Omg. I love that only Mary fans have reblogged my post.


Also, yes, I think watching the adventures of animals on Downton Abbey would be much more exciting than watching Mary every episode.

When you post your opinion in a public space, like the Downton tag, you’re inviting people to discuss your opinion.  So yeah, it’s ok to have an opinion, but it’s also ok for people to disagree with your opinion.

Also, maybe you should watch a different show if you hate the fact that the main character is a main character and you hate that it is about rich white people. Like idk what you were expecting, but clearly it’s not Downton Abbey.

I knew precisely what the show was about when I began watching it. It was about a FAMILY and their servants and the dynamic of the world around them and how it impacted them. As far as I knew, it wasn’t about ONE member. I was expecting to see everyone equally, with maybe a little more focus on one person or the other every now and then, as it’s bound to happen. What I was not expecting, was for everything to become so tightly focused on Mary, that her sisters would lose screen time and development as characters. I was not expecting to see less and less of the servants who were also presented as main characters. I was not expecting to see less and less of anyone else. I was expecting a well balanced show, full of drama and suspense as well as happiness and tragedy. That’s not what I’ve been watching as of late. I’ve been watching “What’s going on with Lady Mary Crawley” and that’s not what I wanted.

I was expecting the show to focus on “rich white people”, but I wasn’t expecting the eldest daughter to be so selfish and throw tantrums when she doesn’t get everything her way.


tunnel vision: demycrawley: I don’t comment on this fact but after reading lots of…

This post is inane for a number of reasons, but I will only point out a couple:

This implication that Fellowes and ITV are some money-hungry bitches is halfway true yes, but you’re not including the fact that this is not how THE ECONOMY WORKS. People LOVE THE SHOW. A corner of fandom that complains about it and everything regarding it is just that—FANDOM. You don’t think the audience wants the show back? Downton isn’t some underground show that no one cares about, nor it is a niche cult hit with a small audience— Downton is watched by over 100 countries now and has fans that LOVE IT, fans that would be put out by it being canceled so abruptly. It’s called supply and demand, if no one wanted the show back, it wouldnt have been renewed. The Downton fatigue comes from four Sybil/Branson stans in fandom, thats it.

Also, I find your suggestion that because one actor decides he’s now above the show and that his own ‘bar of fulfillment has been raised’ means the whole show should end to be literally pathetic and selfish. What about the cast members who still love working on it? The ones who get continued good exposure from it? The older cast members who don’t get many other job offers? The crew who want to feed their families in the next couple of months? Yes, lets do away with all of this because one actor decided that he’s too good for the show! Makes complete sense. 

Blah blah blah fucking blah. You just pointed out out loud AGAIN what I already said: The creators of the show and ITV1 only care about the money, yeah that’s how economy works, I know that and I hate it. Every tv show has story and once that’s been told there’s no sense into trying to write another one only because the show is popular. I love tv shows but when I see that it turns into a money machine which ALWAYS results into shitting all over the story and the characters, I quit. Good Luck on watching 3 more seasons of Mrs Patmore having a sex life, Branson coming back being a stalker, Edith writing articles like “how to date a man 60 years older than you”, the servants in the kitchen turning downton abbey into a kitchen nightmares show, Thomas and Sarah hooking up; I’m sure that’s gonna be the level of fuckery the show is gonna reach. 


Yes, lets pretend that out of all of the people working on the show, Dan Stevens is the only one with good sense here. Omg you’re such an idiot I can’t.


I don’t comment on this fact but after reading lots of comments in recents articles I guess I can’t shut up anymore.

