Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Walford Web, the online home of EastEnders' discussion since 1997. We cover EastEnders news, discussion and spoilers. Join the discussion and make your voice heard! We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're wondering what EastEnders is, click here to see what all the fuss is about.

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Sharons biological brother casting confirmed by cast list
Topic Started: 16 Feb 2015, 08:17 (3,500 Views)
Shamelessness
Member Avatar


MrJames
16 Feb 2015, 18:29
'Kristopher' is the older one right?
Not sure. Don't know if it was ever clearly stated. I'm sure Jade will know, and provide an anecdote about how one of her brothers is older than the other...
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jade
Member Avatar

Shamelessness
16 Feb 2015, 18:41
MrJames
16 Feb 2015, 18:29
'Kristopher' is the older one right?
Not sure. Don't know if it was ever clearly stated. I'm sure Jade will know, and provide an anecdote about how one of her brothers is older than the other...
LOL. Its a shame the episodes aren't on youtube. From the ones I have I don't believe it was clarified. But I am not certain. Before this was announced I was sure he was but I cant remember when it came from so no anecdote sorry ;)
Your approval is neither desired nor required.

Julia Smith "We decided to go for a realistic, fairly outspoken type of drama which could encompass stories about homosexuality, rape, unemployment, racial prejudice, etc., in a believable context. Above all, we wanted realism".

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Katie
Default Avatar

I imagine it would be easier to form a relationship with a birth sibling than with a birth parent. There's not the complication of them giving you up for adoption, or seeing them as replacing your adoptive parents. Obviously sometimes it might not work out, but I wouldn't find it unrealistic if Sharon and Kristopher got on well and became friends. I see the relationship the same as Vicki and Dennis. I wouldn't mind Kristopher becoming a regular character, although I wouldn't want all three siblings moving to Walford.

I'd like a 'normal' middle class professional. I'd quite like some kind of office to open in Walford, so they can go to work rather than being like Ava.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shamelessness
Member Avatar


Jade
16 Feb 2015, 18:48
Shamelessness
16 Feb 2015, 18:41

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep
LOL. Its a shame the episodes aren't on youtube. From the ones I have I don't believe it was clarified. But I am not certain. Before this was announced I was sure he was but I cant remember when it came from so no anecdote sorry ;)
Lol glad you took that in the good nature it was intended!

I only remember one episode in which the two boys appeared. Does anyone know if they appeared more than once? And did we ever see the baby sister on screen? I know her name was never mentioned.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WalfordFanatic
Member Avatar

How old is Kris Hanley?
Posted Image

Thanks Nick
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jade
Member Avatar

Katie
16 Feb 2015, 18:49
I imagine it would be easier to form a relationship with a birth sibling than with a birth parent. There's not the complication of them giving you up for adoption, or seeing them as replacing your adoptive parents. Obviously sometimes it might not work out, but I wouldn't find it unrealistic if Sharon and Kristopher got on well and became friends. I see the relationship the same as Vicki and Dennis. I wouldn't mind Kristopher becoming a regular character, although I wouldn't want all three siblings moving to Walford.

I'd like a 'normal' middle class professional. I'd quite like some kind of office to open in Walford, so they can go to work rather than being like Ava.

That's how I see it. I don't want a Hanley overload. But I agree with everything your saying. With such bonds there isn't some hard and fast rules. Families don't tick neat boxes. Shes still a matriarch of the Mitchells with possibly some more. You don't have to be 1 or the other. Nor does it mean your reject your adopted family. Pauline and Peggy had their own families. Sadly I don't think Sharon has her own Aunt Sal or does she (joking).
But Vicki and Dennis are a good example nobody took issue with that.

Shamelessness
16 Feb 2015, 18:53
Jade
16 Feb 2015, 18:48

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep
Lol glad you took that in the good nature it was intended!

I only remember one episode in which the two boys appeared. Does anyone know if they appeared more than once? And did we ever see the baby sister on screen? I know her name was never mentioned.

They appeared in the hospital episode (when Sharon first met her). And at least twice at the Hanley house but only briefly as background while Sharon chatted to Carol in the kitchen (not eating a biscuit).
There could have been others but that's the ones I have rewatched.
Edited by Jade, 16 Feb 2015, 19:03.
Your approval is neither desired nor required.

Julia Smith "We decided to go for a realistic, fairly outspoken type of drama which could encompass stories about homosexuality, rape, unemployment, racial prejudice, etc., in a believable context. Above all, we wanted realism".

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Katie
Default Avatar

Jade
16 Feb 2015, 18:59
That's how I see it. I don't want a Hanley overload. But I agree with everything your saying. With such bonds there isn't some hard and fast rules. Families don't tick neat boxes. Shes still a matriarch of the Mitchells with possibly some more. You don't have to be 1 or the other. Nor does it mean your reject your adopted family. Pauline and Peggy had their own families. Sadly I don't think Sharon has her own Aunt Sal or does she (joking).
But Vicki and Dennis are a good example nobody took issue with that.
I was going to mention Sharon and Dennis but the marriage complicated that one! Considering how many long lost family members have turned up over the years, I think it's quite surprising the Watts have only had Den, Angie, Sharon, Dennis, Vicki, Chrissie and Denny. It would have been easy to bring in relatives of Den and Angie, and Dennis's aunt and Chrissie's brothers were all mentioned. I don't really think any of them were needed, but maybe they would have considered that if the characters had stuck around longer.

