But if Mary isn't really 'Mary Morstan'...

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

...does that mean her and John's marriage is void?

Because technically it's her false identity that's married to him, not her.

[Caya]

It's a bit embarrassing that the only source I have to offer for this is tumblr, but apparently yes.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Yes, if the courts ever got hold of this....the marriage would be over in the legal sense.  Not to say that there aren't people running around with the same name who are totally unrelated to each other. But if Sherlock could discover that the only legal Mary Morstan was a still born infant....then this Mary is in real hot water....in more ways then one.

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

Yes, if the courts ever got hold of this....the marriage would be over in the legal sense.  Not to say that there aren't people running around with the same name who are totally unrelated to each other. But if Sherlock could discover that the only legal Mary Morstan was a still born infant....then this Mary is in real hot water....in more ways then one.

 

Yeah! I wonder what John's reaction will be if he ever realizes this? Sounds like good fanfic fodder!

[sfmpco]

John does know.  Sherlock exposed that information in Leinster Gardens when John was in the shadows.  John knows the legality of his marriage situation and has chosen at the end of HLV to stand by her.

[Arcadia]

These days I think common law marriage is good enough for a lot of people anyway.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Unfortunately in some places it is no longer recognized as such. But yes....more and more people are going in for just living together....or just a small private ceremony feeling no need to bring either religion nor the state into it.

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

John does know.  Sherlock exposed that information in Leinster Gardens when John was in the shadows.  John knows the legality of his marriage situation and has chosen at the end of HLV to stand by her.

 

Yes, but note how in the Christmas party scene he came with a small speech prepared and in said speech he never said 'I forgive you'. 

 

Plus, in the Leinster Gardens scene, note John's sneer of contempt. Sneers usually mean that the individual it's pointed at is disregarded, and the sneerer has no place for them in their life. And Mary knows.

 

I dunno. It's just my take on it. I think it's possible that the only thing keeping them together is the baby and John's strong sense of duty and loyalty.

[Arcadia]

I've argued all along that John hasn't forgiven Mary ... but he's willing to give her another chance. To go forward instead of back. But he warned her it might not work out (he's still "basically pissed off").

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

But he also said...."The problems past is your business. The problems of your future are my privelege." 

 

  So yes, he is pissed....he said so clearly.....but he is hoping to have a future with her....and would be proud to have her.....or at least he is saying so.

 

  So forgiveness is on the table.

[Arcadia]

Yes. But not bestowed yet, don't you think?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

It would have been interesting to see how that was all going to progress before she got to pass out in his arms.

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

But he also said...."The problems past is your business. The problems of your future are my privelege." 

 

  So yes, he is pissed....he said so clearly.....but he is hoping to have a future with her....and would be proud to have her.....or at least he is saying so.

 

  So forgiveness is on the table.

 

Yes. But not bestowed yet, don't you think?

 

Well, shooting your husband's best friend wouldn't garner that much sympathy, now would it?

[Arcadia]

Exactly.

[jesskayding]

These days I think common law marriage is good enough for a lot of people anyway.

Common law is no longer valid in the good ole state of Ohio.. But when it was you had to prove you've been living as a couple for @ least 10 years.

 

How long do you have to be together in the United Kingdom for Common Law to be enacted?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

This is from a charity in the UK. It deals with the legal status of people in co-habitation.

 

                       http://www.oneplusone.org.uk/content_topic/married-or-not/married-civil-partnered-or-not-the-legal-differences/

[Arcadia]

Well, I wasn't exactly thinking about whether the state accepted it; so many people today don't care if the state accepts it or not is what I really meant. If they've committed to each other, that's good enough for them.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I was just attempting to answer jesskayding's question above. I don't care either. It has pretty much been proven that marriage as it stands legally has been implemented by the state. In years past, all it took was a simple ceremony.....and not even that. Once two people started living together, they were considered man and wife as long as it was consummated.

 

  In some cultures, like the Celts, a man and woman could pledge themselves one to the other at Beltane. It was understood that this was on a trial bases. If the couple remained together and happy with each other for one year and one day....then they were considered married.

