what’s in a name?

well folks, that's what we got.

Can I live inside this loop?

I am in no way a great editor and this was purely for funsies to show my love for this evil not so evil butler ❤

Anyway, if you're interested, feel free to check it out 😎

I find the movie exceptionally poetic in its take of Thomas and his arc. In a relatively short time, it managed to give him everything he was desperately looking for in six series. And in a way, it did it in perfect parallel to both the series/Thomas and the movie/other characters. Out of the servants, it seemed only Thomas (and arguably less successfully Daisy and Andy, but let’s be considerate of Andy’s young age) had a story arc. 

On a surface matter, it may seem that Thomas gets two romantic interests, but to me it doesn’t seem that way. Chris Webster and Thomas’ night in Turton’s is a mirror to the upper class soiree. Who is having a better time? Royalty and upper class or Thomas and his new found friends? Who’s enjoying their night the best? Where Thomas is intoxicated in joy, there is the stiffness of the upper class, the intrigues and illicit relationships, and the hypocrisy about who belongs there and who doesn’t. While Violet is a well beloved character, she is a prime example of it and her attitude towards Maud and Lucy. 

And then, there is Thomas living life to its fullest, until his night becomes a disaster and he gets arrested for indecency. For dancing the tango with a man, no less. Just for being who he is, in other words. To be honest, the audience cannot be certain about the people attending the secret party in Turton’s. Some of them may live a double life. Well, Chris may be married for all we know. But the point here is that these people are getting arrested for who they are. And it’s the 1920s. No one can be out & proudly gay in the 1920s. That’s why they are or have to be careful.

Of course, the authorities may treat the upper class and lower class differently. For Thomas to get out of prison, Richard has to use the upper class, the highest of authorities. “Oh look here, officer, I work for the King. And Barrow there? He’s the Earl’s Butler.” This is really sad, but it gets to show the audience that the upper class had a different treatment than men like Thomas. Or Chris.

This is drama. And imho, good drama. 

And we are brought to Richard who seems interested in Thomas from almost the start. And he doesn’t hide it. Not really. He’s got a pitbull determination to take him with him in York. Phyllis is an ally, isn’t she? Does it matter if she instinctively knows it’s a date or not? Should we compare her to Ms. O’Brien? On some deeper level, we are not certain if Thomas himself knows he’s out on a date with a man like himself. 

Richard talks about circumspection when he has put himself in danger to save Thomas. He uses a rather intimate gesture while the police van in which Thomas was arrested hours previously is right behind him, outside the police station. He talks of circuspection but his words are belied by his actions. 

He is a man who is forced to say things that make him sick. That is tragedy. Anyway you see it, it is a tragedy. 

But he is also the man who gives Thomas his freedom back as opposed to Pamuk blackmailing him for it; he is the man who gives Thomas a gift/promise for a future (think isn’t a fling) as opposed to Phillip stealing (and later burning) his letters. This is a man who offers whole-heartily something different than friendship as opposed to Jimmy (Oh Fellowes does remember what he’s done to Thomas). And that something is what Thomas wanted if not from the start, then close enough to it. Thomas wanted love and companionship, to feel accepted. Yes, having a night out in Turton’s was great, but it was not what Thomas was shown to want. He didn’t go through conversion therapy to have wild gay life but because he wasn’t happy without a partner. 

Personally, as a content consumer, I think Fellowes did a very good job portraying the danger gay men were in the english past (and some do today), but also giving Thomas a happy ending. And not only that, but shockingly enough (gasp) he poked the upper class in the chest too. 

I have written in the past what I think about Chris as a character, so there is no point in repeating myself *not that I haven’t repeated previous posted thoughts here, but you know what I mean.

You know, I liked the whole ThomasxRichard love story in the ‘Downton Abbey’ Movie No. 1, I really did. I thought they were sweet together, and Richard was so handsome and charming.

And yet I can’t fail to notice the way he was written by Julian Fellowes as a character. (Blame Fellowes for this, not me. Don’t kill the messenger, please.)

Not only are Chris Webster and Richard Ellis juxtaposed as personifications of the choice that Thomas, as a gay man, has to make (as I pointed out in this meta here: x, and an added comment to it here: x). Namely, the choice between the wild gay life of freedom (Chris Webster) and the closeted and discreet (‘circumspect’) life (Richard Ellis).

And not only is Fellowes explicitly punishing one choice by the narrative (Christ Webster) and rewarding the alternative (Richard Ellis).

So, not only is Fellowes doing all of this…No! He also writes Richard Ellis in a very specific way:

Just look at the the first scene in which Richard actually gets to DO something (apart from standing around and talking about his job), the first real action he takes is: He PRETENDS to be someone he is not!

