Talk:Downton Abbey/Archive 1

Virginity

In the episode summary for episode 3 it says that Mary lost her virginity. But did he not say something to her like: "You will still have your virginity for your husband, we just have to be imaginative"? (Which implies something other than conventional intercourse).

And that's before we allow for the fact that we don't know how far they got. Jonny Nexus (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I understood that to mean he was proposing to her, and rather than wait until after marriage for sex, he wanted to do it that night. Iamthedoctor2009 (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I certainly think the "implication of anal sex" mentioned in the episode summary is presumptious and has to go. Anyway, whatever the implication, it's not for Wikipedia editors to speculate. 86.135.59.95 (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've got rid of it. There was nothing to suggest that. As far as I am concerned it was normal sex and he died of a heart attack during it. Until we can be sure otherwise I've just changed it to the fact they were in bed, he died and then his body was moved. Cls14 (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Funny but plenty of people I know interpreted him to mean anal sex... that's 'normal' anal sex. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It was 'scandalous' enough considering regular sex let alone the other sort. Maybe some people have over active imaginations Cls14 (talk) 08:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there are some over-active imaginations at work on this point. The most plausible explanation is also the simplest explanation: Kemal Pamuk lied to a naive and inexperienced woman - about the potential for having sex while maintaining her "virtue" - with the objective of tricking her into bed. Mary is not the first woman to be played for a fool in this way and nor will she be the last. Deterence ^Talk 13:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure lied doesn't need to be in inverted commas, Deterence. There's also no reason to suggest that Pamuk died during sex. 195.194.187.132 (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I read his response as a play on the word virginity, that she'll still have a first time with her husband. --Thomas B♘talk 18:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Episode length

The information pane lists the episode lengths as 2x90 mins and 5x60 mins, but these are actually the timeslots they were originally broadcast in, i.e. inclusive of commercial breaks. Would it not be more appropriate to show the actual episode lengths, i.e. 2x60 mins and 5x45 mins, especially as the episodes are now available both on iTunes and DVD where there are no commercial breaks.
Ideally, the exclusivity or otherwise of commercial breaks in the episode length should be clarified in the right hand box; for example, Murder, She Wrote lists "40 mins (excluding commercials)" for its episode running times.
92.3.233.150 (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That makes much more sense, I've made the changes. Iamthedoctor2009 (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Misinformation on PBS broadcast reported in Daily Mail

I removed the misinformation that was willfully distorted by the Daily Mail. The PBS running time will be virtually the same as the ITV running time (no advert breaks). Source: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BellyOption (talk • contribs) 19:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just restored edits to the article that document the Daily Mail's error, which has spread like wildfire across the web. The blog you cite was dismissed as unreliable, which I would challenge: is the blog of a reliable critic, is well-regarded and most importantly, it quotes Rebecca Eaton, the producer of Masterpiece. One editor added in an attempt to demonstrate the length of the cuts, but has no source for the episode length figures, which differ from both those that appear elsewhere in the article and those that appear on the DVD and fails WP:OR. The DVD is out in the US, and it is clear the cuts are less than 10 minutes in toto, most of which Eaton notes were made to fit the episodes to the time slots. Drmargi (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No argument that the Daily Mail's claim that 2 hours were cut from the PBS airing to dumb it down for American viewers was false and that this story went viral. To this day, fans are still confused about how and why the version aired by PBS differs from the one aired in the UK. PBS itself shares responsibility for the confusion for not stating the facts at the outset; it's unfortunate that Rebecca Eaton did so only in response to the scurrilous Daily Mail article, but that's how it is. The Wiki entry should not be offering up misinformation to counteract misinformation. Yes, the DVDs are out, so I don't know how you can say "it is clear that the cuts are less than 10 minutes in toto," when what is clear is that it is substantially more -- there's a reason PBS has made a point of assuring customers that they are "the original and unedited UK version." This is Rebecca Eaton's response to the Daily Mail, verbatim:

"You were wrong last Sunday to say Masterpiece on PBS is downsizing Downton Abbey by two hours because of the allegedly short attention span of Americans. As with virtually all our co-productions, Downton Abbey was edited for our commercial-free time slot. Approximately 35 minutes came out of more than seven hours and the cuts were made in the UK by the original producers. None of the characters, themes, or plotlines (including about the "entail" inheritance law) was eliminated. We have hundreds of talented colleagues in the UK whose work we showcase in the U.S. Any impression that we violate their work is is disrespectful and just plain wrong." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.202.23 (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, once we establish the source is unreliable, it's unreliable across the board. That includes the quote. Ask yourself why a quote from the American producer about the American broadcast popped up only one place: in a British paper with accuracy issues. The quote can't be trusted any further than any of the other content of the article. Find another, reliable source. --Drmargi (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Drmargi I am not sure about your line of reasoning. Paper A makes a egregious (and, for a watcher of Brit TV for over 48 years, condescending) statement person B refutes and corrects that in another venue and that is somehow unreliable. Are you saying that the blogger made up Ms Eaton's quotes? If so I would think that she would have issued a statement about that somewhere. I can tell you this. I got the UK DVDs before the series aired here and then watched both and yes there was more than 10 minutes cut out. I couldn't say how much but I did notice scenes being shorter and lines being cut. I know that this is OR and I do not expect you to accept it as a reason to change the article. A couple other things to be aware of - Masterpiece has been editing various UK series for decades. In the 70s it was mostly nudity like that in I, Claudius but from the 80s on it could be huge chunks of episodes. A few of the ones that bugged me the most were

