Discuss The Archers  permalink

Is Sharon still in love with John?

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 51 - 100 of 184
  • Message 51

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by Fourteenbore (U2227836) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    Sharon's 'sin' to Hayley was far greater than the unwitting ignoring of a child Pat and Tony knew nothing about.Rich may be less than impressed by his Mother's behaviour if he ever knows about it.

    I'm not sure how many parents keep in touch with an ex-girlfriend who was in a dysfunctional relationship with their son and caused the break-up of his relationship with another. 


    Sharon had no responsibility towards Hayley. John was playing the field, and as far as Sharon was concerned, could have decided she was the one he wanted. He wasn't married to Hayley, so presumably in his eyes was free to pursue his fancies. Sharon may have been out for her main chance, but that is human nature, and in her circumstances quite understandable. My first wife quickly decided she couldn't stand being with me and went out with other men until she found one she stayed with, it was her life to find happiness in, no point in blame or feeling bitter about it.

    Report message1

  • Message 52

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by Dinah Shore (U14984316) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    How is Rich going to be hurt?  He is, as Sharon agreed to see Helen to point out face to face (since the family cannot seem to write letters) very young, and is wanted by the Brookfield Archers, to take the place of their Dead Son. He is not seen as a person in his own right.

    He will be hurt that the Foul Family are trying to make him in the image of the Unpleasant Impregnator, and as what amounts to a comfort blanket for selfish Pattie.

    Report message2

  • Message 53

    , in reply to message 49.

    Posted by HtoHe (U2335032) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    Message 49

    << None of them are above reproach >>

    True enough, Dee, but a complete red herring. Even Helen hasn't argued 'because you are no better than us you are obliged to let us have a share of your child'. It must be borne in mind that more of Sharon's adult life has been spent with Eammon than with any of the Bridge Farm Mob. As far as Eammon, Kylie and 'Rich' are concerned the BFM are almost complete strangers. If Sharon chooses to keep it that way, the perception that she used to be a flighty little madam is irrelevant. It's been said before but it's worth repeating that the welfare of the boy is the main consideration; and, fascinating though it might be to compare the moral records of the adults involved in this SL, it would only be truly relevant in extreme cases such as, for example, if the boy was being abused and needed rescuing.

    Report message3

  • Message 54

    , in reply to message 51.

    Posted by Dinah Shore (U14984316) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    Sharon had no responsibility towards Hayley.  Exactly.

    Hayley was nothing to do with her. Any "sin" is John's.

    Report message4

  • Message 55

    , in reply to message 54.

    Posted by Auntie Molly (U14110968) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    Sharon had no responsibility towards Hayley.
    Exactly.

    Hayley was nothing to do with her. Any "sin" is John's.  


    That I do not agree with. I think it is a strange logic that dictates that if someone pursues someone they know has a partner, in this case a cohabiting partner, they are not wronging that partner in any way.

    Report message5

  • Message 56

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by Dinah Shore (U14984316) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    Because of her behaviour in the past and at the moment they can't really be expected to think that positively about her. We all say things behind people's backs, particularly those we don't like, but it is how we treat them to their faces that really count.  Both count.

    Report message6

  • Message 57

    , in reply to message 55.

    Posted by Dinah Shore (U14984316) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    She wronged herself. John wronged himself and Hayley.

    But Sharon was responsible for her behaviour, and John's, not for Hayley.

    Just as Brian was responsible for his behaviour, and Shula was responsible for her behaviour, and Simon Pemberton was etc etc.

    Report message7

  • Message 58

    , in reply to message 55.

