|
|
Post by akarana on Mar 2, 2012 9:46:50 GMT
From a do-able plotpoint of view (what a word construction!) I don't think it would be the most convenient thing to kill Darcy off by an illness. Even if he caught the plague or consumption (etc.) it's a slow death, especially with consumption. If you read the Murdoch books, there's the husband of Mrs. Kitchen who slowly dies of consumption and the two of them try all kinds of cures but, of course, nothing works. Now applying that to Darcy on the TV show would be, for the lack of a better word, a drag. We are into season 5 now and we know that there'll be a season 6. If there'll be a season 7, we don't know yet. From a writer's point of view that's something to consider. (that's assuming they even want William and Julia together). Season 5 has now started and as far as we know Darcy doesn't get sick in the first few episodes. So if he would get sick, let's say in episode 7 or 8, then that would mean that he would still be sick next season. Assuming he'd die in episode...8 of season 6, that would mean there would be a mourning Julia for the rest of season 6 and nothing would be close to resolved by the end of season 6. A sick Darcy would mean episodes and episodes of a sick Darcy, followed by even more episodes of a mourning Julia. Of course, one could always pack the mourning in between seasons and then begin the next one with a jump in time.. still difficult. My speculation (again, assuming that Julia and William are suppossed to get together on screen on the show) is that either Darcy sees at one point (in no matter what situation) how much Julia loves William and kind of 'let's her go'. Or he is dramatically killed off (maybe an attempt on Julia's life and he dies instead), that would mean mourning, of course. Or he catches some kind of sickness that works REALLY fast... same result as the other death. If William wasn't so catholic I would also see another possibility: The one where Julia and Darcy stay married on paper, but he goes back to Buffalo (or somewhere else) and Julia gets back together with William. Kind of a mutual agreement to separate, but stay married because of the social ramifications. As for the pregnancy... I think it would make for the perfect happy ending if William and Julia get together and then to their biggest surprise she can get pregnant after all. Really sappy, but cute  |
|
|
|
Post by shangas on Mar 2, 2012 12:01:04 GMT
Plague actually kills pretty fast. Depending on the circumstances and the type (there's two types of plague), it can take anywhere from a couple of weeks to just 48 hours.
But for Darcy to catch plague in Toronto would be a very long stretch. Plague shows up in the bacteria on the fleas on rats. And for him to catch it, he'd have to be somewhere SWARMING with rats...unlikely in a hospital.
Darcy dying in an accident or attack of some kind might be plausible. Such things have happened on MM before (see 'The Prince and the Rebel', the episode where they have the microwave ray-gun, and the episode where Mrs. Pendrick 'almost' gets killed by a bomb. Or perhaps something similar to what happened in 'Convalesence' where Murdoch fell off the ladder and broke his leg).
|
|
|
|
Post by petunia on Mar 2, 2012 20:06:00 GMT
How about the comment Julia made to George and the new coroner while they were in the morgue? She said something about passion in a marriage is a schoolgirl dream and that love and companionship is more important. Judging by that comment, I think there is not a lot of shaking going on in the Garland bedroom!!!! Perhaps our Darcy is has some impediments in that area? An annulment perhaps then?
|
|
|
|
Post by hannikan on Mar 2, 2012 22:52:03 GMT
I don't think that comment means that Darcy can't "perform." Julia never had passionate feelings for Darcy. She was having passionate daydreams for William when she was engaged to Darcy. I think this is just continuation of that sentiment.
Really lots of diseases could kill you quickly. It wouldn't have to be a long, drawn out thing. People went quickly at times from consumption, pneumonia, etc... I mean in a matter of a couple of weeks. Each case was different, so Mr. Kitchen's case was drawn out but not all cases were.
Darcy wouldn't just walk away without still being married. He wouldn't have been able to get a divorce easily either. It wouldn't have mattered if they both wanted to end the marriage, there was no means to do so as you're thinking of. No-fault divorce didn't exist yet so a person would have to prove their spouse of severe wrongdoing to get out of a marriage. If Darcy got angry enough at Julia, he might do that. For example, if he saw her being cozy with William again (but not doing anything adulterous) he might get so angry about it that he would accuse her of infidelity. The only way he would have a case in court is if he paid off a prominent citizen to be a witness and lie that he had seen William and Julia in the adulterous act. That would be completely ruinous to both Julia and Darcy's reputations and Darcy would know that. So Darcy would have to really hate them to do that. Something pretty serious would have to happen to provoke him to do that, I think.