1. The blended together and cut portions of eps one and two of The Last Place on Earth
2. Ditto with the wonderful Oliver's Travels
3. Their original airing of Traffik aired the last episode in full but repeat showing cut out about 25 minutes.

In the first two cases this carried over into the US VHS releases and wasn't corrected until the DVDs came out. Of course, it was a delight to see "new" material that enhanced and completed the story. One other thing for those trying to sync up run times. Be aware that though the Masterpiece TV listing might be 60 minutes, or 90 as in the case of DA, the actual times are shorter. The show start has its Masterpiece titles and then a brief introduction - usually around 2 minutes - and the end of the episode can be anywhere from 5 to 15 minutes before before reaching the full time listed. This time can be filled with interviews with cast or production team members of the show just viewed or with promos for other shows or even local items.

Again I know that this is all OR and I have too much respect for you as an editor to ask you to change your opinion about this. A suggestion that will probably satisfy no one is to removed the mention entirely since the sources conflict, conversely, a mention of the conflicting statements could have its own section. I also think that Ms Eaton could be contacted by anyone and asked to clear things up - this still might not be good enough to change the article but it might give satisfaction away from it.

Thanks for taking the time to read through all this and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 13:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone is unaware, it is absolutely standard for UK productions to be cut to fit into the US Masterpiece time slot. This has nothing to do with controversial content per se -- they just make them shorter to fit into the time allotted. Nandt1 (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Lady Mary?

Surely, as an earl's daughter she would be The Honourable Mary Crawley, not Lady? Or am I missing something? Paul Magnussen (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That is the case for a Viscount's or Baron's daughters, but the daughter of an Earl, Marquess or Duke can only be "Lady firstname surname"! Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Mrs. Miniver

The flower show subplot in Downton Abbey is stunningly similar to a subplot in "Mrs. Miniver," the Academy Award-winning 1942 film about English country life adapting to wartime conditions. Apparently I cannot enter this on the main page because I do not have a "source." However, the similarity is so striking that I mention it here for the edification of those who may be interested. FLAHAM (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing edifying about it. It's just a couple reviewers opinions, which is why you have the sourcing issue you do. Does anyone with a grain of common sense really imagine the incident in Mrs. Miniver is at all unique, much less sprung fully formed from the imagination of the screenwriter? Events like the flower show were a common feature of pre-war British country life for decades, and the practice of giving the great lady the cup was a common in real life, as well as one that has featured in several films and pieces of literature. Julian Fellowes draws on his own background as the so-called poor relation to one of these great families (Matthew Crawley being a fairly autobiographical character), and knows about these kinds of situations from first-hand experience. It's naive to think that because you see a similarity to one piece of film or literature, ipso facto there must be some sort of plagiarism. An attempt to add a comment such as above, particularly absent a response from Julian Fellowes, is both irresponsible and WP:POV. Drmargi (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with Drmargi, I'm not sure there's any need to (indirectly) call FLAHAM naive, irresponsible and lacking in common sense. He's brought a question relating to the article to the talk page -- I don't think that merits this kind of slap down. WP:CIVIL. Arthur Holland (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Kemal Pamuk - Turkish diplomat - Guest cast section

Theo James, who portrays the Turkishh diplomat, Kemal Pamuk, in episode #3 is not listed in the guest cast section. He actions and sudden death affect every following episode and cause major complications for Lady Mary and the entire family. He appears to be a fairly new actor, but he should still be listed as part of the cast. This is a link to his new Wikipedia page; I did not see one for him a week or two ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_James. Ernestweir (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Evidently, someone has remedied your legitimate concern. It was quite a significant oversight. Deterence ^Talk 13:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Lady Mary's suitors

I think there should be a list, as they seem to play a vital part in the show.

