MovieChat Forums > Monarch of the Glen (2001) Discussion > Archie MacDonald vs. Matthew Crawley

Archie MacDonald vs. Matthew Crawley


How would you compare Archie with his Downton Abbey's counterpart Matthew Crawley? Both characters have similar characteristics: They were brought in to their family's estates at a time of crisis as the estates were having serious financial problems, they both had middle class professions which were completely different from the occupation of the traditional aristocracy (Archie's a restauranteur and Matthew's a lawyer), they sought to modernize their estates exploring new potential income streams (hotel/tourism for Archie, agricultural mechanization for Matthew), and both were the leading man/heartthrob of their show that the ladies wanted (much more for Archie but recall that in S1 Matthew was sought after by all the Crawley sisters before he started his courtship w/Mary).

Of course, both heirs exited from their respective series because the actors (Alastair MacKenzie and Dan Stevens) who played them choose to pursue other opportunities.

Any other similarities or differences b/w the two that you can think of?

reply

Although I never considered comparing the two characters before, you make a good argument. A few things I would add:

1. Both suddenly find themselves inextricably part of a vast estate (Archie when he learns he is already actually the laird; Matthew when he learns he is the heir and researches the strength of the entail).

2. Neither was originally intended to be the heir of his respective title/estate.

3. Both had to find their way in their new world after first resisting any changes.








"It's a real burden being right so often." Captain Malcolm Reynolds, Firefly

reply

My first reaction to Downton Abbey's third season was that Julian Fellowes -- who played a recurring character on Monarch of the Glen -- basically took Archie's storyline vis-a-vis his problems managing the estate and gave it to Matthew. Much too derivative.

reply

My first reaction to Downton Abbey's third season was that Julian Fellowes -- who played a recurring character on Monarch of the Glen -- basically took Archie's storyline vis-a-vis his problems managing the estate and gave it to Matthew. Much too derivative.


That's what I thought as well. There's quite a few similarities b/w the two series that I noticed, among them:

- An estate facing a crisis about its financial future due to lack of good financial management and the arrival of new heirs from middle class background with fresh ideas and skills to help rescue the estate (Matthew Crawley of Downton, Archie MacDonald of Glen Bogle).

- The traditionalist, conservative-minded Lord of the Manor who resisted the reforms/changes that the heirs proposed to make the family estate financially viable again (Robert, Earl of Grantham in DA and Hector MacDonald in MOTG).

- The kind-hearted, more liberal-leaning Lady of the Manor (Cora Crawley in DA and Molly MacDonald in MOTG).

- The story plots involving "Upstairs" and "Downstairs" characters, along romance between key characters from the two groups (Lady Sybil Crawley and Tom Branson in DA, Archie and Lexie in MOTG).

- The abrupt departure of the actors who played the heir to the estates in the middle of the series' run in order to pursue more lucrative acting opportunities (Dan Stevens in DA and Alastair MacKenzie in MOTG).

- Quite a few of scenes from DA's 2012 Christmas Special --when the family spent a weekend in Scotland were also featured in MOTG as well- e.g., bagpiping at the beginning of the dinner and as a wake-up morning call, stag hunting, the party with Scottish-style reel dances, etc.

- Some have mentioned that there's an ouija board scene in MOTG where Molly tried to summon Hector's spirit from the great beyond, one that's also features in the 2011 Christmas Special (when Lavinia's spirit stopped by to give her blessing to Matthew/Mary union).

Of course, there are some key differences b/w the two series as well. For instance, Matthew was killed off when DS decided to leave Downton, while Archie and Lexie moved off-screen to New Zealand to open a winery, leaving the possibility of their return which alas, never happen :-(.

Most notably IMO, there's no plain-speaking Dowager Countess in MOTG. I think Fellowes got the inspiration for her from "Gosford Park," when Maggie Smith played a plain-speaking Dowager Countess as well.

Any other similarities/differences b/w Downton and Monarch that you could think about?

reply

I found the similarities between the shows to be very general an almost unavoidable given the subject matter. A show about the aristocracy most likely will feature an ancestral home and lands. If it is a contemporary show or period show taking place in the last 100 years or so is will most likely be about making a go of it, or at least holding on, in light of changing economic or political times. The very nature of drama is to have conflict among the characters so you are going to have someone wanting to do things the old tried and true way, someone advocating that change is the only way and then someone trying to reconcile to two. If you have more than three characters you can mix an match the number who are in each camp and how hard or soft they hold their positions. Also you can play one or more for comic relief.

Archie and Matthew are similar in that both are the agents for change. Both can be considered romantic leads. I think women pick up on this rather than men. As I guy I was more focused on the problems of picking up the pieces of an economic mess.

As to the differences Archie was to the manor born and presumptive heir once his brother died. Although he decided to leave the life, he was raised an aristocratic. Matthew was a distant cousin, not a natural heir but one through a peculiar set of legalities and circumstances. Matthew is thoroughly middle class.

The shows are similar also in a very general way. DA sought to portray the actual economic, cultural and political stresses and stains in maintaining the aristocratic life in the early 20th century. However, the economic problems at Glenbogle seemed only to serve as a pass for some zany plan to make a buck. But the economic problems never seemed real. They always seemed to get the money to do what they wanted and it wasn't clear, at least to me, where the money came from.

reply