I'm tempted to say wait, I'm pretty sure it'll happen, but I've thought that about a few films that sound like they're certain to happen and then never do.
It sounds pretty likely that there's going to be a film: Downton Abbey movie 'could be filmed this year'
But often even when you get news that makes it seem like there's definitely going to be a film it never happens. So I'll believe it when they announce it! :)
Previous to the recent name changes it did have that title so I've reverted to that since there was never a discussion/agreement to change it in the first place.
That seemed simplest but if everyone thinks it should have a different name we could always change it again of course.
Well underneath the date of performance given on the playbill it says "and during the week", so that theory doesn't work.
Even if that was so, it doesn't explain how it would be possible time wise. Unless we're going to have a crossover with Doctor Who or Harry Potter and he gets a trip in the Tardis or a timeturner.
Obviously I misremembered then! I think it says London on the page for the Cheerful Charlies too.
But yeah, I agree with Ehj666. It can't have been whilst he was employed at Downton. Carson was ashamed of his time on stage and did everything he could to hide it. If he'd been doing that whilst working at Downton I don't think he could have managed to hide it. And that's not even taking into account that it wouldn't have been feasable in the time he had available. I also bet they would have had a curfew - or a time after which the door would be locked and he wouldn't be able to get back into the house. I doubt they'd be happy with him coming back to Downton really late at night.
I think they mentioned London. And even if it were somewhere closer (Leeds or York perhaps) it'd still not be realistic for him to be able to perform there and get back after his days work. It's not as if they would have finished work at five or had access to a quick mode of travel!
Yeah, the only thing that would still make sense - if we say both sources are canon - is that he left for a while to join the The Cheerful Charlies and then came back.
(Or you know, Downton Abbey needs a better fact checker! xD)
Hmm, I'd say any source that comes from the show is canon, but where this doesn't contradict the show it could be referred to. Or I suppose we could just put it in a "notes" section.
I just looked up the book Downton Abbey - Rules for Household Staff on Amazon and if you "Look Inside" and then look at the Kindle Book you can read the forword to the book written by Carson in which he gives these details.
Maybe a reference that quotes the info would be a good idea?
I think it's a little unbelievable that Mary has quite so many suitors if that's what you mean. I don't think that a widowed woman with a child would be quite so attractive to so many. As you say, there isn't enough men to go around at this point.
To be honest, I'm not sure how much help I can be here.
If the script says that she's 17 at the beginning of the series then I suppose that would make it canon unless info appearing on screen contradicts this. That doesn't mean that her birthday took place in that month of course.
Are you taking the date of death from Robert saying she was 25 when she died? (Assuming I'm remembering that right) Because again, that doesn't have to mean she was exactly 25.
Would he be able to disinherit them even if he wanted to? I would have thought that the title would pass down from father to son automatically, not sure about the money and house.
If it appears in the episode it's more concrete, but yeah, I suppose.
The writers aren't likely to have referred to an actual calendar for 1925 when writing so we can't really use that!
The prop actually appears in the ep, so we can't ignore that. How about simply mentioning the discrepancy in a notes section?
Yes, but you are using the information from those canon sources to infer something else.