Discuss The Archers  permalink

Just leave it alone Pat!

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 38 of 38
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by cherrytree (U9175528) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    All this is going to do to satisfy your curiosity is to possibly wreck a family. Sharon seems to have made a very successful job of removing herself completely from the clutches of the Horrobins and Ambridge, she has a loving partner and a son who probably thinks that Eamon(?) is his dad. What good will your prying around do? I hope there are laws to prevent it going much further.

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Bette (U2222559) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    I wouldn't dismiss this as 'to satisfy your curiosity'.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by docklie (U7802187) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    Laws? Don't you know? The Archers are above the law?

    Pat will probablyl DEMAND to know whether the child is her grandson or not irrespective or whether it does more damage than good.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Rose Sal Volatile Parade (U4705648) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    Nor would I! Her son is dead. He may have procreated. It most certainly isn't just about curiosity. It's about life and death and loved ones. What more is there?

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by cherrytree (U9175528) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    It's about [possibly wrecking a stable family.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Dinah Shore (U14984316) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    It's about [possibly wrecking a stable family.  The Lloyds live at The Stables!

    But they are an unstable family, like all in Ambridge.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Rose Sal Volatile Parade (U4705648) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    Secrets and lies. Life's too short to not know. The family's not that stable if one of them is carrying a secret like that.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by cherrytree (U9175528) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    How do we know she is?

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by ruralsnowflakebliss (U8131914) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    I do think that Pat has to think about consequences however. She comes across as quite self obsessed and indeed grief (I am not BTW minimising her grief) can make people incrediably selfish

    Johns death has profoundly damaged his family... and Pat is a very different person that she might have been

    However a critical friend would not tell her to stop thinking about it rather IMO they would encourage her to talk but act as a brake to impulsivity and be a sounding board to show her all the very different perspectives and needs in the situation

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Rose Sal Volatile Parade (U4705648) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    We don't. I said 'if'.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    As we know, "family" is all in the Archers. Even if someone wants absolutely nothing whatever to do with her actual father, and is applauded for this, the person doing the applauding is somehow entitled to some sort of rights over a child who doesn't know her, has no need to know her, and I rather hope will tell her what Kylie told Clive: "I wan't nothing to do with you."

    Supposing that John did carelessly provide the sperm for little Rich.

    What (apart from throw his mother Sharon out a couple of times, and regard her as unworthy of Her Son John, and blame her for John's death) has Pat ever done for Rich? Anything to earn one half-minute of consideration?

    No, I didn't think so.

    Even the law doesn't give grandparents rights over a child whose actual parent doesn't want to allow that grandparent to visit.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by Rose Sal Volatile Parade (U4705648) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    >>> Supposing that John did carelessly provide the sperm for little Rich <<

    The vast majority of sperm is carelessly provided I dare say. But it still matters whose it is. Look at all those people desperately researching who their sperm donating father might be.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by ruralsnowflakebliss (U8131914) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    Pandoras box innit?

    From which all the ills of the world escaped

    Well not hope........... but oh how Pat 'hopes'

    I can't believe how quickly it jumped into her head without any other possible bit of evidence... it just wouldn't be the first thought

    I really really hope Pat has got this wrong... but the mayhem could be simulaneously entertaining and horrifying

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by charmingAnnielynn (U11952070) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    Well, I don't think Rich should be forced to maintain contact with (if they're even his relatives) the Archer clan, but what about his rights to know about his own parentage? It's possible that he's never really felt connected to Sharon's husband, or he's always thought that rural life was pretty cool and wished he lived on a farm, or he's always wished he could know his grandparents but he thinks he doesn't have any still alive, a hundred other reasons why (if it was presented in a sensitive way) he may be glad to be in touch with the Archers. Pat doesn't have a right to ruin his life in order to get her own way, but he's old enough IMO to have ALL the information about his family presented to him, and for him to get to make decisions himself. After all, at the age of 13, if he were the child of divorcing parents,the child's own wishes regarding who to live with would be a factor taken into consideration by the courts. Why should he not also get some say in whether he gets to have contact with his birth father's family?

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by ruralsnowflakebliss (U8131914) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    You are also talking about a teenager who is potentially at the rebellious and muddled up point who can easily play two sides off against each other... and I bet Pat would encourage it.........................

