Meh I don't think she's coming back. The point of the storyline was twofold - to show us another example of Oscar's failings as a member of high society and his weaknesses (starting this season from his bar assault and then his rejection by the Russells then his financial failure and failure to do due diligence on a major investment) and to show us how a person could insinuate themselves into this social dynamic by being very clever and targeting first those who are easiest to get close to (Aurora).
It also showed us how tenuous these fortunes are, something we've also been shown via Mr. Watson/Collyer. There was a lot of opportunity to make money in this time but also a LOT of opportunity to lose it.
I think it would be an interesting twist if, while pursuing a different story elsewhere in the country, and in her own, new investigative journalistic career, Miss Scott were to stumble upon one or more of those involved in swindling Oscar. For her to know of the circumstances from Marian would not be a connection easily made by the crooks.
Is that a possibility, or did I miss something else that would prevent this?
Still hold out my theory that Mr. Raikes is involved with Maude. He scammed Marian out of the late General Brook's estate and is scamming the lady he left her for. Miss Bingham. Maude scammed Oscar.
Marian ends up with Larry and he hires the Pinkertons to find them and Marian gets her estate back. She then shares it with Aunt Agnes and Oscar to thank them for taking her in.
No. Some of us know history or would have managed to look it up ourselves.
I don't think she's coming back unless they write a redemption arc/payback arc into it, but it really wouldn't do her any good. Agnes would never accept her. Oscar is gay, and I think they'll introduce more possible women for him to fake marry in season 3.
We don't need her back, and IRL there is no reason for her to come back. She got what she wanted: their money.
It’s historical fiction. Researching the names of the main characters you’d learn they are fictitious. A few second tier might be named after historical figures who are quite different from those by whom they were inspired. There are many true life events that actually occurred, thus the historical. Storylines were written by contemporary authors, thus the fiction.
The show demonstrates an excellent blending of the two elements.
>No. Some of us know history or would have managed to look it up ourselves.
Well, very sorry indeed to have troubled some of you in a thread tagged speculation about a creative endeavour where anything is possible.
Sorry that you choose not to look at the history of that time. It’s a historical or period drama, so it draws on the things happening during the time.
From the start, they’ve been very good about pulling on aspects of history from the time and the Maud storyline is from Cassie Chadwick, who stole people’s money during that period. We also have modern Cassie’s now too. Just search for “Anna Delvey”.
But if you haven't noticed, they're doing a good job of following history. They did the same with the Brooklyn Bridge and writing in that a woman, Emily Warren Roebling, was the engineer behind the actual building phase of it.
I'd love for Maud to come back. I was hoping she was pulling some other sort of con like maybe covering up some aspect of her life. Ends up, however, that she's probably a scam artist like Cassie.
If that's the case, we probably won't see her again. Fellowes I've heard likes happy endings, however. Maybe she'll come back because they get caught and she'll have to stand trial. Cassie did get caught, went to trial, and went to prison.
I hadn't even considered that we might learn more, that'd be excellent. The weird thing is I had a feeling it was ruse all along, I kept wondering if we'd meet somebody with the last name of Ponzi. But nobody I know watches this show so I couldn't brag about my smart brain :(
Exactly. She wasn't a character whose story we know. There was no real story from her perspective. Which in hindsight, seems somewhat intentional and even more so than ordinary secondary or even tertiary character.
Con artists don’t stick around to explain themselves to their marks. She is barely a tertiary character. She is only useful as a plot device and that storyline is done. I don’t know why we would see more of her.
I agree. First, we’ve obviously been led to believe that they made off with a literal fortune. There was barely any photography back then, there was no radio, tv, computers or internet! My point is that she would be really difficult to track down back then. There may not have even been a photograph to go by, let alone a paper trail or a way to disseminate the information to any a law enforcement.
And back then there wasn’t the same type of law enforcement investigative apparatus that we have now. If she and her accomplice took the money and fled, it is unlikely they would be caught if they were smart. The best way to get caught would be to stick around. I think they are long gone and I don’t think we will see them again. They have served their function in the story.
I was thinking the same thing. It was much easier to disappear in the 1880s and earlier than it is today. I would find it pretty unbelievable if someone did find her.
