Geillis

I started to wonder if her pregnancy was to indicate timeline. At one point she said she had 6 weeks to go. By having her very pregnant and still working and not going on maternity leave' it gave the impression that all the events were within a very tight time period. Sometimes on a TV show or movie it is difficult to know exactly how much time has elapsed.

Went along for the ride on all the episodes, but the one thing that still bugs me is: How is it that these people are able to abduct and kill the Nazis who are now American citizens without arousing suspicion of the police, and why have none of them even been questioned in connection to these abductions and killings? What did I miss?

Finished the season. Wow. Not wanting to spoil this for anyone who has not seen it, but I must say that I loved the way the character stories that seem unconnected get woven together as the episodes continue.

Good show. Just discovered it tonight and watched two episodes. I wanted to slap Kayla and I have a feeling her grandmother is going to do that for me eventually. She needs some therapy before she ends up making worse decisions for her life. I also kept thinking the best recourse for Nick is to consult an attorney so that when his predicament is revealed, the attorney will have had time to research precedent to help him.

I did not see that particular op ed, but the question remains as to what exactly was said in that conversation and how it was said. He may have been and continued to be a complete a$$ to her and created a hostile work environment for her. As I said the truth is somewhere in the middle of the two stories and probably closer to hers, but she was still able to leave that work environment with her financial security intact and undisrupted unlike other women who are fired or have to leave a job for the same issues. Her 9 million dollar payout and all the publicity around it takes attention away from the plight of other women who do not get to walk away from a hostile work environment with a golden parachute, and diminishes the public awareness and compassion for working women who do not have the same choices.

Ok, I may catch some flack for this but I have to air a couple thoughts. While the official story sounds like she was being oversensitive to some lewd jokes, and her side sounds like he was being a total jerk and ass to her, the truth is probably somewhere between. I wasn't there and haven't seen any tapes. Different people have different tolerances and appreciations for different types of humor influenced by life experiences, situations and family taught values. What some find funny and acceptable, others find unacceptable and offensive, but without honest conversations, behavior doesn't alter and misunderstandings and hurt feelings continue. I would like to know how did she approach him with her discomfort to his behavior, and his response. Did she have an honest attempt to discuss her feelings with him in private, or was it an aggressive confrontation? I am not victim blaming, but am just pointing out that when you feel offended by someone's behavior or comments, if you are confrontational about it, the other person becomes defensive and feels a need to save face, so a private conversation usually gets better results and no hard feelings. So we don't really know exactly what has transpired, but an honest private conversation may have made a complaint to HR unnecessary. Having said that, she may have been written out regardless of any onset disagreements. I liked her as Faith in Buffy and Angel and I liked her in Dollhouse, but I found this character annoying so I am not bothered by having this character not in future episodes. What I find most annoying about this whole affair is that the publicity around it does not help awareness or sympathy for women who are truly in similar situations. Even if she was fired the way she claims and for the reasons she claims, she was not hurt financially. She got a 9 million dollar settlement. Invested wisely, she and her husband need never work again if they chose and could live very well. Other women facing the same situation, getting fired for complaining about hostile work environments, or reporting hostile work environments are either laid off, fired, or given the option to quit and then must make do with unemployment insurance or their savings until they can find other employment. If they chose a legal action, it is costly and could take them years to get any compensation. These are the stories that should be getting more media attention, the stories of real women getting hurt, who lose their jobs, and can't pay their bills, or who have no choice but to stay in those jobs for financial reasons, not someone who, while she may actually had an unpleasant, uncomfortable experience came out of it with a 9 million dollar payout. Her story diminishes theirs.

I didn't see it as homophobic per se but more of resentment of his having time with Jamie that she didn't have. I did find her remarkably progressive considering the attitudes of the 1960's. She most likely would have shown much of the same resentment if Lord John had been Lady Johanna.

I believe the statement she was a fan favorite and not doubting you, because I read it too recently. I am just saying that I personally do not remember that from the original airings. My comments were merely observations on the character and musing on alternative directions for the character

I see the logic in that for the show, but pointing out the long term lack of logic for someone in her position. i don’t remember her as a fan favorite but then as a teenager girl I was much more enamored with the male leads

Angelique is like Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. Neither of them could see the logic in moving on when the relationship is over. Angelique, instead of scheming to keep Barnabas and demeaning herself would have served herself better by getting some financial compensation and moving on to set herself up in a nice life.

