Discuss The Archers  permalink

Why are Tarm and Bren engaged?

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 39 of 39
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by toffee (U8026926) on Monday, 26th December 2011


    I forgot to just mention this yesterday. I noticed something that was said when The Wedding of the Year was mentioned. I can't remember what he actually said, (it was something about the bride, but I can't remember what it was) but Tarm said something to Brenda like 'It'll be different when it's your turn' and her reaction to it clearly said that getting married has never ever occurred to her, and it's obviously not something she particularly wants to do.
    So why the heck are these two engaged? They're never gonna get married. And - how ironic - the fact they are engaged doesn't make Bren a member of the family as far as Pat and Tony are concerned as we've heard so even less reason for them to have bothered!

    It's always funny in a soap when someone gets engaged. When the writers intend them to either get married in however many years time - or not at all - nothing beyond an obligatory single question of 'so when's the big day then?' is uttered when they DO get engaged, then the wedding is never mentioned again. It was like this with Tarm and Bren, I seem to remember.

    Whereas, when the writers intend the wedding to be taking place almost immediately, you get writing like we got with WonderWoman and Weirdo where they decide on a day almost instantly.

    So ... I just wonder why the writers didn't decide to marry off Tarm and Bren like they are Weirdo and WonderWoman? I'd never know they were engaged if I hadn't listened to the engagement episode!

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by snarklehound (U15065053) on Monday, 26th December 2011

    Bren's management skills will have to be employed to raise Tarm's sausage by more than 7% to achieve critical mass for a union. That seems to be some time off.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by joe (U13868420) on Monday, 26th December 2011

    The phrase "sausage in bapper" is now seared indelibly on my mind…

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by toffee (U8026926) on Monday, 26th December 2011


    Something just occurred to me, which may explain the difference. When Weirdo popped the question to WonderWoman he did say 'will you marry me' didn't he?

    Whereas I think when Tarm popped his question it was only along the lines of 'shall we get engaged'? I don't think he ever asked Bren to marry him - tho I may be wrong so I'll happily wait to be corrected!

    But if my recollections are true, and he only mentioned being engaged, then presumably Tarm doesn't want to get married either!

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Auntie Molly (U14110968) on Monday, 26th December 2011


    I forgot to just mention this yesterday. I noticed something that was said when The Wedding of the Year was mentioned. I can't remember what he actually said, (it was something about the bride, but I can't remember what it was) but Tarm said something to Brenda like 'It'll be different when it's your turn' and her reaction to it clearly said that getting married has never ever occurred to her, and it's obviously not something she particularly wants to do.
    So why the heck are these two engaged? They're never gonna get married. And - how ironic - the fact they are engaged doesn't make Bren a member of the family as far as Pat and Tony are concerned as we've heard so even less reason for them to have bothered!

    It's always funny in a soap when someone gets engaged. When the writers intend them to either get married in however many years time - or not at all - nothing beyond an obligatory single question of 'so when's the big day then?' is uttered when they DO get engaged, then the wedding is never mentioned again. It was like this with Tarm and Bren, I seem to remember.

    Whereas, when the writers intend the wedding to be taking place almost immediately, you get writing like we got with WonderWoman and Weirdo where they decide on a day almost instantly.

    So ... I just wonder why the writers didn't decide to marry off Tarm and Bren like they are Weirdo and WonderWoman? I'd never know they were engaged if I hadn't listened to the engagement episode! 
    Tom and Brenda's thunder was stolen by Mike and Vicky getting engaged on the way back from their engagement party and married almost immediately. Brenda probably could not stand the idea of Vicky being mother of the bride at her wedding!

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Ginslinger Redux (U14830013) on Monday, 26th December 2011

    I know a few couple who have been engaged for years, have children, haven't got round to getting married and show no signs of doing so imminently.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by joe (U13868420) on Monday, 26th December 2011

    I suppose it depends on whether one feels it necessary to have the blessing of a church?

    Or proof of ownership?

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by snarklehound (U15065053) on Monday, 26th December 2011

    Two people have been dating for many years. Eventually one says to the other "Don't you think we ought to get married?" and the other says "Yes, but who'd have us?"
    So very true of Tom and Brenda.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by strokecitydave (U5467417) on Monday, 26th December 2011


    Something just occurred to me, which may explain the difference. When Weirdo popped the question to WonderWoman he did say 'will you marry me' didn't he?