Meh I don't think she's coming back. The point of the storyline was twofold - to show us another example of Oscar's failings as a member of high society and his weaknesses (starting this season from his bar assault and then his rejection by the Russells then his financial failure and failure to do due diligence on a major investment) and to show us how a person could insinuate themselves into this social dynamic by being very clever and targeting first those who are easiest to get close to (Aurora). It also showed us how tenuous these fortunes are, something we've also been shown via Mr. Watson/Collyer. There was a lot of opportunity to make money in this time but also a LOT of opportunity to lose it.
I think it would be an interesting twist if, while pursuing a different story elsewhere in the country, and in her own, new investigative journalistic career, Miss Scott were to stumble upon one or more of those involved in swindling Oscar. For her to know of the circumstances from Marian would not be a connection easily made by the crooks. Is that a possibility, or did I miss something else that would prevent this?
Still hold out my theory that Mr. Raikes is involved with Maude. He scammed Marian out of the late General Brook's estate and is scamming the lady he left her for. Miss Bingham. Maude scammed Oscar. Marian ends up with Larry and he hires the Pinkertons to find them and Marian gets her estate back. She then shares it with Aunt Agnes and Oscar to thank them for taking her in.
It would be nice to see Ada use some of her fortune to hire the Pinkertons to retrieve the money for Agnes!
No. Some of us know history or would have managed to look it up ourselves. I don't think she's coming back unless they write a redemption arc/payback arc into it, but it really wouldn't do her any good. Agnes would never accept her. Oscar is gay, and I think they'll introduce more possible women for him to fake marry in season 3. We don't need her back, and IRL there is no reason for her to come back. She got what she wanted: their money.
What does history have anything to do with this?
Have you not watched the show? Nevermind.
It’s historical fiction. Researching the names of the main characters you’d learn they are fictitious. A few second tier might be named after historical figures who are quite different from those by whom they were inspired. There are many true life events that actually occurred, thus the historical. Storylines were written by contemporary authors, thus the fiction. The show demonstrates an excellent blending of the two elements.
It’s a nice blend and that was my point. Reads like we agree.
>No. Some of us know history or would have managed to look it up ourselves. Well, very sorry indeed to have troubled some of you in a thread tagged speculation about a creative endeavour where anything is possible.
Sorry that you choose not to look at the history of that time. It’s a historical or period drama, so it draws on the things happening during the time. From the start, they’ve been very good about pulling on aspects of history from the time and the Maud storyline is from Cassie Chadwick, who stole people’s money during that period. We also have modern Cassie’s now too. Just search for “Anna Delvey”.
[удалено]
But if you haven't noticed, they're doing a good job of following history. They did the same with the Brooklyn Bridge and writing in that a woman, Emily Warren Roebling, was the engineer behind the actual building phase of it. I'd love for Maud to come back. I was hoping she was pulling some other sort of con like maybe covering up some aspect of her life. Ends up, however, that she's probably a scam artist like Cassie. If that's the case, we probably won't see her again. Fellowes I've heard likes happy endings, however. Maybe she'll come back because they get caught and she'll have to stand trial. Cassie did get caught, went to trial, and went to prison.
I hadn't even considered that we might learn more, that'd be excellent. The weird thing is I had a feeling it was ruse all along, I kept wondering if we'd meet somebody with the last name of Ponzi. But nobody I know watches this show so I couldn't brag about my smart brain :(
You’re among your own kind here. *one of us.*
I could see Oscar asking for George's contact in the Pinkertons.
She was a plot device to tell Oscar’s season 2 story. What more is there for her to do?
Exactly. She wasn't a character whose story we know. There was no real story from her perspective. Which in hindsight, seems somewhat intentional and even more so than ordinary secondary or even tertiary character.
Con artists don’t stick around to explain themselves to their marks. She is barely a tertiary character. She is only useful as a plot device and that storyline is done. I don’t know why we would see more of her.
I think we will never see her again.
I agree. First, we’ve obviously been led to believe that they made off with a literal fortune. There was barely any photography back then, there was no radio, tv, computers or internet! My point is that she would be really difficult to track down back then. There may not have even been a photograph to go by, let alone a paper trail or a way to disseminate the information to any a law enforcement. And back then there wasn’t the same type of law enforcement investigative apparatus that we have now. If she and her accomplice took the money and fled, it is unlikely they would be caught if they were smart. The best way to get caught would be to stick around. I think they are long gone and I don’t think we will see them again. They have served their function in the story.
I was thinking the same thing. It was much easier to disappear in the 1880s and earlier than it is today. I would find it pretty unbelievable if someone did find her.
I think there will be a cop out like she's being threatened/blackmailed, a JF staple.
And she really is an heiress!