Natalie's Fate: Was it really Altered?

[Joeytrom]

It was never stated how Natalie Dupres died originally, with her being one of the survivors of 1795/6.

With her dying of a heart attack at the hands of Ben Stokes, her heart was obviously very weak.   Perhaps with Josette's death and all that happened, the stress resulted in doingdamage to her heart.

Perhaps in the original run, she died of a heart attack after Vicky was hung (and Phyllis Wick before that)  and Barnabas chained.   Either while still living at Collinwood or on her way to New York to meet up with Andre, her heart gave out due to all the stress she went through.

[VictoriaWintersRox]

With her dying of a heart attack at the hands of Ben Stokes, her heart was obviously very weak.   Perhaps with Josette's death and all that happened, the stress resulted in doingdamage to her heart.

Hmm I was under the impression that Natalie died of suffication, though I would imagine it would've taken Ben longer to suffocate her.

[Cassandra]

Hmm I was under the impression that Natalie died of suffication, though I would imagine it would've taken Ben longer to suffocate her.

That's what I thought also. Although I suppose it could have been a combination of both.

I wondered though when Barnabas told Ben to "go back to Collinwood and dispose of her things"  then he told him to "just tell my father that she went back to Martinique."  I could see this sounding somewhat normal if she had no family or living relatives left, but what's Andre gonna thing when his sister never shows up again?  ?!?  And what about Millicent? She went trecking through the woods with Natalie to spy on Barnabas & Ben.  I suppose with her though, Joshua would think that she's half mad and only imagined the whole thing. Maybe Ben should have told ole Mister Joshua that Natalie & Lt.Forbes just ran off together!!!

[Julia99]

Well and how does the 2nd trip back to the 1790s affect things?  Did Natalie get bitten by Barnabas and murdered by Ben later --the two timechanges converging?   Poor Natalie ..she was okay if not distraught originally. . i think that poor gal suffered the most from Barnabas trying to right all his wrongs.. .

[Cassandra]

Well and how does the 2nd trip back to the 1790s affect things?  Did Natalie get bitten by Barnabas and murdered by Ben later --the two timechanges converging?   Poor Natalie ..she was okay if not distraught originally. . i think that poor gal suffered the most from Barnabas trying to right all his wrongs.. .

I thought so too.  She seemed pretty much okay with it the first time around and was so willing to help Joshua and Barnabas out by contacting Bathia Mapes for help.

But what gets me is the drastic change in her this second time around. I can understand her being distraught over losing her niece,  but one thing she seems to forget all the time that it was HER maid, the one that SHE bought along, who had caused all the trouble.

So little explanations were given during all these time travel changes.   Today these kind of things wouldn't hold up without at least some kind of an explanation. Who could have ever thought the show would still be this popular over 30 years later? And not to mention the large use of VCR's.  :-)

[Julia99]

But what gets me is the drastic change in her this second time around. I can understand her being distraught over losing her niece,  but one thing she seems to forget all the time that it was HER maid, the one that SHE bought along, who had caused all the trouble.

Yes she was Natalie's maid but Natalie is hardly responsible for what another individual does be it a grown woman, servant or not. . .

[VAM]

Yes she was Natalie's maid but Natalie is hardly responsible for what another individual does be it a grown woman, servant or not. . .

Natalie seemed oblivious to the peculiarities in Angelique's activities.

[Philippe Cordier]

I wondered though when Barnabas told Ben to "go back to Collinwood and dispose of her things"  then he told him to "just tell my father that she went back to Martinique."  I could see this sounding somewhat normal if she had no family or living relatives left, but what's Andre gonna thing when his sister never shows up again?  

Cassandra -- this is a good point, but there is one way around it:  Barnabas actually said that Ben should say that Natalie had gone to Paris -- not "Martinique."  I remember this because it surprised me.  DS often doesn't flesh out some things that actually have been well-thought out (can't think of any specific examples offhand, but it does happen!).

If Natalie had gone to Paris, anything could have happened to her en route or after her arrival, whereas Andre's home is definitely in Martinique, which is where he would have gone after leaving the Eastern seabord.  The circumstances of a missing person who supposedly sailed to Europe would probably have been difficult to investigate in those days.

VAM wrote:
Natalie seemed oblivious to the peculiarities in Angelique's activities.

You can say that again!

[Raholt]

Here is my problem with the first mini flashback and Natalie DuPres.  In the original 1795 storyline, Joshua tells Natalie that his son is still alive and under a curse.  She even helps Joshua summon Bathia Mapes to try to end the curse on Barnabas.  

At the time Barnabas goes back in time to save Victoria Winters, this takes place after the events mention above.  After all Victoria's hanging happened after all attempts to end the curse had failed and even after Barnabas was chained in his coffin.  In the mini flashback Barnabas wants Ben to chain him in his coffin to allow history to proceed as it did before so we know the period of time these events are happening.  However in the Mini flashback, Natalie seems to know nothing about Barnabas being cursed or being in the tower, which she would have already known by that point in the original flashback.  The timeline should not have changed from its original course until Barnabas went back which would have been after the events involving Natalie originally.    For this reason, her discovery and ignorance of Barnabas has always bothered me in this flashback.  Since in the original flashback she found out about Barnabas and the curse and did not seem bent on revenge, but instead willing to help fight the powers of Angelique, her reaction in this mini flashback has also bothered me.  The whole Natalie DuPres portion of this flashback seemed to be written by someone who had not seen the original because it in no way went along with the original flashback storyline at all with regard to Natalie.

Raholt

[Cassandra]

Vlad wrote:
Cassandra -- this is a good point, but there is one way around it:  Barnabas actually said that Ben should say that Natalie had gone to Paris -- not "Martinique."  I remember this because it surprised me.  DS often doesn't flesh out some things that actually have been well-thought out (can't think of any specific examples offhand, but it does happen!).

Thanks Vlad for clearing that up for me!  I actually went back to my MPI tape and realized that Barnabas did say "Paris" instead of Martinique.:-)

You're so right about DS usually not thinking things out fully before they actually show something, as it becomes more evident each time someone ventures back into the past for one reason or another. It's really sad too because all it would have taken is for someone to say a few extra lines perhaps as to why things changed so much and the viewers wouldn't have been so confused about it all.

This whole Natalie bit has become so confusing for we the viewers that it just makes the story appear so much more unbelievable.  It just doesn't make sense as to why Natalie was so shocked upon seeing Barnabas alive again during the flashback.  Someone else had mentioned that perhaps Angelique had something to do with this and had taken it upon herself to wipe out Natalie's memory of what happened altogether.  IMHO this could make sense if just a few extra lines had been written into the story for Angelique to say.  They could have had her just thinking to herself how she made Natalie forget all about what she was and all the trouble she had caused Barnabas & his family. This way we could at least had some closure on this very confusing topic.    :-)

[Dr. Eric Lang]

I thought so too.  She seemed pretty much okay with it the first time around and was so willing to help Joshua and Barnabas out by contacting Bathia Mapes for help.

But what gets me is the drastic change in her this second time around. I can understand her being distraught over losing her niece,  but one thing she seems to forget all the time that it was HER maid, the one that SHE bought along, who had caused all the trouble.

There's much we don't know about, however. Victoria Winters originally created a parallel time "bubble" by switching places with Phyllis Wick. The ghost of PT Peter Bradford drew her back into this PT bubble, but we don't know at which point. She may have had to re-live the entire experience. Perhaps her second time through she tried to avert much of the trouble, but to no avail. However, she may have managed to change the events in this parallel timeline just to the extent that the Countess DuPres did not discover Barnabas' secret as she did the first time around.

[Raholt]

I am one of those fans that don't try to make the story fit with explanations of what might have been done unseen or happened due to an action.  The fact is the responsibilty for any inconsistency in this or any storyline is the writers.  It is true that in reality, unseen things do affect people's lives, but in the case of DS, when I come across an inconsistency like this one, I blame the writers for the error.  Given the fact that these episodes were written well after the original segment is still no excuse for not doing the research to find out where the characters stood at any given point in the original flashback and taking the new story from there.  It would be like writing a sequel to a novel and not bothering to find out where the characters ended up before you continue telling their story. I know TV is fast paced and daytime tv, especially back then was very hectic, but surely there was a story bible or synopoises available for the writers to fall back on when delving into past storylines.  This is not a problem that affected just DS, but has happened with many TV shows and it boils down to a writer or writers not doing their research.  When the research is not done then you end up with a situation like this where you are seeing a split version of Natalie Dupres life, not to mention no explanation of how Victoria could have become the governess to the Collins children in that time and not Phyllis Wick since the second time around she was not taking her place.  Also add to that the state of Millicent Collins mental health in this mini flashback.  She is a bit daffy but in no way as mentally disturbed as she was by that point in the original storyline.  The writers of this segment failed to take quite a few things into consideration before beginning this part of the story and it shows prominently unfortunately.

To put it in story context, this is not suppose to be a PT version of anything.  It is suppose to be how history unfolded for the Collins family of the past.  When Victoria went into the past, replacing Phyllis Wick, she was living out life as it had happened to Phyllis originally.  The writers took some licenses with Victoria's knowledge of the past and attempts to prevent the tragedies that hit the Collins family in 1795, but ulitmately history unfolded as it had originally.  When she went back the second time, all rational explantions for how she could have logically fit into that time are gone and it leaves us with a version of the story that doesn't make alot of sense and lacks continuity with the rest of the story as it had been presented up to that point.  

Raholt

[Cassandra]

Raholt said:
Also add to that the state of Millicent Collins mental health in this mini flashback.  She is a bit daffy but in no way as mentally disturbed as she was by that point in the original storyline.  The writers of this segment failed to take quite a few things into consideration before beginning this part of the story and it shows prominently unfortunately.

I totally agree with you here.  Millicent was way too far gone for anything, let alone visiting her husband in jail and listening to instructions on how to destroy Barnabas.

I remember during the original 1795 storyline that Joshua had mentioned to Barnabas that Millicent didn't even remember being married to Lt.Forbes and thought of him as just a "suitor" who called on her every once awhile.  Yet, when we see her again this time around, granted she was a little ditzy, but then again that's how she was anyway during the storyline.

I could only sumise that when the show was on the air (in the late 60's, & early 70's) the writers figured most of the viewers were probably young school age kids (like me) who most likely wouldn't have given all these inconsistencies a second thought.  Also who knew that VCR's would be as big as they are today.  While it's definetly no excuse I think this is probably along the lines that the writers were thinking.

[VAM]

I could only sumise that when the show was on the air (in the late 60's, & early 70's) the writers figured most of the viewers were probably young school age kids (like me) who most likely wouldn't have given all these inconsistencies a second thought.  Also who knew that VCR's would be as big as they are today.  While it's definetly no excuse I think this is probably along the lines that the writers were thinking.

A prerequisite to playing the DS viewing game, inconsistancies must be accepted!;)

[Luciaphile]

A prerequisite to playing the DS viewing game, inconsistancies must be accepted!;)

If we went by that, there are a good many of us who wouldn't be here then (or on most TV discussion boards).  We live to discuss the inconsistencies

Luciaphil