    We have just no idea.. but to bumble in with rights n stuff................

    Well IMO the parent who tried and seems to have brought up her children well should be worthy of a little consideration

    By all means check... but say sharon says nope not possible... would you support Pat trying to force the issue to be certain for her own peace of mind?

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    What........... has Pat ever done for Rich? 


    Thought about him night and day, ever since she heard of him?


    This isn't logical, or rational, and it's more about Pat's still unresolved grief for John than anything else.

    Pat hasn't interfered, destabilised a family, or forced anything, YET.

    It's just a what if..........I can't put myself in Pat's shoes, but I think what she's doing is only human.

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by Lyra (U2293272) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    Yes, of course Pat's reaction is only natural, she must be desperately hoping that this child is John's son, but this is about her and of feelings of loss for John. It's not about Rich.

    Actually, I'm not sure that there's much she can do. If she talks to Sharon and Sharon says, no he's not John's, where does Pat go? I don't think (any lawyers out there correct me if I'm wrong) that she could demand a DNA test in such circumstances. Better by far to leave things be, for the time being at any rate.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by siriol (U14748387) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    I agree. Leave well alone. It can only lead to further pain and sorrow for everyone.

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    I really don't know what rights a grandparent has in law, but judging from the many who say sadly that they are not allowed to see their grandchild, precious few.

    Yes, this is about Rich, or should be.

    How is he helped by being told that his mother was a slut and is a liar, the only father he knows a cuckold, a credulous fool, or another liar and his blood-father a man who threw his mother out and said he never wanted to see her again?

    I feel that thirteen is the wrong age to be given this unpleasant set of stuff *IF* (for which neither we not Pat as yet have evidence) Rich is the son of a man who actively didn't want either his mother or (had he known Rich existed) Rich. I am not sure what is a good age to be told such things, but I am fairly sure that the beginning of adolescence proper is not it.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by charmingAnnielynn (U11952070) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    Well, Chris, yes, if a random stranger set the boy down and presented it as you have, I could see where he'd be a mite upset by it.

    However - if Rich is John's child, and Sharon agrees to talk to the boy about it, I have a feeling she might phrase the situation a bit more diplomatically. It's hard to say what sort of dad John may have been. Some who "accidentally" became dads turn out be great at it, there's just no way to know. And while the story doesn't give a flattering view of his parents, Sharon would be able to tell him about complicated circumstances, why she felt how she did, acted as she did, etc. She could encourage Rich to also remember that this new situation means that some people who very much loved John have only just recently found out about Rich, and would very much like to meet and learn more about him, and make him a part of their family. It's not just a totally negative situation.

    as long as she doesn't mention Auntie Helen, of course.

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by peter-francis (U14241999) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    < < I agree. Leave well alone. It can only lead to further pain and sorrow for everyone > >

    I would agree, were it not for one wonderful possibility.

    If the lad is the fruit of John, their first born son's loins.................just think of the dramas, misery, spite, hatred and vengeance which could happen when the subject of Pat and / or Tony's wills comes up. I shall probably not be a listener then, but it could create no end of havoc if they named their oldest son's son as their sole heir.

    P

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by JustJanie - Fairweather Strider (U10822512) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    I hope you live to be a hundred, peter-francis, but in case you don't, comfort yourself with the possibility that Tony and Pat could do what Brian did about Ruairi to Debbie and Adam, that is to say let Tom and Helen know they are Changing Their Will to include the son of John!

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by peter-francis (U14241999) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    JJ, that's very kind of you, and I like your idea*. Sort of seasonal too......light blue touch paper and sit back and watch!

    P

    * re the will. Well, and the idea of my living to 100!

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by JustJanie - Fairweather Strider (U10822512) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    Well, we can dream, can't we? About living to a hundred AND about Tom and Helen going up in smoke at the thought of losing part of their inheritance.

    Sadly, I don't think young Rich will turn out to be John's son. I fear yet another damp 'squid'.

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Saturday, 19th November 2011

    Inheritance? At this rate it will 'Hello Rich, all this is yours, and by the way the mortgage is now standing at £1,500,000..........'

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by Auntie Molly (U14110968) on Saturday, 19th November 2011

    I think.Pat is being selfish. she does not seem to have given a thought to what the lad has been told about his paternity. It's all about her.

