"Get home for dinner with you. What a lovely, lovely thought" That's love, right there, in between each and every letter, not in shouting it to the wind or singing a love song
Actually Matthew’s letter is a will. Wills are written documents, showing testamentary intentions and signed in front of two witnesses. Nothing more is required under common law.
@@Fee212 Common law is the system of laws built up via court decisions over the centuries as opposed to the law created by passing legislation in Parliament. If there is no parliamentary act governing something, then then it is governed by what the common law says. Some countries, who were originally British colonies, often have common law as the default position where there is no legislation. When legislation is passed it is often based on what the common law says. I am not sure whether there was an act of parliament governing wills and estates in England in the early 20th century, I would be surprised if there wasn’t. However the legislation would have adopted the common law that a will be in writing (except for certain persons - usually soldiers or sailors on active duty) and required 2 witnesses. Edit Yes - there was an act of Parliament- the Wills Act 1837. It formally required wills to be writing and signed in front of two witnesses. Actually the act codified the requirement of being in writing, and signed in the presence of 2 witnesses. The common law position was not as clear.
@@brontewcat While this is strictly true, the lawyering behind wills is more so to prove assets and were these assets are and to make sure the will itself can't be disputed. While Joe Blow can write his own will and have it witnessed, making it legal, chances are it'll have quite a few holes in it that don't match current inheritance law, or any number of issues in the wording could cause it to be shot down. Of course, that's only if someone contests it, and if you've got enough cash for someone to do that I think one could afford a lawyer.
@@gregoryborton6598 It actually depends on how complicated Joe Blow’s will is. If Joe had a wife, and wanted everything to go to his wife, then a handwritten will appointing his wife as executor and saying I give my entire estate to Jill Blow my wife at the time Downton Abbey was set would have been completely valid and rock solid. However it is a good idea to get a lawyer to draft a will because Parliament may have changed the common law about what is required at common law. Also a lot of people want something more complicated than just giving it all to one beneficiary or there may be minor beneficiaries, and then the will needs to make sure the executor has the right powers to administer the estate. I also understand that England/Wales still have death duties, which we don’t in Australia (although we still have capital gains tax).
Whether the characters wanted to leave or not, l also quit watching. I watched " on demand" so the option to return is still there, but l feel as if something would be missing. Reasonable or not, there it is.
Personally, I think Robert true intentions are showing. He reads a letter address to Mary, not him, before Mary has a chance too. He then tries to silence the letter under the guise of seeing to its legitimacy when it could easily have been done after Mary read the letter ( like the show). Also the fact that Mathew was a lawyer and has more business sense than Robert only plays down likelihood that the document in question has no legal standing. Robert wanted full power of the estate and Mathew brilliantly blocked him. Robert would have ruined the estate had Mathew not done this. You can see Tom smirking in the corner knowing full well the undercurrent of the situation is.
You know what is shocking is how many times Robert the idiot has to be bailed out, first with marriage with Cora, and then him losing the money in bad investments, and over the years mismanaging the finances. Seriously life shouldn't give you these many chances, and after all that why should anyone have confidence in his decision making abilities. Violet put him down a bit but personally not strong enough Robert needed to be walloped with a cricket bat, other than name Robert has no right to run the estate, the money is not his.
For once I´m not sure about Robert bein the villain here. I´m not an expert on English laws, but I´ve heard they can be very weird sometimes, specially when you are talking about inheritances. Perhaps Robert just wanted to make sure everything was legal, before some cousing fourth removed came to Downton claming the state. Or maybe the baby, as a boy, was the real heir, and Mary just the protector until he became an adult. I think Robert just wanted to keep the hopes low and prepare for the worst before they can confirm that letter was legal.
@@vilwarin5635 For the title, the law was clear and had been for a long time: George, as a legitimate son, inherits any and all of Matthew's aristocratic rights...such as his lawful right to inheritance of the title of the Earl of Grantham. Some distant cousin stepping in would find himself firmly rapped on the knuckles by whatever judge he wasted the time of with such a challenge. For the possessions and monies in Matthew's ownership, it's somewhat more complex - but as George is the natural heir, he's the only person with standing to sue Mary over the inheritance. Had Matthew died childless, Isobel would have significant inheritance rights per s.151 of the Law of Property Act 1922. But George exists, so he inherits by default as Matthew's child. Frankly, I think Robert's over-egging the pudding here.
I think that Robert is correct in asserting that the letter is not a will. Strictly speaking, there would be language and format required to make it a will, and Matthew acknowledges this in saying that he will make up a proper will later on. However, this does not mean that the letter is not a document showing testamentary intention. In fact, that is the determination of its status later on. The part that they sort of gloss over here (and what was addressed with regards to Cora’s fortune and the entail) is what happens with Matthew’s money when Mary passes away. She could have another child (as she does later on), and while she is always demonstrated as supporting Downton, the fortune could be divided up, passing separately from the estate as this situation clearly shows that Matthew’s fortune (largely come into his possession from Mr. Swire) is separate from the title and estate. That may also be in the back of Robert’s mind when he opposes the letter as a will.
