Talk:Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hagiography[edit]

Leaving to one side the fact that this article is far too long, given that this is just a television series, it has the character of a hagiography and needs to be toned down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.153.6 (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Marsh "wrote series"[edit]

"...wrote much of the series," says an ignorant somebody. She *wrote* none of it. She only did the series format, and acted in it. Steve from updown.org.uk 2A02:C7D:C62D:B00:F8FB:383B:189E:6260 (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maude spelling[edit]

It's spelt differently in the article. Maude vs Maud. Should settle on one or other for consistency. She is almost always down as "Roberts", but I have some paperwork for "House Divided" and it's with the "e". Sambda (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Job descriptions of Edward, Frederick and Alfred in 2nd table[edit]

Seems odd that they are described as "servant", as that is really a catch-all word. Would be better to put them down as footmen/valet/under-butler as appropriate - "servant" tells us the obvious, and all the other servants have their positions given (e.g. parlourmaid etc). Also Pearce should also really be down as coachman as well as chauffeur. Sambda (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

Needs cleanup. Several erroneous 'facts' added; inconsistency about regular cast vs. recurring characters. Quill 22:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to tidy this page up as much as time allows me. I intend to create a page for each the main characters, a project I've already started. I also want to finish the List of Upstairs, Downstairs characters page. I also think that due to the popularity and length of the programme it would warrant a page on each episode, which I am happy to do. This would cut down the excessivley long and confusing current "Story" as much of this info would be on the individual pages. If anyone has any comments to make etc please let me know. I would really like some more photos on the page (especially on character pages), there are some good photos on www.updown.org.uk, but I'm no specialist on copyright. --UpDown 21:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Procedure for copyright permission is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission Sambda 11:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could the anonymous user please fact check?[edit]

It would be nice if the enthusiastic anonymous user (and we do appreciate your enthusiasm) who keeps adding to this article would fact check material, or add notes that they were not sure of parenthetically; a non-visible note can be added in this manner: (Shows up when you click the edit this page tab) Otherwise, there’s so much cleanup to do over material that has already been copyedited. Thanks! Quill 23:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected story summery sentence about Thomas and Sarah having never married. They in fact did marry and were spun of to their own short-lived series "Thomas and Sarah" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0137328/). -- Jango Davis 13:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no they weren't, I've seen their short-lived series. He promised he'd marry her, he didn't say when. They got into a bunch of hilarious scrapes, but the no-marriage thing is clearly highlighted throughout especially in the episode There Is A Happy Land, Sarah tells Thomas she's pregnant (to stop them from going to America), and Thomas finds out that she's not, and he tells everyone in the town that they are currently living in that they are not married at a dinner party to pay her back (by embarrassing her). Sergeant Snopake 16:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby[edit]

'was replaced with Ruby, a hardworking young woman with minor mental disabilities' - hardworking? Ruby? Her constant cry seemed to be 'My arm's getting tired, Mrs. Bridges.' And I don't think she had minor mental disabillities, either. She could be intelligent enough when she wanted to be. Ruby once said, as quoted in the article (I don't think it's exact, though), 'They'll not last long and I'll get the guesthouse'. She had it all sewn up. It seemed, to me at least, it was her constant lazyness that annoyed Mrs. Bridges so. Sergeant Snopake 14:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was Edward who complained his arm was getting too tired after turning the crank handle on an ice cream machine. I don't believe Ruby ever said anything about fatigued arms. Mapjc (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. She complained quite a lot about being tired. However, that doesn't mean she was lazy, as she was worked mercilessly. 'Minor mental disabilities' is just plain nonsense. She wasn't Mensa material, but by no means as stupid as is stated.

I'm too tense[edit]

What's the story with the Story section? The first half of it's in the past tense and the rest in the present. Clarityfiend 08:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to change it all so it is all in the past tense. --UpDown 09:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

I have removed Patsy Smart from the infobox because the infobox should only have the main cast in, otherwise this box would be very, very long. Joan Benham and Raymond Huntley appeared in more episodes than her, so if we put Smart in, they would have to be in as well; and then it would be far too long. Also, Smart was normally only a minor character (except in two episodes). --UpDown 13:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timescale[edit]

I have been enjoying this series on ITV4, but have noticed the immense timespan covered in the series. It begins before King Edward VII dies, but stretches on till the 1930s. But none of the characters really get any older.

Did the writers acknowledge the passing of the years on the characters, or are the like The Simpsons, always the same age no matter what the year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.71.166 (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is set from 1903 to 1930. They did age to an extent, notice James' hair gets grey in the later episodes. Early episodes have comments regarding their age, but the later episodes tend to ignore this. It just about works out to be realistic, but had they gone on any longer it wouldn't have been! --UpDown 09:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hazels Death[edit]

Hazel dies, aged 32, Is her age true ?

