Somebody hinted that Shirley is Mick's mother and Stan Mick's father. This would explain some of the bad feelings but I hope they don't go there.
They might go there. It's a step up from the Kat/Zoe storyline but it's very controversial. I don't know if EE have the balls for that but it happens in real life and kudos to EE if they decide to tackle it.
They might go there. It's a step up from the Kat/Zoe storyline but it's very controversial. I don't know if EE have the balls for that but it happens in real life and kudos to EE if they decide to tackle it.
Im not 100% sure they would go down that route with Shirley/Stan/Mick as Stan is bribing Shirley with keeping this secret to keep her in his control, if it turned out she was Mick's Mum and Stan his Dad, then Stan couldn't use it against her. If he revealed that she was his mum then eventually, I assume, Mick would start to question who is Dad was and so it would sort of backfire on Stan. It is a very controversial subject and would sure explain the drowning incident and I know DTC promised to give EE its balls back, i'm just not sure its balls are that big! haha.
This. I would rather Stan revealed as Dean's father than Shirley as Mick's mother.
Interesting and original idea imo. Mainly because it would differ from the normal 'child abuse' story, as it would have happened as adults. It would give Matt some brilliant material to get stuck into. Stan is the Carter that Dean has the closet relationship with and I imagine the fallout as a consequence of this possibly would be pretty dramatic. It would also explain why Shirley left her kids and stopped seeing her dad at around the same time. Again, I don't think EastEnders has the balls to tackle this though.
I'm wondering whether the 'drowning' wasn't in fact an intentional act but an accident somehow?. It's possible that Stan has manipulated the incident to keep Shirley in check?
I think Aunt Babe is definitely the key to the Carter past, I think she knows the truth about a lot of the Carter skeletons and that is part of the reason why Stan is opposed to having her around.
Im not 100% sure they would go down that route with Shirley/Stan/Mick as Stan is bribing Shirley with keeping this secret to keep her in his control, if it turned out she was Mick's Mum and Stan his Dad, then Stan couldn't use it against her. If he revealed that she was his mum then eventually, I assume, Mick would start to question who is Dad was and so it would sort of backfire on Stan. It is a very controversial subject and would sure explain the drowning incident and I know DTC promised to give EE its balls back, i'm just not sure its balls are that big! haha.
Interesting and original idea imo. Mainly because it would differ from the normal 'child abuse' story, as it would have happened as adults. It would give Matt some brilliant material to get stuck into. Stan is the Carter that Dean has the closet relationship with and I imagine the fallout as a consequence of this possibly would be pretty dramatic. It would also explain why Shirley left her kids and stopped seeing her dad at around the same time. Again, I don't think EastEnders has the balls to tackle this though.
I'm wondering whether the 'drowning' wasn't in fact an intentional act but an accident somehow?. It's possible that Stan has manipulated the incident to keep Shirley in check? I think Aunt Babe is definitely the key to the Carter past, I think she knows the truth about a lot of the Carter skeletons and that is part of the reason why Stan is opposed to having her around.
BIB Agreed. When Aunt Babe reappears and maybe when Sylvie appears we'll get to the bottom of all the mysteries and learn the truth.
I'm shocked that Shirley tried to kill Mick when he was young but I hope we get a decent explanation for this.
I am too. I am still unsure how they are going to bring her back from this, I think the whole point is too pick everything apart and then build Shirley up again...a bit like Pat.
Still, that is pretty shocking and I'm not sure how they can explain it! :o
I am too. I am still unsure how they are going to bring her back from this, I think the whole point is too pick everything apart and then build Shirley up again...a bit like Pat.
Still, that is pretty shocking and I'm not sure how they can explain it! :o
I guess it depends on how old Mick was. Jimbo must have just been born so the more I think about it maybe Shirley was suffering some serious post natal depression. I think that would also explain a lot about her behaviour as a parent too.
I guess it depends on how old Mick was. Jimbo must have just been born so the more I think about it maybe Shirley was suffering some serious post natal depression. I think that would also explain a lot about her behaviour as a parent too.
That's the only plausible way this will work imho
That was my take on it too, I believe that to be the only plausible explanation. I also think as so many people suffer with post natal depression that it would be an interesting avenue to explore and also to show how it can affect an entire family. I'm not sure whether any soap has explored post natal depression fully?
Mick has no recollection of the incident except what Stan has told him, i'm wondering what age he/shirley were supposed to have been at the time.
I suppose there is a small chance that Shirley could be Mick's mother. I hope not, though. I think you can still be mentally unwell enough to attempt to drown a baby without it automatically having to be post natal depression.
I don't think there's any chance at all of Stan being the father if Shirley is the mother. Shirley was very clear a while back that he had never sexually abused them. Stan's abuse, IMO, was of the psychological kind, while I expect Sylvie's was of the physical kind (to Shirley, anyway.) A particularly horrible combination regardless, without sexual abuse being brought into it.
Im not 100% sure they would go down that route with Shirley/Stan/Mick as Stan is bribing Shirley with keeping this secret to keep her in his control, if it turned out she was Mick's Mum and Stan his Dad, then Stan couldn't use it against her. If he revealed that she was his mum then eventually, I assume, Mick would start to question who is Dad was and so it would sort of backfire on Stan. It is a very controversial subject and would sure explain the drowning incident and I know DTC promised to give EE its balls back, i'm just not sure its balls are that big! haha.
Interesting and original idea imo. Mainly because it would differ from the normal 'child abuse' story, as it would have happened as adults. It would give Matt some brilliant material to get stuck into. Stan is the Carter that Dean has the closet relationship with and I imagine the fallout as a consequence of this possibly would be pretty dramatic. It would also explain why Shirley left her kids and stopped seeing her dad at around the same time. Again, I don't think EastEnders has the balls to tackle this though.
