Right - let's get some order here. Who has lied, who has cheated to whom and with whom? Who has been betrayed and who are the betrayers? Quite a task!
So, Eva accused Leanne of being a hypocrite. Looked at objectively, she is. Leanne lied to Eva as to the paternity of baby Oliver. Eva called Leanne out on this lie because Leanne made such a huge deal, rightly or wrongly, of Eva having known that Toyah and Peter were in a relationship, and for not passing that knowledge on to Leanne. Eva could be forgiven for not informing Leanne as she genuinely didn't want to cause unnecessary stress to Leanne during her pregnancy. Leanne saw it differently - in her mind, it was a lie of omission and a betrayal. Did Leanne suspect that Eva was trying to protect Toyah and Peter? Well, we know that's not so, but when a person feels betrayed, they are not always thinking straight.
It has never quite rung true for me that Leanne would potentially lose her mind on discovery of Toyah and Peter being together, but the storyline dictated that that would be the case, and so it was played out.
While Gail denounced the idea of Nick bringing up another man's child, she failed to remember just how fond she is of Max, who is not David's biological son, though he loves him all the same. She then claimed to have known all along that Leanne Battersby was no good.
Liz was in a very difficult position - beset by all manner of moral difficulties and a wholly unenviable division of loyalties. Whatever she did would have consequences - really serious and life changing consequences. Should Liz have told Michelle that her husband had made Leanne pregnant as well as Michelle, around about the same time? Steve didn't want her to do that, but should she have betrayed her son nevertheless? Was the argument that Steve and Michelle were on a break worth mentioning?
And so to Michelle who has lost everything. She clearly sees her mother in law as a betrayer, telling her in no uncertain terms that she doesn't want to hear from her. She knows that Liz knew. What has happened to Michelle is unbearable. To have lost her baby is bad enough, but coupled with her husband's betrayal, it is no wonder that she locked husband and mother in law out as she entertained the punters to free drinks in The Rovers and celebrated Rita's birthday. And smashed some bottles.
William Congreve, a British playwright, who wrote The Mourning Bride in 1697, said this - ' Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.' And so it is the case still.
By Ruth Owen, twitter: @Ruth1722
Like us on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter | Download our free App | Visit Corrie.net
NEW! Coronation Street Blog - the book.
A must for all Corrie fans!
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
13 comments:
Although they are friends, and family, its not Liz who should tell that to Michelle. For once she kept her mouth shut and left it to Steve to tell.
When Michelle smashed the bottles and window, and Liz covered her face in distress, I think it showed where Liz stands. She is heartbroken for Michelle and although Steve is her son, she was not going to jump in to fight his battle. Even if it meant her pub got smashed up in the process
I don't think Liz has any blame in this situation nor should she be made to feel any. Michelle and Liz have never been close enough that it would make any sense for Liz to reveal what Steve had done. In many ways this was none of her business.
That was doubly true since until Ruairi died it was obvious that Leanne and Nick were going to raise the baby. This baby only exists because Leanne wanted it: Steve sure never asked her to keep it. He never asked how the pregnancy was going either.
I feel sorry for Michelle to the extent that a miscarriage is a tragedy but her marriage to Steve was always teetering on the edge of divorce. Steve is, well, Steve and she's never been supportive, warm and fuzzy with anyone but Carla and even then it wasn't the friendship of the century.
Of course, expecting Michelle to be realistic or introspective about how her own behavior led to her marriage's breakdown is a bit much right now, but I hope she does get to do that at some point in the future.
That time when Steve and Michelle were on a break, they were on again and off again more times than a yoyo. I don't remember the ins and out of it now because it was pretty boring and nine months ago, but both Michelle and Steve were pretty childish, Steve making a much bigger fuss than was necessary over the Will thing, and Michelle storming off to somewhere claiming she would never return when she found messages from a dating app on Steve's phone (or something). It really looked like they would split for good when suddenly Michelle is back and they are back together, so really I don't understand why Steve couldn't just tell Michelle when he found out about Leanne; sure Michelle would've kicked up a ridiculous fuss but it would've been a wakeup call to Steve that his marriage was just too rocky to salvage, and perhaps if they'd split then, it would've been for the better. Much less hurt all round.
I'm trying to engage with this storyline but it's hard. Why would Leanne and Steve get together in the first place? Why would Leanne tell Steve so early on the pregnancy? Why does Steve think he has any parental rights as his name isn't on the birth certificate? Why did Ben Price announce his departure months before the event, thereby 'confirming' that Nick and Leanne separate?
Steve should have said the truth 9 months ago but he's always been a coward and Michelle isn't easy to talk to. Hindsight is always perfect vision but it would only have been worth the risk of being honest back then if he knew Leanne was pregnant. I don't know why Steve wanted to remain married to Michelle or why he married her in the first place but lying about the one night stand really made sense unless he wanted a divorce.
I think Steve can request a paternity test precisely because Leanne didn't put anyone's name down as father. If Nick's name was on the certificate and especially if they were married, it would be almost impossible for Steve to even try to claim the baby no matter what he wanted. That's why the show had the truth come out before Nick could register the birth. I'm sure that's also why they had the baby be born outside of the hospital as this issue would have been settled right away there. Steve's outburst at the party wouldn't mean much of anything for the baby if his papers were already in order.
I could be wrong, but I don't actually think they ever got Oliver registered. I'm sure I read something about Steve making a desperate dash to the Registry, so maybe that's to come.
As a Canadian, it amazes me that a woman can name any man as father on the birth certificate; in doing so, she can strip the natural father from all rights? It's crazy. It just isn't logical.
So if Leanne puts Nicks name on the birth certificate as the legitimate father, Steve would never have any rights whatsoever? Can't this be challenged in the courts? In this day and age, there has to be more to this procedure/law than meets the eye surely.
I'm a fellow Canadian and it doesn't surprise me at all. Until until recently, in Canada, a natural father had no rights unless he was put in the birth certificate and when there's no marriage the responsibility to fill out paperwork usually falls to the mother since she's the one in the hospital with her newborn.
Even now, if the mother is married or in a common law relationship with another man, her husband is considered the father.Since it's up to the legal parents to agree to a paternity test on a minor, they can easily stop a biological father from getting DNA proof that he's more than a stranger.
Since our laws are usually based on those in GB things there must not be very different.
To a certain extent I think it's fair. For example, why should Steve, who was quite willing to let Leanne have and raise Oliver on her own-with or without Nick- suddenly have an equal say in everything about that baby's life as if he'd always cared?
Knowing how much Gail loves Max...I think the difference here is that everyone knows that David is not his biological father...and with a dad like Callum....Max is surely better off with David.
The thing with Gail I think is that Nick led her to believe that it was his son...and the lying is what makes it more ridiculous in her eyes. Here is Steve over the road - quite capable of being a dad (as we see with Amy) - and yet Nick would be the one raising the child and shouldering the responsibility that goes with that. Again.....in these situations if all the characters were clear thinking in the face of upset...then it would be fakery for sure. lol
Hi Canadians! I'm in the UK and when registering a birth, the mother has to have the father with her when registering the birth if they are not married. So presumably if Nick went with Leanne and they both said they were the parents then that's what would be registered. I've no idea how it would work legally if Steve then proved paternity! But Steve would not be able to register the birth himself.
Hi Louby. I recall that Dev registered the twins on his own. He did not even have the babies with him. Remember Sunita dragged herself, the twins, the stroller onto a bus and got to the Registrar's office to find out Dev had already registered the babies!
I'd forgotten about that! Maybe it's different for a father to register the birth if they're married, but then the script writers never did let reality get in the way of a good story!
Post a Comment