[Carol the Dabbler]

...does that mean her and John's marriage is void?

Because technically it's her false identity that's married to him, not her.

 

 

Technically, I think you're right.  But "in practice" can often be quite another matter.  I'm no lawyer, and have no personal experience with this sort of thing, but it's my impression that two people who are assumed to be married can go along indefinitely unless someone objects -- and I think it has to be someone with a legitimate interest in the matter, not just some busybody.

 

For example, if John ever decided that he wanted out, and if he could prove that Mary had married him under false pretenses, then he could presumably get an annulment.

 

Or, suppose that John had children by a prior marriage.  If he died, they could contest Mary's claim to the joint property.

 

But if nobody squawks, the marriage might stand forever.

 

[joanneta1]

Dear fellow members, whether or not the two are legally married or not may become a moot point in the series to follow, because, unless the dynamic duo of scriptwriters throw the whole ACD canon out of the window and proceed in a Dr Who style to create an alternate universe Sherlock/Dr. Watson series, then Mary Watson, nee Heaven knows what, will have to die, one way or another. In the Empty House, it is clearly stated "In some manner he had learned of my own sad bereavement, and his sympathy was shown in his manner than in his words" . Also, having painted themselves into a corner in the Sign of Three, they shall need to account for the loss of mother and embryo, since there is no such person as Dr. Watson's child anywhere. Mr Moffat admitted having screwed up history enough, in the commentary to a Scandal in Belgravia, but Dr. Watson as a happy paterfamilias is a whole new can of worms. Does anyone think Messrs. Moffat and Gatiss will choose to go down such a very slippery slope? Would this improbable child Not lower the whole dynamic of the series to a common or garden variety sitcom?

[Boton]

Dear fellow members, whether or not the two are legally married or not may become a moot point in the series to follow, because, unless the dynamic duo of scriptwriters throw the whole ACD canon out of the window and proceed in a Dr Who style to create an alternate universe Sherlock/Dr. Watson series, then Mary Watson, nee Heaven knows what, will have to die, one way or another. In the Empty House, it is clearly stated "In some manner he had learned of my own sad bereavement, and his sympathy was shown in his manner than in his words" . Also, having painted themselves into a corner in the Sign of Three, they shall need to account for the loss of mother and embryo, since there is no such person as Dr. Watson's child anywhere. Mr Moffat admitted having screwed up history enough, in the commentary to a Scandal in Belgravia, but Dr. Watson as a happy paterfamilias is a whole new can of worms. Does anyone think Messrs. Moffat and Gatiss will choose to go down such a very slippery slope? Would this improbable child Not lower the whole dynamic of the series to a common or garden variety sitcom?

 

Yes, exactly!

 

I'm in the process of writing a meta on this very thing, but I do think Moftiss have to get rid of Mary and the child sooner rather than later in order to keep within arm's length of canon, which they seem to prefer to do.  So that leaves either death or something that takes Mary and the child off-screen indefinitely (like a CIA mission of some sort, although why she then wouldn't leave the child with John, I don't know).

 

The problem is that they've let Mary get very pregnant, and, thank heavens, women don't die in childbirth like they did in the Victorian era.  So we don't have the readily-available "out" that ACD did.  At the same time, John can't become  a family man for very long because it will so dramatically alter the dynamic of the show, even more so if something happens to Mary but not the child.  

[T.o.b.y]

 

Dear fellow members, whether or not the two are legally married or not may become a moot point in the series to follow, because, unless the dynamic duo of scriptwriters throw the whole ACD canon out of the window and proceed in a Dr Who style to create an alternate universe Sherlock/Dr. Watson series, then Mary Watson, nee Heaven knows what, will have to die, one way or another. In the Empty House, it is clearly stated "In some manner he had learned of my own sad bereavement, and his sympathy was shown in his manner than in his words" . Also, having painted themselves into a corner in the Sign of Three, they shall need to account for the loss of mother and embryo, since there is no such person as Dr. Watson's child anywhere. Mr Moffat admitted having screwed up history enough, in the commentary to a Scandal in Belgravia, but Dr. Watson as a happy paterfamilias is a whole new can of worms. Does anyone think Messrs. Moffat and Gatiss will choose to go down such a very slippery slope? Would this improbable child Not lower the whole dynamic of the series to a common or garden variety sitcom?

