Chucked out of Happy Days
QUESTION What happened to Chuck Cunningham, who went upstairs in an early episode of the TV show Happy Days and was never seen again?
ChuCk Cunningham was Richie and Joanie’s older brother, who appeared in the first two series of happy Days.
A high school jock at Jefferson high, he was a minor character who was only seen in passing — usually on the way to basketball practice.
After appearing in nine episodes of the show, he vanished without explanation and was never mentioned again. The phenomenon of TV characters disappearing has since become known as Chuck Cunningham syndrome.
Despite his fleeting appearance on the show, Chuck was played by two actors. Gavan O’herlihy, a champion Irish tennis player, appeared in seven episodes from January to March 1974.
When he realised his character was going nowhere, he asked to leave. he went on to appear in a number of films, including 1988’s Willow, and as the villain in the 1989 TV western Lonesome Dove.
he was succeeded as Chuck by Randolph Roberts for two episodes, but by this time, happy Days producers had noted the burgeoning popularity of Arthur ‘ Fonzie’ Fonzarelli ( henry Winkler) and decided to develop him as a ‘big brother’ to Richie (Ron howard).
Chuck’s role was so fleeting they didn’t even bother to write him out.
his disappearance has led to various conspiracy theories. Gary Marshall, the series creator, liked to joke that the character got a basketball scholarship in Outer Mongolia.
When Ron howard was asked what happened to Chuck, he insinuated he’d had his big brother bumped off to increase his own role.
Another famous case of Chuck Cunningham syndrome was Judy Winslow (Jaimee Foxworth), originally the third and youngest of the Winslow clan in Family Matters.
She mysteriously disappeared following
Gone missing: Gavan O’Herlihy (top) and the rest of the Cunninghams season four. Sadly, her life took a difficult turn and she ended up in the adult film industry. She later appeared on Oprah speaking of her experiences and her desire to help others.
Eleanor Connor, London N11.
QUESTION Was the Unite coin devised by James I a popular currency?
When the king arrived in London in early 1604, it was as James VI of Scotland and James I of england. having planned the union of Scotland and england to create a new country called Great Britain, he introduced symbols such as the union Flag and the unite coin.
In his first speech to Parliament on March, 19, 1604, James gave a clear statement of his royal manifesto: ‘What God hath conjoined let no man separate.’ his ambitions were greeted with little enthusiasm as english MPs rushed to defend the ancient name and realm of england.
James’s most enduring symbol was the union Flag, popularly known as the union Jack, a 1606 blending of the saltire of St Andrew and the cross of St George.
In 1604, James had issued a magnificent gold unite coin with a value of 20 shillings or one pound, conveying his hopes and ambitions that his reign would truly unite the two nations.
The obverse depicted James in profile holding the orb and sceptre. A shield divided into four quadrants, each inscribed with the arms of england, Scotland, France and Ireland, dominated the reverse. The shield was surmounted by a crown and flanked by the letters ‘I’ and ‘R’ for Jacobus Rex. The legend around the edge ran: ‘ Faciam
eos in gentem unam’ — ‘I will make them one nation’ (adapted from ezekiel 37:22). The political message was clear.
The unite was such a high value coin that it would have been used by only a few wealthy people. James I also produced shillings, sixpences, halfgroats, pennies and half-pennies in silver and the copper farthing, which were far more popular currencies.
The unite was minted sporadically between 1604 and 1662 through the reign of James and his son Charles I and Oliver Cromwell’s protectorate. It was more of a propaganda tool than a true currency.
Martin Evans, Haverfordwest, Pembs.
QUESTION Does the phrase ‘read the Riot Act’ come from a particular event?
The idiom comes from a particular piece of legislation, the Riot Act of 1714. This authorised officers of the law to declare any group of a dozen or more people to be unlawfully assembled and to disperse or face punitive action.
It was introduced when the Government was fearful of Jacobite mobs who threatened to rise up and overthrow the hanoverian George I.
The proclamation could be made in an incorporated town or city by the mayor, bailiff or a justice of the peace. elsewhere it could be made by a justice of the peace, sheriff, under-sheriff or parish constable.
To take effect, the precise wording had to be read aloud: ‘Our sovereign lord the king chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of king George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God save the king.’
The punishments for ignoring the Act were severe — penal servitude for not less than three years or imprisonment with hard labour for up to two years.
From the 19th century, the Riot Act began to fade into disuse. The last attempted reading took place during the Battle of George Square — a mass demonstration for shorter working hours — in Glasgow on January 31, 1919.
A sheriff began to read the Riot Act, but the sheet of paper was ‘snatched out of his hand’ by protesters.
The then home Secretary Winston Churchill later deployed more than 10,000 troops to restore order.
The Riot Act wasn’t officially repealed in england and Wales until the Criminal Law Act of 1967, but is still a popular idiom, meaning ‘to reprimand severely’.
George Saunders, Ripponden, W. Yorks.
IS THERE a question to which you have always wanted to know the answer? Or do you know the answer to a question raised here? Send your questions and answers to: Charles Legge, Answers To Correspondents, Daily Mail, 2 Derry Street, London, W8 5TT. You can also email them to charles.legge@dailymail.co.uk. A selection will be published, but we are not able to enter into individual correspondence.