1. Were we ever told how, when, or where Mike Brady first noticed the pretty widow Carol Tyler Martin?

2. Did Mike and Carol tell each other about the kids when they first met? If they didn't, does this fact raise a question as to whether they would have fallen in love had they known?

3. In the VERY BRADY SEQUEL, was the Roy Martin impostor really in love with Carol (very understandable--Shelley Long is almost as pretty as Florence Henderson) or was he a would-be thief?

1. I don't remember ever hearing them talk about how they met.

2. Knowing how proud Mike and Carol are of their kids, I would think that this is one of the first things they would've talked about.

3. The Roy Martin impostor was in love with himself. He was only interested in Carol because he wanted the horse statue.

If I've gotten any of these wrong, someone help me out.

1. Were we ever told how, when, or where Mike Brady first noticed the pretty widow Carol Tyler Martin?

It is only in the brady sequel that Carol is clarified as a widow. In the series it is left unresolved.

In one of the later specials (either A Very Brady Christmas or one of its offspring) Carol has a conversation with Peter in which she very strongly suggests that she was divorced.

It is only in the brady sequel that Carol is clarified as a widow. In the series it is left unresolved.

In one of the later specials (either A Very Brady Christmas or one of its offspring) Carol has a conversation with Peter in which she very strongly suggests that she was divorced.

What? I don't remember that scene? Must have been one of the other shows cause I don't remember that in A Very Brady CHristmas..

What? I don't remember that scene? Must have been one of the other shows cause I don't remember that in A Very Brady CHristmas..
I don't either. :confused:

Mike we know from the first episode, is a widower. Carol we assume is also widowed. If she were divorced, there would have been mention of her spouse and he would have had to see his girls. That would have been too convoluted for a sitcom geared towards family and kids. So it is obvious her husband died, plain and simple.

deffinately, they wouldnt have had 2 divorced people marrying on a family show back then, it was still a taboo

deffinately, they wouldnt have had 2 divorced people marrying on a family show back then, it was still a taboo
Exactly.

I don't either. :confused:

Mike we know from the first episode, is a widower. Carol we assume is also widowed. If she were divorced, there would have been mention of her spouse and he would have had to see his girls. That would have been too convoluted for a sitcom geared towards family and kids. So it is obvious her husband died, plain and simple.

Yeah.. Or maybe he divorced then died after it was finialized...

deffinately, they wouldnt have had 2 divorced people marrying on a family show back then, it was still a taboo


Nobody said anything about two divorced people. Shwartz's original plan was for Mike to be widowed and Carol to be divorced but the network wouldn't tolerate that and wanted him to clarify that she was widowed, but Schwartz refused and so they compromised and left it unresolved.

As Schwartz himself is quoted on page 147 of Bradymania(1995 edition):

It was never really said that Carol was widowed or divorced.

As I said in my first post, the conversation between carol and peter might have been in one of it's "offspring" and the more I think about the more it seems it was in the premiere of "The Bradys" aka "Brady 500" The odd thing about that scene is that it was sparked by Peter asking Carol how she and Mike first got together, yet he should have been old enough at the time to have at least a vague memory of it.

Florence henderson once stated in an interview that Marcia, Jan and Cindy were "children of divorce"

The fact that Carol's marital status was ambiguos, as also mentioned on page 15 of Bradymania has always been one of the great mysteries of Brady bunch, right up there with Tiger's fate and whether Oliver was the child of Carol's brother or sister.

In one of the later specials (either A Very Brady Christmas or one of its offspring) Carol has a conversation with Peter in which she very strongly suggests that she was divorced.

Peter asked if she had ever break off an engagement. She said yes. She was engaged to someone; then she broke off the engagement. Then she met Mike. THis man must have been after Carol's first husband, but before she met Mike. It was on "The Bradys". She never mentioned being divorced or not. I just saw it last night on DVD. The first episode of "The Bradys" was an extra of The complete series of "The Brady Bunch" on DVD.

Breaking off an engagement and being divorced are two different things. The poster above stated in that Very Brady Christmas that Carol stated she was DIVORCED, not engaged. You are now stating she said she was engaged, so that rebutes what the poster above stated abt Carol having said she was divorced. That puts an end to that debate. CAROL NEVER SAID SHE WAS DIVORCED.

If the network didn't want Carol to be a divorcee, and Schwartz didn't want to come right out and say she was, then it was OBVIOUS by the simple fact the girls never had "visitation" with their father that Carol's husband died. Does anyone honestly think a father would NOT ever visit his three daughters? Or that Marcia would nominate her step-father for father of the year if she had a father already? Doesn't make any sense whatsoever. And no, saying that Marcia had a bad relationship with her biological father would not make that scenario either.