In the German Version - and on the homepage http://www.updown.org.uk - you can't get this information. --AndreaMimi (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "homepage" is not that, its an unofficial fan website, which actually gives very little character detail. I'm fairly sure 32 is mentioned in the programme, and will revert the removal. Also I think "from series 3" sounds better than "series 3 to 5".--UpDown (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think Hazel's age was directly mentioned in the programme. The nearest we get to it is in "A Family Secret" where H says she met Patrick O'Connor when she was 19. She also says she married him in spring 1902. Since "AFS" was set in autumn 1912, then I think that makes her *at least* 29 in that episode (if they got married immediately after meeting), so *at least* 35 in November 1918 (when she dies). (Someone else double-check that maths, please!) Sambda (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have to belive, that 32 is mentioned in the programme. But I can't remember the detail, when I saw "Upstairs Downstairs" on a German Programm three years ago.

Have you ressourches, like another website or a book ?

"series 3 to 5" is the better form, I think . It's good to find the same way for all persons. --AndreaMimi (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need a website or book, the programme is reference itself. I think "from series 3" is better, otherwise it suggests perhaps they left earlier in series 5, like when we put "series 1 to 2".--UpDown (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its good for the articles here in the Wikipedia, that you put ressourches there.

So, I can belive your information or not. ;)

I change the form about the seasons and the persons in a good form. For example, we can put them in a table ? Then it will look better. --AndreaMimi (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a table is not a bad idea.--UpDown (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll do my best with the dates and a table. I wish you a nice weekend. --AndreaMimi (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel was 30 the year she married James, 1912. If you take what her father says literally in the show, she had been married 10 years before in 1902 when she was 20 to a verbally abusive man. If I have my math right 10 + 20 = 30, 1902 + 10 = 1912, 1912 - 30 = 1882, 1918 - 1882 = 36. 36 her age at death.

Fair use rationale for Image:Upstairs Downstairs.gif[edit]

Image:Upstairs Downstairs.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--UpDown (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that isn't a screenshot/grab, if you want to be pedantic. I did the logo for my site (www.updown.org.uk) and it's a mock-up/reconstruction of the logo, not the original. The text is much bigger than on the TV screen, for example. I don't mind this page using it, but if it's going to mean legal trouble or something, best do a grab.... Sambda (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like one, but you would have to ask the original uploader.--UpDown (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Story Summary[edit]

The story summary for the first two seasons is very incorrect, particularly pertaining to James and Sarah. James did not force himself on Sarah after he found the servants drinking, he simply embarrassed her and ripped her dress, after which she left Eaton Place. Some time later, James and Elizabeth found Sarah, ill and destitute in the east end of London while they were volunteering at a Whitechapel soup kitchen. Elizabeth brought her home and she stayed in service once again at Eaton Place until she was duped into being an accomplice for a dishonest friend of James' and his valet. She got out of that mess somehow and began performing as an actress. James began visiting her at the theatre, they began an affair, and then she became pregnant. Mapjc (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC) The current story summary states in season 1 that James got Sarah pregnant and was banished to India. Whilst factually correct, I'd suggest either reworking the line to the second season storyline heading or appending (in the second season) to where it now only says "later". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.34.31 (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Original inspiration[edit]

I know there were a number of people approached to give background information on this show, specifically those who had lived 'downstairs' and could give a perspective on servant life. I don't know who the final choice was, but I think this would be a good point to include in the article if anyone knows the person/persons that should be credited. Sky83 (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Link removed[edit]

The following external link: *Upstairs, Downstairs at the BBC was removed cos it linked straight to the BBC News website. I think the link's expired or whatever; if I have time I'll try and find a replaceable link etc or if anyone can find the original BBC page, that'd be cool. londonsista | Prod 02:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tables[edit]

You have nothing to work there and you don't see the tables, that I built. What's about them ? Are the right or not ?

Neve remove my comment's again. That's not your job. --AndreaMimi (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tables are not right. Please read up on the correct syntax, and do not insert them again in their current form Mayalld (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, the tables are right. I gave my best. It was a very hard work.

Thank you for your help, Mayalld. You are very nice. --AndreaMimi (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Roberts[edit]

Why is she listed under "upstairs"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambda (talk • contribs) 22:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BBC series[edit]

Now the BBC have released details about a new series, including a photo gallery of stills taken in Leamington Spa, is it appropriate to rename this series by year or by production company and create a new article about the BBC series, which obviously will have its own cast, production and other details. Photomonkey (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think we should follow what editors did with the Doctor Who article, which was to keep the 'classic' series with the 'new' series. Obviously it will require a lot of work, but it is the same show... Iamthedoctor2009 (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title format[edit]

