👑 Archers thread #139: Who’s the Daddy? No ceremonial required to join us – discuss The Archers here!

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

Thank you, @PseudoBadger, for kicking off this long, long series of Archers threads.

All views on The Archers welcome here! New blood welcomed. We don't all agree on all points and most of us are posting tongue in cheek a lot of the time, so don't worry about revealing that you like the sound of Lilian’s Cinnamon Chicken, or other unusual views.

Spoilers: not on this thread, please. We don't wait for the omnibus to discuss the weeknight episodes, but we do try our best to avoid cross-contamination from www.mumsnet.com/Talk/radio_addicts/4197199--The-Archers-spoilers-thread-6-Cant-wait-for-7-02pm-Join-us-here, where spoilers are positively welcomed!

For newer listeners, lurkers or those who just have no idea what we're talking about, @DadDadDad has created this useful thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/radio_addicts/3557323-For-Archers-fans-a-guide-to-acronyms-on-the-long-running-discussion-threads-and-any-other-meta-thread-questions-you-may-have - BOOP point for him! (See thread for explanation.)

I'm often struck by the time a thread ends how irrelevant the previous title has become to what's currently going on in The Archers. The Queen's death has only been mentioned very briefly in TA, of course, but I suppose that was to be expected in a time of budget constraints. In a few weeks when this thread fills up I wonder if we will still be thinking that, and about Chelsea and her pregnancy. That depends on what she decides to do, which at the time of writing is still up in the air.

As usual, I asked for title ideas and for various reasons then didn't use them. Sorry. Lillian Gish's was very witty - Will Chelsea stay mum about dad? Muddler made a more controversial one - Horrobins thread #139. As a new Great House of Ambridge emerges, come swear your allegiance here.

That's about all I can face saying about TA at the moment. I am expecting to have to travel north soon as my Dad is in hospital and I have to be with my Mum. (They're the same sort of age as Jill Archer, and up to now have been like her and Peggy, very active, managing very well with no help, but this may all be about to change ). So apologies if I'm more absent than present for a while. Will pop in when I can.

I thought Chelsea's "What would I be doing in a place like that?" spoke volumes about how much she'd enjoy parenthood. She needs to think beyond the baby stage (vanishingly short) to the years of living with a small child. I think @MuddlerInLaw may be on to something. I don't think we've had anyone give up their baby for adoption before. Do people still do that?

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g , they needed to be somewhere where they could bump into Chelsea.

I thought it spoke volumes too, @LillianGish .

Yes, fine on any other Monday when Dan was on leave, but not yesterday! Good point about soft play. I took it that Chelsea was incredulous about working in a place like that, which would be a million times worse than taking a child, but yes, doesn't suggest she's thought about the reality of being a parent.

It’s such a pity that when Chelsea was first introduced, she seemed quite a sparky and sensible young type, but has been gradually rewritten to become more and more Kevin-the-teenager like (witness her appalling behaviour to customers in the Orangery). I'm afraid I’m finding it quite hard to be sympathetic with her tantrums and flounces around any attempt by her mother to have any sort of conversation about the baby.

Dan (photo!) is 28. And Chelsea’s 18. Has she had her birthday yet - not sure if it got lost in all the brouhaha.

This is what makes the Ambridge world turn! A Horrobin has to end up with, or at least have a child with, an Archer. Must be very entertaining for the SWs to dangle all the possible relationships in front of us.

Daniel - would be excellent.
Josh - hmm …
Ben - please god no, he’s done enough crying.
Freddie - SWs seem to have made him asexual …
Ruairi - that would be cruelty to Chelsea.
Johnny - there’s a reason why not, but I can’t remember it.

Who else is there? (I’ve assumed men rather than women on the evidence so far.)

Johnny - (a) What has he done to deserve this? (b) He was born as a result of an Archer-Horrobin's ex relationship. (c) His half-sister Kylie is Clive Horrobin's daughter, so she is Chelsea's first cousin. No blood relationship between Johnny and any Horrobin, but it's still a bit entangled.

‘Entangled’ is exactly the word I was struggling for!

I don’t believe the pleading conversations between Chelsea and her mother. And as someone else pointed out upthread, it’s actually unusual to have teen pregnancies now and she is on the cusp of being able to have the abortion pill versus more intrusive termination. I would have expected far more important questions like HOW MANY WEEKS ARE YOU. Ugh.

Anyway, they better not go down the adoption route - I’ve still not forgiven them for portraying surrogacy the way that they did. As if women were perfectly happy to be treated as objects to purchase and rent out.

