Around halfway through the first series of Downton Abbey Mary challenges Cora’s assertion that her father loves her by stating that, “he wouldn’t fight for me”. The heartbreaking thing about this week’s episode was the way it showed that this line — which referred to her father’s refusal to consider the possibility of breaking the entail so that Mary could inherit his estate — has come to encapsulate Mary’s relationships with almost all of the men who claim to love her. There is nobody in Mary’s life who will fight for her. There is nobody in Mary’s life who would make any real sacrifice for her; there is nobody in her life who privileges her material well-being over abstract concepts like honour. What is the value of love when it comes from someone whose reaction to discovering that you’re in an abusive, controlling relationship is to abandon you to it? What is the point of being soft, of being forgiving, of being self-sacrificing when nobody will protect you? When you play at being female in the Edwardian British aristocracy you win or you die.
The distressing thing about the way Mary’s narrative is unfurling is that — for all that she’s castigated by other characters for being too ‘hard’ or too ‘practical’ — her fatal flaw, the single facet of her personality which has prevented her from getting everything she wanted, is that she’s not hard or practical enough. Mary could have been engaged to Matthew in 1914 and she would have had it all if she had been willing to promise to marry him with the intention of breaking it off if her mother’s baby were a boy but she chose not to accept him like that because “that’s not how we are”, because that’s not how she is: because she respected him too much to deceive him, because if she said ‘yes’ it had to be for real. She could have driven a wedge between Matthew and Lavinia and potentially broken up the relationship if she had told Matthew what she had discovered about Lavinia’s past in 2.03 but she chose not to because she did not believe it was the right thing to do, because she is soft on Lavinia and she did not believe that Lavinia deserved to lose Matthew; — and she could have forced Matthew to choose between herself and Lavinia if she had told him that she still loved him but she chose not to explicitly out of sympathy for Lavinia. Time and again, Downton Abbey has demonstrated that Mary could have everything if she were willing to be a little more ruthless to get it — but she won’t take anything that comes at the expense of another person’s well-being and happiness (unless it’s someone who has hurt her) and that’s the biggest reason she’s in this crap situation of having to marry a man who will control her for the rest of her life; — a situation characters like Mrs Hughes believe she created through her ‘unfeminine’ pragmatism (not to mention Matthew, whose rejection of her in 1.07 on grounds that she was too ‘practical’ is particularly ironic when you take it in context of the fact that she could have had him if only she’d been a little more practical about it).
For all that Mary states that “we all have to live with the choices we make” — a standard which she is more than qualified to hold other people to, considering the fact that she has always accepted responsibility for her choices and particularly considering the fact that nobody is trying to help her out of her increasingly stifling and abusive relationship with Carlisle — and for all that she tries to make herself ruthless and unimpeachable her response to Sybil’s attempted elopement belied the truth about who she is at heart. When Mary said that Ethel had made her choice and must live with it she was making a statement about the reality of Ethel’s situation, not a judgement about the way things should be: Mary knows better than most that some choices come with particularly heavy and unfair consequences for women — that’s why the only two people she told about the fact that Sybil had eloped were Edith and Anna, because Mary does not believe that Sybil should have to live with the consequences of this choice if it is not absolutely what she wants. I have no doubt that if Mary felt there were something she could do to help Ethel she would do it but there is nothing and empty platitudes are worthless to Ethel; for all that Lavinia or others might think it ‘hard’ of Mary to say that Ethel must live with the choices she made shaming Mary for her perceived lack of compassion was hardly going to put food on Ethel’s table either.
