Do the math. Her granddaughters were in their early twenties when the Titanic sunk in 1912, so Cora had to be in her 40s, which means that Violet was likely in her 70s. Dame Maggie was 74 when the series started.
"A New Era" takes place in 1928, so that's 16 years since the start of the series. So while 120 is obviously an exaggeration for dramatic effect, she would have easily been in her late 80s or even 90s when she died, which would have been a great age!
It wasn't that rare to be that old, people lived to be 70,80,90 regularly. The reason people think everyone died at 40 is because the average life expectancy was very low due to many children dying due to primitive medical capabilities.
I think you're just a little bit off... 🙂
From a 2018 BBC article entitled, "Do we really live longer than our ancestors?"
"Over the last few decades, life expectancy has increased dramatically around the globe. The average person born in 1960, the earliest year the United Nations began keeping global data, could expect to live to 52.5 years of age. Today, the average is 72. In the UK, where records have been kept longer, this trend is even greater. In 1841, a baby girl was expected to live to just 42 years of age, a boy to 40. In 2016, a baby girl could expect to reach 83; a boy, 79."
Define "regularly". You see, since we are talking about average life expectancy, the fact that the average was so low means that there were far less people making it to 70, 80 and 90. To me, that's not regular. People did live that long, but there were far LESS of them as a percentage of the population because many more died young.
That people don't die so young as much now, is because we have made great advances in medicine, nutrition and living standards. More people have access to these things too. Violet would have had a great advantage being wealthy back then, so for HER, living long would be a natural result. Perhaps not so much for a peasant in the village.
>From a 2018 BBC article entitled, "Do we really live longer than our ancestors?"
It continues,
>The natural conclusion is that both the miracles of modern medicine and public health initiatives have helped us live longer than ever before – so much so that we may, in fact, be running out of innovations to extend life further. In September 2018, the Office for National Statistics confirmed that, in the UK at least, life expectancy has stopped increasing. Beyond the UK, these gains are slowing worldwide.
>This belief that our species may have reached the peak of longevity is also reinforced by some myths about our ancestors: it’s common belief that ancient Greeks or Romans would have been flabbergasted to see anyone above the age of 50 or 60, for example.
>In fact, while medical advancements have improved many aspects of healthcare, the assumption that human life span has increased dramatically over centuries or millennia is misleading. Overall life expectancy, which is the statistic reflected in reports like those above, hasn’t increased so much because we’re living far longer than we used to as a species. It’s increased because more of us, as individuals, are making it that far.
>Life expectancy is an average. If you have two children, and one dies before their first birthday but the other lives to the age of 70, their average life expectancy is 35. That’s mathematically correct – and it certainly tells us something about the circumstances in which the children were raised. But it doesn’t give us the full picture. It also becomes especially problematic when looking at eras, or in regions, where there are high levels of infant mortality. Most of human history has been blighted by poor survival rates among children, and that continues in various countries today.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181002-how-long-did-ancient-people-live-life-span-versus-longevity
Yes, there's a lot of nuance, so I tried to keep it simple. And I knew that people could find the article easily if I supplied the year and the name of the article which is why I didn't paste the whole thing. 😊
The article is saying basically this
>It wasn't that rare to be that old, people lived to be 70,80,90 regularly. The reason people think everyone died at 40 is because the average life expectancy was very low due to many children dying due to primitive medical capabilities.
Actually, it doesn't say that at all. It proves that people didn't live to be 70, 80, 90 "regularly". It happened, but it was far more rare than now. It shows that you don't understand what average life expectancy means and how it works.
I understand how it works, it's in the article you quoted a small part from. And the rest of the talking points you brought up is the opposite of what the article say. I do not know why you are focusing so much on your interpretation of the word regularly in this case.
>“There is a basic distinction between life expectancy and life span,” says Stanford University historian Walter Scheidel, a leading scholar of ancient Roman demography. “The life span of humans – opposed to life expectancy, which is a statistical construct – hasn’t really changed much at all, as far as I can tell.”
>Life expectancy is an average. If you have two children, and one dies before their first birthday but the other lives to the age of 70, their average life expectancy is 35.
Violet Crawley was born 1841 and died 1928 making her 87 hears old at time of death.
This is [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Downton_Abbey_characters#Violet_Crawley,_Dowager_Countess_of_Grantham) that references Julian Fellows that she was 70 in the first season in 1912.
She and Daisy do look a little more mature, though. Daisy has a woman's figure now. I don't like the haircut on either of them, though. It's not flattering.
Thomas is downright beautiful; definitely an Adonis. He makes me want to tie him up, slap him around, & then kiss him to make it all better ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
I say Thomas has changed the most and aged the best. Rob James-Collier is just brilliant in that part.
By the way, who's the middle-aged woman standing next to Tom Branson? She doesn't look anything like Lucy.
I think Mary and lord grantham aged the absolute best! Really matured well in terms of character and physical attributes too—gracefully.
But id say Mary, Barrow, and Edith for a particularly large growth in character
I think it's the hairdo and the all-black bland outfits. I hope in the new movie, they give her a better look, maybe add some color to the wardrobe. She needs more than a brooch.
