HarshBench

LOL, this stuff doesn't really interest me in the abstract, but it takes on some meaning when applied to the characters on the show. That's what makes it interesting.

For example, the fact that Aysgrth is only a Baron (the bottom rung on the ladder of Peers of the Realm) and the Baronetcy itself is "lowly but old." He took care to point out that it was old, because that counts for something.

Or the fact that Mary will never be Countess or Dowager Countess, even though she owns much of the estate itself now. Unless her son dies and some other distant Crawley cousin emerges as heir and she marries him…but that's too far-fetched even for this show.

The pros and cons of Gillingham and Blake? Leaving aside their looks and personalities, which are both good enough I suppose, how do they measure up? Because let's get down to brass tacks: Mary cares a lot about that stuff.

Charles is going to be richer in land and presumably cash. He's aristocracy, but without a title. Their sons would have no titles, and their daughters would have to marry well to get them. In a couple of generations, their descendants would be mere "gentry" and eventually upper middle class like Matthew. Tony has a desirable title that would pass to an eldest son, and their other kids would be better positioned to keep their feet on the ladder. But his financial situation is precarious enough that he was going to marry Mabel for her cash infusion. The Viscountcy could eventually be a bankrupt one, conferring status but no estate or inherited wealth. Or source of income except….HORRORS!!!….working.

It all comes into play in this class system. Unless you're Sybil Crawley, in which case you don't care about it and would rather escape it.