The thing which I find confusing about what’s going on with Sybil and Branson is that marrying Branson does not — in and of itself — seem like something Sybil wants; she frames her relationship with him in practical terms: he represents freedom and rebellion to her. Her desire to run away with him is born not from any feelings of romantic love for him as a person but from a sense of suffocation at home: it’s all about what being with him will provide her with — in her words, he’s her ‘ticket’. While she was working as a nurse she felt fulfilled and wanted to stay at Downton; now that the house is no longer a convalescent home she feels stifled and she wants to leave — and Branson is the means through which she can achieve that (just like, for Mary, Carlisle is the means through which she can secure a position). I think Mary — who is closer to Sybil than anyone, and who is the only person who knew that there was anything between them — probably factored this in when she decided to go after them. When Sybil first told Mary about Branson she told her that she wasn’t even sure if she was interested in him and she painted a portrait of him pushing her into a relationship (and attendant sacrifice) that she didn’t even seem to want. The fact that Sybil chose to run off with Branson without even telling Mary — who had protected their secret for months — is inherently suspect. That’s why Mary followed Sybil and asked her to come home: she couldn’t make it easy for Sybil because she needed to be sure that marrying Branson was what Sybil wanted; “if you still want him when it’s difficult, if you still want him in the cold light of day, if you want him enough to fight for him, then you can have him,” is the subtext of what she says to Sybil, “but first you need to be sure that you want him”. It was her duty as a sister to say this to Sybil, it was her duty as a sister to make sure that Sybil was not making a mistake; no doubt she would want someone, anyone, to take enough interest in her own well-being as to ask her whether she even wanted to marry Richard Carlisle.
The upsetting thing about Carson’s decision not to go with Mary to Haxby Park is that he explicitly said that the reason he had wanted to go was to ‘protect’ her from Carlisle — yet the moment he discovered the extent of Carlisle’s exploitative and controlling nature he decided not to. If anything, this discovery should have made him more protective of Mary, more determined not to leave her alone in a household of servants whose loyalty was bought and paid for by Carlisle; instead he threw her to the wolves. I would have had a lot of sympathy for Carson if he had framed his decision to stay at Downton Abbey as motivated by concern for his own well-being — but he framed it as an issue of not wanting to be associated with a dishonourable man like Carlisle, implicitly privileging the abstract concept of ‘honour’ (rather than its material effects) over Mary’s well-being. Carson’s decision not to go with Mary to Haxby Park means that — in a stifling and abusive relationship — Mary will have nobody to turn to. As butler Carson could have prevented the other servants from being complicit in Carlisle’s abuse and control of Mary — and if Carlisle ever cheated on or hit her he could have served as witness. Without him, she is all alone: she is more than justified in being upset with him, more than justified in questioning the strength of his fondness of her that he could abandon her to this fate. He wouldn’t fight for her. Also worth noting is the fact that, like Anna, he wasn’t even going to tell her that Carlisle had bribed Anna to spy on her — a fact which directly pertains to her well-being — until she pressed him on it.
Then there’s Mary’s father who, aside from explicitly privileging Matthew over her (again; and to be honest I was more than a little taken aback by the fact that Matthew would announce his intention to marry Lavinia in Mary’s house without first asking Mary whether she would mind or considering the fact that that would force her to schedule her own wedding around his), also knows about what Carlisle was trying to do; and, not only did he not confront Carlisle about this, not only did he not even ask Mary why she was knowingly marrying a man who would do that to her, but somehow the only person in that situation he had any sympathy for was Carson. Really? But then I don’t suppose I can expect too much compassion from a man who would sexually assault a maid just because he is upset with his wife for becoming the closest thing the Edwardian/interwar era has to a career woman. But it is distressing that only two people in this episode expressed any kind of concern for Mary’s material well-being: Cora, who asked Robert why he was privileging Matthew over Mary and got called “stupid” for her efforts, and Violet, who is apparently the only person who has noticed or cares that Mary does not want to marry Carlisle.
The content and the subtext of Violet said to Matthew was quite interesting. When I first watched the conversation I was frustrated by the fact that she sat and listened to him talk about the sacrifices Lavinia was willing to make to be with him without once raising the point that not only was Mary willing to make the same sacrifices but in fact it was Mary and not Lavinia who nursed him back to health; however, on reflection, I am glad that she didn’t point that out to him — because pointing that out would have meant accepting his framing of the issue as one of who is more ‘deserving’ of being his wife. Violet reframed the issue as an issue of love; if you are going to be romantic about marriage — and we know that Matthew considers himself a romantic — then marriage is not something to be bestowed on a person once they’ve done the requisite work to prove themself ‘worthy’ of it. Whether Mary or Lavinia is more ‘deserving’ of Matthew’s love is irrelevant. That’s not what love is about; in fact, quantifying who is more ‘worthy’ of marriage is the most aromantic possible way of settling a decision about who to marry as that approach is born entirely out of the concept of marriage as an economic transaction — it makes marriage an economic transaction. The other thing which is interesting to me about what Violet said is that she married romance to pragmatism in her argument — what she told Matthew, essentially, was that it was impractical of him to marry a woman he did not love. This is the most interesting facet of Violet as a character — that although she will deny that she is a romantic nonetheless she always comes down on the side of romance through her pragmatism.