I suspect that Robert didn't want to let control of Downton go. He stalls on multiple accounts. First, he says that he is acting in Mary's best interest while she grieves and even leaves her out of decisions. He won't hear of "disturbing her" because he likes the fact that he can go on running things. Next, he decides to act on George's behalf ... all the while keeping the power of running it to himself. It was Matthew who brought up that Robert was mis-managing the estate, so it makes sense that Matthew would want Mary to oversee it as well. Matthew would be looking out for Mary and George, to ensure that his own son inherits an estate that will not be a financial burden.
This is actually a very interesting aspect of Robert’s character: he always calls himself a caretaker or steward of Downton rather than an owner, and he has clearly been raised to be focused on that duty. And so over the years, the thought of “I am the caretaker of this estate, so I must make myself aware of everything about it” becomes “I am the caretaker, so I know the estate best” and then “I am the caretaker, so I’m the ONLY one who can run Downton the way it should be run because nobody else in the family has the experience I have.” Which leads to him resisting Matthew, Tom, and Mary when it comes to managing the estate despite the experience THEY bring to the table
Matthew used Lavinia’s money that he inherited upon her and her father’s deaths to buy half ownership of Downton, so as his heir Mary is half owner. Their son George would inherit upon Roberts death.
The letter always getting opened near a fireplace makes me so so nervous...like Robert tossing it into fire to be in charge of everything 😂😂😂😂 brilliantly done
"... But you read it, before me." "If I hadn't read it, it wouldn't have been read, and if it hadn't been read, you wouldn't eve know about it, now would you?"
Letters like that, if signed and there is reasonable evidence that it was written by the person in question, can act as a will. My mother died unexpectedly when I was nine, she raised me alone, and was worried what would happen to me if she were to die- so she wrote it all down, what would happen to me, where her belongings would go, just in case. That acted as a will when the worst happened. She hadn't expected to pass away, but I am grateful she thought to prepare, as I would have very likely gone into foster care or worse had she not.
I love the camera angles here. First you see Robert and his reflection then when Mary comes in you see her reflection entering the room on bate’s back. The camera turns to frame her and her father and bates is cut off as he is dismissed from the room
Downton Abbey lost some sparkle when Matthew died. While I was sad when Sybil passed away it caused great character growth for Tom and really embedded him into the family. With Mary, the loss of Matthew reset her back into Mary the stuck up bully and she started being really awful to Edith again.
There was a man who got trapped in a building and wrote his will using his blood on the wall, leaving everything to his wife and children. The court took that as valid
This was clearly meant to stand as a will until he got round to making something more official. Matthew was a solicitor and in a better position than Robert to know what would/wouldn’t stand, and if he knew it wouldn’t why write it in the first place? Robert is a decent man but his motives here were pretty obvious.
Poor Matthew. He was such a self less man and died tragically while Mary who is very selfish and greedy got to live disgracefully. Never liked Mary’s character as she’s so selfish and kept pressuring Matthew to save Downton Abbey despite he felt guilty for Navinia’s death. I was devastated when Sybil passed away as she deserve better than Branson
For long years that the show was out there, it is only now that I watched it....funny me, I search things about it and lo and behold, I found that Mathew is going to die. So now, I cannot pass through season 3 Last episode. I just cannot watch it. It is totally heartbreaking! For long years they have tested fate to be together and when their time has come, their life together was short lived. I just couldn't. 😭😭😭💔💔💔 This situation was totally the same with the other series I watched, which is also a beautiful story (When calls the heart). And it is truly painful! Though I understand the actor's decision, Dan Stevens. Probably we are all just looking forward to him, Mathew, experiencing being a father which he has always hoped for. That's all....
I do not understand what is the problem. Matthew died without leaving a (proper) will. And let's stick to this for a moment. In this instance, naturally and lawfully, all Matthew's money and property (which is half of the estate) go to his heir who is George, which means the money stays in the family. And because George has just been born, someone else needs to manage it. Who is Mary, right? His mother. The money may not directly be Mary's, but they are in a sense hers. It's not like the money has to go to someone else... right?
Quite right. I never understood all the drama about this. I am not familiar with English law, but in continental Europe, a minor and half-orphan like George would have had guardians or wards, chosen from his nearest relatives, who in this case would (also) have Mary's best interest in mind.
Iulia Tsvigun Technically true. The problem is, that Mary was in a haze and completely disinterested in the running of the estate (and even her own son to some degree), ever since Mathew died. And Mary and Mathew (together with Branson), were the ones, driving the ‚modernization‘ of the estate...aiming to make it financially self sufficient. Lord Grantham had always let things slide and then repaired the damage with the interest out of Lady Grantham’s fortune...which was now gone, due to unwise investments. Worry was, that he would revert back to his old ways and Downtown might be driven into financial ruin again, without Mary taking an active role in the running of the estate. Which at that moment, she wasn’t much interested in. But Mathew expressively leaving his half of the estate to her, made her step up and actually take on that role. But yeah...technically it was a stupid decision. It didn’t really change anything in the long run and worse, it meant that they had to pay the ‚death dues‘ (taxes) twice. After Mathew‘s death and then again after Mary’s.
