|
||||||||
EastEnders. History of the Beales and the Fowlers |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 273
|
EastEnders. History of the Beales and the Fowlers
Back in the 80s, a lot more thought went into continuity as a rule but I really wonder about this one.
When EastEnders began in 1985, Pauline (Wendy Richard) and Pete (Peter Dean) were the only two of Lou's offspring to feature on screen. Through character dialogue in July 1985, the audience were told of the existence of three other children; Keith, Paul and Norma— who had moved away before the series began. As the series progressed Keith, Paul and Norma were apparently forgotten in favour of other children Harry, Ronnie and Dora and were not mentioned again. Circa 1986 viewers were made aware of another child, Kenny, who had moved away to New Zealand before 1985 Apart from Pete and Pauline, only Kenny (and illegitimate Maggie Flaherty years later) are seen on screen was anything mentioned about the other children? Or were they just completely forgotten about after 1986? Also Arthur Fowler, was ANYTHING mentioned about his extended family? |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Salford, Manchester
Posts: 1,332
|
Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,221
|
It's likely that Paul, Keith and Norma are the same as Harry, Ronnie and Dora who are seen in the special 'Civvy Street' along with Kenny.
Sometimes you get these continuity errors early in the show, as we never got the see them in the actual show it doesn't really matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 13,486
|
Quote:
Back in the 80s, a lot more thought went into continuity as a rule but I really wonder about this one.
When EastEnders began in 1985, Pauline (Wendy Richard) and Pete (Peter Dean) were the only two of Lou's offspring to feature on screen. Through character dialogue in July 1985, the audience were told of the existence of three other children; Keith, Paul and Norma— who had moved away before the series began. As the series progressed Keith, Paul and Norma were apparently forgotten in favour of other children Harry, Ronnie and Dora and were not mentioned again. Circa 1986 viewers were made aware of another child, Kenny, who had moved away to New Zealand before 1985 Apart from Pete and Pauline, only Kenny (and illegitimate Maggie Flaherty years later) are seen on screen was anything mentioned about the other children? Or were they just completely forgotten about after 1986? Also Arthur Fowler, was ANYTHING mentioned about his extended family? The Irish relatives aren't mentioned due to the controversy over those episodes. I believe Kenny was last mentioned as he sent a wreath to Pauline's funeral. Apart from an aunt called Betty, nothing is known about Arthur's family. I would like one of Ian's long lost uncles turn up- another person from Walford born and bred (currently only Ian and Dot). Uncle Harry could be a friend for Patrick or even cousin Nellie could return. I also wouldn't mind a Dora introduction though I think if the Beales have a matriarch, it has to be Sharon. Her and Ian's friendship has been barely referenced and its almost a disgrace- such a genuine and close friendship basically ignored especially since both have needed one another a lot recently. Ian should be the person Sharon confided in rather than tanya and vice versa for Ian. And Sharon should be the mother figure for Bobby and the twins, not Denise whom they hardly know |
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,221
|
Ian's great aunts and uncles would be quite old now I'd say, mid 70's at least. Pete was 40 in 85 and he and Pauline were the youngest.
I always thought it strange none of these 'other' kids showed up. Almost nothing is known of Arthur's background as the previous poster said, so when you say 'the beales and the fowlers', you really mean just the Beale's, the only true Fowlers we know of are Arthur's three kids and their offspring. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 13,486
|
Quote:
Ian's great aunts and uncles would be quite old now I'd say, mid 70's at least. Pete was 40 in 85 and he and Pauline were the youngest.
I always thought it strange none of these 'other' kids showed up. Almost nothing is known of Arthur's background as the previous poster said, so when you say 'the beales and the fowlers', you really mean just the Beale's, the only true Fowlers we know of are Arthur's three kids and their offspring. |
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,221
|
Lou of course would be in her early 100's if still alive today, lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 31,192
|
If you want a female matriarch for Ian bring his auntie Steph in played by Gilliian Taylforths sister.
