They had to stop it very soon. Remember "You told us that our daughter was dead!", "Better that than tell you what she had become."? Just "tell", not "see".

But since my questions about uncle Rudy lead us either to creating a conspiracy theory, or to blaming Sherlock's parents, I believe, it is not funny anymore. I propose to discuss something else.

Last edited by Naavy (January 28, 2017 2:02 pm)

I doubt, he could be influential enough, to stop his parents from visiting Eurus - except they were already willing to do it because their own choice, and searched for excuse. And - when he was ready to feign Eurus'es death, they did not see her already for long time. I guess, they preferred to take care of Sherlock.

BTW I have a theory (again!). I thought a bit about it, and I imagine, before the murder Eurus was Mycroft's favorite sibling, not Sherlock. She was a year younger, but much more brilliant, and simply interesting (even, if bothering). And Eurus felt the same towards Mycroft - he had already some education, and was brilliant too. They understood each other. That's why Sherlock's needed to make friends with Victor ;>

I wonder if it was more of a sad triangle: Mycroft prefered Eurus, Eurus prefered Sherlock, Sherlock prefered Mycroft. :-(

Naavy wrote:

I doubt, he could be influential enough, to stop his parents from visiting Eurus - except they were already willing to do it because their own choice, and searched for excuse. And - when he was ready to feign Eurus'es death, they did not see her already for long time. I guess, they preferred to take care of Sherlock.

I meant influential enough to make it look like Eurus was dead after the second fire.
I can't imagine those parents who were so passionate about seeing their daughter right away now to have abandoned her so offhandedly before.

besleybean wrote:

But why wouldn't they believe what they were told?

What do you mean?

I've had just the same convo with a friend of mine. The timeline looks so obvious to me that I begin to wonder now whether I have imagined half of the characters' motivations:

1. When Mycroft is 12-13, Eurus hides Voctor and sets the house on fire. She is then brought to an institution by Uncle Rudi where her loving parents must have been visiting her.

2. The whole arrangement is obviously killing the parents. Besides, Mycroft grows up to realize Eurus' potential for evil. He must be older now and have influence and means to fake her death and transfer her to Sherrinford. So he takes over from Uncle Rudi (and behind Uncle's back too, possibly).

Lis wrote:

I think the point ewige is making, correct me if I'm wrong ewige, is that the time between Eurus being taken away and Mycroft being old enough to have any control over Eurus' situation, as I think he was probably in his government position when he told his parents she had died, would have been quite a long time. The question is did their parents visit Eurus in between the time she was taken away and Mycroft telling them she had died and I would think they did, possibly without telling Sherlock if he had already written her out of his memories at that time.

Yes, thank you. You sound more coherent than me
I'm a little heartbroken for Sherlock because that means he was kept in the dark by his parents well into his teen years. I mean, how old Mycroft would need to be to pull that off and start keping his whole family in the dark? 25 at least?

Last edited by ewige (January 28, 2017 6:47 pm)

The whole situation is bizzarre. It's not so easy to hide something from a teen so fiercely intelligent, is it? Unless he's in a boarding school, of course.

After finally watching Season 4, I agree with all the questions asked before - and with all the people who said that there are no answers and we should suspend our disbelief. Still, I have a few questions to add:

If I can believe House M.D., there is a medical condition where people seriously don't feel pain - it's not necessarily a sign of mental illness. So why did everybody automaticall assume Euros was crazy?

"You don't lock up a child because a dog goes missing." - well, no, but it wasn't a dog that went missing. Another child was hidden away and presumably drowned by Euros. So why was the little murderess alone in her room, playing with matches, instead of being under close observation/being interrogated - or already shipped off? (Btw, it's surprising Euros got out of her room where the fire started, meaning it should have started slowly enough, but they couldn't save the house. Well, depending on how well insured Musgrave Hall was, the Holmses might have been more than happy to be rid of the drafty, impossible to heat place...)

Why was Mycroft staring at the drone like hypnotized instead of doing something about the patience grenade BEFORE the movement detector activated?

Why does he ask about Speedy's when "the neighbours should be safe" and it's clearly Mrs. Hudson's flat that's on the ground floor of 221? And how can John and Sherlock land on Speedy's awning (and wouldn't that be rolled up when the café is closed?) when it's next door? Given how all three shake off being blown out of the house (awning to soften the fall or not) - does that mean it's now canon that they are some sort of supernatural beings, like vampires?

Back in HLV Mycroft said something like "No prison could hold Sherlock" and prefers to send him off on a suicide mission (is it suicide when you are forced to do it?) - when Sherrinford was there all along to "detain the undetainable". Maybe he didn't want to lock up Sherlock in "hell" - but then why do it to Euros?

Mycroft is magnificently menacing when he asks the Governor about Euros ("if she ever left the Island, I guarantee, you won't") - but then, when he gets the perfect chance and a compelling reason to make good on his threat, he caves in and shows himself to be the spineless a... I've always thought him to be...  Wasn't he supposed to be better than that?

Why does John not know how to kill a person? From the moment he asked the Governor's name it was clear he wouldn't shoot him. Killing is best done without thinking about it, I speak from experience. (No need to call the police, my victims were poultry and sick rabbits - all of which were completely innocent and much more likeable than David.) That was my first thought. The second was: Is John truly the abusive monster we've seen in TLD and tortures the governor on purpose for all the trouble he's caused?

Last but not least I just can't make up my mind whether The Final Problem is the worst story ever written - or a really, really clever political commentary...
 

I don't think not being able to kill an innocent person in cold blood means you are spineless. John wasn't able to do it either - does that make him spineless too? I don't think so. As Schmiezi says - it just means they have a conscience and a human heart. Most people wouldn't be able to do it.

I absolutely loved Mycroft in TFP, it added a whole new layer to him as a character.