No they can't. The writers have the BBC to answer to; and I doubt they want a repeat of the overwhemingly negative media coverage the BBC's flagship progamme got due to the babyswap. The EE writing team, and EP also have the BBC Controller of Drama Serials, John Yorke to answer to; formerly an EP of Eastenders.
The outcry over the Ronnie/Kat story was more down to Ronnie swapping her dead baby for Kat's, if it turned out Sharon was swapped as a baby years ago as the result of a mix-up at the hospital then it would not be nearly as controversial.
Corrie did a similar storyline with Michelle's son (now forgotten about by the writers) and it wasn't controversial.
Not saying I want this to happen but you can't really compare an historical swap where both babies lived with the Kat/Ronnie story.
I think this is going to happen it then would then root Sharon back in Walford, having her Birth Mother living on the same square as well.
I agree if the writers want this to happen they can...
Forget it. It won't happen and it would be silly for the writers to effectively retcon Sharon's history by writing Cora as her mother, when we know who her mother is. Ridiculous idea IMO.
If the writers do this, they would be jumping the shark big time. It's implausible, will stretch viewer credibility and will never happen. So forget it.
The outcry over the Ronnie/Kat story was more down to Ronnie swapping her dead baby for Kat's, if it turned out Sharon was swapped as a baby years ago as the result of a mix-up at the hospital then it would not be nearly as controversial.
Corrie did a similar storyline with Michelle's son (now forgotten about by the writers) and it wasn't controversial.
Not saying I want this to happen but you can't really compare an historical swap where both babies lived with the Kat/Ronnie story.
I understand what you're saying, but regardless, the fact that Sharon had met, and was rejected by her birth mother is a well-documented fact. She's made her peace with that. Are they honestly trying to undermine her history for Cora's sake? As I've pointed out elsewhere, cheap move.
Sharon as a character has been through enough what with Den dying, Angie dying, Den dying again and then Dennis dying. She's made peace with the fact that Carol didn't want her. How bad would she feel when she finds out that yet ANOTHER potential mother didn't want anything to do with her?!
It won't happen. As I said, you can't just change history. You run the risk of ruining Sharon's character as well.
I think this Sharon/Cora thing is the dream of a few FM's who think it can become a reality. It won't.
And why's everyone so hyped on Cora? She's pretty sanctimonious in my view, and the way they've written her makes her pretty unlikeable because she's a hypocrite.
I understand what you're saying, but regardless, the fact that Sharon had met, and was rejected by her birth mother is a well-documented fact. She's made her peace with that. Are they honestly trying to undermine her history for Cora's sake? As I've pointed out elsewhere, cheap move.
Sharon as a character has been through enough what with Den dying, Angie dying, Den dying again and then Dennis dying. She's made peace with the fact that Carol didn't want her. How bad would she feel when she finds out that yet ANOTHER potential mother didn't want anything to do with her?!
Cora isn't that great a character as well. Cora could easily drag Sharon down as a character. Another reason why this "imaginary retcon" will never happen.
And we've already explained why they will NOT do it. Why should we believe you when you have a history of posting false spoilers? Where's your source?
...is this.
Speculation can only get you so far, in the end you need something solid to back up your claims. For instance, we know for a FACT that her birth mother is Carol Hanley.
The outcry over the Ronnie/Kat story was more down to Ronnie swapping her dead baby for Kat's, if it turned out Sharon was swapped as a baby years ago as the result of a mix-up at the hospital then it would not be nearly as controversial.
Corrie did a similar storyline with Michelle's son (now forgotten about by the writers) and it wasn't controversial.
Not saying I want this to happen but you can't really compare an historical swap where both babies lived with the Kat/Ronnie story.
Nothing solid there to back up said claim though, is there?
I love the way people are determined to make Sharon Cora's daughter, like gluing two halves of very different postcards together...they'll form a normal-looking shape but the image will be distorted.
