleys, especially her husband.

    The scene was very well done, I have to say, with Violet recognising the error of her son's ways but unable to stop him.
  • LadyOfShalottLadyOfShalott Posts: 3,017
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I've realised that Ralph Kerr, the man Mabel Lane-Fox didn't want to keep waiting, was a real person. He was a naval hero and served at the Battle of Jutland - now isn't that how Charles Blake and Swiss Tony first knew one another?

    Deliberate? Could have been other men-about-town for Mabel to meet.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 550
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Interesting!

    Now Radiotimes added the synopsis for Episode 6, but no cast list?!!

    I don't think that has ever happened before?

    Is it just a mistake? Will they correct it? What could be the reason??

    I would think the only reason to withhold the cast list from us would be the return of Michael Gregson, but since Edith gets "terrible news", I can't believe that would be the reason?

    Well, let's wait until tomorrow. Maybe they are going to post the cast list later.
  • ZipgoesamillionZipgoesamillion Posts: 1,215
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I've realised that Ralph Kerr, the man Mabel Lane-Fox didn't want to keep waiting, was a real person. He was a naval hero and served at the Battle of Jutland - now isn't that how Charles Blake and Swiss Tony first knew one another?

    Deliberate? Could have been other men-about-town for Mabel to meet.

    Yes that is how Tony and Charles knew each other serving with Jellicoe at Jutland. Didn't know about Ralph Kerr though, that's a good spot. How many other eligible single men in their 30's who survived WW1 are there? I know they were Naval officers so presumably the toll was not so heavy comparatively speaking, as for the army.

    According to the Radio Times hard copy Tony isn't in this week's episode but Charles and Mabel are.
  • ZipgoesamillionZipgoesamillion Posts: 1,215
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Andorra wrote: »
    Interesting!

    Now Radiotimes added the synopsis for Episode 6, but no cast list?!!

    I don't think that has ever happened before?

    Is it just a mistake? Will they correct it? What could be the reason??

    I would think the only reason to withhold the cast list from us would be the return of Michael Gregson, but since Edith gets "terrible news", I can't believe that would be the reason?

    Well, let's wait until tomorrow. Maybe they are going to post the cast list later.

    I looked through the Radio Times hard copy this morning and no mention of Michael Gregson.
    Bricker is apparently discovered by Robert in their bedroom with Cora (don't think anything has really happened) on his return from a regimental dinner and he punches him.

    Violet is on the case re Marigold. Mary is in London with Charles whose doing something to help her, presumably get rid of Tony.
  • LadyOfShalottLadyOfShalott Posts: 3,017
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes that is how Tony and Charles knew each other serving with Jellicoe at Jutland. Didn't know about Ralph Kerr though, that's a good spot. How many other eligible single men in their 30's who survived WW1 are there? I know they were Naval officers so presumably the toll was not so heavy comparatively speaking, as for the army.

    According to the Radio Times hard copy Tony isn't in this week's episode but Charles and Mabel are.

    I just looked up Ralph Kerr - not really a good spot at all! I hate to cite Wikipedia (:o) but apparently he was married in 1920. Doesn't mean he couldn't be out and about with Mabel but why choose the name of a real married man unless it's significant....
    I looked through the Radio Times hard copy this morning and no mention of Michael Gregson.
    The new RT has details for ep5. The one on sale next Tuesday will have ep6 info.

    Incidentally we're nearly at the time of year when the TV schedules are confirmed a day earlier each week so the last few episodes' PI should be around a little earlier than normal.
  • ScoutletScoutlet Posts: 517
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    kat180 wrote: »
    Well as much as I don't like the character, I have to say I don't think Bunting was rude at the first dinner (towards Robert - though before dinner she was snide to another guest). The only person who was rude at the table was Robert. She was discussing the war with some other diners, no issues, he overheard and didn't agree with her and flat out told her she was wrong and basically said she had no right to an opinion. Isobel and Tom tired to intervene and say that she actually had some good points but Robert being Robert wasn't interested in listening.

    Then of course at the dinner in the latest episode they were just goading one another. However rude she was, Bunting was right which is why Robert lost it. He didn't know Daisy's name.



    No, she was not rude at the first dinner. It was perhaps insensitive to say that the war was a mistake while sitting at the table with veterans, but let's face it, a lot of people agreed with her. And she is entitled to her opinion even if it might be offensive to Robert's rather over-sensitive ears. To bark at her to STFU was uncalled for. No one else seemed bothered by it. Not to mention his treatment of Tom, who lives there and was not being rude at all.

