If the original series ended in 1930 and this one is supposed to begin in 1936 how do they explain that Rose Buck has aged about 35 years in the space of just six in the series' timeline?
shareI chalked it up to her having TB. She was only there about a year before she ended up in the hospital.
Darling, I am trouble of the most spectacular kind!
They don't explain it, but as the last series actually finished in 1975 and no one has found a way to reverse the ageing process since then, I suppose it was a choice between using her or not.
They did put Rose in hospital in the second series, so maybe she is working on getting younger
http://www.oztvreviews.com/
I suppose the 35-year difference in real life can't be help. However, the timeline of the original series spans from 1903-1930, that is 27 years. If I assume that Rose buck is in her mid to late 20's when the series starts, say 28, she would be around 61 in 1936, which is not too bad considering the looks. I guess we are a bit used to the youthful looks of Rose in 1930 (in which she could be in her early 50's hence the big difference in the new series.
shareAsked Jean Marsh about Rose's age once.Her reply was "don't go there!"
shareRose is fairly young at the beginning of the series, probably only a few years older than Elizabeth who is 17 in 1903. Rose is probably no older than 20 or 21.
This makes even more sense if you figure that by how surprised people are by her romantic involvement with Greg. When he is killed she would have been in her mid 30s and hence, her attitude that he was her last chance at a family and home.
Darling, I am trouble of the most spectacular kind!
Rose mentions that she worked for the Bellamys for 40 years, meaning she would have gone to work for them in 1890. So the way she looked in 1936 is how she SHOULD look. It was the original series that was goofy when it came to the aging of the characters. No one except James Bellamy ever looked any older in the 30-year timeline.
share