.
If the network didn't want Carol to be a divorcee, and Schwartz didn't want to come right out and say she was, then it was OBVIOUS by the simple fact the girls never had "visitation" with their father that Carol's husband died.


Actually Schwartz did want to come out and say that carol was divorced and the network wouldn't allow it but he didn't want to say she was widowed either.


.
Does anyone honestly think a father would NOT ever visit his three daughters? Or that Marcia would nominate her step-father for father of the year if she had a father already? Doesn't make any sense whatsoever. And no, saying that Marcia had a bad relationship with her biological father would not make that scenario either.

You're injecting too much of the real world into the Brady world! :crazy:

It the relationship turned bitter then he might have abandoned his family, and that would explain why he never showed up again, why he wasn't mentioned and why the girls changed their last name to "Brady."

If carol was widowed then you would expect her dead husband's name to be mentioned now and then and that in some of Marcia's triumphs someone would talk about how proud he would have been. Carol and the girls would also have pictures of him.

The statement about the ambiguity of Carol's marital status has nothing to do with whatever she told peter in a later reunion show, though it does appear that my memory of that was a little fuzzy. I never did say she actually said she was divorced in that special, only that she seemed to imply it. It appears that I may have been wrong about.

My point was that the ambiguity of Carol's marital status is one of the hallmarks of the Brady world and it is no more correct to refer to her as a widow than to refer to her as a divorcee.

It was deliberately made ambiguos in the original series and good arguments can be made on either side. Florence Henderson seems to be squarely in the divorcee camp but since she only acted in the show, rather than being a writer or creator, she isn't really an authority.

Breaking off an engagement and being divorced are two different things. The poster above stated in that Very Brady Christmas that Carol stated she was DIVORCED, not engaged. You are now stating she said she was engaged, so that rebutes what the poster above stated abt Carol having said she was divorced. That puts an end to that debate. CAROL NEVER SAID SHE WAS DIVORCED.

In Growing Up Brady I found the following paragraph:

"Sherwood and the network locked horns over the fate of Carol's first husband. Sherwood wanted him alive, well, and happily divorced from Carol, but the network demanded his death. Sherwood met with the brass, smiled, nodded, and was extremely polite, but paid no attention to their suggestions: he left the fate of the girls' father uncertain. You may notice she never refers to the guy as being dead. In Sherwood's mind, Carol Brady was television's first divorcee!" (It can be found on page 182 during Chapter 31, "Where Are They Now?".)

Ill but that^^^ But, it does reinforce my point that divorce was taboo for the networks at the time.

I am not interjecting the real world into the series, the series is trying to be real by implying these two families merged as the result of a marriage. If they didn't want the realism, they wouldn't have bothered with the first episode and just started the show with the family already living on Clinton Way, with no wedding having been shown and just leaving it to the audience to believe these two people married at some point prior to the viewers having seen it.

BB was all abt trying to show realism by mixing in comedy. It was the Cosby Show of that era. The realism being two adult people being married and each spouse having children and trying to show that two families can merge as one.

I solely go by what the series implied, not by what Schwartz HAD WANTED to have written or stated regarding Carol's marital status but wasn't allowed to by the network.

I solely go by what the series implied, not by what Schwartz HAD WANTED to have written or stated regarding Carol's marital status but wasn't allowed to by the network.


If you just go by what the show says you'll have to say that it is ambiguos, since the the show never says one way or the other.

If you talk about what the show implies then you are really talking about what you have inferred and if you're honest about it, you'll have to admit that it is a matter of opinion since the arguments either way are equally strong.

During the first few years of the Brady bunch run I assumed that both Mike and Carol were widowed. After the series ended and the old shows were shown at the rate of 5 a week I began to realize that it never really was clarified one way or the other.

My Early assumptions were probably fueled by that fact that I was kind of naive and had no experience with divorce. After all, I was still only 11 when the series ended and my parents as well as both sets of grandparents had had long, solid marriages. Not long after the series ended I became suspicious about the fact that my dad was 36 years old when he married my mother. I eventually learned about my dad's 5 previous marriages and a long lost half brother from the first. (who is 1 year younger than my mother!) About the same time the first of 4 failed marraiges among my two uncles fell apart.

I guess my awakening to the fact that Carol might have been divorced rather than widowed was symbolic of my awakening to the realities of marriage and family life in the late 20th century.

And as you have interjected reality by going with what you have experienced in the real world, I too have interjected what I know to be what happens in the real world when people divorce, there are child visitations. I too know that parents abandon their children, but I highly doubt that Schwartz would have even conceded that was the case with the Brady girls. I am sure he would have pushed the envelope with the divorce, but I don't think he was ready to leave the lingering question, "Why did the girls never see their father?" "Why did the girls take the name Brady as their last name without the proper legal channels?" If the father was alive and well and abandon those girls, he still would have had to sign away his rights as their father to allow Mike Brady to adopt them.