Patrick Crawley

Matthew Crawley

Sir Anthony Strallen

The Hon Evelyn Napier

Mr Kemal Pamuk

Sir Richard Carlisle

Not sure where to put them in the entry, though. 195.194.187.132 (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a separate article if someone has the time/inclination/lust/whatever. IXIA (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Sir Anthony's name is spelt Strallan, with two 'a's. Matthew Crawley is now also a Captain, you should probably note that Patrick Crawley and Kemal Pamuk are deceased as well. Would a separate article be verifiable on Wikipedia, as I may create one. --Tropzax (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Tichborne case

Am I right in thinking a fake heir turned up at Tichborne? Kittybrewster ☎ 21:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's right. Technically Patrick was never the Heir Apparent when he lived though, he was the Heir Assumptive, his father was the true heir. Patrick's father was never mentioned in the story though. 195.194.187.132 (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Categorisation of characters

Is there any reason why we have assorted Downton Abbey chauffeurs, housemaids and grooms under "Recurring and guest cast" rather than under "Staff"? I noticed because I added Clare Calbraith to "Staff", and she was then moved to "Recurring and guest cast". This doesn't greatly bother me, but I'm just curious as to why. If there is a good reason (other than just me not paying proper attention), I think the headings should ideally be changed to make that reason clear. Also, should the "Staff" heading make clear that it means staff of Downton Abbey only? I mean, there are other staff belonging to other households, but the intention is presumably that they should not be added to the "Staff" list? 86.181.203.37 (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I moved her back to "Staff". If this is incorrect for some reason I'm not udnerstanding then please explain here. Thanks. 86.179.112.74 (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The criteria is that the programme's main cast only (ie. those credited in the opening titles) are in the family and staff sections. I've added a "main cast" heading to make this apparent in the article. U-Mos (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Allen Leech joined the Title Cast as of #3.1 (see IMDb and I believe there's an interview and/or tweet where he confirms this.) --Tropzax (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Theme music

I can't help but notice there's a lyricist and singer credited in the title music section of the infobox, when the title music has no vocals. What's going on there? U-Mos (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - Hi. The theme music may not have been recorded with vocals for the series, however vocals have been recorded for the OST album released recently. You may remedy this, but separately mentioning the OST album with lyrics would be necessary. Samuelconor.frost (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Presentation of family in the cast table

It doesn't make sense to present the Crawley family in credits order in the cast box. They need to be arranged by family structure, just as the staff are arranged by staff structure in the staff box. That allows the reader to understand the structure of the family. The Wikipedia practice regarding cast order applies only to the infobox, and there are a variety of good policy-based reasons we can circumvent established practice if it's in the best interest of the article, which this surely is. I don't accept the occasionally put forth, but precious arguments that it's automatically WP:NPOV or WP:OR to put cast in other than credits order, as I've seen argued elsewhere (with little or no foundation.) I can see that being a solution on sites where there's no logic to a cast list, or when fans are playing the "fan favorite" game, but to arrange this family group so disjointedly just because they are in credits order, which the reader may not realize, makes no sense. Drmargi (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I've also corrected the form for the titles of the Earl, Countess and dowager Countess, per Debrett's: http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/titles/earl-and-countess.aspx. ---Drmargi (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The Right Honourable Earl of Grantham or less formally Robert, Earl of Grantham make sense but mixing firstnames in with formal titles, i.e: The Right Honourable Robert, Earl of Grantham seems odd to me. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

@Drmargi, I see now that the styles you have used are right. I've looked up debretts online: http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/titles/earl-and-countess.aspx 121.73.7.84 (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I checked Debretts quite carefully before I put in the changes. I can't find any other written form that's correct. I can see an argument to be made for removing "The Right Honourable" from the titles and using the less formal form you've noted above, since that's probably what's meaningful to most non-British readers (versus British readers likely to be more familiar with The Form). I'd already provided a link to Debrett's in my comments above, but in reference format, which folks have missed, so I've reformatted it.

Another editor wants to arrange the family in order of precedence, against which I'd argue strongly. This program is shown worldwide, and while precedence is important within the social milieu of the story, using it here does nothing to help the reader understand the family structure, which in turn is far more important to the understanding of the story and the issue of both Cora's American money and Mary's inability to inherit the title. Drmargi (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

dubious

Quote: Tom Branson, an Irishman, is unsure that he wants to fight for the British.... Lady Sybil Crawley defies her aristocratic position and joins the Voluntary Aid Detachment.

