I'm sorry if this has been asked before ( and probably by me too!...) but why do you think the character of Michelle Fowler has not been replaced by another actress the way Ben Mitchell has been, Janine Butcher, has been, Mark Fowler has been, Lauren Branning has been and many others?

It is absurd that the character never attended the funerals of her father, mother and brother JUST because she lives in America! And at the moment, the fact that her nearly twenty year secret has the potential to come out with Grant knocking around with her son, wouldn't any normal mother be on the first flight over???

How long and WHY are TPTB going to continue making patheric excuses for Michelle's absence just because Susan Tully won't make a return?! It's ridiculous!!

Why don't they just replace the character of Michelle Fowler with a new actress???

She was an original cast member and was involved in some of the shows biggest storylines. Sue Tully didn't leave under a black cloud like other actresses, she worked behind the scenes and I imagine it was respect for her that meant they didn't kill off the character.

As its now been twenty years, recasting her doesn't seem a big deal to some anymore.

I'd rather ey didn't recast her or kill her off, lets just have one character who has moved on from Walford and leave it as that.

That would work if the show would actually let us and Michelle move on but they won't.

She is mentioned more often than any other past character, her brother is in it, her best friend and now her son, it's hard for the audience not to build an expectation that she should return and as the OP said- it's beyond ridiculous that she never attended the funerals of Arthur, Pauline and Mark (snr) and now her son has gone over to London and her secret is close to being exposed- no mother in their right mind would let their 20 year old son find something as huge as your true parentage out from essentially strangers- she would come back for him.

So in short I agree with the OP- if Sue Tully really is never, ever going to return they should recast! The character of Michelle is just as important to the show as the "original cast members"

Most of the examples quoted were recast when they were still very young (teenagers) and i do think that makes a difference.

Also, Arthurs funeral i do think was acceptable as they established she was pregnant before she left in Autumn 95 and Arthur died in late Spring 96 - when she was due to give birth. She wouldn't have been allowed to fly. And i'm pretty sure that Pauline went out to visit her almost straight afterwards.

Also, sometimes people don't come back for funerals or weddings if they live that far away. My Mum had a cousin show she was close to when young, who emigrated to America when she was in her 30s and she hasn't come back for funerals including my Mum's and 2 siblings. I don't think she returned for her own Mothers either. Her Dad died before i was born so i don't know about that.

The family have always just had an "we know you loved them, they knew they loved them, it isn't necessary for you to travel that far for one day" attitude about it.

But, as Scrabbler says, the main reason is that she was an original cast member who was central to many of the most well known plots of the early years - the plots that made EE such a big success. She is therefore deemed to be more memorable than many, if not most other actresses.

It is ridiculous. Re-cast her.

Not this sodding topic again

You can't recast roles that have had a major impact on the public.

If no Ross Kemp availability, no Grant Mitchell return
If no Leslie Grantham availibiliy, no Den Watts 2003 return
The same with Letitia Dean, Michael French and so on
And the same for Sue Tully, who was at the forefront of the show for most of her ten years. Tully's face IS Michelle Fowler, someone elses face ISN'T Michelle Fowler. A recast should only be done in the severest of circumstances, basically an actors death and even then they shouldn't. I don't count the child recasts because thats just going to happen with schooling etc. Adult characters should never be recasted. Ever.

Remember that rumour back in the day that they were casting Pauline Quirk as Michelle?

The 'excuses' they've brought up regarding her not coming over for funerals or major family events have bordered on the ridiculous, but sadly that's the way it is. What I find annoying is that they've never tried to be a bit more clever with it; why not just mention in passing that Michelle came to Martin's wedding? They don't need to show her, just keep mentioning that she's over and upstairs at the Beale's or something. At least there's a sense that she is around, just never shown on camera.

I would love for her to be an out of the blue surprise return like Kathy, but it annoys me that this storyline is happening and they couldn't even find a way of even doing a phone call, surely they could piece together some kind of voicemail message from previous episodes she appeared in and splice something together.

I reckon Bobby did for Michelle years ago and Sharon and the entire Beale/Fowler clan have been covering it up ever since.

#greatergood

The moment has passed now anyway. Can't really come back from that 'Letter to Peggy' nonsense.

I think she and her hubby should be killed in a car crash in the US and be done with this nonsense once and for all.

Michelle was hardly in Den or Grants league. The character was rather boring. She could easily be replaced. She's been away long enough.

On the original subject, I think she should have been recast, she is no legend. And I live in the States & went back for both my parents funerals, & various Aunts too. But I understand some people cannot due to financial or work restrictions ( for some times, but surely not all of them) Just recast already.

Total nonsense in my opinion.

A lot of new viewers and by new I mean any who started watching in the last 20 years or so won't care about Sue Tully at all! Ross Kemp, Letitia Dean made their roles theirs as they have reprised their roles from time time (Letitia more often) Sue has not appeared in EE for 21 years and the absence of the character of Michelle has hurt the realism of the show far to often.

And what about those longterm viewers? People who have stayed loyal to the show since the beginning shouldn't be disregarded

So because you found her boring (it's not a blanket opinion) that means she wasn't a big character?

I don't know about her being in the same league as Den or Grant but she was big enough not to be recast imo.

Although Pauline and Arthur are no more, Michelle and Sharon were a big part of eachother's characters and it just wouldn't be the same to see Letitia playing against another actress as Michelle.

Why does she have to return just because people talk about her?

