Talk:List of Downton Abbey characters/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about List of Downton Abbey characters. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Relevance

Is such a huge page really relevant or necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.66.84.141 (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Information on the characters in a show that enjoys both high viewers and an incredibly strong critical focus is relevant to have. Regarding the size (and quality) of the article it does need a lot of work in regards to trimming some character sections for relevancy and also structuring it more from a real world perspective (disussing the approach of actors and writers and how the characters have been received in the media). Eshlare (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

So, I'm going to cleanup the page. Cut out excess plot, insert important details that were left out. I was going to simplify the headings because they seem to be a bit ridiculous. Like "Lady Sybil Crawley, later Lady Sybil Branson", can't we just stick with "Sybil Crawley" or "Sybil Branson" (and then anchor the other?). And it isn't necessary to have Lady in the heading. I think titles should be left out of the headings, and then mentioned in the first sentence. That's probably the most controversial thing I'm going to do.... ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 22:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The Lady, later... business is there to avoid in-universe form. The characters have to be presented so readers will be familiar with them at any point in their history. We discussed this at some length on the main article page, and this is the correct form for these names. I do agree that the descriptions are way overloaded with plot, however. --Drmargi (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Merp. Didn't even look at the main page. So I'll just leave it as is and add hidden anchors to make wikilinking easier. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 00:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree (double negative alert!) that it's cumbersome, but it's also the best of a bad group of options. It took a while to find a decent compromise (I still argue that Sybil should not have the title attached to her married name), but it works. --Drmargi (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

So, I'm working on this on one of my subpages (doing that makes me more comfortable). Shortening up the supporting and more minor characters isn't going so well (I keep adding about two hundred to five hundred characters without refs), but I don't think that'll happen with the main guys. Anyways, any particular reason the characters are ordered like they are? I'm not seeing an obvious pattern. I thought ordering them by credited appearance in the opening for the main actors and order of appearance for everyone else. (Of course, unless that's how they're already ordered. I don't know the opening credits very well...) ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Ignore that last bit. The way the opening credits are ordered would make absolutely no sense. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 15:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

~~Would it be a problem to remove the née's from the opening line for those women who weren't married when the series began? For example, remove it from Daisy's.~~ ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Forget it, I'll leave it. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it inappropriate to place Martha Levinson, Cora's mother, under Crawley family? ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 03:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

References

It seems like there need to be more references on this page and I agree on that. The series itself is often enough source I think, but it would be great if someone could write references to when it happened or when it was said, which episode, year and maybe even minute in the episode. Right now the first reference just say that Robert said something, I'd like to know when he said that (and not just the year). Otherwise I think it's a good page with lots of information, we just have to update it when new episodes are coming. :) Astridx (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Question about Sir Anthony Strallan

How do we know he is indeed a baronet and not just a knight ? Has this ever been mentioned explicitly on the show ? 161.24.19.112 (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's implicit onscreen rather than explicit (though I suspect it's covered in some of the companion books and other material) but other than age & injury he's considered a reasonably traditional husband for an Earl's daughter and so pesumably not somebody who has had his own title conferred. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

5th or 6th Earl?

I thought Robert was the 6th Earl - and what little we've been told of the family financial history suggests the 5th Earl was Robert's father who was bailed out by Cora's money rather than the 4th who only saved things by dying - when was this changed or is the source unreliable? Timrollpickering (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the 5th Earl information is just taken from a picture of Sybil's gravestone. However, that prop has only been seen in an unofficial paparazzi picture and hasn't yet been seen in the show. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm 99% sure we didn't see Sybil's grave when we saw Matthew's) Therefore I don't personally think it can be taken as canon information until it's seen in the show. They could have made the prop and then deliberately not shown it clearly because it shows the wrong info. There is a new behind the scenes book out at the moment - does anyone know if that has information on this subject? --88.104.126.188 (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

7th Earl

The latest behind the scenes book doesn't have any reference to the number of earls there have been. However, the "Downton Abbey:A new era" book refers to Robert as the seventh earl of Grantham. Shouldn't this official book be given more weight than a paparazzi pic of a prop that hasn't appeared in the show? Official material lists him as the seventh earl and he should be called such on this page. Bluebellanon (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Matthew indicates in series 3 that his great-grandfather was a younger son of the 3rd Earl and Violet indicates in the first episode that the new heir is Robert's 3rd cousin once removed. If you combine these details, he has to be the 7th Earl

Evelyn Napier in series 5?

Isn't that an error? What evidence is there that napier will appear in series 5? Labelleflamme (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Mr Green's death

It is explicitly said (in episode 8 of season 4) that Mr Green died in Piccadilly - not Picadilly Circus, as this article states (with a spelling mistake). I am unaware how to change this, since it involves changing the link (characters in blue).

