| 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: |
| Important Legacy Babies; Stacey's and Lauren's Babies | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 28 Jun 2015, 14:10 (6,105 Views) | |
| Mrs Peel | 28 Jun 2015, 14:10 Post #1 |
|
I could have put this in the Stacey Spoiler thread, but I feel it needs discussing here. Some people are wondering if Stacey will even go through with the pregnancy, as it's Martin's baby. I say she will for various reasons. First, both this baby, and Lauren's babies are, arguably, the most important legacy babies to be born on the show in decades. Stacey's baby extends the Fowler family, as does Lauren's in extending the Beale's. Lauren's baby is actually the third generation of an original family, and both babies link their mothers' families - very important Millennial families, the Slaters and the Brannings - to two original EastEnders' families, the Fowlers and the Beales. And once again, Stacey and Lauren are related by marriage. Secondly, I don't think Stacey would attempt an abortion. Her moral code is still too high in that respect, considering the trauma she felt when Bradley coerced her into having an abortion and the way she treated Danielle for getting rid of a baby that was the result of a one-night-stand. Third, I think this is going to be an interesting dynamic in Stacey's and Martin's relationship, and that's down to Stacey. She has made it abundantly clear to Martin from the get go that he was just a mate, then suddenly, she climbs into bed with him; afterward. the bins him before she starts sleeping with him again. With her bi-polar condition and incipient pregnancy, her hormones will be all over the place. Yet again, Stacey's always stressed the importance of her child having a father or a father figure. Bradley was prepared to raise Lily as his own and died believing that she was a product of Archie's rape. Stacey broke up Ryan's marriage, at Kat's insistance, based on the fact that she felt she was entitled to Ryan as he was Lily's father. I know that in the real world a baby isn't always the answer to any couple who either aren't serious or who are having problems, but I do think DTC intends this to be something slow-burning and an endgame for Martin and Stacey. It may be the maturing of them both, and their baby is a very important legacy child, as is Lauren's. Edited by Mrs Peel, 28 Jun 2015, 23:05.
|
![]() |
|
| DirtyDen | 28 Jun 2015, 14:28 Post #2 |
|
DirtyDen(ise)
|
Personally I disagree no baby is a legacy baby these days. Nobody can predict if a character will take off or not and as such therefore anyone pregnant doesn't mean that for the long term future of the show it is necessary. Any show can introduce new characters that will either take off or they won't. Look at Courtney... Grant and Tiffany's child. Never to be heard of again. If she comes back into the show in the future then it will depend on if the character takes off. Look at Vickie Fowler as a prime example of bringing a 'legacy' character back into the show that failed miserably. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mrs B | 28 Jun 2015, 14:39 Post #3 |
|
I quite like the notion of the Fowlers being rebuilt with Martin and Stacey taking on the mantle of Arthur and Pauline. Vicky Fowler was almost doomed to failure because she was basically a stranger shoehorned into the scenario and had not had a real presence on the show until she showed up in Pauline's kitchen. Plus her 'American' accent was embarrassing. |
![]() |
|
| Holly | 28 Jun 2015, 14:44 Post #4 |
|
I kind of agree they will be legacy babies. At this rate, in around 20 years, no casting will need to be done, as there will be enough original characters already on the square. This might stop people complaining about the lack of old characters on the show, and all the new ones coming in and leaving. There could certainly be some great storylines in the future with all the children growing up together as teenagers etc. however I do think enough is enough at some point, and with all the children the exact same age it will be a little strange if they all stick around. Some of the babies I would say are more 'legacy' than others- Lauren and Peters baby links the brannings and the beales perfectly for example, and Matthew another link between key families whereas Ollie seems more like just a regular addition to the family, as does Pearl. |
| |
![]() |
|
| The Other Slater Cousin | 28 Jun 2015, 15:05 Post #5 |
|
The idea of cementing them together is so perfect. And as much as my own timeline was more..."traditional", it is quite interesting to see how a baby will be the catalyst to bring them closer. It's complicated but if it ends in a stable unit, fighting their dramas together then I'm all for it. The whole Kush thing really is over egging though. There's enough there on both sides without shoehorning in a badly told affair. So I'm not really looking forward to this whole story, but more where it ends. |
| "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 | |
![]() |
|
| The Local Butcher | 28 Jun 2015, 15:40 Post #6 |
![]()
|
Never mind Courtney what about Louise? You'd think Phil's daughter would be a big deal but it's been so long since she's been mentioned let alone seen that you'd be forgiven for forgetting Phil even has a daughter. |
| Warning: Posts made by The Local Butcher may contain sarcasm, frustrated expressions of fatigue in the face of Eastenders' neverending insanity, desperate and ill-conceived attempts to be funny, controversial opinions and nuts. Not necessarily in that order. | |
![]() |
|
| DirtyDen | 28 Jun 2015, 16:04 Post #7 |
|
DirtyDen(ise)
|
My point exactly. No baby on the show can ever be called a legacy baby. It's a ridiculous notion given that nobody can predict if the character will stick around and grow up or indeed leave and come back to the square in many years time. Let alone if that said character will be liked and fit in. |
| |
![]() |
|
| NevermindMe | 28 Jun 2015, 16:10 Post #8 |
![]()
|
I sense a recast Peter returning with Lauren, then the Beale/Branning unit being built upon. Kathy and Gavin Ian, Jane, Cindy and Bobby Lauren, Peter and baby, extended to Max and Abi Then Gavin in with the Mitchell's and Sharon Stacey, Martin and baby It's linking the five biggest families in the shows history - Beale, Fowler, Mitchell, Slater and Branning |
| |
![]() |
|
| The Other Slater Cousin | 28 Jun 2015, 16:11 Post #9 |
|
"Legacy Baby" doesn't mean a child who is already a legend, it means that the child's heritage is important to the show. Like Courtney as a character already comes with a history and is part of two very important characters. Same for Vicki. Whilst the character herself wasn't successful in her return, she is still part of that legacy, as she comes from Icons of the show and two of the biggest and oldest families on the show. They are important because they bridge the gap between old and new, and keep that connection with the legends and history of the show. |
| "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 | |
![]() |
|
| Dan | 28 Jun 2015, 16:40 Post #10 |
![]() ![]()
|
A legacy baby is a character born to one of the original families on the show. Stacey's baby, if it is Martin's and not Kush's, will be a legacy baby and Lauren's baby will be Ian's first grandchild. Legacy children do not necessarily equate to iconic characters which are the characters' at the height of the show's success during its history. An iconic character is a character who would be recognised by people who do not even watch EastEnders. The show's current iconic characters are Ian, Dot, Phil and Sharon. Kat is also iconic, albeit she is not in the main show at the moment. Lucy Beale, for example, is not an iconic character, however, she is a legacy character and has an important place in the show's history as the only character to have been born, grown up and then died on the show. Edited by Dan, 28 Jun 2015, 16:42.