Branson far from being "unsure" that he wants to fight for the British is absolutely sure he won't fight for the British - on principle. Lady Sybil is not "defying" her "aristocratic position" by being a nurse, in fact this was commonplace for well-bred girls. Such volunteerism was expected: Queen Elizabeth II was a truck mechanic during WWII!! 121.73.7.84 (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Guinness "Award"

"... in 2011 it entered the Guinness Book of World Records as the 'most critically acclaimed television show' for the year, becoming the first British show to win the award.[2]"

I'm not very clear what this means. Is Guinness Book of World Records entry itself considered an "award"? Or is there another "award" which the Guinness Book is referencing? Unfortunately the accompanying reference is a dead link, and I have not been able to locate the relevant article. 81.159.107.183 (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I've changed this to "accolade" now, on the basis that this should work in all eventualities, even if there is no actual "award" in the usually accepted sense of the word. 81.159.107.183 (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Highclere Castle location

One line reads: "Highclere Castle in Berkshire with this ref 4 was used for exterior shots of Downton Abbey and most of the interior filming.". There's a hidden comment behind the scenes, saying "Credits identify the castle as being located in Berkshire ...".

However, the Highclere Castle article itself has a map clearly stating that it's 1 mile within Hampshire. Who'll wp:be bold and create consistency? --Trafford09 (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, why does it say that Grantham in Lincolnshire was "once in Yorkshire"? Grantham is in the southern portion of Lincolnshire and about as far from Yorkshire as one can get in that county. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.84.238 (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the claim that 'Grantham was once in Yorkshire' Ed Avis (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

References in Other Media

The US show "Community" mentions a fictional British series called "Cougarton Abbey". This would seem to be a portmanteau of "Cougar Town" and "Downton Abbey". 66.193.18.4 (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Downton Abbey was also mentioned by John Casey and his daughter Alex in last week's episode of Chuck ("Chuck Versus the Kept Man"). --V2Blast (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Rebecca Eaton

WGBH/Masterpiece's Rebecca Eaton is listed as an Executive Producer on IMDB and on the PBS Video DVD/Blu Ray edition. Does anyone know if she's listed in the ITV credits? If so, she should be added to the credit list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.14.126 (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

She is in the credits on the broadcast. --Drmargi (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Jessica Brown-Findlay "1-2, 3-"

This doesn't seem to have been discussed anywhere. Is there any confirmation that Sybil is still part of the programme? She wasn't in the christmas ep and there was no indication of an imminent return to the house, so surely without sourcing to the contarary both her and Branson are former characters? No? U-Mos (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Until we know anything definitive, we need to assume they are still in the cast. The Christmas special is one episode; other actors have missed an episode. It's not enough reason to assume (operative word) that she's left the cast. --Drmargi (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I recognise it's a difficult situation, but how long would it be before we considered her as departed? If she does return in series 3, should her duration not read 1-2, 3- to signify that she was absent in the Christmas episode? The only other cast member to miss an episode was Brendan Coyle in ep2 of series 2, and he retained his title sequence credit for that episode. U-Mos (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a wait and see situation at this point. That's really all we can do. --Drmargi (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you've rather missed the point. What I'm suggesting is that right now her duration is series 1-2, and if she returns it will be 1-2, 3-. Her absence at Christmas, which has been marketed as a seperate entity to series 2, ensures that. Right now the page would lead to an assumption that she was present in the last episode. U-Mos (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

i see drmargi's point but i agree with you U-Mos it should be "1-2, 3-" until we see 3- otherwise it leads to believe inaccurately that they were in the CS which was marketed as a seperate entity ... i made the correction but was reverted ... i state now that there are now 2 votes of consensus for "1-2, 3-" and one vote against--68.231.15.56 (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Jessica Brown–Findlay was confirmed as part of third season's cast back in November. http://www.itv.com/presscentre/pressreleases/programmepressreleases/downtonabbeyrecommissioneds3/default.html I don't agree that her on-screen absence from the Christmas Special warrants the confusing 1-2, 3 stuffCladeal832 (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

We can address the 1-2, 3 business when the new series begins. Until then, it's WP:CRYSTAL. That said, I can see the merits of 1-2, 3 and the merits of a note indicating she didn't appear in the Christmas special. 68, I reverted you because you didn't have a source that Brown-Findlay was appearing in the third season at the time you made the edit, therefore it was speculation on your part and subject to a revert. I indicated as much in my edit summary. Part of the problem is that the Christmas special was shown as part of Season 2 in the US, and as a free-standing episode in the UK. The UK model will take precedence, of course, when the time comes. --Drmargi (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just reverted your recent edit, UMos, until we have consensus about how to reference the continuing appearances of cast not in the Christmas Special. There are a couple options at least: 1-2, 3 is one way, or we can handle it with a note. Both are continuing characters, and I'm not sure the notation breaking their run on the series, versus a footnote indicating they didn't appear in one episode, is really needed or even appropriate. I think this needs further discussion first, so we can avoid overcomplicating the matter.

