A loyal reader asked me to supplement my comments on Season Four, Episode Two with some thoughts on the characters who were not within the orbit of the crime against Anna.  My anger at Mr. Fellowes for putting a favorite character, and his story, and his viewers through this unnecessary trial has not abated.  But, when a reader asks for more, I cannot avoid my responsibility.  A reader’s needs must take precedence over my reluctance to examine the non-criminal aspects of the episode.

First, let’s all take heart from the apparent interest of Lady Mary in the newly minted Lord Gillingham.  We learn from their conversation while on horseback (and incidentally, how do English ladies avoid just sliding off their horses?) that he is engaged to the “heiress of the year”.  Perhaps this information is given to us so that we will understand that his interest in Mary is genuine.  If he is willing to give up one of the richest young women in their social class (a big if – he hasn’t jumped yet), then this must be love.  Mary is well funded herself, of course, but her wealth does not seem to be spectacular, not “heiress of the year” material.  I am really trying not to bring The Crime into this, but one mark against Lord Gillingham has to be his choice of valet.  One assumes that this was not the valet’s first sexual assault, and you would think that the valet would have given an indication now and again that all was not well.  Perhaps that is asking too much of Lord G.  He probably views his valet as an appliance and gives no thought to the life of his servant when not engaged in his duties.  I expect that more will be revealed along these lines in the near future, once The Crime is more widely known.

We cannot entirely escape the subject of crime when we turn our attention to the Editor, Mr. Gregson, at least if cheating at a card game played for money is a crime.  In Mr. Gregson’s defense, we point out that his cheating was compensatory.  He was undoing the harm that Mr. Samson had done at the card table on the previous evening.  A further point in Mr. Gregson’s favor is that he is desperate for some way to earn the favor of his hoped-for future father-in-law, who has just discovered that playing poker for high stakes against a person he describes later as a “tyke” is yet a new way of squandering the remainder of his wife’s fortune.  (Dictionary.com says that “tyke” is used in Scotland to mean “a low, contemptible fellow”.  This usage makes sense when we remember Lord Grantham’s Scots connections.)

But here we have another example of Mr. Fellowes’s manipulation of the plot in ways that strain the audience’s credulity.  Mr. Gregson tells us after the game is over that his ability to walk away with all that money is the result of skills he learned during a misspent youth.  However he spent his youth, that period of his life is easily two decades behind him.  Is it likely that during, say, a quarter century of editing a newspaper and tending to an insane wife he retained sufficient card sharping skills to not only win every penny from a professional cheater, but to do so in a manner that went undetected at any point in the evening by the professional himself?  May I answer my own question: Not bloody likely.

So, Mr. Gregson is now in Lord Grantham’s good graces, ostensibly because he has established his credentials as a gentleman by returning Lord Grantham’s markers, but really because he erased a gambling debt that Lord G could ill afford.  However he did it, Mr. Gregson is now at least part way into the family circle.  Remember the last time a newspaperman was in the story (a proprietor, not an editor) he was able to suppress some unfavorable news.  Perhaps Mr. Gregson will be able to improve his status in the family through a similar service.  I hesitate to predict.  We must wait and see.

Finally, I would like to take a brief look at the way the Old Guard, that is, Lord Grantham and Mr. Carson, planned to treat Nellie Melba.  Incidentally, there really was an opera singer of that name (stage name anyway) who was world famous and who would have been going strong at this time.  If you google her name, you’ll find an article from the Telegraph about her appearance in this episode, which states that she would never have put up with the insulting treatment intended for her by Mr. Carson or Lord Grantham.  She would have insisted on being treated as a guest and would never have consented to taking a tray in her room.  Indeed, she would likely have considered herself to be the true aristocrat in the company, which of course she was if we rightly concern ourselves with talent rather than titles.

I did enjoy the moment when Lord Grantham, who had previously approved the arrangements planned by Carson, was over-ruled by Lady Cora (her American meritocratic instincts still functioning after nearly three decades among the mother country’s aristocrats).  Lord Grantham turned to Carson to say “I blame you.”  Even Carson must go under the bus when Lord Grantham is in danger of being skinned alive by his spouse.  Carson no doubt thought he had already experimented with Bolshevism when he permitted the kitchen staff to attend the recital, something never before allowed under the roof of Downton Abbey.  Carson and Lord Grantham will stumble forward together as the 1920s unfold.

Well, I hope everyone feels up to date and in the picture.  I look forward to fresh developments.