As for her missing funerals, they gave believable explanations for Arthur's and Mark's, it only fell apart when it came to Pauline's, but then Pauline's whole exit was a mess.

As always with these things, it is a matter of perception.

Whilst I'm not completely against a recast, I don't really see any need for it because, as good as she was, I don't see that she is needed in the show now.

What would be the point really? A couple of big scenes with whomever was around about keepng Mark's paternity a secret and then she just hangs around for no particularly good reason? Which characters have actually lived up to their returns anyway?

Yes, if Tully was wiling to come back, it'd be great to see her to tie up the loose ends but I don't think it is worth recasting as there will be many people, mostly original viewers, who hate it.

On which subject, as i say it is down to perception, but In my opinion Michelle was probably the most important, and most well known character of the first couple of years except for Den and Angie.

The 'whose the father' and 'will Michelle marry Lofty' plots were both massive - easily the biggest talking points of the first 2 years except for Den and Angie's marriage. And remember this was when viewing figures were at their highest so like it or not, she was known to more people in the country, both regular and casual viewers, and even peopllle that didn't watch but read the Sunday tabloids or watch magazine programmes like Breakfast TV or Natinowide or Wogan which would reguarly feature interviews or items on the show than somebody like Lacey Turner would be now.

I honestly don'( think they'd ever recast any of the original characters now. They only did Mark because of the exceptional circumstances and it was early on.

Exactly, people do still mention relatives that have moved away, either reminiscing about when they lived nearby or catching up with other people that know them and have talked to them or seen them recently.

I can't remember the explanation for Mark's funeral but Arthur's was perfectly acceptable. People can't fly at 9 months pregnant no matter how much they want to.

With Mark, i can' remember the explanation but i'm not even sure they needed one as Mark had been travelling for months before his death and could easily have gone to spend time with Michelle so she felt that she had said her goodbyes then. Many people do have that attitude, that how they were with the person in life is just as, if not more important than attending their funeral.

Pauline is the hardest one to explain away but given how Pauline was in her final months, she could have just not wanted to come due to how Pauline had been treating Martin and Sonia over their remarriage. People could argue that would have been horrible of her as it was Martin's fight and she was still her Mum but it is possible.

In short, i don't actually see that it is damaging the credibility of the show that she hasn't returned. This most recent thing is the "wtf" contrivance in my opinion - that she would do something as odd as writing to Peggy and then not take direct steps for damage limitation when Mark came over but he is 20 - a little old for her to be able to drag home and maybe she figured he'd get more suspicious if she made a big fuss about it.

If i'd been writing it, i'd have had Sharon always know about it, Mark just come over for holiday because he wanted to see "the old country" (which would be a perfectly normal thing for a young person to do, especially in a gap year - lots of people travel) and then her reveal it when he met Courtney and he displayed an attraction.

If they didn't recast her for this storyline then it's never going to happen. It was nostalgic hearing Grant talk about his dislike for Michelle but I think a re-run of Michelle's era of EastEnders would be more satisfying than a return for the character if Grant and Kathy's returns are anything to go by.

Quite.

All the things that would really require a comeback have happened now so if it didn't happen for them, i don't see that it will, or even should happen for anything else.

The only things that might require it, would be Mark's wedding or death (if he sticks around) or Martin, Ian or Sharon's deaths. But they can easily cover Mark and Sharon off by saying that they have fallen out over Grant being Mark's Dad and keeping it secret.

The character has been off screen longer (20 odd years) than she ever was on screen (10 odd years). I only know her for being a teenage pregnancy character who became pregnant through Den Watts. I've never seen her on screen myself, but looking at the recent recast of Martin, I think it should be done.

Martin has been a successful recast for me, I grew up with the old Martin on screen, but have completely gotten used to this new one, and he is the Martin I think of now when the character comes to mind.

It seems so odd that this character is referred to so often, yet I've never seen her in an actual episode that aired whilst I watched it. Yet she can miss so many important events, it seems unrealistic and I would welcome a recast to bump up the Fowler family once more.

Like I said, she's been off screen now more than she was on screen, surely that's an acceptable reason for her to be recast.

She may have only been in the show for 11 years but she was at the forefront of the show during that time. You could call her the Stacey of her era. It was Michelle who appeared more than any other character during the first two years of the show. Sue Tully had to step up and film way more than she was expected to when the original Mark actor quit after 3 months over an objection to a racist script. So almost all of Mark's storylines ended up being merged with all the material they had planned for Michelle. Michelle is a huge part of why EastEnders became a success as a result of the huge amount of screen time she was given, this was Susan Tully. No one else can replace that.

They did it with Sam and she was an adult.

I could say similar about Martin, at one point I remember his stories such as being involved in knocking Jamie (Sonia's boyfriend, think that was his name) over, Getting Sonia pregnant, getting together with her, and marrying her, also being involved in the affair story with the woman who stabbed him, being involved in Sonia's lesbian plot, getting Rebecca back and getting back with Sonia. He was at the forefront of the show at one point too, yet he still got replaced, he's iconic, he was the first person born on the show too.

Martin was never at the forefront of the show or as high profile as Michelle. Martin's key storylines, getting Sonia pregnant ( which was all 90% Sonia, 10% Martin) and killing Jamie were all the storylines of other characters. He was never given a story of his own, he just aided the storylines of others. This is why they got away with recasting Martin but could never have recasted Sonia.

Michelle was completely different. She constantly carried storylines. In the 80s it was Den, Angie, Michelle, Arthur in that order. They were the show and everyone else was supporting cast.