|
Post by greer on Jun 16, 2006 14:16:41 GMT -5
I think she lived farther away? I dunno, Nannie moving in seemed to be convenient: Elizabeth didn't quit her job and thus didn't seem like a goldigger, they didn't get an actual nanny so they seemed more modest--an actual nanny also would have usurped Kristy and the BSC's role, because Nannie has los of activities and things and nanny nannies only have certain nights off.
|
|
lisa
New To Stoneybrook
Posts: 201
|
Post by lisa on Jun 18, 2006 4:43:48 GMT -5
Why didn't Kristy get bent out of shape when Nannie moved in to start with to look after Emily...Jessi seemed pretty cut that she wasn't teh sole carer for Squirt. I think the only time I liekd Nannie was in "Kristy's Big Day" when she helped with the wedding and stuff like that...she rocked back then.
|
|
macca
Sitting For The Newtons
Posts: 2,084
|
Post by macca on Jun 18, 2006 5:57:16 GMT -5
^ ha, maybe Kristy realised that she wasn't in a position to provide full time childcare to a toddler. You know, the maturity difference between 11 and 13... heh.
Nah, I think it was just that Kristy thought Nannie was awesome, whereas Jessi hated Cecelia.
|
|
wanderingfrog
Sitting For The Arnolds
Official BSC Archivist
Posts: 2,552
|
Post by wanderingfrog on Jun 18, 2006 13:36:34 GMT -5
Watson also didn't have pool or tennis courts; despite lavish vacations and a fancy house, he seemed to steer clear of anything terribly ostentatious. I first learned that word from the book where somebody is talking about the Delaneys and their fish fountain. ;D
|
|
|
Post by lovelylemontree on Jun 18, 2006 17:18:02 GMT -5
In Kristy and the Snobs, Kristy mentions that Watson's considering putting in a pool now that Karen and Andrew are older. Is the pool ever mentioned again?
I think Elizabeth should have at least gone to part-time. She could have still had her career, but would also have time to spend with her children. She was basically missing David Michael's childhood and later, Emily Michelle's.
|
|
macca
Sitting For The Newtons
Posts: 2,084
|
Post by macca on Jun 18, 2006 19:18:39 GMT -5
Not that I know of.
ITA
Personally I don't think that taking time off from work to look after her children makes her a gold digger. Circumstances forced her to work full time during her older three kids' childhood (and in Kristy's Great Idea apparently she felt - irrationally - guilty), you'd think she'd want to take advantage of the opportunity to be more actively involved in raising her younger kids.
If she stopped work the instant she married Watson, then I could see the gold digger argument.
|
|
|
Post by greer on Jun 18, 2006 23:12:30 GMT -5
ITA that she wouldn't be a goldigger; I just can see Ann thinking that way, although the copious amount of stay-at-home mom kind of debunks this.
I think Elizabeth is a special case, however. I feel that to Ann, Elizabeth is like, her super-feminist Mom dream woman. She took care of four kids when her husband left her!!!!!!1111 Kristy is always mentioning how much she admires her mom. While I PERSONALLY see nothing wrong with staying home with children, which both my mother and stepmother do, and I hope to marry a stay at home dad one day (I don't think I could stay home with kids myself without going a little batty), I think that Elizabeth needed to not be one in order to still fulfill her role in the pantheon of Stoneybrook moms.
|
|
Amalia
Sitting For The Braddocks
Her Original Point of View
Posts: 3,664
|
Post by Amalia on Jun 19, 2006 0:11:28 GMT -5
So what's Elizabeth's reason for still working after she married Watson? That she would be seen as a gold-digger? I don't think she should care if people think that she is a gold-digger. She should just do what she wants to do.
|
|
macca
Sitting For The Newtons
Posts: 2,084
|
Post by macca on Jun 19, 2006 0:33:39 GMT -5
Which hardly makes her a super-feminist - the fact that she returned to work after circumstances (her husband walking out) forced her into it. In Kristy's Portrait it makes it sound like Elizabeth was a SAHM until Patrick walked out.
Hmmm, maybe THAT'S why she was reluctant to give up work. She didn't want to be solely reliant on a man for financial support.
|
|
Amalia
Sitting For The Braddocks
Her Original Point of View
Posts: 3,664
|
Post by Amalia on Jun 19, 2006 1:20:49 GMT -5
^ Maybe she didn't like the way she was treated when she was a stay-at-home-mom when she was with Patrick? And maybe she thinks that Watson will treat her closer to that way if she becomes a stay-at-home-mom? Or maybe she gets more power in the relationship if she is a working woman?
|
|
ktag
Junior Sitter
Posts: 694
|
Post by ktag on Jun 19, 2006 13:20:50 GMT -5
Well the marriage is still relatively new, in normal time. Maybe after things settled down, she would have been more comfortable not having to work. Even with all the combined family talk, I bet she still thinks of her kids as her kids that she should support, at least partially. I think it's a good point about her not wanting to rely solely on her husband for support, since she's been burned before.
Do you think they had a prenup? I don't think Watson and Lisa were married all that long, since they split up when Karen was around 4. When Watson's gone, do you think Karen and Andrew should get a bigger piece of the pie?
|
|
macca
Sitting For The Newtons
Posts: 2,084
|
Post by macca on Jun 19, 2006 18:09:30 GMT -5
Yeah, I keep forgetting that BSC time is warped. But then, they were "together" enough to adopt a child and have Watson's mother-in-law move in. Although many have pointed out that the adoption itself - how it was carried out - was completely unrealistic. Honestly, it would've made much more sense if Elizabeth had simply become pregnant and had a biological child with Watson, but then I guess they couldn't have the ultra-PCness of adopting a two yr old Vietnamese girl and Elizabeth wouldn't have been able to race back to work immediately.
Watson and Lisa probably did, considering Lisa has been stuck in the "little house". But I'm not sure about Watson and Elizabeth.
|
|
|
Post by greer on Jun 21, 2006 2:20:51 GMT -5
Also you have to consider divorce laws; they depend on how long someone was married. i really highly doubt that lisa would have been entitled to a large percentage of watson's wealth.
|
|
macca
Sitting For The Newtons
Posts: 2,084
|
Post by macca on Jun 22, 2006 4:55:31 GMT -5
^ I dunno, a few yrs ago when my aunt was going through one of her many divorces ( ) I remember her saying that when a couple is married for over nine months (which Watson and Lisa would've been!), standard procedure (without pre-nup) is that the assets are divided 50/50 in a divorce. It may be different in the US and of course, laws here may have changed. There may be a loophole stating that only assets acquired during the marriage are taken into account, so Watson's mansion would obviously be exempt. But anyway, I guess that's why getting married is not something people do - or SHOULD do - lightly!
|
|
lilafowler
Sitting For The Johanssens
Posts: 1,163
|
Post by lilafowler on Jun 22, 2006 9:58:55 GMT -5
Completely OT, but macca! You're getting really close to 1000 posts!
|
|