I'm also concerned generally about the addition of Season Three cast to the table before the season begins. Season Three is in production, but won't begin its broadcast run until September given what we know at present; the usual practice on television articles is that new cast are noted in narrative descriptions of an upcoming season when they're cast, but not added to cast lists/tables until their first appearance. This is particularly problematic with Shirley McLaine given we don't know if she's recurring or main cast. Given both issues raised here, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and comment McLaine out of the table until she makes her first appearance. I'm also of the opinion Brown-Finlay and Leech should be listed as 1- until we reach consensus on the best way to indicate their absence from the Christmas Special. I'd go so far as to suggest that may not be reached until we see how frequently each appears in Season Three. --Drmargi (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for the source above, that's very useful. I don't see what's WP:CRYSTAL about putting "1-2, 3-" as the characters' durations now, as their absence in the Christmas episode has already ocurred and we now know that they will be retunring in series 3. I also don't see how it is confusing, as it very clearly notes the period of absence. If, to use the other example previous episodes have given, we were to put Mr Bates' duration as "1-2, 2-" due to his absence from episode 2 of series 2, that would indeed be confusing, unnecessary and wrong. But the crucial differences in this case is that the one episode Sybil and Branson missed was not a part of a series (in the programmes's original broadcast and home market at least), but a stand-alone special that is quite rightly denoted with the seperate indicator of "CS" in the cast listings. To have their durations as "1-" in this context is therefore misleading, suggesting that they appeared in the Christmas special when they did not. A footnote for a character missing one episode is, I feel, an entirely unnecessary detail in the context of a column that's purpose is to show simply a character's duration, but at the same time it would also be a marginalisation of their absence. It was one episode, true, but in terms of how the programme has been broadcast and marketed it might as well have been a whole series. (At any rate, I have re-instated the source for their inclusion in series 3 as any direct confirmation is useful when the show's current narrative is unclear on whether they will return)

As for your comments, Drmargi, on series three in general, leaving characters out until as late as their first appearance on-screen seems bizzarely late, and is not a practice I've observed on wikipedia before. (Not to mention the amount of reversions required to enforce it would be a major headache) Although whether Martha will be main or recurring cast is not totally clear yet, it is likely to become clear in plenty of time prior to broadcast and at any rate I don't see any harm in placing her in the recurring cast list for the time being. After all, is not any character who sources do not place in the main cast a recurring cast member by default? If it can be reliably sourced it can be added, that's all that matters. U-Mos (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add support what U-Mos says regarding Jessica Brown Findlay's appearances. In terms of the production and the fiction of the Christmas special, Brown-Findlay is not part of the continuing cast and her character doesn't feature. The Christmas Special stands independent of the second and third series in production terms and having the table state "1- " misleads those reading the table into thinking she has been a regular throughout; whereas she clearly wasn't for this special. Having the table state 1-2, 3- would give all the information needed at the moment - that Sybil was a regular in the first two series; wasn't part of the christmas special and will return. I would favour having the table read 1-2, 3- at the moment. Should it transpire that she isn't going to be a regular in the third series (although comments by Findlay and Leech suggest their characters will be prominent) and more a recurring character like Rosamund then it may be appropriate for a footnote to conveyy this change in cast status. Eshlare (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The last time I checked, Jessica Brown Findlay was not credited for Season 3 at the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), however only the Title Cast of #3.1 have been included so far, suggesting that though she will feature in the Series, she is not in the first episode. We can make assumptions from the fact that Allen Leech (Tom Branson) has now joined the Title Cast and that Julian Fellowes said someone would be born that she is most likely to star at some point. She has also not been removed from the Title Cast (each Series has it's own independant one).

Some people have said that she has disappeared from the Downton Abbey page on IMDb. She hasn't, it's that the cast are listed first by number of credits then alphabetically. Originally, she appeared second after Hugh Bonneville for featuring in every episode (15). At the end of Season 2 she was moved to the top of those with 15 episode credits (being first alphabetically by surname) as the CS was a titled 16th episode. She remains at the top of this list of cast with 15 episodes but after #3.1 was confirmed, and credits allocated, she no longer holds enough episode credits to appear under 'Top Billed Cast', but is the first credited of the rest of the cast under 'Full Cast List' - she has no credit for #3.1 and remains with 15 episode credits whereas the rest of the Original Title Cast (Title Cast since #1.1) have 17.

Also, there is no hyphen (-) in her name. It is Jessica Brown Findlay.