@@raraavis7782 Ahhh, so it was an emotional problem, not so much a financial problem. I see. And to pay the taxes twice - yes, that must be inconvenient for them. Thanks for the explanation.
Iulia Tsvigun well like titles, Mary did not have inheritance of her husbands wealth or business even if she’s the mother of George that’s the shit thing unless it’s explicitly stated in a Will. Even if Mary manages George’s fortune, she still is not an independent heiress but Matthew was clear that he wanted Mary and George to have it all and not for George to be micromanaged by lawyers or Mary’s indirect influence. He knew Mary was shrewd but lacked socially enabled and lawfully entitled power. I guess he just wanted to empower Mary if he died and the sentiment is sweet because he was the modern Crawley like Mary and he believed though she was a woman to be fully capable and should have everything and not overlooked
Robert meant well for Downton, but he was simply stuck in the past and had no understanding of business, money and law. So it was right for Matthew to make sure he wouldn’t be in full charge in case Matthew died. Mary, for all her faults, is a lot more realistic and knows how to ask for help when it’s needed, she understands the modern world, she doesn’t just try to survive in it like Robert, so that might have saved Downton (at least for a generation).
Man, doesn't anyone find this kind of grim? That an entire family that squabbled away their fortune are now excited about getting Matthew's inheritance, and keep it all going. Incredibly grim.
Robert benefits if he can prove the letter isn't a will! But he does/did not deserve another chance at full control of Downton. Course it all worked out, but what a disaster to have Robert back in charge.
Or maybe, guys, Robert is simply a decent man-- man of his time to be sure--who wants to look after and protect his family, to make sure that everything is legit, and to not to add to Mary's grief. or get hopes up to what may be no purpose. Doubtless he would like to have the entire management of Downton back in his hands, that would be only natural. But, that does not mean that he also did not have good intentions and motives here. Throughout the series, we see that the characters so dear to us are--for the most part, and with the exception of some obvious villains--a mixture of good and bad, saint and sinner, like the rest of us.
Nope, definitely about him maintaining full control. Even his mother acknowledged that at the dinner afterwards. He doesn't want that letter to be a legal document
No, it's not a will, but it's signed & was witnessed, therefore would be acceptable in a court of law. In the United States, anyway. Even without a witness. As long as the signature is authentic.
It’s really out of character for Matthew, who always was on top of everything, not to have made a will when he had every reason to make one. I don’t get why this situation was written the way it was.
Question: Who on Earth would have any standing to launch a suit against Mary as Matthew's heiress? Last I checked, someone who wishes to challenge even an informal will must show that they had some expectation of otherwise inheriting, is this not so? Isobel could (vaguely) plausibly claim standing, especially on George's behalf as her grandson and Matthew's logical heir. But she's too nice for a nasty maneuver like that, not to mention that even if she wins, Mary still controls the inheritance as George's custodial parent. Robert could also challenge the will on similar grounds, in theory. But a moment's thought will tell even him that neither Cora nor Mary - nor any one of a great many people! - would EVER forgive him if he did! He'd be divorced and alone in a trice; Carson would turn in his resignation in a heartbeat, with Mrs. Hughes and a decent chunk of the staff following him. Cora would divorce him; she nearly has once already, and only reluctantly forgave him his part in Sybil's tragic death. Edith has little love for Mary, but with her and Sybil's example to look to, she's likely to decide that it's easier to love Papa from a distance - a good, long distance. For that matter...I dread to think of the Dowager or Isobel's reactions if he tried! So Robert won't challenge the will unless he's even more stupid than I believe him to be. Who else is there? Matthew was an only child, and I've never even heard of a hint that he had any previous children. Whoever it is, they're welcome to try. Mary, as Matthew's widow, is a logical choice for heiress, and Matthew's letter sounds like the work of a (legally) competent mind (compos mentis, not intoxicated, etc.), so it would take a lot to persuade a court to overturn it. Frankly, I think Robert's being overcautious - at best. Such a will, under such a circumstance, won't be overturned but one in a hundred times.
During the whole scene I thought, why on earth should it not be a will? What else would it be? Matthew was a lawyer, of course he knew how to do a legally binding will
I think a lot of it falls onto Robert not wanting to give up complete control of the estate again (with a bit of early 1900s chauvinism involved of not thinking Mary interested in or capable of taking part of a “man’s job”). Her being Matthew’s legal heir though gives her full legal standing to have a say in the running of the estate where otherwise Robert could just brush her aside, thinking he knows better. It would not have been a popular decision with other members of the family but I’ve no doubt that he would have stubbornly stuck by his guns, at least for a while and possibly with enough time to make some truly terrible decisions regarding the estate’s finances. I don’t believe Robert was malicious in intent but he does often take the stance that his opinions are the only sensible ones, particularly when he stubbornly refuses to see anyone else’s reason.
