Children

onyx(John)

onyx(John)

Administrator
Staff member
Having watched Some vans can make you deaf and the discovery that Compo had a son,I was thinking about the amount of couples without children in the series.Glenda and Barry,Howard and Pearl,Clegg and Edith,Sid and Ivy and I think Nora and Wally?. Also couples where having children was never mentioned like Truly and the former Mrs Trulove, Smiler and Mrs Hemingway, Billy and Mrs Hardcastle, Entwistle etc. Given the longevity of the series its a wonder there weren't more story lines where sons or daughters of all these regulars,long lost or otherwise might have appeared over the years.
 
No, it just seems that all the couples were childless. I read once that Alan only liked to write stories about the adults. But it would have been impossible that not one couple had a child.
 
Compo said:
No, it just seems that all the couples were childless. I read once that Alan only liked to write stories about the adults. But it would have been impossible that not one couple had a child.
Click to expand...

Quick check - "Alan" - do you mean Roy?
 
I think that because Roy Clarke was invited to write about old men originally he may have thought that too many children would complicate things. If you remember the first few series had far less characters. It wasn't until Uncle of the Bride that we had any regular young people.
 
I find it suprising too that nobody had any children, I mean, it wouldn´t have been necessary to actually write them into the show, they would all have been young adults anyway who could have led their own lives. It would have been possible just to mention them without actually showing them.
 
Personally, I think children would have had a negative effect on the show. Bob Newhart did two tv series without children on purpose. The last one he did had an adult daughter and it flopped.

No children and ferrets as the only pets made it what it was - wonderful.

Nancy
 
I also found it strange that no children existed in the show. But let's put it this way it worked. The children would have been in the way. If that was the case the show would have had to work around them. This way they concentrated more on the adults. Also adult children were part of the show. Compo and the others all had a bit of a child in them. But in a real world it have been impossible that none of them had children. I think that Stella had a daughter.
 
But Compo had a son, and Blamire and Foggy were not married and not the sort who would have done anything untoward. Seymour was married but not long enough! Wesley and Edie had a daughter.

Where do we read/hear that the Sibshaws never had childen?

Thinking of the street where I live, when we first moved here there are quite a few people who did not have children. There were also a lot of only sons who never left home. So while unlikely, not totally improbable that there are so few children.
 
They did have the episode where Compo's nephew and his family take them to the mansion. Then Compo gets stuck baby sitting the children and dog.

I think that children would have complicated the show.
 
I think its in the anniversary specials, but Roy Clarke says that he had a hard time coming up with how to make a show centered around older men until he realized that the key was to make them "unattached" in terms of family. Once he did that it removed a lot of restrictions on what he could do with the characters, and I'm sure that philosophy was a key to the shows long success.

Plus, as noted by others there were children that appeared on occasion. But as the backlash over Tom having a teenager in his "family" showed, most viewers didn't want another show about family relationships. That was one of the things that made LOTSW unique.
 
Most top writers don't and can't write for children. They are just not funny enough, IMO.

Half way through Till Death Us Do Part, Alf had a grandson, but you never saw him again.

Del's son in Only Fools wasn't funny at all, and so was only given a few token appearances.

In Open All Hours there were a few short scenes with children, but anything longer would have been annoying, I reckon.
 
cciaffone said:
Sarkus said:
But as the backlash over Tom having a teenager in his "family" showed, most viewers didn't want another show about family relationships.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Don't remember Tom having a son at all. What episode??
Click to expand...

"you've got two great grandchildren somewhere. But I've mislaid them. They went off in search of Truth and wisdom with bits of metal through their nose" The letter from Tom to Compo just after Compo died........
 
Sarkus said:
But as the backlash over Tom having a teenager in his "family" showed, most viewers didn't want another show about family relationships.
Click to expand...

My interpretation is the teenager referred to here in Tom's "family" is Mrs Avery's Babs.
 
Big Unc said:
Sarkus said:
But as the backlash over Tom having a teenager in his "family" showed, most viewers didn't want another show about family relationships.
Click to expand...

My interpretation is the teenager referred to here in Tom's "family" is Mrs Avery's Babs.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was thinking of Babs. My understanding is that fans of the show didn't like her. That could have just been the character, or maybe the "modern" nature of how she looked, but I also think her presence introduced the whole idea of a family dynamic between Tom, Mrs. Avery, and Babs, that wasn't present on the show prior to that.
 
Sarkus said:
I think its in the anniversary specials, but Roy Clarke says that he had a hard time coming up with how to make a show centered around older men until he realized that the key was to make them "unattached" in terms of family. Once he did that it removed a lot of restrictions on what he could do with the characters, and I'm sure that philosophy was a key to the shows long success.

Plus, as noted by others there were children that appeared on occasion. But as the backlash over Tom having a teenager in his "family" showed, most viewers didn't want another show about family relationships. That was one of the things that made LOTSW unique.
Click to expand...

I do sometimes wonder why crusher Milburn was introduced as the nephew of Ivy when he could easily have played the returning son of Sid and Ivy after the death of John Comer. Given his build he could easily have passed for their son. Your reply perhaps explains it.
 
Philosopher Clegg said:
Sarkus said:
I think its in the anniversary specials, but Roy Clarke says that he had a hard time coming up with how to make a show centered around older men until he realized that the key was to make them "unattached" in terms of family. Once he did that it removed a lot of restrictions on what he could do with the characters, and I'm sure that philosophy was a key to the shows long success.

Plus, as noted by others there were children that appeared on occasion. But as the backlash over Tom having a teenager in his "family" showed, most viewers didn't want another show about family relationships. That was one of the things that made LOTSW unique.
Click to expand...

I do sometimes wonder why crusher Milburn was introduced as the nephew of Ivy when he could easily have played the returning son of Sid and Ivy after the death of John Comer. Given his build he could easily have passed for their son. Your reply perhaps explains it.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "the returning son"? There is at least one episode (Pate and Chips) that makes clear they never had any children. So making Crusher their son would not have fit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top