I’m talking about Dan Stvens signing for s4 of DA or not, yes. I can’t believe how childish some people can b, I mean…how dare you calling an actor asshole and other not so pretty names because he wants out? I think this is his problem and not yours, he has every right to do what he want without people calling him ungrateful and how much he sucks. Do you know what sucks? The fact that a writer decides to do a 4th season without even knowing who’s gonna sign and who won’t. The simple fact that the main character is UNSURE of doing another season should ring a bell to you, so how dare YOU announcing another season and possible 2 without the agreement of the main characters. If there’s one persone you need to blame is Julian Fellowes and ITV1, that’s it. Dan Stevens’ got nothing to do with it, he has every right to quit and people should take it easy with the judging. And really what it is to tell in a 4th or 5th season? WHAT? Absolutely nothing. The story was about the Crawley family finding an heir to run the estate and the tortured love story between him and Lady Mary, will they won’t they? The did and all is well. The story has been told, the end. I hate when a series goes from a plot to a completely different one just because it has a big audience and they want to make lots money with it. I for one am not interested into watching a new season with or without Dan and the fact that they are using his conflicts into singing for a new year only to create fuss is absolutely disgusting. The minute Dan or any other main actor wasn’t sure about signing for 1 more season that was the moment when they had to put a final end to the show and it would have been a great ending to an amazing series, now it’s possible everything will be ruined because well…a new season= money, money.  This is the issue, not Dan. And if you really WERE fans of the show then you wouldn’t even think about watching a new season because you would know that is the dumbest thing to do. So please, shut the fuck up. 


This post is inane for a number of reasons, but I will only point out a couple:

This implication that Fellowes and ITV are some money-hungry bitches is halfway true yes, but you’re not including the fact that this is not how THE ECONOMY WORKS. People LOVE THE SHOW. A corner of fandom that complains about it and everything regarding it is just that—FANDOM. You don’t think the audience wants the show back? Downton isn’t some underground show that no one cares about, nor it is a niche cult hit with a small audience— Downton is watched by over 100 countries now and has fans that LOVE IT, fans that would be put out by it being canceled so abruptly. It’s called supply and demand, if no one wanted the show back, it wouldnt have been renewed. The Downton fatigue comes from four Sybil/Branson stans in fandom, thats it.

Also, I find your suggestion that because one actor decides he’s now above the show and that his own ‘bar of fulfillment has been raised’ means the whole show should end to be literally pathetic and selfish. What about the cast members who still love working on it? The ones who get continued good exposure from it? The older cast members who don’t get many other job offers? The crew who want to feed their families in the next couple of months? Yes, lets do away with all of this because one actor decided that he’s too good for the show! Makes complete sense. 

sma11ie replied to your post: *

I unequivocally LOVE S1-2 Matthew, so while yes he brought Mary a world of hurt in S2, but he never realized it IMO. Even in E8, I’d argue he still wasn’t doing it *consciously*. And I believe he was hurting in S2, just even more in denial than Mary.

Oh yeah, he completely doesn’t know he’s hurting her in s2, which is why no one is really at fault and why I think it’s so beautifully human. Matthew is just trying to live in his own bubble where he is trying to tell himself that she never loved him and to me thats the saddest thing and why I just want to pet him and be like BUT MATTHEW SHE DOESSS

In ep 8, I don’t think he’s doing it with the intention necessarily of hurting her, but he is lashing out at her consciously, like, he knows his words will have an effect. I don’t think he’s doing it to be a complete asshole in a ‘if I’m going down I’m taking everybody with me kind of way’ but he knows what he’s doing. 


It’s slightly unfathomable to me that some people think that Mary has hurt Matthew on any kind of level as how he’s hurt her. Granted I am saying this strictly in s1/2 when I loved Matthew to death, and even though I will defend his pain in 1.07 to the day I die, there’s no way you can compare that pain he felt from her in series one with what he brought on her in series two. 

Series one was about naive love, and that’s why I like their journey, it all starts out as based on physical attraction and a kind of fantasy. What Mary did in 1.07 was essentially crush Matthew’s ideal of her. He was hurt to be sure, I mean he was in love with her, but it wasn’t the kind of deep love he would feel for her later on. Their love is still infantile at this point, and I would argue that it was only in the havoc of 1.07 that they actually came to realize just how far their feelings did extend. 