I know nothing about wills... 😅 Uhm... I have questions? 😁 So... Matthew wrote a letter... it's not a will... but it was witnessed by two of his clients? I wonder how that happened. "Oh, btw, can you two do me a favor? I'm writing a letter here. Would you please sign it to witness it? Thank you so much. I'd appreciate it." 😊 Why would it not be a will? It's not really just a private letter, isn't it, when there apparently is evidence it was witnessed by two others? Should there have been another lawyer present, and neither of the clients were lawyers? What makes a will, a will, anyway?
In the show, in the end it is declared to be a valid legal will. Which it was. A bit informal, but enough. Matthew just meant that he would do a formal will later that would be beyond any question, with lots of words and formalities that judges are used to seeing. BTW, there is something called a holographic will, which means a will written out in the person's own handwriting. I don't know about Britain, but some U.S. states recognize it, some don't. Where it is, you do not need witnesses.
A question or two for anyone who might have informed background knowledge of the laws of Britain then. - was there any sort of joint-property law that applied to marriages? - what laws (if any) were there about women having property/assets with/without a husband? I realize the answers to both of those (in this fictional case) are probably affected by nobility and titles/estates and male succession.
I get that things can be forced or written in not a right way, but surely whether it’s written on a napkin or in secret, if it can be proven it was the actual person and they were sure about their decisions at the time and not blackmailed and in their right mind, a will is a will and their decisions must be honoured. A witness would be preferable but the last wishes of a person can’t be just disregarded if it wasn’t done in a proper way...?
Mary lost her HUSBAND. Everyone loved Matthew. Only Edith loved Michael Gregson. No one else knew him like that. The rest of the family knew that he was dead. Edith wasn’t sure
You can’t possibly compare Mary’s loss to Edith’s. Matthew was her true love who she’d known for a few years and lived with, as his wife for a few and lost him right after her baby’s birth. Nothing can be more traumatic than that. Edith was falling in love with every man who paid her the slightest attention and Michael Gregson wasn’t her husband. She had barely known him for a few months. Her loss even though hard wasn’t nearly as traumatic as Mary’s. Don’t understand the hatred towards Mary.
I think the show sprinkles in famous events to give you a flavor of the times. Like the sinking of the Titanic, and the Teapot Dome scandal, which Cora's brother was supposedly involved in.
It’s only (possibly) NOT A WILL, if someone contests it. Who’s going to contest it Robert? The only other heir is her baby son. So, who’s going to contest it?
Matthew deserved a happy ending with Mary. The series should have ended with them having a second kid or smth happy like that to give time for Edith to find her path. I know they want to milk a successful series for every penny, but they are doing so at the cost of their audiences, who invest time and feelings in a character or love story only to have their hearts shattered. I thought the series was about Mary and Matthew love story, when he died , Downton Abbey died too. Killing off Matthew made me stop watching it.
"Get home for dinner with you. What a lovely, lovely thought" That's love, right there, in between each and every letter, not in shouting it to the wind or singing a love song
I hope to find a love like that one day. Great comment, thanks.
God loves those who 'die young '...
I love how cheeky the letter is. Definitely sounds like something he’d write.
I loved Mathew
That was such a matthew thing, too. Poor Mary, she loved him with all her heart. Smart business man, that's for sure
*lawyer
“and now I shall sign this and get off home for dinner with you….what a lovely, lovely thought” they both have so much love to give 🥹❤️
this makes the death of Matthew so much more ( in a strange way ) uplifting. we know what he wanted for mary and baby george
Nothing about death is uplifitng. EVER.
Actually Matthew’s letter is a will. Wills are written documents, showing testamentary intentions and signed in front of two witnesses. Nothing more is required under common law.
I thought that they were married in church. Not a common law relationship.
@@Fee212 Common law is the system of laws built up via court decisions over the centuries as opposed to the law created by passing legislation in Parliament. If there is no parliamentary act governing something, then then it is governed by what the common law says.
Some countries, who were originally British colonies, often have common law as the default position where there is no legislation. When legislation is passed it is often based on what the common law says.
I am not sure whether there was an act of parliament governing wills and estates in England in the early 20th century, I would be surprised if there wasn’t. However the legislation would have adopted the common law that a will be in writing (except for certain persons - usually soldiers or sailors on active duty) and required 2 witnesses.
Edit Yes - there was an act of Parliament- the Wills Act 1837. It formally required wills to be writing and signed in front of two witnesses.
Actually the act codified the requirement of being in writing, and signed in the presence of 2 witnesses. The common law position was not as clear.
@@Fee212 Nothing to do w/ relationship status.
@@brontewcat While this is strictly true, the lawyering behind wills is more so to prove assets and were these assets are and to make sure the will itself can't be disputed. While Joe Blow can write his own will and have it witnessed, making it legal, chances are it'll have quite a few holes in it that don't match current inheritance law, or any number of issues in the wording could cause it to be shot down.