Shamelessness posted a picture of Sharon's two brothers in this topic-
http://walfordweb.com/topic/10139004/1/

Edit- We must have crossed posts as I was referring to the one you've posted below :)
Edited by Katie, 16 Feb 2015, 19:16.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shamelessness
Member Avatar


I don't know if I've already posted this but here's a picture of the Hanley brothers in 1990:

Posted Image

That was 24 years ago (my whole life!) so I guess they'd be in their late 20s/early 30s now.
Edited by Shamelessness, 16 Feb 2015, 19:16.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cam
Member Avatar

If it gives Sharon more to do, I shan't complain.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Queen Florence Serene
Member Avatar

Ruperta
16 Feb 2015, 17:12
Where are her other 2 siblings.
Give it time!

Im happy to see positive signs that their moving Sharon centrestage-a very wise move if written well.
Don't be lazy destiny needs some proactive nudges
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

Jade
16 Feb 2015, 18:24
Mrs Peel
16 Feb 2015, 18:03

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep
Or maybe DTC will actually not make him a psycho. I just think in such situations you cant make sweeping generalisations. And I would take this over the really awful adoption stories we had which weren't even unlikely but literally impossible.
But meeting your birth family (and even accepting them) doesn't make you any less part of your adopted family. And that I do know. My cousin is still my cousin and nobody will tell either of us different. In fact the irony is he looks like my brothers far more than his own siblings (he was adopted as a only child). His birth mother its a bit more complicated but the siblings he is delighted for his children to know their heritage from all sides including the one he was adopted into. In fact one of them said "What took you so long!" My aunt is still his mother she raised him, she is his mother in every way. Its her he calls mum not this woman. She even asked him when he was old enough if he wanted too. At first he said no and when he was much older changed his mind and she has always supported him in that.
So no meeting with your birth family or even bonding with them takes away from your adopted family.

So Sharon is still a Watts. I don't think anything will change that, even if she comes to love her brothers (though this cant happen overnight_. Now if the EE was saying she would be referred to as Hanley (or Stretton) then yes I would agree. Or if she had been under 18 and ended living back with them again it would be different. At least this can happen.
I do worry they wont keep to that with Shabnam. But I am willingly to be pleasantly surprised.

It doesn't need to be a happy ending but simply giving her more family. Like a great many other characters on the show have had. She isn't the first character to have family turning up. Only difference is they aren't retconned and we know existed. For all I know we might only see them a couple of times or they will be recurring off the square.
Why are you so determined to see Sharon's remit further complicated by bringing in a gaggle of people whose only relationship to her is the fact that they shared a parent at birth?

Two years ago, when she was floundering under a head writer who didn't have a snowball's idea of hell what to do with her character, when she was isolated with a small son and homeless, with her only connection on the Square being Ian, who was going through problems of his own, I'd have welcomed her trying to re-connect with her birth family; but the truth is this: Sharon has always been a Watts.

She reasserted herself as a Watts only a few months ago, upon finding out that Phil had arranged to have The Albert attacked, and she suffered for it. She threw off the Rickman mould, which saw her as a quivering woman in eternal mourning for her brother-husband (a relationship I never bought into), and became a Watts again. Also, from her early adulthood, she's been linked in various ways with the Mitchells.

The other problem there was with Sharon returning in 2012 was the fact that she returned with a six year-old son. Unlike characters like Bianca or Kat, we had never seen Sharon in an advanced state of pregnancy. We'd never seen her give birth or deal with a baby. In fact, Sharon was never a female character inclined to be maternal, and a lot of her scenes with Harry Hickles were awkward for a variety of reasons.

But now the EP has it right - she's a Watts married to a Mitchell, again, and taking her rightful place in the Mitchell fold. She has her son, of whom, we see precious little (and that's a good thing), and she has a stepson. She has a family. Her birth family rejected her. In fact, the brother she's about to see was only told that she was a friend of his mother's.

Sharon shares no abiding childhood memories with these people. There is no sort of generational affinity. Sharon was an adult when they were children. There's not even any need for her to nurture them now. And this is a soap. This isn't Dennis Rickman falling for his adopted sister. This isn't Danielle discovering Ronnie and dying. If these people are to be a part of this dynamic, they'll end up using Sharon's good nature to their advantage and alienating her from Phil.

I hope the character is there for a couple of episodes and then slopes away. There's no need to complicate an issue. Den and Angie are her parents. Sometimes blood siblings bond, many times they don't.

These people simply aren't needed in a cast that still needs to shed some deadwood before adding long-lost relatives. I'm surprised Clive Mitchell's children haven't made an appearance before now. At least Phil would have some sort of lasting attachment and identification with them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs Peel
Member Avatar

Shamelessness
16 Feb 2015, 18:53
Jade
16 Feb 2015, 18:48

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep
Lol glad you took that in the good nature it was intended!