But I have to question what this conversation changes for Matthew, unless Julian Fellowes is honestly trying to sell the idea that the reason Matthew walked away from Mary in 1914 was because he was so blind as to not notice that she was in love with him and because he has failed to notice it since. Does he think that she would hold a sick basin for just anyone? I will be disappointed if that’s the case, if it turns out that Matthew has been in love with Mary all along and that the reason he walked away from her was because he believed his feelings were unrequited. I am already disappointed by this whole storyline about Matthew’s paralysis and his miraculous recovery — with its explicit subtext (or text, even, given that this is Matthew’s point of view) that a life of paraplegia is a life not worth living, that people with disabilities are in fact a burden on their relatives and should not marry, that it is impossible to have a happy ending as a disabled person. I’m not sure what the state of physiotherapy was in 1918/1919 but I’m also disappointed that nobody was even slightly irked with Dr Clarkson for wilfully misdiagnosing Matthew as permanently paralysed and denying him treatment which might have made his recovery easier because he didn’t want to give him “false hope”. I don’t know if I believe that Dr Clarkson is a real doctor. I would suggest that Matthew sue him but I don’t know if I believe that Matthew is a real lawyer. I hope that next week’s episode is all about Mary and Edith, girl reporters, unearthing Dr Clarkson’s past as a notorious fraudster.
Mary O'Donnell is a student of theoretical physics, and lover of wistful and melodious things. Vicariously is a review blog for film, television, and other media. If you have any questions or comments you can contact me at marylod@gmail.com.
27 Comments
This is the best defense/explanation of Mary’s character I’ve ever read. I’m saving it so I can show it to the people I’m currently converting in Downtonians when they don’t understand her. Thank you.
The thing that’s been bothering in all the analyses and thoughts I’ve read on 2.07 is Carson’s decision to not go with Mary and Carlisle to Haxby Park. It struck me as his silent butlerly way of saying “I cannot support your decision to marry this creep.” Despite their obviously close relationship (which is only ever spoken of as “fond”), it would cross every sort of personal and professional boundary for him to openly tell Mary, “This is a mistake, you should not do this.” I thought it was clear throughout the episode (and in the rest of the series) that he cares about Mary and it pains him to see her in distress, and to hear her think he doesn’t care. He could’ve done a lot to ease her new life with Carlisle, but that would still be aiding and abetting. I love the Carson scenes that involve Mary, I think the loyalty he has to the family is odd from a modern viewpoint (but then so’s the 30-year career, retirement watch, and pension) and endearing. The bit with Robert was weird, but I’m kinda *grr* about him and the maid and not really thinking about him now.
But from Carson’s point of view Mary has no choice but to marry Carlisle and not because he’s blackmailing her but because she’s 27/28 and she already has a reputation — which a broken engagement would not help. Carson does not know that there’s a possibility that she could marry Matthew (if that even is a possibility for her); she has to marry Carlisle or face spinsterhood because nobody else will have her. That’s why I don’t believe that he was trying to encourage her to break off her engagement and if he was then his steadfast refusal to go with her when it became clear that she wasn’t going to change her mind just reads like condemnation for her ‘choices’. Until this episode I had a lot of warmth for Carson as the only one who ever stood up for Mary; that’s why, like her, I was disappointed by his decision (and by the way he framed it).
And I don’t agree that it would be aiding and abetting. There is no escape from this situation for Mary; you can’t characterise a decision to go with her as ‘enabling’ on Carson’s part. Because Carson chose not to go with them Carlisle is going to hire another butler whose loyalties will lie entirely with him and not with Mary. That’s the long and the short of it.
Fantastic post. You really hit the nail on the head! What you wrote about Violet was very succinct too, you put my love for her into words. You’re brilliant!
