MovieChat Forums > Downton Abbey (2011) Discussion > Things that don't make sense (spoilers)

Things that don't make sense (spoilers)

posted 8 years ago by SuCue
26 replies | jump to latest

1. A peer can pass down his title/entailed estate to a daughter if there's no son, by appealing for a decree from the monarch. Lord Mountbatten was allowed to pass down his earldom to his eldest daughter, for example, by special decree of the queen. Lord Grantham knew about this process - when they visit Dunneagle he even mentions that Shrimpy's mother was a countess in her own right (something not possible without royal assent). May have been a long shot, but why didn't they even try to get a decree from the king making Mary the heiress to the title in her own right? They just kept talking about breaking the entail - which was probably even more of a long shot than getting a royal decree.

2.) When they are in danger of losing Downton when Robert lost all of Cora's money, why didn't they even consider selling Grantham House instead of selling Downton? Grantham House presumably would have been in a prime real estate area and would have been worth a lot of money. Plus, they hardly ever used it and were not as emotionally attached to it as they were to Downton. Once again, this option is never even discussed.

2.

[–] furienna 8 years ago

I believe that Mary told someone in the season 4 Christmas special, that selling the London house wouldn't have been enough to keep Downton running (but they would have sold it off too eventually). But as the time passes by, we find out that many other aristocratic families have started to sell off their London houses to stay afloat. So yeah, I don't see how a big property like Grantham House would be worth so much less than Lavinia's father's fortune...

Intelligence and purity.

[–] condorilloclqt 8 years ago

I think that was Edith who told that to Tom in some CS, anyway, i think that the reason why Robert didnt want to break the entail was because in that moment he thought that any woman was incapable of running Downton, notice how when Cora triied to give a opinion he always said something like: "please dont talk about things that bore the ladies here" (in other words: this is a man subject and you shoudnt get involve). I think that was the normal view about how things worked, men a women had specific tasks and neither could go and get involved in the other. The stupid thing is that, he only gaves his "blessing" to Mary after someone tried to blackmailed her, like: "oh, you sleep with somebody, then you refused to paid to the blackmailer and didnt care about you being trashed in the papers; thats tell me that you are capable of running the estate"; it could have been more telling if after some good croop he realizes how capable Mary is.

The series also is terrible inconsistent with the "economic" issues, for example, they keep talking about reducing costs, but in any moment we see Cora, Mary or Edith talking about buying less clothes. We see Mary and Robert hunting, etc. To that moment, even the richests aristocrats were renting the shoot to wealthy people, the Devonshires, probably the most powerful aristocratic family did that, they also sold their house in London, etc, and they were owners of probably 200.000 acres of land... Then in series 4, we heard Robert and others complaining about death duties taxes and how they were manouvering to pay them, but in the next episode, they did a lavish house party with a opera singer included....

[–] SuCue 8 years ago

Yes, I agree, totally inconsistent. Another thing they never do is talk about selling some of their "pictures" (another common thing that aristocrats did to hang onto their estates.) Even in 1920, that gigantic Van Dyke portrait of what looks like Charles II in the dining room would have been worth a fortune. Why wouldn't they sell it and some of the others to keep Downtown? It was probably too big to fit in the smaller country house that Robert owned anyways.

[–] tomcervo 8 years ago

They did. Reportedly the della Francesca study would have been the single most valuable painting in the house, and they sold it at the end of season 5.

[–] SuCue 8 years ago

Oh I haven't gotten to season 5 yet. But it seems very odd not to talk about selling their paintings in Season 3 when they were planning to move into the smaller country house. They just whine and moan about how Martha or Matthew has to bail them out. Makes no sense, especially if a lot of their stuff would have to be sold anyway because it wouldn't fit in the smaller house.

[–] condorilloclqt 8 years ago

Most rare,but there is one more extreme case, Edith and Robert spoke that they are the owners of one of Gutenberg Bibles, even more stupid, Robert told to Gregson that the library man was the only one who knew where it was; any sane person would had that copy in a altar behind glass. By selling that only book, all their financial problems would be gone, totally stupid.