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Saturday, 19th November 2011

    Give the woman a chance!

    She's just got a nagging thought in her head that won't go away. She hasn't done anything about - hasn't expressed any intention to find out for certain, speak to Sharon, demand DNA tests, tell Rich he 'might' have a different dad. She hasn't done any of those things, and she's not stupid, I don't think she'll take things further without considering the implications for the other people involved.

    But is it really selfish to indulge in a 'what if' to yourself (& a best mate, given the circumstances)?

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Saturday, 19th November 2011

    I wouldn't dismiss this as 'to satisfy your curiosity'.  

    What else is it then? Interfering in the boy's life will be for her sake not his.

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Saturday, 19th November 2011

    Why would Sharon want to introduce Rich to a family who treated her so badly? And why would Rich want to know them?

    And of course then there is Helen - who would want her as an aunt?

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Saturday, 19th November 2011

    Alas, and alas, poor Hayley; pity poor Hayley.

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by Malahide (U14258229) on Saturday, 19th November 2011

    >But is it really selfish to indulge in a 'what if' to yourself (& a best mate, given the circumstances)?<

    It's interesting what the best mate said though, isn't it? Arch worrywart Kathy senses that Pat's ramblings should stop here and now. And for all the reasons that people are giving here, I think she should pull back too.

    But she won't, will she? I can see this leading to some ghastly grovelling encounter on Sharon's doorstep - an ironic contrast to the disgust Pat expressed over the knickers-tangled-in-duvet-cover incident.

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Saturday, 19th November 2011

    Not to mention her outburst of disgust that John was dead, and Sharon had been standing in her yard stiill alive when John's death was entirely Sharon's fault.

    I suppose she must have forgotten that even if this child is half John's, he is also half Sharon's, and the half that is Sharon's by nature is also entirely Sharon's by nurture.

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by Auntie Molly (U14110968) on Saturday, 19th November 2011

    I wonder if, or when, it will occur to Pat, that owing to Helen's unorthodox way of of reproducing, baby Henry also has a paternal grandmother who will never know of his existence?

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by Malahide (U14258229) on Saturday, 19th November 2011

    I wonder if, or when, it will occur to Pat, that owing to Helen's unorthodox way of of reproducing, baby Henry also has a paternal grandmother who will never know of his existence?  Such is the stuff of soaps!

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by Rose Sal Volatile Parade (U4705648) on Saturday, 19th November 2011

    Why soaps? Life too. And this is a very good SL to tap. Helen can be outraged that Pat wants to know, because if it doesn't occur to Pat, it will to Helen (that there's a grandmother out there and that the hoover may want to know who his genetic dad was himself one day). Helen will therefore make a fuss about poor Pat's obsession, under the guise of being worried about Pat no doubt, when in fact she's worried about the implication that the membrane of her own selfish life could one day be torn asunder.

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Saturday, 19th November 2011

    Pat doesn't care about that - only her family matter.

    Rich is far better off not knowing about the ghastly clan even if he is related to them.

    But of course one can see the way this story will go. Pat won't let it drop. The only upside is that it could upset helen and tom.

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by BlackSheepBoy (U11150138) on Saturday, 19th November 2011

    So far all she is doing is wondering about the possibility. She cannot help it, and if anyone is being harmed it is only herself. It is easy to say "leave alone", but not easy do.

    If she takes steps to clear up her confusion, and even go beyond that, then I think she would be seriously at fault. She might think she could add something to the boy's life or his family''s, but his mother has obviously put his life on a different route. Sharon has all the entitlement on her side to do so, and Pat should not seek an opportunity to interfere.

    If John was alive, he would have justification, but not Pat.

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by Malahide (U14258229) on Saturday, 19th November 2011

    >Why soaps? <

    Because we are discussing TA, which is not life but a soap. I don't use the word in any derogatory sense, I enjoy TA - and have done for years - precisely because it is a rolling drama that (mostly) amuses me for a quarter of an hour every weekday. Soaps rely greatly on contrived situations and events such as now with the sudden prominence of the Horrobin clan and Rich in particular.
    This mystery of the uncertain parentage (if only in Pat's imagination)promises to be a good storyline. One way or the other it's bound to end in tears.

    Report message38

Back to top

About this Board

Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

This messageboard is now closed.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.