I think it’s unfair to compare the broken heart of Matthew in 1.07 to the actual deep-seeded angst that Mary feels in series two as a result. This isn’t to belittle Matthew’s feelings on the matter, but it is ignorant of the the fact that what happened in 1.07, Matthew also brought down on himself because of his stubborn nature. That element of him is human and beautiful, but it was his choice to leave, not her’s. To be in love and not be able to express it for the reasons Mary has, and then to watch the man you love bring a fiancee into YOUR HOME, that is painful. To agonize for six years over him and he is completely oblivious to your love because he too has been (fairly and humanly) blindsighted by his own hurt, that is just, like, the worst. And it’s not just that, but then Matthew very pointedly decides to CONSCIOUSLY deluge her with the blame of Lavinia’s death as well. 

They are both creatures of agony in their own ways, but the fact that some people think Matthew’s pain was as great as Mary’s in any regard is absurd, frankly.


Where have all the Lady Marys Gone?

In one of my classes the other day the teacher was basically arguing that in order for things to resonate with young people in contemporary culture they need to be direct representations. I wanted to disagree with this, but I never get called on. And then everyone laughed at me when I said that I thought some of the best and most important narratives were on TV. This made me mad, but I never got a chance to argue my point. If I had, this is what I would have said…

I’m not a big crier, but lately I’ve found myself shedding quite a few tears while watching any scene featuring Mary Crawley on Downton Abbey—and not simply in that preconditioned way that one cries at a wedding, a funeral or Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants (or while lamenting the state of one’s own eyebrows), but in a very deep and profound way. And it’s not simply a matter of empathy. For as Mary navigates post WWI England, what is, in turn, so heartbreaking and un-nerving is how very resonate and relevant her character still is for women today. In fact, I find her to be the most resonate female character on TV, especially for young women. Because, maybe more than anything else, what Mary is trying to do is grow up and figure out who she is, and what her place is in the world; trying to figure out what she wants versus what is wanted and expected for her, and doing all of this in a world that is changing. And the thing about change and expectations are that they happen without one’s permission or consent.

I find this to be incredibly similar to my own situation, and to that of so many girls I know. We grew up with high expectations to be successful in all areas of our lives (as someone so wisely put it we are a generation of girls who were told we could be anything, but what we heard is that we have to be everything), but by the time we reached adulthood the world had changed, and all of those pathways we had operated under assuming we’d have access to were no longer open for us. Instead what we got were closed doors and mixed messages—as example, how often were we told that if we didn’t go to college we’d be stuck saying “do you want fries with that?” only now to be told that we should come down off our high horses and accept that job at the burger place? It’s extremely hard to accept that all of the things that you based your image of self and success on might no longer have a place.  As Joan Didion wrote all those years ago:

“[that day] marked the end of something, and innocence may well be the word for it. I lost the conviction that lights would always turn green for me, the pleasant certainty that those rather passive virtues which had won me approval as a child automatically guaranteed me not only Phi Beta Kappa keys but happiness, honor, and the love of a good man; lost a certain touching faith in the totem power of good manners, clean hair, and proven competence on the Stanford-Binet scale. To such doubtful amulets had my self-respect been pinned, and I faced myself that day with the nonplused apprehension of someone who has come across a vampire and has no crucifix at hand.”

And so is our predicament. But also Lady Mary’s.

One of the things that makes Mary so wonderful and compelling though is that she tries, she fights, and she keeps her head up. Something that can be quite hard to do in life, so isn’t it important to see it represented in narrative form? It’s also something that, in my opinion, has been very lost in the representation of women in their 20s on the screen—they don’t hold their heads up. Somehow being a young woman has become overly associated with being cute (the pixie girl), and trying to stay cute, rather than trying to grow up (being cute is shooting for the middle, not the top). What a relief that the one thing Mary is not is cute. And that she looks like an adult, even as she wades through the mucky process of growing up (and one of the things that I find so genius in Michelle Dockery’s portrayal is that even though she is so poised she manages to slip in some wonderfully childlike gestures).  And she always keeps her self respect, which, to borrow from Joan Didion again:

“People with self-respect have the courage of their mistakes. They know the price of things…In brief, people with self respect exhibit a certain toughness, a kind of moral nerve.”