Jfp2006 Jfp2006 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed this, the link can be edited in the same way as the rest of the article by just changing the words in the square bracket. Dabbler (talk) 11:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Miss Denker

Whilst she's fairly new and not yet appeared that many episodes, she has been the major focus of at least two (admittedly not main) storylines (the chicken soup and the gambling club) Adagio67 (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"In-universe" writing

The page needs a major rewrite to bring it to encyclopedic standards. At the moment it is written "in universe", meaning it is written as if the characters were real, with birth information etc., that is simply part of the "plot". This must be taken care of. This is not a fan site and the article is in danger of deletion unless it conforms to Wikipedia standards. This does not mean we have to lose a large chunk of the content, but it does mean that the writing must reflect the real world aspects of this as a production and these people as characters portrayed by actors and have no historic counterpart and are completely fictitious.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:Real world:

Real-world perspective
Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded. It necessitates the use of both primary and secondary information.
Exemplary aspects of real-world perspective include:

Careful differentiation between the work of fiction itself and aspects of its production process and publication, such as the impact a work of fiction has had in the real world (see also below)

Careful differentiation between narrated time and fictional chronology on the one hand, and narrative time and actual chronology of real-world events on the other (of particular relevance to all film and TV-related topics)

The presentation of fictional material
particularly for film and TV-related topics, this may include cinematographical aspects

for literature, this may include writing style and literary technique

Description of fictional characters, places and devices as objects of the narrative

Making (referenced!) mention of the author's intention

Real-world perspective is not an optional quality criterion but a general, basic requirement for all articles. See below for a list of exemplary articles which employ a consistent real-world perspective.
The problem with in-universe perspective

Shortcuts
WP:INUNIVERSE
WP:OUTUNIVERSE
WP:IN-U

An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis. The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info.
Many fan wikis and fan websites (see below) take this approach, but it should not be used for Wikipedia articles. An in-universe perspective can be misleading, inviting unverifiable original research. Most importantly, in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be or become.
Features often seen in an inappropriate, in-universe perspective include:

Disregarding all or most aspects of a work of fiction as a creative endeavour

A plot synopsis written like a historical account

Fictography – an article or section about a fictional character written like a biography, placing, for example, undue emphasis on titles or birthdates despite their being unimportant to the plot or interpretation. For example, instead of writing: "Gandalf was a powerful wizard" write: "Gandalf is characterised, described, or cast by Tolkien as a powerful wizard".

Description of fictional places written like a geographical account; the same principles apply as for fictional characters. For example (per WP:CYF), instead of writing: "Trillian is Arthur Dent's girlfriend. She was taken away from Earth by Zaphod when he met her at a party. She meets Dent while travelling with Zaphod", write: "Trillian is a fictional character from Douglas Adams' radio, book and now film series The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In the first book, Trillian is introduced to the main character Arthur Dent on a spaceship. In her backstory, she was taken away from Earth when the space alien Zaphod Beeblebrox met her at a party."

Using past tense when discussing the plot or any of its elements (except backstory), rather than the historical present tense

Attempting to reconcile contradictions or bridge gaps in the narrative, rather than simply reporting them as such

Giving equal weight to a fictional topic's appearances in major works, and in obscure spin-off material

Placing spiritual successors in the same continuity as the works that inspired them

Using in-jokes and references which require knowledge of the plot or characters of the work, its prequels or sequels

Using infoboxes intended for real-world topics

Referring to the fictional events or dates which occur in the story, rather than the fictional works themselves. For example, instead of writing: "It is the year 34,500 AD, when the Trantorian Empire encompasses roughly half of the galaxy", write: "This story is set in the year 34,500 AD, when the Trantorian Empire encompasses roughly half of the galaxy", or similar.

Ordering works by their fictional chronology, rather than the actual order they were published. For example, although Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace was the fourth film released in the franchise, the story is a prequel that represents the beginning of the Star Wars narrative. As such it should be ordered as the fourth work in the series, not the first. It is acceptable to include both the fictional timeline and the real world timeline, providing that the distinction is not ambiguous; the real world time line should take precedence.

These restrictions should and do hold for serious satire such as Gulliver's Travels or Candide (and many works for the stage) where the fictional elements are designed to camouflage the serious political or social criticism within the work. In such cases, it is legitimate to freely examine the fictional elements and the design of the storyline in order to attempt to decipher the author's original intent. The same exemptions might apply to other special forms of literature where the fiction/non-fiction categorization is disputed, such as the possibly historical elements of religious scripture.
See also the sections on fair use, accuracy and appropriate weight, and templates.

--Mark Miller (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Some references

A long time ago, I collected a bunch of references in my userspace for an overhaul of the article. At this point, I'm just going to leave them here in case anyone else finds use out of them. I haven't gone through them at this time, so I'm unsure what's actually helpful and what's broken and so on.

And that's what I've got. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Where is Baxter?

One looks in vain for a section on lady's maid Baxter. Is there an editor here who will take on the task of remedying this peculiar omission? Hertz1888 (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Done - thanks to the IP editor who added the new section. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

For whom exactly was Siobbhan Finneran supposedly a Stand-in??