She is in Season 3 and so it should say '1-3'. If you are insistent that her exclusion from the Christmas Special should be noted then, along with the likes of Allen Leech and Amy Nuttall, this should be included in the Notes section. --Tropzax (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Lady Sybil Crawley, later Branson

Sigh... discussing here to avoid an edit war. Unless the character returns in series 3 still using her married surname (both very much "if"s, as discussed above), Sybil Crawley is her only name on the programme. We're not putting Cora as "Cora Levinson, later Cora Grantham", are we? If Mrs Hughes received a letter in series 3 saying Ethel Parks had got married to a Mr Smith, would we be adding that to her name in the table? Of course not. Some basic sense wouldn't go amiss. U-Mos (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please. I've been avoiding the plot synopsis in order to avoid being spoiled, but now I see there's a spoiler right in the cast list. This is completely unnecessary. The cast list is not meant to be an encyclopedic reference unto itself, only to indicate what actors are playing what roles. The character arc and future names of Sybil Crawley could be discussed in the plot section, under individual episode sections/pages, or in a separate "main characters" section, all of which can carry the spoiler tag. Let's leave the cast listing free of this kind of stuff, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.125.223.132 (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The trouble here is we have two separate issues. The anon IP has reverted what he/she perceives as a spoiler (BTW, once an editor reverts you, you stop reverting). According to WP:SPOILER we don't remove what some might argue are spoilers; this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site, so there is no basis for removing what you feel is a spoiler because the series is still being broadcast in the US (where, I might add, the DVD has been released, further making the spoiler argument moot). And on a personal note, even if there were the option to remove spoilers, this is a British program, and the second season has been broadcast in full in the UK. Nothing is a spoiler any longer once it's been broadcast. It's not reasonable to expect any editor to remove or tolerate removal of what you view as a spoiler long after the season has been broadcast in its country of origin on the off-chance someone somewhere in the world might not have seen it. It you don't want to know what's going to happen in future episodes, it's up to you to exercise a little personal responsibility and stay away from the article altogether.

On the other hand, U-Mos, you argue we should remove "later Branson" on the assumption, if I understand your earlier comments correctly, that Sybil may have left the show. You then give two examples that don't parallel her situation. Sybil, like Anna, marries within the period of time the show covers and while she is still an active character. Thus, in both cases, we note both last names, thus avoiding in-universe use of one or the other. Ethel marries after the character has departed the series, so the dialogue about the letter is updating us on her status, but doesn't require the change of name. Your Cora example really doesn't work. We don't know Cora's maiden name at all (you assume Levinson because that's her mother's last name) and even if we did, we don't list her in the form used for Anna and Sybil because we've know her only as Cora Crawley or the Countess of Grantham over the life of the series. Sybil, on the other hand, is still, to the best of our knowledge, on the series; we've heard nothing about the actress leaving (remember, S3 is in production now) and nothing to suggest we won't see Sybil again. We can't assume she's left simply because she didn't appear in one episode. If we do learn she's left, we can always revisit this issue, but right now, we have to assume status quo until we know otherwise, and that includes the reference to a change of name reflecting her marriage, as was customary for women of that period. --Drmargi (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not assuming she's left (although, as I explain above I would support considering her absence from the Christmas special a break in her period of time on the programme if/when she does return), but simply considering the possibility that she may not return. Considering the events within the programme, while it is of course wrong to assert she will not appear in series 3 it is equally wrong to assert the opposite, and therefore WP:OR/WP:CRYSTAL BALL to write a second surname as if there's any indication she will be appearing in the series using it (if she returns in series 3, is it not possible she will have divorced Branson and reverted to her maiden name? As you say, we just don't know, and putting an alternative surname like this constitutes a rather huge assumption). U-Mos (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

She is returning for S3 http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hyphWiSEGGbGt69N16swHOxKjBkw Cladeal832 (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Having seen Season 2 including the Christmas special now, I'm still of the opinion that "later Branson" is appropriate. We now know that Sybil is married to Tom, living in Dublin and pregnant as of Christmas 1919. We also know the Countess means to see her first grandchild, and that the Earl has not fully recognized the implications of the marriage after a fairly lengthy scene where the two discuss the situation. That established Sybil as Sybil Branson in the show's ongoing narrative. Given the form for the day is a woman taking her husband's name and no dialogue to suggest Sybil has done otherwise, it is appropriate to use Crawley, later Branson. To not do so on the supposition that she might divorce, be eaten by lions or go live in an ashram simply isn't appropriate. If any of those or another contingency arise, we'll deal with the implications for her name then. Right now, we're identifying her based on what story has transpired, and where she sits in the ongoing narrative. --Drmargi (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a few episodes in, just met the chauffeur, and wanted to see who played a certain role. Came to wikipedia and had the relationship spoiled for me. But you're right in that WP:SPOILER covers this ground, and there's nothing to be done. However, I reject this suggestion that I wasn't careful, it's not obvious that a cast list will usually reveal major plot turns. And I also think the suggestion that something is no longer a spoiler after the product is broadcast anywhere is out of touch with mainstream use of the term. Check out wikipedia's own article, Spoiler_(media), and you'll find that these are almost always referring to discussions after a work has been released. Maybe there's a statute of limitations for really old stuff... but I don't think it kicks in after a few years. That said, yeah, policy has us screwed here, and the trolls can celebrate this one, not even in the plot section, but right up front. --Thomas B♘talk 19:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Isnt it best to write Anna Bates (nee Smith) or Sybil Branson (nee Crawley), just a thought as it reads better than "later" JMRH6 (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No. That's the form, but it's also in-universe; it places their last names at a fixed point in time. We use later because it reflects who they are across a the life of the show. --Drmargi (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"Having seen Season 2 including the Christmas special now, I'm still of the opinion that "later Branson" is appropriate. We now Sybil is married to Archie, living in Dublin and pregnant as of Christmas 1919." Drmargi, do you honestly mean to say that you believe Branson's given name is Archie!? It's Tom, this has not been confirmed as short for Thomas or Tomas, so remains as Tom.

