Inside Soap magazine this week tease an upcoming storyline in Corrie. They posit (I love that word even if I don't know how to use it correctly) that either Nick or Robert will be the baby's dad. By 'eck, that means Leanne's going to sleep with one or both of them during the course of the next few weeks.
Anyway, Inside Soap say that Leanne will be horrified when she finds out she's with child. Back in 2011 Leanne suffered a miscarriage and was told that she might be unable to bear a child again. Also in her history, Leanne had an abortion when married to Nick and he forced her to get rid of their baby, saying he wasn't ready. I've never forgiven him for that.
Warning - major spoiler! If you'd like to know who'll be the daddy of Leanne's baby - you can click here to find out.
NEW!The Little Book of Carla Connor
A Decade in the Life of a Soap Queen
An unofficial Coronation Street companion book
Like us on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter
Download our free App | Visit Corrie.net
Please read our advice for leaving comments on the Coronation Street Blog
All original work on the Coronation Street Blog is covered by a Creative Commons License
15 comments:
How stunningly original...bleh. :(
Why can't anything be kept as a surprise? We know all the stories before we get to watch them.
Yes this is shocking. Shocking that the writers rehash so often and so soon.
Judging by that picture Leanne will also discover she's an Egyptian princess.
I was just wondering when the whole 'who's the baby daddy' plot was going to pop up. Too bad it's Leanne though..she's a bit long in the tooth for this sort of nonsense.
This is a disappointing story to give an actress such as Jane Danson. They can give her better than this.
So if the speculation is between Nick, Robert, yet turns out to be Steve (yes I read the spoiler) then perhaps she slept with all 3 of them??
Sounds too crazy, but then again, this is soap!
I see that my comments disappear and I don't understand why.
Yet another woman on the street who can not manage birth control in 2016. It's a pretty pathetic portrayal of women, in my opinion. The unplanned pregnancies are an epidemic. I mean Sarah with THREE? Really? I find it insulting and sad that the writers think so little of women that they continue to show them as idiots when it comes to managing their own bodies.
Have to agree with Zagg that the surprise pregnancy storyline belongs in a time capsule from the 1950's. I can see the need for stories that bring offspring into the cast line-up, but there are so many other ways to do that!
It is inconceivable (pun intended) that a former prostitute would not use condoms. She of all people should know the risk of STIs.
Abercrombie: my lengthy comment from earlier this evening has now disappeared, as did one a couple of days ago. Like you, I can't think why, I said similar things to everyone else, didn't use offensive language or make personal remarks about actors, so no reason for censorship!
I despair at the rehashing of the same old storylines. About time Corrie got some new writers with fresh ideas.
Abercrombie, Coco, a few posts that mentioned the name of Leanne's baby daddy were yanked. Personally, I'd like to thank Flaming Nora or whoever did it because his name was not mentioned directly in the blog post so we folk who don't like spoilers could enjoy at least one surprise.
Thanks for the info abbyk, but I definitely didn't name the babydaddy as I hate spoilers too. I can't be bothered to retype my post now. At least I got it off my chest, even if few folk saw it!
Abbyk, thanks for your explanation. However the point I made was valid as on 3 June Tvor wrote Spoiler Alert...Leanne getting pregnant, etc. A few lines underneath the father's name was mentioned. I did not realise that Spoiler Alert meant that some people might refrain from reading. It just seems daft to me to read later that two other names are in the pot, when all the information is out there anyway. Even in one of our blogs.
Nonetheless,I am sorry if anyone was upset by the naming which had already been named. I am confused. I kind of get it, but not altogether. Why put the information out at all?
Post a Comment