    Posted by HtoHe (U2335032) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    message 55

    << I think it is a strange logic that dictates that if someone pursues someone they know has a partner, in this case a cohabiting partner, they are not wronging that partner in any way >>

    We've done all this before Auntie M and I must say, as I did earlier, that the /logic/, in the sense of sustainable reasoned argument, is all on Dinah's side. Had Sharon made any promises to Hayley? She had not. Did she lie to John to make him unfaithful? IIrc, she did not? She gave John an option and he availed himself of that option. He was the one to blame. Some external moral codes might object to Sharon's shagging a man who lived with another woman. But then some external moral codes would object to John and Hayley's living together without being married. Neither have much to do with logic, imo.

    Report message8

  • Message 59

    , in reply to message 58.

    Posted by Dee (U3082905) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    I think that intention also has a part to play. If someone genuinely falls in love with someone already in a relationship, and that love is returned and the 2 parties in question feel they hav eto end their present realtionshipo(s) to be with teh new perosn, then hard as it may be on those who are cuckolded, it may, in time, be forgiveable and understandable.

    But, at the time, it was clear that John saw Sharon as an exciting "bit of rough" - some passionate, liberated naughty sox (which let's face it, many young men wouldn't turn away from) & Sharon, single parent, living with small child in small caravan with no current partner saw John as a bit of "posh" (relatively speaking). Maybe a way to get out of her current situation - certainly a physical attraction.

    I certainly don't remeber a deep love or anything other than afternoon delights & there was no real suggestion from either party that this was to be a lasting relationship in any true sense of the word.

    I do think there are times when people fall in love almost against their will - that they truly find their sole mate but it can be at a time when when or both are not "free". They then have to make difficult decisions. In this particular instance Sharon went all out to lure John into a physical relationship that really was just based on sox so, yes she "did wrong" in my opinion. Maybe not as wrong as John (and he was quite unwordly compared with Sharon) but she was the main instigator who stopped at nothing to get him in her bed.

    Report message9

  • Message 60

    , in reply to message 59.

    Posted by HtoHe (U2335032) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    message 59

    << she was the main instigator who stopped at nothing to get him in her bed. >>

    I'm genuinely confused as to what this 'stopped at nothing' amounted to, Dee? Rohypnol? Breaking into his abode and pretending to be Hayley in the dark?

    I'm not being flippant - my memory for detail isn't good so I don't remember any details. But if all it amounted to is effectively saying 'I bet you fancy a bit of this, don't you?'; then in my view the blame lies with the person who was 'in a relationship' not with the person who wasn't.

    Report message10

  • Message 61

    , in reply to message 58.

    Posted by Auntie Molly (U14110968) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    message 55

    << I think it is a strange logic that dictates that if someone pursues someone they know has a partner, in this case a cohabiting partner, they are not wronging that partner in any way >>

    We've done all this before Auntie M and I must say, as I did earlier, that the /logic/, in the sense of sustainable reasoned argument, is all on Dinah's side. Had Sharon made any promises to Hayley? She had not. Did she lie to John to make him unfaithful? IIrc, she did not? She gave John an option and he availed himself of that option. He was the one to blame. Some external moral codes might object to Sharon's shagging a man who lived with another woman. But then some external moral codes would object to John and Hayley's living together without being married. Neither have much to do with logic, imo. 
    We'll have to agree to differ.

    anyway...

    I think Sharon knows that she didn’t really mean anything to John other than a leg over. That’s why it hurt when Helen brought John into it and why it sticks in her craw that the BF crew are bigging up the relationship now because it suits them to do so.

    Report message11

  • Message 62

    , in reply to message 60.

    Posted by Dee (U3082905) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    After Pat found Sharon's undies in her bed, Hayley understandably left. After Sharon left & H&J were reconciled, Sharon returned & made a beeline for John from the start. Flirting, full of soxual inneuendo at every opportunity & more or less opening her dressing gown & saying "I'm available for sox come & get it". It was partly at the time that Sharon saw herself as a womanly, soxy temptress who had lost out to the more sweet & homley charms of Hayley. Women who think of themselves as highly desireable are often rather put out when the object of their desire chooses a less obviously soxy rival. I think that was part of Sharon's plan - to get one over on Hayley & to show (to herself) that she was "top dog" in the John stakes.