It is strange that the continuity was so bad for them because the characters history was all mapped out. They shouldn't have brought in Maggie as Paulines sister, instead they should have brought in one of the existing fowlers such as Dora. |
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 13,486
|
Quote:
Lou of course would be in her early 100's if still alive today, lol.
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 13,486
|
Quote:
If you want a female matriarch for Ian bring his auntie Steph in played by Gilliian Taylforths sister.
It is strange that the continuity was so bad for them because the characters history was all mapped out. They shouldn't have brought in Maggie as Paulines sister, instead they should have brought in one of the existing fowlers such as Dora. The whole Flaherty thing was a huge fiasco, Dora would have been a better choice |
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,221
|
Quote:
I've always thought that the best matriarch for the Beales would be Sharon- she's one of the few people he listens to and she has close links with that family.
The whole Flaherty thing was a huge fiasco, Dora would have been a better choice The irish stuff was a disgrace. As if Lou would ever cheat on Albert! |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: London Town
Posts: 8,791
|
Meant with the greatest respect, but this is all on wikipedia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,729
|
Quote:
So, she should marry Ian?
The irish stuff was a disgrace. As if Lou would ever cheat on Albert! |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Quahog
Posts: 28,142
|
Ian has a cousin called Elizabeth (Kenny's daughter) - maybe she could return?
Harry was mentioned by Ian, but we know very little about his life. Maybe he has kids and all? They may be long-lost relatives but it would make more sense to introduce, say, Jack Beale, Harry's son than Jack Branning, plucked out of thin air to strengthen the Branning family. |
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,221
|
Quote:
Lou was never meant to have cheated on Albert - he was the father of her firstborn baby Maggie but because they weren't married at the time she was given up for adoption to avoid bringing shame on the family. So Maggie was Pauline's full sister not half-sister.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ronnie's bed
Posts: 20,574
|
I still
at the thought of the irish Fowlers
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Quahog
Posts: 28,142
|
Quote:
I still
at the thought of the irish Fowlers |
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 273
|
Did Auntie Betty ever appear on the show? Or was she just mentioned in some context? Arthurs family should have been extended at least a bit.
Just strange that as the Beales were conceived as this huge, sprawling East End family and yet we have seen comparatively little of them. They've just been allowed to dwindle down over the years with no replacements coming in. The character of Kenny had good potential but was only in it about a month. First Lou went, then Pete, Michelle, Arthur, Kathy, Mark, Martin etc They should have brought the other Beale siblings and their offspring in here and there years ago. I'm imagining a snooty Dora looking down on Pauline and her cardigans
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Suck it
Posts: 7,777
|
I always found it strange how they let the Beales dwindle to nothing. Pauline's funeral would've been the ideal time to bring in some long lost Beales to boost the ranks. The current Beales don't quite work for me. I can't take the kids seriously with their posh accents and I don't buy Ian and Denise for a second.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 28,304
|
Quote:
I always found it strange how they let the Beales dwindle to nothing. Pauline's funeral would've been the ideal time to bring in some long lost Beales to boost the ranks. The current Beales don't quite work for me. I can't take the kids seriously with their posh accents and I don't buy Ian and Denise for a second.
They let both of Ian's parents die which wasn't a good idea as Ian is the only original character left on EE that has remained there from the start. Dot and Sharon have both had breaks from the show a fair bit over the years etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Suck it
Posts: 7,777
|
Quote:
Yes i agree!
They let both of Ian's parents die which wasn't a good idea as Ian is the only original character left on EE that has remained there from the start. Dot and Sharon have both had breaks from the show a fair bit over the years etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,295
|
Well the Beale family will be getting another boost when David comes back to Walford, as he is a Beale since he is Pete's oldest son. And even though they never mention it, Bianca, Liam, Tiffany and Morgan are Beales.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 273
|
Quote:
Yes i agree!
