u/overthinkingmessiah

The downstairs characters are significantly underdeveloped compared to those in Downton Abbey, have less screen time and when on screen spend a disproportionate amount of time reacting to events upstairs and talking about their employers instead of, you know, their own lives.

I understand the show is constrained in the sense that the cast is much larger than in Downton Abbey, and that the series follows various aristocratic households instead of just one. And I don’t think there is much that than be done in this regard, it’s just how the show is structured, the scope is much wider.

But it’s still a shame, I would love to known more about Bannister, and Mrs Bauer, and Mr. Church and all the others. I think in order to understand how insular the Gilded Age elites were, and how privileged their lives were, even impoverished aristocrats like Marian, its useful to follow the lives of working class people, what their struggles were, that concerns they had etc.

Wasn’t she meant to be Jay Gould’s illegitimate daughter (before she was revealed as a scammer of course). So new money and of illegitimate birth? Wasn’t that a little scandalous for her to have such an easy ride in high society? How did Agnes agree that she was a suitable match for Oscar when she spend the whole series looking down on new money people?

According to the wiki, Ada joined Agnes in 61st Street in 1872, after the death of her brother-in-law, Arnold van Rhijn. This means she spend a great part of her adult life living somewhere else. She obviously did not live back with her brother Henry in Pennsylvania, so where?

I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the British aristocracy in the 1910s/1920s, but it seems weird to me how the Crawleys don’t just slide into social irrelevance through the course of the series.

Robert isn’t politically involved, isn’t a major patron of anything (cultural, scientific, charity etc), and just seems to live off his family’s established status without making any effort to augment it or maintain it at a time when the aristocracy was increasingly becoming a relic of a bygone era.

His only role as a productive member of society is being a source of employment for the locals, but as we see through the series many leave Downton for better paid jobs elsewhere and the land isn’t even managed all that productively, at least not by his personal initiative.

Wouldn’t a family like this become increasingly obsolete socially?

Edit: Thank you everyone for being so open minded and not mass downvoting me for no reason other than you disagreeing with me. But my original question was not social relevance to the local community, which most of this tread argued for, and that can be debated, but to wider society. Attending the Lords is a passive form of participation that doesn’t distinguish the Crawleys from other aristocratic families. Robert isn’t an active political figure or a major philanthropist so wouldn’t his family be progressively pushed out of relevance? That’s what I was asking.

In real life, upon the ascension of Queen Victoria to the British throne in 1837, the Principality of Hannover, a state in northern Germany that had been in personal union with the British crown since the early 1700s, was passed on to Victoria’s uncle Ernest August and his line, as Hanoverian Salic Law barred women from inheriting the throne.

But what if there was no such Salic Law, and Hannover had remained under the control of Queen Victoria and her descendants? What would have been the implications of a British held Hannover for future German unification and European security as a whole?

For me it’s standing up whenever a lady enters a room (I’m a guy).

Edit: I now also go upstairs to take off my hat

Recently I’ve seen a TikTok video criticizing HotD for portraying Criston Cole as Dornish. The creator argued that the Coles are marched lords and it makes no sense for them to mingle with their mortal enemy.

I never paid much attention to Cole’s background, but reading the ASoIaF wiki he’s described as the common born son of the steward of the Lord of Blackhaven, Lord Dondarrion, a marcher lord. But if he has a surname and is a member of House Cole, wouldn’t he be highborn by definition?

One of the sources for his background is a blog post by George from 2021, where he is announcing Fabien Frankel as Criston Cole, and in it he describes Cole as someone who stood to inherit neither lands nor titles, so his family are noble but not landed, not even in the landed knight kind?

All things considered, is his Dornish heritage all that implausible?

Whenever I look up pictures of Princess Diana, she’s always wearing different designer clothes and jewelry. Kate seems to do a lot more rewears and heirlooms pieces (namely from Diana herself, in terms of jewelry at least). Is this simply a difference of personality, a political constraint (as in current royals have to appear to be more cost-conscious) or are the clothing stipends afforded to senior female royals indeed smaller than in the 80s/90s?