 

Yes, exactly!

 

I'm in the process of writing a meta on this very thing, but I do think Moftiss have to get rid of Mary and the child sooner rather than later in order to keep within arm's length of canon, which they seem to prefer to do.  So that leaves either death or something that takes Mary and the child off-screen indefinitely (like a CIA mission of some sort, although why she then wouldn't leave the child with John, I don't know).

 

The problem is that they've let Mary get very pregnant, and, thank heavens, women don't die in childbirth like they did in the Victorian era.  So we don't have the readily-available "out" that ACD did.  At the same time, John can't become  a family man for very long because it will so dramatically alter the dynamic of the show, even more so if something happens to Mary but not the child.  

 

Well, we shall see what happens, but until then, I'll disagree with you two on this one.

 

First of all, I don't get the impression so far that Moffat and Gatiss care so very very much about what is "canon" and what isn't. They obviously know their way around extremely well in the original Sherlock Holmes universe and like to play with it, but that does not mean they hold themselves bound to the original plot in any sense. They've created entirely new characters (Molly!) and given them quite large parts, for one thing. Then, they've turned Mary Morstan, angelic goody-two-shoes perfect Miss Morstan, into a professional killer who shoots the great detective himself in the chest! If they are willing to depart from the original that far, what makes you think they'll be reluctant to keep her alive and let John be a father?

 

Secondly, I do think the show could work just fine with Mary and baby alive. In series 3, we saw quite a lot of her, and yet it was still about Sherlock and John going on their adventures together. There will never be more than 3 episodes or so every two years. They don't need the boys to live together or John to not have any other responsibilities to make that seem plausible.

 

Dr Watson was a family man for a long time, children or no children. He had his practice, and he had his wife and his home, and still some of the best stories take place during that time.

 

I'm not saying this is what I want, necessarily. I'm just saying I don't see why it shouldn't work, or why the writers wouldn't choose to make it work. They seem to like Mary a lot, and the actress is Freeman's wife (or life partner or whatever, I don't know whether they are actually married or not). Why would they get rid of her any time soon?

 

 

[Boton]

 

 

 

Secondly, I do think the show could work just fine with Mary and baby alive. In series 3, we saw quite a lot of her, and yet it was still about Sherlock and John going on their adventures together. There will never be more than 3 episodes or so every two years. They don't need the boys to live together or John to not have any other responsibilities to make that seem plausible.

 

Dr Watson was a family man for a long time, children or no children. He had his practice, and he had his wife and his home, and still some of the best stories take place during that time.

 

I'm not saying this is what I want, necessarily. I'm just saying I don't see why it shouldn't work, or why the writers wouldn't choose to make it work. They seem to like Mary a lot, and the actress is Freeman's wife (or life partner or whatever, I don't know whether they are actually married or not). Why would they get rid of her any time soon?

 

 

 

 

Well, let me try to say it another way (not that I want you to agree, but maybe you can help me with an explanation that would make me OK with the continuation of Mary and the child).

 

I think I'm worried about how Moftiss will/can deal with the modern expectations of parenthood.  Canon Watson can continue to run around doing exactly what he would have done single, because home and children were the wife's responsibility and largely happened "off screen" anyway.  So there's no canon reason for Watson to not go on dangerous cases, etc., with Holmes even if he's married with a child.

 

I think the modern world expects parents to "live for" their kids in a very certain way that includes curtailing their activities to put their kids at the center of things.  I mean, we already have BC interviews about him giving up his motorcycle when he becomes a father; can we expect less of on-screen John, who may feel he can't go on these cases and risk his life because now he has a family?  