The real low point is when Robert judged Mary for marrying for financial security and she, very rightly, pointed out he married Cora for her money to save the estate. He has done nothing to give her any other option other than marry someone like Carlisle. Edwardian Englishmen may not have been the most hands-on-kind of fathers but surely he has some duty to do something to ensure his daughters’ futures.
Yeah, Robert is the worst kind of hypocrite. He won’t even try to break the entail for her and he knows that she can’t marry Matthew and yet he criticises her for getting engaged to Carlisle. The fact that he felt she owed Matthew something for daring to get engaged to someone else when Matthew was the one who walked away from her was pretty staggering. Every time Cora tries to involve him in securing his daughters’ futures he deflects. And he won’t even challenge Carlisle on his mistreatment of Mary — instead he spews meaningless platitudes at Carson about honour and respectability mere hours after abusing his position to kiss Jane.
Wow! Brilliant post! You’re analysis is so sharp and writing is so clear. I’m so happy to have found this site
Thank you!
Do you really think Sybil is using Branson as a means of escape? I ask as i find it hard to believe that she would do such a thing. The actress in a interview in the Radio Times admitted that Sybil had been in love with Branson for years and seven years is a long time. I would hate to think that Sybil would be so cruel surely she would know she would be leading a very different life and it would be a big sacrifice to make.
I think that if the intention of the script was that Sybil has been in love with Branson for years, that the acting was definitely not conveying it.
The script itself wasn’t conveying it. She framed it as being about escape, not love.
I too find it hard to believe that Sybil’s in love with Branson. She never seemed romantically interested in him, just his ideals and his radial politics. I agree that Branson seems more like a means of escape rather than a love interest.
*radical politics
*applauds*
I agree with absolutely everything you say here. You express the defence of Mary that, frankly, I can’t be bothered to write and am too frustrated with the majority of fandom to attempt it, only far more clearly than I could. You also point make seriously good points about Carson – I’ve loved him up to this episode but, honestly, I was seriously disappointed in him, rather like Mary! And Sybil’s position too.
Basically, thank you for writing this!
so, what did u think of the series 2 finale?
at this point, i don’t want mary to get together w/ matthew ever. she deserves much so much better.
hope you will share your thoughts on the series 2 finale.
I will do. I’m sorry, I meant to respond to your previous comment but I clean forgot. I would have posted my review by now ordinarily but I’ve been so busy this week that I haven’t had time to write it up; I’m hoping to be able to post it by the end of tomorrow or Friday. In response to your first comment: yep. Matthew was awful in this week’s episode and regardless of whether I even want him to end up with Mary I just don’t see how it can happen; I don’t see how they can get past their history. It’s depressing that the “best” Mary can do is someone who would burden her with his guilt the way Matthew did in this week’s episode. And it’s depressing that Lavinia wasn’t allowed to be more upset with Matthew for the way he jerked her around too.
no problem. shall await it. i enjoy your DA reviews. i agree with most of the points you’ve made, which you do well.
i think we are supposed to think that matt’s in love with mary because he never once tells L, who’s among those at DA with the spanish flu, that he loves her, even after she makes her declaration of love, which she could not have missed, only that he will not let her break their engagement and that mary’s marrying someone else. but if he does love mary, it does may no good. he does not treat mary well. if that’s love, she could do without it. i so wish they would bring in new characters and mary could marry someone truly worthy of her, who loves and respects her and put her, her happiness first. matt can spend the rest of his sorry life bitterly regreting losing mary.
he could marry edith. he couldn’t keep the estate without lady grantham’s fortune to which he has no moral right. so, i would like to see him marry one of the sisters. now, much improved from the mean, jealous, spiteful edith we encountered in s1, she would make a far better queen of the county than L ever could have done, as edith has seen it done in her family all her life. she would, moreover, need a place, when her fr dies.
i didn’t think much of matt, when, early in s2, he was heard telling L of DA, “better get used to it. it’ll be your home some day.” it’s as tho’ it was his to offer to anyone he pleased, when he’d be defrauding lady g’s 3 daughters to keep the place. what’s legal is not always moral. he views it as an entitlement now. it’s his to offer to whomever he pleases, forget the economic position of the 3 girls he’s defrauding. and even tho’ he’s grew up with no great expectations, and this windfall came to him from the blue, each time, in both s1 and 2, there’s a possibility that he may not get it after all, he’s really depressed about it. that notwithstanding, it was oh so wrong for mary to want her childhood home, the ancestral home, where she was born and raised, and which they are able to keep due to her mather’s personal fortune.
