Discuss The Archers  permalink

Why doesn't she just ask?

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 101 - 121 of 121
  • Message 101

    , in reply to message 100.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2011

    In reply to :

    Since The Blessed Beetle has stated firmly that criminals always get their comeuppance, *if* the editorial team know it is illegal as well as amoral and stupid for a possible-grandmother to try to establish her relationship with a child whose mother objects they might possibly not have Pat doing it, because if they did she would have to suffer for it.

    The question is whether they know it. 


    The Blessed Beetle - I Vonder Who you mean? Is that new?

    It is only illegal to do DNA testing w/out permission.

    I think grandparents SHOULD have legal rights and DO have moral rights!

    If comeuppance is guaranteed you have spoiled half the current AmEx plot!

    Report message1

  • Message 102

    , in reply to message 101.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2011

    A VW has beena Beetle for a *long* time, and Blessed is because of her patronising "bless them" about the people who post here, muddle-headed but well-meaning bless them. So we arrive at "Blesséd Beetle", if I could get the right accent on the second e.

    I did actually *say* "whose mother objects", which I would tend to assume means that permission for a DNA test has not been forthcoming.

    I do not think that anyone necessarily has rights; I know that they ought to have duties; I know that I think nobody ought to have one without the other, in any given situation. Since Pat has no duties towards Rich, why should she have rights over him?

    The BB often enough doesn't have criminals getting their comeuppances, as with Helen's unpunished hit-and-run event, so the TAX plot being spoiled is a possible-improbable really. I was saying what she claimed, and using that comment wryly.

    Report message2

  • Message 103

    , in reply to message 102.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2011

    I do not think that anyone necessarily has rights; I know that they ought to have duties; I know that I think nobody ought to have one without the other, in any given situation. Since Pat has no duties towards Rich, why should she have rights over him? 

    Good point.

    Do you also make it about employee rights?

    But I think right of access to one's descendants is innate - as is obligation to care from them. If Richard is Johnsson and Sharon drops dead do you doubt that Pat WOULD care for the child?

    Report message3

  • Message 104

    , in reply to message 103.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2011

    I'm sure there are relatives closer to the child than Sharon who would care for him. His father for instance or his extended maternal family.

    Report message4

  • Message 105

    , in reply to message 104.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2011

    I meant closer than Pat of course. She doesn't know him at all.

    Report message5

  • Message 106

    , in reply to message 104.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2011

    anna - as my comment was conditional on him BEING Johnsson, Pat would be as close as any other relative. We know nothing of Sharon's parents?

    Report message6

  • Message 107

    , in reply to message 106.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2011

    She might be a biologically close relative but eamonn and possibly a whole host of other relatives would know him and be more emotionally close to him. A bit of matching dna means nothing in the greater scheme of things.

    I know that if anything had happened to me when my daughter was young she would have wanted to stay with O/h not a distant blood relative she had never heard of or seen.

    Report message7

  • Message 108

    , in reply to message 107.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2011

    anna, I am absolutely with you on this question. I felt very sorry for Ruairi about his having nobody closer to him than an absentee father whom he hardly knew, and his father's wife whom he didn't know at all. I hope that young Rich is better endowed with real (as opposed to sperm-donation) family.

    If Rich is John's child, he was accidental and John didn't want him one little bit: John chose Hayley, not Sharon, as the person he would spend his life with, and a little by-blow by Sharon would have been a complete disaster from John's point of view.

    Report message8

  • Message 109

    , in reply to message 108.

    Posted by BlackSheepBoy (U11150138) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2011

    So John 's relevance to Rich is (or might be) about the same as that of another unknown man who donated towards Henry.

    Report message9

  • Message 110

    , in reply to message 59.

    Posted by Dippergirl (U13652679) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2011

    aye but she's more likely to get depressed if she spends all her time worrying about 'what if?' than if she actually got hold of the facts. The facts (John either is or isn't the father) are a lot less likely to be upsetting than the idea that 'he might be'. If they are indeed grandparents to more than just the Baby Cheesus then a way will be found to accomodate this fact - just as Rory was accepted as a part of Ambridge life, Rich will add yet another good Future Inheritance Battle to the Everyday Tale of Adulterous Folk.   If she gets a definitive answer that's not the one she wants to hear she will feel a renewed sense of loss.

