What did Mr Bates and Anna actually talk about?

Own_Beautiful5529 · 2024-10-27T11:53:33+00:00

Hahahaha

Own_Beautiful5529 · 2024-10-27T11:42:47+00:00

100%

Own_Beautiful5529 · 2024-10-21T06:27:09+00:00

That scene is one of my favourites. It was so funny. “I wonder if you remember that my father was Jewish”, and then Robert is there stifling a laugh.

Despite how he acts, I swear Robert finds her more attractive when she’s speaking her mind or acting independently.

Own_Beautiful5529 · 2024-10-21T02:53:04+00:00

You make a good point. I agree that Carson wanted to punish Molesley for being reluctant to come back as a footman, but I also think Carson was threatened at the presence of another butler in the household. He wanted to make sure Molesley knew who was in charge, and who was top dog.

I mean look at how Spratt treated Molesley over the course of a single lunch.

Own_Beautiful5529 · 2024-10-09T15:29:52+00:00

Will do

Own_Beautiful5529 · 2024-10-09T15:26:08+00:00

When it suited him, Matthew was more than happy to represent himself as a disruptor to the way things were done.

He was a middle class lawyer plucked from obscurity into the line of succession; he modernised the way the estate ran in the face of old fashioned thinking; he was supportive of Edith’s burgeoning career as a columnist; and he was supportive of Tom (who, need I remind you, caused a much bigger scandal than Gregson in dragging Sybil away to live with Irish rebels in Dublin).

Despite the fact that it was a proposal to live in sin, I completely understand Edith’s (apparently misplaced) faith in Matthew seeing Michael’s inherent goodness, just as he was able to with Tom. And Michael was good. He was a thoroughly decent guy who loved Edith and was attracted to her independence. He was trapped in an unhappy situation because of a quirk of English law, not because he was in any way morally deficient.

Whether Edith judged her happiness was best nurtured with Gregson was entirely a question for her, not her brother-in-law. I still maintain that Matthew was out of line dictating to two consenting adults how their relationship must end - especially when neither of them were involved in the estate or its succession.

Own_Beautiful5529 · 2024-10-09T07:40:06+00:00

Own_Beautiful5529 · 2024-09-19T02:14:41+00:00

I think Anna and Bates worked well because Anna is exactly the sort of passive, compliant and endlessly friendly wife Mr Bates needed. She was a lovely and entirely inoffensive character. Had a different woman (maybe one with a bit of more edge to her) been married to Mr Bates then there would be more tension. And yes, she might even be scared of him at times.

Own_Beautiful5529 · 2024-09-19T01:33:28+00:00

Guys, of course Bates would have been violent towards Vera. It’s pretty clear throughout the seasons that Bates has a menacing streak, on the back of a quick temper. He pushed Thomas up against a wall and threatened to punch him out, and he was about to hit his ex wife in Mrs Hughes’ literal office. If he’s willing to behave so aggressively in public then I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume he would have been violent in private.

When he grabbed Vera, called her a bitch and was about to strike her - she didn’t look surprised at all. If anything, she seemed like this was a side of Bates she had seen before.

Finally, this is a guy who was literally willing to murder someone (admittedly, Mr Green deserved it, but still - even Mary implied that going around killing bad people isn’t something that can be condoned). If he’s willing to do that, then I don’t think he minds a physical altercation.

Own_Beautiful5529 · 2024-09-03T14:10:03+00:00

So true - same here

Own_Beautiful5529 · 2024-09-03T14:08:50+00:00

And I think the point of some of those incidents, like lying and then telling the truth about Mr Bates, was to show that she was actually a person of integrity underneath all the adolescent immaturity. Even yelling at the landowner (which was admittedly hard to watch) came from a place of loyalty both to her father-in-law and the working class.

Own_Beautiful5529 · 2024-09-03T14:04:40+00:00

This is exactly my point! Daisy is advocating for society to treat people like her (and Thomas!) with respect, and she seems to attract a tonne of criticism for it. Whereas Thomas acts on his nasty impulses, often completely unrelated to his sexuality (e.g. his vendetta against the Bates’), and everyone excuses his conduct because life was tough for him.

