How can Mo be the Slater girls' grandmother when she is only supposed to be about 67 and Kat is 35? She would've had to be a teenager when she had their mum and their mum would've had to have been a teenager when she had Kat. Is this right? I don't know why but this has always bugged me. Especially as Charlie looks about the same age as Mo.

67? She doesn't look three years shy of 70!? I thought she was a slightly rough late fifties...whatever age she is..I agree..odd maths...

According to the BBC website:
Kat is 35
Charlie is 64
Mo is 69

So if Viv was still alive she would have to be about 53 if Mo was at least 16 when she had her and then Viv would've been 18 when Kat was born. That means Charlie was 29 which is a bit pervy.

so if charlie is only 5 years younger than mo then how much older than his wife was he?!?!?!

Mo's D.O.B.: 18.02.1936, making her 70 in Feb,
Kats D.O.B.: 14.01.1970, 36 in Jan,
Charlie D.O.B.: 13.05.1941, 65 in May,

Making him 5 years younger than Mo, 29 when Kat was Born, the only thing i can think is that Viv would have been mid-late teens (16/17/18) when she had Kat and Mo would've been Late teens when she had Viv (18/19). Charlie would have been around 13 years older than Viv.

Does this make sense or have i made everyones head hurt

Sorry. Carrie x

Don't forget - Lynne is two years older than Kat - born in 1968...

Gross!!!

sorry, i was writing my message and after i posted i saw yours, i wasn't copying your post sorry

Carrie x

This thread reminds me of one of those awful maths problems they used to dish out at school!!!
I'm prepared to accept anything I'm told here as maths never was my subject!

LOL

Carrie x

Yes, Lynne would be 37 which means Viv would probably be 16 when she had her (if Mo was 16 when Viv was born) and Charlie would be 27.

Also it says that on the realitives bit on the EE website that Stacy is Mo's great- great nieace when Stacy is'nt realted to MO at all. Stacy is from Charlies sode of the family.