He pretends to be Sir Harry Barnston on the phone. 

Granted, he does so with good intentions. And Fate (aka Julian Fellowes aka the author) smiles on him for doing that. But still: His first real action in this movie is: PRETENDING.

Then Richard Ellis turns up at the police station and pretends to hate gays and be disgusted by them. Which implies that he also pretends to be straight. So, once again…he is specifically written as someone who pretends to be something that he’s not. (Note that I’m not saying this is a bad thing. We are meant to sympathize with him here. And we do. As we should.) 

All I’m saying is: Fellowes makes him someone who pretends AGAIN.

Richard Ellis actually points out to the policeman that Thomas works as the Earl of Grantham’s butler and he himself works in the Royal Household. Both these facts are technically correct, but they offer him this absolutely impeccable straight veneer of ‘I’m-clean-as-a-whistle’, which clearly is a bit…erm…shall we say: it’s pretence again. At least, in a certain sense.

He then even proceeds to project his own pretence onto Thomas by claiming that Thomas was only PRETENDING to be gay, that it was all a joke. 

Again: I’m not saying this is a bad thing. And it’s absolutely understandable, even heroic under the circumstances. But you have to look at it through the eyes of a writer: Fellowes writes Richard as a guy who pretends to be something and someone that he clearly is not. 

Richard Ellis, in Julian Fellowes’ writing, pretends all day long. That’s what he does. And Fellowes rewards this pretending as good and righteous.

Chris Webster (while obviously only appearing on screen for a few minutes) is intentionally not written in this way. He approaches another potentially gay man (Thomas) much more openly and then pays the price for partying at a gay club by going to prison.

Richard on the other hand is rewarded (by Fellowes) for pretending.

What more evidence do you need that Fellowes intentionally writes Richard as a personification of the closeted lifestyle. And Fellowes’ writing actually approves of said ‘circumspect’ way of living.

There’s one sentence that immediately struck me as curious while I was watching the movie: Not only does Richard tell the policeman that it ‘turns’ his ‘stomach’ thinking about gays, which would have been enough to imply, “Hey, officer, I’m absolutely 100 percent straight and normal, you know.” 

No, Richard actually takes it even one step further. He says, “I would kill myself if I thought I was one of them.”

In other words, Richard plays “What-if-I-were-gay” here. Fellowes specifically points out to us that Richard says, “if I thought I was one of them”, he let’s Richard literally speculate on who he is or is not, making this a very, very strong case of Richard pretending to be someone that he’s not.

Now, is there a narrative progression to Richard’s pretending throughout the movie? Yes, there is:

Remember the wife that Richard Ellis was originally supposed to have? The wife reveal that Fellowes fortunately let himself be talked out of?

Well, look at this from the structural point of view of a writer: 

Richard Ellis first pretends to be Sir Harry on the phone, then pretends to be something he’s not at the police station, then even projects that pretence onto Thomas…and eventually the storyline would have then culminated in us finding out that he even ‘pretended’ to be straight by being married and having a wife.

There’s a clear progression here: from >>>harmless prank-call as Sir Harry pretence>>>to>>>more serious police-station pretence>>>to>>>eventually>>>wife reveal (pretending to be straight and living a closeted life, ie very serious life-style-choice type of pretence).

I’m not saying I would have liked the wife reveal, but it makes sense from a writer’s point of view. 

Fellowes neatly planned that character out in a certain way, and there is a clear progression in how Richard’s pretending is revealed more and more to us, the viewers.

Now, from Thomas’ (in-universe) point of view, I have to say that I’m really, really glad Fellowes let himself be talked out of that whole wife reveal as the culminating moment. I’m glad for Thomas. I’m glad for us, the audience. I’m glad for all Barris shippers (of whom I might tentatively be one).

But from the perspective of a writer, we end up with a narrative progression that’s strangely cut off at the last moment. It’s left hanging in the air. 

Imagine the whole Lucy Smith story hadn’t culminated in the reveal of her being the daughter of Lady Maud Bagshaw. Imagine there would have been a storyline building up to that reveal through all sorts of hints and clues without the actual follow-through. That’s what it’s like with Richard’s storyline.

Again: I’m not saying I would have liked a wife reveal for Richard Ellis. (I would have hated that, as a matter of fact.) It’s just that structurally in the progression of his pretending it was clearly building up to something along those lines. That’s the way Julian Fellowes wrote it. (Don’t blame me. Blame him.)