Easy now. It was just a typo; the actor's name is Archie, after all. --Drmargi (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Would it also be alright to now dictate an absolute standard? When it comes to surnames, they should be 'Lady Sybil Crawley, later Branson', 'Anna Smith, later Bates'. As Cora is married for the entirety of her duration on the show, we shall not include her maiden name. Happy? --Tropzax (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

See below. --Drmargi (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Number of episodes?

The article lists 17 episodes in the infobox. I'm a bit confused where the 17th episode comes from if the first series had 7, the second 8, plus the Christmas special. Doesn't that make only 16 episodes?Flygongengar (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, by most folks' math, it does. Someone goofed; feel free to fix it. --Drmargi (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No, credits are billed now for #3.1, too. This is where another problem comes in; Allen Leech but not Jessica Brown Findlay are credited for this. There were 7 episodes in #1, 8 in #2 the 2011 #CS and #3.1. This makes 17. All of the Original Title Cast (Title Cast since #1.1), with the exception of Jessica Brown Findlay, are credited in 17 episodes. Brown Findlay is credited for 15 as she is not in either the 2011 Christmas Special nor #3.1, hope this clears this up. Just check IMDb. --Tropzax (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

3.1 hasn't been broadcast yet, and won't be added to the count until it is, so that's a moot point. IMDB is not a reliable source for casting. --Drmargi (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Factual basis for some plot elements, including demise of Turkish diplomat

In an interview that I heard only imperfectly, Downton's creator Julian Fellowes stated that a number of elements in the plot were drawn from real life, including the basics of the sub-plot around the Turkish diplomat. If someone has access to this interview -- or other relevant sources -- it would be interesting for the article to cover the factual basis of plot elements of this kind. Nandt1 (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I know for a fact that in series one the story of planned marriage for Matthew Crawley and Lady Mary Crawley was a factual plot as this happened at Bank Hall when George Anthony Legh Keck married his cousin Elizabeth Legh. This was to keep the house in the family and continue the family name. Just thought I would share that JMRH6 (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This kind of thing happened all the time among the British gentry and aristocracy. Is there any evidence that the story was based on this particular rather obscure family history? john k (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm still hoping that someone can comment specifically on the factual basis for the Turkish diplomat's demise in flagrante and the ensuing move of his corpse back to his own bedroom. Nandt1 (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Lady Sybil Branson

I don't want to get involved in the discussion of whether her married name should be included in the article, but as it is included, it should also have the style of "Lady". While a woman does not automatically gain her husband's surname on marriage, the daughter of an earl is still automatically entitled to the style of "Lady". We don't know whether or not Sybil still uses her title after marriage, but then we don't know she uses the name of Branson. As one is automatic and one is not, I see no sense in omiting the title.

The editor who originally removed it claimed that the style "Lady" goes with the family name so Sybil is no longer entitled to use it. This is incorrect, so it is doubly important to include it in the article as other people may have this misconception. If anyone doubts that the daughter of an earl retains her title after marriage to someone with no title, please refer to Debrett's article on the matter.

If no-one objects, I'll re-insert "Lady" later today in this article and in the characters article. JRawle (Talk) 12:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

My reading of Debrett's is that she should be Lady Sybil Crawley, but Mrs Branson. Her title stays attached to her family name. I've also seen that as the form on the Honours list. BTW, I didn't say Sybil was no longer entitled to use her title, or anything like that. I referred to the form, that's all. --Drmargi (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The Debrett's link leads to "HTTP Error 503. The service is unavailable.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.30.9 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears the website is down, perhaps temporarily. --Drmargi (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolute Standard Current consensus

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO EDIT THIS AS IT CONTAINS ONLY THE FINAL DECISION ON FACYS CONSENSUS BASED ON CONVERSATIONS ABOVE --Tropzax (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC). Rev. --Drmargi (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Per our discussion, there is no absolute standard or final decision. This is one editor's summation of consensus above, and is subject to change/discussion and new consensus. --Drmargi (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

LADY Sybil Branson - You retain your highest title, so Lady should always be Sybil's style and retained in the article. Branson should also be included as it is her married name.

