vicki's return from 1795

[Willie Loomis]

it was stated that Angelique followed Victoria from 1795 to present. 

when vicki returned, and had obviously changed things in 1795, to 1968, barnabas looked at phyllis wick and said sourly, "what are YOU doing here?" before viki arrived.

now, i realize that vicki's dilema lasted months, but i understand also that it was only about two minutes in 1968 that she was missing. 


SO WHY, in those two minutes didn't barnabas forget phyllis wick and NOT remember vicki? 

can someone please give me details as this has been bothering me for about 40 years!!!!!!

[MagnusTrask]

Because time-travel creates all sorts of impossible contradictions.    They're impossivle to straighten out.   After VW returned, BC should have retroactively remembered Victoria from 1795 during 1967, in a 1967 portion of the changed version of his timeline, since his past was changed.     So Phyllis Wick should never have been involved.

[Joeytrom]

Actually, Barnabas made the comment "What are YOU doing here" before Vicky returned, so the timeline at that point wasn't changed, after she returned to the present time it was changed.  There is a later scene in that episode with Vicky on the couch where Barnabas has an expression on his face of alarm as he apparently realized Vicky was indeed in the past.

[MagnusTrask]

BC's first acknowledgement that he remembers VW in the past was when he was insisting he could travel back to 1796, I think.

[Gerard]

Well, the whole thing could again be viewed as a paradox.  Maybe when Phyllis traded places back with Vicki and ended up, you-know-what (so as not to make a spoiler here), everything in time had reset itself back to the way it was.  But that still leaves problems, such as Peter Bradford showing up as Jeff Clark and annoying the hell out of everyone.  But then, if history really was changed, records would show the trial of Vicki.  That was never brought up, and you would think somebody would've checked.  The best thing to do is just ignore the inconsistencies that were created by time travel, otherwise one would suffer constant headaches.  The only time they broached the topic was when our heroes returned from 1840/41 to discover, in that one brief scene back in the present, that everything that had happened leading to them going back in time never did happen.  But then, like as it has been discussed here before, the past of 1840/41 was so drastically changed, that when our heroes returned, they should not have found the current family residing in Collinwood, but an entirely different one.  However, let's not dwell on that, because we're already getting headaches.

Gerard

[Willie Loomis]

okay, one more question:   if she (viki) changed history by saving daniel, how come there was a collins family anyway, since, if daniel was killed that would have ended the family line. 

here are your aspirin.   

thanks all.

[buzz]

Ah, the paradoxes of time! So many possibilities. What if Vickie's trip to 1795 set up a divergent time line and the changes made there had no effect on present-day Collinwood?  If this was the case Barnabas would still recognize Phylis Wick because nothing changed in their time line. Of course, this doesn't explain Peter Bradford/Jeff Clark, but then nothing explains them anyway. And speaking of divergent time-lines, there has to be a parallel universe where Roger Davis never appeared on DS....    

[Mysterious Benefactor]

And speaking of divergent time-lines, there has to be a parallel universe where Roger Davis never appeared on DS....

If only we could find our way there!    Well, just so long as all of RD's DS roles in that parallel universe weren't played by Geoffrey Scott!! 

[Willie Loomis]

ah, he wasn't so bad.

well, come to think of it.....

it's like someone mentioned how HODS could have been a parrallel time story, what with all the "events" that happened in it.

[Brandon Collins]

if she (viki) changed history by saving daniel, how come there was a collins family anyway, since, if daniel was killed that would have ended the family line.

Vicki saved Daniel? When? What am I forgetting here?

[Nelson Collins]

Vicki saved Daniel? When? What am I forgetting here?

Near the end of the storyline, Nathan hired Noah Gifford to kill Daniel so Nathan could gain access to Millicent's fortune (which she had signed over to Daniel, thinking that Nathan loved her not her money).  Vicki who had escaped from gaol, shot and killed Noah to save Daniel.

[Nelson Collins]

okay, one more question:   if she (viki) changed history by saving daniel, how come there was a collins family anyway, since, if daniel was killed that would have ended the family line.

I always had the impression that Vicki had simply gone through the same motions that Phyllis had.  In other words, Phyllis arrived at the  Collin's estate addled from the carriage wreck, was accepted into the family as governess and became the scapegoat of Angelieque. In gaol, law student Peter Bradford took pity on poor Miss Wicke and after the trial went badly, he helped her to escape where she then saved Daniel, was recaptured and then hanged.  Since he had taken the rap for Noah's death, he too was tried and hanged.

I think the general idea is that history is alleged to be pretty solid (none of your "treading on a butterfly in the past will destroy the future").  Broadly speaking, as long as the major events take place, the smaller details of how they happened don't matter so much.  The biggest difference probably was that Peter fell in love with Vicki, where he had not with Phyllis, believed that Vicki was from the future and that belief allowed him to find his way to here in the present (this all could have been Sarah's spirit at work).  They found each other in the present and eventually (imo with Sarah's help) both vanished into the past that Peter was a part of and that Vicki had been so entranced by.

[Midnite]

if she (viki) changed history by saving daniel, how come there was a collins family anyway, since, if daniel was killed that would have ended the family line.

Well, Vicki *thought* that part of her mission had been to save Daniel in order to preserve the Collins line (and that meeting Peter Bradford, ugh, was the other), but as you said, we know that the present-day family already existed.  It seems she was mistaken because, except for becoming involved with Peter, she really didn't affect the past much.  But since Daniel obviously survived in the original timeline, either someone else must've saved him-- perhaps Phillis Wick?-- or his life was put at risk due to Vicki's presence there.

Thankfully, the '91 series handled the issue of Victoria's mission much better.

[Brandon Collins]

Thanks to Nelson for jogging my memory re: Daniel's near demise.

And it's my guess that if that happened in the original timeline that perhaps Ms. Wicke stopped Noah from killing Daniel, just like Vicki did when Vicki too Phylliis' place in the past. I believe the entire point of the storyline, other than revealing how Barnabas became a vampire, was to have Vicki just take Phyllis' place and go through the motions, like Nelson said.

[alwaysdavid]

I think that the whole purpose of Vickie's trip to the past was to play out Barnabas' story; therefore, even though she tried to change events she could not.  It wasn't until the Quentin storyline  that the writers came up with the idea of the heroic Barnabas changing the past to save David.   Then of course, they repeated that theme over and over.