Downton Abbey

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

^ He says he doesn't know if he's coming back because he doesn't know if the show itself is coming back yet. Someone trying to make a story out of nothing.

trendy88

Oh I hope he doesnt leave. There is no way aside from killing him off that they could plausibly write him off and what would happen poor Mary then-marry Branson and raise Sybil as her own??

Great episode tonight-nothing too shocking and no major cliffhanger but still brilliant all the same. I wonder where things will go from here.

Went into HMV to pick up the series 1 - 3 dvd boxset which was due out today but I was told that the release has been put back until next Monday. I wonder if its because the last episode has still to be seen here in Ireland (via TV3).

angeleyes

I loved last night's episode - it was kinda funny to see Mr. Bates being sorry for Thomas.

I loved the ending - the end of the cricket match and I am so so looking forward to Series 4 and hopefully there will be baby news for Mary and Matthew in the Christmas special.

I think that Julian Fellowes has written Series 4 - I would love to see the story move onto the 1930's and then WWII. Hopefully a Series 5. Downtown Abbey seems to have captured something and has a huge following. Of course the Dowager is the best by far

pookiesboo

angeleyes wrote: »

I loved last night's episode - it was kinda funny to see Mr. Bates being sorry for Thomas.

I loved the ending - the end of the cricket match and I am so so looking forward to Series 4 and hopefully there will be baby news for Mary and Matthew in the Christmas special.

I think that Julian Fellowes has written Series 4 - I would love to see the story move onto the 1930's and then WWII. Hopefully a Series 5. Downtown Abbey seems to have captured something and has a huge following. Of course the Dowager is the best by far

Read somewhere during the week that he doesnt plan on writing it into WW11

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

pookiesboo wrote: »

Read somewhere during the week that he doesnt plan on writing it into WW11

They're still only in 1920/21 at the end of series 3. No way they could go as far as the end of the 30's with the same cast and have it believable.

angeleyes

pookiesboo wrote: »

Read somewhere during the week that he doesnt plan on writing it into WW11

awwwwwwwwww thats a pity

FloatingVoter

Maggie Smith would have to go on age grounds if it went as far as WWII. Most of the senior staff would be well past retirement age. I reckon he can stretch it to the Great Depression with the current cast. After that, it would need a serious reboot of cast or a dignified end.

Richard Dower

renewed, season 4....i predict six seasons and a movie! http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/downton-abbey-renewed-fourth-season-393739

angeleyes

Oh lovely

JP Liz V1

Dan Stevens aka Matthew isnt suppose to back for Season 4 maybe only the first episode

miamee

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Dan Stevens aka Matthew isnt suppose to back for Season 4 maybe only the first episode

I just read that earlier - would hate to see him leave or for a horrible story line to get rid of him

Lady Chatterton

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Dan Stevens aka Matthew isnt suppose to back for Season 4 maybe only the first episode

Ah there is too much death on Downton and it is all the young ones that are dying :(:(

GRMA

Any else largely lost interest in Downton since Sybil died?


Just not the same. Romance between Tom and Sybil was the best thing in this program, with that gone and with O'Brien and Thomas at each others throats and not being the likable villains with dastardly schemes any more there's not much left...

angeleyes

miamee wrote: »

I just read that earlier - would hate to see him leave or for a horrible story line to get rid of him

aw that is a pity. I am sure that this would probably be the last series to be done, surely he could have stayed put for Series 4.

emeraldstar

GRMA wrote: »

Any else largely lost interest in Downton since Sybil died?

Just not the same. Romance between Tom and Sybil was the best thing in this program, with that gone and with O'Brien and Thomas at each others throats and not being the likable villains with dastardly schemes any more there's not much left...

Nope, hasn't affected my enjoyment of it a bit. I didn't love Sybil as a character or anything. She was grand, like, but that's all, so her death didn't bother me greatly. Was never overly keen on the Sybil-chauffeur storyline either and Branson tends to irritate me a bit.

MrsD007 wrote: »

Ah there is too much death on Downton and it is all the young ones that are dying :(:(

I don't know, I don't feel like they'd kill him off. Not sure how they'd write him out, leaving him with a lifeline back in, but I think they likely could.

SarahBM

dont know how they would manage to write Matthew out, sure he is the heir to the fortune, unless Mary has a boy and they kill him off. Which I would hate by the way!

fifi234ie

Michelle Dockery (Mary) joining a star studded cast. One day in 1976, Ruth's mother reveals that she has been living a double life as is actually a spy who has been on the run for the last 30 years.

