(Difference between revisions) | User:HarryPotterRules1
(Maud Bagshaw)
(Maud Bagshaw)
Line 608: Line 608:
== Maud Bagshaw ==
== Maud Bagshaw ==
The original read ''Her husband, David, died sometime between 1888 and 1891<sup id="cite_ref- ">[ [7]],</sup>'' and foornote 7 referred to the second Boer war. That appeared to be a typo intended to read 1899 to 1902. The first Boer War was 1880 to 1881. Not sure how Maud's age was derived (Imelda Staunton is about a decade younger at 63), but if she were currently 71, then she would have been 24 or 25 when David died, yet not had Lucy until 14-15 years later. Further, if she had 10 good years with David, then she got married at 14. I have only seen the movie once, so my memory could be faulty, but the numbers don't seem to work for the first Boer war.
The original read ''Her husband, David, died sometime between 1888 and 1891<sup id="cite_ref- ">[ [7]],</sup>'' and foornote 7 referred to the second Boer war. That appeared to be a typo intended to read 1899 to 1902. The first Boer War was 1880 to 1881. Not sure how Maud's age was derived (Imelda Staunton is about a decade younger at 63), but if she were currently 71, then she would have been 24 or 25 when David died, yet not had Lucy until 14-15 years later. Further, if she had 10 good years with David, then she got married at 14. I have only seen the movie once, so my memory could be faulty, but the numbers don't seem to work for the first Boer war.
You are making the same arguments I was making, the only thing you have wrong is that it was the second Boer war that ran from 1899 - 1902. The first Boer war was 1880 - 1881. [[User:Ehj666|Ehj666]] ([[User talk:Ehj666|talk]]) 00:24, September 27, 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:24, September 27, 2019


Hi, welcome to Downton Abbey Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Martha Levinson page.

If you need help, and there are no local admins here, you may want to visit the forums on the Community Central Wiki. Looking for live help? Then join us for an upcoming webinar to chat with staff and other Wikia editors. You can also check our Staff blog to keep up-to-date with the latest news and events around Wikia.

Happy editing, LexiLexi@fandom (help forum | blog)


Thanks for getting back to me (love your username, by the way).

It appears there's some discrepancy about Sybil's age, because in 1x07, Robert says Cora hasn't been pregnant for 18 years. Since assumedly he is talking about when Cora was pregnant with Sybil, that would mean she, Sybil, is 17-18 years old at that time. That episode was set in 1914, meaning Sybil would have been born in either 1896 or 1897, so Sybil would have been 22 or 23 in 2x07. You're right that Mary said she was 21 in that episode, but I think what she meant was that she was over 21. Either that, or Julian Fellowes just can't remember her age.

Hopefully we can get this worked out! Thanks again for getting back to me.


I enjoy poetry, long walks on the beach and poking dead things with a stick. 03:00, March 20, 2012 (UTC)


Sybil&#039;s age

Sybil's age in 1919, thus confirming she is born in 1898.

It was no trouble; I had found this source before, but didn't know how to put it up, I have found out how now. Look right -------------->

Does this perhaps help? I was able to find this on the internet. This is where I found it, so you can have a look yourself:

The three sisters were interviewed for the Radio Times at the end of last October before final Episode for S2 was aired in UK and set in early 1919.

*JBF says Sybil is 21

*Laura says Edith was born in 1894, so in 1919 she'd be 25:

*Michelle says Mary is 27:

These dates pretty much confirm that Mary was born in 1982, Edith was born in 1894 and Sybil was born in 1898. Hope the image helps.

Yours, HarryPotterRules1 03:58, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Glad you love my name.

Assumption and leaps

How can we assume that Robert has only one aunt simply based on Roberta being only mentioned on screen. Susan could easily be the daughter of another sister or Violet's brother. Violet mentioned Roberta in passing to make a point rather then an extensive family tree, but she never tells the Crawley sisters that Roberta was your one and only aunt. Also Major Gordon says he is connected to Downton Abbey, which is the Crawley family, so it's seems odd to assume that he'd be related to Violet, a Crawley by marriage, and therefore why would Edith tell him about an aunt who married a Gordon that was a Crawley relation. Also why couldn't Robert's father have been inherited the Earldom from his grandfather or his great-uncle since his father was already dead rather then father to son. I can assumed that Robert's father was the son of an Earl, but inherited from another relative since it would explain why Robert's grandmother lived at Crawley House in Downton village rather then the Dower House. I'm not saying the Earldom hasn't been passed down father to son in each generation, but I'm just saying he don't know either way so let's not assume since how Reginald and Robert are related isn't the same as how the Earldom has passed from one Earl to the next. That's what fanfic is for.CestWhat (talk) 03:19, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

Remember, Patrick Gordon ISN'T being Patrick Gordon, that's a false name - he's pretending to be Patrick and connected to Downton Abbey - and Edith NEVER states which side the aunt is on. The press pack (which came out at the beginning of the series), confirms that Patrick Crawley, Earl of Grantham, is in direct line; Matthew is the first time it's had to leave the main line.

Patrick's grandmother may still have been alive at the time of Violet's marriage and was living in the dower house, meaning her daughter-in-law (and Violet's mother-in-law) had to live in Crawley House.

We know, WITHOUT A DOUBT, that the way I show IS how they're related; we know this for three reasons 1) Violet says she doesn't want to see Downton go to a complete stranger - this would have happened BEFORE if Patrick had not inherited it from his father. 2) As I have shown on the tree, Robert's third cousin is Reginald - so since Patrick Crawley, Earl of Grantham is in direct line; he and Reginald HAVE to descend from 2nd Earl for Matthew and Mary to be 4th cousins and for Matthew to be Robert's third cousin-once-removed.HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:33, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

Again, Violet can easily have another sister or a brother who is the parent of Susan. The Gordon aunt can easily be totally unrelated to Susan or her mother. Robert is a direct-line descend from the 1st Earl doesn't mean that his father couldn't have inherited the earldom from his grandfather rather than his father. And Violet talking about a stranger isn't the same as a third cousin you've never met compared to a grandson of your dead son inheriting your estate before Violet even married the Earl of the Grantham. This isn't a situation where I'm saying I'm right or you’re wrong. You can dead right, but it's never said either way on the show and let's not assume. CestWhat (talk) 03:57, September 2, 2012 (UTC) Patrick is the FIFTH Earl; so, as shown by the picture I posted, it has to be a direct descent, otherwise a) Patrick would not be The Fifth Earl and b) Robert and Reginald would NOT be third cousins; that much is know, so please, stop removing it for heavens sakes! The picture shows that it HAS TO BE A DIRECT LINE for Reginald and Robert to be 3rd cousins; there is NO OTHER POSSIBLE WAY!