    Let's face it at the time Sharon was a homeless single parent, a Horrobin reject with poor prospects, not partcularly wel education, no money & poor intellect. All she had going for her was that she could bed John when she wanted because (performance in the sack aside) she was available & willing (always) for nookie & must have been moderately attractive (She can't have been drop dead beautiful or what was she doing the with Horrobin boy?).

    How she managed in a short space of time to reinvent herself to such an extent that she embarked on a long & seemingly happy marriage with Eammon, especially with 2 small children by different fathers in tow (which is quuite a lot of baggage to bring to a relationship) I don't know.

    Report message12

  • Message 63

    , in reply to message 62.

    Posted by HtoHe (U2335032) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    message 62

    << Flirting, full of soxual inneuendo at every opportunity & more or less opening her dressing gown & saying "I'm available for sox come & get it". >>

    Heavens, Dee! There I was thinking she might have used devices as innocent as drugs and subterfuge whereas you make it quite clear that the evil creature was willing to stoop as low as AVAILABILITY and CONSENT. What a hussy!

    << All she had going for her was that she could bed John when she wanted because (performance in the sack aside) she was available & willing (always) for nookie & must have been moderately attractive >>

    That being the case, why has nobody argued that she was doing Hayley a favour? If John was easy meat for anyone who was willing to put out then he obviously wasn't the man she thought he was. Once again, I'm not being flippant. Whatever people in ML think of Roy, he's the kind of man Hayley was looking for - and she found him.

    Report message13

  • Message 64

    , in reply to message 63.

    Posted by StargazerwithOscar (U14668197) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    John was a sh**. It would have been very wrong for Hayley to have married him, as she might have. She and Roy seem very happy together.

    Report message14

  • Message 65

    , in reply to message 63.

    Posted by Dinah Shore (U14984316) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    There I was thinking she might have used devices as innocent as drugs and subterfuge whereas you make it quite clear that the evil creature was willing to stoop as low as AVAILABILITY and CONSENT. What a hussy!  Like Shula, you mean?

    And Brian?

    And Ruth?

    And Caroline?

    And Jennifer?

    And Tom?

    And Sabrina Thwaite?

    And everybody else in the village?

    Report message15

  • Message 66

    , in reply to message 63.

    Posted by Dee (U3082905) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    I think we wil have to declare Pink Hats on this one. I think Sharon was very wrong in deliberatelysetting out to have a soxual relationship with someone who was already in a comitted relationship. John, as teh one in that committed relationship was more wrong but it doesn't make Sharon "not guilty". You take a different view - fair enough, diffrenet strokes & all that!

    Report message16

  • Message 67

    , in reply to message 66.

    Posted by Dinah Shore (U14984316) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    I think Sharon was very wrong in deliberatelysetting out to have a soxual relationship with someone who was already in a comitted relationship.  And Brian was wrong. And Siobhan was wrong. And Sam the Cowherd was wrong. And Jenny was wrong. And Shula was wrong. And Tom was wrong.

    And the whole boiling lot of them have, what was it Helen said? " /*moved*/ /*on*/ "

    Report message17

  • Message 68

    , in reply to message 65.

    Posted by HtoHe (U2335032) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    message 65

    << And Sabrina Thwaite? >>

    Sabrina's been engaging in extra-murals? Why didn't I know about this? Are there any bootleg recordings?

    Actually, Sharon is less culpable than some of the people on your list. Shula, for example, could have been said to have owed a degree of loyalty to her friend Usha whereas, afaIk, Sharon and Hayley had no connection whatsoever.

    To clarify my position with regard to Sharon's behaviour; I would not, myself, behave as she did. I have actually been known to turn down offers from alluring women for no other reason than that I knew they were involved with someone else. But that's to do with boundaries I set for myself and with what I expect from a partner. I don't think it can be extrapolated into a duty that applies to people in general. Sharon wasn't betraying anyone: she did what she wanted, she did what John wanted and she had no duty to Hayley. The only person who betrayed Hayley was the person who had made her (implicit) promises.

