(Spoiler Alert: If you are one of the six or seven people on earth who aren’t up to date on Downton Abbey, you may want to skip to the next column.)
Dear Rep. Mulvaney,
I am not an irate voter, seeking to influence your position on sequestration, Obamacare or global warming.
I do, however, demand that you take immediate steps to address one of the greatest travesties of our time: The cruel untimely death of Matthew Crowley, heir apparent of Downton Abbey.
I’m sure you’ve heard from other constituents outraged that Matthew was struck down in his prime while driving home from the hospital, where his lovely but imperious wife, Lady Mary, had given birth to their first child.
That cruel turn of fate shocked millions of loyal DA watchers who hadn’t wiped tears of joy from their eyes before being gobsmacked by the sight of Matthew crushed under his roadster.
How could they do that to us?
After all, we had suffered through three seasons of Matthew and Lady Mary’s off-again, on-again relationship.
We tut-tutted when his middle class snobbery almost doomed their love at the get-go.
We fretted when she got cold feet after it appeared Lady Grantham might produce a suitable (i.e., male) heir after all.
We empathized with Matthew when he returned from WWI, paralyzed and impotent.
Our hopes soared over his miraculous recovery, only to be dashed by his engagement to another woman and disappointed because even after her demise due to contracting the Spanish flu, Matthew saw her death as due punishment for still carrying the torch for his true love.
Finally, our emotions were whipsawed between Lady Mary’s compulsion to tell Matthew about her one-night fling with the mysterious Mr. Pamuk and Matthew’s prudish refusal to forgive her, only to see him swallow his pride and get down on his knees at the entrance to the grand manor and ask for her hand in marriage.
Not only were we slapped in the face by Matthew’s death, but we also are being forced to wait until next season to find out what happens to the new mother, Lord and Lady Grantham, Lady Edith (will she hook up with the newspaper editor whose wife is in an asylum?), and Tom, their widowed son-in-law and ex-chauffer.
And that doesn’t begin to cover the multitude of back stories, subplots, hanky-panky and back-stabbing taking place among the help. (Will Carson, the head butler, and Mrs. Hughes get together? Can Thomas and Jimmy be mere BFFs? Did Bates beat the murder rap on a technicality?)
What can be done?
For starters, you could introduce a bill forbidding the people who produce public television epics from killing off a central character without an affirmative vote from a majority of viewers, perhaps via a call-in poll like the one used on Dancing with the Stars.
Another thing: The FCC ought to require that a season of Downton Abbey should consist of no fewer than 26 episodes. How can they get away with calling a season quits after seven episodes? The Downton Abbey crew puts in less time on screen than you guys do on Capitol Hill.
After all, don’t we taxpayers deserve a return on our investment? Heck, if we were able to see more episodes of Downton Abbey, we might even contribute to one of those fund drives the ETV is forever running. (Honestly, you would think that you people don’t fund public television adequately!)
And one more thing, it chafes me that Brits get to see new Downton Abbey episodes before we do. We have friends who live in Babraham, a village near Cambridge, who lord it over us because they know what happened on DA before we have an opportunity to find out.
In my opinion, that’s not only undemocratic; it’s un-American!
Tell your Tea Party friends that if they really want to contribute to the wellbeing of America, they should forget about the national debt and demand that Congress stop funding the BBC until those folks agree to play ball (cricket?).
One more thing: Someone needs to put Isis on a diet.
Email former Herald Editor Terry Plumb at terry.plumb@gmail.com.