I’m not saying any of this to take away from your enjoyment of the ThomasxRichard ship. On the contrary: I liked them a lot together. I might be a die-hard ThomasxJimmy shipper, but there’s room in my heart for both ThomasxEdward and ThomasxRichard. I might even write a few ThomasxRichard fics in the future. So I’m not AT ALL adverse to this ship.

I just think that we have to take a look at the way he was written as a character. We can then obviously feel free to subvert that in any way we like. (Death of the author and all that.) But the analysis comes first. The question of What-was-this-character-supposed-to-represent, even What-was-he-there-for, this question comes first. 

And I don’t think Fellowes wrote him as this shining example of an ‘out-and-proud’, confident gay man that a lot of people in the fandom seem to see him as. Fellowes wrote him as THE representation of the closet: a gilded closet if you will, a closet that’s very comfortable to live in, but a closet nonetheless.

That’s the writer’s intention here.

And, as I pointed out before, that’s the reason why Richard, who could have potentially caressed Thomas in any way, shape or form, specifically touches Thomas’ lips in a Shhhhh! gesture. Richard Ellis is all hush-hush.

P.S. Before anyone asks: Yes, I am aware that Richard pretending to be Sir Harry in a prank call has nothing to do with him being gay. I’m not saying it has. Not literally. But subtextually, it has!

Remember: For the purposes of this meta, we’re looking at all of this through the eyes of the author, ie, how and why did or didn’t the author make a certain writing choice.

On a show ripe with idiotic twists and turns (Hello, Fake-Patrick! And don’t even get me started on Matthew’s tingle that helped him get up from his wheelchair again!), Fellowes could have easily pulled some idiotic explanation out of his derrière, according to which Thomas is suddenly really good at imitating voices. He could have had Thomas do the whole prank call on his own or have someone else do it. But Fellowes specifically didn’t write it this way. He specifically gave that part to Richard. 

Because subtextually he wanted Richard to pretend to speak with a voice that isn’t Richard’s. He wanted Richard to pretend to be a member of a class and a station in life, and, in some sense, a type of sexuality, that’s absolutely 100 percent above board and respectable. He wanted Richard to pretend.

Richard says, “I’m very good at doing Sir Harry Barnston, I can assure you.” So he pretty much melds and disappears into this other persona at that moment, and need I even tell you that Sir Harry Barnston was historically a Conservative politician?

The character Richard Ellis was written as a pretender, as a man in the closet. This character was not written as a shining example of ‘out-and-proud’ or even anything remotely close to that. Which is also why I doubt the fandom’s favourite headcanon of Richard having tolerant parents in York. (Not because I’m an arsehole; I would love for him to have kind and understanding parents. But, to be honest, I doubt Richard is even ‘out’ to them. That’s not the way he is written by Fellowes.)

He is consistently written as someone who is in the closet, as someone who pretends. And Fellowes tells us (whatever we may think about that) that this is a good thing.

as evidence for fellowes’ flawed message, this post interestingly points to richard’s impression of sir harry barnston - think of how richard even *brags* to thomas about his ability to behave like this conservative figure. and thomas actually looks at him admiringly, again painting pretence in a positive light! on top of this, the finger-on-the-lips moment connotes silencing and, once more, repression. during all of this, richard possibly appears as a kind of mentor to thomas, guiding him down what fellowes seems to idolise as the “best” path for men like him.

had fellowes used richard’s nature as a pretender to evoke sympathy (for the way men at the time were forced to hide), i think his character would have been much more powerful. in other words, fellowes could and should have gone down the route of option 1 - instead of implicitly glorifying and meriting his pretence. now, i’m not at all saying that richard was in the wrong: in fairness to fellowes, it would be unrealistic for richard to have been open and honest about himself without period-typical repercussions, so richard’s character is, at least, pretty convincing. however, what does seem wrong is for fellowes to seemingly advocate self-repression!  and, as the original post explains, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that this is exactly what fellowes is doing. even if it was necessary for many gay men at the time to pretend, we can’t forget that this film was intended for a modern audience, so what sort of message is fellowes trying to communicate to us?

so, back to my original point: if fellowes felt the need to present richard as a ‘pretender’, then why, why, why did he glorify it and not use it to create sympathy for his situation? why did he present richard as so self-assured and accepting of his need to pretend, even transferring his outlook onto thomas? yes, this was (sadly) how many men at the time were forced to behave, but fellowes should have left the audience thinking about the injustices, and not the pragmatism, of having to pretend.

The only other explanation I can think of is that Fellowes was actually trying to elicit our sympathy for Richard’s situation (your option 1), but did so badly, ie, it failed and came across as advocacy for the closet where it wasn’t meant to be read as such.