[–] SuCue 8 years ago

Good point about the Gutenberg Bible. That and the Van Dyke could have been sold to either a museum or some Vanderbilt or Rockefeller heir, and everything would have been set.

Another thing that's amiss: in the first two seasons they never talk about how Downton earns money. They're farmers, after all, but they're presented simply as rich people who live in the countryside. Then in Season 3 and 4, suddenly they all start talking about tenants and sheep. They would have been talking about those things all along! It's like someone read a book about the history of the great estates at the end of Season 2 and thought, "Oh wait! We've been missing something!" Same thing with Lord Grantham's membership in the House of Lords. Never mentioned a word about it until well on in the story.

[–] tomcervo 8 years ago

Another thing that's amiss: in the first two seasons they never talk about how Downton earns money. They're farmers, after all, but they're presented simply as rich people who live in the countryside. Then in Season 3 and 4, suddenly they all start talking about tenants and sheep. They would have been talking about those things all along! It's like someone read a book about the history of the great estates at the end of Season 2 and thought, "Oh wait! We've been missing something!" Same thing with Lord Grantham's membership in the House of Lords. Never mentioned a word about it until well on in the story.

I think until 1919 they were living on their capital, and the war boom in food prices, and thought they could ride it out until the good old days came back. Matthew was the first to take a hard look at the books and realize that the good old days were gone forever.

[–] condorilloclqt 8 years ago

In fact, when Cora was worried about Mary´s reputation by the turk dying in her bed, they brought Anthony Strallan (an older man) to marry her, Robert complained that Strallan was dull and boring because he only keeps talking about farming...2 seasons next we found that Mary and Robert were experts in farming and catte. Even more, i live in a rural comunity, we all know that people who work in agriculture and such things gets early (6 am or sooner), but in the series we found that Mary takes her brakfast in the bed, well this last one is not so surprising, Mary is only a manager. But in the end, we see little connection betwen the Crawleys and the agriculture process, besides the talk.

I all honesty, i think is because the series is made for an audience composed mostly by women, and they prefer to show the women in the show in fabolous dresses and lavishes parties than in the "normal activities" of the landed gentry in the post war England, who was radically different from the edwardian era in wich the series began. I read somewhere, that very, very few aristocrats had a flamboyant life, most of them basically worked quietly the land, but they never had that lifestyle that show tried to sell us.

[–] tally1-934-484232 8 years ago

They were primarily living off the interest from the dowry Cora brought to the marriage (which is why Robert married her in the first place). It was never solely from the revenues of the estate, and as Robert said, the estate had long since failed to pay for itself.

At the onset of Season 3, Robert invested almost all of Cora's money in a failed stock scheme. Now this opens up a whole can of worms on how Robert was able to do this, for the money should have been very tied up with the entail and subject to approval of the trustees, who would have prevented this kind of risky investment. But don't let anything get in the way of a good story.

[–] tally1-934-484232 8 years ago

I could be wrong but I believe I read somewhere that if Robert had owned a Gutenberg bible, then he would have actually had the very last Gutenberg still in private ownership. Yes, the sale of that bible alone should have been more than enough to save Downton.

[–] furienna 8 years ago

I think that was Edith who told that to Tom in some CS.

Fair enough, my memory is wonky some times.

Intelligence and purity.

[–] nyctc7 8 years ago

A peer can pass down his title/entailed estate to a daughter if there's no son, by appealing for a decree from the monarch. Lord Mountbatten was allowed to pass down his earldom to his eldest daughter, for example, by special decree of the queen.

From what I have read, a special remainder to Mountbatten's female issue was part of the patent creating his peerage. This was because 1. He had no sons (but he had daughters) at that time and 2. He was a member of the royal family, being an uncle of the Queen's husband and was a second cousin (once removed) to the Queen herself. He was also an admiral during WWII. Without this special remainder the peerage would have gone extinct upon his death (he never did have a son). It's not terribly uncommon for a hereditary peerage to only last the original holder, but an exception was planned for here because of (see No. 2).

This is by way of saying such special remainders are rare. Rarer still (I believe) is a special decree promulgated after the original letters patent, allowing a female to inherit a title, and Grantham had no reasonable expectation of that happening. He wasn't a statesman, war hero, or related to the royal family.