This could go on and on, but that is the reality of step-families sometimes. Schwartz may have wanted to make things clear and simple but obviously the network was smart enough to put their foot down and say, "We can't say this woman is divorced and not have these girls ever see their father nor have it stated he abandoned them." Sure divorce was a taboo, but there would have been too many lingering questions for a family-oriented show.

"Why did the girls take the name Brady as their last name without the proper legal channels?" If the father was alive and well and abandon those girls, he still would have had to sign away his rights as their father to allow Mike Brady to adopt them.


In case of abadonment, there are legal way around that, but how do you know he didn't do that?

It seems far more likely the girls names would have been changed in case of divorce and abandonment rather than death.

The point is that no matter how you slice it, based on what is actually in the series, the issue of Carol's marital status is settled only in the minds of whoever is watching the show.

In case of abadonment, there are legal way around that, but how do you know he didn't do that?

It seems far more likely the girls names would have been changed in case of divorce and abandonment rather than death.

The point is that no matter how you slice it, based on what is actually in the series, the issue of Carol's marital status is settled only in the minds of whoever is watching the show.
In any name change, one must put an ad in the newspaper legal section and announce they are requesting a name change. If anyone has any reason the person should not do that, they must file the proper papers and appear in court. This can work in the case of abandonment. I had two cases like this before. But it is a long process.

Name change is common even after a spouse/parent has died. A person marries someone and they have a child and for the sake of merging as a family and to not have it be a confusing situation or to give the new spouse a sense of being the child's parent, the name change will occur. I have a cousin who married a woman who had a 7 year old child. He had to go through the proper channels and the biological father had to sign papers stating he was relinquishing his parental rights. THEN, they went to court and had that child's name changed to his last name. That child is his daughter. As long as a parent is alive, they must do this (relinquish their rights, at least in California). Even in adoptions, the birth parents must sign their rights away as the parents. If the parent is dead, then of course there is no need for that. You go to court seeking ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE and request a name change. You go to court and present your reasons for the name change. If the judge approves, the old birth certificate is null and void and a new one is issued. Of course, this takes time, it doesn't happen overnight.

Of course, all of this could have been the issue with the show, we just didn't see it, but we didn't see or hear that Carol was divorced either. Mike's marital status was clear, so it had to be assumed that was the same with Carol's simply because there was no mention of her former husband. I guess he is in Africa. :lol:

Of course, all of this could have been the issue with the show, we just didn't see it, but we didn't see or hear that Carol was divorced either. Mike's marital status was clear, so it had to be assumed that was the same with Carol's simply because there was no mention of her former husband. I guess he is in Africa. :lol:

I wouldn't make such an assumption. Just as it wasn't said Carol was divorced it also wasn't said that she was widowed. Just because Mike was widowed doesn't mean Carol was. If they wanted Carol to be widowed they would have said she was.

What it all boils down to is that it is every bit as wrong to refer to carol as a widow as it is to refer to her as a divorcee.

Considering the era in which BB debuted and the simple fact it was almost a taboo on television, particularly family shows, it can be construed that the viewers were led to believe Carol was a widow. Plain and simple. The viewers at that time (including myself) did not have a book nor a Very Brady Christmas to rely on giving us details regarding supposed details of Carol's marital status. So, given that, the show was abt two people who were widowed. Just as the network wanted and the viewers believed.

Considering the era in which BB debuted and the simple fact it was almost a taboo on television, particularly family shows, it can be construed that the viewers were led to believe Carol was a widow. Plain and simple. The viewers at that time (including myself) did not have a book nor a Very Brady Christmas to rely on giving us details regarding supposed details of Carol's marital status. So, given that, the show was abt two people who were widowed. Just as the network wanted and the viewers believed.


No, the network wanted it spelled out that carol was widowed, not doing so left it ambiguos. The show as about a blended family and whether the wife was widowed or divorced was not important.

The fact remains that calling Carol a widow is incorrect. Just as incorrect as calling her a divcorcee.

Reread my line where I said "Just as the network wanted and the viewers believed." You then responded, "No the network wanted it spelled out she was a widow." Same thing. :lol: Don't read too fast next time. ;)

Whatever floats your boat and makes you feel better, call it what you want. Growing up watching it during its first run, that is what the network and/or the writers led us to believe, so widow it is.

Reread my line where I said "Just as the network wanted and the viewers believed." You then responded, "No the network wanted it spelled out she was a widow." Same thing. :lol: Don't read too fast next time. ;)

No, it's not the same thing. Carol's marital status was deliberately left ambiguos.


