5 Covert Conservative Lessons in Downton Abbey
#1 The Lord of the Estate Thinks It’s Too Big to Fail
Early in Episode 1 we learn that Robert Crawley invested nearly all of the estate’s holdings in a Canadian railway scheme which “everyone” said “couldn’t lose.”
George Murray, Crawley’s lawyer and a trustee of the estate, reminded Crawley that he had advised him against the scheme, but Crawley insisted that he knew better:
We knew hard times were coming for estates like Downton and this investment would make it safe for the rest of time.
While Crawley’s investment strategies would likely qualify him for a position in the Obama administration, his reaction to the loss of his fortune — or rather, his wife’s fortune — doubles down on the failure,
I won’t give in, Murray. I’ve sacrificed too much to Downton to give in now. I refuse to be the failure. The Earl who dropped the torch and let the flame go out.
That’s a fine sentiment and we would admire the earl if he proposed an actual strategy to take responsibility for his poor decisions or if he at least considered Murray’s advice: “I hate to state the obvious, but if there’s not enough money to run it. Downton must go unless you break it up and sell it off piecemeal.”
Perish the thought!
Instead, Crawley takes a “too big to fail” approach: “No. I have a duty beyond saving my own skin. The estate must be a major employer and support the house or else there’s no point to it.”
This is exactly what we see with our own lords and ladies of the Administrative Estate on the American side of the pond. They understand that there would be no point to Big Government — indeed, no point to their existence — if the Administrative Estate is broken up and we “sell it off piecemeal.” Like the servants in Downton Abbey, so many are so dependent on the American Administrative Estate that no one has the courage to be the “earl who dropped the torch” and as a result, We the Servants continue down this Road to Serfdom. Like Downton, the whole American enterprise is essentially bankrupt, but none of our “masters” seem willing to “state the obvious” and admit that “there’s not enough money to run it.”
Will Lord Grantham ever face the reality of his dire financial situation? Will the lords of our American Administrative Estate? Stay tuned.
#1 The Lord of the Estate Thinks It’s Too Big to Fail
You seem to confuse Lord Crawley’s sense of noblesse oblige with government. The two are totally different. Part of his responsibility as Lord of the Manor is to support those who work under him. It has been that way going back to when some ancestor of Lord Crawley was made a peer. One saw the same tension in the BBC adaptation of Gaskell’s “Cranford”. Mr. Carter advised Lady Ludlow she needs to cut expenses. Lady Ludlow responds by pointing out what will happen to all those who work for her. She has an invalid who is on the payroll to wind the clocks. She points out if he is let go he would end up in the Work House.
***to be continued***
I agree. Grantham is simply stating his determination to not let the estate fall apart under his care. He’s not in denial about the very real possibility that it really could fall- after all, many of the great houses by then had done exactly that, and he knows Cora is the only reason why it hasn’t already.
What he’s doing is taking personal responsibility, not expecting someone else to come to his rescue. Of course he doesn’t have a plan- that’s just part of the story. If he had one there’d be much less angst on the part of the Crawleys- and the viewers.
#3 – I’m an American. Have gun, Will Travel
The whole modus operandi of the British Landed Gentry and Aristocracy was to pass along the estate intact to future generations. For example, the entail passing the estate across generations were written to prevent sale of any portion of the estate. When many of the aristocrats/gentry found they could no longer maintain their estates they had to get a law through Parliament allowing sale of property. The fact that Lord Crawley has to consider a sale is a betrayal to all his ancestors and the family. His American parnevu wife would not get that.
-To Be Continued-
Tut tut, Michael K, it’s “parvenu”,[-nue] not parnevu.
Dang!, in sum…..what a nice metaphor for all of this current Obama “administrative class” we underlings are having to cope with right now for this second four year period.
Extremely bad taste for that arriviste Michele loading up that presidential Boeing with a few friends and jetting off to Spain in such unseemly executive-wife haste so immediately after the election. “Just because we can!”…..I bet the good class-conscious Spaniards rolled their eyes.
Spare us the patronage Mikey. Just how long does one need to live in aristocracy before one is aware of the rules, customs, and expectations? Lady Cora has devoted nearly 30 years to the endeavor and you have the chutzpah to suggest she doesn’t get it? That’s arrogance to the extreme and silly to boot. It is, however, a very good reminder of how the “Administrative Estate” view we (dare I say it?) peasants.
Difference between English (Burkean) Conservatism and American (Libertarian) Conservatism.
The things you point out as somehow not conservative are very conservative from the viewpoint of Lord Crawley and his daughters. They are trying to follow deep traditions of what it means to be a landed aristocratic when that class is going through its final death throes. The aspects you approve of are reflective of a American Libertarian conservatism. As you indirectly point out one of the appeals of the show is the tension between the two.
Lesson #6: Some people want their entitlement more than they want a safety net.
Grand Mama Levinson confirmed that she would do everything possible to help out. Mary and Violet misunderstood, thinking this meant a “bailout,” but GML made it clear that she meant she would welcome them to her various estates (though without stating for how long). So they wouldn’t starve, but they would no longer live on the old home place. It was clear that this possibility dismayed them immensely.