Of course, that's only if someone contests it, and if you've got enough cash for someone to do that I think one could afford a lawyer.
@@gregoryborton6598 It actually depends on how complicated Joe Blow’s will is. If Joe had a wife, and wanted everything to go to his wife, then a handwritten will appointing his wife as executor and saying I give my entire estate to Jill Blow my wife at the time Downton Abbey was set would have been completely valid and rock solid.
However it is a good idea to get a lawyer to draft a will because Parliament may have changed the common law about what is required at common law.
Also a lot of people want something more complicated than just giving it all to one beneficiary or there may be minor beneficiaries, and then the will needs to make sure the executor has the right powers to administer the estate.
I also understand that England/Wales still have death duties, which we don’t in Australia (although we still have capital gains tax).
2:19
I love how Violet passes her a handkerchief.
"I am afraid I have to agree with that" - We all do Violet, we all do
After Matthew's death I just couldn't watch Downton Abbey anymore. It broke my heart...
I stopped watching there too, because I was so angry they killed the two best characters, in the same season, at the birth of their children
pandakatiefominz both actors wanted to leave.
The actor playing Mathew wanted to stop to try Hollywood ! Stupid move !
@@mariem1064 Dan Stevens has done well and so has Jessica Findlay Brown
Whether the characters wanted to leave or not, l also quit watching. I watched " on demand" so the option to return is still there, but l feel as if something would be missing. Reasonable or not, there it is.
Personally, I think Robert true intentions are showing. He reads a letter address to Mary, not him, before Mary has a chance too. He then tries to silence the letter under the guise of seeing to its legitimacy when it could easily have been done after Mary read the letter ( like the show). Also the fact that Mathew was a lawyer and has more business sense than Robert only plays down likelihood that the document in question has no legal standing.
Robert wanted full power of the estate and Mathew brilliantly blocked him. Robert would have ruined the estate had Mathew not done this. You can see Tom smirking in the corner knowing full well the undercurrent of the situation is.
Well said! Never noticed the part about Tom until now. I love how supportive he is of Mary and Matthew!
You know what is shocking is how many times Robert the idiot has to be bailed out, first with marriage with Cora, and then him losing the money in bad investments, and over the years mismanaging the finances. Seriously life shouldn't give you these many chances, and after all that why should anyone have confidence in his decision making abilities. Violet put him down a bit but personally not strong enough Robert needed to be walloped with a cricket bat, other than name Robert has no right to run the estate, the money is not his.
For once I´m not sure about Robert bein the villain here. I´m not an expert on English laws, but I´ve heard they can be very weird sometimes, specially when you are talking about inheritances. Perhaps Robert just wanted to make sure everything was legal, before some cousing fourth removed came to Downton claming the state. Or maybe the baby, as a boy, was the real heir, and Mary just the protector until he became an adult. I think Robert just wanted to keep the hopes low and prepare for the worst before they can confirm that letter was legal.
@@vilwarin5635 For the title, the law was clear and had been for a long time: George, as a legitimate son, inherits any and all of Matthew's aristocratic rights...such as his lawful right to inheritance of the title of the Earl of Grantham. Some distant cousin stepping in would find himself firmly rapped on the knuckles by whatever judge he wasted the time of with such a challenge.
For the possessions and monies in Matthew's ownership, it's somewhat more complex - but as George is the natural heir, he's the only person with standing to sue Mary over the inheritance. Had Matthew died childless, Isobel would have significant inheritance rights per s.151 of the Law of Property Act 1922. But George exists, so he inherits by default as Matthew's child.
Frankly, I think Robert's over-egging the pudding here.
I think that Robert is correct in asserting that the letter is not a will. Strictly speaking, there would be language and format required to make it a will, and Matthew acknowledges this in saying that he will make up a proper will later on. However, this does not mean that the letter is not a document showing testamentary intention. In fact, that is the determination of its status later on.
The part that they sort of gloss over here (and what was addressed with regards to Cora’s fortune and the entail) is what happens with Matthew’s money when Mary passes away. She could have another child (as she does later on), and while she is always demonstrated as supporting Downton, the fortune could be divided up, passing separately from the estate as this situation clearly shows that Matthew’s fortune (largely come into his possession from Mr. Swire) is separate from the title and estate. That may also be in the back of Robert’s mind when he opposes the letter as a will.
I suspect that Robert didn't want to let control of Downton go. He stalls on multiple accounts. First, he says that he is acting in Mary's best interest while she grieves and even leaves her out of decisions. He won't hear of "disturbing her" because he likes the fact that he can go on running things. Next, he decides to act on George's behalf ... all the while keeping the power of running it to himself. It was Matthew who brought up that Robert was mis-managing the estate, so it makes sense that Matthew would want Mary to oversee it as well. Matthew would be looking out for Mary and George, to ensure that his own son inherits an estate that will not be a financial burden.