I only remember one episode in which the two boys appeared. Does anyone know if they appeared more than once? And did we ever see the baby sister on screen? I know her name was never mentioned.
They were at the hospital when Sharon came in, unannounced, to find them, their dad and their newborn sister. Carole referred to Sharon as her "friend" again.

The older boy looked about 6 or 7, which would put him in his early thirties. The younger looks about 4, which would put him in his late twenties. The sister would be in her mid-twenties.
Edited by Mrs Peel, 17 Feb 2015, 01:15.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Other Slater Cousin
Member Avatar

Mrs Peel
17 Feb 2015, 01:11
Jade
16 Feb 2015, 18:24

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep
Why are you so determined to see Sharon's remit further complicated by bringing in a gaggle of people whose only relationship to her is the fact that they shared a parent at birth?

Two years ago, when she was floundering under a head writer who didn't have a snowball's idea of hell what to do with her character, when she was isolated with a small son and homeless, with her only connection on the Square being Ian, who was going through problems of his own, I'd have welcomed her trying to re-connect with her birth family; but the truth is this: Sharon has always been a Watts.

She reasserted herself as a Watts only a few months ago, upon finding out that Phil had arranged to have The Albert attacked, and she suffered for it. She threw off the Rickman mould, which saw her as a quivering woman in eternal mourning for her brother-husband (a relationship I never bought into), and became a Watts again. Also, from her early adulthood, she's been linked in various ways with the Mitchells.

The other problem there was with Sharon returning in 2012 was the fact that she returned with a six year-old son. Unlike characters like Bianca or Kat, we had never seen Sharon in an advanced state of pregnancy. We'd never seen her give birth or deal with a baby. In fact, Sharon was never a female character inclined to be maternal, and a lot of her scenes with Harry Hickles were awkward for a variety of reasons.

But now the EP has it right - she's a Watts married to a Mitchell, again, and taking her rightful place in the Mitchell fold. She has her son, of whom, we see precious little (and that's a good thing), and she has a stepson. She has a family. Her birth family rejected her. In fact, the brother she's about to see was only told that she was a friend of his mother's.

Sharon shares no abiding childhood memories with these people. There is no sort of generational affinity. Sharon was an adult when they were children. There's not even any need for her to nurture them now. And this is a soap. This isn't Dennis Rickman falling for his adopted sister. This isn't Danielle discovering Ronnie and dying. If these people are to be a part of this dynamic, they'll end up using Sharon's good nature to their advantage and alienating her from Phil.

I hope the character is there for a couple of episodes and then slopes away. There's no need to complicate an issue. Den and Angie are her parents. Sometimes blood siblings bond, many times they don't.

These people simply aren't needed in a cast that still needs to shed some deadwood before adding long-lost relatives. I'm surprised Clive Mitchell's children haven't made an appearance before now. At least Phil would have some sort of lasting attachment and identification with them.
But surely all of this is the exact reason exploring Sharon's biological family is an interesting route? They don't know each other. They are strangers, but what's to say they won't feel a connection as siblings? It's a new angle where new relationships are being formed from scratch, with a mother being the only connection. It's complex. As you say, not all do, but Sharon is a character not a statistic, so there's no reason why a real and believable relationship.

She is a Watts. This story doesn't change that. If anything, it reinforces it. She isn't a Hanley, and that isolation from her siblings will no doubt be explored. Den and Angie will always be her parents and no one is debating that, but these people are her siblings, whether a bond is formed or not and I'm excited to see a storyline that explores such a different and real story for an icon like Sharon.

At the end of the day, this gives Sharon a purpose aside from being the Mitchell Matriarch. That's a great role for her, but I don't want her defined by her marriage to Phil, and seeing her have her own family away from the Mitchell's further establishes her as a centrepiece of the show.
Edited by The Other Slater Cousin, 17 Feb 2015, 01:34.
"I loved it in the Olden Days because you talked more. There’s more action now. You know, we would do scenes in the Rovers of me, Bet and Doris Speed with a cup of coffee each before we opened the pub, talking about absolute rubbish. But it was something, and it was what people do." - Betty Driver
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Professor Plum
Default Avatar

Sharon is and always will be a Watts, with a Mitchell man lurking in the background. Things would be complete if she were back in the Vic, but then, no happiness ever comes out of that place.

As far as this brother thing is concerned, who is he replacing? Alfie is becoming a spent character, or maybe Alexs after he finds out about Poxy and Charlie?
Just livin' in perfect New Zealand!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Queen Florence Serene
Member Avatar

Im really intrigued to see where they go with this.Sharon may longterm end up with her "own" family unit as big as Shirleys!
Don't be lazy destiny needs some proactive nudges
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Amazee-Dayzee
Default Avatar

Late to the party, but I believe that CHRISTOPHER (whose name is changed) was older and Jonathan was the younger one. The baby sister never had a name.

I wonder if Sharon has any nieces or nephews (which gives Denny cousins)?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
« Previous Topic · EastEnders Current & Future · Next Topic »
Add Reply