I am just so bored with the "Barrow goes behind everyone's back and spreads lies and everyone is so stupid and gullible that they buy it" storyline. Wasn't that done to death? Its like watching the worst of the daytime soaps. I almost couldn't make it through the opener because of it. The rest I love, but he could do me in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please don't flame as this could be part of the plot. Cora's maiden name was Levinson, often a Jewish name. Even though she and the daughters now seem to be Church of England, wouldn't she and the daughters be ethnically Jewish? My fear is that Edith's publisher and future citizen of Germany will be caught up in Nazism and dump Edith if they do marry. Not trying to spot the plot, but there is something off about the publisher

Julian Fellowes has said he doesn't want the show to go much into the 30s primarily because he doesn't want to have to deal with the advent of nazism and the English upperclass fascination with it. Makes sense to me. It would be extremely bad for the show if Lord G had nazi sympathizers to the house. But to make them all aghast would be historically inaccurate.

Yes I heard that same interview, but the actors have signed 3 year deals. Are they going to languish in depression era England? You know Lord Grantham will try to lose the Abbey again in bad investments. That's been done 3 times. I think it would be great to show England's fascination with Nazism because it is one of those little acknowledged history notes

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm annoyed by how easily Lord and Lady Grantham believed that Anna was f'ing with the new lady's maid. You would think that after her many years with them, they would be familiar enough with her character to know that it is something that she wouldn't do. They are so naive and snobby.

I know. It's like she takes stupid pills every other day.

It makes sense that she would be that way though. She most likely had only a very rudimentary education by modern standards (a little literature and history, art and music, but no math or science). Critical thinking would not have been emphasized Plus a lot of UMC/UC women purposely cultivated a childish dependence on their men folk.

Remember that Cora was also educated in the States and that Her mother was a bit outrageous

Anonymous wrote:Please don't flame as this could be part of the plot. Cora's maiden name was Levinson, often a Jewish name. Even though she and the daughters now seem to be Church of England, wouldn't she and the daughters be ethnically Jewish? My fear is that Edith's publisher and future citizen of Germany will be caught up in Nazism and dump Edith if they do marry. Not trying to spot the plot, but there is something off about the publisher

Julian Fellowes has said he doesn't want the show to go much into the 30s primarily because he doesn't want to have to deal with the advent of nazism and the English upperclass fascination with it. Makes sense to me. It would be extremely bad for the show if Lord G had nazi sympathizers to the house. But to make them all aghast would be historically inaccurate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

FYI, both Diana and Nancy were Nazis.

No, Nancy Mitford was an opponent of Fascism whose novel Wigs on the Green satirized Mosley's Blackshirts. You may be thinking of Unity, who actually did go to Germany, and shot herself when war was declared. She survived, but with a serious brain injury.

15:30 is correct Nancy and Diana were not Nazis. Unity was the one enamored of Hitler and shot (unsuccessfully) part of her head off in an attempt to commit suicide when she realized he was going after England. Read "The Mitford Girls".

Diana was not a Nazi but she wasn't exactly unsympathetic to their cause. She refused to apologize for her associations with the nazis and Hitler all her life. And all of the Mitfords, including Nancy and her parents, were anti Semitic. Like much of the English upper class at the time actually. Diana doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to her political associations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm annoyed by how easily Lord and Lady Grantham believed that Anna was f'ing with the new lady's maid. You would think that after her many years with them, they would be familiar enough with her character to know that it is something that she wouldn't do. They are so naive and snobby.

I know. It's like she takes stupid pills every other day.

It makes sense that she would be that way though. She most likely had only a very rudimentary education by modern standards (a little literature and history, art and music, but no math or science). Critical thinking would not have been emphasized Plus a lot of UMC/UC women purposely cultivated a childish dependence on their men folk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

FYI, both Diana and Nancy were Nazis.

No, Nancy Mitford was an opponent of Fascism whose novel Wigs on the Green satirized Mosley's Blackshirts. You may be thinking of Unity, who actually did go to Germany, and shot herself when war was declared. She survived, but with a serious brain injury.

15:30 is correct Nancy and Diana were not Nazis. Unity was the one enamored of Hitler and shot (unsuccessfully) part of her head off in an attempt to commit suicide when she realized he was going after England. Read "The Mitford Girls".

Anonymous wrote:I stopped watching about 15 minutes in. I think the show should have stopped running a season or two ago.

First of all, I just couldn't get into, "OMG, Lady Grantham will have no one to dress her, the horror!!!" But whatever, perhaps that was a crisis in 1920's upper class England.

But beyond that, there simply would not have been the interaction or personal relationships between the help and the nobility in that time period in England.

And for PPs who will say "but those people worked in their homes for X years, of course, they got to know them," you don't know anything about British upper class culture then or now.