    Another possibility that has been mentioned either in this thread or elsewhere is that John is not the father because Sharon is not his mother. It could all be a huge misunderstanding, Rich being Eamonn's son by his first wife who tragically died when Rich was a baby, and Sharon having brought him up as her own.  
    Kylie said he was her half-brother (shares one parent with her) not her step-brother (shares no parent) . However people do get muddled about the distinction, she may have meant step-brother.

    Report message10

  • Message 111

    , in reply to message 109.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2011

    Yes.

    If Helen can deprive Henry's paternal relatives of any rights to know him I don't see how Pat can complain if Sharon does the same to her. After all Henry's father could be dead and his family devastated by his loss too.

    Look to your own actions, Pat. Not very honourable are they?

    Report message11

  • Message 112

    , in reply to message 109.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2011

    BSB, not quite: the unknown Henry-donor did volunteer his sperm with fatherhood in mind, whereas John most certainly didn't. So Henry's "father" was not utterly opposed to him from the moment of conception and before.

    If there is one thing Henry wasn't, it is an embarrassing, unwanted accident to the man who gave him half his genetic heritage.

    Report message12

  • Message 113

    , in reply to message 107.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2011

    anna - we were discussing Pat's WILLINGNESS to care for a grandchild, not whether it would be the optimal solution.

    Though what could any child want more than to live in Ambridge?

    Report message13

  • Message 114

    , in reply to message 112.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2011

    BSB, not quite: the unknown Henry-donor did volunteer his sperm with fatherhood in mind, whereas John most certainly didn't. So Henry's "father" was not utterly opposed to him from the moment of conception and before.

    If there is one thing Henry wasn't, it is an embarrassing, unwanted accident to the man who gave him half his genetic heritage. 


    We have no way of knowing how John might have reacted to a pregnant Sharon, or to a child.

    Report message14

  • Message 115

    , in reply to message 112.

    Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2011

    And Henry will have a right to know the donor's identity when he is 18, won't he? I don't suppose Helen will tell him anything but the truth about his conception (which could be interesting epi, mind you)

    Report message15

  • Message 116

    , in reply to message 114.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2011

    I think we can be sure that the intensely self-absorbed John would not have been at all happy about having been trapped into parenthood. It was fairly clear that he saw Sharon as bedroom-fodder but never a marriage/partnership prospect.

    It is possible that he might have fallen in love with his baby when he saw it -- that is obligatory in Ambridge for anyone except Clive Horrobin.

    Report message16

  • Message 117

    , in reply to message 115.

    Posted by BlackSheepBoy (U11150138) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2011

    I suppose you could say that Rich will likewise have a right to enquire about his parentage. Mind you, he may not feel the need to do so, unless he's given cause to be disatisfied with the understanding he is living under at the moment.

    For that matter, I could enquire about my own parentage if I felt the need to do so. But perhaps, like Rich, I 'll carry on just as I am!

    Report message17

  • Message 118

    , in reply to message 116.

    Posted by Campbell in Farewell Clogs (U14226916) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2011

    >>> bedroom-fodder <<<

    now, thEre's a concept - I'm away to have a wee think about that one.



    Does this perhaps mean Clarrie and Jennie are 'kitchen-fodder'?
    And Brenda is, em, 'flyer-fodder'.

    Report message18

  • Message 119

    , in reply to message 118.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2011

    I think John's view of Sharon was somewhat limited, let's say. He only thought of her in that one context as far as I could ever tell.

    Report message19

  • Message 120

    , in reply to message 117.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2011

    Yes it is up to Rich to make the first move. Not Pat.

    Report message20

  • Message 121

    , in reply to message 118.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2011

    " A Lady Should Be A Chef In The Kitchen, A Maid In The Living Room And A Whore In The Bed Room"


    If time is limited, employ a chef and a maid.


    Odd that John chose maid/childrearer over whore.

    Excessively influenced by his mother?

    One imagines that the springs in their bed are rarely strained.

    Report message21

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.