Agree re surrogacy. I remember ?30 years ago when Elizabeth found she was pregnant by Cameron Fraser, who then did a runner, she decided to have a termination and just did it, with no angst on her side as far as we were allowed to know. There was a bit of handwringing from Jill, and an appallingly sanctimonious conversation with Shula, who was struggling with infertility at the time and thought Elizabeth should have gone through all nine months of an unwanted pregnancy and then handed the baby over to Shula and Mark at the end of it. Elizabeth rightly and understandably made no bones about putting Shula straight about that, IIRC. If the SWs of 2022 have lost the plot to the extent of putting Chelsea through a storyline that their predecessors in the 1960s rejected for Jennifer Archer when she was pregnant with Adam, and single, I may have to lay siege to the Mailbox.

More and more I’m seeing the thread title story as a sleeper, where the father of the baby won’t be revealed for decades …

With the adoption option there’s obviously the potential for a melodrama where at the last minute Chelsea decides she cannot part with the child - but they could equally write a calm and quiet public service story where the baby is relinquished and everyone goes home happy.

What @Scarydinosaurs posted. Why on earth doesn't Tracey ask 'How many weeks..?', 'Who's the father?' ...

It would be quite a story though if it was a little Archer, and she was going to put the ickle baybee up for adoption. Plenty of drama. More than likely that Tracey ends up bringing it up

They’ve dropped Natasha and Tom entirely, where I thought they were going to explore a PND storyline that felt like it was being quietly pre-seeded with all the references to Natasha’s manic behaviour (impulsiveness, over spending, genetic predisposition).

it would be very nice to hear from some other characters. Is Harrison, for example, preparing for baptism still? Is he baptised? Has Fallon embraced her child-free life or is she still panicking Harrison will want children and leave her?

I wouldn't see that as a public service story, because there is more and more evidence now that adoption is not a happy ever after story for many, many children and their birth parents. Lots of anecdotal stories coming out now from the babies adopted in the 50s and 60s when many women gave up newborns for adoption because of social/financial/parental/religious pressure, and from their biological mothers and fathers, who in many cases never forgot them or stopped thinking about them. I know of adoptions that worked out very well for the baby and the adoptive parents, but unfortunately they didn't all go that way.

My feeling is that adoption is a far better outcome for a baby than staying in an abusive family, or a family which for one reason or another can't meet their needs, even with support, and I have enormous respect for parents who make a success of adoption. Thinking of friends of my parents who adopted a family of three children who had been taken into care, and then adopted another sibling when the mother became pregnant again. Fantastic outcomes for those kids, last I heard.

Chelsea's situation is totally different. The best outcome of all is usually for a baby to stay with her biological mother, and other biological family where possible. If Chelsea makes a considered decision to go ahead with the pregnancy, or leaves it so late that she has to go ahead by default, I want the SWs to show the realistic consequences of doing that, which in the UK would hardly ever be giving the baby up for adoption.

my money is on freddie.
why else woukd he defend russ?

If she decides on adoption will Adam and Iain be camping out outside the house like those people used to so they'd be first in the queue for the Boxing Day sales?

Perhaps this will end in a miscarriage so Chelsea doesn’t have to make the terribly sad (in her eyes) choice to have a termination.

I can’t quite believe Tracey would allow the baby to be adopted. It seems a bit pointless for Chelsea to go through the rigmarole of 9 months of pregnancy (I’ve had 2 children but am not at all sentimental about the supposed joys of pregnancy) only to hand the baby over when she has a doting grandmother, quasi step grandfather and extended family/friends to support her.

I don’t think she should have the baby but if she does, the best outcome for would be for him/her to remain within the family.

I'm losing patience with Chelsea.

The whole story line is ridiculous anyway. She was really rude to Jim. I didn't understand her incredulity at the idea of her working at the soft play centre.

It isn't Freddy.

Why should they not go down the adoption route?

It's not comparable to surrogacy. If it were my daughter I would want her to have a termination. However, I don't see a problem with Chelsea , or anyone else, not wanting an abortion but not wanting to keep a baby. That's not treating women as objects to purchase and rent out.

It would be completely unbelievable for a young woman in 21st century British to go ahead with a pregnancy with the aim of giving it up for adoption.

It is, but there's no reason why it should be.

The acceptable options are have a termination or keep it. If someone thinks abortion is morally wrong I don't see why it should follow she then has no choice other than being a parent.

It is, but there's no reason why it should be.
And nobody would ever wonder how someone could voluntarily give up their baby. Yeah, right.

Voluntary relinquishment (choosing to give a baby up for adoption) is very rare these days.

The acceptable options are have a termination or keep it. If someone thinks abortion is morally wrong I don't see why it should follow she then has no choice other than being a parent

Then why are there so few voluntary relinquishments of newborns in the UK? More common in the US where the Christian right can assert pressure on vulnerable women and adoption agencies have a lot of adoptive parents on their books willing to pay "expenses.

But a young woman like Chelsea with a supportive family? Imagine the anguish it would cause Tracey to see her flesh and blood handed over to strangers because the Jim/Dan/Alistair bond had inspired her to be altruistic.

Also no social security in US.