Whatever floats your boat and makes you feel better, call it what you want. Growing up watching it during its first run, that is what the network and/or the writers led us to believe, so widow it is.

When I was a child, I thought as a child. When I became a man, it was time to do away with childhood things. I was only 11 when the series ended, that was my excuse back then, what is yours today?

Your comments and the logic you are trying to employ have no relevence in the Brady universe. It would be like asking what form of birth control Mike and Carol used and then saying "well I guess they didn't need any since Robert Reed was gay!"

Ultimately the attempted resolution of Carol's ambiguos marital status has no more relevence then the question that started this whole thread almost 8 years ago. It doesn't matter when, or where Mike Brady first noticed the pretty divorcee Carol Tyler Martin!

The Brady universe began the day Mike and Carol were married, and nothing happened before that except what is actually mentioned on the show. Thus, Mike was widowed, but Carol was niether widowed nor divorced. The fate of carol's first husband doesn't matter because he never existed!

When we try to fill in the gaps that exist in the Brady universe we are actually creating our own universe that exists only in our own minds, a kind of private "fan fic" if you will. It is only in these personal universes that carol's former marital status can ever really be resolved. It can never be resolved in the "real" Brady universe unless, of course, there is another canonical reunion special that finally resolves it.

Right now, that seems as likely as the Oakland As having a perfect season!

The fate of carol's first husband doesn't matter because he never existed!

If he never existed, then how did Marcia, Jan, and Cindy come about? Were they adopted? Even if "all of them had hair of gold like their mother" as the theme song points out?

If he never existed, then how did Marcia, Jan, and Cindy come about? Were they adopted? Even if "all of them had hair of gold like their mother" as the theme song points out?
;)

If he never existed, then how did Marcia, Jan, and Cindy come about? Were they adopted? Even if "all of them had hair of gold like their mother" as the theme song points out?

To quote myself:


The Brady universe began the day Mike and Carol were married, and nothing happened before that except what is actually mentioned on the show. Thus, Mike was widowed, but Carol was niether widowed nor divorced. The fate of carol's first husband doesn't matter because he never existed!


Since he was never mentioned, he never existed. Nothing existed in the Brady universe except what was mentioned on the show.

So then what is said AFTER the series ended doesn't matter either. No book, no specials, nothing. Only what was said on the show or what you understood from the show. Carol's ex-husband never appeared or was mentioned because HE DIDN'T EXIST. She was a widow. END OF THAT. :rofl: :p

So then what is said AFTER the series ended doesn't matter either. No book, no specials, nothing. Only what was said on the show or what you understood from the show. Carol's ex-husband never appeared or was mentioned because HE DIDN'T EXIST. She was a widow. END OF THAT. :rofl: :p
Well, actually, if he never existed, she couldnt be a widow either, but, fear not, I HAVE it.........She was given a mission by and angel to have 3 VERY SPECIAL daughters........immaculate conception!!!! :lol: :crazy: (There Irene, I have found the true answer, with your help! :cow: yup yup! )

Well, actually, if he never existed, she couldnt be a widow either, but, fear not, I HAVE it.........She was given a mission by and angel to have 3 VERY SPECIAL daughters........immaculate conception!!!! :lol: :crazy: (There Irene, I have found the true answer, with your help! :cow: yup yup! )
You crack me up. :lol: True, if he never existed, then Carol was pure as the driven snow and had those children as you say a la IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. :lol:

But you see how all of a sudden the validity went from "Well, the book says this, Schwartz said this..." to this, "What the show showed us is all that matters." That's WHAT I SAID ALL ALONG! Geez. :crazy: Talk abt taking things literally.

So then what is said AFTER the series ended doesn't matter either. No book, no specials, nothing. Only what was said on the show or what you understood from the show. Carol's ex-husband never appeared or was mentioned because HE DIDN'T EXIST. She was a widow. END OF THAT. :rofl: :p


Him never existing doesn't make her a widow, just as that which was never alive cannot be dead.

You crack me up. :lol: True, if he never existed, then Carol was pure as the driven snow and had those children as you say a la IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. :lol:

But you see how all of a sudden the validity went from "Well, the book says this, Schwartz said this..." to this, "What the show showed us is all that matters." That's WHAT I SAID ALL ALONG! Geez. :crazy: Talk abt taking things literally.

Yes, you insisted that only what was actaully on the show counted, yet you said carol was a widow. The show never said Carol was a widow so you can't say it either if you're going by what is on the show. That was my point.

If you stay within the Brady universe, Carol was neither widowed nor divorced, if you go outside the Brady universe then whe was supposed to be a dicorcee but it was never actually said that she was divorced. Either way, you can't say that she was a widow!

Either way, you can't say that she was a widow!Or that she WASN'T ....... ok time to retire this discussion for a few months :lol: