Character Study: Sir Richard Carlisle

Written by Ian Thomas Malone, Posted in Blog, Downton Abbey, Pop Culture

It’s not particularly hard to see why season two of Downton Abbey is often considered the best. The World War One plotline was perfectly executed and gave the show a feeling of being more than just a soap opera about rich people’s problems (not that there’s anything wrong with that). It wouldn’t be fair to solely credit the plotline for this delightfulness as the new characters played an important role in the success of the season.

At first glance, it’s easy to write off Sir Richard Carlisle as purely villainous. He certainly ended his season long arc as the bad guy. When you look at the newspaper mogul’s tenure as a whole, you see that there was more to him than just his perpetual rudeness.

Iain Glen was tasked with a difficult job in portraying Sir Richard. Julian Fellowes never tried very hard to convince the viewers that Sir Richard actually stood a shot at taking Mary away from Downton. His proposal to Lady Mary ranks among the least romantic courtships in the history of television and most of the characters expressed doubt that Mary would actually go through with marrying him.

Sir Richard was a necessary evil. It was important to prolong the inevitable marriage of Mary and Matthew. This is how television works. With that in mind, it could’ve been easy to not care about Sir Richard as it was always clear that he wasn’t going to be around for very long.

It seems kind of surprising that Sir Richard proposed in episode two, his first appearance, and managed to hang around for the whole season in a completely loveless engagement (though Sir Richard was absent for episodes three and four). Early on, he proved his use by tracking down Vera Bates and saving Mary from public embarrassment had the first Mrs. Bates revealed her transgressions with the Turkish gentleman.

The difficulty with Sir Richard was that he needed to not be sympathetic to prevent the audience side from siding with him over Mary or from too closely resembling Lavinia Swire, who was conveniently killed, off allowing Matthew to save face with the viewers. Mary herself isn’t particularly likable. Sir Richard needed to be more despicable than her, but not excessively tedious to the point that he wouldn’t be able to hang around for the duration of the season. This balance was no easy task.

When you think about it, Sir Richard’s crimes weren’t really all that bad. He had some shady business with the Swire’s early on and his attempt at spying on Lady Mary was foolish, but neither act should really condemn him as a character. It was pretty clear that Mary did not love him and we weren’t really given an alternative motive for his failed efforts to recruit Anna for some espionage other than a genuine desire to please his fiancé.

It was perfectly reasonable of Sir Richard to be concerned about Mary’s proximity to Matthew. She once loved Matthew but she never loved Sir Richard. If you were in Sir Richard’s shoes, wouldn’t you be a tad concerned about your fiancé hanging around her ex?

Carlisle’s big crimes were that he was rude and that nobody liked him. Other than that, he was perfectly respectable and a great fit for Lady Mary. Sir Richard’s status as a self-made man likely made him respectable to many viewers, which is a testament to Fellowes’ writing. It would have been easy to create a villainous character for Mary to fool around with for a season before finally giving in to her love of Matthew, but the more challenging route paid off.

Instead, Sir Richard was given depth. Iain Glen has a knack for playing sketchy knights (he also plays Ser Jorah on Game of Thrones, another man who lusts after a girl he can’t have) and with Sir Richard, he portrayed a character who had a clear and finite purpose, but was surprisingly entertaining to watch.

I suspect that Fellowes had Sir Richard in mind when he created the character of Miss Sarah Bunting. Like Sir Richard, Miss Bunting was an odious character who clearly wasn’t going to be around for very long, but that didn’t mean that she wasn’t given depth and a couple redeeming qualities. Perhaps they would’ve been perfect for each other.

Sir Richard came and played his part on a show he was never going to be part of for very long. To some, he might be a character that you love to hate or just plain hate without any love at all (like his relationship with Mary). As for me, I liked him. He was perfect for Mary, but that’s not what was best for the show.

Next on Character Study, we’ll look at Ally McBeal’s Ling Woo

downton abbey game of thrones iain glen jorah mormont julian fellowes maggie smith ser jorah mormont sir richard carlisle

« Authenticity Sets Outlander Apart From Other Historical Dramas

Varys and the Importance of Hedging Your Bets »

7 Comments

The Colonel

April 7, 2015 - 17:04:51

You make me regret I never got hooked on “Downton.”

Julie Seymor

April 7, 2015 - 18:28:17

I adore and love Sir Richard!

Julie Seymor

April 7, 2015 - 18:34:25

You still can get hooked Colonel 🙂

certified Jared

April 6, 2016 - 11:40:22

just wow……………………………

Ray Bobo

August 19, 2018 - 21:40:05

Why was Richard Carlisle called “Sir Richard”? He had no title, nor did his family (that we are told). The article states he was “a self-made man”, which sounds more American than English, but last time I checked, did not earn him the honorarium “Sir” in English aristocracy.

Secondly, the article states, as the show reflects, that Reginal “Reggie” Swire was “in debt” to Carlisle at some point in the not too distant past (since Laconia is not so very old), yet by the time Reggie died, he wss able to endow the Crowley family with enough funds to bail out Downton and avert a major crisis for Lord Grantham (and the series). But we are never told how poor Reggie Swire came by such a fortune.

Can anyone other than Jullian Fellows enlighten is on these two questions?

Ray Bobo

August 19, 2018 - 21:45:01

Don’t you hate automatic spell check? In the above comment, Laconia should be (and was input as) Lavinia.

Rebecca Hopkins

February 16, 2019 - 04:21:17

Ray Bobo:

He was called “Sir” Richard because apparently he had, at some point before his character appears in the show, been bestowed a knighthood. “Sir” is the proper moniker given to those who have been knighted (think Sir Elton John, who also holds a kinighthood). Sir Richard was NOT part of the peerage, hereditary peerage, titled gentry, and certainly not the landed gentry, which is why he was not called “Lord”. This is also why he refers to himself as a “self made man” and lacks understanding of the details regarding the social rules of those in the peerage. He earned his money and position. He did not inherit it. Indeed, all knighthoods are bestowed, not inherited. Hope this was helpful to you in understanding this character and the style of which he was addressed.

Comment in general, and on defense of one Sir Richard Carlisle:

On a personal note, and although it is the unpopular view, I quite liked Sir Richard. Let me rephrase; I appreciated the character of Sir Richard and liked that character exhausted. I rather felt sympathy towards him as well. Imagine achieving through your own hard work, resourcefulness and wits all he had achieved, only for it to be looked down on and not good enough. How is one in that situation most likely to behave? I would wager at times tht it would would be much the same way Sir Richard behaves. His character is believable; perhaps the most believable of any in the series. An authentically written and presented character reflection of how a self made man would have behaved at that time, amongst those above his own social standing or group, while still trying desperately to attain and fit into that social standing and more often than not falling short. He perhaps also observed and recognized how those in same said group took for granted all they had been born into. When seen in that light, his bitterness, hardness and ugliness were somewhat understandable, if unpleasant. In fact he may just have been the most honest, relatable and accurately written character of the entire show. As well as providing an outside viewpoint of someone looking through the window rather than sitting by the fire, much like many of the viewers watching at home.

In fact, it’s my belief that Mary and he were evenly matched, much more so than Mary and Matthew ever were. I believe if this story had been true story, Sir Richard and Mary would have gone forward with their wedding. They would have had a successful and money filled existence together; not much love, but then again Mary never seemed to have much tenderness in her to begin with. Her and Sir Richard were both just as shrewd, cunning, devious and conniving as the other. Matthew was too good for her and should have married Edith, if for no other reason than just to enrage Mary. He died anyway. Could have been fun to see it play out like this instead and then he die, so none of us would then go on to miss him the rest of serious and wish he hadn’t died ?

Cheers all!

The Colonel

April 7, 2015 - 17:04:51

You make me regret I never got hooked on “Downton.”
Julie Seymor

April 7, 2015 - 18:28:17

I adore and love Sir Richard!
Julie Seymor

April 7, 2015 - 18:34:25

You still can get hooked Colonel 🙂
certified Jared

April 6, 2016 - 11:40:22

just wow……………………………
Ray Bobo

August 19, 2018 - 21:40:05

Why was Richard Carlisle called “Sir Richard”? He had no title, nor did his family (that we are told). The article states he was “a self-made man”, which sounds more American than English, but last time I checked, did not earn him the honorarium “Sir” in English aristocracy.

Secondly, the article states, as the show reflects, that Reginal “Reggie” Swire was “in debt” to Carlisle at some point in the not too distant past (since Laconia is not so very old), yet by the time Reggie died, he wss able to endow the Crowley family with enough funds to bail out Downton and avert a major crisis for Lord Grantham (and the series). But we are never told how poor Reggie Swire came by such a fortune.

Can anyone other than Jullian Fellows enlighten is on these two questions?
- Ray Bobo
  
  August 19, 2018 - 21:45:01
  
  Don’t you hate automatic spell check? In the above comment, Laconia should be (and was input as) Lavinia.
Rebecca Hopkins

February 16, 2019 - 04:21:17

Ray Bobo:

He was called “Sir” Richard because apparently he had, at some point before his character appears in the show, been bestowed a knighthood. “Sir” is the proper moniker given to those who have been knighted (think Sir Elton John, who also holds a kinighthood). Sir Richard was NOT part of the peerage, hereditary peerage, titled gentry, and certainly not the landed gentry, which is why he was not called “Lord”. This is also why he refers to himself as a “self made man” and lacks understanding of the details regarding the social rules of those in the peerage. He earned his money and position. He did not inherit it. Indeed, all knighthoods are bestowed, not inherited. Hope this was helpful to you in understanding this character and the style of which he was addressed.

Comment in general, and on defense of one Sir Richard Carlisle:

On a personal note, and although it is the unpopular view, I quite liked Sir Richard. Let me rephrase; I appreciated the character of Sir Richard and liked that character exhausted. I rather felt sympathy towards him as well. Imagine achieving through your own hard work, resourcefulness and wits all he had achieved, only for it to be looked down on and not good enough. How is one in that situation most likely to behave? I would wager at times tht it would would be much the same way Sir Richard behaves. His character is believable; perhaps the most believable of any in the series. An authentically written and presented character reflection of how a self made man would have behaved at that time, amongst those above his own social standing or group, while still trying desperately to attain and fit into that social standing and more often than not falling short. He perhaps also observed and recognized how those in same said group took for granted all they had been born into. When seen in that light, his bitterness, hardness and ugliness were somewhat understandable, if unpleasant. In fact he may just have been the most honest, relatable and accurately written character of the entire show. As well as providing an outside viewpoint of someone looking through the window rather than sitting by the fire, much like many of the viewers watching at home.

In fact, it’s my belief that Mary and he were evenly matched, much more so than Mary and Matthew ever were. I believe if this story had been true story, Sir Richard and Mary would have gone forward with their wedding. They would have had a successful and money filled existence together; not much love, but then again Mary never seemed to have much tenderness in her to begin with. Her and Sir Richard were both just as shrewd, cunning, devious and conniving as the other. Matthew was too good for her and should have married Edith, if for no other reason than just to enrage Mary. He died anyway. Could have been fun to see it play out like this instead and then he die, so none of us would then go on to miss him the rest of serious and wish he hadn’t died ?

Cheers all!