    This dinner she DID end up personally insulting him and there is no defense for that, but again, Robert did not react as he should have. And the fact is he reacted poorly to her from the start, before he had even spoken to her. He was spoiling for a fight as much as she was. He started the fight at the first dinner, IMO.

    And the fact that he has a temper and was "bound to explode" at some point? That doesn't make it OK. He's a grown-ass man and should learn to control his temper. He didn't control it at the first dinner even when barely provoked. She was inexcusably rude this time but he shares the blame for the way the whole dynamic built up to the explosive point. Two wrongs don't make a right.
  • LadyOfShalottLadyOfShalott Posts: 3,017
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Here's Sophie McShera's interview from This Morning which includes a short scene from Sunday's episode 5:

    http://www.itv.com/thismorning/showbiz

    (Scroll past the soap stuff)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25
    Forum Member
    washboard wrote: »
    That's an interesting interpretation of Gillingham's reaction. I'd quite like it to be true, because it would make him more nuanced as a character.

    Unfortunately, I don't get the feeling that Gillingham was having an 'odi et amo' moment. The whole scene came across as him simply being angry that his plans were being thwarted - not that he was losing the woman he loves.

    I think we have to put gillingham's behaviour in the right context. mary refused him without giving him any strong reason, just a vague "something has changed".
    he came up with a lot of insecurities (after all they spent an entire week together) such as "am I a bad lover?" and of course his reaction couldn't be neither urbane nor cold - indeed he didn't walk away.
    for these reasons I wouldn't say it was just "Threats, anger and bullying", to cite LadyofShalott

    washboard wrote: »
    But, I wholeheartedly agree with your final sentence!
    yeah, we wll see next episodes :)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25
    Forum Member
    Welsh-lad wrote: »
    . Capital letters are a prerequisite of intelligent written discourse so that could be a starting point.....

    Oh God, condescension meter just went off the scale.

    oh, no she just felt dazzled by latin... ;)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25
    Forum Member
    Threats, anger and bullying. I don't think anyone can explain it. Any decent man would of course not yearn for a woman who plainly states she does not want him as the father of her children.

    but you are confounding the two levels of the storyline: what we know and what characters know. mary never told gillingham she doesn't want him as the father of her children. we know that because she told blake.
    Disappointment and mild disgust - that's how Mary sees Gillingham.

    well, that's not really correct. she told blake she will always be fond of gillingham

    I've read some Catullo in Italy but only in the translation. If you're trying to dazzle with Latin, try again. Capital letters are a prerequisite of intelligent written discourse so that could be a starting point.....

    does a capital letter make any difference; catullo or Catullo is always the same, i may understand that Rose may not be a rose... oh my my, do you prefer shakespeare?
  • jerseyporterjerseyporter Posts: 2,332
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    w_x wrote: »
    does a capital letter make any difference; catullo or Catullo is always the same, i may understand that Rose may not be a rose... oh my my, do you prefer shakespeare?

    Yes, I'm afraid it does. It's not pedantry, or 'grammar Nazi-ism', it's just plain correct English, and should be used in any situation where written language is used.

    I make no apologies for that - I'm an English teacher, correct usage of our beautiful language is something to be celebrated unashamedly, not pushed to one side in the name of 'ease' or with people saying it 'doesn't matter/doesn't make a difference' because they can't be bothered to use it. Nor is it an 'opt-in' depending on the situation (in other words, whether you're writing a post on a forum, or a formal letter, the same rules apply and need to be used).

    So yes, someone's name should always have a capital letter (Catullo) because it's a proper noun. The difference being that not using one, as you suggest, means it's no one's name at all. That's a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion. In our language now we have a rule that governs the use of capital letters for names, places, months, days etc. Maybe you consider that inconvenient, but it's a fact nonetheless. :)

    ETA - And yes, I'm aware my user name is incorrect and lacks a capital letter at the beginning of it, but I didn't set it up, someone else did as a favour to me, but now I can't change it! :cry::(
  • ZipgoesamillionZipgoesamillion Posts: 1,215
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Originally Posted by LadyOfShalott
    Threats, anger and bullying. I don't think anyone can explain it. Any decent man would of course not yearn for a woman who plainly states she does not want him as the father of her children.
    w_x wrote: »
    but you are confounding the two levels of the storyline: what we know and what characters know. mary never told gillingham she doesn't want him as the father of her children. we know that because she told blake.

