👑 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 agree, he seems a potential candidate- far more so than Johnny, Ben or Josh.

I'm sure the rave is a red herring.

The SW will have borrowed from some plot in well-known literature, so maybe the more well-read of us might have an inkling.
don't look at me, i read a lot but there are glaring gaps between what I should and what I have read

I have thought of a mother in literature who gave up her children - the mother in East of Eden

Half sister to fat Rosie! Perfect!

MN! you get the shit-est quasi-legal advice on here at times!

@stilldumdedumming , oh yes. A lot of posters don't read the OP properly but jump in with their comments.

Not sure I follow you. Are you saying that it's wrong to say that men have no say in whether a woman in the UK can have an abortion?

@TheLassWiADelicateAir no!! I wasn't commenting on the rights or wrongs at all. This was in response to a comment that the internet almost exclusively says that the woman has the right to choose, and so where had Chelsea been looking for advice?

My comment was that she probably asked on MN because quite often you get completely incorrect advice here (I happen to know a bit about certain legalities and it is often wrong on here with notable exceptions where a poster actually knows the law, but is often drowned out by a sea of poster spouting nonsense). It's the equivalent of not believing your solicitor's advice because a bloke down the pub has told you something different!

Hope that makes more sense.

I read it as if you ask a question about something legal, you will get replies from people who think they know the answer but are not in any way legally qualified, and their answer will not be reliable.

For example, if you asked if you had any legal rights as a 'common law wife', you'd probably get quite a few saying that it was no different to the rights you'd have if you were legally married. (The last time I looked 'common law wife' was legally meaningless)

@BridgeOverTheRiverWye yes!! This is what I meant! Sorry I am usually doing several things at once!

Sorry , with you now.

I'm not seeing anything terribly exciting about the Horrobin child being a half-sibling of fat Rosie's. It'll be mildly irritating for Pip; Ruth would probably buy the child birthday and Christmas presents but it won't be an Archer.

@stilldumdedumming , fred

Somebody's been mischievous! I foresee a lot of FFS reactions to this when they realise Chelsea Horrobin isn't a real person. www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4638716-can-the-father-stop-a-woman-from-having-a-termination?reply=120166240

Whoever suggested Mia's brother Jake may have been onto something, although I have to admit I've utterly forgotten whatever he did/said on his most recent visit to Ambridge, or was he just mentioned in passing? Not Adil, given his role in sacking Tracy. I'll be gutted if it's Ben but he's not been ruled out. Josh is a contender. George Grundy must have been introduced for a reason, though. He's not that closely related to Chelsea. His mother Emma is Tracy's niece, so Chelsea's first cousin. That makes George first cousin once removed.

It's been hidden (and deserves to be)

Agreed. It's obviously going to be a very emotive question for many, so not an ideal subject for a fictional AIBU.

I just can’t imagine it’s any of the older male characters - not even Toby - as none of them seem the sort to be interested in a 17/18 year old.

What’s Jamie Perks been up to these days?

George Grundy must have been introduced for a reason, though. He's not that closely related to Chelsea. His mother Emma is Tracy's niece, so Chelsea's first cousin. That makes George first cousin once removed.

It was clear there was ill feeling between them during the time George was at the house looking for Brad and he and Chelsea were sniping at each other, but maybe this was after a bunkup and they’re both doing that “Durrr, well I didn’t really fancy you ANYWAY” thing to cover their embarrassment?

I'm getting a bit fed up of the rose- tinted glasses here. The reality is many "Chelseas" aren't "wonderful mother's" but are terrible mothers who cause terrible damage to their children

I agree. And as I became a mum via adoption I am very much in favour of it when it's in the best interests of the child.

I fear that if they go down the adoption route, Chelsea will change her mind at some point causing utter heartbreak to the potential adoptive parents.

All the answers from posters who didn't realise it wasn't real say no, he can't stop you. So the question remains where on the Internet would she gave got that information from (if she was real).

Thread not hidden! Great way to get more TA listeners.

I do think it's a legitimate subject as some people won't know the answer.

I would be furious if they did this. It would be such a soapy and manipulative thing to do, and The Archers I have listened to for over 40 years used to be above that kind of thing. I hope what happens in the next week or so is that Chelsea works through the whole thing in her head - maybe by way of a chat with Natasha on an afternoon when the twins are being very demanding? - and then does what she should have done days and days ago, goes to see her GP and gets a referral to a clinic.

I do think it's a legitimate subject as some people won't know the answer.

or are pressured by the dad those around them that the father has a say too.

What’s Jamie Perks been up to these days?

Didn't Kathy say that Jamie lived in in the next County? It would have made renting out her home a bit tricky if he were still in Ambridge.

Listening to that conversation with Alastair, I was left with the impression that the father was somebody older, not a teen boyfriend.

That just leaves Lee, doesn't it?