|
Post by booklover85 on Dec 24, 2018 23:28:17 GMT -5
The most notable Stoneybrook secret I know of is that Patrick is not David Michael's father, Richard Spier is.
I wouldn't be surpirised if there's more salacious secrets lurking in the perfectly manicured lawns of Stoneybrook.
|
|
|
Post by fairy3lf2 on Dec 29, 2018 18:53:00 GMT -5
This isnโt as scandalous as other suggestions in this thread but do you think Watson could have funded and been in control of the play in Starring the BSC? Maybe he only agreed to fund it if his kids and their friends got most of the parts even though theyโd never shown interest or skill in performing arts before. Maybe it was even his idea and was put on simply for something for them to do and be in the spotlight.
Iโll admit that I havenโt read the book in awhile but I think it would make a lot of sense.
|
|
cnj
Sitting For The Papadakis's
Posts: 1,708
|
Post by cnj on Jan 2, 2019 16:51:32 GMT -5
I think she only became strong when Patrick left her. Also, the "noose" motions he did--either where he secretly visited Kristy, or when they all went to CA for the wedding, I forget--indicates that Elizabeth's controllingness was the cause for divorce, not a wandering eye. No, I think it was that Patrick treated Elizabeth very poorly and cheated on her. I suspect Jack cheated on Sharon also. Divorce is seldom one person's fault alone. Besides, the BSC is an epic, not a silly soap opera full of secret 'scandals.'
|
|
cnj
Sitting For The Papadakis's
Posts: 1,708
|
Post by cnj on Jan 2, 2019 16:58:04 GMT -5
And there's not a doubt in my mind that David Michael's daddy was not Patrick Thomas. Kristy's Big News (FF #1) clinched it for me. There was one scene, where the kids were all losing it with Patrick about him walking out on the family and Patrick said something like "You kids' don't understand! I didn't have a choice. Your mother..." (words to that effect) before all three Thomas kids jumped down his throat screeching at him not to Blame Mom. But what was Patrick going to say??? And why, WHY was he almost deliberately avoiding even acknowledging David Michael's existence? Hmmm. Because Patrick was going to blame Elizabeth, lie and badmouth her...that's what he was going to say. He avoided mentioning David Michael because David Michael was just a baby when Patrick left. He might have falsely accused Elizabeth of 'cheating' and having David Michael with another man when Patrick was cheating himself. Adulterous spouses often do this. I think he wanted to ignore David Michael's existence because he knew his accusations against Edie were false.
|
|
cnj
Sitting For The Papadakis's
Posts: 1,708
|
Post by cnj on Jan 2, 2019 17:06:14 GMT -5
I never thought Mallory was from an affair. She just looked like that ugly great aunt that everyone has in their family. Or maybe she was from pre-marital sex and was God's way of punishing her parents. I hope you're kidding here. God doesn't 'punish' people and besides, most people today understand that non-marital sex is NOT a 'sin.' I am sure there are lots of kids in Stoneybrook who come from non-marital births and it is NOT considered a 'scandal' or a 'dirty' secret. Stoneybrook is a progressive, large town, not a narrow-minded, right-wing place.
|
|
cnj
Sitting For The Papadakis's
Posts: 1,708
|
Post by cnj on Jan 2, 2019 17:14:14 GMT -5
The most notable Stoneybrook secret I know of is that Patrick is not David Michael's father, Richard Spier is. I wouldn't be surpirised if there's more salacious secrets lurking in the perfectly manicured lawns of Stoneybrook. Not all of Stoneybrook's lawns are perfectly manicured, LOL...that's more Sweet Valley's forte. With the family-friendliness of Stoneybrook, I'm sure half of lawns have toys and various kitchen wares scattered on them. ๐๐๐ This thread would be more for Sweet Valley...now that often soap-opera-ish series is fun fodder for scandal and 'dirty' secrets speculation. And Sweet Valley is much smaller and more narrow-minded than Stoneybrook. ๐
๐
๐
|
|
|
Post by booboobrewer on Jan 3, 2019 0:11:57 GMT -5
Yes, darling. She is.
We may discuss BSC ad nauseum here, but things meant in jest are treated as such.
|
|