In order to have a marriage annulled you had to prove that it was not a legitimate marriage in the first place. One way that could happen is if Julia never told Darcy she was unable to bear children. If he finds out now, after they're married, he could claim that the marriage was not valid because she has "failed" him as a wife to provide children. Likewise, if he is unable to "perform", she could claim he has failed her as a husband because he cannot impregnate her. I'm not sure that annulments were done outside the Catholic Church at that time though. And we know Julia and Darcy are not Catholic.
|
|
|
|
Post by shangas on Mar 2, 2012 23:22:09 GMT
Annulment was how Henry VIII got rid of two of his wives.
*Random fact*
But I agree. The way I see it, they're pretty much locked where they are, now.
|
|
|
|
Post by hannikan on Mar 2, 2012 23:34:00 GMT
Yeah, Henry VIII was still Catholic when he did that though. |
|
|
|
Post by CosmicCavalcade on Mar 3, 2012 0:25:18 GMT
How about the comment Julia made to George and the new coroner while they were in the morgue? She said something about passion in a marriage is a schoolgirl dream and that love and companionship is more important. Judging by that comment, I think there is not a lot of shaking going on in the Garland bedroom!!!! Perhaps our Darcy is has some impediments in that area? An annulment perhaps then? i don't think it means that they haven't done it at all yet. I think it just means that she isn't particulary interested in him that way and probably vice versa so they probably don't do it very often. And when they do, she's probably thinking of Murdoch. Maybe the reason for their divorce will be Darcy's humiliation? Maybe Julia accidentally says William's name? or maybe she already has and now he doesn't want to be with her in that respect anymore? |
|
elena
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by elena on Mar 3, 2012 21:24:13 GMT
Friends, we should remember that Merdok the Catholic. The Catholic can't marry the woman who has divorced from the husband. But... Can marry the widow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Missouille on Mar 3, 2012 22:07:54 GMT
You're right, but Murdoch and Julia were going to make love without being married. They were drunk but I think that in some cases he could do things counter to his religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by shangas on Mar 3, 2012 22:09:45 GMT
Murdoch is a teetotaler.
|
|
|
|
Post by Missouille on Mar 3, 2012 22:32:30 GMT
When I watched this episode I didn't noticed that it was not his usual behavior... I think it was in the episode 5 of season 2.
He and Julia wanted to know how much absinthe a person had to drink to have hallucinations and drank the whole bottle.
|
|
|
|
Post by hannikan on Mar 4, 2012 1:29:01 GMT
William's drinking in the Green Muse was unusual behavior for him. He is generally a teetotaler but he said in that episode that he makes exceptions in very special cases. It did seem that he hoped to have intercourse with Julia in that episode but that she stopped him due to fears of pregnancy and/or STDs (hence her asking whether he had a condom). They have left it ambiguous whether William and Julia have had intercourse during the time they were a couple. So we really don't know either way. It is true that Catholics were not allowed to marry a divorce(e). But Julia is not Catholic and would have to convert to Catholicism in order to marry William under the rules of the church at that time anyway. They would also have to agree to raise their children Catholic. I doubt she would convert and I don't think William would insist that she do that. So one way or another they probably have/will/could be breaking some rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by akarana on Mar 4, 2012 7:33:06 GMT
Didn't Murdoch also nearly sleep with the woman in... where was it? London or so when he had lost his memories. He then muttered Julia's name if I remember correctly. And when it comes to Julia I think some of his catholic rules simply don't matter anymore. She was the one who convinced him that homosexuals have honest feelings and told him that desires weren't meant only to test people. In the end during confession he said that he couldn't follow blindly anymore. Then he nearly slept with her and in the end didn't even care anymore that a. she wasn't a virgin and b. had an abortion. I honestly don't think he will care one bit if she's divorced or not. He might not cheat with her (although I am not too convinced that if you put the two together in a room alone, that nothing would happen. Especially considering his frustration over losing her and hers for being stuck in a marriage without passion (her own word)), but all the rest...I think with her everything is possible |
|
|
|
Post by shangas on Mar 4, 2012 8:52:52 GMT
You're thinking of Anna Fulford. And it was Bristol, not London.
|
|
|
|
Post by akarana on Mar 4, 2012 22:38:13 GMT
Yeah right... somewhere in Europe;)
|
|