No other siblings of Violet are mentioned, and do remember, Robert would KNOW of his mother and father's family - Patrick, his father, had ONE sibling, a brother, who was the father of James and the Grandfather of Patrick who died on the Titanic. This, given that Robert never states he has any other aunts, means that Roberta, as the only aunt mentioned, must be the one Edith meant and must be the mother of Susan.HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 04:02, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

There are countless different ways how the Earldom has passed down. I'm agreeing that Matthew and Robert and third cousins, once removed. That isn't the same as who each of them is related the 2nd Earl of Grantham. Nor have you really shown how Roberta is named Gordon simply because another aunt isn't mentioned, doesn't mean no other aunt exists. Nor it shown that Violet didn't have a brother who could just as easily be Susan's father.CestWhat (talk) 05:02, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

Pausible Family Tree

As you can plainly see here, THIS is how they are related;Tree for Wiki

If the earldom had passed to a brother (or uncle, nephew, etc), then it would not be such an "OMG! STRANGER HAS TITLE!" moment, for Matthew to eventually inherit; this means it MUST be a direct line with no breaks since 2nd Earl. As well as this, it's stated by the show that Patrick is only inheriting because Robert has no sons. This, is the first time it's happened. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 05:20, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

No, I can't plainly see because my version is just as plausible. Again, a younger brother, a nephew or a grandson who you've known all your life are not "a stranger" in the way a third cousin, once removed you've never met is and also Violet only married into the family and therefore isn't speaking about things that happened generations before her time at Downton Abbey. CestWhat (talk) 05:24, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

This is the tree, or rather, what we definitely know:Tree for Wiki See?--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 09:15, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

Admin Election

Hey HarryPotterRules1. I created a forum about the adminship issue and the current adoption requests so that we can make a community decision and resolve the dilemmas between you and CestWhat. Hope to see you there :-) --AvatarRokusGhost 06:37, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

HPR, where did you find the info that Robert's father's name was Patrick, please?

I didn't find it; it appeared at the same time that Cora's father name (Isidore Levinson) turned up. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:45, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

RE:Patrick marriage/death issue

If I might respond to your counterargument:

1) I never claimed nor implied Violet was giving us rough approximates and not precise dates. I also never claimed that Violet and Patrick did not marry in 1869. Until this part, we concur. What I don't think you have understood is that in 1869, at the time of his marriage with Violet, Patrick may have not be Earl yet, and still be Viscount Downton. Violet would only start running Downton Abbey when she became Countess of Grantham -- which would be when Patrick became Earl; not before (to understand it, make the Violet-Cora paralellism: when Cora married Robert, Robert was not Earl of Grantham yet and, because of this, Cora did not become Countess immediately when she married him -- she only became Countess (and effectively started running Downton) when Robert became Earl. The same reasoning could apply to Violet and Patrick, as nothing in canon tells us that Patrick was already the Earl when he married to Violet). Notice that my reasoning allows us to respect the thirty-year period when Violet was Countess (not Dowager Countess): for instance; they were married in 1869 and (let's suppose for the sake of demonstrating the argument) Patrick became Earl a year later, in 1870. Then, Patrick would have died 30 years later, in 1900.

So, we conclude this:

Marriage (1869) Year Patrick became Earl (1869+x) Patrick's death (1869+x+30)
1869 1869 (or prior) 1899
1869 1870 1900
1869 1871 1901
1869 1872 1902
1869 1873 1903
1869 1874 1904
1869 1875 1905
1869 1876 1906
1869 1877 1907
1869 1878 1908
1869 1879 1909
1869 1880 1910
1869 1881 1911
1869 1882 1912

As you see, the year 1899 is merely the earliest possible year for Patrick's death -- not the conclusive, certain, actual year that he died.