This was added to the color chart by an IP in June 2014.Mirawithani (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Misc

Edith's middle name: The printed programs used for the scene of Edith's nuptials in series 3 show Edith's middle name as Josephine. There are close-ups of these props in a bonus featurette on the dvd, which can be seen at this link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1606375/board/nest/205140607?p=6&d=210493674#210493674 Netherfield (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be an entry for Lady Rose MacClare? She's referenced in some of the other text, but could use an entry of her own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keefdian (talk • contribs) 03:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe Rose is Edith's first cousin. She is the daughter of Violet's niece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.182.39 (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Here we go again

Interesting that some of you edit squirrels with OCD can't leave alone even a fairly innocuous comment in the TALK section. Why people sneer at the effort (to the detriment of all those who are conscientious)74.12.126.155 (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

George is Heir Presumptive, not Heir Apparent

At the end of the sixth paragraph of six of the Mary Crawley section it says that George is Heir Apparent. Not correct. As the Heir Apparent article says "An heir apparent is a person, of either sex, who is first in line of succession and cannot be displaced from inheriting by the birth of another person." It is possible that Robert Crawley could have a son. For example, if Cora were to die and Robert re-married to a younger woman of child-bearing age he could, again possibly sire a son. That son, as the oldest son of the title holder, would in fact displace George as the heir. I had a Twitter conversation with Alastair Bruce back in January when I asked if George would be styled as the Viscount Grantham and he explained that would not be the case as George is the Heir Presumptive, not Heir Apparent. I will make the change in the article. Eric Cable ! Talk 19:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

SPOILER ALERT!

Each character profile should be broken into series (seasons). Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia in format, but it is also a practical reference. I came here only to catch up on who's who, and I was very disappointed to realize that some of the exposition I had been reading included the third season. (I'm writing this as the start of the third series has just been aired in the United States.)

Could also use a photo of each character or actor if available. Eplater (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what this means. Downton Abbey is a UK-originated show, and as such, the events on this page are depicted as they appear in their origin country. Not really sure what its US schedule has to do with it. If a person follows for instance The Bold and The Beautiful in the UK, and it is a year behind, should the page be updated once every country that has gotten the same incidents are up to speed? *rolls eyes* Yoryla (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Marigold's Surname

Should her surname be listed as Gregson, or Drewe? What source or evidence is their to give her the surname Gregson? Labelleflamme (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously She is, and will be, a Crawley. Why on earth would Edith give her a dead person's name. Plus, the implication of course is that it is not public knowledge that she is Gregson's daughter. So why on earth would she be given that name? Yoryla (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Spoiler alert

The descriptions given for the role of characters gives away events that will take place before Americans view the last of the series. For example to say that Lady Mary will become Lady Talbot, gives away that she will be married to Talbot & I wish I had been alerted that the description of characters might spoil the episodes that have not aired yet in America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SLFrumpet (talk • contribs) 16:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

And? I'm not entirely sure what the comments on this matter are supposed to mean on this page? Downton. Abbey. Is. A. UK-originated. Show. Period. As I have already commented previously, only the original timing of happenings matter. So, if Finland sees The Bold and The Beautiful a year late than the US, should the Wikipedia page be updated only when each country is up to speed? Never ever have I seen such ridiculous questions than on this page. Typical US sense of entitlement. This show is not made, or meant, for your country. Be grateful that you are even able to have a part of it. Yoryla (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Entries for Henry Talbot and Bertie Pelham?

Shouldn't there be character entries for Henry Talbot and Bertie Pelham? Both figured very extensively in the sixth season (and both ended up as husbands of two of the main characters). Don't they deserve their own entries amongst the "Crawley family" section? If the Duke of Crowborough gets his own entry (when he only appeared in one episode), then certainly they should have their own as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahl 98 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they of course, and obviously, should be. Shame on not having them up already. They should be made immediately. Especially Bertie Pelham, as He is Edith's Husband, which is much more important than who is the other one's. Plus He is the Marquis of Hexham, meaning His rank is far above the others. Yoryla (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Medical journal article on Sybil Crawley's death

Found this, written by a fourth year medical student:

Ho, Adrienne K (2014). "Lady Sybil's death in Downton Abbey: how right and wrong are her doctors?". British Journal of General Practice. 64 (621): 189. doi:10.3399/bjgp14X677888. - Copy at the National Institutes of Health.

If you use it, remember to follow WP:MEDRS and ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine if you're unsure. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Trimming

I have started trimming the character descriptions to be much shorter. Is there a way to reduce the size of the "Cast" tables? Is the "Guest Cast" table really necessary? Queensferry572 (talk) 02:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Queensferry572: I think what would help shift the tone of people editing the page would be to introduce commentary on the characters from published secondary sources, to show that the page should put more emphasis on what other people (meaning people who write editorials in newspapers and magazines, and academic journals if applicable) say WhisperToMe (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)