|
![]() Walford is about to change, lives are about to be destroyed, alliances will begin and the residents will never be the same again. Welcome to "Dungeon". New fan fic, coming soon... Thanks Nick M for the brilliant sig! | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel68 | 28 Jun 2015, 17:12 Post #11 |
|
This is another debate entirely, but I'd say that Lucy is definitely iconic. There won't be many people unaware of her after the success and game of Who Killed Lucy? |
![]() |
|
| See You Slater | 28 Jun 2015, 17:19 Post #12 |
![]()
|
Archie Mitchell isn't iconic and the ratings throughout that storyline were much higher than those for Who Killed Lucy? with the reveal being seen by 18.8 million people, but I doubt someone who doesn't watch the show would recognise him now, but they would almost definitely know the names of Dot, Phil, Ian, Ricky and Bianca, Kat, Den and Angie and to some extent Peggy and Sharon. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Daniel68 | 28 Jun 2015, 17:22 Post #13 |
|
I think Who Killed Lucy was bigger than Who Killed Archie because it lasted so long, and also the impact of social media. Anyways, that's a totally different debate! |
![]() |
|
| Shamelessness | 28 Jun 2015, 17:27 Post #14 |
![]()
|
While it's great that they're creating these legacy babies - and I'm including Matthew too as the grandson of Nick Cotton and Archie Mitchell - it's a shame that they've had to write out perhaps the most important legacy baby ever; Liam, son of Bianca and Rickaaay, who is 1/4 Beale, 1/4 Branning and 1/2 Butcher. |
| |
![]() |
|
| See You Slater | 28 Jun 2015, 17:29 Post #15 |
![]()
|
I think it was inevitable they'd write Liam out sooner or later. James Forde is a seriously weak actor so better to write him out now so then they can recast him in the future. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Shamelessness | 28 Jun 2015, 17:30 Post #16 |
![]()
|
Very few EE characters are iconic - Lucy is not one of them. We're talking characters you immediately think of when EE is mentioned... Dot, Pat, Peggy, Kat. Lucy had a big storyline but she was recast and never had a catchphrase ("ooh I say", "get outta my pub", "you ain't my muvva/yes I am") or a particular way of dressing (Pat's earrings, Kat's leopard print) which made her iconic. |
| |
![]() |
|
| The Local Butcher | 28 Jun 2015, 17:31 Post #17 |
![]()
|
Continuing the big family names is important but ultimately children can't replace their parents and their viability as long term characters very much depends on connections that can easily disappear over the years. Martin and Stacey having a child together could be massively important in the long run but that child could also become a completely irrelevant depending on how long James Bye and Lacey Turner decide to stick around and whether they'll ever return after leaving. The likes of Martin, Peter and Ben aren't just important because their parents were major characters at the time but because those parents stuck around long enough for us to see them children grow up and become viable characters in their own right. Similarly Sharon being pregnant with Dennis' baby or Ricky and Bianca having a child wouldn't have mattered one bit if those characters had never returned. |
| Warning: Posts made by The Local Butcher may contain sarcasm, frustrated expressions of fatigue in the face of Eastenders' neverending insanity, desperate and ill-conceived attempts to be funny, controversial opinions and nuts. Not necessarily in that order. | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel68 | 28 Jun 2015, 17:43 Post #18 |
|
Fair enough. |
![]() |
|
| Dan | 28 Jun 2015, 19:02 Post #19 |
![]() ![]()
|
I could take Liam if he came back played by a better actor. This is pretty likely to happen, I'd say. |
![]() Walford is about to change, lives are about to be destroyed, alliances will begin and the residents will never be the same again. Welcome to "Dungeon". New fan fic, coming soon... Thanks Nick M for the brilliant sig! | |
![]() |
|
| The Other Slater Cousin | 28 Jun 2015, 19:23 Post #20 |
|
Liam is such an important character. That's why I'm so glad he has been written out. James Forde was horribly out of his depth and luckily, had no distinct characterisation. He's a blank slate that a new actor can inject something new and interesting into down the line. Whilst I'm obsessed with Martin and Stacey right now, we all know Liam and Courtney have Powercouple written all over them. I wait patiently. Edited by The Other Slater Cousin, 28 Jun 2015, 19:24.
|
| "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 | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · EastEnders Current & Future · Next Topic » |















7:48 PM Jul 11