2) Although I wasn't arguing about Sybil's year of birth, let me respond: If Sybil was 21 years old in April, 1919, then she couldn't have been born in 1898 at all. Sybil was born in June, and if she was born in 1898, she would only turn 21 in June of 1919, meaning that in April she would still be 20 -- for her to be 21 in April of 1919, she had to have celebrated her 21st birthday in June, 1918. That being said, Sybil was born in either 1896 (supported by Robert's remark after Sybil's death) or 1897 (supported by Mary's remark). If you ask me, I'd take Robert's date as the most reasonable/credible, even if that makes Sybil's first season to be around her 18th birthday. Mary's remark was probably meant to be taken as something like "you are over 21 now", or "you are over the age of majority now". --  Seth Cooper  talk page! 18:49, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Now, allow me to respond from yours. For one thing, the whole Sybil's birthdate is "around June"; that can be inferred due to the Crawley Family returning from London in JUNE. It's never outright stated her birthdate is in June, and Mary's statement makes her birthdate LIKELY to be EARLIER than June, probably around March or early April, as that would fit with Mary's statement of Sybil being "21 now" in April 1919. It;s ROBERT'S statement that throws the doubt onto it, as Sybil doesn't correct Mary in 1919, does she? She would have corrected Mary on her age if Mary was wrong, after all; Lord Grantham only says Sybil is 24, AFTER SHE IS DEAD and everyone is to shocked/distraught/furious at Robert to correct him.
As for Patrick's date, look at the evidence.
1919 Violet says "Oh, don't be, don't be. It was a WEDDING PRESENT from a frightful aunt, I have HATED IT FOR HALF A CENTURY"; this, without a doubt, places Violet's marriage in 1869, agree? Violet's page on this wiki (which was added on when the page was created - I remember seeing it) states "Violet, now COUNTESS, gave birth to two children, Robert, in 1869, and Rosamund in 1870."
This ALL BUT CONFIRMS that Patrick WAS Earl in 1869 - there's also the fact that Robert was made to marry someone rich as the estate was impoverished: Surely Patrick would have had to have done the same, which is why he married when ALREADY Earl, there was no pressure on him: He could marry for love if he wanted to. So, as seen from this information, Patrick WAS Earl BEFORE he married Violet, meaning that she was Countess from 1869 - 1899 when her husband passed away and Cora became Countess and Violet became Dowager Countess. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:42, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
Robert is her father; he's bound to know his own daughter's age as well as Mary. Either way the determination of Sybil's birth year seems to be a mit murky -- I personally think that Fellowes made a mistake with the dates, as they don't add up at all. Now matter how you put it, all of the possible years (1896, 1897, 1898) go against something that has been said elsewhere in the series. That being said, I think Sybil's article should list her birth year as "c. 1896 or 1898", given the contradictory evidence (unless we are going by the most recent information, I don't know, but I think the other solution is best).
As for Patrick's death year: I do not question that Violet and Patrick married in 1869. We both agree on this. What I do question is how do we know that he was Earl by then?
You say that Violet's article currently states that she became Countess upon her marriage in 1869 -- but that doesn't necessarily make it so. I could go ahead and edit the article, so it said that Violet was actually a Scottish witch born in 1935 who headed "an exclusive boarding school" in the 1990s, but that wouldn't be right. My point is: you cannot prove a canonical fact from the series with information you (meaning, the users of this wiki) wrote. Theme wikis are a repository of facts and factoids, but they should never be used as their own sources (that reminds me: How on Earth do we know that Violet was born in 1845? But I digress).
I do not question the validity of the scenario you present (that Patrick was already Earl when he married Violet). As conceivable as it may be, my point is it is never outright stated in canon and it's not the only way things could've happened: you could only presume the circumstances around the marriage were as you say if you could absolutely and beyond reasonable doubt disprove that Patrick might've been Viscount Downton when he married, and become Earl in the few years that followed. Presuming is speculation in our behalf, it's misleading and it's fallacious. Who's to say it happened that way? Only Fellowes. And he hasn't (as far as I know, of course). And until he does, we cannot take that scenario as fact. --  Seth Cooper  talk page! 00:03, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the Sybil thing; put "1896(references) or 1898(references)" and leave it at that until it's DEFINITELY confirmed.
While I understand that we could ASSUME Patrick was NOT EARL, there's one GLARING fact; Robert married Cora to save Downton which was hinted to be LONG impoverished; if Patrick WAS NOT EARL when he married Violet, he would not have been able to marry her; he would have had to have married someone rich chosen by his parents to keep Downton going, meaning he WAS, without a doubt, Earl in 1869, meaning he died, without a doubt, in 1899. See? 1899 IS Patrick's death, without a single shred of doubt; it all fits and is the most likely date.
As for Violet being born in 1845, I think the reference came from a twitter page. We know she definitely WAS born between 1840 and 1850 - we can work this out from two things: 1, Violet's sister, Roberta, fought in Lucknown in 1857; she had to be at LEAST 17, meaning that 1840 was the latest Roberta could be born and be old enough to fight at Lucknow. Violet could not be born any later than 1850, as she would not be old enough to be "pursued" by Lord Hepworth's father in the late 1860s where she'd be 17 and 18 before marriage, then 19 on marriage in 1869 (Robert is then born soon after marriage and Rosamund in 1870) HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:35, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
Would this be alright for the page?: Patrick Crawley, 5th Earl of Grantham (b. in or before 1851<reference>Robert was born in 1869, so his father would have to be at least 18, making 1851 the latest Patrick can be born.</reference end> - d. between 1899<reference>Violet and Patrick married in 1869, and Violet ran Downton for "Thirty Years", meaning that 1899 is the earliest that Patrick could have died.</reference end> and 1912<reference>Robert was in charge of Downton in 1912, meaning his father was dead by that date.</reference end>) HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:26, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
1899 is, I agree with you, the most likely date, but as it isn't definitely given in the series, I think we should tend to err on the side of caution (after all, how would we know that the Earldom was long impoverished? The Earl before Patrick could've just made a financial blunder just like Robert did in 1920). Anyway, I think the way you worded the possible death years is just fine. :)
One thing I do not agree with you is that we can presume that someone is 18 by the time of their children's birth or at the time they were "pursued". This is not always the case, as you'll agree with me -- as there are so many cases of pregnancies in people younger than 18 -- even more so in the mid-19th century (when things like that could've just as conceivably happened in their early teens). That being said, I do not agree that we can conclusively prove that Violet's latest possible birth year is 1850 (this one's a bit more tricky, as we do not have any other references as to how old Patrick was in relation to Violet -- although, given Violet's disdain for Edith and Strallan's wedding, I wouldn't say that their age difference was too much). What I think the pages should say is that Violet was born in "c. 1840s or 1850s" (a guesstimate based on Roberta's age and Lord Hepworth's father "pursuing" of her in the late '60s), and I think Patrick's should ommit a birth year altogether, reading just "d. between 1899 and 1912" (unless it just says "born before 1869", as it is the earliest date we know for certain he was alive). --  Seth Cooper  talk page! 15:11, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
I've changed both the pages; hope they are alright. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:20, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
Looks much better to me. Keep in mind, too, that if Fellowes goes ahead with his rumored plans for the prequel series depicting Robert and Cora's courtship and marriage, we may get more hard information on some of these questions. Dragonrider2 (talk) 21:36, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, if he goes ahead with it, we may actually GET an actor for Patrick and Isidore.HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:21, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
Everything's fine, thank you for the colloquy! By the way, I think we all agree that if Fellowes went ahead with the prequel thing it'd be awesome! Perhaps we'd even get an actor for James Crawley and his "nasty" mother (who, I'd wager, would have had some really funny confrontations with Violet) -- not to mention some closure on Violet's side of the family. --  Seth Cooper  talk page! 00:06, October 21, 2012
I think Roberta lives in India: Violet made no indication of her sister coming back from Lucknow after the battle - again, she made no indication of her NOT returning. Also, Susan's page needs editing to say she came to Downton at least once; Violet mentions it "She must have forgotten about the distance between the girls' rooms and the bachelors corridor." - whenever I add it in CestWhat deletes it. Could you add it in please? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:40, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Explain threat

Could you kindly explain this:,_Marquess_of_Flintshire?diff=14386&oldid=14381

"CestWhat, this is a VALID reference link. Remove it, and I will hurt you, for I have written this in before, and you have removed it."