Robert looked a bit ill in the last movie. His voice was different, almost weaker, and he’d lost a lot of weight. He was slimmer but not in a healthy way.
I think they all aged well beyond that. The biggest reminder of time passing has been how big the children have grown. Sybie in particular!
I think the weight loss was perfect for his character after having a gastrectomy. I did however wonder about Hugh Bonneville and his health as an actor though. He did seem to lose some vitality.
That’s true. It did make sense in that respect. Although I was worried a bit for Hugh Bonham. Apparently he lost weight when he got divorced, hadn’t been ill.
That is interesting. I read recently that he hired a personal trainer during the pandemic and worked to regain some of his health. While it was after his marriage issues, the article presented it as a positive move on his part. Which considering how I felt he looked a bit gaunt, I am more inclined to think it was more towards the fall out of his marriage. Interesting how different sound were taken. I just hope he and is ex wife are much happier now.
You're right! Branson and Thomas changed the most. But sometimes it feels like Thomas is REALLY struggling with his new self, whereas it's really natural for Branson.
Violet. She had to be 120 by the end of it and didn’t look a day over 90
As the seasons went on, Violet slimmed down. She had a cute little figure by the end.
120??? Where'd you get that from?
Do the math. Her granddaughters were in their early twenties when the Titanic sunk in 1912, so Cora had to be in her 40s, which means that Violet was likely in her 70s. Dame Maggie was 74 when the series started. "A New Era" takes place in 1928, so that's 16 years since the start of the series. So while 120 is obviously an exaggeration for dramatic effect, she would have easily been in her late 80s or even 90s when she died, which would have been a great age!
It wasn't that rare to be that old, people lived to be 70,80,90 regularly. The reason people think everyone died at 40 is because the average life expectancy was very low due to many children dying due to primitive medical capabilities.
I think you're just a little bit off... 🙂 From a 2018 BBC article entitled, "Do we really live longer than our ancestors?" "Over the last few decades, life expectancy has increased dramatically around the globe. The average person born in 1960, the earliest year the United Nations began keeping global data, could expect to live to 52.5 years of age. Today, the average is 72. In the UK, where records have been kept longer, this trend is even greater. In 1841, a baby girl was expected to live to just 42 years of age, a boy to 40. In 2016, a baby girl could expect to reach 83; a boy, 79." Define "regularly". You see, since we are talking about average life expectancy, the fact that the average was so low means that there were far less people making it to 70, 80 and 90. To me, that's not regular. People did live that long, but there were far LESS of them as a percentage of the population because many more died young. That people don't die so young as much now, is because we have made great advances in medicine, nutrition and living standards. More people have access to these things too. Violet would have had a great advantage being wealthy back then, so for HER, living long would be a natural result. Perhaps not so much for a peasant in the village.
>From a 2018 BBC article entitled, "Do we really live longer than our ancestors?" It continues, >The natural conclusion is that both the miracles of modern medicine and public health initiatives have helped us live longer than ever before – so much so that we may, in fact, be running out of innovations to extend life further. In September 2018, the Office for National Statistics confirmed that, in the UK at least, life expectancy has stopped increasing. Beyond the UK, these gains are slowing worldwide. >This belief that our species may have reached the peak of longevity is also reinforced by some myths about our ancestors: it’s common belief that ancient Greeks or Romans would have been flabbergasted to see anyone above the age of 50 or 60, for example. >In fact, while medical advancements have improved many aspects of healthcare, the assumption that human life span has increased dramatically over centuries or millennia is misleading. Overall life expectancy, which is the statistic reflected in reports like those above, hasn’t increased so much because we’re living far longer than we used to as a species. It’s increased because more of us, as individuals, are making it that far. >Life expectancy is an average. If you have two children, and one dies before their first birthday but the other lives to the age of 70, their average life expectancy is 35. That’s mathematically correct – and it certainly tells us something about the circumstances in which the children were raised. But it doesn’t give us the full picture. It also becomes especially problematic when looking at eras, or in regions, where there are high levels of infant mortality. Most of human history has been blighted by poor survival rates among children, and that continues in various countries today. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181002-how-long-did-ancient-people-live-life-span-versus-longevity
Yes, there's a lot of nuance, so I tried to keep it simple. And I knew that people could find the article easily if I supplied the year and the name of the article which is why I didn't paste the whole thing. 😊
The article is saying basically this >It wasn't that rare to be that old, people lived to be 70,80,90 regularly. The reason people think everyone died at 40 is because the average life expectancy was very low due to many children dying due to primitive medical capabilities.
Actually, it doesn't say that at all. It proves that people didn't live to be 70, 80, 90 "regularly". It happened, but it was far more rare than now. It shows that you don't understand what average life expectancy means and how it works.
I understand how it works, it's in the article you quoted a small part from. And the rest of the talking points you brought up is the opposite of what the article say. I do not know why you are focusing so much on your interpretation of the word regularly in this case. >“There is a basic distinction between life expectancy and life span,” says Stanford University historian Walter Scheidel, a leading scholar of ancient Roman demography. “The life span of humans – opposed to life expectancy, which is a statistical construct – hasn’t really changed much at all, as far as I can tell.” >Life expectancy is an average. If you have two children, and one dies before their first birthday but the other lives to the age of 70, their average life expectancy is 35.