Yes, she was able to convey so much in just a change in facial expression.

He was supposed to be in his early 30's at the time of his "death." He and Jeremiah were supposed to be of the same age and Jeremiah's tombstone put his age at early 30's. In those days before prenatal care, antibiotics, vaccinations, and no effective birth control, it was not impossible to have a 20 year span between your first and last child. While no other children are mentioned, there could have been multiple miscarriages, stillbirths and early childhood losses between Barnabas and Sarah. In 1795 a woman would have been seen to be of marriageable age at 18-20ish and if she reached 25 she was starting to be considered an old maid. It was different with the sons of the wealthy. They frequently did not consider marriage until they were established in the family business or had a business or property of their own which would put them in the late 20's early 30's age range, so not at all uncommon for the age gap between suitor and young women. Angelique was her own worst enemy. People rarely married outside of their social status, especially the upper classes. Angelique should have known that and having been a servant, she would have seen that the sons of the employer frequently had affairs with the maids with no lasting relationships developed unless they were to become long term kept mistresses, but not wife. While I am not saying this is right, it was a common thing in that society. Now, the more intelligent thing for Angelique to do would have been to allow Barnabas to marry Josette and hope that he would either tire of her, or Josette would die in childbirth, and then perhaps he would turn to her, but she lacked any patience, and "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." Had she played her cards right she could possibly have had it all or close to it in the form of a very well kept mistress. All her machinations managed to keep the memory and love of Josette fresh in the feelings of Barnabas. If she had been smart, she would have either been patient or moved on and found a better life with someone else, but if she had done that we would not have a story

Rewatching after all these years on Amazon. Or maybe you could say watching for the first time again, since I do not remember many of the story lines since I could only watch during summer and school vacations since I rarely got home from school in time to see it. My teenaged self didn't think much of Julia, but my older self sees Julia as a sad character. She loves Barnabas and would do anything for him, and while he eventually regards her as a trusted colleague and friend, his feelings do not mirror hers. So she settles. How sad. Having said that, Barnabas is supposed to be in his early to mid 30's based on the 1795 story line. He and Jeremiah were supposed to be of a similar age and Jeremiah's gravestone, puts his age at early 30's. Julia, to have risen to the post of head administrator of Windcliff, would need to be at least in her early to mid 40's. While both actors were probably in the same age range, the story line would have put her older than Barnabas. While in the 1960's an older man and younger woman was a common trope in movies and novels, and older woman and a younger man would have not have been accepted by the viewers.

As far as faulting Barnabas for "discarding Angelique when the rich girl became available..." First to consider: We know Angelique was a witch, so she may have taken a fancy to him and seduced him, but not well enough at that time to secure his love. Second: Even if he had a natural attraction to her and acted on it, how many people go on to marry the first person with whom they have a romantic encounter? Third: As a man of his time and class, he would not even have considered marrying outside his social status, and if I am not mistaken, many marriages were still arranged or at least entered with business and property connections in mind. So even if he had feelings for her, they would not have been the sort that would have led to a marriage proposal. As far as the age difference between Barnabas and his fiancée, that too was not uncommon in the upper classes. The sons of the upper classes frequently did not marry until they had established themselves in the family business or their own business. Many times they had spent years abroad. The age difference between Barnabas and Sarah, is also explainable. According to the dialogue, he and Jeremiah were supposed to be of a similar age, and the epitaph on the tombstone indicated that Jeremiah was in his early 30's. While Jonathon Frid was 42-43 when he accepted the role of Barnabas Collins, he was playing younger. In the days of people having many children, it was quite possible to have an uncle the same age as yourself. My mother was the youngest of 14 and had a nephew who was a few months older than she was. Joshua and Naomi never discuss other children and there are none mentioned in the story, but in the days before birth control, prenatal care, vaccinations and antibiotics, it is quite possible that there were multiple miscarriages, stillbirths and children lost to disease between Barnabas and Sarah, so a 20 year age difference is not impossible.

the King over the Water refers to the Stuart line. The Stuarts had taken refuge on the European continent, in France and later in Italy, and thus over the water. Prince Charles, IIRC died in Italy years after his escape from Culloden. I read somewhere that glasses of water were banned from State dinners when the toast to the monarch cold be secretly be construed as a toast to the Stuart line, by passing your wine or champagne glass over the water glass as the toast was given.