The outcry over the Ronnie/Kat story was more down to Ronnie swapping her dead baby for Kat's, if it turned out Sharon was swapped as a baby years ago as the result of a mix-up at the hospital then it would not be nearly as controversial.
Corrie did a similar storyline with Michelle's son (now forgotten about by the writers) and it wasn't controversial.
Not saying I want this to happen but you can't really compare an historical swap where both babies lived with the Kat/Ronnie story.
I understand the outcry over the babyswap; the main reason why I made that point was that if EastEnders did a storyline which in effect involved a babyswap so soon after the baby swap storyline (in only ended a year ago, now) it would be unwise and comparsions, however far-fetched would be made. And it would be controversial, just as much as the baby swap; mainly because it would be the biggest retcon in EastEnders' history; for that reason alone the story would suffer severe backlash.
Nothing solid there to back up said claim though, is there?
I love the way people are determined to make Sharon Cora's daughter, like gluing two halves of very different postcards together...they'll form a normal-looking shape but the image will be distorted.
I agree. All this stuff about Sharon/Cora is almost looking deluded. Can you imagine the complaints EE would get and the backlash? Is it worth it just to pair Sharon with a pretty mediocre character that everyone thinks is a legend?
I agree. All this stuff about Sharon/Cora is almost looking deluded. Can you imagine the complaints EE would get and the backlash? Is it worth it just to pair Sharon with a pretty mediocre character that everyone thinks is a legend?
Exactly. I can't believe some are even entertaining this idea! And I doubt everyone thinks Cora's a legend. She an ABSO OAP whose own daughters don't even give her the time of day, half the time and is a hyprocrite.
Nothing solid there to back up said claim though, is there?
I love the way people are determined to make Sharon Cora's daughter, like gluing two halves of very different postcards together...they'll form a normal-looking shape but the image will be distorted.
We are allowed to speculate on here. No one is saying, everyone has to believe this is what's happening, so I don't see what the problem is?
Cora reveals she has/had a secret daughter, weeks before Sharon returns. The actors have been banging on about the Branning's having a big year. When Sharon comes back, she ends up in some scenes with the Branning's. Her and Tanya don't get along. Soon Cora will say that
We are allowed to speculate on here. No one is saying, everyone has to believe this is what's happening, so I don't see what the problem is?
Cora reveals she has/had a secret daughter, weeks before Sharon returns. The actors have been banging on about the Branning's having a big year. When Sharon comes back, she ends up in some scenes with the Branning's. Her and Tanya don't get along. Soon Cora will say that
her daughter, Ava, died
maybe it's true but maybe it's not.
That's probably because of Max and Derek did in Manchester; as apparently it will ''spilt the Brannins family in two''; it also will probably be revealed at Christmas (thus be the big Xmas Reveal), which will then likely lead up to Tanya's departure. That sounds far more likely IMHO then Cora being Sharon's mum. You can only retcon so far.
This is really reminding me of when a lot of people assumed that Kathy would turn out to be Sharon's mother after it was revealed 6 months in that she'd been raped and had a baby girl given up for adoption. Even though the dates didn't add up they were insistant, insisting there was no reason for Sharon to be adopted rather than Den and Angie's biological child if her real mum wasn't going to turn out to be someone else in the show.
Given some of the ridiculous, revisionist things that the Production team have done in recent years, i can see why some people can believe that they'd retcon what was in the end only a couple of appearances by Carol over 20 years ago but it would a massive jump the shark moment and probably cause me to stop watching. I'm coming close now after nearly 28 years due to the general lack of quality. When push comes to shove she did meet Carol who as others have pointed out was clearly not Cora (and I don't just mean the actress, that is easily got round) and if they dare start to go down the baby swapped at birth line. One it's a crap story and two the co-incidences of the other mother to the one who gave her away going on to have a daughter that married into a family that her adoptive mother's best friend was involved with - oh please.
Also, the Ryan / Alex story may not have been controversial but it wasn't well received by the audience, to the extent that they almost pretend it never happened now.