I have to assume that the law and custom was to respect as much as possible the wording of the original letters patent.

[–] SuCue 8 years ago

I agree: the remainders I have read about usually involved relatives of the Royal Family or great statesmen/military heroes. It was done for Lord Mountbatten and the elder daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Fife (daughter and son-in-law of Edward VII) and for the Churchill family (Dukes of Marlborough.) So yes it was a long shot -- but in the Downton world, it had apparently been done for Shrimpy's mother (or grandmother, I forget which) and would have been worth at least a try.

But an attempt was never even discussed, which I found strange.

[–] CakesAndAle 8 years ago

but in the Downton world, it had apparently been done for Shrimpy's mother (or grandmother, I forget which)

Did they ever say how she was given the title in her own right? It could have been due to her own merit or other reasons other than to prevent a line from dying out.

Might it be a Scottish title? Aren't their rules different regarding women inheriting? I seem to recall there's something, not sure.

[–] SuCue 8 years ago

Hmm, unlikely she was given the title for her own merit, because Robert says that Dunneagle came to the Flincher family through her, which would likely indicate that the earldom was an ancient one. But very possible that inheritance rules are a bit more liberal for Scottish peerages.

I've done some additional research on remaindering: apparently the most common thing to do is recreate the title specifically for the female heiress. This is what was done for the daughter of the Duke of Fife and Princess Louise of Wales (the Fife dukedom was not created in the Scottish peerage but in the overall United Kingdom peerage). For the daughter of John Churchill, first Duke of Marlborough, it took an Act of Parliament to allow her to inherit his dukedom without recreating it!

So, not such an easy process at all.

[–] tally1-934-484232 8 years ago

Shrimpy's grandmother must have had an earldom in the Scottish peerage.

The Scottish peerage (the titles the were created before the Act of Union and in the Kingdom of Scotland) had earldoms that could pass to a woman in the absence of a male heir. The Earldom of Dysart is a perfect example. As is the Earldom of Sutherland (which is why when the 5th duke of Sutherland died, the dukedom, which was in the British peerage, went to a male distant cousin, but the older Scottish earldom of Sutherland went to the nearest heir, who happened to be his niece, who is now the current Countess of Sutherland.

Note that in the oldest English peerages, there are a number of baronies that could be inherited by a woman in the absence of a male heir.

In short, Shrimpy's grandmother was the oldest daughter/niece or only child of the prior earl and the patent of her title allowed it to go to a woman.

[–] SuCue 8 years ago

Oh, thank you, mystery solved! I knew there were different peerage systems according to each country in the UK, but I didn't know for sure if the "rules" varied from place to place. I take it then that if the Flincher marquessate did not, in the future, have a close male heir, the title would be split again and the closest female heir would at least get the earldom? Then again, Robert said the Flincher title was Welsh, so maybe they have different rules as well.

[–] tally1-934-484232 8 years ago

The only way the show's story makes sense is that the Marquessate of Flintshire is separate from the Scottish earldom (which is a different title). I'm pretty confident Fellowes created the character of Marquess of Flintshire without even thinking of a Scottish earldom or background (hence the Welsh place name for the title). It was when he got the idea of having a Christmas Season filmed at Duneagle with the Scottish background that he amended the title to include a Scottish grandmother and thus the title.

Anyway, depending on its age, the Flintshire title would likely be in the peerage of Great Britain or United Kingdom, while the Scottish earldom would have been in the peerage of Scotland (created prior to the Act of Union in 1707, from that point onwards all new titles were created either in the peerage of "Great Britain" or, later, "United Kingdom" as well as the peerage of Ireland (a title created in the Irish peerage did not give you a seat in the House of Lords). There were no Welsh peerages, the titles of noblemen based in Wales were in the English, British, Irish or UK peerage).

Shrimpy's grandmother was Scottish and inherited a Scottish earldom. She then married the Marquess of Flintshire, who was not Scottish. Their son and heir inherited both the marquessate and the earldom (Shrimpy's father, or uncle). That in turn was inherited by Shrimpy.