Why accept a real safety net when you want to continue to Occupy Downton Abbey, right?
Bravo Mr. Crowson. Well said, timely, and sadly, all too true (for all social classes).
I’liked the essay. And also appreciated the detail in the umbrage of Micheal’K. It validated the points in the essay well. We ain’t England.
You do realize Downton Abbey is in England.
“Last Sunday, the long-awaited third season of the ITV hit Downton Abbey finally premiered on American television. ” Remember that bit?
You do understand the writer wrote “We ain’t England” precisely because of awareness of that point?
Gee, I didn’t know the National Health Service existed at the time of Downton Abbey. As for the ‘bailout’, does this author know the difference between a private and public one? Also, why don’t American conservatives call themselves libertarians if they’re so smug as this woman in relation to Burkeans? After all, they are the true heirs to conservatism.
Having trouble with reading comprehension today David?
Speaking of smugness; Hello pot. This is kettle. You’re black.
Simply enjoy the “Downton Abbey” as good theater [..."tre"..] the same way that the series “Upstairs Downstairs” was so popular….as widespread curiosity over a lifestyle now “gone with the wind” of social change and economic reality forced upon Britain after losing a generation of their men in the First World War and then having that debacle topped off with losing their enormously widespread colonial empire after the Second World War. Great drama, and the Brits simply can’t get used to being greatly diminished. It’s another English Revolution, and they don’t like it one bit.
[Nobody does "character actors,actresses" quite like the Brits. Maggie Smith is brilliant, every gesture, every silent brow wrinkling meaningful.]
Most of Britain’s long-lasting angst right now is just how to adjust psychologically to being just Little U.K. rather than Great Britain since the early 1700′s.
It would take great courage to produce, direct and cast, but some really, really good theater could be built around the tension of their grande disdain for most things American while desperately needing our blood and money during and after the two World Wars.
Does anybody remember, “Over-fed, over-sexed, over-paid….and over here”…..?
Watch “Foyle’s War”.
The diminution of Great Britain is the result, not of losing its empire, but of its having embraced socialism, the EU, and loose immigration policies.
“I should be countess of Grantham one day and in my book the countess of Grantham lives at Downton Abbey!”
Isn’t that sort of what all the sociology majors were trying to say at OWS?
Only a Yank (or a North Korean, or, maybe, a member of the Iranian revolutionary exploding muppets) could turn a supposedly witty comment about the laughable “Downton Abbey” into seven unreadable pages of yawnathon.
This stuff is for you people. You gave the preposterous Julian Fellowes his Oswald, or whatever, for Christ’s sake.
Oh for heaven’s sake, take your affected dismissive airs somewhere else, please. Cynicism is just another trait that Americans lack and Brits have in spades, as your post well demonstrates.
The year before Downton Abbey first appeared, 2010, Julian Fellowes wrote and directed a charming film called From Time To Time, based on a novel by Lucy M. Boston. Although it’s a fantasy about spirits from the early 19th century appearing to a boy in 1944 it weaves its narrative around some of the same concerns as Downton Abbey, family lineage and saving the ancestral home from forced sale. The Granny, Mrs. Oldknow, is played by Maggie Smith and the 19th century master of the manor house, Captain Oldknow, is played by Hugh Bonneville. Although it obviously doesn’t have the length to develop so many characters as thoroughly as those who inhabit Downton Abbey, it still involves the viewer from start to finish and creates an emotional connection.
The Brits have an intense interest in their own history, something sadly lacking in recent generations of Americans. Perhaps it’s a better educational system or the fact that if you live in The British Isles you’re surrounded by the physical presence of your history wherever you go. And, too, what a fascinating history it is, full of out-sized personalities and brimming with romance. I think we’re blessed to have, in English directors and actors, the talent needed to bring it all to life for us.
Are you serious? I wonder if you have ever been to DC or Philadelphia? Or any of the Civil War battlefields? They’re packed, all the time, except perhaps in the dead of winter.
If there is a difference in appreciation for history, it may be explained by the sheer length of British history, compared to ours. There’s just so much more to be interested in. Having said that, my travels through the British Isles last year didn’t reveal a fascination with history that is any greater than that in the US- in some ways it was very sad- perhaps there is such disinterest because there ARE so many sites- they’re simply taken for granted.
Stonehenge is probably one of the the biggest shames, but by no means the only one. If that were here it’d be in a stadium, under a glass roof, with a three-story interpretive center and a five-acre parking lot!
One thing I did notice is the lack of private foundations, (ours are often in partnership with the Parks Department), which seem to spring up on every corner in the US. Little towns where nothing of note ever happened have historical societies. We don’t have much history, but what we do have is meticulously cared for. It’s beyond my knowledge to state whether this trait is “sadly lacking in recent generations of Americans”, but if you’ve ever been to DC or Philly you know you need to hit the sights early before the masses of school kids show up on the bus!
– Gatsby. This ain’t Dallas or Spartacus!