You do know that a threat like this could get you perma-banned from all of Wikia and not just a specific wiki? -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 25 Oct 2012 10:59 AM Pacific

You didn't need to post the reference. I would have known what you meant it you had just written "What did you mean by this threat" - but thank you for clarifying.
I should have thought it obvious. I'd written this in before, with valid reference links (e.g. Cora knowing who Susan is, Violet saying that Susan had been to Downton before, and it having to be AFTER 1889, again, since Cora KNOWS who Susan is and WOULDN'T if she had visited before 1889 as Cora and Robert weren't married before 1889. The threat was a way of preventing CestWhat from removing it, as he/she (again, can someone PLEASE tell me the gender?!) has removed it SEVERAL TIMES before. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:31, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
That explains why you were upset, but it does not give any rational reason for the threat "I will hurt you". Not that I expect one. If you were smart, you would begin apologizing profusely to CestWhat and ask for forgiveness. A wiki is no place for threats of bodily harm and barely a place for threats of any sort. Would the same sort of threat work on you? If so, that makes me very sad.
Until you demonstrate that you understand why making this threat was wrong rather than trying to defend your actions based on what amounts to trivia, you will never get my support to be an admin.
Please think carefully again about why you feel you needed to make that threat and answer again. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 26 Oct 2012 3:58 PM Pacific
Upset? Upset? No. I'm not upset. I'M FREAKING APOPLECTICALLY ANGRY at CestWhat. I made the threat because it worked: CestWhat HASN'T removed the valid references like he/she did before - please, someone tell me his/her gender!; as for apologising to CestWhat, I've already explained to him/her that I will apologise, but ONLY when he/she apologises for the canon information removed in about June (I'm not sure if that month is right, but the removal of Canon information is). Since I have had no apology yet, I will not be apologising. When he/she apologises for what he/she did, then I will apologise for my actions. Ok? I AM willing to compromise, but I will NOT be made to apologise without receiving one myself. Once CestWhat apologises (and I mean down on all fours kissing my shoes and begging me for forgiveness) then I will apologise. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:11, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
So you truly believe that threats work? Think carefully about your answer, because it could get you banned. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1 Nov 2012 1:34 PM Pacific
In cases where, after explaining to the person who keeps removing the edits, after deferring to someone higher up (Seth Cooper) and after running out of options, threats become the last option. In this case, it DID work. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:38, November 1, 2012 (UTC)
See User_talk:Fandyllic#ApologyReq. I'm currently of the opinion that if you do not apologize first, you will be the first to get banned. I'm thinking 1 month, then 3 months, then 6 months, and them probably permaban. CestWhat will also have to apologize, or a ban will probably be forthcoming for CestWhat also. Sometimes the best way to cure a disease is to cut out the problem parts. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1 Nov 2012 1:59 PM Pacific
You do know that the section on that ink hasn't shown up, don't you? You're going to ban ME, the one who acted on things that were done by CestWhat AFTER I had discussed the stuff I wrote with someone higher up? Well, someone's choosing favourites. No. I've said - HE acted first: HE must apologise for his actions - removing canon content several times even after valid reference links and evidence (namely a talk page which I directed him to) was shown - before I will apologise. Ok? I WILL apologise, but given that HIS actions started it, I want HIS apology before I give mine. That is all I ask. He apologises, and I will then offer my apologies too. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:28, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

The wiki engine ate my link anchor. Try it now.
The higher powers (Wikia staff) chose me to be the caretaker. You can interpret it as playing favorites, but you chose to make a threat and I chose to view that as the more grievous error. So far no one has disagreed with me except you. I also chose you to apologize first, because you asked to block CestWhat, but CestWhat chose the higher ground and just attempted to convince others of your unsuitability. CestWhat is not faultless, but in my mind you currently hold the greater fault.
You can ask for many things, but that doesn't mean you'll get it. If your pride or misguided principles are preventing you from apologizing first, then I won't force you. I will wait for CestWhat to stop removing content first however.
If you apologize, you can escape your ban. I consider this a kindness, since I could have banned you immediately for making any of your threats and I doubt anyone would have defended you. Even Seth opposed you as an admin.
I'm also watching CestWhat, so maybe you won't have to apologize, because I will ban CestWhat first. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1 Nov 2012 4:09 PM Pacific
I still got nothing from the link I'm afraid. Personally, as long as CESTWHAT is here, I'll never be totally "secure" when I DO make canon edits, since I'll always be thinking "Is he going to remove it?". It'll always make me paranoid - and this whole thing has made me realise one thing: I will NEVER support CestWhat in ANYTHING! EVER! Since CestWhat seems to be (if you'll pardon my language) doing fuck all, I'll take the higher ground. CestWhat (I would use your real name, but I don't know it) I apologise for my actions. There's my apology (it's the stuff in italics), however, I will add ONE caveat to my apology. It is this: If you do not apologise to me - or do this again - I will be retracting my apology, will never speak to you again - using others to pass on messages - and will make sure that you will never get into a place of power. EVER. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:19, November 2, 2012 (UTC)
Ummm, an apology on your talk page doesn't quite do it. That's like saying you're going to apologize to someone, apologizing to yourself in a mirror and thinking it is done. Please apologize on CestWhat's talk page and include what you are apologizing for (specifically the threat) and you need to promise that you will no longer make threats (to CestWhat or others) and it is a promise you must keep. You will still be monitored for edit wars, or other problems, since this apology does not absolve you of all restrictions and you need to read and give feedback on Forum:What is canon and good citations/references (hopefully you understand it). Also, you may choose to retract your apology, but that will likely get you banned.
Lastly, you may not realize this, but your comments and reactions during this whole situation are probably being seen by many as childish and immature at best. You will probably spend awhile proving to other users that you can be mature and thoughtful. Perhaps ask users at other wikis you contrubute to to read over some of what has been written here and ask them their opinion. --
I have apologised on CestWhat's page, and hope that I shall receive an apology for his actions too, as they started the edit war. If I do NOT receive an apology, then I shall be retracting mine and will not apologise again until I've had the apology from CestWhat.
I may spend a while proving myself, but if people view ALL the information, they'll find that the threat (as no other options remained) was the last way of keeping the information in the article - I'm not proud of it, and I know it does not absolve me of all restrictions. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:28, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

References to notes/speculation

It would help alot with your disagreement with CestWhat, if you could start moving some of your <ref>stuff</ref> to a "Notes" section. Here's what I would suggest as an example:

Something from Downton Abbey<sup>[[#note-a|a]]</sup>

...farther down near the end of the article...

== Notes ==

* <sup id="note-a">a</sup> Some note about above.

In the article it would look like this:

Something from Downton Abbeya


  • a Some note about above.

