in which I defend Robert Crawley (no, really)

[snick_backup]

I had posted this bit of a rant somewhere else and decided I wanted to save it in a place I could remember it. It's regarding the events of Downton Abbey 3.05, and was written in response to the allegation that those events were all Robert's fault.

I'm all for getting on the Robert hate train, but I think the fact that he wound up looking like an arrogant prick regarding Sybil's medical treatment and eventual death was largely the fault of the way the events were framed. If you had a choice between believing an expert in a particular area who warned you off a (so he says) dangerous procedure and a non-expert (relatively speaking) who claimed the procedure was necessary, that'd be a pretty hard decision to make. And Cora, even though she ended up being right, had no more information to go on than Robert did, and I can't really see her evaluation as being any more valid.

Now, I think we were meant to take away that Clarkson was obviously right and Robert was an arrogant snob not to take him seriously. But the events don't actually support that conclusion, I don't think. Like, if we'd heard that Sir Phillip had previously had similar situations where the lady had died and Robert disregarded those, that'd be quite different. But as far as we're told, Sir Phillip had a spotless record and though he's high-handed about things, making him unsympathetic to the viewer, I don't think that alone would have diminished his skills in any way, at least not to people of the time period.

So I think Robert was in a tough spot, and he made his best guess based on the information he was given, and he guessed wrong.

(Now, if you want to argue that really it should have been Tom Branson making that call, I will not say you nay. But given that Robert made the call, I can't really fault the call he made.)

Original entry posted at Dreamwidth. Feel free to reply here or there. ( DW replies)

Comments

[zanthinegirl.livejournal.com]

To play devil's advocate here: From a medical standpoint Clarkson was right. Toxemia was just as well known in 1920, and the protein in the urine was the standard test. Sybil had the classic symptoms, and they weren't subtle. Robert believed the other doctor for snobbish, social reasons not because of any reasonable arguments.

[kikimay]

I don't blame Robert, because I think he wanted the best for Sybil. But he should have listened to Cora. She had three children - so she was experienced - and she understood that Sybil's conditions were dangerous. I don't blame Robert for not listening to Clarkson, but I blame him for not listening to his wife.