    Report message18

  • Message 69

    , in reply to message 62.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    Dee, you'd be better arguing from a reliable chronology: the one or two things you have got confused make your arguments look less reliable. So here is the order of events in John's life.

    Sharon was born on 7th March 1972. John was born on 31st December 1975. John was fifteen when he met Sharon because she had moved into Bridge Farm's caravan; she was eighteen and had arrived from Borchester pregnant with Clive Horrobin's child in 1989. Kylie was born on 26th October 1989 while Sharon was living at the Vicarage as a charity case.

    Sharon lived in the caravan in Bridge Farm yard from May 1990 until the end of March 1991, during which time John had a crush on her and she regarded him as a child who was useful to her because he would do her chores. She did not miss John when he was sent away to school in September 1990 to get him away from her.

    Sharon moved into a council house in The Green at the beginning of April 1991, and had an on-off sexual relationship with John after he had come back from school: they were together for a short time in 1993, and again in 1994; John left home in a snit and moved in with her in her house in The Green for about six weeks.

    She left without a backward glance in autumn 1994 and went to Leeds, and was not heard from again until she turned up in August 1997 staying at her friend Donna's house with her daughter Kylie.

    John had slept around for a while after Sharon left Ambridge and finally settled on a girl from Birmingham, Hayley Jordan, with whom he moved into April Cottage at the beginning of 1997. By the time Sharon came back to Ambridge in August Hayley and John had been a co-habiting couple for some months.

    When Hayley came home unexpectedly early on 11th November 1997 and found John in a sexually compromising position with Sharon in Hayley's house, Hayley left him. He subsequently made it absolutely crystal clear to Sharon, on November 14th, that he wanted nothing more to do with herand that she could forget any idea of moving in with him to replace Hayley in his life.

    After Sharon had left Ambridge because first Donna and then John (who lent her his cottage over Christmas) threw her out, John tried to get back with Hayley, and proposed to her at a meal on 24th February 1998; she refused. The following day John had an accident while driving his fatehr's tractor and was killed.

    There was no time at which Sharon was having sex with John whilst living in a caravan. She was not living in a caravan at any time after March 1991.

    Nor were Sharon's knickers being found by Pat as evidence that Sharon and John had used her bed while she and Tony were on holiday and John had been left in charge of the farm anything to do with Hayley: at the time that happened, Hayley had not yet met John.


    I think Hayley was well off out of it: John was a very unreliable and sexually promiscuous, not yet ready to be an adult at the age of just twenty-three. It would have been a mistake to marry him.

    I also think that none of this has anything whatever to do with the situation as it is now: that a woman feels entitled to keep her son from being used to "heal" a dysfunctional family who never wanted anything to do with her until this past few months, and only want to have anything to do with her at the moment because they want her son.

    Report message19

  • Message 70

    , in reply to message 68.

    Posted by Dinah Shore (U14984316) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    Actually, Sharon is less culpable than some of the people on your list. Shula, for example, could have been said to have owed a degree of loyalty to her friend Usha  But people don't stop to think of others when they leap into bed together, do they? Otherwise, we'd all be capable.

    In the ludicrous "Wife Swop for Cricket Fund" story* Sabrina ran off for a fortnight with Marcus, another silent from Greedlands.

    Still, Brookfield kitchen got a proper clean from Lynda, and Robert cooked real food for Ruth.

    * or whatever the Fund raiser was

    Report message20

  • Message 71

    , in reply to message 62.

    Posted by PollyGlot (U4652497) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    'Let's face it at the time Sharon was a homeless single parent, a Horrobin reject ........'