This is actually a very interesting aspect of Robert’s character: he always calls himself a caretaker or steward of Downton rather than an owner, and he has clearly been raised to be focused on that duty. And so over the years, the thought of “I am the caretaker of this estate, so I must make myself aware of everything about it” becomes “I am the caretaker, so I know the estate best” and then “I am the caretaker, so I’m the ONLY one who can run Downton the way it should be run because nobody else in the family has the experience I have.” Which leads to him resisting Matthew, Tom, and Mary when it comes to managing the estate despite the experience THEY bring to the table
Matthew used Lavinia’s money that he inherited upon her and her father’s deaths to buy half ownership of Downton, so as his heir Mary is half owner. Their son George would inherit upon Roberts death.
... that is a will. No arguements.
An alternative heir - if there was one - might be able to argue otherwise. But who is that, in this circumstance? No-one, that's who.
Violet interrupting a dead man's letter is one of the funniest things ever
The letter always getting opened near a fireplace makes me so so nervous...like Robert tossing it into fire to be in charge of everything 😂😂😂😂 brilliantly done
"... But you read it, before me." "If I hadn't read it, it wouldn't have been read, and if it hadn't been read, you wouldn't eve know about it, now would you?"
They didn't manage to get Dan Stevens voice the letter.... How I miss his voice!
Have you seen the tv show Legion?? He is phenomenal in it!!
Me too. I want Dan read this letter. That means much for me.
And doesn't he look hot these days 😝
He wanted to make a clean break. He wasn't available to record it.
I wonder if Dan Stevens ever feels sorry for leaving the series so soon when one sees the tremendous hit that it has become let alone the movies….
Letters like that, if signed and there is reasonable evidence that it was written by the person in question, can act as a will. My mother died unexpectedly when I was nine, she raised me alone, and was worried what would happen to me if she were to die- so she wrote it all down, what would happen to me, where her belongings would go, just in case. That acted as a will when the worst happened.
She hadn't expected to pass away, but I am grateful she thought to prepare, as I would have very likely gone into foster care or worse had she not.
Ron Swanson: I leave all my possessions to the man or animal that kills me.
What are those weird symbols?
Ron: The one who kills me will know.
*rueful chuckle* I was right not to be threatened by you.
I love the camera angles here. First you see Robert and his reflection then when Mary comes in you see her reflection entering the room on bate’s back. The camera turns to frame her and her father and bates is cut off as he is dismissed from the room
Agree; thats some good camera works there
Downton Abbey lost some sparkle when Matthew died. While I was sad when Sybil passed away it caused great character growth for Tom and really embedded him into the family.
With Mary, the loss of Matthew reset her back into Mary the stuck up bully and she started being really awful to Edith again.
There was a man who got trapped in a building and wrote his will using his blood on the wall, leaving everything to his wife and children. The court took that as valid
source?
I think this may be referring to the story of the “Tractor Fender Will”, which can be found by searching on google
This was clearly meant to stand as a will until he got round to making something more official. Matthew was a solicitor and in a better position than Robert to know what would/wouldn’t stand, and if he knew it wouldn’t why write it in the first place? Robert is a decent man but his motives here were pretty obvious.
Poor Matthew. He was such a self less man and died tragically while Mary who is very selfish and greedy got to live disgracefully. Never liked Mary’s character as she’s so selfish and kept pressuring Matthew to save Downton Abbey despite he felt guilty for Navinia’s death. I was devastated when Sybil passed away as she deserve better than Branson
For long years that the show was out there, it is only now that I watched it....funny me, I search things about it and lo and behold, I found that Mathew is going to die. So now, I cannot pass through season 3 Last episode. I just cannot watch it. It is totally heartbreaking! For long years they have tested fate to be together and when their time has come, their life together was short lived. I just couldn't. 😭😭😭💔💔💔 This situation was totally the same with the other series I watched, which is also a beautiful story (When calls the heart). And it is truly painful!
Though I understand the actor's decision, Dan Stevens. Probably we are all just looking forward to him, Mathew, experiencing being a father which he has always hoped for. That's all....
I do not understand what is the problem. Matthew died without leaving a (proper) will. And let's stick to this for a moment. In this instance, naturally and lawfully, all Matthew's money and property (which is half of the estate) go to his heir who is George, which means the money stays in the family. And because George has just been born, someone else needs to manage it. Who is Mary, right? His mother. The money may not directly be Mary's, but they are in a sense hers. It's not like the money has to go to someone else... right?
Quite right. I never understood all the drama about this. I am not familiar with English law, but in continental Europe, a minor and half-orphan like George would have had guardians or wards, chosen from his nearest relatives, who in this case would (also) have Mary's best interest in mind.
Iulia Tsvigun
Technically true. The problem is, that Mary was in a haze and completely disinterested in the running of the estate (and even her own son to some degree), ever since Mathew died.
And Mary and Mathew (together with Branson), were the ones, driving the ‚modernization‘ of the estate...aiming to make it financially self sufficient.
Lord Grantham had always let things slide and then repaired the damage with the interest out of Lady Grantham’s fortune...which was now gone, due to unwise investments.