The little a link should jump to the note.-- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7 Nov 2012 11:43 AM Pacific


Ok, I'll see what I can do. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:57, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

Robert's Father's Name

Did you get the name of Robert's father from the character bio for Violet in the Series 1 Press Pack? --Dragonrider2 (talk) 22:23, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

I think so - but I'm not entirely sure. I can't truly remember: I think it may have been a Downton book - but if it wasn't, then it was definitely the Violet press pack. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:38, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

I've just been looking at the Series 1 press pack and the information you're talking about isn't from there: Bluebellanon (talk) 22:41, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

Then it WAS the book. It was a book released alongside Series 1. I only had that and the press pack at the time, after all. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:42, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

In that case you'll need to provide the book's title, author, and a page number for it to be a proper reference. Bluebellanon (talk) 22:45, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

Let me try this again. There is a reference to Patrick in Violet's bio, but it is actually talking about James' son, Mary's fiance. I can see how HPR might think that the 6th Earl's name was Patrick from this: "Publicly, Violet supports the arrangements made by her late husband. But in reality, once Patrick is dead, she favours her granddaughter Mary over some distant stranger," but a more careful reading shows that it actually refers to her great-nephew. Dragonrider2 (talk) 22:49, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, good point, that makes total sense! Sounds like it might have been a mistake then? Bluebellanon (talk) 22:53, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

I think that may have been it, but, since the page is an important one, what do we do? Rename it to "Sixth Earl of Grantham" or leave it for now, until the PREQUEL comes about and edit it then with the official name? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:57, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest changing it to "6th Earl of Grantham" and wait to see if the prequel series gives his name, if Fellowes does it. If his name does turn out to be Patrick, then no harm done. Ask Fandyllic first, though, before you change, and I will too. Dragonrider2 (talk) 23:02, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

Add a "The" to the front of it, because the page for 4th Countess and Fifth Earl all begin "The (Number) Earl/Countess of Grantham" and then I'm all for it. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:07, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Dragonrider2, you're right! It was a mistake I read that "Publicly, Violet supports the arrangements made by her late husband. But in reality, once Patrick is dead, she favours her grand daughter, Mary, over some distant stranger."as meaning that once Violet's husband, PATRICK, was dead, she supported Mary. I see now that it means Mary's Betrothed/fiance/person she may or may not have married.HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:14, November 16, 2012 (UTC)


Are you of the opinion that William's death actually occured in August 1918? I didn't pick up on it until after rewatching the episode several times, particularly because I couldn't make out the death date of the cross, but either the date's got to be wrong or he and Matthew weren't wounded at Ameins. Given that 2.05 opens with the "Ameins" title card, however, it seems Fellowes flubbed William's death date. Dragonrider2 (talk) 21:50, November 19, 2012 (UTC)

I do think he messed it up. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:51, November 19, 2012 (UTC)

If you want to mark a page for deletion... can put {{Delete}} (source mode) at the top of the page and explain why in an article comment. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 20 Nov 2012 3:07 PM Pacific

Thank you! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:16, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

Series 3 CS

I don't think that the entire series would cover only six months or so. That's just cramming too much into a short timeframe. Besides, Fellowes said in an interview somewhere? that S3 would cover 18 months. I think it more likely that 3x08 and the CS are set in 1921, even if ITV says they're set? in 1920. Remember, in 3x08 Violet said Lord Flintshire couldn't get away to Duneagle until July at least. Dragonrider2 (talk) 23:03, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

The events of the CS have been confirmed to take place in September 1920. The events of 3x04 (when Branson arrives after abandoning? Sybil) are, as confirmed by, set in August. That, of course, then confirms Sybil's labour as being in August (given that the Christmas Special is in SEPTEMBER, which is the month after August. Violet mentions Lord and Lady Flintshire were PLANNING to go to Scotland; the Christmas Special shows their HOME, as the Crawley's go there for the shoot. The whole "going to Scotland in July" bit is yet to come for them.HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:09, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the third paragraph of this interview here, released four days before 3x01 aired: Dragonrider2 (talk) 23:23, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

That's not been confirmed in the show - an in that interview it's NOT Jullian Fellowes that says the "18 months" bit; that's added information from the reporters, who can make mistakes. Jullian does not say it's over 18 months in that interview, and the synopsis released by (which IS a valid reference, since we've used it before for to confirm that Tom's name is "Tom" not "Thomas" and to confirm Lang's first name) confirms it is August 1920 in Episode 4. Episode 5, 6, 7 and 8 are all set over a month, with the Christmas Special taking place during the grouse (which everyone knows is, even back in 1920), September. Thus, the Series is set over Jan/Feb/March (any of them could count as Sring) 1920 - September 1920 in the Christmas Special.HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:29, November 23, 2012 (UTC) only says that the CS takes place in summer - "It sees Lord and Lady Grantham and family heading for a summer break in The Highlands of Scotland, leaving most of their servants back at home." If you're using wikipedia as your source for September then I think ITV trumps that. Source: Bluebellanon (talk) 23:38, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

This link confirms it: the 2012 Christmas Special is set in SEPTEMBER. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:41, November 23, 2012 (UTC)


Please go to this page: and read the message I have posted. I would appreciate it if you would respect my wishes in creating a Timeline page. We don't always have to agree, but I do want to be able to work with you. Dragonrider2 (talk) 23:57, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

Alfred Molesley

I found a way to link from the Google Books version of The Chronicles of Downton Abbey: A New Era with the part that shows that Molesley's first name is Alfred. I updated and moved the page to Alfred Molesley. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 14 Dec 2012 4:23 PM Pacific

Sybil's death date

I'm sorry, but you're way off base in using that article for Sybil's death date. You're forgetting that she was already pregnant in December 1919. The only scenario where that date could possibly work is if she had a miscarriage before returning to Downton in 3x01 and later became pregnant with little Sybil - which is clearly not the case. Nine months backwards doesn't necessarily mean January in any case, more like December. I wouldn't trust the Daily Mail anyway since 3x08 in clearly set in spring or summer. Dragonrider2 (talk) 17:14, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

Jullian Fellowes has messed up with her birthdate before - he could easily have messed up this. I'm not saying he didn't, just as I'm not saying he did, but it's equally possible - there are OFTEN problems with the timeline, William's deathdate for example. It's says "August"; The battle he died in was in JULY. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:02, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

When tagging minor characters articles for deletion

Please do not remove any other content from a minor character article when tagging it with {{delete}}. This will only make it harder to transfer info to the List of minor off screen characters page. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Dec 2012 7:48 PM Pacific

I didn't know I had done so. I won't do it again. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 04:00, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

Example of a good ref

Screenshots from some unnamed website are not good refs. See this change as an example of good reference. Please try to more closely follow this example. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 28 Dec 2012 8:28 PM Pacific

It was the Downton Abbey Series 3 Press Pack from ITV.Com that I got it from - I uploaded the picture as, at the time, I didn't know how to do the change you've done now. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 04:48, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

You've been blocked for 1 week

You know why. Threats are not acceptable. For each additional threat you make after you are unblocked, you will be banned for a longer period of time leading eventually to a permaban. Here are the increasing sequences of block times, so you will know when the permaban is coming: 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and then permaban. You probably won't return after a 3 month ban, but if you are wise, it will never happen. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 29 Dec 2012 10:04 AM Pacific

Well... I saw it coming. I'm not surprised - given that I'm blocked, you can pass on a message to Bluebellanon to me. This is the message: "Don't ever talk to me again, and don't ever touch my edits without running it past you [Fandyllic, I mean], because your actions are, usually, wrong."

Thank you.

See you in a week. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:01, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Glad you're back

Minus the threats, you've been good. Just stick to making good contributions and things will be fine. The List of minor off screen characters is getting large, but it's still a good idea. Keep digging up the many details you find. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 6 Jan 2013 4:32 PM Pacific

Thanks, I will. I noticed the list was getting huge; wouldn't it be easier to have SEVERAL lists (e.g. Crawleys, other characters, deceased, etc) and have redirect links from and too each page? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:19, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
Yes, eventually several lists will be better, but we want to try to get as many off-screen characters on the big list first. When the pace of additions has stopped or slowed to a trickle, I will split the list up. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7 Jan 2013 11:14 AM Pacific
Ah, gotcha. Will it be three pages with the same on each page and the remaining two sections (that are covered on other pages) just having a "click here to go to (page name)" or not? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:28, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Threats are NOT acceptable

See User_talk:Fandyllic#Another_threat. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7 Jan 2013 4:58 PM Pacific

I already have. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:04, January 8, 2013 (UTC)


CestWhat complained to me about the situation here on my central talk page. After reading various talk pages, edit histories, etc. here is my response.

I have blocked both CestWhat and HPR1 for 3 days for fighting. You both need to cool down.

When you return, I expect you both to stop arguing.

CestWhat -- the next time you revert one of HPR1's edits for any reason you will be blocked again. If you have an issue with one of his edits you need to talk to Fandyllic and he can undo or fix it as needed. If HPR1 writes that Cora went to Jupiter you will leave it until somebody else can fix it.

HPR1 -- the next time you talk about hitting people or otherwise threaten anybody you will be blocked again. Reconsider what you have said each time before you click publish.

Is that very clear?

Fandyllic, I apologize for stepping in like this. You have amazing patience. -- Wendy (talk)@fandom 02:47, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

I'm Sorry

Dear HPR1

i will not be supporting you for Adminship.

I'm supporting CestWhat and thats final as abuse is appalling to hand out.

PS, threaten me if you want, but i'll just report.


hbellamy 09:43, January 14, 2013 (UTC)

Nice; I'd take your threat more seriously if A) you used the signature thing right, and B) you actually used the correct grammar and spelling. I personally don't care if you support CestWhat - he's done too much to become Admin now, and I definitely won't let him. Note, I have also corrected your comment so that it is spelt correctly and is gramatically correct. Next time, learn how to spell, use grammar correctly and how to actually use a wiki before commenting here. Thank you kindly.

Yours, HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:50, January 14, 2013 (UTC)

Appearances and Mentions template

See Template:Appearances and Mentions. Suggestions welcome... put them on Template talk:Appearances and Mentions. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 24 Jan 2013 6:37 PM Pacific

How Rude


How dare you insult me. Unlike you, i don't write in "Borgan Language". I may only be 15 ,but I know extensive  Knowledge about Downton Abbey. So Put That In Your Pipe and Smoke It.

I hope Karma treats you the way, you treat others.

Ps. I use to look up to you, but now i couldn't give a lambs tail.

Good Day

hbellamy 04:40, January 25, 2013 (UTC)

(Talk) 04:29, January 25, 2013 (UTC)

I haven't insulted you; I just said please learn to write properly; I couldn't care less if you look up to me - the minute you supported CestWhat I lost all respect for you anyway.  - you have an attitude like an ass! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:30, January 25, 2013 (UTC)

HPR1, a piece of advice. Don't engage. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 25 Jan 2013 10:35 AM Pacific
Very well. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 09:13, January 26, 2013 (UTC)

Plan for List of minor off screen characters

Read this: User talk:Fandyllic#HPR1ReadThis. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11 Feb 2013 2:09 PM Pacific

Improving your references

If you're going to make references to press packs, please try to do it like this at least:

<ref>[[:File:DOWNTON_ABBEY_PRESS_PACK.pdf|Series 1 Press Pack]], page 12</ref><.code>

And if you find the PDF for other press packs or references, please upload them. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12 Feb 2013 9:35 AM Pacific

I didn't know the PDF, so I didn't put it there; you know, best to be safe than sorry. If I find them, I shall upload them. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:03, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Insults are not threats...

..but it is not appropriate either. If you continue to insult anybody, you will get a short ban. Is that what you want? Is it that hard to control yourself. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 21 Feb 2013 9:22 PM Pacific

I'm already banned until the 20th of March for - righty - reporting CestWhat to Merrystar; Tellar blocked me. Naturally, of course, everyone sides with the one in the wrong. I will try and control myself when the block ends - but if he forces me, then I will do whatever is required to deal with him. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:55, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

I am back!

To all who have missed me, I AM BACK! Thank you, Trellar! --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:59, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

Sybil's Gravestone

You really should stop making all those edits based on the gravestone until it's been discussed with the community - or at least ask an admin first. All we have are bad blurry images from unofficial souces - there's been nothing on the ITV site about this and we don't know where those websites got those images - they look photoshopped to me. 21:19, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

The images are from here ( here (  here ( and here (

The gravestones are official. Four sources - all showing on set pictures - confirm it. Besides, the ITV website doesn't state over filming, merely over the dates that it is to be shown. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:24, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

None of those links have pictures of the gravestone. Also, the only "official" sources are ITV, the show itself and the makers/writer of the show. None of those sources have confirmed this pic. 21:41, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

You need to go through the pictures to find the gravestone! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:54, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

Family Trees

Hello, I saw the family trees that you have on your talk page showing how the two branches of the Crawleys are related. I think that you should move them to the Crawley family page. I know that there is a disagreement right now about whether Robert is the 5th or 7th Earl, but you could just make a note about that.

Also, I went to your other wiki, All Things Downton and wondered if I could do some work there. It is quiet, and there is lots of room. I know you said that it was just for your friends so I wanted to ask before doing anything. Hope to hear from you soon. Abbess. Abbess (talk) 17:24, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I just went back and looked at the trees again and realize now that there is a disagreement going on about them. Oh well, hopefully it will be resolved soon. I suppose you could just post both alternate versions. Abbess (talk) 17:30, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

When everything is sorted Abbess, I'll move them - once Robert's Earl number is confirmed - and yes, you can edit that wiki, if you like; it needs work and you are a friend.

As for the disagreement, with the new information it's sort of confirmed; it just means that Robert's Grandfather and Great-grandfather died before his great-great-grandfather, thus they didn't become Earls (it has to be that way for the relationship between Robert and Matthew - third cousins once removed - to be correct.) HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:00, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I remember George Murray talking about someone dying and that saved the estate. Maybe it was one of those guys, and they had life insurance. Just a thought. Abbess (talk) 22:30, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

That was the fourth Earl; Robert's father. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:37, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

Copyright issue threat

Communicating a copyright protected work to the public by electronic means is an infringement of a copyright owner’s rights. Before you include any image in web pages you must have the permission of the rights-owner. Therefore please contact me immediately to arrange payment for the use of pictures. Joan Wakeham86.131.90.39 19:36, March 15, 2013 (UTC) ©  Images are also syndicated through Rex Features and Splash News. —This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) 12:36, March 15, 2013‎. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Without identifying specific content you believe is violating copyright, there is no way to act on your notice. Also, by notifying without a registered user account, there is no reliable way to communicate a response. You will need to specify content you believe is in violation AND provide a reliable method communication and contact (e-mail address, phone number, mailing address, etc.). Otherwise please contact Wikia about issues with this wiki's content. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 15 Mar 2013 1:08 PM Pacific

Branson Family

Hey, good work on the Branson Family page; however, does this need an infobox? The Crawley and MacClare family pages don't have infoboxes. What's the usual protocol on this situation? Are we going to standardize the family articles by inserting infoboxes for each, or should the Branson family be reverted back? --DowntonCrawley (talk) 12:02, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I believe it requires an infobox, but if you wish to revert it then ask Fandyllic (the admin here) and if he says it can be reverted then you can revert it. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 12:04, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I partially believe it does too; however, my main concern was whether we need to standardize the other articles, to keep a consistent layout. --DowntonCrawley (talk) 12:06, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

If the admin agrees that infoboxes are needed then yes, we will have to put infoboxes into the other pages too. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 12:12, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

Who decided that an infobox was needed on this page? --DowntonCrawley (talk) 12:11, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

Me. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 12:12, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

Then, we should be able to add infoboxes to the two other main families, without Administrative permission? --DowntonCrawley (talk) 12:13, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

We should, yes. I said to ask in case people disagree - if they disagree we can inform them that the admin has given permission; the admin's word is law around here. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 12:22, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

Too right. After all the history I read over, I can see why you'd make sure not to step on the dog's tail. Well... Currently there are no admins, hence the election, so to speak, am I correct? I feel we should update the other family pages to include the infoboxes. If you agree, then we should start at once. --DowntonCrawley (talk) 12:26, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

This is the admin here: <--- speak to him. Yes, I believe we should start. I have work now, bu will be back in a few hours so will update then. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 12:37, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

Ding, dong, the witch is dead

After weeks of effort, I finally managed to get Wikia to ban CestWhat's global account - across the entire Wikia network, on all Wikis she visits, including this one. Ding, dong, the witch is dead.

This was not achieved through useless arbitration, or flat-out begging CestWhat to stop, or ignoring her - these are the tactics of cowards and incompetents, who worst of all, simply cannot defend the innocent from criminals like CestWhat.

Instead, I did what needed to be done. Kicked CestWhat in the face, slammed my boot down on her throat, and made her a pariah throughout the Wikia network...and a warning against any other troll who would try to do the same shit she put the rest of us through. Justice is served.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 18:39, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

You really take pleasure in banning people don't you, The Dragon Demands? You are a sadist! Look at the pleasure you describe in "slammed my boot down on her throat"! Your language is certainly repulsive! ~ This comment was added by: Tia Serena.
No, I think he's right. End it permenantly, so it cannot happen again. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:19, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

Your attention is requested

Hello! There's a discussion currently taking place that I'd really value your opinion on: Forum:Should we enable the new style of forums? --blue (talk) 14:31, August 23, 2013 (UTC)


Dear HPR1,

Hello my name is Harry. I left the wiki, early in the year and blamed various unnamed victims.I'm sorry for the way i conducted myself and the way i treated you.



Regarding your grave picture on the  Lady Sybil page.  I would be pleased if it would be removed as I believe you are infringing our copyright.


Glospics81.135.14.19 23:14, October 20, 2013 (UTC)

Hello Glospics, if you have any issues with this wikis content then please contact wikia staff. They'll be able to verify your claims and sort any issues out for you. You can contact them here: Special:Contact/content-issue. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 23:49, October 20, 2013 (UTC)

Images that infringe copyright

Hello. Wikia staff have just let me know that they have received a valid takedown notice about a number of images on this wiki - all of which have now been deleted by wikia staff. One of those images was one you uploaded - the image of Sybil's grave. They asked me for us not to restore them or re-upload them unless we intend to fill a counter notice with wikia. Since I don't intend to do that, all those images will have to permanently stay off the wiki. I think we can find plenty of suitable images from screencaps and official promo pics so this isn't really a serious problem. Please let me know if you have any questions. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 20:14, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

re: Images

I've replied to your comment here: User talk:Amateur Obsessive#Images. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 20:51, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

Series 5 and Episode 5.01 edits

See User_talk:Fandyllic#My_edits. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12 Feb 2014 9:31 PM Pacific

Timeline and Episode 4.08

The estimation of the date based on the shadow lengths was really just for fun, I do not think the show can be held to that level of accuracy. Can you imagine the filming logistics of getting that right?

I know I did something similar for Episode 1.03, but in that case it was just establishing a lower bounds (at least a week or two after the Vernal Equinox), not trying to use the sun's location to accurately establish a date.

Additionally, a Wikia contributor is not a valid reference, I expect AO will be all over that. As a mathematical calculation, the facts basically stand on their own anyway. If you want to keep it, the notes section with appropriate caveats is probably a better place for it.
Ehj666 (talk) 10:14, April 13, 2014 (UTC)ehj666

For now I removed it because it may be in error. After a little more research I see that the UK started observing summer time in 1916. The US by contrast observed it from 1916-1918 then discontinued it at the federal level until WWII, although local municipalities could observe it if they so chose. Thus, the calculation looks to be an hour off.

Ehj666 (talk) 12:42, April 13, 2014 (UTC)ehj666

Collective Fanfic

Hi. What do you think if we write a collective fanfic?

Taylor Fry (talk) 18:54, July 11, 2014 (UTC)

Rose's married title

Hi HPR1!

I would like to clarify that Rose will NOT be titled "Lady Rose Aldridge" as suggested by you and a few on this wikia.

The title of "Lady" is a courtesy title, and female courtesy titles are subsumed under that of her husband's if he has one, regardless of rank.

As such, by marrying Atticus who is the son of presumably a Baron (which makes him an Honourable), Rose's title downgrades to that of "The Honourable Mrs Atticus Aldridge".

Had she, however, married a commoner, she would have retained her title of "Lady" because commoners do not have any courtesy titles. For example, had she married Jack Ross, she would have become "Lady Rose Ross". This is the case of Rosamund, who married Marmaduke Painswick (a commoner) and thus retains the rank and becomes "Lady Rosamund Painswick".

Real life examples? Princess Alexandra, upon her marriage to Angus Ogilvy, became "The Honourable Mrs Angus Ogilvy", though in her case she also retained her title as Princess of the UK because a princess is not a courtesy title but one issued by a writ.

I'm not cooking up my own facts; you can easily refer to Burke's Peerage or Debrett's to verify these facts.

Hope we have settled Rose's post-marriage title for good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evaneyf (talkcontribs)

Rosamund's Multiple Houses

How would you counter that she (Rosamund) is clearly said to be living in Eaton Sqaure in 1.04 (or maybe 5) when Mary comments that she lives in said Square, but by 1.07 is living in her 'new house' in Belgrave Square. Hmmm?

The Last Earl (talk) 21:36, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

Start Date of Episode 6.01

There are some clues as to the date of the fox hunt opening episode 6.01. In the scene where Robert talks to Mr Carson about staffing levels, at one point in the extreme lower left a clock is visible. The time shows 7:30. This is followed by the scene with Anna and Bates. In a couple glimpses out the window, it looks to be about dusk. Then there is a dinner scene, which presumably starts about 8:00 PM and the scene with Carson and Mrs Patmore. Again, a little light such as late dusk can be seen out the window.

In thirsk on March 1, the sun sets by about 5:45 PM, dusk can last another hour or so, but certainly not much past 7:00 PM. By the 28th of March sunset has still only pushed back to just after 6:30 PM, however if my calculations are correct, summer time should have kicked in on the morning of the 29th in 1925 and pushing sunset back to just after 7:30 PM. Thus by those clues anyway, it would seem the earliest date for the opening episode would be March 29.

Additionally, what appears to be the next day, but perhaps more, when Denker shows up in the servant's hall, the clock on the wall shows 5:25, yet there is fairly bright sunshine outside. If it were the first of March or earlier, the sun would almost be down by then. -- Ehj666 (talk) 01:56, September 25, 2015 (UTC)ehj666

Don't you think we should put the date represented back to "March or April" or even "late March or April"? -- Ehj666 (talk) 15:18, September 25, 2015 (UTC)ehj666
Update - According to this reference, summer time (BST) did not start until April 19 of 1925. On April 18, sunset would be at about 7:13 PM. The sun does not set after 7:00 PM until about April 11. -- Ehj666 (talk) 16:41, September 25, 2015 (UTC)ehj666

Ohhh, so March can fit. Good. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:39, September 25, 2015 (UTC)

It would definitely be stretching it. I just put an analysis in the notes section for the episode. -- Ehj666 (talk) 01:01, September 26, 2015 (UTC)ehj666

Editing List of minor off screen characters

You need to go to the section "Crawley relatives" and click the link to the right that says "[edit this section]" which should take you to edit mode for List_of_minor_off_screen_characters/Crawley_relatives.

Does that make sense? -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 23 Oct 2015 7:04 AM Pacific

Try this:
...and then this:
-- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 23 Oct 2015 7:50 PM Pacific

Spelling of Tiaa

To source the spelling of Tiaa on Robert Crawley's Dogs page, just reference the entry in Minor off screen characters - Tiaa, which in turn sources the spelling and other information in Wikipedia. --Ehj666 (talk) 15:23, November 2, 2015 (UTC)

BTW, Wikipedia spells it Tiaa. --Ehj666 (talk) 15:39, November 2, 2015 (UTC)

Henry Fox Talbot Vandalism

I deleted all of the text, that is as much as I can do, I am not an admin (and do not wish to be).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehj666 (talkcontribs)

2015 Christmas Special Reference

Is that what you want? --Ehj666 (talk) 21:19, November 13, 2015 (UTC)


Fast enough? :)

Add the following to anything needing the same reference:
<ref name="Tumblr"></ref>
--Ehj666 (talk) 19:41, November 15, 2015 (UTC)

Edith edit war

Just stop. Honorifics should not be part of the first mention of someone's name. You can mention and argue about it in the Notes section, but not at the beginning. I will block both you and Lilyflower422 for a month if you keep changing it. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2 Nov 2017 9:26 AM Pacific

Royal visit notification letter

I would add add the contents of the letter in the "Plot" section, but with a note that it is not actually revealed in the film. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 23 Sep 2019 11:41 AM Pacific

Maud Bagshaw

The original read Her husband, David, died sometime between 1888 and 1891[7], and foornote 7 referred to the second Boer war. That appeared to be a typo intended to read 1899 to 1902. The first Boer War was 1880 to 1881. Not sure how Maud's age was derived (Imelda Staunton is about a decade younger at 63), but if she were currently 71, then she would have been 24 or 25 when David died, yet not had Lucy until 14-15 years later. Further, if she had 10 good years with David, then she got married at 14. I have only seen the movie once, so my memory could be faulty, but the numbers don't seem to work for the first Boer war. You are making the same arguments I was making, the only thing you have wrong is that it was the second Boer war that ran from 1899 - 1902. The first Boer war was 1880 - 1881. Ehj666 (talk) 00:24, September 27, 2019 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.