    Come now Dee, this is a pretty vicious way of describing any young woman. She was a single parent...... so what? It doesn't mean to say her circumstances never changed or never should change.

    'How she managed in a short space of time to reinvent herself...... '

    No, not reinvent herself. She just developed, got her act together, as they say. We don't know what she does for a living. It could be that single motherhood gave her an enormous impetus to do her best for herself and her children.

    Two small children in tow ...a lot of baggage? What about Jennifer then (with children by two fathers by she narried Brian) ? What about Nic?

    Report message21

  • Message 72

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    's terms *have* been adhered to - her I lurved John is belied by her behaviour to him while he was alive. She pushed off and left him - then picked him up again when it suited her. That is why she doesn't want him to meet them IMHO.

    And her "He's got everything he wants here" reminds me of Tubs "We don't want strangers here"**. Rich *wants* to know about John - no matter what his mother thinks about it. To say "well it will hurt my feelings" is just selfish Sharon's point of view. The lad is 13. To tell him his grandparents want to get in touch and what does he think - is only fair to him IMHO.

    To deliberately keep him in the dark - that is something she might have cause to regret
    JPBS
    ** Not that Leeds is like Royston Vasey I hasten to add!

    Report message22

  • Message 73

    , in reply to message 51.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    But John *wasn't* playing the field after he settled with Hayley - she would have soon chucked him out if he had been. They were living together as an established couple and not in an "open relationship" whatever that means.

    Sharon had departed Ambridge leaving John upset - years before. She turned up out of the blue to "get" him. Not unconnected with the fact he had a business by that time I think .. She only left because John said he didn't want her. He was only treating her the way she treated him . And no - that doesn't say much for him either. IMHO they were two of a piece ..

    Pat and Tony did behave badly - but understandable considering their grief.
    JPBS

    Report message23

  • Message 74

    , in reply to message 69.

    Posted by Dora Pandle (U14741938) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    I'm so glad you posted this Chris. I knew the timeline was wrong in other posts but couldn't have provided the details. I think it makes a big difference to your (well my) opinion of Sharon.

    Sharon agreed to the meeting because Kylie wore her down. She didn't care about Helen's expedition but I don't think she was vindictive about it. She's only concerned about Kylie's opinion of the situation. Helen was so patronising she deserved to be thrown out even before she started on the emotional blackmail.

    Report message24

  • Message 75

    , in reply to message 71.

    Posted by Dee (U3082905) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    'Let's face it at the time Sharon was a homeless single parent, a Horrobin reject ........'

    Come now Dee, this is a pretty vicious way of describing any young woman. She was a single parent...... so what? It doesn't mean to say her circumstances never changed or never should change.  


    It wasn't meant to be vicious - just accurate and to say that this may have made it difficult for form relationships with men you would love her & her children & be willing to raise them as his own. Sharon found such a man but not all men would be able to do so. Still say she couldn't have been much of a catch to a) have a relationship deep enough to have had a Horrobin child & b) even that relationship failed (lucky escape though)

    True - JD was in a similar situation but look at the way Brian has behaved over the years. It is also more common now to form "melded" families where one parent is not the biological mother/father of one or more of the children especially instances such as Nic & William when Wil was a divorced father who still has a very active role in the rearing of his child.

    Good for Sharon for making a fresh start, finding a decent life partner & raising her children & giving them a better life than might have been expected on the start BUT, in my view she was in the wrong, nearly as much as John for starting & continuing the relationship. Like I said, she was young & we all make mistakes & she seems to have made a good life for herself & her family. Maybe P&T also did her a favour by rejecting her because she wouldn't have met Eammon if they hadn't. It disn't have to stop her letting P&T know when Rich was born though although I can sort of see why she didn't

    I was convinced that Sharon & John were making the caravan rock - my memory is clearly playing tricks.