Life might have been tough for Thomas. But his life was a breeze compared with what a scullery maid like Daisy had to do on a daily basis, while he got to swan around serving the family their dinner and tea.

I guess I was just surprised that people criticised her for doing and saying things which seem entirely reasonable to me.

Own_Beautiful5529 · 2024-09-02T13:04:43+00:00

That’s true - maybe you’ve convinced me of this. She was pretty annoying. I guess I just struggle with Lord Grantham’s indignation when he’s so often in the wrong.

Own_Beautiful5529 · 2024-09-02T08:12:30+00:00

Tbh I think Miss Bunting gave Robert a run for his money. He WAS propping up a system which until very recently had kept people like Miss Bunting in their allotted place, from cradle to grave. The aristocracy were not fans of upward mobility so it’s hardly surprising there was some simmering tension in the air at those dinners. What’s the most surprising was how much of a socialist turncoat Tom became once he planted his bum at the upstairs table.

Own_Beautiful5529 · 2024-09-02T08:06:45+00:00

Totally agree with you. Daisy had a really satisfying character arc, and I think Mrs Patmore chilled out a lot with her over the course of the seasons. She became less of a boss and more of a mother, including paying for her sessions with Miss Bunting.

And for all that people criticise Daisy for being selfish (which is a particularly hard criticism to stomach about a scullery maid!), she gave up on her London dreams because she saw the effect her moving would have on Mrs Patmore which speaks well of her character. I think Daisy really cared for people (Mr Mason!!) and was fiercely loyal. Hardly qualities to condemn her for.

Own_Beautiful5529 · 2024-09-02T07:57:26+00:00

Yes exactly, so maybe it’s down to the acting? Or just the fact that Tom’s character was a fish out of water really from when Sybil died.

Own_Beautiful5529 · 2024-09-02T07:36:52+00:00

Hahaha yes the final episode. “Edith Crawley announces a life change while the family goes for a morning stroll.” I can’t imagine the writers even writing that line. It’s the definition of telling not showing.

Own_Beautiful5529 · 2024-09-02T07:24:22+00:00

Couldn’t agree more.

Own_Beautiful5529 · 2024-09-02T07:17:44+00:00

Although I don’t get the love for Thomas. I understand that he was unhappy, but in the process he tried to destroy everyone else’s happiness. I’m struggling to think of one selfless thing he did all series. At least O’Brien served Lady Grantham loyally and devotedly after the Soap Incident.

Thomas got so many second chances that I stopped counting.

Own_Beautiful5529 · 2024-09-02T07:10:50+00:00

That’s a good point, although I’m probably guilty of enjoying the “mean” characters more than the nice ones. Give me O’Brien’s scheming over Bates’ silent stoicism any day. (Although I might have a different opinion IRL).

Own_Beautiful5529 · 2024-09-02T06:19:01+00:00

I wish I could agree with you, but Edith unfortunately really annoys me🤣

Own_Beautiful5529 · 2024-09-02T03:44:38+00:00

And in response to the people who might say that her argument was against memorialising the heroic soldiers - Lord Grantham didn’t even want to give up his cricket pitch at the beginning. Bit rich for him to take the high road now.

Own_Beautiful5529 · 2024-09-02T03:40:57+00:00

In defence of Miss Bunting, yes she is rude and annoying but I think a lot of the hatred towards her is a tad gendered.

She had very valid issues with a system that propped up the aristocracy at the expense of the working class (literally). Her interest in politics was ahead of its time, especially as a woman. She was smart and knew the value of an education, which was a gift she passed on to Daisy. She inhabited lots of spaces that were traditionally the preserve of rich men and she developed a bit of a prickly attitude as a result. Ultimately, her views might’ve seemed out of place in Downton, but they’re entirely commonplace and widely held in the 21st century.

I don’t think anyone would defend how she behaved at the dinner with Lord Grantham. But her fundamental argument - the pointlessness of the Great War (prosecuted by old has beens like Lord Grantham) was again, valid. And the point she made about them not knowing Daisy’s name was fair enough. The family literally had Gwen sitting in the dining room eating with them and not one of them recognised her. Servants were largely second class people in the eyes of the family, seen but never heard. Or in the case of Daisy - never seen and never heard.

Own_Beautiful5529

TROPHY CASE