Shouldn't she be "Lady Sybil, Mrs Tom Branson"? As a junior daughter, her title is attached to her first name, while the correct usage of "Mrs" as it was used in the time of the show is to use the husband's given name. Myk (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

SEVENTEEN episodes are credited, so the number of episodes is seventeen. Seven in Series 1, Eight in Series 2, the 2011 Christmas Special and One in Series 3..

At present, there are 16 episodes broadcast. The infobox reflects the count of broadcast episodes only. --Drmargi (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

TOM Branson. Branson's given name (we do not say Christian name as he is said to be Catholic) is Tom. It is just Tom as no-one has officially (or at all) confirmed what it is short for (Thomas, Tomas or something else) if anything.

Uh, you do realize Catholics are Christians, right? As in the original founded-by-St. Peter Christian church Christian. --Drmargi (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Saying 'Christian name' is more modern Anglican Church, Catholic Churches are different, I believe, even though Catholicism is a branch of Christianity. I have asked a Catholic friend whether they'd say 'Christian' or 'Given' name and they choose 'given' as it does not reflect the church they were confirmed to. --Tropzax (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

MARRIED names: We should say 'Lady Sybil Crawley, later Branson' and 'Anna Smith, later Bates'. Cora's maiden name - or anyone else's - should not be included as they were not married within the ocnfines of what we see on Television. I suggest that if any backflash scenes come later (though I awfully hope none do) where as such these women are not married; we may include their maiden names. Also, in case anyone is wondering, Mrs Hughes has not been married and Mrs Crawley is widowed.

JESSICA BROWN FINDLAY in SEASON THREE. She is in Season 3, this has been confirmed. She is the only member of the Original Title Cast not to be credited for #3.1 (or the 2011 Christmas Special), being also the only one of this elite group not to be in every recorded episode, becoming the sole member of her own, even more elite, group (Downton Abbey Original Title Cast not to feature in all Recorded Episodes), starring in 15 of 16 current episodes (see above).

This is based on IMDB, which is not a reliable source for casting. Broadcast credits are TBA. --Drmargi (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

REBECCA EATON I have not seen credited on ITV but it is on IMDb, this crew is only updated by creator Julian Fellowes, so must be correct.

We don't know who updates crew, but it's unlikely to be Fellows or even anyone from the production. IMDB not reliable, again. See [2] for credits (scroll down a way!); Rebecca Easton is an executive producer along with Fellowes and Gareth Neame, and Downton is a US/UK co-production. --Drmargi (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

HIGHCLERE CASTLE is still within the catchment of Berkshire, originally being there. The ancient owners, the Earl of Carnarvon, confirms this, so it is technically in Berkshire though the County borders may be different.

GUINNESS 'AWARD' - I'd say that 'accolade' is the best standing.

THEME SONG - The vocals are indeed on a CD. The lyrics were written after the composition. It's beautiful and slow but still nice "Did I make the most of loving you?".

CAST HIERARCHY - It's correct now. Leave it as a hierarchy.

Everything else seems to be in order, as they are mostly discussions not referrring to any edits of the article or anything long and confusing OR are just someone spotting a mistake, clarifying this then fixing it. --Tropzax (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CRYSTAL regarding Season three details. We'll begin to add credits, etc. as the season is broadcast. --Drmargi (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yorkshire

At the top of the talk page there is a notice saying that developing this page is contributing to a factual summary of Yorkshire. Is this really necessary, as Downton Abbey is not only fictional, but filmed in Berkshire? It is set in Yorkshire, I'll grant you that, however that's it's only (almost tenuous) link. --Tropzax (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It is set in Yorkshire and we cover books/films/TV programmes set in Yorkshire. Keith D (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources

• Lily James joins the cast as Lady Rose - JuneGloom Talk 16:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Upstairs, Downstairs was more on the mark

And a helluva lot more believable than this drama. Who could fail to like the Crawley family? Progressive, kind, fair, warm, honest and only with a few snobby remarks from Maggie Smith to make things amusing. Truth be told England's upper crust was never this nice, and the fact that so many emigrated from England to other places (including the founding of the United States) was mostly due to them. Downton Abbey is very enjoyable simply b/c the characters are so very likable. Except for the scheming Irish lady's maid and the gay footman. Ah, those bloody Irish and homosexuals! There's gotta be some brand of fly in the ointment, right? At any rate, even though the costumes and scenery in Upstairs, Downstairs aren't as good as Downton Abbey's, one gets to know the Bellamys along with Mr Hudson and Mrs Bridges much better, warts and all. And after viewing U/D, you understand why this way of life ultimately crumbled. Perhaps Upstairs, Downstairs's more honest take on this era was because one the creators of the show, had actually had relatives in service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.179.21 (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)