They let both of Ian's parents die which wasn't a good idea as Ian is the only original character left on EE that has remained there from the start. Dot and Sharon have both had breaks from the show a fair bit over the years etc.In 1993, they thought Pete had really come to the end of the road in regards to what to do with him, so they wrote him out with his girlfriend Rose Chapman, the door left open for a later return. But a bitter and incensed Peter Dean who played him sold stories to the tabloids blasting the show and so his character was killed off-screen. He apparently wasn't the easiest to work with ![]() As for Kathy (Gillian Taylforth) she was also killed off screen a few years back as a plot-device to re-introduce the character of Ben back into the soap, A very unpopular decision as writers, actors and subsequent producers as well as Gillian herself have wished Kathy to return |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 13,486
|
Quote:
So, she should marry Ian?
The irish stuff was a disgrace. As if Lou would ever cheat on Albert! Quote:
Ian has a cousin called Elizabeth (Kenny's daughter) - maybe she could return?
Harry was mentioned by Ian, but we know very little about his life. Maybe he has kids and all? They may be long-lost relatives but it would make more sense to introduce, say, Jack Beale, Harry's son than Jack Branning, plucked out of thin air to strengthen the Branning family. Quote:
Well the Beale family will be getting another boost when David comes back to Walford, as he is a Beale since he is Pete's oldest son. And even though they never mention it, Bianca, Liam, Tiffany and Morgan are Beales.
Quote:
The character of Pete Beale was nearly axed a couple of times before he actually was.
In 1993, they thought Pete had really come to the end of the road in regards to what to do with him, so they wrote him out with his girlfriend Rose Chapman, the door left open for a later return. But a bitter and incensed Peter Dean who played him sold stories to the tabloids blasting the show and so his character was killed off-screen. He apparently wasn't the easiest to work with ![]() As for Kathy (Gillian Taylforth) she was also killed off screen a few years back as a plot-device to re-introduce the character of Ben back into the soap, A very unpopular decision as writers, actors and subsequent producers as well as Gillian herself have wished Kathy to return Yes, I think the reason they didn't axe Pete before 1993 is because they wanted to keep the Beales as complete as possible. And because the family were so close, it would seem unnatural that they would just leave (although Kathy's exit was a success despite going to South Africa) Thats why the likes of Arthur and Pauline had to die. In fact, the producers even tried to axe Pauline in 1989 by having her die of cancer but when a new EP was introduced, they decided to keep her since she was an original character. In the end Pauline just had fibroids |
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 273
|
Pete Beale was initially scheduled to be a short-term character. It had been decided way in advance that the big New Year cliffhanger of 1986 would be the killing-off of a character and the chosen person had to have the greatest effect on the remaining characters. Pete Beale was the obvious choice as his death would leave Kathy a widow and Ian (his son) would have to take over as head of the house. Lou was his mother, Pauline his sister and Den Watts his best friend, and everyone knew him from the fruit and veg stall, so storylines were planned in which Pete would have a heart-attack; a shock tactic to revive interest in the show after the excitement of Christmas. At the last minute, Julia Smith got "cold feet" and decided that Pete was too useful a character to lose so early in the programme's history; like Pauline he was considered a linchpin character. A new shock storyline was needed and so it was decided to introduce Den's mistress Jan Hammond into the show instead
When producer Mike Gibbon took the helm as head of the serial in 1989, he employed writer David Yallop to pen storylines that controversially killed-off various characters in the show. According to Yallop, the decision to axe the characters was dependent of the talent of the actors portraying them. Yallop stated that Pete Beale was among the characters to be killed. The storyline never came to fruition because Gibbon's controversial plots were not sanctioned by the BBC and Yallop's storylines were not used; Yallop sued the BBC for termination of contract, at which time the finer details of the proposed plots were disclosed to the media. (from Wikipedia )Mike Gibbon's very short run as producer was an interesting one. If he had carried on, 10 characters were going to be axed including Pete and Pauline. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:35.





at the thought of the irish Fowlers