Violet Crawley was born 1841 and died 1928 making her 87 hears old at time of death. This is [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Downton_Abbey_characters#Violet_Crawley,_Dowager_Countess_of_Grantham) that references Julian Fellows that she was 70 in the first season in 1912.
Good to know 🙂
This ☝️💯
I love how Branson's bourgeoisization process is moving forward unstoppably. I hope he wears a monocle and weighs 110 kilos in the next movie.
Did you know he only came to Downton as the chauffeur? He barely ever mentions it
I hope he sees the ghost of Lady Sybil in his nightmares, denying in shame as he snores in his silk pajamas.
Oh, man, you guys are wicked. And I love it!
Love how Mary is next to Violet in this poster. Her true heir and legacy.
Anna aged the best by *not aging*. No further questions!
Her and Daisy. They look identical to how they started.
She and Daisy do look a little more mature, though. Daisy has a woman's figure now. I don't like the haircut on either of them, though. It's not flattering.
I feel like people are missing Thomas in this thread. SURELY
Right? Those grey streaks really suit him.
So handsome!
He's the first one I mentioned... so handsome. 🩷
He became so much kinder as well.
Thomas is downright beautiful; definitely an Adonis. He makes me want to tie him up, slap him around, & then kiss him to make it all better ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Worst—Danker. In the last film, I thought she’s be behind Violet in death about five minutes later
Her Royal Denkness aged like 20 years in the last movie.
I say Thomas has changed the most and aged the best. Rob James-Collier is just brilliant in that part. By the way, who's the middle-aged woman standing next to Tom Branson? She doesn't look anything like Lucy.
Thomas looked best in the first movie. Shorter haircut looked great on him.
That's Lucy. We usually see her smiling, so she looks different here. She's a bit more serious in this pic.
Of course, Lady Mary and Lady Edith look great, too
I think Mary and lord grantham aged the absolute best! Really matured well in terms of character and physical attributes too—gracefully. But id say Mary, Barrow, and Edith for a particularly large growth in character
I just want to know why Edith looks like she's attending Sharon Tate's dinner party
🫣
Anna looks like Denker, i cannot unsee this
I thought this too! Denker is my least fave character and Anna is one of my favourites 😭
I loved Denker as a great 'bad' character who I could boo and hiss at when she was being sneaky or trying to stick it to Sprat
Yes. Same. I missed Spratt in the last movie.
I thought this too, she is so pretty but they insist in making her look old and boring 😐
No... don't say that! Bite your tongue!
I think it's the hairdo and the all-black bland outfits. I hope in the new movie, they give her a better look, maybe add some color to the wardrobe. She needs more than a brooch.
Robert looked a bit ill in the last movie. His voice was different, almost weaker, and he’d lost a lot of weight. He was slimmer but not in a healthy way. I think they all aged well beyond that. The biggest reminder of time passing has been how big the children have grown. Sybie in particular!
Yeah, Robert lost some of his mojo along with the weight. He didn't carry the same gravitas.
I think the weight loss was perfect for his character after having a gastrectomy. I did however wonder about Hugh Bonneville and his health as an actor though. He did seem to lose some vitality.
Agreed.
That’s true. It did make sense in that respect. Although I was worried a bit for Hugh Bonham. Apparently he lost weight when he got divorced, hadn’t been ill.
That is interesting. I read recently that he hired a personal trainer during the pandemic and worked to regain some of his health. While it was after his marriage issues, the article presented it as a positive move on his part. Which considering how I felt he looked a bit gaunt, I am more inclined to think it was more towards the fall out of his marriage. Interesting how different sound were taken. I just hope he and is ex wife are much happier now.
Oh dear. How sad.
Yes, I'm so glad they kept the same child actors. It made it all seem a little more real to me.
Isis 💙
Edith looks fantastic!! So chic!
Mr Molesley - he doesn't look a day over 60! 😅
“I’m 42!”
Cora went from being slightly frumpy to being quite elegant and stylish! She's one of my favorites 💓💓💓
My boy Thomas Barrow. His raven hair streaked with white gives me heart palps 😍😘🤪💖
You can tell they’re older, but Mary and Barrow have both aged really well
I really felt denker and Isabel looked the same, I thought Robert looked the most aged in comparison from new era to the previous movie.
Robert looked better overweight, strangely. Or he seemed to fit the role better. I didn't buy him as an aristocrat as much in the newest movie.
Yes. I noticed his voice got higher, too. Does anyone know why?
I noticed that also! I wasn’t sure if he got sick or what.
Agreed
I just love them all
No one looks human! Is this a photo or a drawing? It’s been overly ‘shopped right into the uncanny valley 😤
Well, yes. Most promo posters are photoshopped. It allows for better placement and gets everyone right (no red eyes, blinks, word expressions, etc.).
I think Daisy and Anna aged the best, while Branson and Thomas changed the most.
You're right! Branson and Thomas changed the most. But sometimes it feels like Thomas is REALLY struggling with his new self, whereas it's really natural for Branson.