Archers thread #159: Sad news as 2023 draws to a close - RIP Ian Pepperell (Roy Tucker). 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, and of course we are always delighted to welcome back former or occasional listeners/posters. We don't all agree on all points, although we do mostly try to be civil about it. Most of us are posting tongue in cheek a lot of the time, so don't worry about revealing that you'd like more of Gagriculture, 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/4636789-the-archers-spoilers-thread-7-cant-wait-for-702pm-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.)

We start this thread with the very sad news that Ian Pepperell, who played Roy Tucker from 1995 without a break, has died at the age of 53. There's a lovely tribute to him in this article from Jeremy Howe, the current Editor. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/dec/23/the-archers-actor-ian-pepperell-dies-aged-53-roy-archer-eastenders

Graham Blockey, who played Robert Snell, died just over a year ago, also far too young (66). https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/much-loved-surrey-gp-archers-25524449 As yet, Robert survives in Ambridge.

I do hope they don't re-cast Robert, but it might work for Roy, I suppose, after a suitable interval. They've re-cast Tony, Tom, Kate, Pip, Clarrie and Emma, mostly successfully. I still wish Tom and Pip hadn't been re-cast. New Tom is a good actor but so was Old Tom.

Meanwhile, several very elderly members of the cast survive, and long may that continue, although not necessarily on air. I think most of us would say that the time has come for Jill to become a silent character, following the precedent of Peggy and Christine.

So! Christmas next week - will it be the best Christmas ever at either Brookfield or The Stables, or both? Then it's 2024. What does the New Year hold for The Archers? Over to you!

Goodness me!

At this rate we’ll have all of ‘The Archers’ wrapped up by Friday … They didn’t waste any time in incorporating our specific plans for Tiny Titchener Acres. We deserve a share of the creative team’s fees.

Ian's sperm count was so low there was no point using his sperm

One of the perils of cheffing, sadly. Office-based jobs, you just photocopy your nethers for a laugh, but chefs - bollocks on the griddle

Jack’s Patch?
Titchy Towers?

Presumably Zen Henry will merely smile a wan smile and say that poor Jack deserves it for having had such a crap dad.

Then he’ll set about murdering the Starry Twins … Sharing will not be caring in his future plans.

Couldn’t be bothered to listen. Anything of interest?

We found out that Rob had at least £840,000 to throw around at the time of his death (his estate would be liable to 40% tax, because he died less than seven years after making the gift of it to Miles.)

makes sense 🙄

So Helen, in her new spirit of openness, tells Henry about the inheritance. But not Jack.

So this latest development is going to cast a pall over my Archers listening for probably the rest of my life, since Jack will come into his inheritance in 2037. It will taint it, just like a rogue banana in the shopping spoils the baked goods it accidentally shares the bag with. Ugh, might quit now, for self protection!

If we are going to have Helen in one in three episodes this year as we did last it is going to be very trying. Louiza Patikas is a rattling good actor, but Helen is a PITA.

1/3 is just too much for one character.

Did they say what the plan for the land is? Just jacks inheritance?

Just to be in trust for Jack until he is twenty-one.

I have a feeling that if they don't build on it fairly soon (is it within six months of PP being granted?) it will lose most of its value almost at once: without the PP it wouldn't be so attractive to any buyer.

So i’ve been catching up during night feeds and colicky car rides (I can’t go too far back, i’m on 19th December)

I have a couple of questions-

Anything come of the mystery of Joy’s Rochelle? Also, where’s Mick? Joy’s off to Paul’s for Christmas lunch - I wasn’t aware they were such good mates?

Also, David’s invited her around for Boxing day, so i’m guessing Mick and Rochelle are nowhere to be seen?

Rochelle continues to be completely elsewhere at all times.
Mick went to see his brother.
Paul felt sorry for Joy being alone at Christmas and invited her.

Similarish to George & Ed - George inheriting from an Aunt and Ed receiving nothing

I can't see why Helen had to rush to tell Henry - next day, next week , next month would have been fine - how does Miles have Robs money so quickly ?

Given the boys have different fathers this can’t have not crossed Helen’s mind? I would have thought it fairly obvious Rob would leave his fortune to Jack only. I’m just surprised he has so much and can’t help thinking this was decided by an out of touch sw team who probably live in London

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime Thank you. Did Mick not invite Joy for Christmas with his brother?

The Rochelle storyline (Or lack thereof) Surely must be explored soon?

I thought paperwork moved faster with auctions too but perhaps I’m wrong.

Also, I don’t think it’s strange for biological children to receive inheritance and non-biological to not do so. I mean non-biological when they are not actively being parented by that person.

The Archers to its core: the rich get richer (another £500k of land for Archers) and the poor get poorer (though I daresay the Grundys will muddle through somehow).

Helen’s decision to tell Henry immediately is crazy. She isn’t even going to wait for Miles’ letter. She is addicted to drama (or rather the SWs are). There is absolutely no need to tell Henry now. Why on earth wouldn’t she wait until Jack was 18, say, before starting to prep the ground for when he is 21.

Henry will presumably resent Jack for it and tell him anyway.

I can’t understand why she would expect Rob to leave anything to Henry. So strange.

She’s never cottoned on to the fact that everything Rob said about seeing Henry as his son (to Henry, Helen and the wider world) was just about controlling Helen. Does she not remember how he was going to use his parental responsibility to send Henry to boarding school aged 7? (I can’t recall how that was stopped, actually).

Helen is right, though, that Jack is too young to understand. My son is the same age (I was pregnant same time as Helen) and he’s sharp as a tack, but he’d struggle to get his head round this. And we all remember how Jack got too upset at the last minute to go and see Rob, despite previously being sure he wanted to. Helen will feel wary after letting him make an “adult” decision didn’t work out last time.

I don’t think she’s wrong to tell Henry though. Maybe a little hasty to do it right away, but telling him in a matter of weeks not years does seem the right thing to do. Henry is being portrayed as quite secure and having learned from his recent brush with Rob.

Interesting question- if you were the adult Jack and had, over the years, come to understand the truth about your father, might you be open to the idea of splitting the inheritance between yourself and Henry and maybe even Helen?

God Helen. From one extreme to the next. Never tell. Tell EVERYTHING NOW!

Also I'm sorry to keep bringing up the ED. But Helen has to be a real outlier if this doesn't spike her ED (which seems to have disappeared anyway).
IME EDs are in large part about exerting control. And do not disappear overnight. They are literally the feet thing in a person's life. I am quite cross that it is portrayed otherwise.