I'm hooked on D.A., too; I was saddened by last night's show. I liked Sybil's spunk and independence; she was trying to live a 'normal' life, but in her situation, guess that was almost impossible. I'm sure the show is very true to the customs/mores of those times, so Sybil's husband Tom didn't get consulted much, did he? On another note, Isabelle Crawley's hiring of Ethel as a cook/housemaid would probably have been a "kiss of death" for her, as far as 'social position' was concerned. Hounds, Downtown Abbey is worth getting hooked on, IMO. My only problem is that it will eventually end, just like "Upstairs/Downstairs". That's a series I'd like to see shown again.

arcy - I think Cora was willing to cast her spousal net far and wide - remember she was (half?) Jewish, the daughter of a tradesman and from Cincinnati (no offense Ohioans) - so she wasn't exactly at the top of the Social Register. The following is from Wikia.com. The site gives a fairly detailed synopsis of the series. ............................... "Born Cora Levinson in Cincinnati on July 18[citation needed], 1868[1], she was the only daughter of the dry goods multi-millionaire, Isidore Levinson and his wife Martha Levinson, and had an Aunt.[2] Cora has a strained relationship with her mother[3]. As a young woman, she was brought to London in 1888[4] for her first season by her socially ambitious mother, in order to marry a member of the British nobility. During the season she met Robert Crawley, Viscount Downton, the future Earl of Grantham. Much to Robert's mother's chagrin, Cora became engaged to him and the two of them married on 16 February, 1890.[5] As part of their marriage contract, Cora's fortune was tied to the family estate to prevent it from going bankrupt."

Mtn, I agree thaT Mad Men was deeper (much) than DA. While all the characters were flawed (some deeply), this served to often accent our pleasure with their honorably-achieved "highs". The questions of ethics and morality were addressed in every episode. And then - Jon Hamm. I would be looking at him and DH would be looking at me and grinning. I also Loved the women's costumes. Thinking about other family viewing. There is the BBC production Fall of Eagles, magic for history buffs, so perhaps payback for all those romcoms your son has watched? This is the story of the four dynasties which ruled Europe prior to, during, and after WW1 - British, Russian, German, and Austro-Hungarian, and what happened to them. Beautifully produced, splendid acting, and the story is made quite clear, although it would be good to have a large map of Europe available in order to follow the action. Nothing that we would call sex and no cussing. No explicit violence that I can recall; e.g. the assassination of the Russian royal family is mentioned, but not shown, and the battles are described via maps and shadowy figures, but nothing gross. Patrick Stewart as Lenin is wonderful! And then - also for history-loving folks. The American 1980s PBS production Oppenheimer, with a young Sam Waterston (in IMO his very best role) as J. Robert Oppenheimer, "father" of the atomic bomb, and the Manhattan Project. At times exciting, but also talky, with the complicated romance and marriage of Oppie to his unlikeable wife. It follows most of Oppie's life, including what the government did to him following the war, with good questions about not only the dropping of the bomb, but also about how the feds treated suspected Communists (I have no sympathy for Russia-loving Communists of that era, but Oppie was an innocent man unjustly pursued). Also no explicit sex or cussing or violence. There is a suicide, but if the kids sat through Barrow's attempt, this will be okay. DH and I agree that this is our favorite PBS-style series of all time, although MM might take precedence now. Maybe not. Waterston is terrific, as is the actor who portrays Poirot as Edward Teller. The story of our pursuit of this series after we first watched it in the early 80s is a saga in itself, which I'll spare you!

liz/lemonhead it is only available on netflix here (apparently the BBC couldn't afford to make/buy it) so haven't seen it. The few write-ups I have seen have been surprisingly favourable. I suppose it might be difficult for some viewers to realise the conversations are all conjectural ie not based on what really was said. I read that Princess Elizabeth's wedding dress for the show cost £30,000 while for the actual dress HRH had to save her ration coupons for the material. Wedding of Princess Elizabeth