Restless starts on 27 December on BBC1 at 9pm

Looking completely different, it sounds interesting



http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2012-12-06/michelle-dockery-in-bbc1s-restless---preview-pictures

SarahBM

just saw the lastest promo for the xmas special. I cant wait.

be warned, its on at 8:45 xmas day.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Oh Downton, you can't let anyone be happy for 5 minutes, can you?

To be fair they were sign posting that ending for about half an hour before it happened. Everyone including Lord Grantham declaring their undying love for

Matthew and then BAM! he's dead.

Mary and Branson to hook up in series 4 please!

Faith

That was traumatising. I can't keep watching Downton if its going to be that upsetting.

It's Christmas, things are supposed to be upsetting!!

goose2005

Was it me, or was this episode even more disjointed than usual? So many characters and bits of plots leading nowhere, five second scenes where nothing happens.

SarahBM

twas good til the ending, which I was just waiting for. it was so ........ I cant think of the word , but I didnt even cry! not a bit. I was like an ice queen watching that ending. which is mad, considering the state I was in when Sybil died.

they have set up the 4th season well, but Im just not happy with that ending. at all.

Faith

Reflecting on it, I actually don't think I want to keep watching. I was really invested in

Matthew and Mary

and now that's over. What's the point of sticking with it if none of the characters are ever happy?

angeleyes

I suppose they had to do something with Matthew. I am not sure yet if Dan Stevens has signed on for Series 4.

I did enjoy Downtown tonight, but didn't get them all trooping up to Scotland and for goodness sake a character called Shrimpie ah come on.

No flies on O'Brien though




Just found this review on tonight's feature length.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/downton-abbey/9765378/Downton-Abbey-Christmas-Special-review.html

dr gonzo

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Mary and Branson to hook up in series 4 please!

I had the exact same thought, is it that obvious I wonder? There really is very little left to do with Branson, and they've been integrating him more and more for something.

on top of all that Matthew played an anchoring role and the show will be unbalanced if they don't fill the gap (has to be Branson)

shopaholic86

I have to agree - I loved Matthew and Mary and also Sybil and Tom so that's two couples gone. I'm really disappointed they keep killing people off. I thought the episode was a little all over the place - too many side stories. I didn't get upset when Matthew died either - I guess we all heard he was leaving and I was really hoping they would leave him alone! Sure Mary and Matthew only got together properly last Christmas!!!! Might be time to find a new series!

spurious

I was a bit confuzzled in that I thought they were off to Scotland for Christmas and wondered where they got such extraordinarily bright evenings in mid-December, but then I figured I must have missed something as regards what time of year it was.

Aargh -

Matthew and the car - once we saw him grinning as he trundled along the road I knew we'd have a crash, without actually seeing it as it was a lovely vintage car. No-one is allowed be happy in Downton, except maybe...

Hurrah at

Thomas normalising things with pretty boy, who I think really does ride on Thomas' bus but would never admit it.

goose2005

spurious wrote: »

I was a bit confuzzled in that I thought they were off to Scotland for Christmas and wondered where they got such extraordinarily bright evenings in mid-December, but then I figured I must have missed something as regards what time of year it was.

It was summer, which is why there's a fair on. They even mention at one point that the day is much longer (although Scotland's not much further north than Yorkshire, is it?)

quickbeam

goose2005 wrote: »

It was summer, which is why there's a fair on. They even mention at one point that the day is much longer (although Scotland's not much further north than Yorkshire, is it?)

Your question spiked my curiosity. Yorkshire is a big county and Scotland is a big country so it's hard to answer. We don't know where in Yorkshire they are do we? And we'd have to assume that their trip to Scotland was to the highlands. Google tells me that it's 350 miles between Sheffield in Yorkshire to Balmoral in the highlands, or 6.5 hours with modern roads. Definitely a long journey in those days, so very possible that a difference in the length of day would be noticeable.

Episode dragged a little, and it was obvious what was coming, especially seeing Matthew jaunting along in his car. Do we know for sure if he's dead, or is it open? I thought it was odd for Mary to tell Matthew wht they'd "done their duty and produced an heir". That sounded like somethiing two people who didn't really like each other and were in an arranged marriage would say - we've provided an heir, now we don't need to see each other any more. Also the succession is far from secure if baby Crawley is their only hope - lots of things could happen to babies before they've reached maturity. And I was thinking (morbidly) as he was born that he'll be just the right age to head off to war when WWII comes along too.

Didn't really get the point of Mrs. Pattmore's amour. And I thought it was a shame that Mrs. Crawley rebuffed the doctor. While I never thought of them together before, once it was suggested, I thought they'd make a nice couple.

Faith

quickbeam wrote: »

Your question spiked my curiosity. Yorkshire is a big county and Scotland is a big country so it's hard to answer. We don't know where in Yorkshire they are do we? And we'd have to assume that their trip to Scotland was to the highlands. Google tells me that it's 350 miles between Sheffield in Yorkshire to Balmoral in the highlands, or 6.5 hours with modern roads. Definitely a long journey in those days, so very possible that a difference in the length of day would be noticeable.