i can’t bear for mary to marry a man, who would abuse her as matt has done! to say the things he did to mary, who has, thoughout s2, suffered in silence, putting his happiness and L’s above her own! the man simply isn’t worthy of her!
how they will have matt and mary end up together, if they do: they think we will forget all he’s said and done, and all he’s left unsaid and undone, and find his turning around believable, satisfying!
if he does offers mary his hand in marriage, i think she ought to tell him to take a hike! i hope she will have a much better option, such that she can do that.
on the other hand, her scandal is about to break, and perhaps he will redeem himself by snapping out of his self-absorption, and exert himself to help her. still, i just can’t bear to think of her with him. my girl deserves so much better.
and L did too. they protray her as so terribly devoted to matt, who just isn’t worth it. she was not a 3 dimensional character. we see mary doing so much more (being the responsible elder sister, lovingly protective of sybil; being anna’s confidant, covering for her, and arranging for her a mini-honeymoon; helping in matt and L’s wedding prep, no matter how personally painful it is, visiting carson and watching out for him…). she has a life. all L is about is being dovoted to matt and not thinking the new short hair cuts are feminine! i’m sorry she died. i’d have preferred fo her to go find a life in her own circle in london, forgetting matt completely, but that was not to be. oh well.
i think matt ought to have been honest with her. his marrying her while loving another could not have made either of them happy. in time, they would both become bitter and resentful. and while i didn’t DISlike her, i couldn’t stand her. why would matt and she ask to marry at DA? they had no right to it just because he’d had his darkest days there! when she said to lady g, at the beginning of the s2 finale, words to the effect of, “i can’t bear to disrupt things in your house by having my wedding here,” i found myself asking, “if you can’t bear it, why did u do it?” u r imposing. and the daughter of the house is engaged too and her wedding had to be postponed because u wanted to have yours here, even though u had no right to ask. my poor mary! how painful all this has been to her and how nobly she has borne it all. oh she desrves only the very, very best!
Yeah, Matthew never offered to break up the estate once he’d inherited it and give Mary the money she was (in his view) entitled to. It’s not his fault that the estate is to pass to him instead of Mary but he’s not particularly understanding of the awkward position that puts her in either.
well, he wouldn’t be able to keep the estate were it not for mary’s mother’s personal fortune. so, yes, i think, if he doesn’t marry mary, then he needs to sell the estate, which he couldn’t keep anyway w/out lady g’s money, and give her mother’s fortune to mary.
if mary had the money, edith and sybil too would be all set because, if things don’t work out for sybil and edith never marries, they could live w/ mary.
the entail may not be matt’s fault, but he needn’t benefit unjustly by it, defrauding the mary of what should be hers.
oh, and mary, i meant to ask but then forgot, do you actually WANT them to get together? or did u simply mean: even if anyone wanted it, there’s simply no way to effect it.
i don’t want it. there’s way too much baggage there. i want so much more for her. and i want him to regret losing her all the days of his life. bitterly. anaxios! he is unworthy, unfit!
you said:
regardless of whether I even want him to end up with Mary I just don’t see how it can happen; I don’t see how they can get past their history.
To be honest: no, I don’t want Mary and Matthew to end up together. There was a period of time towards the beginning of this series where I would have said that “Although I don’t like Matthew that much, I would recognise it as a happy ending for Mary to end up with him;” and when the extent of Richard’s control issues became apparent I would have said, “I have issues with Matthew but I will concede that it would be less destructive for Mary to end up with him than with Richard;” — at this point I don’t even feel that way about it any more. Because Mary knows what the limitations of her relationship with Richard are, and although he’s explicitly coercive those limitations are no more restrictive in practice than the limitations placed on her by society — and she knows how to deal with limitations, and she knows how to deal with Richard. The problem with Matthew is that it’s always a surprise when he hurts her, and he always hurts her. He places limitations on her too but she doesn’t know where they are — and she’s not prepared to “deal” with him. She’s utterly vulnerable to him and he has no concept of the damage he’s doing to her. And you’re right: there’s too much history. I don’t see how it couldn’t be the end (of course, it won’t be).
mary, i agree with you.
here, below, are 2 things someone brought to our notice in a DA discussion group. both bits of info are from the official DA series 2 press pack from itv.
thoughts?
p.s. i really liked your review of the series 2 finale as well. for the most part, what u say is what i have thought. and u say it very well. it was pleasure to read it and all of your previous DA reviews as well. thanks!i also agree w/ the pts gwidhiel made in her comments on your review of the series 2 finale.