    Whereas I think when Tarm popped his question it was only along the lines of 'shall we get engaged'? I don't think he ever asked Bren to marry him - tho I may be wrong so I'll happily wait to be corrected!

    But if my recollections are true, and he only mentioned being engaged, then presumably Tarm doesn't want to get married either!  
    And at least Weirdo and Wonderwoman, having made the decision, decided to get in with it (and mercifully, we'll soon not have to hear anything more about the preparations for the gruesome event), whereas SLT and Bapper are just meandering along. Isn't business and marketing about having a plan and a timetable?

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Doodlysquat (U13738858) on Monday, 26th December 2011

    I think the Rich saga will spend the end of the Tom n Brenda love fest. Brenda will realise that the sainted Tom is nothing more than a self obsessed twonk who has all the feeling and sensitivity of a breeze block.

    Being married to him would be a life sentence of misery.

    suze

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by snarklehound (U15065053) on Monday, 26th December 2011

    Or a lifetime of sausage walloping in the back of a burger van....

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by joe (U13868420) on Monday, 26th December 2011

    Is that a euphemism, Snarkles?

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by strokecitydave (U5467417) on Monday, 26th December 2011

    Is that a euphemism, Snarkles?   Yes - I believe Snarklehound to be a fellow Old Fallopian. At least that's what we called it in the dorm when I was at St Fallops.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by Doodlysquat (U13738858) on Monday, 26th December 2011

    << Or a lifetime of sausage walloping in the back of a burger van.... >>

    Snarkle my darling...I'm sorry but that comment has caused me so much trauma that I must retire to bed and just hope that the nightmares are not too traumatic.


    shudder.


    suze

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by joe (U13868420) on Monday, 26th December 2011

    I believe Snarklehound to be a fellow Old Fallopian  Thought that had gone down the tubes?

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by strokecitydave (U5467417) on Monday, 26th December 2011

    I believe Snarklehound to be a fellow Old Fallopian  Thought that had gone down the tubes?   I was there a good few years ago!

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by snarklehound (U15065053) on Monday, 26th December 2011

    Don't think so, Jo. If Tom was going to achieve any breakthrough with his sausage, he'd have done so by now. I suspect that the sausage might be very tough and might have to be tenderized to give it any flavour and the best way to do that would be to wallop it with one of those crinkly mallets. Hope the suspension of the van is up to it.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by strokecitydave (U5467417) on Monday, 26th December 2011

    Don't think so, Jo. If Tom was going to achieve any breakthrough with his sausage, he'd have done so by now. I suspect that the sausage might be very tough and might have to be tenderized to give it any flavour and the best way to do that would be to wallop it with one of those crinkly mallets. Hope the suspension of the van is up to it.  Careful - you're talking Snarty Little Twonk here - not the son of the founder of the British Union of Fascists!

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by joe (U13868420) on Monday, 26th December 2011

    I suspect that the sausage might be very tough and might have to be tenderized to give it any flavour and the best way to do that would be to wallop it with one of those crinkly mallets  I always thought the problem was a limp soggy texture? So you need to rub in lots of salt, paprika, coarsely ground black pepper and chillis, and make sure the oil is /really/ hot…

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by snarklehound (U15065053) on Monday, 26th December 2011

    Perhaps the crinkly mallets might serve to tenderize Tom and Helen, or perhaps not.

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Ginslinger Redux (U14830013) on Tuesday, 27th December 2011

    Well yes and if people don't want to get married that is up to them but engaged in my (quite possibly wrong) understanding is an abbreviation of engaged to be married and so it is a bit odd to get engaged to be married if you don't intend to be married. With one of the couples they really have just not got around to it .... career and family stuff meant delays and then I think they lost the impetus ...a dress was bought...about a decade ago..

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by strokecitydave (U5467417) on Tuesday, 27th December 2011

    ...a dress was bought...about a decade ago..  

    Now you're talking Miss Havisham. Much looking forward to Great Expectations tomorrow night - and to keep on topic, it doesn't clash with the Archers.

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by joe (U13868420) on Tuesday, 27th December 2011

    With one of the couples they really have just not got around to it .... career and family stuff meant delays and then I think they lost the impetus  In which case should they formally cancel the engagement? A wedding is expensive, so some couples might well put it off until finances are more settled. After a few years - especially if children are involved - they might feel that there are better ways to spend £21,000*



    *Source: www.guardian.co.uk/m...

