+- Grimm Forum (https://grimmforum.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Grimm Universe (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-Grimm-Universe)
+--- Forum: Grimm Discussions (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-Grimm-Discussions)
+--- Thread: "Good Intentions" in Grimm (/Thread-Good-Intentions-in-Grimm)
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - FaceInTheCrowd - 12-19-2018
Whose "agreement" are you looking for? Adalind agreed to hand over her baby in exchange for getting her powers back. She got her powers back, but didn't hand over her baby. There were no consequences. Unless you want to argue that the royals voided the agreement by trying to take her and the baby, or that Kelly taking the baby and ultimately getting killed by the royals for her were the contract magically fulfilling itself.
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - irukandji - 12-19-2018
The only thing I'm arguing is that Sean had no right to allow Kelly to take Diana. He was not the custodial parent.
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - N_grimm - 12-19-2018
(12-18-2018, 10:57 PM)irukandji Wrote: The entire operation was undermined the minute the plane was ordered to Portland. Kelly further screwed it up by appearing on Nick's doorstep. She really messed up by bringing Nick and company into her nefarious scheme of kidnapping Diana. All Kelly had to do was report that there was trouble in South America and wait for a contingency plan. If she had, the plane would have never landed in Portland.
The thing you also seem to forget is that Kelly was absolutely stone cold unfeeling by leaving Adalind behind. I'm not talking about the cruelty in forcing a mother from her child. I'm talking about leaving Adalind vulnerable. There was nothing stating that Adalind's life was oh so perfectly safe simply because she was parted from Diana.
If Kelly was working for the resistance and she was going to make sure that either the royals or the resistance could use Diana as a weapon, she had to change plans. How is transporting Adalind and the child to a location potentially picked out by the resistance consistent with hiding the child from them? How could Kelly know that Adalind would not go back to the royals in the future, if that was in her interest? And I repeat: the plan worked fine until Juliette turned on Kelly and Nick. You must remember that Adalind was still considered a villain at the time. Both sides did a lot of terrible things to each other and there was a lack of trust.
If you read my entire post, you will see that I think taking Diana away from her mother was horrible. Although the plan worked, it was still morally doubtful.
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - irukandji - 12-19-2018
(12-19-2018, 08:39 AM)N_grimm Wrote: If Kelly was working for the resistance and she was going to make sure that either the royals or the resistance could use Diana as a weapon, she had to change plans. How is transporting Adalind and the child to a location potentially picked out by the resistance consistent with hiding the child from them? How could Kelly know that Adalind would not go back to the royals in the future, if that was in her interest? And I repeat: the plan worked fine until Juliette turned on Kelly and Nick. You must remember that Adalind was still considered a villain at the time. Both sides did a lot of terrible things to each other and there was a lack of trust.
If you read my entire post, you will see that I think taking Diana away from her mother was horrible. Although the plan worked, it was still morally doubtful.
Take it one step further. If Kelly's so keen on how bad the resistance is, why is she one of them/working for them? Apparently the woman has no scruples.
Going even further, the only one out of all of this who stated the child could have a good or evil destiny is............tada....................Kelly. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't remember any covert groups getting together in smoke filled rooms, planning how they can use Diana to cause world war 3 and at the same time, come out the winner.
So you have a grimm with no scruples telling a small group of impressionable people that this child has a good/evil destiny, so they must hand over the child to *her* as *she* is the only one who can make sure Diana doesn't use her powers at all.
I read your post. Did you read mine? It was cruel to remove Diana from Adalind. But that wasn't all I was talking about. Adalind's life was in danger too. Kelly cut her loose and left her out in the open.
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - FaceInTheCrowd - 12-19-2018
(12-19-2018, 08:30 AM)irukandji Wrote: The only thing I'm arguing is that Sean had no right to allow Kelly to take Diana. He was not the custodial parent.
You keep raising the legal issue of custody. And legally, Diana didn't have a "custodial parent."
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - irukandji - 12-19-2018
(12-19-2018, 09:44 AM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote:(12-19-2018, 08:30 AM)irukandji Wrote: The only thing I'm arguing is that Sean had no right to allow Kelly to take Diana. He was not the custodial parent.
You keep raising the legal issue of custody. And legally, Diana didn't have a "custodial parent."
okay.
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - FaceInTheCrowd - 12-19-2018
BTW, I have no issue with the argument that Adalind was treated badly. Not that she had done anything up until then to deserve any better. It was just another example of one of her clever schemes blowing up in her face.
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - irukandji - 12-19-2018
(12-17-2018, 04:59 AM)brandon Wrote: Adalind was a good example of a mother?
Not at that moment and so the others saw it.
However, she started out, no one can deny that she was determined to be a good mother to Diana, and in fact, was the only real caretaker the baby had.
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - brandon - 12-19-2018
That's right but Nick did not have a good opinion of her before pregnancy.
Renard handed his daughter to Kelly.
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - FaceInTheCrowd - 12-19-2018
Having the baby definitely changed Adalind, but my guess is that nobody saw it or believed it at the time. Except maybe Rosalee.