Why is there a comma in the title throughout the article? None of the DVD sets show a comma in the title. 184.100.67.169 (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be a comma in the title. Propose to remove. FunkyCanute (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try Googling "comma" and "upstairs downstairs" and it's clear that the comma is generally seen as being part of the original title, even if the on-screen caption doesn't include it. Contemporary TV listings and reviews certainly include the comma, and it is, after all, correct punctuation for what the title is actually saying, i.e. one thing, then something else in contrast, like "north, south." Nick Cooper (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That the comma isn't on the artwork is a function of the layout, with one word below the other. This two-tiered layout makes a comma redundant. But it doesn't mean that the comma isn't part of the title when written out in one line Ericoides (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New titles[edit]

I updated the title screen shot on the Infobox and this was reverted because the old title screen shot was used on more episodes - this formula isn't used on any other articles. As an encyclopedia we have to keep things up to date, and as such I feel the new titles should be used in the Infobox. Iamthedoctor2009 (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were 68 episodes of the LWT series, and just three from the BBC. It is grossly disproportionate to not only flip the lead image emphasis to a tiny minority of the total episodes, but also to totally remove the original titles, as you did. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ended[edit]

My recent edits to show the series as 'ended' have been reverted to give the impression that it is ongoing. With no further episodes scheduled, this makes no sense. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. However, Marker10 appears to believe that the Christmas special series heralds a new upcoming series. As of today, the BBC has made no such announcement nor made any indication that further episodes are in the offing. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC have not annouced it has ended they may commission another series sometime in the future. If you can find a BBC source stating it has ended then i'll stop changing it back. --Marker10 (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to prove a negative. If no annoucement has been made about further episodes, we cannot automatically assume that there will be any. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well give the BBC a chance its only been 2 days since the Specials finished airing.--Marker10 (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There being no evidence that a further series is scheduled, I propose that Marker10's edits in this regard be reverted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Series, not special[edit]

Marker10, will you please stop trying to claim the recent series as "specials" - a term which normally denotes a single one-off programme. It is clearly a multi-episodic series. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they called Christmas Specials then and why were they not aired weekly if it's a series?n--Marker10 (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marker10 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This BBC press release clearly describes it as, "a new series of Upstairs Downstairs," and also a "serial," but nowhere uses the words "Christmas specials." I am therefore reverting your spurious and very esoteric opinion. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing Storyline about Rose[edit]

In the Christmas specials, Rose claimed she received the tea set from her late employer - Lord Bellamy. However, as Lady Bellamy's personal maid, she would still have served for Lady Bellamy, after Richard's death, instead of running her own business. Am I the only one who noticed this? --Reverend Edward Brain, D.D. (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upstairs, Downstairs to return in 2012[edit]

[1] 101090ABC (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comma[edit]

Why are we spelling the title with a comma? It isn't used in either iteration of the titles, and certainly secondary material relating to the BBC series does not use it. So why is it there? U-Mos (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Hawkesworth's novelizations have it with the comma, on both the title page and each individual page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the only source that matters is the title card for the show, and there's no comma there for the original series. I think the article should be titled without the comma. Z57N (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split discussion[edit]

Looking it this page, as well as the sources relating to the new series, it seems to me that it would be sensible to have a seperate article for each iteration. Notwithstanding the time gap between series 5 of the original show and the relaunch, I have not seen any source that refers to the 2010 episodes as "series six" (as the lead does here currently) over a "re-launch" or similar. Also, the almost entirely new cast and situation in the re-launch makes plot summaries very difficult. The characters pages are already seperate, and it seems to work well there. On a minor point, following from my query above it does seem that the orignal series uses a comma in its title, but the re-launch does not in any source I have seen (including BBC press releases), hence the title suggestions I have entered of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) and Upstairs Downstairs (2010 TV series). Upstairs Downstairs/Upstairs, Downstairs would be a disambiguation page to both articles. U-Mos (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I note the reference Rose makes to my late master Lord Bellamy - my understanding is that late was a servant's way of referring to a former employer and does not necessarily mean that Richard had died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.73.64 (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a caption[edit]