Worry was, that he would revert back to his old ways and Downtown might be driven into financial ruin again,
without Mary taking an active role in the running of the estate. Which at that moment, she wasn’t much interested in. But Mathew expressively leaving his half of the estate to her, made her step up and actually take on that role.
But yeah...technically it was a stupid decision. It didn’t really change anything in the long run and worse, it meant that they had to pay the ‚death dues‘ (taxes) twice. After Mathew‘s death and then again after Mary’s.
@@raraavis7782 Ahhh, so it was an emotional problem, not so much a financial problem. I see. And to pay the taxes twice - yes, that must be inconvenient for them. Thanks for the explanation.
@@raraavis7782 Lol thank for mentioning the tax problem
Iulia Tsvigun well like titles, Mary did not have inheritance of her husbands wealth or business even if she’s the mother of George that’s the shit thing unless it’s explicitly stated in a Will. Even if Mary manages George’s fortune, she still is not an independent heiress but Matthew was clear that he wanted Mary and George to have it all and not for George to be micromanaged by lawyers or Mary’s indirect influence. He knew Mary was shrewd but lacked socially enabled and lawfully entitled power. I guess he just wanted to empower Mary if he died and the sentiment is sweet because he was the modern Crawley like Mary and he believed though she was a woman to be fully capable and should have everything and not overlooked
I never liked Mary but I do think Matthew made her a better person.
He thought ahead. To let Mary know his thoughts.
Robert meant well for Downton, but he was simply stuck in the past and had no understanding of business, money and law. So it was right for Matthew to make sure he wouldn’t be in full charge in case Matthew died. Mary, for all her faults, is a lot more realistic and knows how to ask for help when it’s needed, she understands the modern world, she doesn’t just try to survive in it like Robert, so that might have saved Downton (at least for a generation).
There were times I despised Robert so much...it isn’t a will,well yes it is, he just doesn’t want it to be so.
It's always proper to see her, before she goes down.
Dowton isnt safe with Robert and Mathew knew it and he meant the letter to keep Mary able to have a right to Dowton for their son
So early love this
Man, doesn't anyone find this kind of grim? That an entire family that squabbled away their fortune are now excited about getting Matthew's inheritance, and keep it all going. Incredibly grim.
Robert benefits if he can prove the letter isn't a will! But he does/did not deserve another chance at full control of Downton. Course it all worked out, but what a disaster to have Robert back in charge.
Or maybe, guys, Robert is simply a decent man-- man of his time to be sure--who wants to look after and protect his family, to make sure that everything is legit, and to not to add to Mary's grief. or get hopes up to what may be no purpose. Doubtless he would like to have the entire management of Downton back in his hands, that would be only natural. But, that does not mean that he also did not have good intentions and motives here. Throughout the series, we see that the characters so dear to us are--for the most part, and with the exception of some obvious villains--a mixture of good and bad, saint and sinner, like the rest of us.
Nope, definitely about him maintaining full control. Even his mother acknowledged that at the dinner afterwards. He doesn't want that letter to be a legal document
I can't believe I've never seen that before.
No, it's not a will, but it's signed & was witnessed, therefore would be acceptable in a court of law. In the United States, anyway. Even without a witness. As long as the signature is authentic.
It’s really out of character for Matthew, who always was on top of everything, not to have made a will when he had every reason to make one. I don’t get why this situation was written the way it was.
Question: Who on Earth would have any standing to launch a suit against Mary as Matthew's heiress? Last I checked, someone who wishes to challenge even an informal will must show that they had some expectation of otherwise inheriting, is this not so?
Isobel could (vaguely) plausibly claim standing, especially on George's behalf as her grandson and Matthew's logical heir. But she's too nice for a nasty maneuver like that, not to mention that even if she wins, Mary still controls the inheritance as George's custodial parent.
Robert could also challenge the will on similar grounds, in theory. But a moment's thought will tell even him that neither Cora nor Mary - nor any one of a great many people! - would EVER forgive him if he did! He'd be divorced and alone in a trice; Carson would turn in his resignation in a heartbeat, with Mrs. Hughes and a decent chunk of the staff following him. Cora would divorce him; she nearly has once already, and only reluctantly forgave him his part in Sybil's tragic death. Edith has little love for Mary, but with her and Sybil's example to look to, she's likely to decide that it's easier to love Papa from a distance - a good, long distance. For that matter...I dread to think of the Dowager or Isobel's reactions if he tried! So Robert won't challenge the will unless he's even more stupid than I believe him to be.
Who else is there? Matthew was an only child, and I've never even heard of a hint that he had any previous children.
Whoever it is, they're welcome to try. Mary, as Matthew's widow, is a logical choice for heiress, and Matthew's letter sounds like the work of a (legally) competent mind (compos mentis, not intoxicated, etc.), so it would take a lot to persuade a court to overturn it.
Frankly, I think Robert's being overcautious - at best. Such a will, under such a circumstance, won't be overturned but one in a hundred times.