And this is something that, I think, we’ve become afraid of. We got used to there being extra credit, to parents making phone calls, to the idea that we had time to make mistakes—but we forgot that one must pay the price for all of that, and live with those choices (“aren’t we all stuck with the choices we make?”). Mary did not forget this, and I think this is at times both incredibly unnerving and incredibly moving. And incredibly important right here and right now. After all, we use storytelling as a way to work out our own issues. Thank god that TV has brought the girls of today Mary Crawley, a character whose problems are so resonate and relevant, but who holds her head up high, has the courage of her successes and her mistakes, and who has self-respect.

In my sixth grade English class, between learning how to express and argue our opinions, our teacher made us all stand on our chairs and shout the word “vehement” as loud as we could.  So many times in my life lately I wish I still had the confidence and respect for myself to get on that metaphorical chair and yell “vehement.” Maybe now whenever someone starts to feel like they are being driven back on themselves or lost or compromised they should get up on a chair and shout, “The Countess of Grantham lives at Downton Abbey.” Or at least say that inside their head, and then put their shoulders back and head up. 

Anonymous asked:
Why do you "hate" people who like Matthew Crawley? Why can't you respect their opinions and way of doing things and leave them be? I like them both, have issues with them both, but I don't understand how you can "hate" people for their likes. Particularly as you don't know them. And there are a lot of good things about Matthew, you just can't seem to see them. Genuine question though, not meant to appear as a rant or anything. Just everything on your blogs now has been hate towards fans...

Lmao exactly

Everything has been HATE TOWARDS FANS. Fans that show horrible problematic opinions so yeah I can hate them for their likes when their reasons and defenses for liking said things are just YIKES

I love Matthew a lot and always will, same goes for a lot of characters on the show

But his stans are like hydrochloric acid on nice things






The number of people who don’t see what happened between Mary and Pamuk as rape is actually really upsetting to me.

It is not because (as one person once suggested) I need Mary to be perfect and I can’t abide her having the “moral failing” of having sex outside of marriage.

It’s because it really upsets me that people can look at a situation where someone said “no” multiple times and NOT see it as rape. Because if that is how they read that scene on a TV show, I wonder how they interact with the issue of consent in real life. And that bothers me.

Of course no one within the show sees it as rape. But uh, they are characters that exist in the early 1900s in a patriarchal society. Surely we have a better concept of consent than they do? Mary isn’t really able to process it as rape because she doesn’t have the social framework to do so. In her mind she was attracted to him and she didn’t try hard enough to physically fight him off, so in her mind she is responsible for her perceived moral failing of having sex with Pamuk.

But that doesn’t mean that she wanted it. She repeatedly told him to leave and he didn’t. If Mary can’t say ‘no’ and have it be taken seriously, then she can’t REALLY say ‘yes’ either. Pamuk wasn’t giving her a choice.

This post about consent is good. The especially relevant points are:

  • Non-coercive: If you’re cojoling, threatening or otherwise trying to “convince” someone to engage in a sexual act with you, you are breaking consent. If you asked 16 times and got 15 No’s and 1 Yes, you still did not adequately obtain consent. Also, you’re a weak individual.


  • Not contingent upon sexual interest nor sexual arousal: We know. Blue balls are a motherfucker. Still no excuse. Neither your NOR the expressed/implied interest of any potential partners is an invitation to any act. Also, neither your nor the (assumed) arousal of anyone you might want to have sex with is an invitation. Yes, someone might be aroused and still not want to fuck. Crazy times. I know.

So idk. Can we all just take a moment to think seriously about how we view that scene and how we conceptualize consent? Because I think it’s important.

thank you for this

#god bless this post #it was sexual assault despite the lack of violence #mary was in no position to say ‘no’ any longer #it was a traumatic experience and what’s worst is that she was led to believe it was HER FAULT #can you see how fucked up that is? #and ever since she must’ve had a very complicated relationship with her own body as well #she still shudders when someone touches her when she’s not comfortable #god people it’s worrying that you can just accept this situation and call it consensual #WE’RE IN 2012 WE SHOULD KNOW BETTER

I totally agree with most of this, and I totally thought it was rape-y at first too. But as I looked back, I noticed how emotionally distraught she was by his death. I know some might argue that this was because she was so shocked by the mere circumstances of being taken advantage of or sexually assaulted, but I think that she had felt a sexual passion for him, and his resulting death made her, understandably, utterly and emotionally confused. While he definitely should have respected her constant responses of “no,” I think they were more so a mechanism caused by the social properness at the time, and that there was a part of her that lusted for him.