but a TITLE CARD. Upstairs, Downstairs, that is.User:JCHeverly 22:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it. Unreal7 (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upstairs, Downstairs redirects here. Comma here, no comma in the other one. Unreal7 (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move; retargeting redirect to disambiguation page. bd2412 T 19:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) → Upstairs, Downstairs – This is really an attempt to decide what to do with the base title Upstairs, Downstairs. This article's current form was created as part of a split in January 2012; material on the 2010 sequel series was moved to Upstairs Downstairs (2010 TV series) and material on the 70s series was moved to the present title. However, the base title was left redirecting here, which should not be happening per WP:CRITERIA.
Either this article is the primary topic, in which case it should be at the base name, or it's not, and the base name should redirect to the dab page Upstairs Downstairs. The latter option will require fixing hundreds of incoming links, nearly all of which intend the 70s series. A third option would be (re)creating a WP:DABCONCEPT article, as some combination of the two related TV series is clearly what the vast majority of readers are searching for.
If you oppose the move, please indicate what you think should be done with the base title Upstairs, Downstairs. Relisted. BDD (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Cúchullain t/c 14:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • No move; just change the redirect: We have a dab page at "Upstairs Downstairs". Relying on the presence of a comma to distinguish the topic from the dab page is too confusing. And we just closed a move request here a few days ago with a plan to leave this article where it is – it would be nice to leave that question alone for a while. I suggest for the article to stay where it is, and to redirect "Upstairs, Downstairs" to the dab page. Notice also that the logo for the show as it appears in the article doesn't even include the comma. But if we really want to consider the 1971 show "primary", we should at least move the dab page to "Upstairs Downstairs (disambiguation)" so the difference between them is more than a comma. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild support - "Upstairs Downstairs was" clearly points to Primary Topic, however BarrelProof's solution is also acceptable. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repair the redirect per BarrelProof. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there's a related requested move at Talk:Upstairs/Downstairs -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Primacy is irrelevant. More precision is needed in favor of adequate recognition. --George Ho (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what's your opinion on the redirect? That was the point of the discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 19:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even when articles no longer link to Thriller (album), whether it will retarget to dab page or the Michael Jackson album is up to consensus. But this situation is different. It should redirect to the dab page; perhaps use AWB if registration is approved. --George Ho (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The redirect to this article establishes that it is the primary topic. I see no challenge to that. --B2C 05:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rendering, not document[edit]

Intro includes the following:

The series stands as a document of the social and technological changes that occurred between 1903 and 1930.

Because the show is fiction (albeit with references to historical events), "document" seems the wrong word. "Rendering" seems better.108.36.82.122 (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalcade[edit]

At http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/8678/Cavalcade/overview, there is a link to the original New York Times review of the 1933 movie Cavalcade, based on Noel Coward’s 1931 play of that name. A paragraph-long "review summary" that’s posted beneath the said link includes a parenthetical remark that is obviously not from the original review:

[T]he incidents and characterizations in Cavalcade are very, very close to those seen in the popular 1970s BBC series Upstairs, Downstairs[.]

Maybe that was written by Hal Erickson, who is listed as the author of the Review Summary.

The intro to Wikipedia’s above-linked article about the Coward play includes, without footnote, the following:

[T]he 1970s Television series Upstairs, Downstairs was based on the play.

Being unfamiliar with all of these works—the play, the movie, and the TV series—I personally can’t remark on any alleged similarity between Coward’s show and Upstairs, Downstairs. I see no reference to any such similarity in this Wikipedia article (about Upstairs, Downstairs). Have the creators of Upstairs, Downstairs ever spoken of it?108.36.82.122 (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Media in Cardiff' Navbox[edit]

I've just noticed the Media in Cardiff navbox is pinned to the bottom of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) when it has nothing to do with Cardiff, as it was produced in London.

Only the Upstairs Downstairs (2010 TV series) was produced in Cardiff, and is the one correctly listed in the box.

So how are navboxes added to the bottom of pages and how can they be removed? Danstarr69 (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danstarr69 (talk)

@Danstarr69: navboxes such as these are added to the article by placing the appropriate code towards the bottom of the page. In this instance, the code is {{Media in Cardiff}}. Deleting that code from this page will remove the navbox. Similar navboxes can be found in categories such as Category:Television navigational boxes. See Wikipedia:Navigation template for an overview of these templates. clpo13(talk) 17:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First Major LWT Colour Production?[edit]

In the article is the line "Upstairs, Downstairs was one of the first major colour productions to be made by LWT." with a citation. I would just like to get clarification as to whether or not it was one of the first at their new studios, or if it was one of the first colour productions? If it is the latter, they were already producing colour series - see "Doctor In The House" from 1969 - unless that series was produced for LWT and not by LWT. ReggieRocket (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Also, it should be pointed out somewhere in this long article that the series set a model for many later tv series and films: it almost created the genre of "English upper-class family and servants drama" in its modern form. Downton Abbey, Gosford Park, The Remains of the Day, even the wave of Jane Austen movies and tv adaptations were all clearly influenced by it. 195.67.149.175 (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Text relating to Richard Bellamy's peerage[edit]

I have moved the text "Richard is elevated to the House of Lords as Viscount Bellamy of Haversham in the New Year Honours List of 1917." from the section "Fifth series, set in 1919–1930" to the section "Fourth series, set in 1914–1918". Just to explain, I think it is clear from the text that this event takes place during the earlier period, and in fact the episode in which he becomes a peer is "Another Year" which is the 9th episode of the 4th series, so the text clearly belongs in that section, not the section covering the fifth series. Dunarc (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Upstairs,_Downstairs_(1971_TV_series)&oldid=1210008576"