Ironic fact about 1897 storyline

[spoiler]
Remember when Quentin was killed by Jenny early in maybe the 3rd week of the storyline? At this point Barnabas went to great lengths, including begging Angelique, to have Quentin brought back to life. But the fact is, if Quentin had died right then, then the cause of his haunting Collinwood would not have happened yet. Most likely, this would have changed history so that Quentin was not a ghost in the future, since he was still on good terms with Jamison when he died. Instead Barnabas chose a far more complicated route which involved Quentin becoming immortal, and therefore unable to be a ghost, lol...
[/spoiler]

Of course, Barnabas had no way of knowing that though ... 

Not to mention that [spoiler]Quentin would have never been cursed and so Chris would have never been a werewolf in the present. No ghost, no David near death's door. No curse, no reason to save Chris. Barnabas' entire goals for his mission would have been successfully accomplished. (And what many fans consider one of Barnabas' most heinous acts, killing Carl, would have also never taken place.)[/spoiler] Although, if Barnabas had left well enough alone, just think of how short 1897 would have been and that wouldn't have been any fun at all!    Especially with Petofi never having been created and played to perfection by Thayer David. That alone would have been a huge crime!

OK, since we're doing spoilers here, I'm going to refer to [spoiler]Jenny's murder of Quentin[/spoiler] as Event A, and I shall refer to [spoiler]Quentin's haunting of Collinwood[/spoiler] as Event B.

If I remember correctly, Event A was not in any way caused by Barnabas's intervention in 1897.  Therefore, in order for Event B to happen, in the original course of events in 1897, Event A must have been reversed without Barnabas's intervention, since Event B was caused not by Event A but rather by events that happened later in 1897 (Events C, D, E, and so on through the alphabet and beyond).  But all Barnabas knew at that point was that Event A happened, and that Event B happened, and that it was logical to suppose  (Barnabas and logic...hmm...) that Event A caused Event B and that once Barnabas had undone Event A, everything was fixed, and he could wash his hands of 1897 and concentrate on getting back to 1969.  Barnabas did not make this assumption, however.  (Barnabas and logic...grr..)

In the original course of events in 1897, how did Event A get undone?

If I remember correctly, Event A was not in any way caused by Barnabas's intervention in 1897.

You never know what may have happened. If Barnabas wasn't there, Dirk wouldn't have been detained by Barnabas, and therefore may have caught Jenny before Event A happened ... This must be true, because Event A certainly didnt happen in the original timeline.

Event A caused Event B

I don't think Barnabas thought this. He thought [spoiler]Quentin died walled up in his room[/spoiler]
So he had an inkling that he had already changed history in an undesirable way, and wanted to nip it in the bud. I think this was his motivation when he had Event A undone.

If Barnabas wasn't there, Dirk wouldn't have been detained by Barnabas, and therefore may have caught Jenny before Event A happened ... This must be true, because Event A certainly didnt happen in the original timeline.

Interesting speculation.  But I don't think we can say with certainty that Event A didn't happen in the original timeline - and therefore, neither could Barnabas.  This whole business of traveling into the past to heal the present turns out to be even trickier than I thought.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to think Angelique was around in the original timeline, since she was only summoned to take care of Barnabas. She was the one who reversed Event A. It makes perfect sense that Event A couldn't have happened in the original timeline. Especially since we have seen the later episodes and know how Quentin really died in the original timeline.

But Angelique didn't cause Event A.  She merely helped to undo it.  Or have I forgotten something?

But Angelique didn't cause Event A.  She merely helped to undo it.  Or have I forgotten something?

Yes, but if Event A did occur in the original timeline, someone must have undone it, since we know how Q died originally..

Exactly.  And I keep wondering: how?

I think it's a bit of a stretch to think Angelique was around in the original timeline, since she was only summoned to take care of Barnabas. She was the one who reversed Event A. It makes perfect sense that Event A couldn't have happened in the original timeline. Especially since we have seen the later episodes and know how Quentin really died in the original timeline.

But when Beth's ghost reveals [spoiler]how she and Quentin died on Sept. 10, 1897, Angelique figured prominently, which indicates that Ang was present in the original, unchanged timeline, probably summoned from the flames by Evan and Quentin for some other reason.

Of course, this brings up even more questions and possible inconsistencies; for example, if Petofi wasn't in that timeline to stop the events of Sept.10, what reason would Quentin have had to agree to marry Angelique before Beth shot him in a jealous rage since Jamison would not have been possessed by David and therefore, Quentin's bargain wtih Angelique to remove Petofi's spell would not have been necessary?[/spoiler]

I keep forgetting about that surprising revelation.  As for the question asked, I figure the character involved had shown considerable aptitude in such matters in two similar previous situations, and could therefore be counted on to succeed in this situation as well.

MB-- [spoiler]I figured someone would bring that up, but in another thread someone argued that, by the time Beth talked to Julia in 1969, history had already been changed. Therefore, her recollection of what happened had changed to include Ang. I think that sounds pretty reasonable, and at the very least shows that we can't assume A was there based purely on Beth's recollection...[/spoiler]

It wont let me modify my last post, but additionally,
[spoiler]
The poster who made the argument above also hypothesized that the same events basically occurred with someone else in Ang's place ... It certainly seems reasonable that someone else could have rivaled Beth for Quentin's love, as we know he got around a bit ...[/spoiler]

Honestly, I'm still trying to figure out what was controversial about my initial post... We know how Q died and how that related to the events of 1969. If what I referred to in my initial post happened, the cause of of the events in 1969 wouldn't have existed.

MB-- [spoiler]I figured someone would bring that up, but in another thread someone argued that, by the time Beth talked to Julia in 1969, history had already been changed. Therefore, her recollection of what happened had changed to include Ang.

Since I brought up Beth's conversation with Julia, I think you might be responding to my comments and not MB's.  As shocking as it might seem, photographic evidence does exist that MB and I are separate and distinct persons. 

I think that sounds pretty reasonable, and at the very least shows that we can't assume A was there based purely on Beth's recollection...

Yes, the theory is reasonable, but only if Beth was NOT speaking of events from the original timeline.   Yet I was responding to your comments that are quoted within my post in which you said: "I think it's a bit of a stretch to think Angelique was around in the original timeline... Especially since we have seen the later episodes and know how Quentin really died in the original timeline."  Please correct me if I'm wrong because I assumed you were speaking about the murder/suicide as being how Quentin died originally, but if so, aren't you acknowledging there that events revealed by Beth were from the original timeline?