Sir Richard Carlisle. (Iain Glen).
Richard Carlisle belongs to the new Society that was expanding from the end
of the nineteenth century. He has made his money as a powerful and ruthless
newspaper proprietor, and while it suits him to let Mary think she can control
him, she is quite wrong. The aristocracy may still be powerful enough for Carlisle
to ape their manners and their houses and their clothes, but he does not feel the
need to defer to them and he is happy to crush them if the moment calls for it.
The Crawleys are under the illusion they can patronise him but they are severely
mistaken, as they learn to their cost.
AN INTERVIEW WITH IAIN GLEN
Iain Glen plays Sir Richard Carlisle, a wealthy newspaper tycoon who courts Mary after her split
from Matthew.
A wonderfully versatile actor who has previously starred in such diverse dramas as Game of Thrones,
Spooks, Doctor Who and The Diary of Anne Frank, Iain starts by describing his character: “He is an
inordinately wealthy newspaper proprietor with the power to make or break reputations. He finds himself
in the enviable position of being the latest suitor to Mary. Mary’s family are initially wary of his new money.
But he is determined to belong there and do what he needs to become part of that family. She represents
a world that he feels he should be part of.”
So does he really love Mary, one of the most popular characters from the first series? “Yes,” replies Iain.
“He nurses a genuine love for Mary. In her, he sees an independent woman with great spark and
intelligence, rucking up against the expectations of women from her class. He is willing to give Mary her
head.”
“The third person” in the relationship between Richard and Mary is, of course, her ex, Matthew. He
represents a potential spanner in the works for Richard. Iain says that, “It’s complicated, because Mary
harbours an unfulfilled passion for Matthew which will never go away. Richard gets to know about that and
feels threatened and wants to exorcise it from her. That is one of the threads of this series, and it comes
between them.”
Iain continues that in many ways Richard and Mary are very well suited. “At this point, we don’t
know whether they will get together, but any future marriage would have genuine passion. Richard cannot
be dismissed. They’re both independent, forceful, tough people. Their relationship is hot, not sexless.
They are suited to each other, but also fiery. There would be many an argument along the way. It could
go either way!”
The actor has relished working with Michelle Dockery who plays Mary. “She’s a wonderful person.
She’s great fun. We have a real laugh together – were both great gigglers. It sounds like a paradox,
but when the writing is very good, you become really dependent on the other actors to realise a scene.
“Michelle and I talked a lot about our screen relationship – I really value her opinion. She’s a marvellous
actress. You might think that she is tailor-made for the role of Mary, but she isn’t. She’s just made it seem
that way.”
The actor believes that viewers have been so drawn to Downton Abbey because of its marvellous subtlety.
“The first series struck such a chord because we live in a world where so much of public life is revealed.
Everything in modern life is so stated, not hidden.
I more or less agree with Iain Glen? I don’t really have anything to add to what he said; his assessment of their relationship is relatively accurate (although I would add that there’s a clear element of coercion there — I get the impression that he’s been trying to transcend that as an actor and I think his performance is a large part of what makes the relationship compelling but there’s no way to subvert the fact that Julian Fellowes wrote Richard as explicitly threatening Mary with ruin if she doesn’t marry him).
Yes!
Brilliant post! Agree with everything you say here. I too find it infuriating that Mary is the only character whose actions have any sort of consequences for her, and yet she still gets judged so harshly by others. Sybil runs off with Branson, and at the end…she still gets to marry him. Matthew is paralyzed…and then magically cured. Robert cheats on Cora…and then she apologizes for not paying enough attention to him. And yet Mary is STILL paying for the Pamuk situation, while every other character on the show (with the possible exception of Edith) has their problems solved over the course of an episode.