Later, when Lady Crawley comes into the room and asks if he had forced himself on her, Mary replies no. While I can see a million rebuttals for this point already, my reasoning is just that, Mary is a total super bitch (in the good way), and she is known to speak her mind with no restraint. The way I see it, if he forced himself on her, she would have said it, especially with the disastrous social consequences that were impending an unwed deflowering. HOWEVER, I can also see the argument that the trauma of the situation might have left her to feel like she was to blame for not telling him off more as it is seen in many rape scenarios, which is truly saddening. My last argument, however, is that, when talking to Matthew about the whole situation after he asked if she loved him, she said that it was merely “lust.” This is mostly what made me ponder if the situation was rape or not. I feel that if she thought it was nonconsensual, she would become more shy and uncomfortable around the mere question. But, alas, she sheds light on the situation.

Also, whenever asked about Pamuk, she never spoke poorly of him, but rather the opposite. She seemed to have an almost pseudo-love for him.

While I completely agree in either situation that Mr. Pamuk is a total asshole and that he should have heeded to her replies of “no,” I think that this is a tricky situation to unmask. I can honestly see both sides.

I also feel that the shame she later feels for, like, the rest of every season, is because of the response she receives from her family and everyone else that finds out. But this is because they live in the prudish early 1900’s. I’m not sure (and nobody else can be unless you know what a fictional character thinks) if it is caused by the stress and trauma of being sexually abused by Pamuk.

I think we need Mary Crawley to answer this question instead of everyone blowing the rape whistle. It could have been a risque romance that ended in tragedy, or just a plain old tragedy. 

I get what you’re saying, and I can see parts of your viewpoint. She was sexually attracted to him—that’s no doubt—and I think under different circumstances in a different time she would have been totally willing to engage in the act if such horrible consequences as social ruin might not have hinged on it. She engaged in a sexual act, but it was only under extreme duress and lack of options. The ‘yes’ wasn’t a free ‘yes’. In the end, it’s all about the way she looks at it from her perspective and what this means coming from her as a woman living at the tail end of the Victorian era. For her, someone being ‘forced’ on her would be an extremely physical act of aggression. But because she was attracted to him, because maybe there was a small part of her who under different circumstances, might have gone through with it, she’s not gonna see it that way. Because he died in her bed, she’s gonna romanticize it a little bit. She’s gonna feel bad and she’s not gonna look horribly upon a man who literally died mid-coitus. I know you say she’s a super bitch lovingly, and I totally agree with you, but at the core of her, she’s not a bitch, she’s an extremely soft and loving person who blames herself for almost everything she does in life. She blames herself for not being a man, for goodness sake, something that is unequivocally not her fault. I think she believes she had a choice in the matter even though she didn’t. Mary, who likes to believe that she is in control of her destiny, Mary, who believes that we are all stuck with the choices we make, will blame herself. Even if she had said he forced himself on her, she would still be socially ruined, so that doesn’t even factor into the matter. Even when she tells Matthew that it’s lust, we can see that she is conflicted, she doesn’t know how to label it. There’s a part of her that feels like life is unfair and though society will blame her and she will blame herself, there’s an inkling of her that understands that life just sucks and we have no control over ourselves, not really.

The point is that Mary Crawley can’t answer the question. That is the very essence of it. She’s not in a social (and even a personal) mindset to do that.

Anonymous asked:
hi. idg why you think sybil dying would be good to "shake the show up" when IMO it would be an indicator that JF consistently sees the female characters as expendable. moreover, it's playing on the trope that women are trapped and endangered by their bodies and biological processes ~DANGER CHILDBIRTH~.

