Like there may have been episodes towards the end where they'd speak as if Carol and Mike were the birth parents of all the kids.

I noticed that the first few episodes showed the kids sort of losing their first family identity. Then by the fifth or sixth episode, it was like they were always one family. It bothers me that they wrote it that way.

I think they were trying to make the point that, your family is your family and that it does not matter whether the other members of the family are related to you by blood, adoption, marriage or whatever. They are all still members of your family.

I always wanted to know why the girls used the name Brady? They had a father. Where was he? I know Mike was supposed to be a widower, but Carol was a divorcee, right? I liked this show as kid, but even 9 year old me knew it was syrupy and cloying.

I always wanted to know why the girls used the name Brady? They had a father. Where was he? I know Mike was supposed to be a widower, but Carol was a divorcee, right? I liked this show as kid, but even 9 year old me knew it was syrupy and cloying.

Also, the bio dad would have to give Mike his permission to legally adopt his kids and give them his last name. So maybe the bio dad was some kind of deadbeat loser who didn't want to pay child support. So he relinquished his parental rights and gave them to Mike.

Also, the bio dad would have to give Mike his permission to legally adopt his kids and give them his last name. So maybe the bio dad was some kind of deadbeat loser who didn't want to pay child support. So he relinquished his parental rights and gave them to Mike.

Carol would not have ever married someone like that and she was college-educated and her first husband would have been too.

I think they were trying to make the point that, your family is your family and that it does not matter whether the other members of the family are related to you by blood, adoption, marriage or whatever. They are all still members of your family.

Except that the kids did still want their first family and adoptees do too. Nobody wants to lose their family. The writers were very calloused the way they wrote it.

It was okay for Bobbie to want his mother in the first episode, but she was gone after that. Out with the old and in with the new.

Carol would not have ever married someone like that and she was college-educated and her first husband would have been too.

What does being college educated have to do with being a bad parent? The only way that the girls could be legally adopted by Mike is if the bio dad gave up his parental rights and allowed Mike to become the legal father.

Carol would not have ever married someone like that and she was college-educated and her first husband would have been too.

Apparently, she did.

Apparently, she did.

PROOF?
Anything and everything would be speculation as the show doesn't say. However, child support did not start being garnished until 1988, well past the marriage of Mike and Carol.

If Carol's husband (you say ex but could be a death as well) was such a jerk, why would Carol keep having kids with him? I get that some women are dense and slow to figure things out, but Carol did not seem the type.

PROOF?
The proof is that Mike was allowed to legally adopt Carol's children. He would not be allowed to do that unless the bio dad gave his permission.
I get that some women are dense and slow to figure things out, but Carol did not seem the type.
That's speculation on your part.

I think they were trying to make the point that, your family is your family and that it does not matter whether the other members of the family are related to you by blood, adoption, marriage or whatever. They are all still members of your family.


Yes, this is what I was thinking too. (Families are Families no matter how they come to be or what they are made up of)


I also wanted to add to the overall conversation in this thread, that it was never stated if Carol was a widow or a divorcee.

Also, things were very different fifty years ago. Blended families were much less common as they are today.

I also wanted to add to the overall conversation in this thread, that it was never stated if Carol was a widow or a divorcee.
Exactly! So many presume Carol was divorced, but I don't remember the show ever mentioning it. If Carol was widowed there wouldn't be much of an issue with the girls all changing to the Brady name or Mike adopting them. And with the squeaky clean image of The Brady Bunch, Carol being widowed makes a lot more sense than divorced.

While Mike Brady is depicted as being a widower, Sherwood Schwartz (creator) originally wanted the character of Carol Brady to have been a divorcée, but the network objected to this. A compromise was reached whereby Carol's marital status (whether she was divorced or widowed) was never directly revealed.

So Carol's divorce was all in the creator's head, not in the actual show. With the network overruling and saying no to that theory, it effectively made Carol look like a widower, even if widow wasn't specifically mentioned. That's better than a living father who didn't care about his girls at all.

So Carol's divorce was all in the creator's head, not in the actual show. With the network overruling and saying no to that theory, it effectively made Carol look like a widower, even if widow wasn't specifically mentioned. That's better than a living father who didn't care about his girls at all.
Since the creator of the show saw Carol as divorced, I did too. After all, there would be no show at all without Schwartz.

The creator of the show didn’t start spouting that nonsense about Carol possibly being divorced until the 1980s. The original press releases from ABC, when the show first aired, stated Carol was a widow. And considering that we never heard about an ex-husband and that the girls took the Brady name, that’s good enough for me.

It's even worse if she's widowed. The girls just drop their father's name like he never existed!

It's even worse if she's widowed. The girls just drop their father's name like he never existed!
That’s a major concern with adoptions after a widowed mother remarries. Did you ever see the original “Yours, Mine, and Ours”? I read the book the movie was based on, and the parents had to deal with that issue. The brother of the kids’ late father was opposed to the name change. And because the family was well known, the parents got letters from people accusing them of trying to wipe the late father out of existence.

They did go through with the adoption, though as adults, 6 of the 8 kids went back to their original last name.

Maybe that's just your view.

That’s a major concern with adoptions after a widowed mother remarries. Did you ever see the original “Yours, Mine, and Ours”? I read the book the movie was based on, and the parents had to deal with that issue. The brother of the kids’ late father was opposed to the name change. And because the family was well known, the parents got letters from people accusing them of trying to wipe the late father out of existence.

They did go through with the adoption, though as adults, 6 of the 8 kids went back to their original last name.

I think my questions in that instance would be:

To the brother of the late father (i.e. the kids' uncle): What business is it of yours what the wife and new husband do with the kids' names? Why does he think he even gets a say in this?

To the family friends who wrote letters. Same questions.

Seriously, who do those people think they are?