I'm wondering whether the 'drowning' wasn't in fact an intentional act but an accident somehow?. It's possible that Stan has manipulated the incident to keep Shirley in check?
I think Aunt Babe is definitely the key to the Carter past, I think she knows the truth about a lot of the Carter skeletons and that is part of the reason why Stan is opposed to having her around.
No - Shirley tried to drown Ben in the bath too. It seems she is a creature of habit.
No - Shirley tried to drown Ben in the bath too. It seems she is a creature of habit.
Yeah, true enough, I was trying to see if there was any other avenues that they might explore with it. I just find it pointless that they would build her up a family and then destroy it that quickly...:o lol
Though, from what we have found out..a drunken, psychologically abusive father and a verbally and physically abusive mother...its going to leave scars.
Will they explain the age gap?
She is actually old enough...just. Back in 2007 Shirley and Heather mentioned they were both 44 years old, that was 7 years ago so she's now 51. Mick's date of birth was shown onscreen recently as being 1977 making him 37. So there's 14 years between them, we've had mothers at that age before - Kat and Zoe and Kathy and Donna.
I think it would explain a lot if Mick was revealed to be Shirley's son. It would explain their very close bond, their hostile relationship with Stan, the reason Sylvie couldnt cope and walked out on her kids (trying to play mum to her grandson and clashing with Shirley over his upbringing), the reason Shirley couldnt be a mother to her other children (the guilt of abandoning Mick stopping her really bonding with Carly and Dean).
Totally agree with all of this, hope you've hit the nail on the head there
I am too. I am still unsure how they are going to bring her back from this, I think the whole point is too pick everything apart and then build Shirley up again...a bit like Pat.
Still, that is pretty shocking and I'm not sure how they can explain it! :o
I think Shirley had some sort of depression and she didn't really want to kill Mick. There is so many questions but one thing for certain is that Shirley is not a monster. You could tell that Shirley deeply regrets trying to drown Mick. But I have a feeling that Shirley will be a outcast from the Carters for a while.
Comments
This. I would rather Stan revealed as Dean's father than Shirley as Mick's mother.
They might go there. It's a step up from the Kat/Zoe storyline but it's very controversial. I don't know if EE have the balls for that but it happens in real life and kudos to EE if they decide to tackle it.
Im not 100% sure they would go down that route with Shirley/Stan/Mick as Stan is bribing Shirley with keeping this secret to keep her in his control, if it turned out she was Mick's Mum and Stan his Dad, then Stan couldn't use it against her. If he revealed that she was his mum then eventually, I assume, Mick would start to question who is Dad was and so it would sort of backfire on Stan. It is a very controversial subject and would sure explain the drowning incident and I know DTC promised to give EE its balls back, i'm just not sure its balls are that big! haha.
Interesting and original idea imo. Mainly because it would differ from the normal 'child abuse' story, as it would have happened as adults. It would give Matt some brilliant material to get stuck into. Stan is the Carter that Dean has the closet relationship with and I imagine the fallout as a consequence of this possibly would be pretty dramatic. It would also explain why Shirley left her kids and stopped seeing her dad at around the same time. Again, I don't think EastEnders has the balls to tackle this though.
I'm wondering whether the 'drowning' wasn't in fact an intentional act but an accident somehow?. It's possible that Stan has manipulated the incident to keep Shirley in check?
I think Aunt Babe is definitely the key to the Carter past, I think she knows the truth about a lot of the Carter skeletons and that is part of the reason why Stan is opposed to having her around.
Oh dear god no. There are reasons fuoer bad feeling within families other than incestuous abuse.
BIB Agreed. When Aunt Babe reappears and maybe when Sylvie appears we'll get to the bottom of all the mysteries and learn the truth.
I am too. I am still unsure how they are going to bring her back from this, I think the whole point is too pick everything apart and then build Shirley up again...a bit like Pat.
Still, that is pretty shocking and I'm not sure how they can explain it!
I guess it depends on how old Mick was. Jimbo must have just been born so the more I think about it maybe Shirley was suffering some serious post natal depression. I think that would also explain a lot about her behaviour as a parent too.
That's the only plausible way this will work imho
That was my take on it too, I believe that to be the only plausible explanation. I also think as so many people suffer with post natal depression that it would be an interesting avenue to explore and also to show how it can affect an entire family. I'm not sure whether any soap has explored post natal depression fully?
Mick has no recollection of the incident except what Stan has told him, i'm wondering what age he/shirley were supposed to have been at the time.
Shirley has already almost explicitly said to Nancy that he didn't sexually abuse them. She said he's a lot of things but not that.
Why do people think Mick is Shirley's son then?
I don't think he abused them, well not sexually anyway.
I don't think there's any chance at all of Stan being the father if Shirley is the mother. Shirley was very clear a while back that he had never sexually abused them. Stan's abuse, IMO, was of the psychological kind, while I expect Sylvie's was of the physical kind (to Shirley, anyway.) A particularly horrible combination regardless, without sexual abuse being brought into it.
No - Shirley tried to drown Ben in the bath too. It seems she is a creature of habit.
Yeah, true enough, I was trying to see if there was any other avenues that they might explore with it. I just find it pointless that they would build her up a family and then destroy it that quickly...:o lol
Though, from what we have found out..a drunken, psychologically abusive father and a verbally and physically abusive mother...its going to leave scars.
Will they explain the age gap?
Totally agree with all of this, hope you've hit the nail on the head there
I think Shirley had some sort of depression and she didn't really want to kill Mick. There is so many questions but one thing for certain is that Shirley is not a monster. You could tell that Shirley deeply regrets trying to drown Mick. But I have a feeling that Shirley will be a outcast from the Carters for a while.