    Originally Posted by LadyOfShalott
    Disappointment and mild disgust - that's how Mary sees Gillingham.
    well, that's not really correct. she told blake she will always be fond of gillingham


    What we do know is Mary told Blake that she didn't want Tony as the father of her children but he could be their godfather and she was fond of him. This was before she met with Tony. He wouldn't take no for an answer and became verbally aggressive. After that conversation she may well have changed her mind about being fond of Tony and wanting him as a godfather to her future children. We shall have to see how this plays out.
  • jtnorthjtnorth Posts: 5,081
    Forum Member
    Robert v Bunting - Robert is always wrong. Pretty much all last series you could know what would happen by what Robert was against. I think they made it clear that he does care how his servants are doing with the scene with Mrs Patmore, but it was clear from everything said by the other characters at the meal that he was wrong and they were trying to stop him. And it's part of the story of Cora becoming annoyed with Robert to the point where she might stray.

    And it was also clear from Daisy's speech and the scene about the letter that the show are presenting Bunting's teaching as a 100% good thing.

    But I don't think that's the point of the scene. The important thing is how it affects Tom. Bunting is Tom's possible love interest. He told her he loves them. She didn't let that stop her. I didn't get the impression she made any effort to hold back. We're building I think to a story of 'Will Tom stay or go?' The point of the scene to me was Tom stuck in the middle. She wants to get Tom away from the family, and so she attacks their weak spot for Tom - Robert's politics and class - even when he's asked her not to. And I dislike her for that. It's arrogant because it implies she's knows what is best for Tom better than he does himself.

    Mary v Gillingham - I have no doubt we're going to see Gillingham made a villain from now on. I don't much like him or Blake. But imo Mary was very unkind. First, she shouldn't have discussed it with Blake before she told Gillingham - that was horrible. And the way she told him was uncaring. In previous series I've been able to see the emotions beneath the cool exterior with Mary, but this series I am not getting that so much and often find her odd. It's not that I don't like her as a character so much as I think her character is having to do what the plot needs her to do rather than what she'd really do.

    If I could I would end the story of Green's death as quickly as possible.

    Despite that it was a great episode. Lovely amazing proposal. Great scene with Rose and her father. I think Baxter is great and Moseley. And they might even make me feel a bit sorry for Thomas, which I didn't think they could do any more.
  • kat180kat180 Posts: 911
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I don't know that Mary was uncaring in what she said to Gillingham - more that she felt very awkward and didn't really know what to say to him. It was always going to be a difficult conversation. At the heart of it she knows she doesn't love him and having spent quality time with him, finds him dull - but that's hard to say to someone, especially if you do care for them. Whether she still does/will continue to do so remains to be seen.

    Also I think she was quite shocked by his reaction, she expected him to be upset but not to do a complete 180 on her. When he tells her they'll deal with it together and orders her to leave with him she is so thrown, she simply follows him.
  • HotgossipHotgossip Posts: 22,385
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Not watching it this time around. Thought last series was boring.
  • ZipgoesamillionZipgoesamillion Posts: 1,215
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Hotgossip wrote: »
    Not watching it this time around. Thought last series was boring.

    Well that's your loss, as you're missing a pretty good series.
  • Miss HavershamMiss Haversham Posts: 877
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    My twopennuth!

    I hate Miss Bunting, she is rude and has no grace nor good manners, I cannot stand the fact that she insists on spouting her views with no consideration as to where she is, as an invited guest she should at least display some manners instead she is mouthing off at any opportunity as if her opinion is far more important that the feelings of those on the receiving end of said opinions.

    Secondly, did anybody else pick up on the fact that Charles may have an inkling of what happened between Mary and Swiss Tony? I must re watch, but it was something he said coupled with a side eye type of look right at the very end of the scene, maybe Swiss Tony has not been a discrete as he should have been.

    Lastly, it was very telling that after Mary had attempted to break off the 'engagement' and they were leaving, there was an obvious reluctance on Mary's part to accompany him, he seemed to deliberately wait for her, as if to say 'come along Mary' with her slight hesitation ( I believe whilst she pondered not actually leaving the park with him) her then deciding that she is perhaps too well bed to cause a scene, so left with him anyway!

    I too have become a fan of Lord Merton and do hope that Isobel at least seriously considers his proposal with no interference from the Doctor
Sign In or Register to comment.