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by Ginslinger Redux (U14830013) on Tuesday, 27th December 2011

    I don't think that anything like that much was envisioned... roughly what happened was they got engaged.. and was hoped could be done fairly imminently - the next spring but she was doing a masters and changing career, put back to autumn, his mother diagnosed with cancer and died, back to the followig spring.. then new jobs, moving house, six rounds of IVF then twin boys and by that time I suppose they had been together so long that a bit longer wasn't such a big deal but they are very happy.. Only thing is her mother is in her mid eighties now so if they want her tobe there..

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by joe (U13868420) on Tuesday, 27th December 2011

    I was thinking generally, of course - not presuming to comment on anyone of your acquaintance!

    Of course, for some it is as much - or more - about the "show" as anything else (step forward, Emmur…). But given that the institution is somewhat less important than it once was, and the general decline in church attendance, it's perhaps not the big deal that it once was?

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by La Bez (U14670366) on Tuesday, 27th December 2011

    I know a few couple who have been engaged for years, have children, haven't got round to getting married and show no signs of doing so imminently.   My brother and SiL got engaged very shortly after my wedding but I think my daughter - born 2 1/2 years after we were married - was around 9 when she was a bridesmaid at theirs. They'd always said they would get around to actually getting married when they decided to start a family.

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Cosmo Smallpiece (U6525975) on Tuesday, 27th December 2011

    I think the Rich saga will spend the end of the Tom n Brenda love fest. Brenda will realise that the sainted Tom is nothing more than a self obsessed twonk who has all the feeling and sensitivity of a breeze block.

    Being married to him would be a life sentence of misery.

    suze  
    I'm sure you are right. When there was a chance that the Bridge Farm operation might be rebranded as Tom Archer World Domination Inc. then Tom was mortified that Brenda was excluded from family discussions. On the Rich issue he has shown no inclination to include Brenda in the gang of two who 'own' Henry.

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by footintwocamps (U9458464) on Tuesday, 27th December 2011

    I think the Rich saga will spend the end of the Tom n Brenda love fest. Brenda will realise that the sainted Tom is nothing more than a self obsessed twonk who has all the feeling and sensitivity of a breeze block.

    Being married to him would be a life sentence of misery.

    suze  
    I'm sure you are right. When there was a chance that the Bridge Farm operation might be rebranded as Tom Archer World Domination Inc. then Tom was mortified that Brenda was excluded from family discussions. On the Rich issue he has shown no inclination to include Brenda in the gang of two who 'own' Henry. 
    I've long wondered about the future of Tom and Brenda as a couple. Brenda shows absolutely no sign of wanting to marry Tom, less of wanting to engage with the Bridge Farm business, and when it's been aired seems positively appalled by the idea of having children.

    I appreciate that majority opinion here would suggest that these are signs of robust common sense, but this has to be counter-balanced by the fact that she seems to think there's a long-term career in working for Amside.

    They're just not going anywhere as a couple.

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by pollyanna (U7304225) on Tuesday, 27th December 2011

    [Tarm said something to Brenda like 'It'll be different when it's your turn' and her reaction to it clearly said that getting married has never ever occurred to her, and it's obviously not something she particularly wants to do.
    ]

    That wasn't how I heard it. I thought it was the /manner/ of the preparations for Nic's wedding that Brenda didn't fancy, not the state of marriage itself. She didn't like the idea of 'trail runs' of having hair dos and make up done and seemed to think going through all that palaver once was bad enough without doing it twice, but that is not necessarily a reflection on how she feels about actually marrying Tom. Its possible to get married without going through the rituals that Nic is, and perhaps that was Brenda's point.

    Perhaps Brenda envisages her wedding to be a different thing altogether to the play ground fantasy, being a princess , one that Nic has got herself, and if so, then good for her. Although I admit I am surprised, I assumed Brenda would want exactly the sort of do Nic is having, so nice if she is going to buck the expectation.

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by shell-like (U2729210) on Tuesday, 27th December 2011

    Be prepared to be disappointed. On the basis of her Radio Times photograph and a trailer on Radio 4, I judge that she's going to come across as too young and insufficiently upper-class.

    Yet another reason not to regret having no telly.