Yeah, you’re completely right. But either way I think that Fellowes just doesn’t give a shit about Sybil anymore. He’s handed her suffragette storyline to Edith and Sybil’s been subsumed by Branson’s storyline anyway. It’s not an excuse to kill her off obviously, I would love for her character to have had an actual storyline this season but it is what it is. I’m kind of skeptical if she actually is gonna die, but meh, if she does its not really any more of a travesty than the hole Fellowes already sunk her in imo. I mean I’m biased tho bc I’ve always thought she was a flop character anyway. She had potential but that all went to the crapper. If she dies I’m excited to see how her death affects the characters.

But like, you’re sort of asking the wrong person too bc I’m not really invested in the show as a whole. If you asked me I would kill off everyone until we were left with Mary, Matthew, Cora, Violet, Thomas, Carson, Patmore, Hughes, Anna, and Isis.

IMO tho Fellowes doesn’t really see the females as expendable. If anything he’s put more effort into their characterization on the whole. Fellowes just has a knack for using characters to further story lines instead of using story lines to enrich characters i.e. Richard and Lavinia.


: Dear fandom,



Please stop attempting to impose your opinions on others in a condescending, insulting manner. Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean they need to be educated or treated like a five year old. They’ve managed to work out how to use Tumblr so I think we can safely assume they…

While I was not one of the anons you talked about, I did send the OP an ask. What I (and I’m sure many others who sent in asks) find worrying about the OPs opinion is not about Mary, but about their opinions of rape in general.

Lets take historical significance off the table and translate the scenario to today.

A girl meets a guy at a party, thinks he is cute and starts flirting. Later, she goes to the bathroom where he corners her alone. He says that if she does not have sex with him, he will ruin her reputation/she will never be able to have another boyfriend/he will tell her family everything. She never says no, but she never says yes either.

This is rape. She was threatened and consent was never explicitly given. This situation happens all around the world everyday (I’m an ex-RA and I have dealt with many of them)

Imagine this happens to a woman and her friend starts saying things like,

“If you were so scared, why not bang on the walls?”

“He might have taken advantage of your confusion but I still don’t think he’s a rapist”

“I think you were carried away by lust and a handsome man”

It would probably make her believe that what happened was her fault and she would be unwilling to report it. He would be free to go on to do this to other women and while the memories of her “traumatic first time” do lasting psychological damage.

These are the realities of rape.

And I know your friend is a real person, that is what is worrying to me.

Real people can vote for government officials that don’t want to change the legal definition of rape to include that it can take place without the use of force.

Real people can convince their friends that they were never raped because it didn’t take place in a dark alley somewhere.

This is past interpretation of a show, this is about implications of trivializing rape and victim blaming.

I was going to make my own response, but just… THIS.


There are a LOT of real world implications in that situation.

If Mary was not in a situation where she could say ‘no’ and have it be taken seriously (and she wasn’t because she said ‘no’ several times and Pamuk did not stop), then she’s not really in a situation where she can truly say ‘yes’ either).

Mary doesn’t view it as rape because she doesn’t really have the social or psychological framework to do so. In her mind she “didn’t fight hard enough” and she was attracted to him, so obviously she wanted it and it was her fault. Do you see how damaging this line of thought could be today?

If a girl is attracted to a guy and flirts with him, that doesn’t give him the license to push her into sex if she is saying ‘no’. And a girl’s ‘no’ should be enough. No means no. No means a guy needs to BACK OFF. Blaming a girl for rape because she didn’t fight back physically hard enough is really disgusting.

In Mary’s society, she was the guardian of her own virtue and she thinks that because she had the hots for Pamuk and because she didn’t really fight him off, then she failed at protecting her own virtue. But that is some fucked up early 20th century victim blaming mentality.

I really would have hoped that as a society we had moved on from that. So while Mary doesn’t have the social framework to understand what happened to her as rape, I really fucking hope that we as residents of the 21st century can see that it was wrong.

Wow. I said I wasn’t going to respond and then I did.


I mean, believe what you want to believe about the situation.

But understand that for me, there are a lot of upsetting real world implications when you try to brush off what happened to Mary as just getting carried away with lust.