More defense of the underdog... Robert's case
Since 3x05 and even before, Robert has been the target a many critics. Granted, JF had decided that this character would represent resistance to changing times: he doesn't accept Tom's catholicism, he doesn't accept Matthew's plans, his alfa male tendencies deprived Sybil of a chance of survival (when, in reality, eclampsia at that time was akin to a death sentence or almost)... As a consequence, the character is rejected by many viewers, so much that some would prefer see the new brothers in arms lead the fate of Downton. Matthew's repeated outbursts in 3x07 then in the promo for 3x08 strengthen this impression.
However, there are a few things in the narration that bother me as a viewer (and as an historian), and I can't shake the feeling that Robert's is butchered as character to help Matthew shine by comparison, the same way Richard's been butchered. Why do I think that? Because, once more, JF's use of historical context is more than problematical, and detrimental to some characters. Matthew evoked "mismanaging" in 3x04 (I believe) which propelled him to "act" (aka being the top dog). He lamented about vacated farms and abandoned lands, and claimed for urgent change. Then he spoke about his (not so bright) plans, got Tom's adhesion, and the coup began. In 3x07. Matthew blamed Robert's managing (and got Jarvis' head in the process) and in the promo 3x08, his attacks are more vehement, and direct. He incarnates change, Robert represents resistance, he's the hero, Robert's must relent. He's educated (he's a solicitor, specialized in firm law) when Robert's simply follow tradition.
In theory, it works. However, JF claims that there's an historical context that weighs on everything (women's conditions, aristocratic values, bla bla bla). And the historical (and social) context in rural areas tells another story entirely.
1- Downton as an estate suffers from a deep crisis, it can't be denied. However, the narration is really unfair when Robert's is stigmatized by Matthew (and the writer) as the main culprit. Why is it unfair? Because agriculture in the whole country, from Cornwall to Yorkshire had suffered from the same problems as Downton since the 1870's (Robert's father and Robert's time). I'm citing: "Bad crops (1873-1877) but above all concurrence from outside weighed on English agriculture. Free-trade began to play against British production. Some prices crumbled; that's the case of the price of wheat which, after decades of stagnation, decreased by half in the last quarter of nineteenth century. Cheap cereals were imported in growing quantities thanks to modern boats. Thanks to the first refrigerated boats in the 1880's, butter, cheese, frozen meat, most notably Argentinian beef and lamb from New Zealand, submerged the interior market. 1/6 of arable land was abandoned. The cultivated areas of wheat, 1,2 million of ha in 1882, is divided by two in twenty years." This is the situation of Downton, and none of it comes from mismanaging, but from negative conjuncture (in the 19th century, Britain built its power on industry and trade, not agriculture). Forgetting this simple fact to permit Matthew's outburst against Robert is a bit disingenuous, I think, even more so when you take into account the fact that after the war, it's normal to see low activity in rural areas: workers in strategic factories - ammunition... - were a bit "protected" because considered essential to the war effort (producing weapons was their duty in a sense) whereas tenants and rural workers were sent to the front without more thinking. As a consequence, the human loss was comparably higher in rural areas, which provoked difficulties in the years following the war.
2- Furthermore, four years of war had put an end to the lower classes' last shreds of respect towards the upper-class. In rural areas, this phenomenon added to the economic problems and a natural tendency to resistance to anything coming from outside created some clear defiance and distrust. Moreover, there's the memory of Russian peasants' insurgency against the owner that is quite fresh in everyone's head. In this context, what Matthew is proposing is a fake good idea: in theory, it's great, in reality, it can pave the way to resistance, strike, opposition. Machines that steal a good man's work when the opportunities in town are still scarce? Fuck you, strike. Higher rents and forcing the grandmother to move from what has been her home for decades? Fuck you, strike. The series is set in 1920, and 1919 isn't that far behind (socialist revolts in Germany, Italy, France, Hungary in Glasgow even) and the social tensions were super high at that time. Add to that the fact that Matthew's an outsider (Jarvis is right on that point, from a rural mentality - hell, in 2012, the word I see more often on the side of the road in my own rural area is a big fat NO to about anything) and Tom a stranger (and a catholic...), and I'm tempted to side with Robert on this point (on the rest, not so much).
To sum up, the narration wants to impose an idea (generally accepted) that Matthew's right, he has History for him (changing times) when, in fact, Robert is only guilty of bad investment (why Canada and not the US? - I like this precision because it shows how much this character is a prisoner of the British Empire mentality) and can't be hold responsible for general conjuncture produced by British economy orientations since the beginning of the 19th century (free-trade, industry), and even an historical process of deconstruction of British campaigns since the enclosure movement in the 18th century. This writing decision by JF is totally unfair to Robert as a character (who didn't need that - Sybil's tragedy was enough) and I can't help to see this as necessary butchering to make the "hero" shine, once more.
I don't want to change people's minds about a character (hell, my favorite one is still Richard followed closely by Mrs Hughes) but I hope my ramblings managed to put some things into perspective, because, I repeat, some critics in the show are totally unfair and biased, and as a consequence, the perception of the character is compromised by JF's poor understanding (or manipulation) of the context he's supposed to use for his story. In my opinion, respecting the form of the buttons on the footmen's uniform or the authencity of men's underwear during a cricket game is nothing but an empty shell if the basic understanding of the period is lacking (well, the Irish question suffered horribly as well, so...)
One last thing: it's too bad that Richard isn't around anymore because religious discussions during dinner would have been hilarious. It's very funny when Robert's criticizes Catholic pump when Presbyterians (as a Scot, Richard would have been brought up in the Church of Scotland where there aren't any bishops) and other protestant churches had the tendency to see the Anglicans as pseudo-catholics (because the hierarchy, some theological points). JF missed a great occasion here: everything is relative.
Don Quixote is my second name...