I think Sharon's involvement with the Brannings straight back is just another example of them currently being the dominant family with many members who seem to get involved with everything in some way. The Slaters were the same 10 years ago.
Also, I think the Branning's massive year is to do with Derek's machinations including Joey's arrival, the truth of what happened in Manchester coming out, Jack probably getting it on with Sharon, Tanya leaaving, Lauren's probable descent into alcoholism, Tanya's departure and Brannings making up 3/5 of the Kat suspect list which is supposed to be the dominant storyline of the next few months.
This is really reminding me of when a lot of people assumed that Kathy would turn out to be Sharon's mother after it was revealed 6 months in that she'd been raped and had a baby girl given up for adoption. Even though the dates didn't add up they were insistant, insisting there was no reason for Sharon to be adopted rather than Den and Angie's biological child if her real mum wasn't going to turn out to be someone else in the show.
Given some of the ridiculous, revisionist things that the Production team have done in recent years, i can see why some people can believe that they'd retcon what was in the end only a couple of appearances by Carol over 20 years ago but it would a massive jump the shark moment and probably cause me to stop watching. I'm coming close now after nearly 28 years due to the general lack of quality. When push comes to shove she did meet Carol who as others have pointed out was clearly not Cora (and I don't just mean the actress, that is easily got round) and if they dare start to go down the baby swapped at birth line. One it's a crap story and two the co-incidences of the other mother to the one who gave her away going on to have a daughter that married into a family that her adoptive mother's best friend was involved with - oh please.
Also, the Ryan / Alex story may not have been controversial but it wasn't well received by the audience, to the extent that they almost pretend it never happened now.
Not only that,
but Ava was born stillborn, which means there could be no babyswap. Not only that, but I doubt after the sensationalism of Cot Death through the babyswap, they'd risk the wrath of stillbirth charities by having Cora lie about stillbirth.
but Ava was born stillborn, which means there could be no babyswap. Not only that, but I doubt after the sensationalism of Cot Death through the babyswap, they'd risk the wrath of stillbirth charities by having Cora lie about stillbirth.
Yes It would not be good to stir up trouble about that!
There are lots of babies born stillborn so it is a sensitive subject
I think Sharon's involvement with the Brannings straight back is just another example of them currently being the dominant family with many members who seem to get involved with everything in some way. The Slaters were the same 10 years ago.
Also, I think the Branning's massive year is to do with Derek's machinations including Joey's arrival, the truth of what happened in Manchester coming out, Jack probably getting it on with Sharon, Tanya leaaving, Lauren's probable descent into alcoholism, Tanya's departure and Brannings making up 3/5 of the Kat suspect list which is supposed to be the dominant storyline of the next few months.
Agreed; the Brannings are not the first family of EastEnders in the same way the Fowler/Beale clan were in the 1980s, or even the Watts, or even theb Mitchell dominance which occured over an entire decade, and some would argue bar a few years, over this last decade too. The Brannings are the Slaters of their day. I suspect Tanya's departure will lead to the decline of Branningdom.
Comments
Not if they want to be taken seriously. This isn't as 'lightweight' as Roxy's missing millions, it would be changing the programme's history!
Corrie did a similar storyline with Michelle's son (now forgotten about by the writers) and it wasn't controversial.
Not saying I want this to happen but you can't really compare an historical swap where both babies lived with the Kat/Ronnie story.
Forget it. It won't happen and it would be silly for the writers to effectively retcon Sharon's history by writing Cora as her mother, when we know who her mother is. Ridiculous idea IMO.
If the writers do this, they would be jumping the shark big time. It's implausible, will stretch viewer credibility and will never happen. So forget it.
I understand what you're saying, but regardless, the fact that Sharon had met, and was rejected by her birth mother is a well-documented fact. She's made her peace with that. Are they honestly trying to undermine her history for Cora's sake? As I've pointed out elsewhere, cheap move.
