Last night on Downton Abbey, the Earl of Grantham’s aristocratic vices were shown not only to be threatening the way of life of the people for whom he’s responsible but were the cause of his daughter’s quite unnecessary death.
His middle-class son-in-law has been discovering how feckless the management of the estate is. It could have a future if it adopted a quite ordinary business model of efficiency. It won’t if it doesn’t. But the son-in-law doesn’t really know how to get the Earl to face the facts, wallowing, as he is, in lazy paternalistic delusions.
And one of his daughters dies in childbirth because he prefers the pretentious advice of a physician with an aristocratic title to the more scientific, caring, and empirically informed advice of the family doctor. The aristocratic physician exaggerates the dangers of going to the hospital and having a C-section, and the Earl takes his side, it appears, to avoid hurting his aristocratic feelings. The Earl’s wife, Lady Grantham (the most realistic character on the show), rightly accuses him of preferring male, aristocratic vanity to facing medical facts, gennuinely caring for his daughter, and taking advantage of the latest life-saving medical technology. As man of honor, he admits, against anyone who would console him, “there’s some truth” to her accusation.
As a genuinely Lockean critique, there was a very pronounced strain of nascent feminism in the show.
January 28th, 2013 | 10:35 am
A shocking episode, indeed.
As the only male in this household I tried but failed to ease the Earl’s pain by pointing out that he brought one of the finest doctors in the Isles to the Abby, but gained no ground among the womenfolk, young and old, particularly with the wife and daughter who’d both experienced a similar situation.
In the Earl’s defense ‘C’ sections were dangerous surgeries then and to be avoided, if at all possible.
However, as much as I’d like to stir the proverbial pot here, I would have listened to my wife (a woman who’s forgot more than I know) and ordered the Dr. to take the child by ‘C’ section, which happened to us with our second child. And yes, poor Grantham is a respecter of persons, the great flaw inherent in the concept of hierarchy, and paid dearly for his folly.
And yes, the son-in-law should manage the estate.
Alas, you’re right, with all his flaws the Earl is a man of honor who would be better served if he engaged his wife in conversation and listened to her replies.
January 28th, 2013 | 11:25 am
Re: deference to aristocracy, remember, his wife IS American. I wonder if they will mention that at all, or if it will remain subtext…
January 28th, 2013 | 11:51 am
Good point.
January 28th, 2013 | 12:39 pm
I remember having this explained in the book Systems of Survival. The fecklessness is descended from the time when aristocrats were a warrior caste. “Laziness” was simply time spent in practicing martial arts-not to mention the understanding that nobody really wants warriors to work to hard given the nature of their job.
The turn of the century was different simply because the techniques of the time did not require men who dedicated their lives to practicing for war. In that context the fecklessness of aristocracy has less excuse. However, to be fair they did well for their country in the two world wars, and numbers of them died, if not with military professionalism, certainly with honor. Numerous commoners paid for it to without such privileges of course. Nonetheless when one looks at the absurdity of Downton Abbey mansions, it cannot be argued that their owners at least made a decent attempt to give back to England in return for their ostentation.
January 28th, 2013 | 1:59 pm
Bob, I forgot to say how moved I was by your involvement in the show and your conversational friendship with your wife. In general, the Earl has such a friendship, but maybe not when it counts.
Jason I agree with your nuanced view of aristocratic responsibility and irresponsibility, and I think the show (more or less) does too.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact