Downton Abbey 3rd Movie: The Grand Finale

[HeavensWhatASnappyCharriot]

Thoughts please…
I’m a huge Downton fan and I’ve just watched the final film. I’m not entirely sure how I feel as I really built it up in my head and the film was so… different. It did feel a bit warm and fuzzy in places but also quite disappointing. What did you think?

She was pregnant in real life so I think just a bit fuller in the face (which she obviously wasn’t when acting pregnant in the earlier series). If you look at pictures of her taken recently she’s slimmed down again.

She was in something a bit ago set in Australia & she looked facially different in that to DA I thought.

She was almost unrecognisable in the Downton documentary. It took me ages to realise who she was.

There is literally no story! Nothing. Lovely dresses though

Watched this today and felt it was a bit dull compared to the other two films because the (slender) stories in the first two films were more engaging than the stories in this one. The Sambrook story in this was all a bit ‘Scooby Doo’. I also thought that Michelle Dockery was a bit shit in some moments early on and some other actors looked unhealthy, which was distracting.

But I’m sure I’ll buy the digital copy when it’s released if only to see the deleted scenes and the last five minutes were appropriately poignant and meaningful.

The trailer made it look much better than it actually was IMO.

It didn’t even need to have that much of a plot - just to look sumptuous and zing a little. I’m no expert but the two social scenes - the dance when Lady Mary had to leave, and the gathering at Downton with Noel Coward, seemed really flat and had no atmosphere. Surely a sound mixer and better direction could have easily improved this.

I found it very disappointing.
I don't mind that there was so little plot.
I do mind that, possibly due to the disappearance of Maggie Smith, Julian Fellows has apparently forgotten how to write humor. Also something amiss with it visually, although I'm not sure if that was due to the director (who does not seem have have had an impressive career), the cameraman, or the editor.

Just saw this at the cinema tonight.

It was so dark! I could hardly make anything out in the first part of the film.

It was quite dull, but it was nice seeing various people and what happens to them.

The costumes were amazing as always, and the one big thing about this film set in 1930 was how modern everything was.

Maybe in five years time, we'll truly see the 21st century embraced as much as things had moved on in the 20th by the thirties.

There seemed to be something odd about the filming, sometimes people's movements felt jerky and unnatural.

Overall okay but I wouldn't rush to rewatch.

have not yet RTFT but am in a rush.

Loved it, like pp said, like eating a meringue. I would add it was like eating a meringue coated in candy floss.

But: loved it because it was so so so schmalzy.
How did i miss Mary has 2 children? when did the other one appear? Was super confused by the ages of all the children. But it was nice to see them.

Screamed laughing with Mrs Hughes/Carson telling Mrs Pattmore/Mason that sex is fun. Loved it.

They really did drive home the point that the baton is passing to the next generation. Every flipping scene.

How was it not bleedin' obvious that The Earl and Countess would move into the Dower House. That is EXACTLY what it is for. Are they still buying the flat in London? why do they need it? If his lordship goes alone, he stays at his club, if they go together they stay at the savoy. Bonkers idiots (inbreeding, eh?)

Loved Tom calling Robert by his first name and being very comfortable. Come to think of it, he is the one who has ushered and guided the family into the present day, has overseen the change from old fashioned lordship/landowner to responsible gentleman farmers.

Cora's brother. No. That whole thing was so stupid i wanted to slap them all. Repeatedly.

Loved Edith wielding her social power. Go her.

Lovely frocks, a bit too much 30s for me rather than 20s, but ho hum. I can live with that. That coat Cora wore at the end. i can't. It was perfect. The way the button caused a pleat? i need to have it.

Lovely montage during the credits, and loved the ghosts Mary saw.

That coat was something else, wasn't it. I spent mu time watching how it moved as she walked rather than pay attention to what she was saying!

it was the button placement that got me. There was clearly a pleat on either side of the coat below the button, but the way it draped and formed a fold, in line with the pleat and the button, was stunning. I couldn't take my eyes off it!

How did i miss Mary has 2 children? when did the other one appear?

She was pregnant at Edith's wedding wasn't she?

i simply can'T remember!!

Loved it and cried at the end

Yes, if a third man had dropped dead after shagging her there's be some questions!

Re: who would inherit as asked further up - after entails were ended (and as a pp said they could actually be broken fairly easily anyway) absolutely anyone basically. There's nothing stopping Robert from leaving his half to Daisy/Edith/Battersley dogs home if he wanted.

The issue was always about keeping the house/money with the title rather than inheritance itself.

With the title, if george died (come on this is downton, he would be mysteriously MIA for a few months then appear with a fairly serious but aesthetically pleasing wound which would magically heal after a few months, making a dramatic entrance at a large dinner party, ideally around christmas) it would either go to an even more distant relative than Matthew was, or, if they couldn't find one (and bear in mind despite the rather incestuous "cousin Matthew" moniker they were pretty distantly related already, I think the Queen and Prince Philip had a closer degree of blood relation) or it would go into abeyance.

Peter (Edith's son) or Caroline wouldn't have any automatic claim because their inheritance is through the mother's line and women can't inherit that type of peership. Once in abeyance they could petition the crown to have it given to Peter but iirc Mary would have to agree and its up to the monarch whether they allow it.

women can't inherit that type of peership

Generally true; it depends on the Letters Patent creating the original title. There are some earldoms in the peerage of Scotland that can be inherited by women. The present Earl of Sutherland inherited the title from his mother, who was Countess of Sutherland in her own right.

I've often thought that Julian could have developed a story line in which the Lord Lyon King of Arms in Scotland contacted Robert to tell him that they had unearthed a hitherto overlooked title that went to the Crawleys in the mists of time and that could be inherited by a woman in default of a male heir so that Mary could become Lady Something or Other in her own right when Robert died. It would not have been as far-fetched as some of the other story lines.

Yes, that's what I meant by 'that type of peership' rather than just saying 'Women can't inherit titles,' as the post was quite long enough already!

Technically, we've never actually been told if there's any subsidiary title with different entitlements or whether there is also an estate in 'Grantham' wherever that is. It's a bit weird that Robert is the Earl of Grantham but we're never actually told where that title comes from, given it's not their surname or where they live.

To be honest after the Canadian soldier storyline pretty much anything is more feasible....

Glad someone else mentioned it - that scene in their house where she was talking to Moseley and just grinning inanely and rocking slightly was utterly bizarre. There were a few scenes in the tv show where Cora was so checked out if it had been set a few decades later I'd have assumed she was mainlining valium and Miss Baxter had that same vibe.

It's a bit weird that Robert is the Earl of Grantham but we're never actually told where that title comes from, given it's not their surname or where they live.

Would where the title came from be of interest to most viewers?
It was just light froth really!

Most family names are different from the title though.

Hugh Grosvenor, Duke of Westminster, estate in Cheshire.

Presumably some years ago a Grosvenor was given the title!

Subsidiary titles are usually only used for eldest sons aren't they?

Grantham is a small town in Lincolnshire.

There was an Earl of Grantham in the 1600s.

I really enjoyed it despite the weak plot and gaps in the continuity from the past. All the favourite characters, everyone finally being settled and happy, gorgeous sets, scenery and costumes, Lady Edith so mature and confident. The closing scenes made me cry.

I was responding specifically to the previous poster who was referring to a hypothetical storyline whereby one of the Crawley's other titles could be held by a woman, rather than suggesting it should have been mentioned in the actual show (although given there were multiple different scenes of them literally showing people around the house and giving them a history lesson it wouldn't have been too hard to chuck it in there!).

Your example actually proves my point - the Dukes of Westminster were initially Baronet, then Earl Grosvenor (family name), then given title Marquess of Westminster (later upgraded to Duke) precisely because they also held so much land in Westminster - which is why they are so insanely rich.

You've got it the wrong way round - a title is almost always either based on either the surname or where the holder owns property at that time - it's the location of the "main house" that might not have anything to do with either because they build it after or get it through marriage or are given it as a reward - see Blenheim for example. So because Robert isn't Earl Crawley or Earl of Downton there must be some link somewhere with 'Grantham', whether the one in Lincolnshire or a made up one.

Subsidiary titles are still 'used' or owned by the main title holder, the eldest son can be addressed by it as a courtesy but it's not actually his.

I fell asleep

It was like a warm, comforting hug. Like someone else said, it reminded me of cosy Sunday evenings when my children were small and in bed. I always looked forward to watching it but it’s always been a period soap opera really with sumptuous costumes and sets.

Every character had their moment (although I also wondered why there was no mention of Cousin Rose) and there were enjoyable references to previous storylines. I think it’s sweet that they’ve used the same actors throughout for the children but yes, it didn’t make their stage ages correct.

i am not normally prone to sentimentality but the appearance of Matthew, Violet and Sybil at the end left me very moist eyed, to DH’s surprise and amusement!

Was it a great film? No.
Will I watch every episode and film again in the future? Yes!

Does anyone know if the actors who played Sybil, Matthew and Violet returned especially to film those last scenes? I know Dame Maggie was still with us in summer 2024 when this was shot, but possibly she was too ill to come back. It wasn’t immediately obvious to me if we were seeing the ‘current’ Dan Stevens and Jessica Brown Findlay.

@everyoldsock They were clips from existing scenes, just replayed.