Actually, we know that Downton is near Ripon in North Yorkshire, and they mentioned that they were going to Inverness in the episode. The distance is about the same, 350 miles.

The curvature of the earth affects the length of day, so yeah, there'd be a significant difference in the lengths of days in summer and winter.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

quickbeam wrote: »

Also the succession is far from secure if baby Crawley is their only hope - lots of things could happen to babies before they've reached maturity. And I was thinking (morbidly) as he was born that he'll be just the right age to head off to war when WWII comes along too.

I was confused about this too. Last year when Sybil was pregnant I asked what would happen if she had a boy? Being Lord Grantham's grandson would be a closer relative than Matthew so would he then become heir? Someone kindly linked me to an explanation of the inheritance laws as they stood then which stated that it was only through the male blood line that inheritance passed, i.e. the children of daughters didn't count, only the children of sons (or other male relatives).

So, given that Matthew never actually inherited Downton, Lord Grantham is still Lord, where does that leave the baby? Matthew was the heir, but assuming he's dead..... the baby is just Mary's child, which according to the inheritance laws doesn't count?
Or is he still the heir as by the male blood line he is still Matthew's child and even if Matthew had had him with someone other than Mary, he'd still be the next male in that blood line?

Sorry if that's a bit confusing, but it is bloody confusing!

confusticated

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I was confused about this too. Last year when Sybil was pregnant I asked what would happen if she had a boy? Being Lord Grantham's grandson would be a closer relative than Matthew so would he then become heir? Someone kindly linked me to an explanation of the inheritance laws as they stood then which stated that it was only through the male blood line that inheritance passed, i.e. the children of daughters didn't count, only the children of sons (or other male relatives).

So, given that Matthew never actually inherited Downton, Lord Grantham is still Lord, where does that leave the baby? Matthew was the heir, but assuming he's dead..... the baby is just Mary's child, which according to the inheritance laws doesn't count?
Or is he still the heir as by the male blood line he is still Matthew's child and even if Matthew had had him with someone other than Mary, he'd still be the next male in that blood line?

Sorry if that's a bit confusing, but it is bloody confusing!

I think the child would inherit through Matthew rather than Mary, as he'd be the next closest male relative surely? Like the way Prince William is next after Charles to the throne, not one of Charles' brothers or cousins.

I'm a bit cross with what they did there, have the family not suffered enough with Sybil? And Mary and Matthew were the centre of Downton for the future. Wish they'd've got rid of Edith instead of any of them, her storylines are all the same.

prettygurrly

Totally agree with everything that has been said before. One thing I would say is I think Lord Grantham signed over the estate when Matthew invested all the money from what's her face dying. So therefore his son would inherit.

And on the comment by Mary to do with the heir, that's her wry sense of humour. She's very caught up in everything done properly and I think she was almost poking fun at herself because in fact she was very in love with her husband....having to do a duty couldn't have been further from the truth

We were pretty distraught in this house with the ending. We loved Matthew and Mary and were visibly angry at the ending - my brother thought we (my mother and I) were complete lunatics but yes we felt like throwing the telly out the window...hardly the response they were going for I'd say!

dr gonzo

prettygurrly wrote: »

hardly the response they were going for I'd say!

Thats because it was cheap and obvious. I agree, they really need to stop just killing people off.

Aoife9

prettygurrly wrote: »

Totally agree with everything that has been said before. One thing I would say is I think Lord Grantham signed over the estate when Matthew invested all the money from what's her face dying. So therefore his son would inherit.

And on the comment by Mary to do with the heir, that's her wry sense of humour. She's very caught up in everything done properly and I think she was almost poking fun at herself because in fact she was very in love with her husband....having to do a duty couldn't have been further from the truth

We were pretty distraught in this house with the ending. We loved Matthew and Mary and were visibly angry at the ending - my brother thought we (my mother and I) were complete lunatics but yes we felt like throwing the telly out the window...hardly the response they were going for I'd say!

So disappointed with the ending I don't think I'll be watching next season, I just got over lady sybil's death now this! I could feel it coming though things were too peachy, but it would have been nice to have had a happy episode I was so looking forward to it

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

confusticated wrote: »

I think the child would inherit through Matthew rather than Mary, as he'd be the next closest male relative surely? Like the way Prince William is next after Charles to the throne, not one of Charles' brothers or cousins.

