04-03-2019, 06:10 PM
(04-02-2019, 08:59 PM)irukandji Wrote:The "Mary's" gave up their kids not out of love or concern for the children, but because of the shame it would bring to her and her family. As single motherhood has became more acceptable, the number of chlldren needing to be adopted has gone down. I can also state from personal family history, lots of people got married to avoid having an little bastard in the family. If the parents got a divorce later, the child wasn't blamed.(04-02-2019, 02:56 PM)eric Wrote:(04-02-2019, 04:27 AM)irukandji Wrote:Okay, I don't know who we are comparing her to , but she was willing to do whatever it took to prevent BC /Conrad's cursed ring from hurting her children. When they were no longer in danger, she left to live with Nick. Since she apparently had been rehired at the law firm, and could have lived anywhere with or without anyone, but choose to live with someone who loved her and her kids, I would say Yes, she is a good example of motherhood.(03-31-2019, 12:23 PM)eric Wrote: The discussion about sexual activity has changed. Many first born babies in the past were 2-3 months premature and weighted 6.5 to 7.0 lbs No one really cared as long as there was a marriage. For those mothers who did not marry, there were places they could go and leave the children to be adopted. As a child way way way back wen I heard more than once that little Mary was taking a trip for 3-4 months. The most recent real life Royal had a bump almost as soon as she got married. You may or may not approve of the current situation, but that's just how it is.
Well, let's take the character of the hour here, Adalind, and baby Kelly. Is Adalind really a much better example of motherhood?
I was comparing Adalind to your example of Mary who took a trip for 3-4 months, presumably to have her baby and then put it up for adoption. In the case of Mary, the baby went to parents who could not only afford the baby, but had the means to care for it as well.
I don't entirely agree with your statement that no one cared about the baby as long as the parents got married. In some cases that would be true, but not always. In some cases it's just as true today, but the opposite is also true for those who have to marry because of a pregnancy.
As for Adalind, I don't hold her as a high standard of a mother simply because she "loved her children". And for that, I blame the creative team. Adalind could have been a self sufficient woman, who intended on keeping her children with her and raising them with her legacy. Instead the creative team had her mooching off of Nick and relegated to the domestic mouse. All this simply to move the BC story forward and to show that even hexenbiests want to be grimms. It was a total waste of an interesting character and one who could have been a great adversary for Nick.