So, as a period piece, it fails on so many levels.

There's very little character development. I mean, most of the characters are pretty much the same with the same problems as they were first season. Even the estate has the same problem: Who will run it? It's like there's no real story arc, just kind of an eternal return to the same themes.

I don't know if I'll continue with it. I think it should have been just a 1 or 2 season show.

Flame away!

I agree with you that the plot lines fell flat and that they are re-hashing dreary story lines like who will run Downton, but I do disagree with your characterization of relationships between servants and masters, e.g., here's the autobiography of the lady's maid to Lady Astor:
http://www.amazon.com/Rose-Life-Service-Lady-Astor/dp/0143120867

Most probably weren't chummy-chummy relationships, but at the same time, the writers of DA need to be more consistent. Last season, Lord Grantham is going out of his way to protect Thomas last season when it comes out that he's gay--which would probably NOT have happened at the time. Then this season, Lady Grantham is ready to believe that a woman who helped her move a dead body in season 1 to protect the honor of her daughter would have purposely ruined some clothing out of jealousy of her new maid. REALLY?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, you're right. It was Unity. Too many sisters; too many Nazis in one family to keep track of.

There are a lot of sisters, so let's not forget Jessica, who was a socialist, maybe a communist.

Unity and Diana were Nazis, and the mother too. The other five seemed fine.

I read on Wikipedia that Jessica and Unity shared a room while growing up and they draw a line in the middle of the room - Jessica had communist decor on her walls, while her sister had the swastika symbol on hers.

Family reunions must have been fun.

What's with the Moseley obsession? Such a boring character with way too much airtime.

Don't like Rose either.

Love what they're doing with Edith.

Anonymous wrote:I stopped watching about 15 minutes in. I think the show should have stopped running a season or two ago.

First of all, I just couldn't get into, "OMG, Lady Grantham will have no one to dress her, the horror!!!" But whatever, perhaps that was a crisis in 1920's upper class England.

But beyond that, there simply would not have been the interaction or personal relationships between the help and the nobility in that time period in England.

And for PPs who will say "but those people worked in their homes for X years, of course, they got to know them," you don't know anything about British upper class culture then or now.

So, as a period piece, it fails on so many levels.

There's very little character development. I mean, most of the characters are pretty much the same with the same problems as they were first season. Even the estate has the same problem: Who will run it? It's like there's no real story arc, just kind of an eternal return to the same themes.

I don't know if I'll continue with it. I think it should have been just a 1 or 2 season show.

Flame away!

No flaming. I still find the show entertaining but agree with you on many points. In a way, DA is a victim of it's own success. I think part of the issue is that Julian Fellowes' strength is really more of a screen/miniseries writer- as someone else mentioned, it was never really thought that DA would go beyond a season. And then poof, everyone loved it, and it was renewed. He tends to write himself in a box and rely on "letters from the grave" to resolve the problem too much.

I watched seasons 1-3 on Netflix over a course of a month last spring and watching them in such quick succession was interesting- season 1 was like candy, when one finished I wanted to go straight to the next. I know some people thought season 2 was too melodramatic and all over the place but I devoured that too. Season 3 took me longer to get through- partly because I knew the deaths were coming but some of the subplots just got so tiresome (Bates in jail, that ex-maid turned prostitute who's name I can't remember now, etc.). It was disappointing after the first 2 seasons were so good.

That said, I still like it enough to continue watching it. I enjoyed the premiere enough, even with the -again- silly subplots.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, you're right. It was Unity. Too many sisters; too many Nazis in one family to keep track of.

There are a lot of sisters, so let's not forget Jessica, who was a socialist, maybe a communist.

Unity and Diana were Nazis, and the mother too. The other five seemed fine.

I read on Wikipedia that Jessica and Unity shared a room while growing up and they draw a line in the middle of the room - Jessica had communist decor on her walls, while her sister had the swastika symbol on hers.

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, you're right. It was Unity. Too many sisters; too many Nazis in one family to keep track of.

There are a lot of sisters, so let's not forget Jessica, who was a socialist, maybe a communist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

FYI, both Diana and Nancy were Nazis.

No, Nancy Mitford was an opponent of Fascism whose novel Wigs on the Green satirized Mosley's Blackshirts. You may be thinking of Unity, who actually did go to Germany, and shot herself when war was declared. She survived, but with a serious brain injury.

Yes, you're right. It was Unity. Too many sisters; too many Nazis in one family to keep track of.

Anonymous wrote:

FYI, both Diana and Nancy were Nazis.

No, Nancy Mitford was an opponent of Fascism whose novel Wigs on the Green satirized Mosley's Blackshirts. You may be thinking of Unity, who actually did go to Germany, and shot herself when war was declared. She survived, but with a serious brain injury.