I think you're right. Matthew was the closest male relative after Lord Grantham, so his son would now be the closest. It doesn't matter that he's Grantham's grandson though, if Matthew and Lasagne had got married and had a baby boy it still would have been the heir.

p.s. I'm not that bothered about Matthew dying, I feel like the majority of the cast have been phoning in their performances since mid season 2. Some of the "emotional" scenes have been terrible. Sybil's death was the worst for it, all the men standing around making faces like goldfish! Personally I think they probably could/should have ended it after last years Christmas episode.

quickbeam

^^ "Lasagne" - LOL

Yes, the baby inherits as he's Matthew's son regardless of whether Matthew inheritted first (think in the UK if Charles died before he became King then William would inherrit). If it had been a girl though, they'd be back to square one looking for an heir.

mikemac1

Yep, I agree with everyone on the inheritance

Mary's son is now the heir

dr gonzo wrote: »

I agree, they really need to stop just killing people off.

No option realy, Dan Stevens has gone to the USA and didn't sign up for season 4

dr gonzo

mikemac1 wrote: »

No option realy, Dan Stevens has gone to the USA and didn't sign up for season 4

Oh right. Well then there really was no choice.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

mikemac1 wrote: »

Yep, I agree with everyone on the inheritance

Mary's son is now the heir



No option realy, Dan Stevens has gone to the USA and didn't sign up for season 4

Pretty sure Jessica Whatserface (Sybil) left of her own accord too. She's got a pile of other work lined up which she wouldn't have been able to do if tied to Downton.

EDIT: ITV press office issue a statement about it. Must have been getting some angry emails. http://www.itv.com/presscentre/pressreleases/programmepressreleases/downtonabbeystatement/default.html

miamee

I've only just watched this episode, recorded on Christmas Day. I even managed to avoid spoilers

Even still I found the whole thing far too.long, disjointed and not overly entertaining. I knew Matthew would be leaving in some way but was still quite angry with the ending. It's all.getting a bit 'Eastenders' now, no one can be happy

What was the point of the new maid? That story didn't really go anywhere and there was very little of Daisy who I usually like.

starlit

Was a nice episode with the baby and all but sad ending wasn't expecting it but they did mention on digital spy or in the media that the actor didn't know if he still or not be in downton in the next series.

looksee

I have been having a Downton Abbey-fest this Christmas as I was given series 2 and 3. I am a bit baffled though. I saw the episode where Sir Richard threatens Mary and tells her not to cross him. I saw him trying to bribe the staff. But I did not see him getting his come-uppance. Presumably he did since he left the story. Then I saw in an extra clip Matthew propose to Mary in the snow. However I did not see any of this in an episode.

Is it possible (it just occurs to me) that that happened in a Christmas special which is not on the cds? Because the next thing is they are getting married and Sir Richard has vanished. What happened? And which episode was it in? Can anybody enlighten me, please?

miamee

Yes Matthew proposed to Mary at the end of last year's Christmas special, it was very romantic
I can't remember what happened to get rid of Sir Richard tbh, they were engaged and looking at a nearby house, can't remember what ended all that.

That's unfortunate that the Christmas special is not on your boxset

looksee

Oh thanks, yes its a bit mean not putting the Christmas specials in the series, since they have relevant bits of plot. I heard someone in an 'extra' interview make a passing reference to Matthew punching Sir Richard, but what exactly caused it I don't know.

mikemac1

I still think the story about Patrick from Canada was interesting

There have been lots of pointless stories from the writers that never went anywhere

But Patrick could have played a role and he was there and gone within one episode

Maybe I'm alone in this

looksee

It was an interesting story, but it would have been a bit cliched doing the 'is he, isn't he' thing for more than an episode.

I thought the whole convoluted gay footman/ is James gay/ is (the tall guy) as dopey as they are making out, how many times can they all change their minds, how does your one get away with all the muck-stirring? plot was a bit tedious.

Though it was an interesting contrast with the 'its all her fault, there was no man involved in the making of the servant girl's baby' which also got a bit irrational over her (much less illegal, but apparently morally indefensible) descent into prostitution.

emeraldstar

miamee wrote: »

Yes Matthew proposed to Mary at the end of last year's Christmas special, it was very romantic
I can't remember what happened to get rid of Sir Richard tbh, they were engaged and looking at a nearby house, can't remember what ended all that.

It was in the Christmas episode also. Carlisle had that punch-up with Matthew and Violet has that great line "Do you promise?" when he announces that he likely won't see her again as he is leaving.

dahamsta

I quite enjoyed the xmas special, but if there was one thing that upset me (I'm being facetious, seriously people, get a life) in season 2 it was Thomas going from complete scheming scumbag to sensitive dear heart. Sorry, war or no war, personality just doesn't change like that.

Looking forward to S03E01!

/adds inveraray castle to list of places to visit