Mathew Cole good job I applaud you
During the whole scene I thought, why on earth should it not be a will? What else would it be? Matthew was a lawyer, of course he knew how to do a legally binding will
I think a lot of it falls onto Robert not wanting to give up complete control of the estate again (with a bit of early 1900s chauvinism involved of not thinking Mary interested in or capable of taking part of a “man’s job”). Her being Matthew’s legal heir though gives her full legal standing to have a say in the running of the estate where otherwise Robert could just brush her aside, thinking he knows better. It would not have been a popular decision with other members of the family but I’ve no doubt that he would have stubbornly stuck by his guns, at least for a while and possibly with enough time to make some truly terrible decisions regarding the estate’s finances. I don’t believe Robert was malicious in intent but he does often take the stance that his opinions are the only sensible ones, particularly when he stubbornly refuses to see anyone else’s reason.
Marie W exactly he was way smarter than Robert
If Bates became a master valet, would he be called Master Bates?
Mr Bates and Anna’s son was truly master Bates.
I know nothing about wills... 😅
Uhm... I have questions? 😁
So... Matthew wrote a letter... it's not a will... but it was witnessed by two of his clients?
I wonder how that happened. "Oh, btw, can you two do me a favor? I'm writing a letter here. Would you please sign it to witness it? Thank you so much. I'd appreciate it." 😊
Why would it not be a will? It's not really just a private letter, isn't it, when there apparently is evidence it was witnessed by two others? Should there have been another lawyer present, and neither of the clients were lawyers? What makes a will, a will, anyway?
In the show, in the end it is declared to be a valid legal will. Which it was. A bit informal, but enough. Matthew just meant that he would do a formal will later that would be beyond any question, with lots of words and formalities that judges are used to seeing.
BTW, there is something called a holographic will, which means a will written out in the person's own handwriting. I don't know about Britain, but some U.S. states recognize it, some don't. Where it is, you do not need witnesses.
They were all so considering with Mary when Matthew died but didn’t seem to care much when Michael Gregson died
That is a will.
Lord Grantham always buts in.
A question or two for anyone who might have informed background knowledge of the laws of Britain then.
- was there any sort of joint-property law that applied to marriages?
- what laws (if any) were there about women having property/assets with/without a husband?
I realize the answers to both of those (in this fictional case) are probably affected by nobility and titles/estates and male succession.
Robert is the villain of Downton. His accomplice is Carson.
I get that things can be forced or written in not a right way, but surely whether it’s written on a napkin or in secret, if it can be proven it was the actual person and they were sure about their decisions at the time and not blackmailed and in their right mind, a will is a will and their decisions must be honoured. A witness would be preferable but the last wishes of a person can’t be just disregarded if it wasn’t done in a proper way...?
The letter wasnt Robert's to read
"Harriet Jones former Prime Minister" "Yes we know who you are."
Nous attendons, toujoirs, la teaduction en francais...
Come fare a tradurre in italiano?
Matthew would never have used the word. 'pregnant' surely.
That's right. Pregnant wasn't a word that was used back then (I don't know why). He would have used the word expecting instead.
So Mary allowed to grieve but not Edith because she a drama queen 😒 okay Mary
Looks ate everything I’ve spent s lifetime of abuse over it
6 months is not the same as a year hun
Mary lost her HUSBAND. Everyone loved Matthew. Only Edith loved Michael Gregson. No one else knew him like that. The rest of the family knew that he was dead. Edith wasn’t sure
L̶a̶d̶y̶ Fox Ŵøłfæ Exactly
You can’t possibly compare Mary’s loss to Edith’s. Matthew was her true love who she’d known for a few years and lived with, as his wife for a few and lost him right after her baby’s birth. Nothing can be more traumatic than that. Edith was falling in love with every man who paid her the slightest attention and Michael Gregson wasn’t her husband. She had barely known him for a few months. Her loss even though hard wasn’t nearly as traumatic as Mary’s. Don’t understand the hatred towards Mary.
Robert wanted to invest the money in some great money-making investment in the U.S.-man by the name of CHARLES PONZI!!
And I oop- *0_0*
I think the show sprinkles in famous events to give you a flavor of the times. Like the sinking of the Titanic, and the Teapot Dome scandal, which Cora's brother was supposedly involved in.
It is a will
That’s literally a holographic will tho
I don’t know if she’s crying because he’s gone or she might not get anything
Mathew >> Henry
It’s only (possibly) NOT A WILL, if someone contests it. Who’s going to contest it Robert? The only other heir is her baby son. So, who’s going to contest it?
😎📺👍👍
Matthew deserved a happy ending with Mary.
The series should have ended with them having a second kid or smth happy like that to give time for Edith to find her path.
I know they want to milk a successful series for every penny, but they are doing so at the cost of their audiences, who invest time and feelings in a character or love story only to have their hearts shattered. I thought the series was about Mary and Matthew love story, when he died , Downton Abbey died too.
Killing off Matthew made me stop watching it.
😒 👍
Matthew was a useless lawyer then - or should I say pretty bad storyline
Yeah never liked Robert.