    Report message25

  • Message 76

    , in reply to message 75.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    It might have been Sharon and Thorkhill rocking the caravan -- he was her bedmate from early 1991, when she was still living in Bridge Farm yard. He went off back to Denmark in August that year and dumped her: she had expected him to want her to go with him and was quite put out when he didn't.

    Report message26

  • Message 77

    , in reply to message 76.

    Posted by Dee (U3082905) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    It might have been Sharon and Thorkhill rocking the caravan -- he was her bedmate from early 1991, when she was still living in Bridge Farm yard. He went off back to Denmark in August that year and dumped her: she had expected him to want her to go with him and was quite put out when he didn't.  Don't remember him at all - thanks for that.

    The OP asked "Is Sharon still in love with John?" & all I was really trying to say (obviously I failed miserably) Is no - I don't think she EVER loved him. It is only now that she says she does & maybe she believes it with the rose tinted specs of the years passing plus it doesn't look particularly good if you have children by men you have never loved. Much better for self & child to convince them that it WAS "love" (whatever that means, to paraphrase a certain person in the public eye)

    Report message27

  • Message 78

    , in reply to message 77.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    I have always been of the opinion that whatever Sharon may have been in with John, John was in lust with Sharon and nothing any deeper.

    But then, as a Bridge Farm Archer, he might have found it hard to find anyone whom he loved more than he loved himself. Helen certainly hasn't, and I don't think that Tom has either, which would make me feel very sorry for Brenda if I thought that she loved him in any major way.

    Report message28

  • Message 79

    , in reply to message 78.

    Posted by StargazerwithOscar (U14668197) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    Shallow and unconvincing, the pair of them. I don't get much of an impression of any loving closeness between members of the Tucker family anyway. If Brenda really loved her dad she'd have been happy for him to start again with Vicky. And Brenda and Roy don't seem especially fond of each other. I do, however, think that Roy loves his own family, i.e. Hayley and the children. To me, Brenda is going the right way to replace Christine Barford as some kind of cardboard cutout character.

    Report message29

  • Message 80

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by Lakey_Hill (U14391672) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    Sharon is thinking about how her life was, and assuming that it went wrong because of everyone else. She is assuming that she sknows what her son wants, and what effect meeting the BF family will have on him, but Sharon has said that Rich has shown no interest in his dead father's family, and if Kylie is to be believed, he is interested, but knows that he mustn't show it to Sharon, as he knows what her reaction will be. It seems to me that Sharon doesn't want Rich to meet the Ambridge lot, and it's nothing to do with Rich himself.

    Actually, quite a lot of people found Sharon obnoxious when she was younger. Pat and Tony weren't the only ones who didn't want her living with them. And my memory is somewhat hazy (it was before I listened regularly, and I was quite young), but I really don't recall this huge love affair, on either John or Sharon's side.

    Report message30

  • Message 81

    , in reply to message 80.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    Sharon may have cared enough about John to travel down from Leeds in order to try to be with him; I always got the distinct impression that what he cared about was fornicating with her. When it became inconvenient for him to continue to enjoy a bit of extra-curricular sex with her, he gave her the push without a second thought as far as we could tell.

    Sharon has a better chance of knowing about Rich and what is good for him that the Bridge Farm Archers have, so it is very lucky that they don't apparently care about what is good for him at all.

    Report message31

  • Message 82

    , in reply to message 79.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    I think Brenda thought Vicki was on the make - and it is often hard for children to accept their parents second marriage.

    I know several who haven't - but have come round to it in time as they got to know their step-parent. And this is what happened to Brenda - she has accepted Vicki now.

    I was thinking as I was swimming (as I often do) - Roy and John are similar in many ways. Roy is bedazzled by Kate just as John was bedazzled by Sharon though in different ways. Though Roy is a lot nicer than John was ... and Sharon is not as selfish as Kate

    In marrying each other Roy and Hayley both ended up with people who were nicer than their former partners. IMHO both had a lucky escape
    JPBS

    Report message32

  • Message 83

    , in reply to message 82.