 

Also, I think modern expectations are that fathers are more involved with the kids.  It's a good trend in real life, but I don't want to watch a bunch of (or, heck, any) scenes of John changing nappies or pushing a pram or anything else.  I don't want to see his involvement with his kid, not because I don't want him to have it but because I want the story to be Sherlock and John, almost to the exclusion of everything else.  

 

Maybe if Mary also continues her work (minus the wet jobs), then it would just be a case of that being the way the Watson family operates.  But I think Moftiss would have to do some creative writing.  Fortunately, they can do, so if they go that route, I'm sure I'll be pleased.  

[T.o.b.y]

I think I'm worried about how Moftiss will/can deal with the modern expectations of parenthood.  Canon Watson can continue to run around doing exactly what he would have done single, because home and children were the wife's responsibility and largely happened "off screen" anyway.  So there's no canon reason for Watson to not go on dangerous cases, etc., with Holmes even if he's married with a child.

 

I think the modern world expects parents to "live for" their kids in a very certain way that includes curtailing their activities to put their kids at the center of things.  I mean, we already have BC interviews about him giving up his motorcycle when he becomes a father; can we expect less of on-screen John, who may feel he can't go on these cases and risk his life because now he has a family?  

 

The modern expectation of marriage is also that you try to respect your partner for who they truly are, and be honest with each other. Yet here Mary sold John a big lie about herself, and he still can't accept who she really is, and in a frankly pretty sexist macho way only wants her as Mrs Watson, the way she was "supposed to be", in his eyes. The modern expectation of friendship also does not include faking a sob-heavy suicide call and hurling yourself off a roof in front of your best friend, then showing up two years later acting as if it were all a hilarious joke.

 

The characters on Sherlock don't give a fig about what the world expects. They are all high-functioning something-messed-up. Nobody there behaves the way people "should". Look at how Sherlock treats Molly, yet the number of people who want them to be a romantic couple seems to be daily growing.

 

John might very well feel he can't go out risking his life if he has a little daughter at home, but he'll do so anyway, because he can't help himself. He was a doctor who went to war, he married an assassin on the run from her enemies, and his best friend is Sherlock Holmes. He'd like to adjust to civilian life and be normal, but he'll never fully succeed, and time and again, he'll find himself in some impossible situation with Sherlock and he'll curse him and his own self, but he'll still help him save the day, and feel great about it, and be able to go home and be a nice kind daddy for another few months, instead of becoming an alcoholic like his sister or doing drugs or becoming so depressed he's no use to his family any more at all.

 

Sherlock may even feel he can't drag John along if there's a baby Watson. But sooner or later, Sherlock will get in trouble. And Mycroft will text John. And if John doesn't go looking for him sooner, he will then. Cue adventure.

 

And even if the boys manage to behave like grown-ups and stay out of trouble, Mary's enemies will show up some day, and Miss Watson will be in danger from them. Cue adventure for both Watson parents and the man who vowed to be always there for them.

 

Somehow or other, Sherlock and John will always end up running around dark alleys and getting shot at.

 

As for John as a father, for some reason, even though I don't see him as a nice cuddly person at all in general, I have a hunch he'd be absolutely sweet with his little daughter, and I would like to see him with her once or twice. Just briefly. (Projecting my own life experiences here, of course. I've got a terrific father.)

[joanneta1]

Thank you for your considerate replies, I agree that Molly is not part of the ACD universe, nor the Reichenbach Fall itself, and as for His Last Vow, I reserve my right to comment, because it borders the aforementioned alternate universe: Sherlock a killer, indeed! My point is, would ANY of the fans of both the series heretofore and the original stories suspend belief so far as to accept Dr Watson as a family man with a wife who is clearly a Mrs Smith, albeit reformed. Even Mr and Mrs Smith didn't have bothersome infants or toddlers around JUST because they needed to be able to embark on an adventure on the spur of the moment. Although I am already resigned to whatever the scriptwriters deign to create and I very much fear that there may be a baby, when Sherlock says at the end of HLV "there may be some new players now", still I retain some hope that the old players will be left unencumbered by such burdens to continue their adventures on screen to everybody's delight.