Talk:Bobby Beale (EastEnders)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


He's Bobby, not Robert, Garry named him after Bobby Moore. Trampikey 09:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes but can anyone legally be called 'Bobby'? I'm pretty sure you can't officially register someone with a name like that even if they're called that for practicly their whole life. Sparhelda 03:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
You can name your child whatever you want, there's no law against any name in the UK. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 08:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Unless its not actually a name... Sparhelda 15:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Bobby is a name. It remains that you can name your child anything - I know people called Sam which isn't short for Samuel, and Danny which isn't short for Daniel. It's perfectly legal and normal. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If my memory serves me correctly, Wasn't Bobby's name Robert on the birth certificate or at least mentioned by Laura when she was at the registry office? Conquistador2k6 11:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been because he was named Bobby. As for saying it's not actually a name, all I can say is it's more of a name than Brooklyn or Chardonnay. Lots of names aren't actual names. Sparhelda, if someone can't be legally named Bobby, then someone also can't be legally named Alfie, yet it's the 16th most popular boys' name in England and Wales in 2006[1]. Those children are legally named Alfie, not Alfred. Bobby's name is Bobby. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I did see the birth certificate recently and it did say "Robert" but it was obviously an error by the props department. His gave his full, legal name in court as Bobby Beale. anemoneprojectors 18:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of whether he was referred to as Bobby in court - which incidentally is an error on the writers' part in 2016, as opposed to the props department making a mistake in 2003: we saw his birth being registered by Laura on screen (episode dated 22/8/03) and it was clearly stated that his name was Robert Beale. His birth certificate appeared on screen many times up until his true paternity was revealed to Ian in 2004. It is a huge assumption that it was changed off-screen. Grangehilllover has not allowed me to change the name in the first sentence to Robert "Bobby" Beale so I have tried an alternative to avoid edit warring (adding a sentence in the lead to mention the name Robert, as was done with "Sal Martin" on the Aunt Sal article), but this has been repeatedly reverted as well. The name Robert must be included somehow, so please pick how. (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


To minors? I think we need to start getting strict about ones who have no potential for real world notability. And this character doesnt at the moment.GunGagdinMoan 23:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Was thinking the same thing a few days ago. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Was That It?????[edit]

Was that his final episode? Not finding anything on Google to state either way. However Dean made unannounced departures after we thought he left as well!--5 albert square (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The BBC is still listing him as a present character, so I would keep listing him as a present character unless we hear otherwise.

SamLaws81101 (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the BBC thing, and he could still appear, but as he's a recurring character anyway I say we put him on a one-year rule maybe? I'm assuming that he will serve half of his sentence in custody like he would if he was an adult, so that means in 18 months he could be back in Walford again (I think he'd have to return to Walford upon his release anyway given his age). anemoneprojectors 18:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, there's been no announcement on Eliot leaving and given his age, I think he will be rested from the show plus Eliot will be starting his GCSE's soon (and they do GCSE's in Year 9 now - the school year Eliot is in). I think Bobby will make the odd appearance and released sooner perhaps?
Grangehilllover (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
So, one-year rule for now? anemoneprojectors 09:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the BBC is now listing him as a past character so should we add his last appearance as 17 June?

SamLaws81101 (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

1 year rule. ThisIsDanny (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm in two minds now. Although we normally apply the one-year rule to recurring characters, we only do so if there's a chance they'll appear and no evidence to say they won't, and not if it's obvious their storyline has ended, but with the BBC saying he's a past character, maybe we should follow suit. 18 months from now they can announce his return and we'll list him as returning. However, if we list him as past now and he does pop up, then we should definitely apply the one-year rule. anemoneprojectors 16:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we should change this now. Only I'm just watching the Christmas episode and if I heard correctly, Jane said that Bobby had removed them from the visiting list? That would indicate he's not going to appear anytime soon.--5 albert square (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Ian did say some months ago that Bobby didn't want either of them visiting, so basically nothing's changed. He could still put them back on the visiting list. If we don't stick to our self-imposed 1-year-rule for recurring characters with a chance of appearing again, why even have a rule? anemoneprojectors 00:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


OK, do we assume that his appearance was a one-off cameo? Or do we leave him as "present recurring" in case he makes more appearances? I guess he would be coming to the end of his sentence soon. Plus with what EastEnders have planned for Ian and Max over Christmas I guess he could feature as part of that?

I was thinking we could apply the one year rule again for him.--5 albert square (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I feel it may be better moving him to past as it seemed to be a one-off cameo. Soaper1234 - talk 10:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)