    Posted by StargazerwithOscar (U14668197) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    Agreed Bunny - Roy and Hayley came out winners from their respective trying times. And I think about all sorts of weird things while swimming too! So boring, just thrashing up and down the lanes otherwise.

    Report message33

  • Message 84

    , in reply to message 80.

    Posted by Dinah Shore (U14984316) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    assuming that it went wrong because of everyone else.  But it hasn't gone wrong, has it?

    She has a lovely family, with lovely in-laws, and a job which allows her to take time off whenever she needs (she agreed via Kylie, that she would see Helen whenever it suited Helen). Her kids are sttled, and she has a great life.

    The only thing that's gone "wrong" is the interference by Pat, Tony and Helen.

    Report message34

  • Message 85

    , in reply to message 84.

    Posted by Lakey_Hill (U14391672) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    I meant in the past, not now, necessarily. She clearly thinks that Pat and Tony stopped her being happy with John, even now.

    Report message35

  • Message 86

    , in reply to message 85.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    Does she? I don't think she has said that. What she said to Pat was that Pat had always been determined that Sharon and John should never be together, which is certainly true, and that Pat gave her the cold shoulder when she went to Bridge Farm undecided about whether to tell her about the pregnancy or not and decided because of Pat's behaviour not to tell her, which is also true.

    Pat did tell her to go away and stop ruining John's life -- had a stand-up row with her at the place where Sharon was living. But it was John telling her to get out of his house and stay out that got her to leave.

    Report message36

  • Message 87

    , in reply to message 86.

    Posted by StargazerwithOscar (U14668197) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    I think it was a case of forbidden fruit, plus the fact that she was expecting his baby. If she hadn't had John's child, he would probably have become a distant memory long since, as many old relationships tend to. In the early days, Sharon saw John as a cross between a joke and a nuisance after all.

    Report message37

  • Message 88

    , in reply to message 86.

    Posted by Lakey_Hill (U14391672) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    Why would she so much not want Rich to have anything to do with Pat and Tony if it really didn't matter to her anymore? If Kylie is right, Rich has been holding back from showing any interest because he has picked up on how much it still stirs her up. And there is this constant harping on the huge love that she had for John. She must blame Pat and Tony for something, and they weren't the only people who didn't want her to live with them. Does she mind Kylie going to see Neil and Susan? Didn't they throw her out?

    Report message38

  • Message 89

    , in reply to message 86.

    Posted by Lakey_Hill (U14391672) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    If Pat and Tony had either tolerated or even actively encouraged the relationship, would it have lasted? We can't know, of course, but I somehow doubt it.

    Report message39

  • Message 90

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Paul237 (U12153576) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    I agree she's a bit heartless. It also makes me think she's told Rich a pack of lies about his grandparents to put him off ever wanting to contact them. So now she doesn't want Tony or Pat to meet him as her lies will be exposed and he won't be at all happy.

    It's easy to say she only has Rich's welfare in mind, but I don't believe it's just that. She's rather self-serving but can hide behind the noble excuse of not wanting to upset him. It sounds nicer than "I want to make Tony and Pat pay".

    Report message40

  • Message 91

    , in reply to message 88.

    Posted by Mieteka (U14938651) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    She might very well be unhappy about Kylie going to visit her uncle and aunt - but Kylie is an adult and can make her own decisions. Rich is a child.

    Report message41

  • Message 92

    , in reply to message 83.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    Stargazer, 'm not so sure it's a case of Roy and Hayley improving their taste in the opposite sex, it's more that their previous couplings were so improbable.

    Report message42

  • Message 93

    , in reply to message 90.

    Posted by Mieteka (U14938651) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    I could be wrong, but I think it's been established that Rich knows nothing about his birth father or his (John's) parents.