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by joe (U13868420) on Tuesday, 27th December 2011

    Brenda shows absolutely no sign of wanting to marry Tom, less of wanting to engage with the Bridge Farm business  Is this surprising, given that any time there's a "family meeting" she's firmly excluded by Pat & Tony? seems positively appalled by the idea of having children.  I'd imagine the sight of how TC & SLT treat their parents would put anyone off the idea.

    The big mystery is why she bothers to stay with him - especially after she got the typical SLT treatment over Matt's attempt to buy her silence.

    Run, Brenda, run! /Very/ fast and very far…

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by strokecitydave (U5467417) on Wednesday, 28th December 2011

    I've long wondered about the future of Tom and Brenda as a couple. Brenda shows absolutely no sign of wanting to marry Tom, less of wanting to engage with the Bridge Farm business, and when it's been aired seems positively appalled by the idea of having children.  


    Does the idea of being appalled of having children actually relate to being appalled by the prospect of this two being "at it"? Without naming names, there are several couples in TA that I can imagine doing it and enjoying it, with the vast majority being total abstainers - and for some reason. I put T & B in the abstainers group.

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by Bette (U2222559) on Wednesday, 28th December 2011

    They're just not going anywhere as a couple. 

    No, they are not. I shall be really miffed if the SWs actually have them marry. Brenda is /so/ boring as a character. I just hope she will decide to leave Ambridge for good. I was hoping for a long time that Tom would re-meet Hanah (who was feisty, and a good match for him) but my hopes have almost waned.

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by Dailyfix (U14602649) on Wednesday, 28th December 2011

    I don't remember having anything against Brenda before she got together with the snarty twonk. I agree they have no chemistry as a couple I can't imagine them doing anything worthy of modding. Brenda could be much improved as a character by seeing through Tom and dumping him.

    Who are the most active couple in Ambridge? Got to be Robert & Linda. That women is driven and why else is Robert so endlessly patient and loving? That convinces me more than the all talk couples Matt & Lillian and Kenton & Jolene. Mike and Vicky might rival the Snells possibly.
    I would have Tom and Brenda along with Alistair and Shula in the virtually celebate category.

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by snarklehound (U15065053) on Wednesday, 28th December 2011

    Imagine the SF for David and Ruth (mmmuuumbleeuuurrrpppsssllluurrrpppuurrgggh aaaawwwww naaaawww).
    I'm not feeling very well. Back to the kennel for a lie down.

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by Buntysdaughter (U7084475) on Wednesday, 28th December 2011

    I agree, Bette (how were the Christmas Day sprouts, BTW ?). I don't think they will get hitched, there's nothing other than proximity behind the relationship, imho, but then again, I cannnot enisage Bren ever doing anything so radical as dumping him and heading off into the wide blue yonder beyond the bypass. Any time she's had the chance to do so, she's meekly returned ....... yewnee, Leicester, the opportunty of travel with her girlfriends (who dey ?). I suppose they will drift into it (marriage, I mean) from force of habit. They ought to wait at least until Our Henry can toddle down the aisle as senior page boy.

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Wednesday, 28th December 2011

    >Imagine the SF for David and Ruth <

    Unfortunately I don't have to - the SFX are seared into my brain as a result of the hayrick conception of BaybeeBen.

    As to why Bren got engaged, she said she wanted to be the centre of attention and she wanted all her friends to be jealous of her sparkly ring. All sound reasons - or as sound as you'd ever hope to get from Bren.

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by annieoakley (U14394986) on Wednesday, 28th December 2011

    Frankly, I haven't a clue - and neither have they (especially Brenda!)

    I wonder if Brenda would look upon Tarm as reasonable relationship material if she found out that he'd described John/Rich as "technically" a relative, and that Pat's attachment to him had better be "temporary".

    Wow! Even Helen had to tell him that he couldn't treat it like a black & white argument............

    I can just imagine Tarm telling Bren that having kids would be an unfeasible economic liability given the current financial climate.............that he only wants them on a timeshare basis!

    Makes sound business sense, don't it?

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by Auntie Molly (U14110968) on Wednesday, 28th December 2011

    I think the Tom Brenda engagement was a device to hasten the Mike Vicky nuptials. Given their lack of interest in marrying there seems no other point to it.

    Report message39

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

Copyright © 2015 BBC. 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.