Shrimpy has a son, who will inherit both titles. But let's assume the son dies, leaving Shrimpy only with daughters. Shrimpy also has a younger brother, who also survives Shrimpy. Upon Shrimpy's death this is what will happen:

The marquessate of Flintshire will be inherited by the younger brother, and will pass down from him. But the Scottish earldom will be inherited by Shrimpy's eldest surviving daughter. So the two titles become split from each other. If that daughter dies with no surviving children (boy or girl) then the Scottish earldom will be inherited by Rose, and thus go down the line from her. If Rose has no surviving children, then the earldom will pass to Shrimpy's brother's line (thus reverting back to a male, who also happens to be the marquess of Flintshire), reuniting the two titles.

If Shrimpy's brother has no children of his own, upon his death the marquessate of Flintshire passes to the nearest direct male heir based on the male lineage, while the earldom will then pass to Shrimpy's oldest surviving sister (or her nearest male heir, or daughter, if there is no male heir to the sister). And so forth ;)

[–] tomcervo 8 years ago

I think all this was handled in an aside, but your basic analysis is correct. JF will hand out names or titles to please or tweak his friends, and then has to manufacture a similar shaky basis for them.
As Tom says in another context, There's no logic to it!

[–] tally1-934-484232 8 years ago

To address your point 2, it is silly that they never considered selling Grantham house right away, as that was being done all over London by the aristocracy. The Duke of Devonshire sold Devonshire House for 750,000 pounds in 1920 (an enormous sum at the time). The sale of Grantham house and its prime site in Mayfair would have brought in some money and eliminated a major expense for the family.

But Fellowes wanted to keep Grantham House in order to have an excuse to film a Christmas Special in the London Season. So that was the unofficial excuse ;)

[–] SuCue 8 years ago

I have just watched the episode where Edith tells Branson that Grantham House would not have brought enough money to save Downton, and agree that it was quite unconvincing. London real estate values were rising due to people leaving farms and "service" to work in the cities, and there was a great need for new flats for them to live in (as was the case in "Brideshead Revisited" when the Flytes were forced to sell Marchmain House and it is torn down and replaced with a block of flats.)

I enjoyed the "Season" episode quite a lot, although I didn't like the actor who played the Prince of Wales. He was the first "matinee idol" royal, and was said to have had a great deal of charm and charisma. The actor who played him was quite bland and not that good-looking either. Loved Martha being courted by Lord Ayesgard though.

[–] tomcervo 8 years ago

I enjoyed the "Season" episode quite a lot, although I didn't like the actor who played the Prince of Wales. He was the first "matinee idol" royal, and was said to have had a great deal of charm and charisma. The actor who played him was quite bland and not that good-looking either.

It was probably the glamour of royalty and very expert photography. When I worked in a store there was a young mother who shopped there who could have almost passed for Sarah Ferguson: ruddy good looks, reddish hair, similar features but much more fit. She'd have never been considered for a magazine cover, not being royal. Oliver Dimsdale played the Prince as a lightweight entitled dolt, which accords with nearly everything I've read about him.

[–] kmill30 8 years ago

The future King Edward VIII was one of these men who could show charm to the outside world, but in reality was a very unpleasant, shallow person. In fact a lot of people were shocked at how much better looking his so called less charming, stammering younger brother Bertie, the future King George VI, was.

[–] SuCue 8 years ago

Well, be that as it may, I didn't think the actor who portrayed him looked at all like him. He was one of the most photographed men of the 20th Century, and we oldies know very well what he looked like. Bit disappointing. (I was 12 when he died.)

[–] whoanelly (1586) 3 years ago

It depends which treasures are technically part of the estate. Paintings and antiquities added by Robert and Cora probably wouldn’t be part of the estate and could be sold. Older treasures added by Robert’s antecedents, such as the Gutenberg Bible, would very likely be part of the estate and could not be sold off without the approval of the estate trustees. And they would be unlikely to grant such a request unless the estate was truly in danger of being lost irrevocably. More likely, the family would be placed on a very strict budget and forced to find ways to make the estate produce income.