    Report message43

  • Message 94

    , in reply to message 90.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    She doesn't have to tell Rich any lies about Pat and Tony. The truth will do: "I don't like thinking about them because of the way they treated me. Pat forbade me to see John ever again, and after he had died when I went down to Ambridge to tell her I was carrying you she refused to talk to me, so I came away again. She didn't want to have anything to do with me, and the only reason she is now ringing me up and sending her children to bully me is because she has just discovered that you exist and she wants to have you to replace your father with."

    No word of a lie.

    I can see no need for Sharon to say that she was just John's bit on the side. A thirteen-year-old boy doesn't need to be told that his mother was a tramp, thank you all the same.

    How, pray, are Pat and Tony going to explain to Rich why Sharon didn't stay in Ambridge, and why John didn't know about Rich, and why they only heard that Rich existed at the end of last year, without making both John and Sharon look bad to a person of thirteen?

    Report message44

  • Message 95

    , in reply to message 94.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    I wouldn't think Rich would want to know bad things about his father or his father's parents either. However, it's considered that it is all right to condemn them to him.

    Won't Rich want to know why John was so swayed by his parents and didn't stick with Sharon?

    Sharon only has to tell Rich that the relationship she had with John wasn't that serious (the truth) and didn't work out (the truth) he died (the truth)and she decided to be an independent single mother in the way that many women have done and continue to do. In that way hurt is minimised. 'Least said soonest mended'.

    Rich is a 13 year old of today, he knows these things happen all the time.

    Report message45

  • Message 96

    , in reply to message 92.

    Posted by StargazerwithOscar (U14668197) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    Stargazer, 'm not so sure it's a case of Roy and Hayley improving their taste in the opposite sex, it's more that their previous couplings were so improbable.   Yes. Kate (should have been a sixties flower child) Aldridge and Roy the recent right-wing racist. Abourt as likely as Karl Marx and Margaret Thatcher getting it together on some astral plane. John and Hayley was always more probable, but she was better off out of it, the whole Bridge farm setup for that matter, ungrateful, advantage taking lot.

    Report message46

  • Message 97

    , in reply to message 85.

    Posted by Dinah Shore (U14984316) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    She clearly thinks that Pat and Tony stopped her being happy with John, even now.  Does she? Isn't she happy with Eamon and her offspring? Eammon seems to think they are ok

    Report message47

  • Message 98

    , in reply to message 95.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    Many women have taken the independent route (not Helen!) since state benefits and their increased opportunity to work has enabled them to.

    I would think as the son of someone like Sharon, Rich hasn't had a sheltered life and will know about and understand contemporary sexual and social mores.

    Report message48

  • Message 99

    , in reply to message 98.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    Believe me, even boys who have got the idea that some women are tramps prefer not to have their mothers placed in that category.

    How then do Pat and Tony propose to explain that Sharon was not good enough for their son or for them? Or are they going to lie to Rich and pretend that they tried to make Sharon stay and she refused?

    Report message49

  • Message 100

    , in reply to message 95.

    Posted by Mieteka (U14938651) on Thursday, 22nd March 2012

    RIch might just want to know the truth though - and nobody comes out of that smelling of roses.
    Put it this way: he is a 13 year old boy. AKA a child. He knows nothing about his birth father - Eammon is his father. I'm sure he would be more upset hearing bad things about his mother than about some man who died before he was born and two old people he met for ten minutes. They are nothing to him. Sharon is his mother - the woman who has brought him up. And most boys tend to be rather protective of their mothers.
    I have no idea why you want Sharon to tell a sanitised version of the truth when she is clearly still very hurt by the treatment doled out by Pat. She owes that woman nothing, far less lying (aka a sin of omission for those of a religious bent) and painting her in a favourable light she has done nothing to deserve.
    Why should Sharon do this, rather than say "Pat never liked me. She never liked your father being with me. When I went to see her, pregnant with you, she was really horrid and sent me away and I vowed to have nothing more to do with her." that's the truth.

    Report message50

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.