Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's true, but even the things which coexist change the way people think about doing things and their attitudes about the change in expectations. Using the phone, consider what the cell phone has done. When your phone at best could take a message if you weren't there, people didn't assume you'd answer. But now often the expectation is either you will or you'll soon call back. The generation who never knew it was different lived 'plugged in' whereever they go. It's changed the way people live and their expectations of others.
I know people who probably got rid of the landline bill if the phone had to have power since that what it was for, as an emergency phone.
And when there are new gadgets, but not so often, it took longer for people to adapt them. Not because they were not seen as useful, but because *change* was uncommon. When people become used to things changing, they embrase it sooner. There is an advantage and a cost to anything, and when change is 'in' the advantage/fascination is seen much more worth the cost.
For Rose's generation, even Mary's the new things are welcome and interesting. For Roberts its an intrusion on the comfortable way things are, but then this is how its always been.
For instance, take the cell phone. One of the earliest was designed by an engineer who lived at the beach and kept missing important calls when he took a walk. He was also a star trek fan. He was inspired by the communicator to develop a working version of early cell phone, but he could take walks down the beach and still get the calls he couldn't miss.
Now, we expect people to answer the phone. If they don't, we still expect them to call back in a short time. The assumption is they always are reachable. This has a lot of other implications in how we do things.
I know people who had left the landline for power out emergencies, but now there's no real need
Good points. I don't want to get off-topic too much here. Mobile phone technology started at the turn of the 20th century and was developed over a long period of time. You can see the early mobile phones used by the rich and the spies in 60s & 70s shows like Callan, The Avengers, and Mission Impossible. It wasn't science fiction; they really did exist and it looked like a phone attached to a suitcase. The story about the engineer walking on the beach with the phone, Martin Cooper, is a bit of an urban myth as he and Joel Engel helped to develop a handheld mobile phone for Bell Labs. Digital phones, "smartphones" were not developed until after Regan's "Star Wars" program, enabling satellite communications to become available. My point is that early inventions, such as phones and cars were purchased first by the wealthy, such as we saw in Downton Abbey when they got a radio. The wealthy had "handmade" cars in the 1880s,long before Ford's Model T could be made cheaply enough that it was affordable for the middle-class. Once the middle-class embraces a new technology, it gets absorbed into the standards of a "normal" lifestyle and eventually people become dependent on this new form of service. A combination of a growing middle-class, the tailend of the industrial revolution made technologies that had already been "invented" possible to tweak these new gadgets so that they became more practical and cheaper to manufacture so that more people could obtain them during the period of the 1920s. We seem to be experiencing something similar today. Robert is now dependent on getting around in a car. We don't know what the Downton Abbey Estate did with their carriages, but they are no longer using them. He doesn't seem to miss traveling by coach, which assuredly he did as a boy.
I may or may not have been yelling, "Go Isobel. Get you some!" at the TV.
Quote:
Can't figure out why Rose is forcing Sarah on Tom and the rest of the family. He doesn't seem to like her well enough to find a way to fit her into the family, the way Sybil did for him.
I'm still not sure if the writers expect viewers to be rooting for Miss Bunting because she's fiesty and outspoken, or if we're supposed to wish she'd shut up and go away.
And doesn't Edith technically run/own Gregson's newspaper? Shouldn't she be doing that more often, rather than awkwardly mooning over the "pigman's" kid?
I'm still not sure if the writers expect viewers to be rooting for Miss Bunting because she's fiesty and outspoken, or if we're supposed to wish she'd shut up and go away.
Ms. Bunting is a literary device to further the story of Tom, later resulting in a contrast of personalities. So, probably all of the above. Whatever elicits emotive critique.
Robert is now dependent on getting around in a car. We don't know what the Downton Abbey Estate did with their carriages, but they are no longer using them. He doesn't seem to miss traveling by coach, which assuredly he did as a boy.
We haven't seen fancy horse and carriages, but we have seen horse and small wagons for people.
Footman James (Jimmy) left Downton in one.
I don't know about any of you but I found last nights episode kind of boring and ho hum. I hope next episode is better . Im glad the dowager is trying to find out what happened to the princess . I cannot imagine trying to find someone like that in that day and age .im glad Lord Merton asked Lady Crowley to marry him . I think she got taken by surprise with his proposal . Im surprised that Margie shut the door in ediths face because of who her father is . I hope her husband breaks down and finally tells Margie that Edith is the childs mother . I do hope edith does go and get her . I m starting not to like that Margie woman or her husband.
Margie doesn't know that Edith is Marigold's mother. She's come to love Marigold and view her as one of her own children - wouldn't you get annoyed if a pushy millionaire's daughter swanned in on your working-class farm and co-opted your adopted daughter, paying no attention to the other kids? Especially if you suspect that Edith and your husband have something going on.
So my question is: Has Miss Bunting been exiled from the home, never to return. Not even for Daisy's lessons? How do you see it?
At least miss Bunting can act, not like lady Mary , her actings atrocious .
I could see Tom Branson & Lady Mary as an item , he seems to take a liking to her , but I guess he's off to America soon .
Seems in the general scene, it was Isobel who suggested that Ms. Bunting be invited to the dinner, just as Cora stepped up to offer her 'insistence'. It wasn't Thomas' idea, though he wasn't brave enough to say no to the ladies.
Yes, Isobel was the first to suggest to Tom to invite Miss Bunting. I found Robert's sense of Tom "backing away from us" to be quite on point. He's not as oblivious as he seems.
We haven't seen fancy horse and carriages, but we have seen horse and small wagons for people.
Footman James (Jimmy) left Downton in one.
Poor rural people continued using a horse and cart post WWII in the US. I would imagine that Great Britain, having suffered more on the homefront and continued rationing after the was also used horses and carts in some of the more rural desolate areas. We do know that Dowton Abbey retained their horses and stables for recreation for the rich folks.
Deserved it? Edith never wanted to give up her child, but only did so to protect the family's reputation, after some arm twisting by Rosalinde. It must be awful to be so close to your kid and be expected to keep your distance. I'm looking forward to the day when she marches in and takes her child back regardless of how her family/society views it. Problem is, she is the least daring of her sisters. If Sibyl were alive and in the same position she would have kept the child from the start. I'm thinking even Mary might have.
The way I read her, she is untapped potential. The child with more confident sisters she's been left behind in the dust so far. But she has a daughter so close she can see glimpses, and no words are going to keep her from trying. If Gregson is dead and she inherits she could move to London and take the child with her. At that point, I don't think she'd care what sort of problem the family would have. Edith isn't the retretating wimp she seems like and push comes to shove the potential will show.
I got a kick out of Isobel telling Violet she was just saying things to be clever, and Violet telling Isobel she should try it sometime.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