Sharon as a character has been through enough what with Den dying, Angie dying, Den dying again and then Dennis dying. She's made peace with the fact that Carol didn't want her. How bad would she feel when she finds out that yet ANOTHER potential mother didn't want anything to do with her?!
It won't happen. As I said, you can't just change history. You run the risk of ruining Sharon's character as well.
I think this Sharon/Cora thing is the dream of a few FM's who think it can become a reality. It won't.
And why's everyone so hyped on Cora? She's pretty sanctimonious in my view, and the way they've written her makes her pretty unlikeable because she's a hypocrite.
And we've already explained why they will NOT do it. Why should we believe you when you have a history of posting false spoilers? Where's your source?
Cora isn't that great a character as well. Cora could easily drag Sharon down as a character. Another reason why this "imaginary retcon" will never happen.
And the answer to this post....
...is this.
Speculation can only get you so far, in the end you need something solid to back up your claims. For instance, we know for a FACT that her birth mother is Carol Hanley.
Precisely.
Nothing solid there to back up said claim though, is there?
I love the way people are determined to make Sharon Cora's daughter, like gluing two halves of very different postcards together...they'll form a normal-looking shape but the image will be distorted.
I agree. All this stuff about Sharon/Cora is almost looking deluded. Can you imagine the complaints EE would get and the backlash? Is it worth it just to pair Sharon with a pretty mediocre character that everyone thinks is a legend?
Exactly. I can't believe some are even entertaining this idea! And I doubt everyone thinks Cora's a legend. She an ABSO OAP whose own daughters don't even give her the time of day, half the time and is a hyprocrite.
We are allowed to speculate on here. No one is saying, everyone has to believe this is what's happening, so I don't see what the problem is?
Cora reveals she has/had a secret daughter, weeks before Sharon returns. The actors have been banging on about the Branning's having a big year. When Sharon comes back, she ends up in some scenes with the Branning's. Her and Tanya don't get along. Soon Cora will say that
How funny if it does though.
That's probably because of Max and Derek did in Manchester; as apparently it will ''spilt the Brannins family in two''; it also will probably be revealed at Christmas (thus be the big Xmas Reveal), which will then likely lead up to Tanya's departure. That sounds far more likely IMHO then Cora being Sharon's mum. You can only retcon so far.
I doubt it very much. Cora
Given some of the ridiculous, revisionist things that the Production team have done in recent years, i can see why some people can believe that they'd retcon what was in the end only a couple of appearances by Carol over 20 years ago but it would a massive jump the shark moment and probably cause me to stop watching. I'm coming close now after nearly 28 years due to the general lack of quality. When push comes to shove she did meet Carol who as others have pointed out was clearly not Cora (and I don't just mean the actress, that is easily got round) and if they dare start to go down the baby swapped at birth line. One it's a crap story and two the co-incidences of the other mother to the one who gave her away going on to have a daughter that married into a family that her adoptive mother's best friend was involved with - oh please.
Also, the Ryan / Alex story may not have been controversial but it wasn't well received by the audience, to the extent that they almost pretend it never happened now.
Also, I think the Branning's massive year is to do with Derek's machinations including Joey's arrival, the truth of what happened in Manchester coming out, Jack probably getting it on with Sharon, Tanya leaaving, Lauren's probable descent into alcoholism, Tanya's departure and Brannings making up 3/5 of the Kat suspect list which is supposed to be the dominant storyline of the next few months.
Not only that,
Yes It would not be good to stir up trouble about that!
Agreed; the Brannings are not the first family of EastEnders in the same way the Fowler/Beale clan were in the 1980s, or even the Watts, or even theb Mitchell dominance which occured over an entire decade, and some would argue bar a few years, over this last decade too. The Brannings are the Slaters of their day. I suspect Tanya's departure will lead to the decline of Branningdom.
We just have Cora's word for that.
Indeed. The last thing the BBC need is their flagship progamme recieving massively negative coverage.